review stringlengths 32 13.7k | sentiment stringclasses 2 values |
|---|---|
This is an enjoyable movie. Its very realistic to the "wonderful world of music" I've been there and done that. It shows a human element in each character and the realism that nobody is perfect. These amateur musicians weren't all that bad players. Cleavon Little's character, Marshall Tucker, was played very well. Marshall was no saint himself. Here he was getting paid to do a job and he's giving these guys a hard time about everything in the van on the way up there. You don't bite the hands that feed you. I do find it hard to believe that a player with the jazz experience he has, claims he does not know any of the dixieland tunes. He has a tremendous sense of predicting chord changes to tunes he does not know. Not common, but not unheard of either. He delivers a true and harsh message at the end of the movie when he tells the clarinet player, "its not a religion, devotion is not enough." On that level, he is correct, although I think the clarinet player could have handled the job. He was practicing his butt off and vocal accompaniment music is not that hard to read. Very enjoyable movie. | positive |
The one sheets and newspaper campaign suggested (as often they did) a far more lurid and violent piece than showed up on the drive-in screens. Claude Brook is actually an Americanization of Claudio Brook, who worked in films for years. This one's quite hard to find anymore; I'd love to see it again to compare it to other international horrors of the day, but don't remember particularly impressed way back when. Chances are it was a chopped up version that made it to U.S. theatres and video. But oh, that one sheet...still a gem of my later horror collection. | negative |
John Singleton's finest film, before blockbuster wannabees like the Shaft remake, this is a thought-provoking movie with overall great acting and superb balance between the stories 3 main characters, each with identifiable youngster problems.<br /><br />What I liked about it most is that it also covers the problem of selfpity among young blacks, a problem mostly ignored by the media and other films who mostly focus on social-economical problems and racism by whites. This movie shows that blacks can be equally ignorant and racist.<br /><br />The masterful thing about this film is that it deals with so many topics without getting shallow. It's not just about racism, but about how hard it can be to adopt to a new world (college), date rape, discovering sexuality and isolation. Omar Epps, Michael Rapaport and Kristy Swanson each deliver fine performances, and the supporting cast is equally interesting with Jennifer Connelly as a lez (yay) and with Ice Cube and Busta Rhymes as college bums causing little riots.<br /><br />The only negative is the caricature of a professor by Laurence Fishburne ("Peppermint?"). Surely, plenty of professors are nutty. But they're not as flat. The skinheads are also a bit of a caricature, but I guess they are like that too in real life.<br /><br />Overall a great underrated piece of filmwork, if you liked American History X you'll love this one.<br /><br />8,5 out of 10 | positive |
I saw the film at the Brooklyn International Film Festival (World Premiere).<br /><br />A haunting, intimate portrait of Loneliness, and the repercussions of letting it grow and turn into something darker.<br /><br />The acting of the two leads (Jessica Bohl & Richard Brundage) is excellent, and makes one wish you had met these characters before they became so damaged.<br /><br />Reminded me in theme of the works of Atom Egoyan (Exotica) and Raymond Carver (Where I'm Calling From).<br /><br />The Soundtrack (Tywanna Jo Baskette, Crooked Fingers) is excellent and reinforces moments in the film without drawing attention to itself.<br /><br />Highly recommend the Film and the Soundtrack. | positive |
I remember viewing this movie when I was a kid. I recall it terrified me immensely and it stayed with me all these years. I spent a couple of years trying to find it online...didn't remember the title, only the storyline. After searching and searching, I came across a VHS that was being sold on E-Bay. I was excited and when it finally arrived, I jammed it into the VCR and couldn't help but feel a bit nostalgic. Needless to say, I was slightly disappointed. This wasn't the movie I remember watching as a kid. It was boring at times and I found Beryl Reid's incessant whinning extremely annoying. Both performances by Reid and Flora Robson were good overall but the movie wasn't scary. I think any movie is worth viewing to form you're own opinion but sometimes, well...... | negative |
This movie is one reason IMDB should allow a vote of 0/10. The acting is awful, even what some here have lauded, the Carpathia character! The script looks like it was written in haste. In one scene, the black preacher who was left behind, when asked by Buck what "dan7" in the computer graphic meant, said, "Daniel 7, *CHAPTER* 24." He probably meant VERSE 24, but the film makers missed this slip up. Perhaps the worst part is that the film's eschatological position is Biblically unsound. While many Christians have espoused the film's interpretation of end-time events, such interpretation, in *my opinion*, is faulty. To understand these flaws, read "Christians Will Go Through The Tribulation" by Jim McKeever and "The Blessed Hope, A Biblical Study of the Second Advent and the Rapture" by George E. Ladd. | negative |
This is truly terrible: painfully irritating stylised performers screech and mug gratingly incoherent dialogues which take place in scenes which seem to have no purpose, no beginning, middle or end, cut together without any apparent narrative or even cognitive intention, all in the service of some entirely uninteresting and almost undetectable "story". What makes it worse is the film's pretentions to "style": suddenly a remote-head crane shot spirals downwards, and, without any apparent reason there are sudden whip-pans or wobblyhand-held sections: all this "style" merely serves to magnify the almost unbelievably huge misconception of the project and the almost offensive vacuity of the material. Definitely a candidate for the worst film ever made. | negative |
I have used this movie in my college Ethics courses for over 10 years (also Woody Allen's "Crimes and Misdemeanors"--another terrific, multi-leveled ethical study). <br /><br />It's fiction. I don't focus too much on the unrealistic features of "Strangers" because all fictional films are obviously false on many levels. I love the film as gallows comedy, tautly told, with many ironic twists and visual pleasures--even if it's "unbelievable." The story is told so well that I don't even think of criticizing its plausibility (although I must confess that the tennis match seems the weakest part to me--too much Hollywood fluff and not enough real tennis competition).<br /><br />Some problems presented in the film that hold promise for realistic moral education and ethical discussion:<br /><br />1. Ethical Passivity: some weaknesses of the Guy character are intended by Hitchcock. A primary ethical insight of the film is the danger of inability to articulate one's moral positions. Guy is unable to effectively block Bruno's crazy proposals at the start. An interesting question is why and how does Guy behave so passively, ineffectively? A possible answer is his depression because of his intense and complicated divorce process. <br /><br />2. Miscommunication: Guy commits another failure at the start: on the train, to get away quickly, he agrees that Bruno's ideas are all good. But Guy's literal meaning is opposite to his inflected, sarcastic meaning. Bruno takes the literal meaning as an agreement for the criss-cross murders. Guy takes the sarcastic meaning as an escape from any murder agreement. To some extent, near the beginning, Bruno may be partially pretending that an agreement has been struck, to draw Guy further into a web of complicity. Bruno is manipulating Guy; Guy's linguistic ambiguity on the train gives Bruno a chance to put an ethical "stranglehold" on Guy. Bruno manipulating Guy may also take on other meanings . . . .<br /><br />3. Secrecy: Some have speculated about a sexual relationship between Guy and Bruno. It seems at first ridiculous, especially since Guy appears obviously heterosexual in his relationships with Miriam and Anne. However, remember that Guy is also ineffective with both women. Guy appears (stereotypically--it's 1951 remember) effeminate, especially in relationship to Bruno. Guy, the strong athlete, is weak on the inside. Bruno is also conflicted (playing "against himself"), appearing facially and physically strong at first but then displaying some "effeminate" traits (Bruno's fashion and footwork; his gushing emotionally to Guy in different situations; his receiving a manicure from his doting mother; Bruno kissing and desperately fondling his mother's hand; other more subtle gay stereotypes that hold cryptic meaning from Hitchcock's point of view). I wish I could hear Hitchcock clarify his intended meanings here.<br /><br />4. Dishonesty and Distrust: Guy makes some colossal blunders in hiding truths about Bruno from family and from police. Guy fails to fully comprehend that admitting fault quickly may be better than a cover-up or a delay in confession. Again Guy is driven by passivity, insecurity, fear--and perhaps a self-hate that is closer to Bruno's own self-loathing than we care to see or to admit. Both Guy and Bruno act out their own parables of impotence.<br /><br />5. Lack of Evidence: Guy feels a problem mustering the evidence to acquit himself. While quickly going to the police would solve a huge problem, Guy traps himself with his own doubts and insecurities: the absence of desired alibis; the inability of the alcoholic professor to testify on Guy's behalf; the obsessive need to appear politically pristine; and other personality factors that cause Guy to feel defenseless. He is as dysfunctional as Bruno--just not as dangerous (yet one could partially blame Guy for Miriam's murder).<br /><br />6. Disease and Mental Disorder: an interesting question is how legally responsible is Bruno for the murders? The more ethically incompetent Bruno is as a sick sociopath, the more guilty Guy may be as someone healthy who failed to stand up and morally act to prevent the crimes. Guy's failure is like a man who fails to call the police when a sick friend threatens suicide, and death ensues. One could argue that more than one crime is committed and that Guy is an emotionally hobbled accomplice.<br /><br />These and many other features of the film make "Strangers on a Train" a gem of a morality play, a diamond for philosophical and cinematic reflections. | positive |
Normally I hate period films. Living in England is a nightmare at the moment if you have an allergy to period dramas - which I do. However this one is the best. It doesn't take itself seriously and Jonny Lee Miller and Robert Carlyle are great together, Liv Tyler's good as well although her English accent is dodgy!!<br /><br />The film has everything for someone who just wants to go the cinema to enjoy themselves. It has action, adventure, drama and comedy. I'm not sure how well the jokes will translate across the ocean but hopefully they will. It would be a shame for American audiences to miss out on this film. It shows that English film-makers can produce something that doesn't involve constant swearing and sex. Both do feature in this but in a balanced format. Iain Robertson's camp portrayal of the well to do gentleman is brilliant and the two brothers who are also part of the upper class set are hilarious!<br /><br />As the trailer for 'The Spy who Shagged Me' is pupported to say...."If you see one other film"....this Spring make it Plunkett and Macleane. It's got fun, action lurve and of course, Jonny Lee Miller with an English accent for a change! | positive |
GONE IN 60 SECONDS / (2000) *** (out of four)<br /><br /> "Gone in 60 Seconds" is an energetic, slick, stylish action picture with high octane star power and lots of awesome looking automobiles. If you are a viewer interested in cars this production, by producer Jerry Bruckheimer ("Con Air," "The Rock"), is worth seeing just to feast your eyes on the glossy vehicles. Although the film secretes a stench of weakness in many areas, its precise sense of action and excitement make it a moderately successful summer thrill ride.<br /><br /> The film stars Giovanni Ribisi ("The Mod Squad") as a young crook named Kip Raines, who, as the movie opens, fails to deliver a long list of expensive cars to the powerful criminal Raymond Calitri (Christopher Eccleston). When Kip's life is threatened because of such, his older brother, Randall "Memphis" Raines (Nicolas Cage), a retired but skillful car thief, is called upon to complete a task in exchange for his brother's survival: steel fifty cars-specified by model, color, year, and make-in only four days.<br /><br /> Memphis disburses the first three days recruiting a team of bandits to help him pull off the heist. The crew includes Sara "Sway" Wayland (Angelina Jolie), a sexy yet gruff retired car swindler knowing Memphis through previous business, a fellow named Mirror Man (T.J. Cross), the aging and wise Otto Halliwell (Robert DuVall), as well as Tumbler (Scott Caan), Atley Jackson (Will Patton), Toby (William Lee Scott), and Donny Astricky (Chi McBrde). <br /><br /> Contributing to the film's drive and tension is a subplot involving two police detectives, Roland Castlebeck (Delroy Lindo) and Drycoff (Timothy Olyphant), who suspect from previous experience that Memphis and his crew are up to no good and keep an extra close eye on them.<br /><br />There is not much time for character development here; the audience gets to know these people though their rugged lifestyles and assume tough personalities through the films hard core, stylish atmosphere. To make matters even worse for the film, the dialogue fails to define the characters with a gritty cultural tone. I am not stating I think profanity and vulgarism is necessary for thrillers to flourish; I actually honor the director's decision to sustain from extreme foul language in a movie that could have very effortlessly earned an R-rating. However, I do believe in a movie such as "Gone in 60 Seconds," to strongly develop the character's enlightenment, dialogue needs to be believable and authentic. <br /><br /> In spite of problems, the characters are effective due to the top notch, perfectly cast performers responsible. Nicolas Cage's melodramatic performance is intense and convincing. Angelina Jolie's sleazy appearance is completely appropriate here. Delroy Lindo is deliciously sturdy and believable. Giovanni Ribisi, Scott Caan, Robert Duvall, Will Patton, and Christopher Eccleston provide persuasive supporting roles.<br /><br /> The film contains standard structure, with a satisfactory first act that elaborates on the story's style and the character's motives, sets up a fast-paced theme of action, but lacks depth and strong character introduction. In the second act we run into a few more problems: the story wastes time during much of this segment, never really building up for the third act. While the middle of the movie occupies much time, and a sex scene provides a solid mid-plot, not a whole lot happens. The third act is pretty much a sheer adrenaline rush containing furious wall-to-wall excitement and one of the most intense car chase sequences ever filmed.<br /><br /> The soundtrack to "Gone in 60 Seconds" contributes a great deal to the inspirational action scenes. It is scenes like the car chases that makes this movie work in spite of several destructive faults. Dominic Sena, whose career has mostly consisted of directing commercials, has an appealing style and a decisive attitude in "Gone in 60 Seconds" which will grant audiences with two hours of commotion, thrills, and excitement
but not much more. <br /><br /> <br /><br /> | positive |
"The Good Earth" is a great movie that you don't hear much about anymore. There are a lot of big disasters and events, but it is also a non-passionate love story. All of this happens in a little over two hours, which is short by today's standards. The special effects and costumes are very good for the time period.<br /><br />I am surprised that Luise Rainer received an Oscar for such a limiting role. She basically only has three emotions: submissive, hungry, and heart-broken.<br /><br />The performances by the Asian and Asian-American actors are terrific.<br /><br /> | positive |
The Other Boleyn Girl - not to be confused with the book it claims to be based upon. This movie is not even close to a faithful adaptation. I could understand them changing or elaborating on a few things. The book is not perfection, but it was well-written and became very popular. I could understand if the BBC wanted to make this a little more faithful to what actually happened, who Anne Boleyn really was - but it's not even close to being historically accurate either. It's just fluff. Mindless, made-up fluff. A real shame.<br /><br />To begin with, the writer and director seemed to think it was a good idea to setup the story like it was a reality TV show. Seriously. They have the Boleyns sitting in front of the camera, confessing how they REALLY feel about what's happening in their lives. Anne Boleyn sits in a confessional (not the church kind, the Real World kind) and chooses what she wants to tell and what she wants to just sit and smile about. She looks stupid having to use such a modern cinematic device in a film set in the 1500s. It's "The Real World: Tudor England!" <br /><br />Jodhi May is a very good actress and after 'The Aristocrats' and 'A Turn of the Screw' I was becoming a real fan of hers. But she should never have been cast as Anne. Actually I think she would have been a better Mary. Natascha McElhone was a poor choice. She's a good actress, sure, but she has very modern features and does not appear convincing in period costume. (Honestly, I spent the first half of the film trying to figure out if she was "that girl" from 'The Truman Show.' She was.) She's also too old to play the teen-aged Mary so for some unknown reason they made Mary the oldest of the sisters. It makes no sense, I know. It's like the BBC seemed to forget that these people actually lived. They're twisting the story around and making things up left and right. I feel ridiculous having to correct the BBC on historical inaccuracies, but REALLY! <br /><br />Apart from the two sisters the rest of the cast was actually very well chosen. Steven Mackintosh struck me as a brilliant choice for George, and his casting was the real reason I decided to seek out this movie. Big mistake. He does a great job, sure, but he's hardly in this. How can anyone pretend they're adapting The Other Boleyn Girl and hardly mention George Boleyn? That's just absurd. Philip Glenister was another very good casting decision, but yet again, was hardly in the finished product. <br /><br />The real problem with this is the script. There's just no getting around that. It's bad. It's really, really bad. It's too melodramatic and not engaging. Anne is portrayed as an air-head, Mary as the ringleader, and George as the follower. Mary's first husband is hardly mentioned, her relationship with the king is never explained - they simply do not tell the story Phillippa Gregory wrote. The whole thing comes across as a great big waste. I have no desire to see this thing a second time. I guess I'll just have to read the book again and hope that the Natalie Portman version due out next year will be much better.<br /><br />*Note: As of this writing, the only way of obtaining this miniseries in the USA is on the last disc of the miniseries 'The Six Wives of Henry VIII.' That's a great miniseries but can cost $50 to $60 and that's way to much to spend if you're just looking for this piece of garbage. | negative |
I cringed all the way through this movie. First of all, the idiotic plot has little to do with Parson's own story. Hollywood has attempted to create a kind of comedy car chase movie. Imagine "Englebert Sings Hendrix".<br /><br />Do not take anything about this movie to be accurate. The name Parsons in the title and stealing of his body is just used as springboard for a low budget chase movie, a blatant attempt to grab a few bucks from the Parsons legacy and his fan base. Gram's father had long since been dead in 1973, the other global characters are fictional, none of this has anything to do with Grams life or death.<br /><br />If you are a Gram fan, I advise you to not see this movie. I wish I hadn't. It's saddening to see something special be treated as such disgracing fodder. I'd swear I could hear Gram turning in his grave while the movie was playing. If you are not familiar with Gram's life and legacy, do not take anything in this movie as being representative of Gram.<br /><br />I cannot say enough bad things about this movie. If Gram were alive and saw this movie, he would kill himself. Then again, maybe he'd be afraid to if he knew this movie were to result. | negative |
This is about as pretentious a movie as a shallow director like Joel Schumacher could make, I suppose. A group of medical students take it turns to die for several minutes; upon revival they discover that their sins have manifested themselves somehow or other. As some of the characters are visited by dead people and some just seem to be haunted by their guilty consciences it's not quite clear exactly what the connection is, but the visions do all seem to look like sixth form art films. Why the students treat their experiment as some kind of grand journey that'll make them famous is a bit of a mystery, as the results are completely unproveable and, as the movie mentions several times, have been documented plenty of times before. Still, it's nice to see Schumacher practising for his Batman trainwrecks with a bit of the old neon paint and coloured lightbulbs. And William Baldwin is a plank. | negative |
Everybody's got bills to pay, and that includes Christopher Walken.<br /><br />In Vietnam, a group a soldiers discover that the war is over and are heading back home when they spot a bunch of POWs, including Christopher Walken. Following a Mad Max 3 (!) Thunderdome fight, and a short massacre later. Walken and some Colombian guy split a dollar bill promising something or other.<br /><br />Cut to the present (1991), and Colombian guy is leading a revolution against El Presidente. He's successful at first, but after El Presidente threatens to crush folks with a tank, he's forced to surrender and is shot in the head on live television. This is shown in full gory detail as a news flash on American telly, which leads Walken to assemble the old squad (even though he wasn't actually part of that squad to begin with), in order to invade Colombia and gun down thousands of people.<br /><br />McBain is a monumentally stupid film, but for all that it's also a good laugh, and action packed too. This is one of those movies where logic is given a wide berth - how else could Walken shoot a fighter pilot in the head from another plane without suffering from decompression, or even breaking a window? Also, it seems that these guys can gun down scores of drug dealers in New York without the police bothering.<br /><br />There's plenty of b-movie madness to chew on here, from Michael Ironside's diabolical acting in the Vietnam sequence, to the heroic but entirely pointless death of one of the heroes, to the side splitting confrontation between Walken and El Presidente, and let's not forget the impassioned speech by the sister of the rebel leader, being watched on television in America (nearly brought a brown tear to my nether-eye, that bit).<br /><br />It's out there for a quid. Buy it if you have a sense of humour. See how many times you can spot the camera crew too. | positive |
I would ward off any temptation to view this movie, it is quite simply dull. The characters are predictable and mindless. The assassin is quite unenigmatic. There is no tension, fun, no style or even a glimmer of originality to be found in this train wreck. And the morass of Hollywood cliché's are stifling. Oh, and you have a movie that makes a hero of an IRA terrorist. Cute. And now I need to speak some more to fill up the ten lines. And a little bit more Is that enough? Not quite, how about now? No, well further confabulation should do the trick, but The Jackal is really not worth ten lines of exposition. The original was great though. | negative |
Even if 99,99% of people that has seen this movie is Brazilian, I'll keep up with the English since it is the language of this website.<br /><br />This movie is a piece of cr*p. Worst acting I have seen for a loooong time. The kids are terrible. Specially the boy. This was the first time I saw someone with less facial expression than Arnold Schwarzenegger, and one single voice tone, like a 5 years-old kid reading in front of the class. How can someone so bad be the main actor of a movie ? The storyline is so shallow my daughter could have done better (she is 3 yrs old). It is so simple it could be written in a napkin and told in 3 minutes.<br /><br />There are only three possibilities for someone enjoy this movie: 1) you are a pre-teen; 2) you have been so brainwashed by Globo's stupidities that you think that anything that has the Globo's seal is awesome; 3) you have a serious brain damage.<br /><br />Avoid at all costs ! A shame to the Brazilian movie scene. | negative |
This is precious. Everything Is Illuminated is sweetly and sublimely funny from the first delicious line of dialogue. Oh, how I've been waiting for this to arrive in Austin. While Elijah Wood is charming as ever as Jonathan Safran Foer (the real-life author of the novel Everything Is Illuminated), it's Eugene Hutz (playing Jonathan's Ukrainian tour-guide and translator, Alex) who truly steals this film. Alex is a hip-hop-lovin' Ukrainian break-dancer who, along with his grandfather, helps Jonathan find the woman who saved Jonathan's grandfather's life during World War II. The Ukrainian countryside has never looked so breath taking. I'm thinking of packing it all up and moving to the former Soviet state.<br /><br />The tone of the film, however, shifts when Jonathan and Alex do finally meet the woman they're looking for, and suddenly, this adorable comedy turns into a heart-breaking historical drama about a Jewish village that was annihilated during the Nazi occupation. Everything Is Illuminated is about history, heritage, and the wisdom that can be gained from uncovering the past. It's perfect. | positive |
ROCK N ROLL HIGH SCHOOL holds a special place in my heart because it introduced me to the Ramones. I was too young during the band's mid-70s heyday to be very aware of them, although I had an older cousin who was a big fan at the time. I finally saw RNRHS on television one afternoon in the mid-80s when I was about fifteen years old, and laughed all the way through it. (Isn't it every high school kid's dream to trash his school and blow it up, all set to a rockin' soundtrack?) I recorded a subsequent airing of the film a year or two later and kept watching the Ramones concert sequences over and over again, thinking "Man, these guys kick ass! I have to check out some of their albums!" The rest is history. Twenty years, umpteen Ramones LPs/cassettes/CDs, and three Ramones shows later, they're still one of my all time favorite bands and RNRHS still cracks me up every time I watch it. Now that Joey, Dee Dee and Johnny have left us (R.I.P. all)at least we have this movie and tons of great music to remember them by. | positive |
Bizarre, trippy, forget-about-a-story-and-full-steam-ahead low budget sci-fi about the Williams family, living in the California desert. They become witness to a series of events that escalate in their level of strangeness; apparently, they've been caught in a time-space warp, where past, present and future collide.<br /><br />This is the excuse for a parade of highly amusing special effects - a constant light and sound show, dinosaur-like creatures that have at each other, a friendly and tiny little E.T. who enchants the granddaughter, and so on. This picture does show off a little imagination, if nothing else.<br /><br />Very nice music by Richard Band, engaging special effects work from the likes of David Allen, Randall William Cook, and Peter Kuran, and, importantly, a likable family are key assets. It generates a sense of child-like amazement; it may very well be that it's more of a romp for kids (or the kids inside many of us) who are able to gloss over any flaws in the narrative or presentation.<br /><br />I found it hard to resist; it's a short and sweet (80 minutes) diversion, and a decent credit for director John "Bud" Cardos (of "Kingdom of the Spiders" fame) and executive producer Charles Band.<br /><br />7/10 | positive |
The Girl in Lovers Lane is one strange little low-budget film. On its surface, the movie tells the story of a tough drifter named Bix (Brett Halsey) who spends his time looking out for a young kid named Danny (Lowell Brown) and the girl, Carrie (Joyce Meadows), that Bix meets who would like to look out for him. Nothing overly interesting happens (Bix goes out with Carrie, Bix gets Danny out of trouble, Carrie's father drinks a lot, etc.) until about 10 minutes to go in the movie when Carrie is murdered. Her father blames Bix, pulls him out of a jail cell, and just about beats him to death. Now their roles are reversed and Danny has to save Bix.<br /><br />Until I read the reviews on IMDb, I thought that maybe it was just me reading more into Bix and Danny's relationship than was really there, but I see now that I'm not alone. It was quite obvious to me early on that Bix and Danny had more of a relationship than you usually see in a movie from 1959. The homosexual nature of their relationship, while never openly expressed, is still quite obvious. Their living and sleeping arrangements, Bix's reaction to finding Danny in bed with a prostitute, Bix's inability to commit to Carrie, and that phone call at the end when Danny tells his parents he's "brining home a friend are a few examples of moments that lead to the inevitable conclusion that there's more to their relationship than initially meets the eye. I'm sure they exist, but I can't think of any movies I've seen from the 50s that scream homosexual quite as loudly as this one.<br /><br />As for the movie, I don't know any other way to put this it's boring. As I wrote earlier, nothing much at all happens for 90% of the run time. The characters are dull and the actors aren't good enough to give The Girl in Lovers Lane much of a spark. The lone exception is Jack Elam. His crazy Jesse is the one character interesting enough to be worth watching. Elam had creepy down pat! But I guess the biggest problem I had with the movie was with character motivation and logic. Carrie is killed and Bix is immediately blamed? What about crazy Jesse who has been stalking Carrie for probably her whole life? Anyone think to ask Jesse where he was that night? Her father has seen him bother Carrie at the diner, yet he never considers that the leering Jesse might have something to do with his daughter's death? Not a lot of logic there. And what about Jesse's confession? Danny grabs Jesse by the lapel and this is all it takes to force a confession out of Jesse? Real tough guy, huh? Why would he confess so easily? And after he confesses, no one thinks to grab him? It's awfully nice of Jesse just to stay put and not run off. In any other reality, he would have never spilled his guts and would have run like a rabbit if he had been fingered for the murder. The fact that The Girl in Lovers Lane asks me to accept these ridiculous actions on the part of the characters is something I'm not willing to do. Overall, I'm giving The Girl in Lovers Lane a 4/10. | negative |
No one would ever question that director Leos Carax is a genius, but what we wonder about is: is he an insane genius? So many people hated this film! I am normally the first person to accuse many French directors of making offensive, boring, disgusting and pretentious films (such as the horrible recent film 'L'Enfant' and the pointless and offensive 'Feux Rouges'). But strangely enough, I actually think that 'Pola X' is an amazing film, made with great skill and passion by a master of his craft, and containing remarkable performances. The film does carry melodrama to more extreme lengths than I believe I have ever seen on screen before. But then, Carax is extreme, that we know. The film also contains what I consider way over-the-top Trotskyite or Anarchist fantasies and wet-dreams, what with a mysterious group of young men training to fire machine guns at the bourgeoisie in between playing Scott Walker's rather fascinating music in a band which has its recording sessions in an abandoned warehouse filled with squatters and fires burning in old steel barrels. Guillaume Depardieu plays a rich young man in a château (whose step-mother is Catherine Deneuve, and he wanders into her bathroom while she is naked in the bath, by the way). But he suddenly 'snaps' completely when he discovers that his deceased father, a famous diplomat, had fathered an illegitimate daughter who had been effectively disposed of by Deneuve as an inconvenience. This is because the sister suddenly turns up as a kind of Romanian refugee with wild dishevelled hair, expressionless face, and little ability to speak French coherently. Depardieu then transforms himself into a 'class hero' of the far left and wants to kill or destroy his family for their hypocrisy and corruption, and lives in squalor and extreme poverty, while scorning a vast inheritance. He then commences an incestuous sexual relationship with his half-sister, which is shown in an explicit sex scene which has offended many people, though I have no objection to it, as I think people are far too hysterical about sex, especially in America, where apparently it never happens. The intensity of the acting and the filming make this unlikely scenario come off as an experience of powerful, if depressing, hyper-melodrama. The differences between Carax making an extreme film like this and the numerous extreme French films which I think are pretentious and disgusting are (1) that Carax is an excellent filmmaker, and (2) he is seriously attempting to explore a meaningful, if harrowing, extreme emotional condition, whereby a human being disintegrates and turns against his background. Many would say that the extreme elements in this film were gratuitous, but I don't agree. I believe Carax was genuine, and was not making an exploitation picture at all. It is very difficult to defend a man who goes that far and who, for all I know, may be a complete madman, but I believe he deserves defending for this remarkable cinematic achievement. | positive |
This is the absolute worst movie I have ever seen!! There was absolutely nothing good to say about this movie. I have seen some bad movies but this one takes it. There is no plot and most of the movie you are either fast forwarding the movie to get it done faster or you are wondering what the hell is going on because you can't seriously think that someone thought of this movie and you are watching it. I feel sorry for anyone who has to sit through this painful hour and a half. Please take my advice and DO NOT WATCH this movie for I know you will think it is the biggest waste of time you have ever spent in your life. | negative |
Now, I know that Sandra Bullock produced this film, but she needs to learn that sometimes you need to make certain sacrifices in order to advance the story...like not trying to make the whole movie about her character!<br /><br />The story is about two high school students (one rich and popular, the other smart and anti-social) who formulate a plan to commit murder and follow it by the number...just to see if they can get away with it. Enter Sandra Bullock and Ben Chaplin as detectives trying to solve the case. The boys have planted evidence, created alibis, and cleaned up after themselves so well that the cops fall for the whole act. But Sandra has a feeling that all is not as it appears to be.<br /><br />This movie could have been a great little Hitchcock-style thriller, but the movie spends too much time on getting to know Sandra's character rather than focusing on the actual crime itself. You see, something happened in her past that keeps haunting her throughout the film. And we get to know all about it...ALL about it. It just gets rather tedious after a while, especially when you are right in the middle of an intriguing murder investigation and then have to stop that investigation to hear about what happened to her in the past.<br /><br />Ryan Gosling and Michael Pitt are the real winners in this movie. They play their characters convincingly and with just the right amount of malice. If the script had spent more time focusing on these characters, and kept the detectives there to just do their jobs, this could have been an immensely entertaining thriller. With the way it is, most of the thrill is lost. They should have cut out all the stuff with Sandra's character and made that a separate TV movie for the Lifetime channel. But, I digress. It's still an entertaining movie, nonetheless. I do recommend this movie...but wait for the video/DVD. | positive |
This definitely is NOT the intellectual film with profound mission, so I really don't think there is too much not to understand to in case you aren't Czech.<br /><br />It's just a comedy. The humor is simple, pretty funny and sometimes, maybe, little morbid. Some actors and characters are very similar to Samotári (2000) (Jirí Machácek, Ivan Trojan, Vladimír Dlouhý) so the authors are. But it doesn't matter, the genre is really different and these two films shouldn't be compared in this way. Jedna ruka netleská won't try to give you a lesson, it will try to make you laugh and there is some chance it will succeed.<br /><br />Not bad film, not the ingenious one, but I enjoyed it. Some scenes are truly worth seeing. | positive |
This movie was thoroughly unwholesome, unsettling and unsatisfying. Apart from a few nice shots of Italy, there's nothing to recommend this movie. As usual, Hollywood draws the wrong conclusion from a fractured existence--the _next_ guy you meet, whom you sleep with after knowing for a few hours, _he_ must be Mr. Right. As for humor, there is some in the movie, but I can't see how anyone could possibly label this a romantic _comedy_ since about three-quarters of the movie is totally depressing! My recommendation? Skip it in the theaters, wait till it comes out on DVD, then skip it there also. I want someone to give me back the two hours I wasted watching this dreck, drivel, dross. | negative |
"Dr. Cameron, a discredited scientist succeeds with his experiment in creating serum the transforms men into wolf-like creatures. Originally developing this formula to help the world, the scientist decides to use his newly created subject to exact revenge upon the scientists who were responsible for his ouster from the scientific community. The scientist's daughter Lenora grows wary of her father's actions and shares her suspicions with a newspaper reporter. When the scientist loses control of his creature, it falls upon the scientist's daughter and the reporter to stop it," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.<br /><br />Mad scientist George Zucco (as Lorenzo Cameron) creates his formula rather unimaginatively, by mixing human and wolf blood. This brings the beast out in hulking Glenn Strange (as Petro aka Pedro), who is directed to act like Lon Chaney Jr. in "Of Mice and Men". Johnny Downs (as Tom Gregory) and Anna Nagel (as Lenora Cameron) are a likable werewolf hunter and damsel in distress. Certainly, "The Mad Monster" is no substitute for "The Wolf Man"; but, it's a serviceable addendum. The grainy black-and-white photography enhances the foggy, cow-webbed atmosphere. "God" (uncredited) strikes up a well-done ending, too. Like Blaine (Robert Strange) said, "Mingling the blood of man and beast is downright sacrilege!" <br /><br />**** The Mad Monster (1942) Sam Newfield ~ George Zucco, Johnny Downs, Anna Nagel | negative |
..but unfortunately no one thought about having Van killed in order to save this doomed production. The only positive thing about him in the film is his nice singing voice...too bad the songs are mostly insipid and sappy. Why did I hate Van so much? Well, throughout the film he seemed like he was doing a third-rate Soupy Sales imitation--with lots of mugging, bad jokes and way too much energy spent trying to make everyone laugh. The worst of these moments was when he was "teaching" the class--these kids laughed at EVERYTHING he did. Heck, Van could have read the phone book or showed them autopsy photos and they probably would have laughed! Now Van was not the only bad casting decision in the film--he was just the most obvious. Of course, having John Gielgud (a lovely actor) play an Asian was ridiculous as well as having Michael York play Peter Finch's brother!! The bottom line is that because of these insane casting choices, the film was doomed from the start....and the worst of them was the god-awful Bobby Van. Now in real life, he might have been a lovely person and it's sad that in real life he died so young, but with the material they gave him here I just wanted to rip out his tongue to get him to be quiet.<br /><br />Now I also mentioned the songs--egad, those terrible songs!! The original LOST HORIZON by Frank Capra was a subtle delight throughout--and not a single song and dance number in the film. So why did they decide to add a bazillion songs that did nothing to help the film? They only served to make it seem like a gooey mess--like the original DOCTOR DOOLITTLE combined with LOST HORIZON. The end result is a sickly sweet children's movie--not one that can be enjoyed by anyone over 8.<br /><br />Now if you can remove these problems, you have the basis of a decent film. After all, the plot is lovely and is still hidden beneath all the goo. Peter Finch is particularly good (though certainly not the equal of Ronald Colman in the original). But, considering that the original was a near-perfect classic, why bother with this sticky confection. Who wants to wade through the treacle?! <br /><br />By the way, this film was included in "The 50 Worst Films" book by Harry Medved. While I, too, disliked the film, it wasn't bad enough to merit inclusion in the book. I think it was included mostly because it was such a huge box office failure and because it was released just a few years before the book appeared. An excellent book--just not one of the best selections to the "hallowed hall" of dreck. | negative |
That's the sound of Stan and Ollie spinning in their graves.<br /><br />I won't bother listing the fundamental flaws of this movie as they're so obvious they go without saying. Small things, like this being "The All New Adventures of Laurel and Hardy" despite the stars being dead for over thirty years when it was made. Little things like that. <br /><br />A bad idea would be to have actors playing buffoons whom just happen to be called Laurel and Hardy. As bad as that is, it might have worked. For a really bad idea, try casting two actors to impersonate the duo. Okay, they might claim to be nephews, but the end result is the same.<br /><br />Bronson Pinchot can be funny. Okay, forget his wacky foreigner "Cousin Larry" schtick in Perfect Strangers, and look at him in True Romance. Here though, he stinks. It's probably not all his fault, and, like the director and the support cast - all of who are better than the material - he was probably just desperate for money. There are those who claim Americans find it difficult to master an effective English accent. This cause is not helped here by Pinchot. What is Stan? Welsh? Iranian? Pakistani? Only in Stan's trademark yelp does he come close, though as the yelp is overdone to the point of tedium that's nothing to write home about. Gailard Sartain does slightly better as Ollie, though it's like saying what's worse - stepping in dog dirt or a kick in the knackers? <br /><br />Remember the originals with their split-second timing, intuitive teamwork and innate loveability? Well that's absent altogether, replaced with two stupid old men and jokes so mistimed you could park a bus through the gaps. Whereas the originals had plots that could be summed up in a couple of panels, this one has some long-winded Mummy hokum (and what a lousy title!) that's mixed in with the boys' fraternity scenario. I can't claim to have seen every single one of Laurel and Hardy's 108 movies, but I think it's a safe bet that even their nadir was leagues ahead of this.<br /><br />Maybe the major problem is that the originals were sort-of playing themselves, or at least using their own accents. It at least felt natural and unforced, as opposed to the contrived caricatures Pinchot and Sartain are given. And since when did Stan do malapropisms, and so many at that? "I was gonna give you a standing cremation"; "I would like to marinate my friend." Stop it! <br /><br />Only notable moment is a reference to Bozo the Clown, the cartoon character who shared Larry Harmon's L & H comic. Harmon of course bought the name copyright (how disconcerting to see a ® after Laurel and Hardy) and was co-director and producer of this travesty. <br /><br />Questions abound. Would Stan and Ollie do fart gags if they were alive today? Would they glass mummies with broken bottles? Have Stan being smacked in the genitals with a spear and end on a big CGI-finale? Let's hope not.<br /><br />I did laugh once, but I think that was just in disbelief at how terrible it all is. Why was this film made in the first place? Who did the makers think would like it? Possibly the worst movie I've ever seen, an absolute abhorrence I grew sick of watching after just the first five minutes. About as much fun as having your head trapped in a vice while a red-hot poker and stinging nettles are forcibly inserted up your back passage. | negative |
A root canal without anesthesia is more amusing. This movie is disturbing and pointless. There is absolutely nothing believable about any of these characters or the plot line. What in God's name were these people thinking when they agreed to star in this movie? The acting in this movie is so incredibly bad - even from actors who are usually pretty damn good. "The In-Laws" is a funny movie. "The Birdcage" is a hilarious movie. "The Big Lebowski" is a humorous movie. This movie is just dumb. I cannot even begin to fathom the kind of sick mind it takes to write the "novel" that this movie is based on. I honestly cannot think of even one nice thing to say about this movie. It just doesn't make any sense. People please - I beg of you - do not see this movie. You will regret it for the rest of your life. This movie is not the worst ever made, but it is definitely right up there on the top of the list. | negative |
After watching about half of this movie I noticed something peculiar ... I found myself constantly switching through tv-channels to see what else is on - not exactly a good movie trait.<br /><br />This movie is listed as being in a number of genres, and I must say it mostly failed misserably in every one of them. 80% through the movie I switched over to watch an old rerun instead. Bottom line - the whole movie felt as if the ones making it didn't exactly know what to make and ended up in a concoction with no discernable taste. | negative |
Rachel and Chuck Yoman (Valerie Harper, Gerald McRaney), decided the city is too busy and dangerous for their family, so they packed up their reluctant son (Gregory Togel) and daughter (Tammy Lauren) and moved back to a lake like the one Rachel lived at as a child.<br /><br />They say you can not go home again but this is an ideal rural home with what at first seems like a Mayberry feel. Later the residence seems to be more like the people in Deliverance. Soon bodies start turning up and everybody looks suspect with the exception of a few friendly faces. This does not keep the family from enjoying running around and messing around in the woods.<br /><br />We find that they have to be super ignorant to find the secrets and not tell anyone until they get ax-cepted as the antagonists. <br /><br />Can the ignored young Stevie save his parents or will their pursuer(s) put his/her foot in it?<br /><br />This film is more than most parodies as it was played with strait faces. They could not have chosen better actors and Daryl Anderson was exceptionally creepy. An added plus is that they let us know what is happening before the characters find out, instead of pulling a clue out of the hat after the fact. Anyway this made for TV movie is good for a few laughs. | positive |
Finally I discovered what I thought I remembered as a four year old. After seeing the 1960 color version on VHS, I kept saying I remembered seeing it in black and white 2 times before. Now the IMDb has helped me to know the truth, that it was broadcast twice (2 productions) in black and white in 2 successful years, 1955 & 56. These are the ones I remember best as a four year old. I didn't realize the 56 broadcast was not the same as the 55. In 1960, I was 9 and the color production just didn't do it for me. The black and white version was wonderful with just as much awe and wonder impact as the high tech films of today, even without any computer effects. You had to have been there! Please comment if you had a similar reaction to the b&w version. | positive |
Caught this by accident on a t.v. showing - and could hardly believe how utterly awful the whole experience was. By comparison, the original "A Man Called Horse" was spell-binding because it held one's interest throughout. But this piece of nonsense - words fail me. It was bad enough to have some kind of a "story" presented with all the impact of a wet loaf of bread, but that error was compounded by the obvious lack of subtitles throughout whenever the so-called "Sioux" spoke. For goodness sake, couldn't the film-makers have found enough North American Indians who were also actors and near-actors to perform as "Indians" in this farrago instead of the imposters they actually used? I also found it quite embarrassing watching Richard Harris cavorting all around the countryside at the obvious behest of the director standing just behind camera, telling him to run and jump from pointless Point A to pointless Point B just to make up film footage and minutes. Absolutely terrible in all respects! | negative |
As you can see I've submitted 2 comments about this show since 1991....and no, ITV have still not made it available for general release.<br /><br />HOWEVER, I recently contacted ITV to see if there was any way of getting hold of a copy, and this was their reply.......<br /><br />"Unfortunately there are no plans for this programme to be released on DVD/video. You can however, purchase copies from our Viewers Requests dept. Their email address is: viewers.requests@itv.com ".<br /><br />Hope you all now get the chance to enjoy this classic short comedy again.<br /><br /> | positive |
I got this as a turkey movie and was I not disappointed.<br /><br />Acting - overall even though many have been in other movies it is clear that they had to work hard to act this bad so constantly over this entire movie with out accidentally letting slip some degree of acting.<br /><br />Plot - being generous I could say that the scriptwriter did originally start with a plot but but did his best to ignore it. the plot broke down faster then a Chinese knock off computer <br /><br />Scrip - now that was an abomination of nature. it failed to flow with any rhyme or reason. the majority of the lines by the characters were at best pathetic to imbecilic. the script worked hard to make sure that no character managed to get to be considered memorable. I have watched other movies where the extras were more interesting and memorable.<br /><br />Special effects - ROTFLMAO!!!!! They were short bus special <br /><br />Directing - until you can come up with your own directing ability copy the style of your favorite directer otherwise you will only make failures like this.<br /><br />It is good to know that your friends/family have been giving you 10 stars for this movie | negative |
I love this movie. It's wacky, funny, violent, surreal, played out in a madman's head, and definitely not your usual comedy. <br /><br />If you don't find the film amusing then I guess it's just not for your tastes, so this is a tough one to write a review for.<br /><br />For reference, some other comedies I love are The Big Lebowski, The Princess Bride, and Zoolander (that one only got me the second time around). There are others, but my taste is definitely for the unusual, and I am willing to accept that most people just don't tend to like that kind of thing. I make no apologies for having an unusual sense of humour - at least I have one.<br /><br />The scenes and characters of this particular movie are well put together, the verbal humour is hilarious, the situations are intriguing, the acting is very good (as you would expect of the cast), though the acting demands made of the cast by the script are not particularly high. The overall package makes for fun, funny, watchable yet violent entertainment. | positive |
This movie is easily the worst of the series. Though New Line might just be looking at sales, they all know the only reason this one made more money than the one prior was due to its 3D ending. It wasn't that the 3-D was good either, because it was 50's 3D with the red and blue lenses(anaglyph.) It was just the fact that people wanted to see what it would look like. Beyond that this movie was so poorly done! Bad script, bad characters, bad acting, worse directing. This movie is trying to push the camp factor almost to the point of being like a "Looney Tunes" episode.<br /><br />Seriously, not for horror audience, because it is corny and not scary, and not funny or amusing for comedy crowds. Just a total mess with some really bad cameos that are still trying to play this whole thing as camp and having it fall way short of what they probably wanted.<br /><br />I remember most of us who had been fans of this series were just praying that it would end at this point because of how bad it had gotten. This is one of the movies that helped take horror out of popularity and ride a fad of belief that audiences really wanted to laugh with some stupid comedy than see a good and scary horror film. | negative |
I too was quite astonished to see how few people had voted on this film, and just HAD to write something about it, although my comments are quite similar to those written already.<br /><br />I like many things about the film. The superb acting between Mastroianni & Loren. The way the film is narrated: Humanity and love slowly developing between these two outsiders, and contrasted to the simultaneously & continuously ongoing inhumane marching pace of the fascist radio announcer (who happens to be a colleague of Mastroianni's part)and the adherents "going to and coming from the show". To me this is a very fine film about what it is to be human. Maybe some of you would argue that the anti-fascist "message" is too clearly delivered, but to me this didn't destroy the film in any way. My vote is 10/10. | positive |
First: The recent campaigning of this movie is a huge hoax. Judging from the cover you'd think this was some kind of scandal movie about Kylie playing a character having sex, taking drugs and whatever. This is just a cheap market-scheme. She's barely in it and does neither of the things. The marketing here is unbelievable, and I'm surprised the filmmakers hasn't objected. <br /><br />The movie itself was to me a huge disappointment. It seemed like a Sunset Beach episode directed sloppy-handed by a teenage Quentin Tarantino. And thats not meant as a compliment, mind you. <br /><br />I think the weakness of the movie first of all is the story. It seems to be about nothing. Just about cool teenagers tripping around living 'on the edge'. The characters themselves does have some personality though, but the movie doesn't use its potential. As said, there's no story of any substance here. It seems to elaborate too much on cool dialog and ends up looking like a colorful MTV ad. It definitely has that feeling. <br /><br />Still though, I guess some people might enjoy it, but I'd say there's far better movies like this around. | negative |
i watched this movie 10 years ago. and have watched it on video an average of once a year since. it's the type of movie that's timeless, because the themes are universal, yet the stories and conversation are so personal. it's also one of the very few movies that capture you from frame one til the credits roll, despite the fact that there are, really, just two (very involving) characters. this owes a lot to the engaging acting by hawke and delpy, who make us believe that they are actually jesse and celine. this is also the first movie i saw that mentioned reality TV, and now, the phenomenon is rampant! i love the way this movie just envelops the audience in its space, and makes you think, however jaded you may be, that you are one of those characters. it also made me want to ride the train around Europe! i have not met anyone who has not been able to relate to this movie. maybe that speaks about myself, my friends, or just the sheer genius of this movie. | positive |
This is by far one of the worst movies i have ever seen, the poor special effects along with the poor acting are just a few of the things wrong with this film. I am fan of the first two major leagues but this one is lame! | negative |
Mon Oncle Antoine observes the craggy face of a homespun community from various angles, slowly, taking its time through the beginning, as it should, until we emerge from shattered (but banal) hopes and expectations, into swirling ecstasies of dreams and a heart-stopping revelation about the terrible enigma of mortality.<br /><br />Aimless pans and zooms across the snowy mountainside comfort the mind and hypnotize the viewer. This restless camera work is personified in a fringe character who is equally the drifter, quitting his job at the coal mine and leaving his family to cut lumber, then quitting again and returning to the stark humanity of his boy dead. <br /><br />A fetching old woman cheats on her husband and a young boy dies. Old things become new and new things die. Throughout is the snowy whiteness, as wonder-stricken as the history of cinema. | positive |
When John Wayne filmed his Alamo story he had built a complete Alamo set in the town of Brackettsville, Texas which is still there and quite the tourist attraction. As long as that stands, we will have a set for future Alamo interpretations for the screen. One such with Dennis Quaid and Billy Bob Thornton was done in this century.<br /><br />But I would say The Alamo: Thirteen Days To Glory is the best Alamo story filmed I've seen. John Wayne's film is a good one if over-hyped, but it's a John Wayne film with the story redone to fill parameters of screen character of John Wayne. Brian Keith plays Davy Crockett here and gives a fine interpretation of the rollicking frontier character he was.<br /><br />It's a lot closer to Professor Lon Tinkle's book on The Alamo than the Wayne film was and having read the book years ago I can attest to that. Tinkle's book is listed as the source in both films, but Tinkle who was alive back then when the Wayne film was done and he was not pleased with the result.<br /><br />Alec Baldwin was around the right age for young William Barrett Travis, the idealistic freedom fighter who incidentally was a slave owner. Back in the day no one saw the ironic contradiction in that. One thing that was not explored and hasn't been was Travis's hyperactive sex drive. He was the Casanova of the Southwest, he even kept a salacious diary of his libidinal conquests.<br /><br />But the man who always gets the whitewash is Jim Bowie, played here by James Arness. He was a hero at the Alamo to be sure, but his career before the Alamo was that of a scoundrel. He was a smuggler, a slave trader, an all around con man selling land he had questionable title to. But his heroic death certainly redeemed him. No hint of that is in Arness's portrayal nor any others I've seen of Bowie on the screen. And of course he did design the Bowie knife, done to his specifications. That man needed such a weapon.<br /><br />However the main asset that The Alamo: Thirteen Days To Glory has is a full blown portrayal of Antonio De Lopez De Santa Anna, the president of Mexico who comes up personally to put down the rebellion stirred up by the North Americans who've come to settle in Texas at Mexican invitation. Unfortunately those Americans came with some pre-conceived notions about liberty that just hadn't made it that far south, at least liberty for white people. Raul Julia plays Santa Anna who remains an even more controversial figure in Mexican history. He was also quite the scoundrel, but he was the best Mexico produced until a genuine reformer named Benito Juarez came along.<br /><br />This film was the farewell performance of Lorne Greene who appears briefly as General Sam Houston. Greene's not quite my conception of Houston, he really was way too old for the part, Houston was in his early forties in 1836, he was not yet the patriarch of Texas. But within the limits imposed on him, Greene does a fine job.<br /><br />For a romantic telling of The Alamo tale by all means see John Wayne's version, but for historical content I recommend this film highly. | positive |
Just after the end of WWII Powell & Pressburger were asked to come up with something to try to heal the rift developing between the UK & the USA. At the time there was a lot of "Overpaid, over sexed and over here" type of comments. Somehow they came up with this masterpiece.<br /><br />My favourite movie of ALL time. It's got everything. Romance, poetry, emotion, religion, drama and very quirky.<br /><br />I can never explain exactly why, but it hits all the right buttons and although I've seen it hundreds of times (yes, really) I'm still guaranteed to be in tears at many points throughout.<br /><br />Was it the magnificent acting, the wonderful sets, the inspired script ? Who knows. But *DO* watch it and you'll see what I mean. | positive |
As noted in other comments here, the camera-work is laughably bad. I am tempted to say that the director of photography is a 7-year-old, but that would be mean -- to 7-year-olds.<br /><br />Okay, but what about the subject? I was looking for some insight into the state of the wine industry worldwide, you know, Mondovino. What the film is about is a very narrow view of one intrigue in that world: the struggle between Mondavi and the French and Italian wineries that they would like to buy. There is no enlightening narration that would put the whole deal into context, so we are left with the selective process of the director and the interviews with the various characters in this little psychodrama. There's no shortage of despicable characters, or even despicable dogs, in sight. There is a shortage of evenhandedness, however. <br /><br />Is the director a Marxist? I wondered as I tried to maintain some semblance of focus as the camera dipped, swerved, zoomed in a chaotic flourish. Small grower in France: good. Huge grower in USA: very, very bad. Forget about the hundreds of small wineries throughout North America, Australia, and South America. There is a dead horse to beat here for over two hours.<br /><br />To learn about the intrigue more, you are better off reading about it elsewhere. And you will be able to sample your favorite wine without feeling sick while doing so.<br /><br />I suggest a new award at Cannes for Best America-bashing Diatribe. | negative |
This film was the recipient of the 1990 Academy award for Best Animated Short Film. Over the last few weeks, I have seen dozens of the nominees and recipients of this award from the last 30 years and I really think that this film might just be the worst of them all--yet it wasn't just a nominee but it won!! I assume that 1989 must have just been a horrible year for the genre.<br /><br />The film shows a group of characters that look a bit like super-skinny Uncle Festers. The appear to be simple articulated figures who are moved using stop motion animation. All are identical--with the same faces, bodies and clothes. The only difference is that each has a different number drawn on their backs. They are all standing on a large platform that is suspended, as if by magic, in space. Each has a pole and their is also a box on the platform. The platform begins tilting slightly and in response the men move about in an effort to balance the platform. This goes on and on and on and on for the longest time. The only relief from this tedium is when one of them acts rather nasty towards the end, but it just isn't enough to make this fun to watch in the least. Aside from passable stop motion animation, this short offers nothing of interest to me....NOTHING.<br /><br />By the way, the great short KNICK KNACK also came out in 1989 and I have no idea why it was not among the nominees. It was a GREAT short and was far better than any of the nominees that year or the year before. Perhaps Pixar's success in previous years resulted in a bias against them, but KNICK KNACK is so clever and so funny it seems almost criminal to have ignored it. Could Pixar have not entered it? This seems unlikely. | negative |
During the cheap filmed in video beginning of Crazy Fat Ethel II, I wondered if it was the same film that was on the cover. Unfortunately, it was. The story itself is mindlessly simple. Ethel, a homicidal maniac with an eating disorder, is released into a halfway house because of hospital overcrowding. She is by far the most sane resident watching while one man puts dead flies into another's soup. Ethel is then teased by one of the halfway house employees with a chocolate bar after he hits on the cost cutting measure of feeding the residents dog food. Ethel retaliates by strangling him with a wire noose on the stairs and then....well, you get the idea. If this all sounds like fun, it isn't. This film was poorly made with cheap effects and even worse acting. The characters are so wooden when delivering their lines that they should be standing out in front of a cigar store. To make matters worse, half of the film consists of flashbacks to the first Ethel movie, Criminally Insane, which is little better. A VERY poor effort. | negative |
I read the reviews for this and while not expecting a saving private Ryan I was expecting a film of some substance.<br /><br />The film starts off very lob-sided with the usual intro of history and how the unit came into being. But immediately it's 1944 and you are not sure where everyone is. The accents etc are very poor as this unit is supposed to be Hawaiian/Asian American but everyone speaks in a very poor take on Harvard English imitation of a Japanese person.<br /><br />I gave this film 3 out of 10 as after 10 minutes I couldn't watch any more of it. The characters were 1 dimensional and even though they were most likely based on real people I had no feeling for them and this left me not caring about them. Very poor direction of a very average TV movie which will be shown at midnight on some cable channel. I'd avoid and look out for better efforts.<br /><br />This is a good story but it was deserving of a better telling. You got a sense the director had seen band of brothers and thought that that was enough to sell his movie. My advice, avoid and watch band of brothers, Tuskegee airmen, Glory or any other movie like when trumpets fade... | negative |
This is a fabulous film.<br /><br /> The plot is a good yarn, and is imaginatively told in a series of flashbacks and alternative points of view. What was deliberate, and what was coincidence? Who is in love with who?<br /><br /> You get the chance to put yourselves in the shoes of each of the characters in turn (sometimes literally), and this helps define each character to a satisfying depth.<br /><br /> With a bit of effort following the twists and turns, you can understand each of the characters; and key events in the film are reshot from the point of view of different people.<br /><br /> Take the opportunity if it comes again to your arthouse cinema; it looks good on the big screen.<br /><br /> More than keeping you guessing, the plot twists to such an extent that you just sit and watch what unfolds - I defy anyone to predict!<br /><br /> But more likely you will need more than one viewing - I saw this at the pictures on its original release three times, and it got better each time.<br /><br /> The acting was very good, with a standout performance by Romane Bohringer as Alice torn in three directions by the three other characters in the ensemble.<br /><br /> A classic. The second-best film of the 1990s. | positive |
This movie was a dismal attempt at recreating a crucial time in English history. The film version of Cromwell's growing involvement in the War is marginally accurate but the overall historical accuracy of this movie was way off. This film implies that the war was started over religious differences but the Civil War was in no way Catholic versus Protestant: both sides were Protestant. Cromwell was never present at the battle of Edgehill, nor did he ever "save the day". The royalists did not win, the battle ended in a draw.<br /><br />As another reviewer has noted, Cromwell was certainly not one of the "Five Members" who were to be removed from the House and arrested. <br /><br />Overall, this movie was decent. The producers tried WAY to hard and it didn't turn out so great. <br /><br />definitely could have been better. | negative |
Start with the premise that you will do anything to replace your lost love with a look-alike. Throw in your scientific knowledge of a deforming disease (isn't this the stuff that Leo G. Carroll contracted from the spider venom in "Tarantula"). Throw in the fact that the main character, instead of finding some way to attract the young woman, engages in heavy-handed stalking, until he totally draws attention to himself and has to hatch this insane plot: If he can make the girl's father sick, then help him recover, she will marry him. The problem is that most of the events are random and unpredictable. Anyone with half a brain would have seen through things. There's a third party, a woman that the doctor, played by J. Carroll Naish, has treated with great insensitivity. You know she is going to be a factor. There's also a gorilla kept in a cage who is used occasionally for heaven know's what. Oh well. There is so little sense to this who thing that it plays itself out and people get their just desserts. | negative |
This is one of the few movies that was recommended to me as absolutely brilliant, that really is. If you give this movie a low note than you really missed the point. You could describe Fosca as manipulative, but what if it is really serious, that she gets ill when the love she is sure of isn't answered. But what would you do when you are sure that the other one loves you, and is 'only' rejected by the fact that you are ugly. Wouldn't you fight for it. At least I think it is better to fight for it that die in bitterness. And it reminds me of the fact how I, as a man, react at first sight completely on the physical ugliness of Fosca and don't look further at the person she is or might be. This movie confronts me with very solemn questions about respect, trust, feeling manipulated and so on. How do I now if someone manipulates me or is just trying everything to make contact? What I think to be the most outstanding feature in this movie is that Ettore Scola made it absolutely believable that Giorgio falls in love with Fosca. | positive |
Enjoy the opening credits. They're the best thing about this second-rate but inoffensive time-killer which features passable performances from the likes of Eric Roberts and Martin Kove. The main part, however, goes to newcomer Tommy Lee Thomas who looks a bit diminutive for this kind of action but who, nevertheless, occasionally manages to project a banty-rooster kind of belligerence. The first time we see him he's bare-chested, sweaty, and engaged in that favorite "beefcake" activity -- chopping wood. After this he has seven more scenes without his shirt including one in which he's hanged by his wrists and zapped with electricity a la Mel Gibson in "Lethal Weapon." He could use a better script, however, since the manner in which he exposes the truth about corruption and violence inside the prison is never very convincing. There's also talk about millions of dollars which apparently is tied in with this investigation but which is never explained. There are a few pluses, though. Sending "John Woodrow" undercover as "John Wilson" is an amusing play on a presidential name, and co-star Jody (Ross) Nolan shows promise as an inmate who, early in the proceedings, is shown hanged by his wrists and getting punched by a burly guard. One final note: the movie's low budget is painfully responsible for the lack of "extras." Despite the impressive size of the prison, it only seems to hold about 12 inmates! (Note: the cast credits at the end aren't too helpful. For the record, the burly, bald-headed guard who uses Jody Nolan as a punching bag is played by Bill Fishback, and the young, fair-haired guard who administers electric shocks to Tommy Lee Thomas is played by Marc Chenail.) | negative |
Dreaming of Julia was the title of the original script, and was filmed in the summer of 2000 in Santo Domingo Republica Dominicana. To release the picture they change the original name to Cuba Libre. The director's cut was 3 and a half hours long. It was released on the festival of Bangkok in Thailand. It was the second film of Gael García Bernal (the first was Amores Perros)<br /><br />and the first of Juan Gerard as a Director. In the poster the names of Diana Bracho and Cecilia Suares does not appear. Diana plays the grandmother and Cecilia the mother of the kid. They are great actresses and they keep the story together specially Diana. Check her out in other things you would be surprised. | positive |
In 1943, a group of RAF Officers, including Eric Wiiliams, decide to escape from a POW camp using a Gymnastic Vaulting Horse in the courtyard. In 1950, it was decided to film his account, and it kick-started a peculiar British Film Genre- the Military Prison Camp story that reached its apogee in Danger Within (1959).<br /><br />The Wooden Horse is one of the quietest films I have ever watched. There are no great dramatic moments, but a steady storyline eventually builds to a climax that has more tension because the story doesn't give way for unlikely drama, jump cuts or jacked up (somethings about to happen!) music. It is utterly of its time and works beautifully.<br /><br />Leo Glenn, Anthony Steel and David Tomlinson lead a curiously low key cast of extras and (I suspect) non-actors. Without exception, all are constantly mono-tonal and quiet. They keep emotion out of their roles. As so many were, until recently, ex-service, I suspect they recreated their war time roles as 'Officers and Gentlemen'.<br /><br />This unemotional approach does not detract from any dramatic tension. On the contrary, unlike most Wartime Escape Films, the story doesn't end at the barbed wire: and that fact alone keeps me glued to the end. | positive |
I saw this movie with my dad. I must have been pretty young, around 15. It was on Star Movies one afternoon.The movie started a bit vaguely, but you could tell those robbers were gathering up for a score. It really caught pace after the first half hour.<br /><br />All the actors are great, especially Blades and Lou Diamond. I Guess it's the ensemble, they just play so well together. I can watch this film anytime.I think it is the relative stupidity of the plot and the characters trying to deal with a very weird score. The jokes are not corny but they are subtle and extreme at the same time that make them so hilarious.<br /><br />A perfect comedy for a lazy afternoon. | positive |
Awful! Absolutely awful! No plot, no point, no end. It looks like the director turned the camera on and then the whole crew went to lunch. Every day. I'm trying to GIVE this video away but no one will take it. I'm giving it a 2 instead of a 1 because I like Benigni. Roger, I'm going to have to say thumbs down on this one.<br /><br /> | negative |
This is a great movie. I read the brief synopsis and was unimpressed but as I watched it (mainly for Caroline Dhavernas) it grew on me.<br /><br />It's such a nice change to see a movie where girls/young women are not punished for their sexuality. The girls are given full license to explore and even the chance to make mistakes without ridiculous repercussions.<br /><br />Some of the scenes are absolutely hilarious - and many of them the supposedly erotic scenes - which were not over the top or distasteful. The male characters in the movie were brilliant - David Boreanaz was great as the fickle hunk - and what is great is that the movie doesn't make us hate him all that much. The other two younger male characters were good too, without being overbearing.<br /><br />This is one of the best movies I've seen that has girls growing up and is quite empowering to see how the they realise their mistakes but eventually come through and carry on with their lives rather than drag their mistakes along with them. | positive |
I enjoyed this film immensely. I'm really into films where females kick lots of butt, so this film already had my hopes up for some decent entertainment. My hopes were met and exceeded less than 20 minutes into the film. The action, humor and wit this film contained easily made it one of my favorite films of all time. It had Sam Jackson and his undeniable screen presence, Geena Davis as I've never seen her before, demanding your respect and flat out taking it even if you don't want to give it.<br /><br />Geena plays Samantha Caine, an amnesiac desperate to remember something about her past, but quickly realizing, the more she finds out the more she wants to forget and eventually becomes consumed until finally Samantha is so more and Charly is all that's left. But now, can Charly and Sam, two completely different women, possibly exist in the same body? We have characters that pop in and out of the film that nurture each side of Sam/Charly, like Sam Jackson, and Craig Bierko. Craig is also irresistible as Timothy, the sexy bad guy with no conscience.<br /><br />This film was perfectly casted, and perfectly acted, over the top and wonderfully entertaining. You watch the impossible happen and applaud when it does. SO worth your time. Watch it, you won't be sorry. | positive |
Or listening to, for that matter. Even the soundtrack is a bore. <br /><br />Honestly, this isn't the worst gay movie I've seen (that would be Regarding Billy), but it's down there very close to the bottom of the barrel.<br /><br />This thing drags and drags and drags. It's not that the plot is inane--in the hands of a good writer it might have worked . . . it certainly could have been much more entertaining. There's not one plot point you can't see coming for ten miles down the road. The dialog is flat. The jokes are old. To add insult to injury, it's full of one-dimensional, stereotypical gays. <br /><br />Nothing in this movie convinced me that the situation or the relationship of the two leads was possible, much less real. There was no chemistry, no dynamic, in fact no evidence of why the leads love each other . . . we're just told they're in love. Hard to figure when they have nothing in common and aren't compatible sexually. They like the same book? Huh?<br /><br />The acting is not totally bad, but the pacing is excruciatingly slow. I mean, almost Jarmusch- slow, but without Jarmusch quality. In fact, that would be a good barometer for you. If you like Jarmusch films, avoid this one. | negative |
War, Inc. - Corporations take over war in the future and use a lone assassin Brand Hauser (John Cusack) to do their wet-work against rival CEOs. A dark comedy satirizing the military and corporations alike. It was often difficult to figure out what exactly was going on. I kept waiting for things to make sense. There's no reason or method to the madness.<br /><br />It's considered by Cusack to be the "spiritual successor" to Grosse Point Blank. I.e., War is more or less a knock-off. We again see Cusack as an assassin protecting *spoiler* the person he's supposed to kill as he grips with his conscience. To be fair, John Cusack looks kind of credible taking out half a dozen guys with relative ease. The brief fights look good. The rest of the film does not. It's all quirky often bordering on bizarre. War Inc's not funny enough to be a parody, and too buoyant for anyone to even think about whatever the film's message might be, which I suppose might be the heartless ways that corporations, like war factions compete and scheme without a drop of consideration given to how they affect average citizens. Interesting, but the satire just doesn't work because it's not funny and at its heart the film has no heart. We're supposed to give a damn about how war affects Cusack's shell of a character rather than the millions of lives torn apart by war.<br /><br />John Cusack gives a decent performance. His character chugs shots of hot sauce and drives the tiniest private plane but quirks are meant to replace character traits. Marisa Tomei is slumming as the romantic sidekick journalist. There really isn't a lot of chemistry between them. Hilary Duff tries a Russian accent and doesn't make a fool of herself. Joan Cusack just screams and whines and wigs out. Blech. Ben Kingsley might have to return the Oscar if he doesn't start doling out a decent performance now and again. Pathetic.<br /><br />It's not a terrible movie, but in the end you gotta ask "War, what is it good for?" Absolutely nothing. C- | negative |
After sitting through this film, I have decided that it is one of the WORST movies I have ever seen. I knew it the moment I was subjected to three teenage girls screaming and overacting when they (OMG!) meet again, and then watching the same thing, only done by women old enough to be my mom. And that was only the first few minutes. Yeesh. So here are my comments...<br /><br />1. Middle aged women + ridiculous dance moves complete with hip thrusts and over the top costumes = not a good idea.<br /><br />2. Pierce Brosnan could not sing his way out of a paper bag. Nor could practically anyone else in this pile of excrement, for that matter.<br /><br />3. The songs were so random. It was obvious to me that they were thrown, willy nilly, into the incredibly contrived and STUPID plot.<br /><br />4. My three year old nephew could have written a better script.<br /><br />I was either cringing or laughing derisively during the movie. And I normally really like movie musicals. Of course they are bound to be a bit corny...but this was ridiculous. What a waste of talent. I mean, you have great actors and actresses in this movie...I am embarrassed for them that this is now a part of their career. I regret wasting my money and time on this piece of crap. | negative |
I couldn't believe how lame & pointless this was. Basically there is nothing to laugh at in the movie, hardly any scenes to get you interested in the rest of the movie. This movie pulled in some huge stars but they were all wasted in my opinion. I think Keanu Reeves must've taken some acting lessons a fews years after this movie before he stared in The Matrix. Uma Thurman looked very simple & humble. Luckily i got this movie for a very low price because its certainly not a movie to remember for any good reasons. I won't write anything about the story of the movie, but as you should know that she is meant to be the most famous hitchhiker across America because of her huge thumb. I would give this movie a 2 / 10. Before I watched this movie I was wondering why this movie has only got a 4.0/10, & now I know why. A very disappointing movie. Don't buy it even if you see it for under $5. | negative |
I am going to go out on a limb, and actually defend "Shades of Grey" as a good clip-show episode, which delved into the life and death struggle of Commander William Thomas Riker who was battling a terminally fatal disease.<br /><br />The scenes from the flashback sequences were implemented quite well with the mood Riker was in such as when he was reliving his romantic episodes such as "11001001," "Angel One," and "Up the Long Ladder." Tragic moments were highlighted such as Tasha's death in "Skin of Evil," as well as elements of pulse-pounding danger in "Heart of Glory," "Conspiracy," and the aforementioned "Skin of Evil." Riker also exhibited courage under fire by telling some humorous jokes such as "An ancestor of mine was bitten by a rattlesnake once...after 3 days of intense pain, the snake died." This episode highlighted the psychological ordeal of Will Riker under extreme duress. And, YES, I am biased in my opinion in proclaiming "Shades of Grey" as a solid episode, because at the time of its original airing, my face was covered in sweat, wondering whether or not Riker would pullout of it alive and live to see other great, galactic, outerspace adventures beyond the final frontier...<br /><br />Of course, in subsequent years, I seem to have formed a singular opinion of this particular episode...but, if an award should go for "the best clip-show episode in the history of television," then I believe that this episode should be highly regarded in that respect. | positive |
Sorry folks, I love Ray Bolger's work but the one thing he ain't is a leading man. Maybe if you pretend he's the last man on earth, this romantic plot might work but come'on now !<br /><br />Here's a movie that exists simply to showcase the title song which was a big hit for the Basie Band the year before (1951). And some pretty nifty singing and dancing save it from being a total disaster. <br /><br />However, the story line is pathetic, even by 1952 musical comedy standards. And the other songs are equally as forgettable as Evening In Paris cologne. The dialogue embarrasses the stars, Day & Bolger. Only Claude Dauphin's Boyeresque charms keep his character three dimensional.<br /><br />So, how to enjoy this movie on video ? <br /><br />A.) Fast forward through all the dialogue...<br /><br />B.) Surrender yourself to Doris Day's vocals and Ray Bolger's loose-limbed footwork. And don't miss Dauphin's hilarious take on a rain-soaked, windswept reprise of "April In Paris"...<br /><br />C.) Finally, keep a couple of bottles of Cabernet chilled and handy.<br /><br />Bob Raymond | negative |
I don't pretend to be a huge Asterix fan, having only seen one other movie adaption and read only two of the comics, but this was a superb movie, all the same. I only saw the English version, and found the voices to go perfectly with the characters - Brad Garret as Obelix and Sean Astin as Justforkix especially. The story itself was both interesting and truly funny (especially the contradicting name endings - all the viking names end in "af", while all the Gaulish names, of course, end in "ix"), with a little romance thrown in that (I though) enhanced the story, even though it weighed down the overall production with unnecessary clichés. <br /><br />The plot is this - the Viking chief, Timandahaf, is sick and tired of going to raid villages and then finding them emptied. So, he consults his "wise man", Cryptograf, whose entire repertoire consists of old proverbs, and Cryptograf tells him that "fear lends the villagers wings". Taking this literally, Timandahaf believes that fear actually allows people to fly, and sets out on an expedition to retrieve the "Champion of Fear", an expedition that, of course, leads him to the Gaulish village where Asterix and Obelix live. <br /><br />The pair are currently very frustrated - Chief Vitalstatistix's cowardly, pacifist nephew, Justforkix, has been entrusted to them so they can train him to be a man, and the boy is making little to no progress. When Justforkix unwittingly confesses to being "afraid of everything" in the presence of the brainless viking Olaf, he is believed to be the "Champion of Fear", and is kidnapped. Asterix and Obelix are sent by Vitalstatistix to go rescue Justforkix before his father returns to the village to bring his son back home.<br /><br />Ultimately, this is a great movie with few flaws besides the clichés and, at times, defective dialogs. I thoroughly enjoyed it, despite the fact that it wasn't true to the comic. | positive |
I used to always love the bill because of its great script and characters, but lately i feel as though it has turned into an emotional type of soap. If you look at promotional pictures/posters of the bill now you will see either two of the officers hugging/kissing or something to do with friendships whereas promotional pictures of the bill a long time ago would have shown something to do with crime. This proves that it has changed a lot from being an absolutely amazing Police drama to an average type of television soap. When i watch it i feel like I'm watching a police version of Coronation Street or something similar. I have to say i still like the bill as I'm interested in Police work and that type of thing but i really miss the greatness that The Bill used to have. I want to rate it as 2 out of ten because you have to admit it has been totally ruined by the people who took the bill over.<br /><br />As for the script and characters they have both gone downhill, most of the great characters are gone now (although a few still remain i think) and I'm not saying that the newer characters are poor or anything because they definitely aren't, its just that they lack the tough looks, personalities and script lines that all of the old characters used to have because most of the new ones are at the moment involved with silly relationships and family trouble.<br /><br />Overall being one of the only Police programs on television these days, The Bill will always be a crappily interesting thing to watch, but like i say it has lost a lot of its uniqueness (if thats the right spelling) and would now be classed as a terrible, unreal television soap.<br /><br />Recommended to watch for a good laugh over the stupidity of the police officers involved - 2/10 | negative |
I can enjoy a guilty pleasure vigilante flick, but this is just bad. And not bad in a way you might enjoy seeing MST3K make fun of it. It's just nauseatingly bad like you can't find anything to enjoy about this no matter how hard you try. I truly regret wasting 2 hours of precious life on this crap. You can tell by watching it that no one was asked to act and everyone in it knew this film would only bury their careers. Apparently "Walking Tall" has garnered enough income that someone decided they could make a buck off their investment. If it's not the worst film I've seen, it's so bad that it's blotted the worse films from my memory. | negative |
I was really, really disappointed with this movie. it started really well, and built up some great atmosphere and suspense, but when it finally got round to revealing the "monster"...it turned out to be just some psycho with skin problems......again. Whoop-de-do. Yet another nutjob movie...like we don't already have enough of them.<br /><br />To be fair, the "creep" is genuinely unsettling to look at, and the way he moves and the strange sounds he makes are pretty creepy, but I'm sick of renting film like this only to discover that the monster is human, albeit a twisted, demented, freakish one. When I saw all the tell-tale rats early on I was hoping for some kind of freaky rat-monster hybrid thing...it was such a let down when the Creep was revealed.<br /><br />On top of this, some of the stuff in this movie makes no sense. (Spoiler) <br /><br />Why the hell does the Creep kill the security Guard? Whats the point, apart from sticking a great honking sign up that says "HI I'm A PSYCHO AND I LIVE DOWN HERE!"? Its stupid, and only seems to happen to prevent Franka Potente's character from getting help.<br /><br />what the hells he been eating down there? I got the impression he was effectively walled in, and only the unexpected opening into that tunnel section let him loose...so has he been munching rats all that time, and if so why do they hang around him so much? Why is he so damn hard to kill? He's thin, malnourished and not exactly at peak performance...but seems to keep going despite injuries that are equivalent to those that .cripple the non-psycho characters in the film.<br /><br />The DVD commentary says we are intended to empathise with Creep, but I just find him loathsome. Its an effective enough movie, but it wasted so many opportunities that it makes me sick. | negative |
As an ex-teacher(!) I must confess to cringing through many scenes - 'though I continued to watch to the end. I wonder why?! (Boredom, perhaps?) :-)<br /><br />The initial opening scenes struck me as incredibly mish-mashed and unfocussed. The plot, too, although there were some good ideas - the plight of a relief teacher, for example - were not concentrated enough in any one direction for 3-D development.<br /><br />Not one of Mr Nolte's finer moments. As to young Mr Macchio, does he speak that way in *every* movie?<br /><br />Plot and acting complaints aside, the hair-styles alone were a nostalgic (if nauseating) trip.<br /><br /> | negative |
Even after all these years, this remain "a perfect movie" for me. I still remember sitting for a long time in the theater after it was over, stunned by the experience, overcome by emotion. I own the DVD (of course!) is see at least once a year. It's incomparable and I cannot add much to has already been written about its excellence and beauty. So glad others love it as much as I do! A note: the author of the book on which it's based - Michael Ondatje - was enchanted with the film and is quoted as saying he wished he had thought of some of the lovely scenes written purely for the movie...the way Kip "invites" Hana to his side with a trail of small candles, and the way he arranges for Hana to view the frescoes in the ruined medieval church. | positive |
I've tried watching it twice, though I haven't been able to make through either episode. For me, it's basically just not funny. I can tell where I'm suppose to laugh, but I can't. I've never seen the original, so I'm not comparing. I also love comedies, including off-the-wall comedies like Married...With Children and Family Guy, but this show just doesn't' do it for me. The jokes are lame and flat, and the acting is mostly annoying. The commercials made it look interesting, but it isn't. They're trying too hard to be different, and tying to force the humor. That style usually doesn't work too well. I don't think this show finishes the season. Of course, I could be wrong. | negative |
OK, I don't kid myself that this is the typical gay love life but since when are straight romances in real life as they are on the screen? This movie is well-balanced with comedy and drama and I thoroughly enjoyed myself. It was a riot to see Hugo Weaving play a sex-obsessed gay real estate salesman who uses his clients' houses for his trysts with the flaming Darren (Tom Hollander). And having seen him in Priscilla, Queen of the Desert only the day before, he is probably one of the most secure-in-their-masculinity actors around. :) Anyway, the plot flowed smoothly and the male-bonding scenes were a hoot. Thumbs up! 8/10 | positive |
If you are looking for eye candy, you may enjoy Sky Captain. Sky Captain is just a video game injected with live performers. The visials are nice and interesting to look at during the entire movie. Now, saying that, the visuals are the ONLY thing good in Sky Captain.<br /><br />After ten minutes, I knew I was watching one of the worse movies of all time. I was hoping this movie would get better, but it never achieved any degree of interest. After thirty minutes, the urge to walk out kept growing and growing. Now, I own over 2000 movies and have seen probably five times that number. Yet, this is only the second movie I felt like walking out of my entire life.<br /><br />Acting---there is none. The three main performers are pitiful. Jude Law (also in the other movie I wanted to walk out on) is just awful in the title role. I would rather sit through Ben Affleck in Gigli than watch Law again.<br /><br />Paltrow tries SO hard to be campy, that it backfires in her face. The last article I had read said that Paltrow is thinking of staying home and being a mother rather than acting. After this performance, I would applaud that decision.<br /><br />Story---Soap operas are better written. The story behind Sky Captain starts out bad and gets continually worse as it progresses.<br /><br />Directing---none. Everything was put into the special effects that story, acting and directing suffer greatly. Even "the Phantom Menace" had better acting and that is NOT saying a great deal.<br /><br />I would have to give this movie a "0" out of "10". Avoid paying theatre prices and wait until video release. | negative |
What can i say about Tromeo and Juliet, other than if you like twisted Troma machinations, then you MUST see this movie! This is my absolute favorite Troma flick, and i have seen almost all of them! Penis monsters, cecsarian births to live rats and popcorn, lesbianism, steamy sex scenes in plexiglass boxes, incest, nipple piercing, dismemberment, shameless Troma plugs, and computer masturbation...How can one go wrong? It amazingly follows the original story very closely. YOU MUST SEE THIS MOVIE!!!! OH, and speaking of shameless plugs...Check out Jane Jensen's "Comic Book Whore" CD on Interscope records. It is awesome! | positive |
Jason Bourne sits in a dusty room in with blood on his hands, trying to make sense of what he's just done. Meanwhile, a CIA chief in NYC outlines the agency's response to what's just happened on screen. An American flag stands proudly on the centre of his desk in the foreground of the shot, but as he speaks, it slips out of focus as his plan veers into morally dubious territory, as if it doesn't want to be associated with the course of action the government man decides is necessary in the interests of national security.<br /><br />This shot effectively captures the mood of the film. As well as portraying Bourne's quest to find out how he became Jason Bourne, Ultimatum is also an examination of the human costs of the measures taken to protect us in the interests of stability and security.<br /><br />It is also probably the best film you'll see in the cinema this year. <br /><br />It's just so intense. Bourne says to Simon Ross (Considine) "This isn't some newspaper story, this is real" and in the audience you almost believe him. The camera shakes, but remains steady enough for you to see everything and feel like you're there with Bourne as he tries to elude his pursuers, and the performances are so good that these guys seem as though they are the characters they're portraying, instead of just being actors performing well-written roles. The action scenes are so brutally fast-paced and well choreographed that they seem instinctive instead of planned to the minutest movement; the stunt-work is nothing short of amazing.<br /><br />The pacing is just incredible. It keeps driving forward towards its conclusion, but not so fast that it leaves you struggling to piece together the plot; the script delivers the information you need as quickly and clearly as possible before moving on to the next tense action set-piece. While they're often simple (the Waterloo sequence is essentially just a man on a phone being watched by a man on a phone) they're charged with such dramatic intensity that you can't take your eyes off them. The film is just so focused on powering forwards that you can't help being swept along by it.<br /><br />With its intense action set-pieces, brilliantly paced storyline, and intelligent examination of the decisions made in the name of national security, the Bourne series is one that accurately captures the ambiguities of our age. Ultimatum is its peak. | positive |
Julie Andrews satirically prods her own goody-two-shoes image in this overproduced musical comedy-drama, but if she approaches her role with aplomb, she's alone in doing so. Blake Edwards' film about a woman who is both music-hall entertainer and German spy during WWI doesn't know what tone to aim for, and Rock Hudson has the thankless task of playing romantic second-fiddle. Musicals had grown out of favor by 1970, and elephantine productions like "Star!" and this film really tarnished Andrews' reputation, leaving a lot of dead space in her catalogue until "The Tamarind Seed" came along. I've always thought Julie Andrews would've made a great villain or shady lady; her strong voice could really command attention, and she hits some low notes that can either be imposing or seductive. Husband/director Edwards seems to realize this, but neither he nor Julie can work up much energy within this scenario. Screenwriter William Peter Blatty isn't a good partner for Edwards, and neither man has his heart in this material. Beatty's script offers Andrews just one fabulous sequence--a striptease. *1/2 from **** | negative |
Why is this film so bad? Well, if being so stupidly annoying and unfunny is a reason, then this film is it. The character of Corky Romano is unlikable at best and downright infuriating at worst. The gags are predictable but that isn't what makes it bad. They are the lame sort of predictable jokes that your unfunny friend would say.<br /><br />Corky Romano is about a mild mannered vet that tries to do right but is so clumsy. His quiet life is thrown for a loop when the family that once spurned him now needs him to infiltrate the FBI to destroy any trace of the family's crime history. However, it isn't that easy for Corky because the FBI believes him to be a super agent and pegs him with the duty of spying on his very own family. Mishaps and mayhem ensue but it really doesn't feel like any comic hijixn are there. Corky ends up in love with his beautiful FBI partner and has to set the record straight with both the FBI and his family if he is to settle down to the quiet life again.<br /><br />I think what makes this film irritating is both the lead actor and the supposed jokes. Chris Kattan reveals his alarming limitations as and actor here as his one note slapstick routine falls flat about 10 minutes into the film. It is okay to have a full movie based solely off of dumb, slap stick humor. Will Ferrel, Kattan's SNL partner, seems to have made a full career out of it. The only difference between Kattan and Ferrel is that Ferrel knows when to tone it down and rely on other ways of telling a joke. There is absolutely no diversity in Kattan's routine. It's hard to hear the same joke twice, but for a whole movie that is just pure torture.<br /><br />The other problem with the movie was the lack of truly original and FUNNY jokes. The gay mafia brother, the awkward guy sch-tick, and plenty of other forgettable jokes appear none as funny as the first time you barely laughed at it. It seems as if the screenwriters had more of a fun time writing this than any one had watching it. Even with a cast that has some comedic talent (Chris Penn, Peter Falk) the jokes that commence are tired. There is no chemistry too. This film was obviously one for the pocketbooks for the actors. No body seemed to care about it, or even try. Sad thing is, no body told Chris Kattan that. | negative |
Sarafina was a fun movie, and some of the songs were really great. Sarafina was very entertaining. I don't normally like music things like this, but the singing was not lame like it looked like on the box. The movie was useful for learning about history because it was an interesting perspective of the Soweto rioting of 1976. It showed you things from the perspective of the students in the rioting and showed you that they were real characters. Because you got to see them as real characters this makes you like them more as an audience, and makes you more sympathetic to them as totally the victims of the white government, who you can not sympathise with. The singing of the students is correct because we know from accounts that the students in the riot were singing and dancing before it became violent. The clothing of the students in Sarafina is very similar to the clothing shown in photos from Soweto. They made the movie actually in Soweto, which is why it looks very accurate in many parts. All these things make the film more accurate for someone using it to learn about aparthied. As viewers we must be critical of the way the history of Apartheid was presented. As I said before, you become sympathetic to the students - this makes it potentially less reliable and objective. Also, it changes some of the details from other accounts. In Sarafina it turns to chaos when the policeman comes into their classroom and shoots the students. The police and army were very aggressive at Soweto, but this is probably an exaggerated event. The police and army did shoot students, but there is not evidence of them going into schools and executing people like this. The fighting was more in the streets and had looting and crime. This is done in the movie probably to make you feel more sorry for the school students. The movie would have been more useful if it had some different information about aparthied. The teacher was arrested for being against the government, and the mum goes to work in a white persons house. But there is not any information about the government and why they were doing it or any details about the racist policies and laws. -By George S, Chris and Finlay | positive |
This, which was shown dubbed in Italian at a Rome cinema (not as bad as it sounds) after being presented at the Rome Film Festival, is very much an art film and a festival film, guaranteed to charm and delight such audiences for its distinctive style, droll humor; ability to draw comedy from the suffering of others; appealing, cheery music; spot-on performances; overriding sweetness and humanity--but doomed, because of its oddity and lack of a compelling story line, to leave average audiences wondering what they're watching it for and why anyone admires it, how it even got made.<br /><br />Andersson gives us almost a series of dry skits. Running through them are various themes. Money: a guy at the next table (Waldemar Nowak) nicks the wallet of a rich bore talking on a cell phone in a restaurant over a glass of brandy, then goes and orders a set of posh suits made to order; a deadbeat son calls his celebrated father away from an elaborate gathering to beg him for one more loan. A shrink worries aloud about his depleted investments while his wife humps him in bed wearing only a shiny Viking helmet.<br /><br />Depression: an elementary teacher (Jessica Nilsson) breaks down in class because her husband has called her a "harpy;" the rug salesman spouse (Pär Fredriksson) collapses before clients because he's called her that. Several men have depressing dreams. But hey--this is Sweden. Isn't everybody depressed? Love problems: a fat bohemian couple is perpetually breaking up; a girl groupie has fantasies about a lead guitarist, Micke (Eric Bäckman). Wives slam doors when their husbands start to practice their instruments. (Music too is obviously a unifying theme. Besides the dashing guitarist there's a tuba and a drum player who're in a Dixierland band and also play in marches and funerals. Every scene has an added lilt from the music, which niftily links one sequence with another.) A raging storm outside the window of many scenes, violent rain, people out in it, thunder so loud it sounds like a battle raging across the land. This also unifies the tone and gives the impression various scenes are happening on the same dauntingly tempestuous day.<br /><br />Andersson is a master of visual composition and the static middle-distance shot and the film has a foggy gray-green look engineered by DP Gustav Danielsson that's perfect because it evokes the gloom of a Swedish winter but also twinkles with the subtle colors of the director's wit, which ends every scene with a smile. One almost never knew drabness could be so beautiful. (Or perhaps one did: Alexcanr Sokurov creates such effects sometimes in very different contexts.) Within scenes and in the film as a whole there's a kind of stillness that comes out of the visual style, the pacing of scenes, and the detached humanism of the overall outlook. There's something about a fully mastered style that's calming, reassuring.<br /><br />Not everything works equally well. One may feel impatient with the succession of barely related scenes, which read too much sometimes like the work of a Saturday Night Live writer in need of Prozac. Since some scenes plainly move you or draw a laugh, it's obvious that others fall a little flat.<br /><br />But some scenes are real zingers, and one obviously triumphant climax of pure magic is a dream--described and then visualized dreams being another important thread) in which the girl groupie imagines herself in a wedding dress newly married to her fey guitarist ideal, who plays a delicate series of riffs while a crowd of admirers gathers outside a big window. The viewpoint switches to outside and the window slides slowly away as if the building the dream newlyweds look out of were a train moving out of a station to take them to their honeymoon. It's a fresh, subtle, and rather sublime effect.<br /><br />Eventually one may feel everything in You the Living (Du Levande) is a dream, including the recurring scene where the barman is always striking a bronze bell and announcing last order time, whereupon all the torpid customers rise from their tables and go up to get one more drink.<br /><br />An Italian reviewer called this "a small, great film," and that's right. It limits itself in a dozen ways, but there is greatness in it. Roy Andersson is a little master (like some medieval miniaturist) of the inner comedies of Scandanavian gloom, and this is a film unlike any other. Shown this year as a Cannes "Un Certain Regard" selection, this is also the Swedish entry for the 2007 Best Foreign Oscar. Hard to say what Bergman would think, but Andersson worked with him; is famous for his elaborately produced TV commercials, some of which one can see on YouTube. Bergman called them "the best commercials in the world." It will be interesting to see if this director, whose craft is as subtle as his viewpoint, will start working in longer segments some time. Meanwhile, any good film buff really needs to get a look at this.<br /><br />"Schadenfreude" isn't quite the right word. That means delight in the misery of others. Andersson is teaching us to delight in the misery of all of us. | positive |
Combining the conventions of both Western and Gothic horror, and often directed as if it were an art movie, this is one of Siegel and Eastwood's best collaborations. <br /><br />Eastwood plays a Yankee soldier who, after being wounded during the Civil War, takes refuge in an isolated Southern seminary for young women. Shut away from the world, the women project their romantic fantasies on to him, and he responds with callous, male manipulation. But jealousy and resentment raise their heads, and he finds himself in a world of brutal revenge. And boy is the revenge brutal.<br /><br />Beautifully shot by Bruce Surtees, and carefully paced, "The Beguiled" is a haunting, elegant work that seems to have influenced the troubled sexuality of Eastwood's own "Play Misty for Me" and "Tightrope". <br /><br />The film is a gripping depiction of a fierce battle of the sexes and oozes a dreamlike mix of horror and sexuality. All the characters are ambiguous, displaying traits of both good and evil, leaving it up to us to choose whom we should root for.<br /><br />Don Siegel left quite a legacy of fine films behind. Everything from "Invation of the Body Snatchers" to "Dirty Harry". But though his early black and white pictures have aged well, the majority of his colour films seem grainy, dated and badly shot. His gritty "realism" must have seemed fresh and kinetic 40 years ago, but when viewed today, I just don't think they've stood the test of time.<br /><br />"The Beguiled", however, is in a different league. Mature, ambiguous and starkly shot, it's a shame it isn't more widely known. While evolving technology and technique have rendered the majority of Siegel's tough, masculine action thrillers obsolete, "The Beguiled" still entrances audiences today due to it's surreal atmosphere and unique subject matter.<br /><br />8.5/10 - Better than the similarly themed "Black Narcissus", this is, in my opinion, Siegel's best film. Part horror, part drama, part sexual odyssey, "The Beguiled" is a surprisingly arty film (especially when considering that Siegel viewed his films to be, quote, 'meaningless'). A large part of the film's artistry is due to Clint Eastwood, who would, from this point onwards, make an effort to choose mature material. | positive |
If you are like me and observed the original "Benji" phenomenon from afar, finally seeing the movie for the first time 30+ years later, you may be shocked to discover how truly awful it is, and more mystified than ever about its popularity back in 1974.<br /><br />My judgment is not entirely objective as I tend to have a favorable bias toward children's films and for that reason cut them considerable slack. On the other hand I have always hated this particular dog, a feature on the last couple seasons of "Petticoat Junction". Never a great show, the dog-less early episodes were at least a nice showcase of beautiful actresses and the introduction of the dog cut into their screen time.<br /><br />Benji is an 86-minute mega-dose of the dog, following him on several daily circuits through the town of McKinney, Texas. If this sounds boring you would be advised to give "Benji" a wide birth and to never let your remote control fall into the hands of a "Benji" fan (if there are still any out there). <br /><br />Unlike "My Dog Skip", "Monkey Business" or "Because of Winn-Dixie" the human actors in the cast are extremely weak. "Big Valley's" Peter Breck plays the standard stern father and just seems to embarrassed at the idea of appearing in something this lame. <br /><br />If one of your children (of any age) appears to be finding "Benji" entertaining you should consider cutting back on their medication.<br /><br />Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child. | negative |
This film reeks of production line planning. It appears like the filmmakers looked at recent hit movies, and threw spaghetti on the screen - Jimmy Stewart! June Allyson! Anthony Mann! Baseball! War! Baby! Airplane! - ROLL 'EM! - The film does address the age of the Stewart/Allyson performers; though, I'm certain we are still supposed to think they are much younger.<br /><br />There are messages in "Strategic Air Command" I found curiously shocking and offensive, but I'll stick with one truly wretched element: The happily married couple is challenged when Mr. Stewart's character makes an important decision without consulting his wife. In the film's most dramatic scene, she calls him on it. It ends completely unresolved - Allyson is crying her heart out on their bed, and Stewart walks out on her. NO discussion; he simply says he is correct, and walks out on his devastated wife. For all he knows, she could slit her wrists.<br /><br />Later, Allyson apologizes for questioning her husband's decision.<br /><br />Unbelievable! <br /><br />Stick with Stewart-Allyson in "The Stratton Story" (1949). <br /><br />** Strategic Air Command (3/25/55) Anthony Mann ~ James Stewart, June Allyson, Frank Lovejoy | negative |
Have you ever in your life, gone out for a sport's activity, tried your best, and then found yourself in an important segment of it, where for a brief moment, you were given a chance to be a hero and a champion and . . . failed? I believe many of us have had that moment in our lives. This is the premise of the movie, "The Best of Times." In this story a middle age banker, named Jack Dundee (Robin Williams) suffers from the deep melancholy of a football mistake, which happened years ago, is inspired to re-play the game . . again. In order to accomplish this he must convince the once great football quarterback, Reno Hightower (Kurt Russell) to make a comeback. For Reno, who is satisfied with his present lot in life, see's no need to change the past record, which get's better as he ages. Added to both their problem is the fact years have passed and in addition, both their marriages are floundering and in need of re-vamping. Not easy when his Father-in-law (Donald Moffat) habitually reminds him of the biggest drop. Nevertheless, Dundee is persistent and will do anything to try and correct the greatest blunder of his life. Great fun for anyone wishing to enjoy their youth again. *** | positive |
This movie is pretty good. Half a year ago, i bought it on DVD. But first i thought that it was the original film. I have seen the series and it is a good film, but here, they have put "The Living Legend,part1 and 2",and "Fire in space" together. The same as they did with the first film, but with other episodes. But still, it is a pretty good film. Only the ending is strange (you don't see what happens with the Pegasus). But I still think that it is pretty good. The actors and special effects were good. If you haven't seen it, go see it. Starring:Richard Hatch, Dirk Benedict, Lorne Greene, Herb. Jefferson Jr., Tony Swartz, Terry Carter, Lloyd Bridges, Jack Stauffer. | positive |
An interesting idea for a film, both showing the last dragon on earth and showing the struggle he and someone evil have together. When he was younger, Einon got stabbed in the heart, so Bowen (Dennis Quaid) took him to the dark lord who gave him half his heart. Now grown up Einon (David Thewlis) is now the selfish and evil king. Meanwhile, Bowen is using a new friend Draco the Dragon (voiced by Sir Sean Connery) to get rewards for "killing" dragons. But because Einon has half of Draco's hear, they both feel the pain in one of them is hurt, or killed. Also starring Pete Postlethwaite as Gilbert of Glockenspur, Jason Isaacs as Lord Felton, Julie Christie as Queen Aislinn and John Gielgud as King Arthur. It was nominated for the Oscar for Best Visual Effects. Worth watching! | negative |
Ok, I will make this review short and to the point for those people whose mental capacity is perfect for watching this movie. Everybody knows of Motion Picture Association of America's ratings: G, PG, PG-13, R, and NC-17. For the purposes of this movie, I think the MPA should create a new rating standard: IQ-20. | negative |
Matthau is a widowed hospital doctor enjoying his single status and the footloose and available nurses on the staff whilst colleague and friend Richard Benjamin looks on with amusement and amazement. Their boss is hard-of-hearing going on senile Chief of Staff Art Carney who is up for re-election to that post.<br /><br />Matthau is content playing the field without commitment until he meets single mother Glenda Jackson who insists upon being the only woman in his life while she is in his life. At the same time, he comes under pressure to respond to the amorous advances of a potential litigant in a malpractice suit, and to support the shambolic and incompetent Carney in his attempt to be re-elected Chief of Staff.<br /><br />This is a superior old-fashioned romantic comedy graced by four Grade-A actors and an excellent supporting cast working with a first-rate dry, caustic and sarcastic script. Carney steals every scene he's in and, in the parlance of IMDb, has us rolling on the floor laughing out loud whenever he appears on screen. We are otherwise entertained by the on-off relationship of the two leads and various sub-plots.<br /><br />Lacks the ambition to be a great film, but remains one of the best of its kind and watchable and re-watchable for its comedic value alone. Deserves more attention than it seems to have received and well worth the cost of the DVD or video cassette. | positive |
I've been looking forward to the release of this movie since I first heard the concept two years ago, and I was not disappointed. I won't bother summarizing the story since everyone else has, but I will say that it was just plain entertaining throughout. The performances were great, as was the music, and the main characters were likeable.<br /><br />My only complaints are: (1) the story was definitely lacking; the movie wrapped up very abruptly- in fact the writing became pretty lax in the second half, as though the writers weren't sure what to do with the plot. Since the plot wasn't nearly as important as the music and the action, this didn't really affect the entertainment value of the film, so this is not as major a complaint as it would seem.<br /><br />(2) This is really nitpicky, but the music that the characters in the movie were listening to was sometimes dated after 1985, when the movie was set. INXS' Devil Inside was from 1987 and AC/DC's Are You Ready was from 1990, among other mistakes. This bothers me a bit, since they obviously went to lengths to make a good period piece, they could have checked the copyright date on these songs to make sure they were 1985 or earlier. Again, not a big deal.<br /><br />Oh, I thought of something else that was strange. The Steel Dragon band members were supposed to be English, but for some reason Dokken bassist Jeff Pilson and Ozzy guitarist Zakk Wylde played band members, and they each had a couple of speaking lines in AMERICAN accents. That was kind of lazy also, but it was still cool to see actual musicians playing musicians, so I will forgive that as well.<br /><br />I could probably nitpick all day, but I don't want to give the impression that this wasn't a super entertaining movie. I will probably buy the DVD when it comes out, and I will certainly buy the soundtrack CD simply for the six Steel Dragon songs (some of which were sung by the singer from the band Steelheart, if you remember them!). The highlight of the film was possibly a great outtake where Mark Wahlberg is lipsynching to a rock song on stage and suddenly someone plays "Good Vibrations" by Marky Mark and the Funky Bunch. The surprised look of Mark's face is priceless. Classic rock and roll flick! Score: 8/10 due to extreme entertainment | positive |
Let this serve as a warning to anyone wishing to draw attention to themselves in the media by linking their name to that of a well-loved and well-respected, not to say revered author, in order to draw attention to their home-movies out on DVD.<br /><br />Hyped to the skies by its obviously talentless makers, in fact lied about only to be revealed, finally, as ludicrously inept in every department, the fans of Wells and of his book have been after the blood of its Writer-Producer-Director since it appeared on DVD.<br /><br />Many good points have been made by the other comments users on this page. Particularly the one about using this as a teaching aid for Film School students, since this "film" does not even use the basic grammar of scripting, editing, continuity, direction throughout its entire 3 hours running time. It is possible the Director did show up for the shoot. Certainly there was no-one present who knew even remotely what they were doing.<br /><br />An ongoing thread continues to evolve on this IMDb page which should at least furnish the watchers of this witless drivel with a few laughs for their $9.00 outlay.<br /><br />Much was promised. Absolutely nothing was delivered. Except "Monty Python Meets "War of The Worlds" with all the humour taken out.<br /><br />Indefensible trash. Just unbelievable.<br /><br />There are REAL independent film-makers out there to be checked out. People who actually try to work to a high standard instead of flapping their gums about how great their movie is going to be.<br /><br />People could do worse than keep an eye on Brit film-maker Jake West's "Evil Aliens" for example. | negative |
"Welcome to Collingwood" offers some of the most hilarious dialog in recent memory. Watching this comedy directed by the brothers Anthony and Joe Russo reminded us of maybe another film we had seen in the past, but since we missed the opening credits, we had to wait until the end to discover that what we were reminded of, was the 1958 Italian film "Big Deal on Madonna Street", directed by Mario Monicelli.<br /><br />The Russo brothers put together a magnificent cast to portray all the characters in the film. Anything with William H. Macy, Luis Guzman, Sam Rockwell, Patricia Clarkson, the late Michael Jeter, in it, can't be bad. Since this is an ensemble piece all characters get an opportunity in which to shine.<br /><br />The film presents us a group of inane would-be safe crackers from hell. No one could think these men could carry on a job like the one they undertake. Whatever could go wrong, and more, is what they succeed in doing. George Clooney makes a small appearance as the master safe cracker who is also seen impersonating a rabbi, only to be confused with a priest by the gang members coming out of Cossimo's funeral.<br /><br />The best way to enjoy the movie is to sit back and relax, and let all these small time crooks do their thing. Let their funny lines make you laugh, as anyone can see this gang is doomed from beginning to end! | positive |
On his recent maligned reality-show, Mr. Shore conceded his filmic oeuvre is best enjoyed stoned. No, he must have said "best watched." While a healthy toke might see you through the end credits, there is little pleasure to be found, save some sporadic chuckling at the picture, not with it. Titular hyphenate absence is the least grievance. Other hyphenate, wholesome Tiffani-Amber Thiessen (I dare you to rub out that "Saved by the Bell" patina of purity) is miscast as a rural vamp; she's too round of face for treachery. Mr. Shore, himself occasionally displays the odd talent for mimicry (I thought I recognized a Jimmy Stewart in there), however it is never aptly used. The trite fish-out-of-water formula has yet to be rendered with less grace. Our hero, Crawl has precious little wit to account for expeditiously charming his agrarian antagonists. Ultimately, I had to announce it's been ascertained: THE WORST MOVIE EVER. P.S. As another fish, Adam Sandler fared better with "Mr. Deeds." It may take a Shore to appreciate a Sandler. | negative |
The horse is indeed a fine animal. Picturesque depictions of wild horses and their grace could never have been more majestic in an animation flick.<br /><br />The animation is simply stupendous. The fine animation forms the backbone of the beauty that the horses embolden across the flick. More so when the stallion traverses diverse terrain, jumps across cliffs and braves waters. <br /><br />Soundtrack too is very impressive. The wonderful instrumental music lures you to appreciate the movie. <br /><br />"They say the story of the west was written from the saddle of a horse . " huh? Well ,The story of a fine horse sure was written from the saddle of the west .<br /><br />All in all, this movie is clearly up there with the best .It is one of the best animation flicks i have watched. Would be a very fine choice on a lonely night. An easy 9/10. | positive |
Bank heist / Cop thriller sounds OK right?<br /><br />Chaos looks good: nicely framed, good production values, high concept action heist... <br /><br />But...<br /><br />The plot has the unique achievement of being both smart and incredidly, blatantly implausible in the "how we actually got the money" mode and overcomplicated in the "who done it and why" section at the same time...<br /><br />In addtion, Ryan Philippe shouting is NOT, seriously NOT either tough or scary...and he is especially not tough or scary when throwing a tizzy fit. Honestly, his great outburst is the only really funny scene in the whole film. Must make him thrilled that he turned down the role of Anakin Skywalker and is now doing this.... <br /><br />Stratham is normally good as the tough but silent hard nut with the self-deprecating humor, but here, the extra relationship lines are so laughably bad that even he looks uncomfortable saying some of the clichéd mush required. More silent seems best? <br /><br />Snipes is actually OK in a typecast way, but another nail in a talented actor's coffin: he needs an actor's role not an action hero rehash. Perhaps that business with his taxes will allow him to break that mold and the public and critics will let him on the sympathy vote. It would be good if he wasn't so typecast all the time.<br /><br />The lines these guys speak when they're not doing the plot development and detective work can be summed up in one word.... pheeeuuuh.<br /><br />The film feels all out of whack and it never gels: I found it irritating for the first 45 minutes, and the tighter last part was passable. It should /could have been good but it just can't redeem the awful lines, the overwhelming score, and the general level of irritation with the levels of plausibility. <br /><br />Overall I nearly didn't make it through: incredibly irritating, and Ryan.... please, please, please get rid of the goldilocks.... | negative |
I'm astounded and dismayed by the number of reviewers on this site who did not get the point of Black Snake Moan. It's not about black/white relationships or old/young relationships, though I think director Craig Brewer deliberately threw in both elements to tweak imagined taboos. It's not about sexual abuse or sex addiction, though Christina Ricci's character, Rae, typifies those. It's not about folk religion in the black community, though religion plays a large role. It's not a love story, though there are not one, but two happy couples at the end. And it's certainly not about the south, where "everything is hotter," though it's set in the south and it's undeniably hot; holy smokes, even the tag-line writers didn't get the point.<br /><br />Black Snake Moan is a parable about Mississippi Delta Blues; who feels them, who writes them, who plays them, what they're playing about, how it heals them.<br /><br />It's as though the film producers sat down with a blank slate and asked, "Ok, if we were going to help people understand what the Blues are really about, what would it look like?" So they set it in the rural south. Then they dream up two characters, one whose wife left him to live with his best friend, the other who goes off to war and his badly abused girl sleeps with everybody in town. Then, we throw in grizzled worldliness touched just a little by folk religion (they know Jesus wants their lives, and though they respect Him, they know they can't give Him that), some violence between men and women, and lots and lots of steamy sexual images, including -- ready to go over the top? -- a black man in a sleeveless undershirt holding a half-naked white girl captive on the end of a 40 lb chain. Fill it with authentic delta blues sounds, make it about a genuine blues picker, use music as the main healing element in the plot, slap clips of blues-man Son House on both ends, and Voila -- you have a modern parable about what the Blues are all about. Even the film's climax is not character conflict, but the whole town dancing steamy dances to hot, raunchy blues.<br /><br />Of course, there's a bit of a dilemma here. Rae (Ricci) is being destroyed by uncontrollable lust, and is being healed by Lazarus' (Jackson's) homey religion and steadfastness (and don't forget the chain.) But then, we're shown the restored Rae dancing raunchily to blues at the end. Is this an expression of a restored, healthy life force, or just more of the same trashy behavior that ruined her in the first place? Brewer wants it both ways, but blues really is about sex and violence, not to mention depression. I suppose he would say blues gives healthy expression to both (sex and violence) without unleashing either. I have my doubts.<br /><br />Not for the first time, Samuel L Jackson plays so well that we forget we're watching Samuel L Jackson; the man is unbelievably good. He even picks some of his own tunes in the film, and his playing is authentic, dirty, and hot. Christina Ricci isn't usually this good, either. Granted, half her job is done by the Costume That Wasn't There and her slinky figure, but she's a marvelous combination of cynical lust, rebellion, and vulnerability; bravo to her, she's arrived. I was impressed by the country preacher, John Cothran, Jr. I had to check the database to assure myself that he's a professional actor and not a genuine country minister.<br /><br />Parents need to be aware of what they're getting if their kids bring this one home. The language is pretty far off the charts, the first half-hour is full of graphic sex, and women are violated in a dozen ways during the course of the film (Lazarus means well and is decent, but honestly, chaining a woman to the radiator?) Plus, Ricci spends half the movie dressed for sex; if you've got teenage boys, they'll be licking the screen halfway into the film. I don't recommend this for kids of any age. Adults only, please.<br /><br />That being said, Black Snake Moan is informative and accurate about blues, folk religion, and sexual abuse, and tells a tale that's redemptive in lots of ways. It's unorthodox, but well worth the time. And, my goodness, is the sound track hot. | positive |
This flick reminds me some really bad science-fiction movies from 50's and 60's.It is not scary or interesting,but it's dull,cheesy and stupid.Special effects are laughable,all actors are ludicrous and the ending is simply awful.Don't waste your money,rent or buy something better.I give it 3.5 out of 10( I found this turkey quite amusing because of its stupidity). | negative |
I do not know which one was first released earlier in 1970 . Cannon for Cordoba is an "Europen Western" It was made in Spain. This means this is fairly inferior to Sergio Leone's so-called #Western Spaghetti and to the Real American Masterpieces of John Ford, Sam Peckinpah, Howard Hugues,John Sturges and Anthony Mann, in my order of merit. This order is not to be interpreted as all John Ford Westerns are better than all by Sam Peckipahn's. I think IMDb's 100 Sort them out all pretty well.<br /><br />The worse about this firm is the Casting. George Peppard is fit for a sergeant's role, Raff Valone for a "Maffia Capo" and Giovanna Ralli to a "puttana" in "Piazza Vennezia" in the sixty's in Rome. | negative |
Any horror film that casts Robert Englund (Freddie Kruger!) then kills him in the opening 5 minutes before the opening credits have even run should be instantly viewed with nothing but suspicion.<br /><br />Tony Todd (Candyman!) as a swamp tour guide (his James Earl Jones voice impression is hysterical by the way, I don't know or care if he was trying to be funny but I was laughing at it). Sadly his role was all of 5 minutes long as well. More reasons for suspicion and quite rightly so.<br /><br />Mercedes McNab (AKA Harmony from Buffy & Angel, I had to look her up to see what I remembered her from but she gets semi-naked!), Marcus the token black guy (Not Another Teen Movie) is filling a comedy role that really isn't required in a horror movie unless it's intended as a spoof.<br /><br />Joel Murray (Bill Murray's brother & Pete from Dharma & Greg) plays Shapiro, the guy shooting the gonzo video with the 2 cute girls. As they take a "Spooky Swap Ghost Tour" the 2 lead male characters meet up with some other folks and get run aground on rocks and have to leave the boat. So their now all isolated in the swamp at night in the rain.<br /><br />Once the real story of Victor Crowley has been told (his make-up looked like Sloth from The Goonies) we have established he is dead (well you aren't coming back from being hit in the skull by an Axe!) Once the old guy is attacked, despite pulling her gun and having a very clear shot it takes Marybeth more than 30 seconds to actually start firing at a guy who is hacking an old man apart with a hatchet. Is she stupid? Thats 29 second too long! In terms of plot there really isn't one (I don't class undead psycho as a plot, sorry) and the pacing is really bad as well. You have a killing, some running away, some light relief then some slow dialogue before beginning the cycle again.<br /><br />After an extremely long scene investigating a wobbly bush with a raccoon in it Victor appears again (with some sort of power tool) and kills the dark haired porno girl, he also manages to slice the tour guide in half with a Shovel? Once Misty is left on her own to keep lookout for Ben I felt it was pretty obvious she was going to be the next to die (I was right but you don't get to see it).<br /><br />Film makers? Rain will NOT extinguish burning gasoline, OK? Idiots! Obviously after the 2 near misses in the cemetery Marcus was next to die and Ben was hurt in the foot with the spike but they managed to find a boat after impaling Victor on the spike.<br /><br />She's pulled into the water by something unseen, he's trying to save her then she's suddenly pulled into the boat by Victor and is screaming and the movie abruptly ends.<br /><br />Yeah, just like that. No clue if Ben was dead (he seemed to be missing an arm) and no clue if Marybeth was going to survive and what happened with Victor.<br /><br />It's an awful ending and no doubt my verbal attack at the film makers got the last review deleted. So much for free speech, eh? | negative |
The first ten minutes of this movie about making an international movie in Belgium, are fine: you see real chaos on the set, a producer on the edge of a nervous breakdown, the cool has been-director (Mickey Rourke), the bad tempered star, etc. You have seen everything before, but it's well done. BUT THEN! The rest of the time the film just repeats itself: the same ten minutes over and over again. No climax, no dramatic development, no good acting, not even bad acting, it just goes on and on and on. Mickey Rourke has two good minutes when his character talks about his f**ked up career in a scene where reality and fiction meet. Altogether, that makes 12 good minutes.<br /><br /> | negative |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.