review stringlengths 32 13.7k | sentiment stringclasses 2 values |
|---|---|
Knowing what to expect (on the whole) from a Denzel Washington performance - quality, integrity, gravitas, wry humour - will prepare you for what to expect from his directorial debut. Much like Robert De Niro's A Bronx Tale, Antwone Fisher delivers the moving drama of the life of a young man and the effects of key figures in his life. Much as in A Bronx Tale De Niro played one of these key figures to the lead character (himself a character was born to play but was too old too) Washington takes a similar role in this as the fatherly councellor to the titular character - a character that seems like he should be played by a Washington from 20 years ago. Be thankful Washington is too old to play Antwone because if he had we would firstly be deprived of the wonderfully measured and intelligently nuanced performance he gives as the Navy councellor. However more importantly we wouldn't get to see the superb, we can only hope star making, turn from Derek Luke in the title role. Inevitably the character comes across as moulded in Washington's shape, however you get the impression this is not just because Washington directed it, not that Luke was trying to copy him, but that Luke is as genuinely powerful and thought provoking an actor as Washington. It took far too long for Washington to receive the Academy award he deserved for Malcolm X, Philadelphia, Devil In A Blue Dress and The Hurricane, let us hope that Luke does not have to wait so long. Also a great piece of casting was Joy Bryant as Fisher's girlfriend, Cheryl. While the part could have been a forgettable support or a standard 'girlfriend' role Bryant imbues it with life. Tender and intelligent the role transcends stereotyping with Bryant inhabiting it, and she makes the part significant and interesting. It doesn't hurt either that Bryant is possibly the most attractive woman you'll see on celluloid this year - the smile alone could thaw the coldest heart. Acting ability and looks - why isn't this woman in everything being made right now. Providing good support in a small role in Salli Richardson as Washington's wife Berta. Saying more with a silence or look than many Hollywood actresses can manage in an entire film she informs the audience of the entire storylines long before any exposition occurs. As for Washington's directing, as I said, it is the directing equivalent of his acting. Taking the story of a man few viewers will have heard of and making it genuinely interesting is a difficult feat which Washington achieves with aplomb. The film is neither rushed nor showy, but it never feels slow or dull. It is measured and nuanced, balancing the humour and drama perfectly. Antwone Fisher may not blow you away if you like big, explosive, plotless Hollywood films but for those who appreciate a finely crafted character piece, with excellent performances and steady well handled direction, this is for you. | positive |
I was true to my regard for Mr. Glover and Ms. Goldberg. I watched the entire film with my family and some friends. I have no idea what the movie was about. After much discussion, we all agreed that this was not one of their better efforts.<br /><br />It doesn't hang together very well. It is too choppy, and there is little comedy. I am disappointed. It could have been much better.<br /><br />I waited months to see this film based on the liner notes.<br /><br />Don't waste your money unless you are a completist and just want to see all of Mr. Glover's and Ms. Goldberg's films.<br /><br />It was a poor way to spend an evening. | negative |
During filming, was Vanessa Redgrave taking mogadon? It was like she was reading from an autocue. I've seen more life in a wooden spoon. Or perhaps that was all part of the character? whatever, it was very very annoying, I kept wanting to shake the screen to hurry her up. I read the book a long time ago & didn't like much about it except that Septimus's descent into madness was very well done - but I don't think Rupert Graves showed this very well, his acting was all on the surface. The connection between his life and Clarissa's is not very well done either but I suspect the attempt is to show the sacrifice soldiers made to enable people like Clarissa to continue their vapid lives. The film is very bitty and has no real unity to it. Hated it. | negative |
(Some Spoilers) It took some 19 years for Bruce Campbell to finally put his masterpiece " Man with the Screaming Brain" on the screen. But Campbell had to alter his story by having it, due to financial problems, take place in Sofia Bulgaria not where he initially wanted it to be filmed in Los Angeles California.<br /><br />In the film Burce Campbell plays US pharmaceutical tycoon Willian Cole who travels together with his spoiled rotten wife Jackie, Antoinette Byron,to the former Communist Republic of Bulgaria. It's there that William wants to help finance Bulgaria's almost non-existent mass transportation system.<br /><br />It's poor William's misfortune to get involved with both Gypsy woman Tatoya, Tamara Gorski, and her ex-boyfriend Yegor, Valdimir Kolev, an ex-KGB taxi driver. The two, William & Yegor, will unwittingly end up shearing their brains, inside William's skull,because of Tatoya's jealousy and vindictiveness.<br /><br />After Tatoya murders both William and Yegor their bodies are delivered to mad scientist Dr. Ivan Ivanowitch Ivanov, Stacy Keach, by his loyal assistant Pavel, Ted Raimi, to have their brains experimented with. Dr. Ivanov has this theory in that two heads are better then one. And now with the material, William & Yegor, available to him Dr. Ivanov at last is finally going to prove it. What Dr. Ivanov is going to sadly find out is that by fusing the two heads, or brains, together their brain waves will overlap and cause them to not only malfunction but turn against each other!<br /><br />William with Yegor's right lobe fused into his damaged brain is out to find Tatoya and make her pay for the damage she caused both him and Yegor. Yegor for his part is stuck in William's head who's likes and dislikes, in both food and drink, are totally opposite to his own. This causes a lot of tension and hostility between the two brains in them fighting for control of William's body!<br /><br />Things get even more screwed up when Jackie finding out that Tatoya murdered her husband William confront her in the dangerous and high crime section of Bravoda call Gypsy Town and ends up being murdered herself. Brought back to Dr. Ivanov by his assistant Pavel it's determined, with no body available,to plant Jackie's brain inside of an experimental robot that Pavel's been working on. The operation is a rousing success but the only drawback is that Jackie, with her brain inside the robot, has to have her brain recharged every few hours! Or, like a real brain lacking oxygen, she'll die together with the robot's batteries.<br /><br />Combination 1930's-like screw-ball comedy and horror flick with both William & Yegor turning the Bulgarian town of Bravoda upside down in trying to find Tatoya and make her pay, with her life, for the sad state of existence she put them both into. <br /><br />***SPOILER ALERT*** It's Dr. Ivanov who in fact saves the day by discovering how to keep the two brains from fighting, and thus cooperating, with each other! This is done by him instead of fusing the brains together Dr. Ivanov keep them independent by implanting a neutralizing cell wall in between the two uncooperative globs of gray matter. | positive |
Sorry, gave it a 1, which is the rating I give to movies on which I walk out or fall asleep. In this case I fell asleep 10 minutes from the end, really, really bored and not caring at all about what happened next. | negative |
A group of young adults get stranded in the back of the beyond, where the only place in the vicinity is a museum full of wax dummies, and the only form of help is affable local Mr. Slausen (Chuck Connors). As night falls, the kids get picked off in record time.<br /><br />An odd, freaky B movie that combines the creepiness of backwoods settings with the plot device of all-too-lifelike mannequins (making this a good update of the "bodies in the wax museum" genre), this is an intense shock fest along the lines of "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre". (It should then come as no surprise that TCSM art director Robert A. Burns repeats that duty here, and his eye for great set decoration always comes in handy.) Pino Donaggios' score is downright chilling; accompanied by the murky photography of Nicholas von Sternberg, it drenches the film in oppressive atmosphere.<br /><br />Plot twists vary in level of success; there was one that I saw coming a mile away, and one that actually took me by surprise, and I was all the more happier for it. One of the best moments is shared with us almost right up front, as the first chump victim is trapped in a room with objects flying at him of their own volition. The capper is a great impalement by pipe with blood dripping out of the end.<br /><br />Star Connors offers an engaging performance as our down-home good ol' boy antagonist, while the younger co-stars, predictably, can't perform at the same level, although Jocelyn Jones is a likable enough and certainly winsome lady who has enough appeal to rate as a sympathetic damsel-in-distress. Co-star Tanya Roberts (a brunette in this film) is okay in support. (If I had one problem with this film, it's just that the victims are a little too stupid. Then again, that doesn't make this much different from many horror films of the 80's.) Future notable names among the credits are future directors Ted Nicolaou, who was the editor here, Ron Underwood (who made a great debut almost a dozen years later with "Tremors") as the assistant director, and veteran makeup artist Ve Neill, who's done many films and won three Oscars since.<br /><br />Although some horror fans may be disappointed by the lack of nudity and sexual elements, this is otherwise a nice little surprise that debuting director David Schmoeller delivers with conviction and gusto. Recommended.<br /><br />8/10 | positive |
What can I say about this band, I was hooked in 68, I was a ten year old kid, I grew up on the Blues though my Dad, then these guys from the Midlands came along, a fusion of Country rock, Heavy Rock and Blues, I wish I could have got to see them live in the early years, I was lucky enough to be there in 79(Knebworth) that was the best concert I've seen to date, I hope a full version of that hot August night will be realest soon. This CD gave me a chance to see the boys over and over again, The Song remains the same is great but This CD gets down to the nitty gritty.<br /><br />Long live the Zepp. | positive |
To me Bollywood movies are not generally up to much, though they are still quite desired and Bollywood is a big file maker as they have their own fans.<br /><br />The only motive that made me watch the movie was to see to what extent an American actress could change or affect the logic that Indian movie were based on. Not only did not it change the movie story also this blending caused some ridiculous series of events.<br /><br />I mean it is quite common to see heaps of illogical things through Indian movies as they have their own world in their movies. But once you see such incidents happen to an American it makes you laugh. For God's sake can you believe a famous American actress is stuck in desperate situation and feel impotent. Can you imagine an American actress falls in loves with a dance instructor whose fiancée already fell in love with American's boy friend and they met each other at the same time. There were lot of similar things to mention. the less said the better.<br /><br />Perhaps I was wrong as I expected too much from Indian Movies. | negative |
"Rattlesnake! Look out!" "Is that a bra you're wearing or are you expecting an assassination attempt?" "Spaz, what are you a homo or what?!" "OK way to go you guys! feed Fink, he's our hot man" "Do you know they use the most sophisticated training methods from the Soviet Union, East & West Germany and the newest Olympic power, Trinidad-Tobago." "Oh Spaz you old make-out master!" "What, no mustard?!" "Oh my God his nose is bleeding." "it's gonna get even bigger now" "Our political roundtable...Henry Kissinger will appear. Yassir Arafat is gonna come out, spend a weekend with the kids just rap with them."<br /><br />These and many other great lines make Meatballs a hall-of-fame comedy. Only in Caddyshack is Bill Murray funnier. He probably ad-libbed half the lines. The high school actors seemed to have a blast being in the same movie with him.<br /><br />Hilarious movie to watch any time of year, not just the summer. | positive |
Shot on an impossible schedule and no budget to speak of, the movie turned out a lot better than you would expect, certainly much more true to the Peter O'Donnell books and comic strip than the previous two films. You can read the strip currently in the reprints from Titan Books, or in Comics Revue monthly. It is one of the greatest adventure comic strips of all time. The movie isn't great, but unlike most low budget films it makes the most of what its got, and it holds your interest. On the DVD extras, the interview with Quentin Tarentino, who is obviously stoned, is a gas. Some people have faulted Tarentino for associating his name with the film, but without him it would never have been made. He is a Modesty Blaise fan, and picked a good writer and director. All things considered, worth 8 stars. | positive |
"This film is great! I watched it with some friends and we thought it was proof that a film doesn't have to see commercial success to be a hit!" ...is what I would love to be able to say about this film. In the words of the film itself "you are very very bad!" I went to see an unlicensed acupuncturist once so generally agree with the moral of the film though.<br /><br />i'd include a spoiler, but the lack of plot makes this very tricky. overall, a cinematic disaster.<br /><br />quotes; 'you're not a leper at all!' 'you're beautiful, and i bet you're nice too' 'have you ever seen a naked man's body?' 'you couldn't break a piece of straw.'<br /><br />cameos in dubbing; Micheal cane x3, harold bishop, steve erwine, benjamin netinyahoo, yoda. | negative |
You know the saying "Curiosity Killed The Cat"? Well, I have heard so much about this film, from a magazine that named this one of the most shocking movies of all time, my 1001 movies you must see before you die, my sister who saw this at a film festival, and the I love the 70's show on VH1. I just had to see this movie since it was named the grossest movie of all time, and well, after viewing this film last night, I have to say that it really did live up to it's title. My God, this movie was so weird! I thought I really did see it all with some of the sickest movies and TV shows I've seen, some things I guess will always still feel like a shock.<br /><br />Well, Babs Johnson, aka Divine, has been named the filthiest person alive and a jealous couple named the Marbles are competing for that title. They want to take Divine out and be named the filthiest couple alive by kidnapping women, raping them, impregnating them, and selling their babies to lesbian couples. But it seems like Divine and her family of well... I don't know, seems to keep the title by having sex with chickens, butt lip syncing, eating dog feces, stuffing meat up their skirts, incest, and it just gets grosser and grosser.<br /><br />Pink Flamingos is horribly acted, horribly made, and well, just plain horrible. The reason for the 10 rating I'm going to give it is due to the fact, well, how could you rate this film? I always rate, so I just figure what the heck? Through the grossness of this film, you have got to give John Waters some credit, who the heck would ever think of this movie over 35 years later? To the cast and crew who worked on this film, you guys are just plain nasty!<br /><br />10/10 | positive |
Had the fun pleasure of viewing a new independent film called "Half Empty." I usually go out to the local cinema with my husband and feel as if we are held captive to the latest Sequel, or Prequel that Hollywood throws at us. This was DIFFERENT and surprisingly SO MUCH more entertaining than anything Hollywood spends millions advertising. When my husband and I go the movies, we go to be entertained and "Half Empty" did just that and the film did so in a smart manner that made me feel as if my trip to the movie theater was worth it. It is a funny, human, and surprising sometimes musical story that cleverly entertains in its simplicity. I especially enjoyed the scene with the 4 men singing in harmony in the bathroom. It is almost like an operetta. That particular scene reminded me of a scene in "Phantom of the Opera" when 4 of the performers did not just, i.e., they sang against one another in a friendly retort. I am not a film maven but this film was more enjoyable than any other major studio film I have seen lately. It is silly, funny, entertaining and amusing. Completely enjoyable which is what I expect from movies but rarely do they deliver like "Half Empty." | positive |
The first murder scene is one of the best murders in film history(almost as good as the shower scene in Psycho) and the acting by Robert Walker is fantastic.A psychopath involved with tennis star in exchange murders.That´s the story and overall this film is very good but theres one problem:why dosen´t Guy Haines go to<br /><br />the cop in the first place.4/5 | positive |
I am testing myself to watch 3 bad movies in a row to find out if watching 3 bad movies in a row could give me amnesia I have a dubbed to English version of this movie. Now let me go down the points Music Score: bad quality but at least it suits Story: it's about a guy who goes to a town and he meets his sheriff brother and they fight for farmers land from a major and he allies with mexicans to drive them out and Trinity and his brother try to teach them to defend it - The final climatic fight scene will confuse anyone about who the #### are the good guys Conclusion: better than I thought but I need to continue with this I am next going to watch the Dolph Lungren and Jean-Claudde Vanne Damme movie "Universal Soldier" pray for my sanity | negative |
The original exploitation classic-though far from enjoyable on almost any level concerning some guys who turn cats into human flesh eating monsters because the cat food they make is made with people is remade with scifi elements added. The cats can't get enough and when the flesh tainted food runs out the cats turn on their owners. Poorly put together on almost every level this is an example of the absolute bottom of the barrel material that used to actually play movie theaters in the early 1970's updated with alien cat and dog races battling for supremacy. Director Ted Mikel is a hack, but is so lovable a person (I generally like the guy thanks to his smile inducing interviews and commentary tracks) that you can pretty much excuse the garbage he mostly turned out. Mikels wanted to make films and he didn't care how they turned out so long as he was producing something. More power to him, but I wish he wouldn't subject us to his home movies | negative |
I saw this in a preview and it seems to have not been released in the U.S. Nonetheless, it was one of the more enjoyable little comedies. It concerns the rivalry between two funeral directors in a small British town. The plot [of the movie] gets a little out of hand in the third act but the characters are very enjoyable and memorable.<br /><br />The acting is great across the board. Sure to be overlooked in the crunch of blockbusters, this is a movie worth looking out for. I know I will try to catch this in the theaters again and/or buy the video. | positive |
I was talked into watching this movie by a friend who blubbered on about what a cute story this was.<br /><br />Yuck.<br /><br />I want my two hours back, as I could have done SO many more productive things with my time...like, for instance, twiddling my thumbs. I see nothing redeeming about this film at all, save for the eye-candy aspect of it...<br /><br />3/10 (and that's being generous) | negative |
I rented this film because it was a documentary and highly rated. It's more a study of a bastard son trying to find out who his biological father was, than anything about architecture.<br /><br />More than anything else, the underlying theme of the movie is that we have an eccentric, highly praised, possibly genius architect who had little regard for anything or anyone outside is profession.<br /><br />The tragedy of the film is the broken families he left. His baby-mothers came across more as scorned fans than irresponsible women, which can only have negative results on the children.<br /><br />That said, Nathaniel, the producer of the film and son of Louis Khan, came across as fairly stable and curious, if not bitter. The people he interviewed were of course more interested in talking about Louis Khan's buildings than his personal problems, but I find the mix of themes made the film interesting.<br /><br />As for his buildings, I found them like abstract art - strange, non-practical, and usually only appreciated by so-called critics. | positive |
Silly, hilarious, tragic, sad, inevitable.<br /><br />A group of down-and-outs team up with a "seasoned" crook to elevate themselves out of their poverty. Great idea...if you ignore the screwup factor.<br /><br />Nice to see George Clooney doing something genuinely funny for a change. The casting is perfect and the acting standards very high. Although it could be said that the motley crew subject isn't new, I think this movie handles it in an interesting and unique way. Sufficiently so that it stands out from what has gone before.<br /><br />Very well done guys. | positive |
I originally caught this back in 1996 in its one week run at a movie theatre. I was under impressed by it and my feelings haven't much changed.<br /><br />Documentary about the infamous Edward D. Wood Jr. covering his life and movies. There are interviews with people who worked with him or knew him. They include: Vampira, Dolores Fuller, Bela Lugosi Jr., Loretta King, Gregory Walcott and Paul Marco. Interviews are mixed with clips from the movies or some bizarre recreations. It is interesting (somewhat) but was this really needed? I've seen all of Wood's films and they're just terrible. Wood had ambitions but not a bit of talent to carry them out. I wouldn't say he was the worst director ever but he's down there. Do we really need a docu on a very mediocre film maker? I do like the fact that they didn't try to make Wood out to be some sort of saint. More than a few of those interviewed (especially Lugosi Jr.) pretty much hated the man and it comes through loud and clear. Also they totally ignore his films in the adult film industry in the 1960s and 70s. Still it's of interest if you're a Wood fan. The best interviews are with Vampira (who tears Wood apart) and Dolores Fuller (a long time girlfriend). | positive |
I can't believe I missed this one. Made in 1970 with a budget that would probably allow you to make one indifferent episode of a TV soap, this is 90 minutes of sustained, sharp as a knife film making. You will find the outline, plot etc elsewhere on this site.Consider though that the whole thing was shot using a single, hand- held,16mm camera... all the dialogue is improvised... none of the 'actors' had appeared in front of a camera before... It sounds like a recipe for disaster. Instead what we get is hippies v cops running around in the California desert in what evolves into a 'that's not fair.. i'm on that person's side'scenario. The only problem is, the director keeps making you shift your allegiance and at the end of 90 minutes we're still not sure who has one. Brilliant... Quite brilliant. | positive |
I picked up this movie for $5 dollars at a discount book store, Adam Sandler is a awesome actor and i figured it would be a good movie, well, it wasn't. There was absolutely no story line at all, bad jokes, and the other comedian said "The F-Word" every other word he said,cursing usually dosen't bother me but this was over the top. And even worse than the lack of story line was the parts when Sandler would just begin talking into the camera at random parts in the movie, it reminded me of Dora the Explorer when they turn and look at the screen and ask you questions. And last of all is when they would randomly put in Bikini shots of girls at random times in the movie. In my opinion, Don't buy this movie, its a waste of money | negative |
A friend of mine gave me this movie. A friend of mine is now in a hospital were a team of doctors are trying to surgically remove a DVD casing from his ***. <br /><br />I got quit excited by the prospects of an other Michael Chabon movie. After all his novels have brought me much entertainment and previous screenplay adaptations were great, but boy, was I wrong.<br /><br />First off the people that did the casting must have been asleep whilst doing so. I imagine the castings went something like this. "Tell me, do you like fish?" "Yes I enjoy fish very much." "Wonder full, you're hired. Have some money." <br /><br />Than there is the script. I have read Chabon, who I hope went blind before he could see this piece of dong, and it has absolutely nothing to do with his novel. I'm not quit sure why it annoyed me like it did, but it might have something to do with the fact that listening to a speech impaired 90 year old drunk duck hunter with a right cranial lobe dysfunction would have been a treat in comparison to the one-liners these 2nd degree model massacre kids spat out.<br /><br />This is an actual line from the movie; "If you tell me something that you've never said out loud to anyone before, than this moment becomes unique!" Unique? Does it? Does it really? Off course not you plank. Please pass me the Imodium. I'll have a whole ****ing strip. <br /><br />The directing is... well. I've got nothing. Maybe Rawson Marshall Thurber just got word his grandmother exploded or something. Stick to directing comedies. No stick to directing commercials. <br /><br />This movie is so horrible it left me banging my head against a wall so hard it brought me back to the stone age. I give it 2 stars because I don't wanna be the guy that watched a 1 star movie. | negative |
Ann-Margret did the best job she has ever done in her history of film making. I felt as if she WAS Mrs. Frey. There might be one or two films of Ann-Margret's I have not seen since her film debut in "Pocket full of Miracles" with Betty Davis in 1961. I feel she has been totally under-rated in the industry. Though she was nominated for an Emmy Award for this role in "Who Will Love My Children," she was overlooked. Like she was nominated for an Academy Award for her roles in "Carnal Knowledge" and "Tommy," she was snubbed. Over all, I think everyone did a superb acting job including all the children in "Who Will Love My Children." Yes, it is a sad movie (as true stories can be), but well worth the time. Thank you. | positive |
As much as the movie was good, i have nothing more to say about it than what was said already. all i wanted is to point the fact that the movie isnt from Sweden but from Denemark. Maybe I wrong and in that case i'll be happy to know my mistakes so take the and notify me. | positive |
It's perfectly ok that people dies in an animation, but there are just way too many death in this one. Start from the very beginning, the story is all around battles, fights, death, and revenge. It goes on and on for entire one and a half hour. It was interesting at the beginning, but I grew very tire after before the show was half way through. Unlike other animations, this one is lack of humor. There are not many interactions between the characters either. The good thing about it is the sword fight scene looks pretty good and the characters look nice. | negative |
One can deal with historical inaccuracies, but this film was just too much. Practically nothing was even close to truth, and even for the era, it was seen as silly.<br /><br />In defense of ford, it was revealed on an old talk show, that he was operating on the story as told to him by the real Wyatt Earp, who was obviously old, senile, and replayed the scene his own way. Earp told the director about the stagecoach, and how it was planned to happen during the stagecoach arrival, so despite what other historians claim, Wyat himself asserts that it was premeditated.<br /><br />This movie portrays Earp as an honest man, and also his brothers. History doesn't exactly say they were or weren't. Most people like to interject a bit of deceit and lawlessness into their characters, but that is nothing new. The truth is probably closer to them being the law abiding sorts of GUNFIGHT AT THE OK CORRAL. Men who saw it as a career, and believe me, in the old West, you didn't have time to think about too much else.<br /><br />Characters that don't exist, characters depicted dying at the corral who really didn't, all make this a weaker film. It is further weakened by Mature, who really didn't make a convincing Doc. He may be the worst cast choice ever for Doc, but at the same time we must remember that older movies were closer to the era and closer to a feel for the truth. After all, ford did get information first hand from Wyatt Earp.<br /><br />It is also weakened by the all so predictable events involving the Mexican girl. Hollywood was very pro Nazi in those days, and ready to kill off brunette women in very predictable fashion to show their patronage to Hitler idealism. This occurs in most movies until the eighties. It is no excuse, and does cheapen the art, however.<br /><br />The actors who play the Earps do well, and Brennan is always a thrill. In fact, Mature may be the only acting downside of this flick. Still, it is the weakest of the old OK Corral movies. | negative |
Oh Gawd. I want to time travel back to Monogram Studios and throttle someone in their 2 room front office for this sloppy musical. It is one watt above flat-lining for 60 of its 61 minutes and then actually shows (for the one thin minute, spread in milli-second blips across the hour) that there is real life talent being badly photographed.I just don't see the point of going to some trouble to actually make this film that could easily be energetic and actually funny and allow lethargy to be the main thing on view. The weird storyline shows cranky vaudeville trouper Grace Hayes bulldozing her blowsy way into a college where her rat-bag son is rich college clown. She's gonna fix his playboy ways, no matter what.Her real life son (weird looking) Peter Hays plays her screen son. His real life wife plays her secretary. Talk about nepotism. I suspect this talent package was almost the raison d'etre for Monogram financing this back-lot musical produced by resident schlockmeister extraordinaire Sam Katzman. As with other Monogram musicals it just looks more like a reason to film recent new furniture purchases and light fittings in order to show off to other studios that Monogram Pictures are 'lavish' in their B grade ways. Have a ghastly look at SWING PARADE OF 1946 for genuine evidence of this: they just constructed this gigantic nightclub set then found an excuse to film actors and musicians running all over it. Story? None. Anyway ZIS BOOM BAH is more BAH than BOOM. Where was Gale Storm and Mantan Mooreland when Monogram really needed them? Probably standing at the boom gate of PRC Pictures wondering if it looked safe to enter there. Junior jive hepster Roland Dupree springs to life to rappety tap his teen legs around two wobbly dance numbers, especially in the 'big show' finale set in the new and expanded malt shoppe/club set. The usual crumpled curtains are loosely hanging on the back wall, and the stage set of mis matched drapery even has one dark main rag that is yanked back and forth as each amateur sequence elbows past the previous one. The chorus girls and their very plain looking partners in this finale just look like Monogram office staff borrowed (from typing and carpentry) for the morning of filming. They have absolutely no dance talent and are so ordinary on screen... ALL the girls look like they are all called Joyce. There is even a costume calamity where they wear frilly hot-pants...on one leg only. It is all so awful and crummy...and actually annoying when one more tweak up by all concerned would result in ZIS being actually FUN. The one strangely interesting thing is the dialog delivery between Grace and her son/daughter in law: it is so casually delivered that it actually works in spite of the script and logic. She has a very life like presence which is the only thing that allows the ridiculous story to be slightly compelling. The Dupree kid is the real star. He can actually do something...in spite of looking like a tubby Liberace tap dancing teen... You read that right. | negative |
I was watching the beginning of this on a Friday, mid-day, while working at computer at home, relaxing a bit after a hectic week, and cleaning-up some files and answering some communications. Got interrupted a couple of times, so had trouble getting all the details straight (although it's hardly a work of Hitchcock proportions, where missing a detail can through the whole story off-kilter), and besides it was not exactly an "engrossing" piece of work.<br /><br />So during a commercial, read the only prior comment here (by "mgconlan-1"), and pretty much can agree with its details.<br /><br />Not quite in the category of a film so awful it is fascinatingly "good," but I'd like to catch on tape when run again (rather than seeing it as aired), so I can fast forward as needed and see the parts which I missed this first time.<br /><br />Give it a "3*" because of the attractiveness of the four primary characters. | negative |
Mr. Bug Goes to Town was one of those films that I grew up hearing about, however a copy could never be obtained until now. I just watched this film on DVD and thought it was a delightful and charming film, with wonderful animation, a good plot and great songs. If this film was made by Disney then the film would be considered a classic, however because it was made by a little known film studio that is long gone, the film has slipped through the cracks.<br /><br />The film was made by the Max Fleischer studios at their Miami, FL studios and was released through Paramount Pictures. The film was to have had its premiere on Dec. 7th, 1941, the date of the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Though this probably did hurt the release of the film, the film did play at some movie theaters for up to a year as evidenced by doing some research. The film was called a family favorite by most of the major American newspapers. The film continued to be re-released about every year or so, usually around holidays like Easter, at least in major cities.<br /><br />In the mid 1950s, this film was re-released under a new name "Hoppity Goes to Town," named after the lead character in the film.<br /><br />The film is a true period piece, capturing a slice of Americana as it was back in the late 30s and 1940's. The animation is great, and many of the characters are very cute. The animation of the humans in the film is via the rotoscope process, meaning that actors were filmed and then that footage was traced over by animators, giving the movement a very real look.<br /><br />The Fleishcher studios were one of several animation studios making animated cartoons back in the 30s and 40s. While some of the Fleischer characters like Betty Boop, Popeye and the Superman cartoons are better known, the work of the studio is more or less forgotten.<br /><br />Almost as a whole the body of work of the Fleischer studios are in the public domain. All of the Superman cartoons are public domain, all but one of the "Color Classics" series are public domain, and the film "Gulliver's Travels" is also in the public domain. This film never appears to have been released in the US on VHS or DVD but was released in Europe. However some looking around on the internet can very quickly produce you with a copy. I recommend the search. | positive |
In the late 1940s there was a short film series entitled "Flicker Flashbacks" in which excerpts from silent dramas featuring the likes of Mary Pickford and Blanche Sweet were played for laughs. Scratchy clips from antiquated old movies were rearranged, projected too fast, and given an overlay of jangly music and lame quips. The attitude expressed through this brutal treatment pretty much summed up mid-century Hollywood's view of its early days: silent cinema was considered hokey, florid, a little embarrassing, and only good for a chuckle. During the 1950s this attitude gradually began to change for a number of reasons. James Agee's famous 1949 essay on the silent clowns for Life Magazine was a factor, but television played a major role in reacquainting viewers with silent movies. Admittedly, the TV networks sometimes handled the material as crudely as the "Flicker Flashbacks" people, but higher-toned series such as "Silents, Please" treated the films with respect. Another milestone was Robert Youngson's compilation feature THE GOLDEN AGE OF COMEDY, which proved to be something of a surprise hit when it was released to theaters late in 1957.<br /><br />I don't know if Charles Chaplin was aware of Youngson's film or its success at the box office, but it was around this time that he decided to launch a theatrical re-release of three of his best short comedies, A DOG'S LIFE, SHOULDER ARMS (both made in 1918), and THE PILGRIM (made in 1922 and released the following year). These three movies happened to work well as a trio since they contrast nicely in plot, theme, and setting. In addition, all three feature familiar faces from Chaplin's stock company, some of whom play multiple roles in each short. At the time of the re-release the films hadn't been publicly screened in over thirty years, so perhaps Chaplin was concerned about maintaining his reputation with a new generation of movie-goers, especially since his best work was seldom shown on television in the new medium's early days.<br /><br />Unfortunately, Chaplin apparently concluded that the films moved too quickly at the old silent projection speed, so the decision was made to "stretch-print" them, which meant that every other frame was printed twice. Maybe he wanted to avoid the 'Flicker Flashbacks' look, but this wasn't the best way to go about it. Aesthetically speaking, the results were awful and practically destroyed the movies' flow of action, but nonetheless that's how THE CHAPLIN REVUE was released to theaters in 1959, and that's the version that was transferred to video and made commercially available by Playhouse Video in the 1980s. I purchased a VHS copy of the movie at the time and was terribly disappointed with the jerky, stop-and-start rhythm of the films.<br /><br />It's a particular pleasure to find that David Shepard's restoration of Chaplin's compilation (originally produced for the laser-disc format) is a vast improvement over the Playhouse Video version. For the most part, the projection speed has been corrected. The "stretch-printing" is gone at any rate, though the action seems to drag a bit at times. For example: in A DOG'S LIFE during Edna & Charlie's awkward dance in the Green Lantern Cafe, Edna's bare arms appear visibly blurred; at another point, during the trench scene in SHOULDER ARMS when Charlie is relieved from sentry duty, the action appears oddly slowed-down for a few moments, but this may be the result of a maneuver by the film restorers to cover a bit of decomposition. Over all, picture quality is fantastic considering the age of the movies themselves.<br /><br />Other bonuses: the REVUE begins with rare behind-the-scenes footage taken at the Chaplin studio. This includes shots of an obviously staged, jokey rehearsal session where Chaplin throttles diminutive actor Loyal Underwood, as well as scenes of Charlie at his dressing table putting on his makeup and trimming the famous mustache. These scenes are accompanied by Chaplin's narration, delivered at a rapid clip. Chaplin also composed a new musical score for the compilation, and in my opinion his themes for the REVUE rank with his best compositions, especially the pieces used during the café sequence in A DOG'S LIFE. The only exception is the song written for THE PILGRIM, a pseudo-Singin' Cowboy number called "Bound for Texas" sung 'Fifties-style by Matt Monro (sounding rather like Gene Autry), which is distractingly anachronistic and out of place. Otherwise, throughout the rest of the REVUE, the music is perfectly suited to the action and the atmosphere.<br /><br />It feels as though the Image release of THE CHAPLIN REVUE is, in a sense, its long-postponed debut, presenting these classic comedies the way they were meant to be seen all along. In this form, the REVUE ranks with Chaplin's most durable and enjoyable works. | positive |
Unimpressive and extremely low budget sci-fi without any charm and appeal. Even the scenes related with the fall of the asteroids are stolen from other movies with the same plot. It's just a bad rip-off of "Asteroid" (with Annabela Sciora) and "Deep Impact" (with Morgan Freeman). Mr. Hopper seems to be anxious to slip away from this pointless and dull sci-fi entry.<br /><br />I give this a 2 (two). And don't say I'm not a good guy! | negative |
Everyone told me this movie was downright not good, and sick etc. so I finally rented it and I was amazed . I thought the torture was gonna be much much worse, but it did get shocking near the end but that was about it. I wouldn't call it a horror movie, maybe a mystery or something under the category of Silence of the Lambs and/or Kiss the Girls. It did get stupid at times, but the rest of the movie kept me on the edge of my seat. 7/10<br /><br />Rated R - for strong torture, violence, language, and sexuality | positive |
Samuel Fuller's Pickup on South Street is anomalous: A "Red Scare" movie devoid of hysteria, in which the Communist threat is nothing more than the McGuffin that ignites the plot. Pickpocket Richard Widmark relieves loose woman Jean Peters of her wallet containing a strip of microfilm; unbeknownst to either of them, it harbors secrets vital to the Cold War. Peters, as it happens, was under surveillance by FBI agents who are as nonplussed by the theft as the man who's running her, cowardly comsymp Richard Kiley. In trying to retrieve the precious film, both sides enlist the help of Thelma Ritter, a streetwise old jane who's always on the earie and willing to sell what she hears.<br /><br />Fuller draws from an opulent palette of tempos and tonalities in telling the story, which becomes a race against the clock of escalating brutality. From the subways to the waterfront, his midsummer Manhattan takes on a sweaty sheen that's almost pungent. The love scenes between Peters and Widmark become an unstable mixture of the tumultuous and the tender, and they're scored to "Again," a song introduced by Ida Lupino in Road House, also starring Widmark. The pace slackens for Ritter's beautifully written and played death scene -- among the most poignant vignettes in all noir, and a kind of mirage-oasis in a film parched of sentimentality. This is writer/director Fuller's only work in the strictest confines of the noir cycle; his later explorations of American pathology (The Crimson Kimono, The Naked Kiss, Underworld U.S.A.) never resulted in a synthesis as satisfying as Pickup on South Street. | positive |
It has to be said that this film is definitely one of the better "bargain bin" movies out there - I'd feel a bit cheated if I had paid £15 for it, but at about £1.50 I felt that I definitely got more than my monies worth. <br /><br />The film can't quite decide if it wants to be "Mad Max" or one of the Clint Eastwood "man with no name" spaghetti westerns, and as such is stacked with clichés from both. Even the manic loony who hangs out with the bad guys in "Mad Max" is there.<br /><br />That guy from "Blade Runner" also cops a good billing, although he only turns up at the beginning and the end of the movie.<br /><br />Favourite bit - for me the punch-up on top of the oil refinery - if you look closely you can see the "post-apocalyptic" rush hour traffic thundering past in the distance as the two protagonists knock seven bells out of each other.<br /><br />Get several lagers in, a few pizzas and sit back and enjoy what is ultimately lightweight but entertaining drivel. | positive |
**MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS**<br /><br />The titular topless heroine rescues another beautiful babe and her father (an eccentric professor whose stock pith helmet is broken in one shot and whole in the next) from a moth-eaten, dime-store mummy and nasty Nazis out to--what else?--build a Fourth Reich. Misty's costume, like those of some other wimmen, gets skimpier as the movie rolls on. The last portion of the movie is devoted to protracted lesbian action; this footage actually gets real boring, real fast, which says more about the critters behind the camera than the curvaceous creatures in front of it. MISTY gets its nominal plot out of the way first and fast, then gives undivided attention to nudity and soft-core sex. This makes MUMMY RAIDER a throwback to movies made in the 1960s by guys like Stan Borden, David F. Friedman and Harry Novak. Just think: if this wonder-work had been cranked out four decades ago, it would have played for years on 42nd Street along with WHAM BAM THANK YOU SPACEMAN and KISS ME QUICK. As it is, MISTY MUNDAE MUMMY RAIDER went straight to home video. Grab yours, quick, before it goes out of print. | negative |
I joined this site to see what comments people would make about this absolute disaster of a film. I wasn't drawn in for even a second. The characters were all one-dimensional. They threw every topic they could think of hoping something would stick. I would bet (and hope) that everyone involved in Teachers looks back with embarrassment. There are some great actors here but you would never know it. Thank God it didn't destroy Morgan Freeman's or Judd Hirsh's or Nick Nolte's or Laura Dern's careers. There was no vision, no labor of love here, only a horrible effort gone wrong. BTW I don't think the writer ever set foot in a real school. | negative |
This is one of my favourite films; a delightful comedy; so I was thrilled to learn it is about to be released on DVD in the UK, September 2007.<br /><br />Romuald, played by Daniel Auteuil is a rich company president of a dairy firm. Juliette, played by the excellent Firmine Richard, is a cleaner of the company's Paris offices.Juliette, a black mother of several children, discovers a plot against Romuald who initially ignores her attempts to warn him. Slowly he grasps what this charming lady from the Parisian underclass has been trying to tell him. 'he seeks shelter in her crowded apartment as his marriage and career fall apart. An unlikely love blossoms. Cultures clash in what is a truly delightful light-hearted comedy. | positive |
I am and was very entertained by the movie. It was my all time favorite movie of 1976. Being raised in the 70's , I was so in love with Kris Kristoffersons look and demeanor,of course I am no movie critic,but for the time era,I think it was very good. I very much like the combo of Streisand and Kristofferson. I thought they worked very well together. I have seen the movie many times and still love the two of them as Esther and John Norman. I am a very huge fan of Kris and see him in concert when I can. What a talented singer song writer,not to mention,actor. I have seen him in many movies,but still think back to A star is Born. | positive |
I'm going to keep this review short and sweet....<br /><br />I saw the trailer for this and thought I'd give it a whirl 5 minutes in and my initial thoughts were "what the hell is this?" But after 10 minutes I was hooked and after 20 I was picking my jaw up from off the floor. This film is a great example of how different a movie can be, and furthermore it's french. This film is high art eye candy wrapped up in a tidy futuristic film noir package, the motion capture is very clever and the black and white animation style which has no grey although at first didn't do it for me totally captivated me and by the end of the film and I found myself wishing every film was made like this. I think my opinion was helped by the great dubbing it would have been very easy to ruin it had they not landed so many respected actors as many voice actors give no feeling to the characters (Just watch any Hong Kong legends film in English to see a perfect example)I gave it 9 although I gave it an extra 2 because of how fresh and new the whole thing feels.... | positive |
This film is pretty good, it actually is like a good wine, it gets better the more you watch it. The pace is pretty slow for such a high octane topic, but the cinematography is beautiful and surreal. There is a cool blue tint that "rides" the whole film. There is also one great performance in Gabriel Casseus' performance of the character "Midget". He is terrific. Why doesn't this guy work more. If the film got better support, he probably would have. | positive |
This is probable one of the worst movies i have ever seen.<br /><br />The only reason i gave it 2 stars out of 10 is the appearance of the gorgeous Lydie Denier in some of the scenes.Despite her 42 years she is an amazing woman in every aspect,her nude scene in the bathroom with Armand Assante is as hot as hell.<br /><br />Anyway about the movie,well nothing really interesting to say,a Neonazi and a Turkish gang fight over Berlin in scenes that include people open firing on the street in daylight and inside a club where 30-40 people fire at each other with machine guns in a place no bigger than my house and amazingly after some hours of firing just three die and ten are injured LOL.<br /><br />While the gangs fight over Berlin terittories a serial killer is killing young children and then dumps them painted white on various places around town.<br /><br />Armand Assante appears as the Turkish detective who although now working for the police was an ex leader for the Turkish gang and now is up to solve the serial killer crimes.<br /><br />The movie is obviously a very bad rip off of the classic M movie.The killing of the children,the involvement of the underworld,the character of the serial killer and the ending scene with the "trial" of the serial killer are more than influenced from this classic movie.<br /><br />The acting is terrible,the script just stupid,the production of the lowest standards possible and in general this was a great waste of time and money.<br /><br />Don't even bother renting this one. | negative |
If you want to laugh like crazy, rent Cage. Cage is about two war heroes, Billy and Scott who are best friends. When Billy is shot in Vietnam, he is unable to fend for himself, so Scott takes him in.<br /><br />I have never seen a movie with more gay references to the two main characters. Billy and Scott love to "wrestle" and Scott tells Billy that he is "still sore from last night," among other things.<br /><br />Wonderful catch phrases like "Shut the sh!t up" and "Ping Pang Pong, cut the sh!t" will keep you laughing for hours. The native American guys that are supposed to be playing Mexican gang members are also top notch. As they say, it's "party time right now. Ba-ba-ba-ba ba-ba." I could go on forever, but just watch this movie and laugh your a$$ off. It was so funny I went out and bought the DVD for $5.99 | negative |
I would give this movie a good strong 7. While it definantly isn't the greatest movie, or even one the best movies of it's kind (The Killing Fields is better) it does at least attempt to tell a necessary story.<br /><br />I think the method of introducing Laura into Burma was a bit contrived. First of all, Burma isn't exactly the easiest country to visit, especially in the late 80's. Secondly, if you did make it Burma, your passport would not get lost. A sane person would make darn sure they knew where their passport was at all times. With that in mind, I'm sure the screenwriter knew that was weak, but needed something. Patricia Arquette's performance was understated, and I just didn't buy that she was a doctor. However, at least she didn't overact the role, which often happens in movies like this. U Aung Ko was good, but also understated. The end is hard to follow, since most of the dialogue is in Burmese, with people translating for Laura. It would have been difficult for Laura, and is difficult for the viewer as well. Another plus is the strong SE Asian scenery in the film, which was enjoyable to see. | positive |
I saw this movie last night at the Phila. Film festival. It was an interesting and funny movie that had some endearing and moving scenes. Peter Falk was excellent as was the rest of cast. They were believable and played their roles well. The movie may have gone a bit long and the conclusion was okay. The audience laughed at the right places. The family dynamics were terrific and though this was a Jewish family, they could have been Italian, Irish or any other including Greek. I recommend this film if you are interested in laughing at a subject that isn't often handled that way. IOT makes you think about the consequence's of your actions and how they affect others in your life and those who are not clearly in your life. | positive |
how does anyone keep on seeing horror movies after this one??? really this one it's so bad that makes me sick!! and love horror movies but come on....... who could had remembered to do such a awful movie? It as no history!!it's only a men who chases a bunch of teenagers because they take something from him !!! and what have they took?? gold....it's typical.... The movie is boring from the beginning until the end!! And what is Karen black who is a great actress doing in such a ridiculous movie like this? but what can I say ?? I think everyone should see it because my opinion is my opinion!! may be you would like??? I don't think so but..... | negative |
The fact that after 50 years, it is still a highly watchable movie, says a lot about it. It is more intelligent and interesting than almost all recent movies of the same genre you can find, and has a certain endearing feeling of innocence to it. I am not a big fan of this type of movies, but I could watch the whole thing without being bored, which makes it a good movie to watch with someone who does not necessarily share your taste in films. I liked the black and white palette, the excellent casting, the clever heist scene that keeps you guessing about what trick they will pull next, and the ending like everyone else. Watching the heist sequence makes one realize the power of silence, which is unfortunately so underused in today's cinema. | positive |
My giving this a score of 3 is NOT what I would give the original Soviet version of this film. It seems that American-International (a studio that specialized in ultra-low-budget fare in the 60s) bought this film and utterly destroyed it--slicing a two hour plus film into a 64 minute film! Plus, much of this 64 minutes was new material (such as the "monsters")--so you know that this film bears almost no similarity to the original. The original film appears to be a rather straight drama about the Soviet conquest of space--though I really am not sure what it was originally! For insight into the original film, read Steven Nyland's review--it was very helpful.<br /><br />By the way, this was the third Soviet sci-film I've seen that American-International bought and then hacked apart to make a "new" film--standard practice to a company that was willing to put just about anything on the screen to make a buck--provided, of course, it didn't cost them much more than a buck in the first place!! This Americanized film was about two rival world powers (NOT the US and Soviets) trying to be the first to Mars. The tricky "bad guys" try but fail and the "good guys" rescue one of the idiot astronauts and then head to Mars. Unfortunately, they are temporarily stranded on a moon of Mars where they see some monsters (added by American-International) that are REAAAALLY cheesy and one does bear similarity to a certain part of a female's anatomy. Then, they are rescued--returning to Earth heroes.<br /><br />The bottom line is that the film was butchered--turning an incredibly beautiful piece of art (for the time) being turned into a grade-C movie. Because of this, the Soviets really had a reason to hate America! I'm just shocked that the horrible job A-I did with this film didn't convince them to refuse to sell more films to these jerks! It's worth a look for a laugh, but the really bad moments that make you laugh are few and far between. So, the film is a dud--not bad enough to make it a must-see for bad movie buffs and too dopey to be taken seriously. I would really love to see this movie in its original form--it must have been some picture. | negative |
Here's one of the more pleasingly scuzzy 70's blaxploitation grindhouse items; it's a pervasively low-rent pimp opus which comes across like a sleazier version of "The Mack." John Daniels, the studly womanizing hairdresser hero Mr. Jonathan in the immortal "Black Shampoo," gives an excellent steely portrayal of the Baron, a ruthless, business savvy, forever on the make all-powerful flesh peddler who much to the dismay of his bitter, brutal Italian rivals reigns supreme over the Sunset Strip. When not locking horns with his fellow no-count criminal pals or doing his best to avoid being busted by the local vice cops, Daniels is leading a sweetly average existence as your standard garden-variety suburbanite dude (complete with caring wife and loving kids!) in some typically humdrum California small town.<br /><br />The glaringly absurd premise alone promises top-rate trashy greatness of a decidedly Grade B schlock picture variety (George Theakos deserves kudos for his hilariously ludicrous script). Matt Cimber's commendably tactless and tasteless direction delivers the junky goods by the slimy bucketful, thus making this film a hugely enjoyable serving of celluloid grime. Among the assorted squalid delights to be savored herein are plentiful gratuitous female nudity, coarse dialogue, beautifully gaudy Me Decade threads (halter tops, felt hats, sparkling Day-Glo jewelry, loud seersucker suits), an intensely funky R&B score by Smoke, some hopelessly pathetic acting (the little old lady who lives next door to Daniels is excruciatingly shrill), a memorably nasty turn by Patrick Wright as a sadistic goon, a couple of cool action set pieces (the climactic slow motion barroom massacre seriously cooks), more lurid travelogue footage of the Sunset Strip than you can shake a feather boa at (said footage allegedly includes "the actual hookers and blades of the Sunset Strip in Hollywood"), effectively dark'n'dingy cinematography by Ken Gibb, a few sicko sexual fetish tableaux, some raw explicit violence (a prostitute has one of her breasts cut off!), and amusing supporting performances by familiar schlock feature perennials Richard Kennedy and George "Buck" Flower as a pair of racist, corrupt, browbeating police detectives. Sure, this movie ain't art, but it's certainly artless enough to qualify as a deliciously grungy chunk of entertainingly sordid cinematic swill. | positive |
This movie was just so utterly horrible that I couldn't get through the entire thing without turning it off, it was just that bad! When I was watching it I kept thinking it looked like some really cheap film made back in the 60's or something with those terrible looking special effects, but then I realized that this was just made in 2001. <br /><br />The dialog and the acting were really very horrible and the plot was almost non-existent. I didn't think anyone would go back to making films that look so cheap and old, I'm not sure if they did that on purpose or if they really didn't have any budget for this movie at all. It really looks like it was shot on someone's camcorder at a local person's house or something. Maybe they thought they were being retro or something but it just comes off looking really cheesy.<br /><br />I really don't know how anyone could ever actually enjoy watching this.<br /><br />0 out of 5 *'s. | negative |
Of all movies (and I'm a film graduate, if that's worth anything to you), this is THE WORST movie I have ever seen. I know there are probably some worse ones out there that I just haven't seen yet, but I have seen this, and this is the worst. A friend and I rented it one night because Denise Richards was on the cover. Talk about being young and retarded. She's uncredited! Her role was unbelievably small! How did she make it on the cover!? IMDb doesn't even list it in her filmography. This movie was so bad, we wrote a little note to the video store when we returned it, and slipped it inside the case. It read something like "please save your further customers from having to view this complete and totally bad movie!" | negative |
The evil bikie gang in this movie were called the Savages, hence the title, but Minor Nuisances would have been a better name for this sorry mob of weak actors trying to look dangerous. Whenever they wanted to kill someone, they generously rode their bikes very slowly so that their intended victim could easily avoid them or push them off their bikes. Their leader had a bad limp, but still thought he could take on the hero and win. As for Karen Black, she didn't seem to know where she was for most of the film. | negative |
I've been using IMDb for a few years now, but have never written any reviews before. However, this movie so disappointed me (even with a modest score of 6.4 at the time of writing) that I couldn't keep quiet anymore.<br /><br />Noise is the story of a New Yorker (Tim Robbins)who is so perturbed by noise pollution that he takes on an alter-ego as a as a vigilante, "The Rectifier", and vandalizes any cars he finds with a car-alarm sounding.<br /><br />I take the name of the movie to be somewhat of a misnomer. Although there are one or two instances of other sources of noise being addressed or mentioned, the only true focus of our protagonist is car alarms. Car alarms, car alarms, car alarms. There is really no other focus. When the movie tries to tie other examples of noise pollution to the problem of car alarms, it seems to be just thrown in to give merit to the actions of Robbins' character. <br /><br />Yes, we're all annoyed by noise. Nobody likes the sound of car alarms. Of course we all have that internal urge to take a baseball bat to a shrieking vehicle, and this movie uses that fact, and pretty much that fact alone, to sell this movie. I say 'pretty much' because there is also a blatantly contrived sexual relationship (including a completely needless threesome) which is obviously thrown in for those movie-goers who need such things thrown in in order to enjoy a movie. Honestly, it's eye-rolling.<br /><br />Robbin's character, very shortly into the movie, becomes completely unrelatable. It seems less that he decides not to put up with the noise anymore, and more that by focusing so much on the noise he has begun to lose his sanity. The first half of the movie is essentially the story of how he turns from just an angry, car-bashing dude into this hero of the little guy, The Rectifier. However... the transformation doesn't take place. He just renames himself.<br /><br />I could go on for a while. Annoying generalized social commentary comes in every now and then to add to the pretentiousness of the movie, and the self-satisfied smirk which never quite leaves Robbins face doesn't help either. <br /><br />Overall, I think it's very obvious what this movie is trying to be, as it's pretty much shoved down your throat, but in my opinion, it fails in a big way. Just one guy's opinion, cheers. | negative |
This wretched movie shows that not even some of Gollywood's best can salvage a true landfill deposit..<br /><br />I could spend much time describing everything that was bad about this effort, but that would require more time and I've already wasted 91 minutes watching...IT.<br /><br />Looking at it now, after Brando's death, shows how tragic the life of one of our greatest actors had become.<br /><br />Donald Sutherland? Why? <br /><br />I have to fill more lines to get this accepted. I have to fill more lines to get this accepted. I have to fill more lines to get this accepted.<br /><br />Don't waste your time with this movie. I'm overdue to do something interesting. Bye. | negative |
What do you get when you put Lou Diamond Philips, Todd Bridges, Barry Corbin with a bad toupee, and an alien all on a train? You get a very bad movie called "Alien Express" or "Dead Rail" that would be more entertaining on Comedy Central's old series "Mystery Science Theater 3000." You name it, this awful movie suffered in areas of acting, plot, storyline, and special effects. In fact, the exterior passenger train shots looked like the production staff used a common HO scale model in front of a painted background! The rest of the special effects goes downhill from there.<br /><br />The plot is very predictable and is similar to two 1970's movies called "Horror Express" and a disaster movie called "The Cassandra Crossing." At least "The Cassandra Crossing" had a better cast, an engaging storyline, and real train scenes.<br /><br />If you want a good laugh and a movie to mock at a "B movie" party then watch this; otherwise, "Alien Express" derailed long before departing from the station! | negative |
well, the writing was very sloppy, the directing was sloppier, and the editing made it worse (at least i hope it was the editing). the acting wasn't bad, but it wasn't that good either. pretty much none of the characters were likable. at least 45 minutes of that movie was wasted time and the other hour or so was not used anywhere near its full potential. it was a great idea, but yet another wasted good idea goes by. it could have ended 3 different places but it just kept going on to a mostly predictable hollywood ending. and what wasn't predictable was done so badly that it didn't matter. the ending was not worth watching at all. sandra bullock was out of her element and should stay away from these types of movies. the movie looked rushed also. the movie just wasn't really worth seeing, and had i paid for it i would have been very mad. maybe i was more disappointed because i expected a really good movie and got a bad one. the movie over all was not horrifibly bad, but i wouldn't reccomend it. i gave it 2 out of 10 b/c i liked the idea so much and i did like one character (justin i believe, the super smart one). and it also had some very cheap ways to cover plot holes. it was like trying to cover a volcano with cheap masking tape, it was not pretty. anyway, if you see it, wait for the $1.50 theater or video, unless you like pretty much every movie you see, then i guess you'll like this one. | negative |
The world of the Dragon Hunters is a 3D gravity challenged world. Planetoids, bits of buildings and strange flat plants float around in the atmosphere while the ground towards most of the characters are falling is nowhere to be seen. It is a world reminiscent of Neverending Story, when the Nothing came to eat the world away.<br /><br />Funny enough, the villain here is the World Gobbler, as well. This time it is a huge skeleton dragon with fiery eyes. The heroes are a big yet taciturn warrior, an annoying and greedy sidekick managing the entrepreneurial side of the duo and a strange useless animal. They are joined by the most talkative little girl in the world who, to my chagrin, did not die a horrible painful and hopefully early death.<br /><br />The animation is great. The voices and the sounds are top notch. Too bad the story is as simple as one can possibly imagine. They go to stop the World Gobbler, they reach him almost immediately, they defeat him. The end. No real character development or story twists. Not even the ones I would expect from a movie with such a plot.<br /><br />Bottom line: it's a cute thing to watch, kids would probably enjoy it, but that's about it. No depth to this world (pun intended). | positive |
<br /><br />Never ever take a film just for its good looking title.<br /><br />Although it all starts well, the film suffers the same imperfections you see in B-films. Its like at a certain moment the writer does not any more how to end the film, so he ends it in a way nobody suspects it thinking this way he is ingenious.<br /><br />A film to be listed on top of the garbage list.<br /><br /> | negative |
This movie was in a sci-fi 50-pack a friend of mine got me for Christmas. It is very similar to the first Gozilla movie, and like that movie, has scenes with American actors inserted for no real reason. One interesting thing about the inserted scenes is that there's a Cold War tension portrayed between America and Russia. Like in Godzilla, Gamera is awakened by an atomic explosion and rampages across the world, paying close attention to Tokyo because no big monster movie is complete unless Tokyo bites it. All in all, this is an okay movie. Some of the scenes involving Gamera, particularly the scenes in Toly, are quite spectacular and have special effects that were pretty decent at the time. If you like Japanese giant monster movies, you'll really get a kick out of this one. I give it a 4 out of 10. Had this been the unedited Japanese version that I watched, it probably would've gotten a 5. | negative |
I saw this film when it was first released. The memory of how bad it was has stayed with me almost forty years. I didn't want to trust my own sentiments about the movie when I saw it, so I consulted a movie review published in a major metropolitan newspaper the next day- sentiment confirmed, the reviewer wrote that the movie was incoherent, indecipherable, and uninspiring. A little research reveals that the producer was star Leslie Caron's husband, thus the whiff of nepotism suggests the beginning for this awful film. The film's roster of many capable actors - Caron, Warren Oates, Scatman Crothers, Gloria Grahame, and James Sikking among others - suggests that it holds some promise. But the death of this film is attributable to its terrible screenplay. The "mystery" implicated is so obscure and so little revealed throughout the film that the viewer is left perplexed from scene to scene. The movie seems torn between being a detective mystery and an espionage thriller, but never settles upon one or the other. The sense of suspense is entirely absent. The main characters settle on playing dry, emotionless types in a fashion that inspires no empathy whatsoever. The cinematography is pedestrian. The result is that the hapless viewer loses interest in the characters, the plot, and, in the end, the film itself. I am little surprised that there is no version of this pathetic film available to purchase. I hope that if TCM finds a print of this film and feels compelled to air it that it is safely relegated to the 4:00 am slot. | negative |
This film has its share of negative comments and I have to agree with those who consider it one of the worst movies ever made. True, most of the films based on the works of King are pretty bad, but this one goes beyond bad into the realm of horrible. There is not one scary moment in it unless you consider stupidity scary. It is typical King garbage -- myths twisted around that made no sense in the first place, mixed with obvious and belabored so-called "scares" that are about as shocking as PeeWee's Playhouse (which, at least, is entertaining). It is full of ridiculous moments, not the least of which is Alice Krige's character. When she goes on a rampage and starts quipping like the villain in an old Batman TV show, it is so absurd as to be sickening. All the people who had cameos in this (including John Landis)are lucky they still have careers. But the most absurd part has to be the cat costumes towards the end, which look like cheap rubber outfits someone bought at K-mart. The best part of the movie is the appearance of some real cats who actually out-act the people in the movie. | negative |
This is one of my favourite kung-fu films and is regarded as one the most popular Shaw Brothers from the late 70's. The plot is interesting and twisty, the characters are cool each with their own style - toad, snake, lizard etc. The action is limited in comparison with other Chang Cheh / Venoms films but what is there is interesting with different kung-fu styles on display from the various characters. I recommend this film to those who think all Shaw Brothers especially Chang Cheh's films are the same, most of his films usually focus on the 10 tigers and Shaolin vs Manchu conflicts. This film is breath of fresh air in comparison. | positive |
Sergio Martino's The Case of the Scorpion's Tail is a scenic giallo from the early 70's heyday of the genre. An explosion on an aeroplane results in one million dollars in insurance money for a bereaved but unfaithful wife. The money is subsequently snatched by a black-clad assassin and a series of brutal murders follow.<br /><br />Scorpion's Tail plays the mystery element, written by giallo specialist Ernesto Gastaldi, fairly straight. But, being a giallo, the murders themselves are memorable and well-staged. In fact, the violence in this movie is very strong in places - a scene with a broken bottle being particularly graphic. The emphasis on the violence no doubt influencing the giallo genre to move into more and more extreme territory. But like the best films in the genre the brutality is offset by a good score and attractive photography. The music by Bruno Nicolai is at times reminiscent of Ennio Morricone's avant-garde work in The Bird with the Crystal Plumage but is also strong in its own right. The photography is helped by the nice use of foreign locales - in this case London and Athens - where Martino manages to get in, respectively, the Houses of Parliament and the Acropolis! There is also some inventive camera-work too, the most effective being the use of slow motion in a sequence where a woman runs towards the door where the maniac is prowling outside. In this particular scene Martino has the killer hack through the door with a knife in a manner influenced by Dario Argento's Crystal Plumage, however, it also has the killer attempt to flick the latch open with the blade of a knife which is something repeated later by Argento in Suspiria. So Martino's film is influential in its own right.<br /><br />This is a good solid giallo that both genre and non-genre fans can appreciate. The performances are good and the production values are fine (although the plane explosion is, shall we say, somewhat low-budget!). The DVD release by NoShame is nice. It has both the English and Italian language options which is a real bonus. However, it is worth pointing out that at times you need to be a fast reader to fully appreciate the English subtitle option. This applies to both the movie and the documentary in the extras. This is a minor point though, the DVD release is a worthy addition to any giallo collection. | positive |
This foolish, implausible tale is redeemed only by the opening scene in which a hard-boiled police detective delivers some nearly-audible lines confirming our greatest fears: He is dead. Perhaps the film would have been saved had the director forgone the dazzling star power of A. Martinez in favor of this sadly-anonymous actor who filled the screen for a brief moment. That a no-name hack-tor off the street could salvage such a dishwater film is no less likely than a villain committing murder by dropping stones into a quarry for an unsuspecting diver. His moment is brief; his promise is immense. Perhaps we will be treated to more screen time by this obscure thespian if there is ever a sequel to this ill-advised film. | negative |
ASTROESQUE (2 outta 5 stars)<br /><br />I have no idea what the title is supposed... even less of an idea of what is supposed to be going on in this movie half the time... yet, it still kept me sort of interested. This is low, low budget film-making along the lines of "El Mariachi", filmed in 16mm... and, for what it's worth, the shots are very well-composed and visually stylish. Directed, written by and starring comic book writer/artist Michael Allred... I guess it's no surprise that the film looks good. Unfortunately, some of the acting is beyond bad... and the rest is competent at best. Allred himself comes off the best... but only because he doesn't actually speak much. He just strides around looking cool most of the time... or running from crazed rednecks who are trying to kill him. The sound is also pretty bad... almost as if it was unfinished in places... maybe they couldn't afford to pay for the music they'd planned to use? Strange, vaguely science-fictiony plot... similar in tone to "The Man Who Fell To Earth"... but most of the film boils down to a standard run-from-the-bad-guys and kill-them-before-they-kill-you plot. Ultimately too oblique to be successful but not without interest for adventurous movie watchers. | negative |
Altman's Quintet has to be considered more than just flawed: As so many other reviewers have pointed out, the ideas behind the film, even some of the choices in depicting those ideas, ought to work--and yet very little in this difficult film does. The partially fogged camera lens--I remarked to my wife that it has to be the most distracting directorial conceit I've ever seen--never allowed me to get "into" the film's world.<br /><br />In general there are serious problems with the mise-en-scene employed here. It's clear that no small amount of thought went into factors like costume and production design, but neither is very effective in evoking a believable world. Perhaps it is a matter of scale; the film is so stage-bound that I laughed out loud once it was mentioned that "five million" people lived in the city. (Yes I understand the constraints of the film's budget. Matte paintings here and there might have helped.) In all the most disappointing Altman film I've ever seen. Great ideas and grand metaphors do not always come through in art--it's just part of the game. | negative |
This is possibly the most boring movie in history. I was really looking forward to seeing this movie given the actor/director Roman Polanski. I think I would rather see the Three Amigos than ever watch this movie again. It promptly went from the DVD player straight into the garbage. My apologies to those of you who apparently liked this movie however you probably liked New Coke as well. I am at a loss to see why anyone would have enjoyed this movie, it is slow, dull and has no real plot. You wait for 105 minutes for the movie to get started. I understand this was made in 1976 however this was an era of bad television all around. Thank god disco and Three's Company are gone along with stop sign glasses and the Bay City Rollers. Oh well just my thoughts. | negative |
Watching this film made me wonder, just why was Universal putting out films like this? They had a wonderful string of films with all the classic horror films. The dawning of the atomic age brought on an onslaught of giant creature films. Spiders, ants, praying mantis'. With The Deadly Mantis, we have a giant praying mantis flying around the arctic, scaring eskimos, and being hounded by the armed forces. The bug reaches a tunnel in New York where the soldiers eventually destroy it. Of course, this is all made much more watchable by viewing it on MST. Who thought it was a good idea to start the film out by showing a giant map? | negative |
Before 'Zavet' there was similarity between Tim Burton and Kusturica artistic vision. They find their own, poetic style, and then they cowardly become prisoners of it. Burton has (and still have) Depp, Kusturica has Miki Manojlovic, and somehow they got critical praise for repeating same formula over and over again. However, there are persons like me who find joke funny only when they heard it first time. That's main reason why Kusturica's worst movies are 'Black cat white cat' and 'Life is miracle'. 'Zavet' is something completely different. You may like it, you may hate it, but this is NOT just another Kusturica poetic Balkanic dreamlike stuff. Of course, if you want to be praised, you have to play safe. It was very easy for Kusturica to make just another flying gypsies movie and get award. Fortunately, as a brave person he chooses to make movie that will be ironic look to his previous works. 'Zavet' can be described as a strong and very harsh parody on previous Kusturica movies directed by Kusturica himself. It is beautiful to see one big movie director to not take himself too seriously. This is quality that Kusturica have and even the biggest, like Bergman or Kubrick, didn't have. This movie is so meaningless that becomes absurd, so absurd that becomes deep, and so unfunny that becomes hilarious. Same stuff that make 'Plan 9 from outer space' cult would made this masterpiece to people who knows how to watch it. Average western viewer would not get few references. Most notable, tire shop owner is Srbljanovic , and this refers to Biljana Srbljanovic, famous Serbian dramatic writer. Politically, she is very active as left oriented liberal, and she despises Kusturica's political views and anarchism. Kusturica's 'everything but not subtle' take to her work was to castrate Miki Manojlovic in Srbljanovic shop. Second reference is made to Goran Bregovic previous Kusturica's composer. He formed 'Funeral and wedding orchestra' and start performing around Europe. Although he is praised as big composer, Bregovic is just performer and most of his songs (if not all) are poor covers of traditional Serbian songs. Kusturica's take on Bregovic was to confront one wedding and one funeral, with funeral mocking the wedding. Also, music is covering western classics as 'London Bridge is falling down' or French lullabies. You find this unfunny? Now you see how we feel in Serbia when listening Bregovic's horrible covers. I really liked this movie because it is not pretending to be deep, it is so overfilled with symbols that it becomes parody, and it is beautifully directed, as all of his works are. If you like previous Kusturica's movies, there is a big chance that you will hate this. If you don't like couple of his last movies, you may find this as pleasant surprise, because this is like Fellini directing 'Pink Flamingos'. On purpose. I have massive respect for this guy after 'Zavet'. Next Tim Burton movie would surely have main character with pale faces. Next Kusturica movies can easily be about aliens invading Earth. That's the reason why he is most interesting director on Earth, whether you like it or not. | positive |
What a dog of a movie. Noni Hazelhurst's performance is quite good, but it sits amidst a jungle of abhorrent scriptwriting, mediocre direction and wooden acting from the bulk of the cast. Many of the characters are woefully miscast, particularly the ever overrated Colin Friels.<br /><br />Very little works in this pretentious garbage. Much of the "character development" is done through a silly, angst-ridden voice over and frequently completely contradicts the behaviour of characters on-screen. In fact, it's hard to even figure out who the voice overs are talking about because they describe such different characters to who we see on screen! How are we meant to know Colin Friels (Javo) is meant to be an erratic, violent and unreliable junkie? One of these silly voice overs tells us. For crying out loud, the nature of his character is half the point of the movie and the only thing that lets us know is a flippin' voice over! The real killer is the characters. Everything about them. Their clothes are perfectly maintained and look fresh from the rack, despite the fact we are constantly reminded they are meant to be artsy paupers. They are all absurdly well-spoken for "junkies". None seem to have any real comprehension of life on the skids or on smack and yet this is meant to be the case with most of them.<br /><br />Monkey Grip deserves no more attention than a weekday TV movie matinée. Crud like this, perfectly well shot and technically presented, but a cliché-driven angsty drama that shoots so wide of being plausible and meanders about for hours without really going anywhere. At least Noni gets down to her birthday suit at every given opportunity. There's no other sane reason to endure this junk. | negative |
Faith Akin has made me realize once more the deepness of my passion for this city called Istanbul. Being addressed as a city of cultural mosaics, Faith Akin has contributed to that addressing through the mosaics of music performed in the film. What's more, the climax of the film,in my opinion, is the scene where Muzeyyen Senar (a Turkish music diva) sings at age 86 as well as she had done in her younger years and rolls the raki glass in the air without pouring out one drop, which is a traditional act in raki culture. She is just marvellous. Sezen Aksu (a Turkish pop singer) with her mystical and meaningful looks at the end of her song which gives the film its Turkish title makes the scene no less than a climax. Last but not least, the wonderful scenery of Istanbul can make you feel nostalgic if you are away. Beware! | positive |
This, I think, is one of the best pictures ever made. It's so pure and beautiful. It really touched me. I'm glad David Lynch proved that a film doesn't necessarily need SFX, a twisting, complicated plot or flashy images. Way to go,Dave. I'd like to see Cronenberg do that! | positive |
Don't let my constructive criticism stop you from buying and watching this Romy Schneider classic. This movie was shot in a lower budget ,probably against the will of Ernest Marishka, so he had to make due.For example england is portrayed as bordering on Germany.BY a will of the wisp Victoria and her mom are taking a vacation to Germany by buggy ride alone.They arrived their too quick. This probably could not be helped but the castle they rented, for the movie, was Austrian. When she's told that she's queen she goes to the royal room where the members of the court bow to her, where are the British citizens out side from the castle cheering for their new queen? Why ISBN't she showing her self up to the balcony to greet her subjects ?Low budget!Where the audience back then aware of these imperfection? I wonder how the critics felt?Durring the inn scene she meets prince Albert but ISBN't excited about it. Durring the meeting in the eating side of the inn your hear music from famous old American civil war songs like " My old Kentucky home" , and "Old black Joe". What? civil war songs in the 1830's? Is Romy Schneider being portrayed as Scarlet?Where's Mammy? Is Magna Shnieder playing her too? Is Adrian Hoven Rhett or Ashley? What was in Marishka mind?Well this add to the camp.It's unintentionally satirizing Queen Victoria'a story. This is the only reason you should collect it or see it 03 11 09 correction Germany and england are connected | positive |
Since "Rugrats"' falling from the category of good and funny cartoon series to a mediocre and indeed outright horrible fare for two year olds in the past three or four years, obviously the tyrants at Klasky-Csupo should be out of ideas. After dumbing down all of the characters, adding even stupider new ones, replacing some voices (though I like Nancy Cartwright, she is NOT Chucky Finster!), and having no sense of continuity (ex.: in a Kimi episode I watched the other day, Tommy and Chucky each got a new puppy; but it subsequent episode, the aforementioned dogs never appear), you'd think the creators could kill the show for mercy. But noooo.<br /><br />All I will say concerning this special is that it sucks! While not as horrible as the Kimi episodes, everyone is even stupider than they were, including Grandpa (my God! He used to be the best character on the show, but now, he has no real purpose). The ending is needlessly fluffy, and the only thing different between this and other crappy new episodes ('98-'01) is that the kids can interact with adults. Whoa, what fun!<br /><br />No stars at all for "The Rugrats All Growed Up". Klasky-Csupo, please DESTROY this show before it gets any worse. | negative |
If you were enjoyed by watching "Guinea Pig" - then you'll like this movie to! "Psycho: The Snuff Reels" is a nice pseudo snuff movie with lots of sex elements. Actually the effects are not so realistic like in "Guinea Pig", but its still pretty gory.<br /><br />"Psycho: The Snuff Reels" contains 70 minutes of sex, fetish and then torture scenes. First 20 minutes is like a normal porno movie. After that you'll see fetish sex scenes. And last one is a torture scene. The guys torture and rape girl - they cut off her legs, hand, tongue... In the end guy rapes girl in her stomach (!) and after that other guy beat him and cut off his balls. Sounds pretty sick, isn't it?:) <br /><br />Like I said - it's pseudo snuff movie. "Psycho: The Snuff Reels" is pretty rare Japanese movie and as I know it's really hard to find it. But if you are crazy about that sort of films I believe that you can find it! | positive |
Before I saw this masterpiece I never would have guessed that a devastating and hideously contagious virus could be defeated by the use of Lutheran prayers... and "erbs". Ralf Moeller's performance is gargantuan; the realism incandescent. I was so inspired I'm flying straight to Zambibwia tomorrow to crack out the pesto and get my hands together for third world prosperity. God bless this film.<br /><br />Seriously, I'm going to have to watch Troll 2 and Anus Magillicutty just to believe that it is possible to concoct more hamfistedly clichéd dialogue. It's so tortured that taking a cheesegrater to your knuckles might well be preferable to sitting through it. The only subtlety it manages to achieve is in its thinly disguised racism, as the poor islanders turn to ineffectual dumb-ass collective prayer which achieves nothing until the übermenschlich, linen-shrouded Teutonic hero Moeller, with his direct line to Yahweh, can provide a blood sample which the horn-blowing yankee scientists can get to work on and save the hapless natives. This movie sucks. | negative |
This is my favorite classic. It was filmed a little west of Philadelphia, PA when I was 13, in 1957, and released the next year. Then in 1970, I found myself working the very same county as a rookie PA state trooper. I have always enjoyed checking out the different places where scenes were filmed. I knew the owner of the Downingtown Diner well, and he had a road sign out front which told all passing motorists that this was the "home of the blob". The theater scene was in Phoenixville, near Valley Forge Park and it is still showing films today! | positive |
OK, so this is horror? I get horror - but I don't get horrific. Black & white is artistic but too much black is overkill.....enough said about the lighting. The story - a serial killer ....... lot's of these around. It's been done in the past and yes, it will continue to be done.....but I hope not. My question is , when will the audience tire of reliving this maddening dilemma? I guess the director thought he would do something different - portray killing children. Well that's been done before too. SO I guess he had to go to shock value.....have them killed in the darkest of fashions. Okay ..... the audience was shocked......sickened....disgusted.....numbed. And getting up out of my seat , I felt all of these things. So was the director successful? Yes! Absolutely! These are the things he wanted me to feel and I did. Now what do I do with the feelings? And more importantly, what is the "message" here? With the amazing talent that Francis Xavier was "gifted" with.....could he ever consider applying it to making films that speak of, dare I say, coming out of the darkness? I was left in the dark after viewing this film, my soul was assaulted....is that what this craft is about? There are many such films out there - they make the bucks I'm told. So what's up with the people that want to see all these deploring visuals? What is going on in this world that people will pay to be horrifically shocked? Would I see this again.....not ever. | negative |
Native Chief's son is wrongfully accused for the death of his father. The evil Witch Doctor orders to execute him. He then comes back as a murdering tree(!), Tabanga. Well, what can you say about such a "film"? If it was intended to be a horror film, there obviously was some sort of bad judgment involved. And for a comedy, it still isn't funny enough. I don't know why people make films like this. I guess you have to be in a really silly mood to watch it. Or you might want to see the incredible "monstrous" tree, which gives a new dimension to "a slow death". Or maybe you want to check out the great acting skills by all involved. (Ms. Kilgore!) Or the dialogue and screenplay, which were strangely ignored at the Academy Awards that year.<br /><br />"Shouldn't we try psycho-analysis on that tree? Maybe its mother was afraid of oaks." 2/10 | negative |
Clearly this would have had potential in more capable hands, but given Uwe Boll's track record it would have been surprising if there would have been any merit to this farce.<br /><br />The first 5 minutes are classic monster movie madness - even the horrible one-liners delivered by GI Joe type soldiers feel as if they were lifted off another venture into the same genre.<br /><br />You will be doing yourself a favor if you exit the movie at this point. You've already passed all the highlights and you will have spared yourself the suffering of sitting through some of the worst acting in recent history.<br /><br />Next, enter absolute rubbish talent. The leading man has the same amount of charisma that you will find in garden slug.<br /><br />There is an awkward bit of contrived romance thrown in - this feels so wrong that you can only speculate why this scene was conjured up in the first place. Normally the genre uses interludes of romance and nudity to inject some humanity and sympathy into otherwise cardboard cut-out characters - here it backfires on all cylinders.<br /><br />The effects are bad and the action unbelievably boring. Where other classics show originality and imagination in the face of budget restraints - here it just seems like everything was spent on catering.<br /><br />There are in fact no redeeming features here - not even the "it's so bad it is almost good" applies. It's just bad, and in a bad way.<br /><br />Our hero questions the leading starlet about the night they spent together and how she would rate him. She gives him 2 out of 10. I give the whole affair 1 (I'd have gone for 0 if that were possible).<br /><br />Don't waste your time on this dribble, there is plenty of crap cinema out there, which exceeds this ridiculous rumble in the jungle.<br /><br />Oh and finally, the movie has little to nothing at all to do with the popular game Far Cry (at best it is extremely loosely based on it).<br /><br />Horrible, move along! | negative |
I am a huge fan of Vonnegut's work and I'm very fond of this movie, but I wouldn't say that this is a film of the "Mother Night" that I read. When people say that Vonnegut is unfilmable, two things come to my mind. One is that many of his themes are very near the knuckle or even taboo, despite the accusation sometimes used against him that he chooses relatively "easy" targets for his satire. This means less every day that passes as far as filmability is concerned. Directors these days appear to revel in breaking taboos and I have high hopes for the version of "Bluebeard" now in production. Amazing to think that an innocent piece like Vonnegut's "Sirens of Titan" would probably have been the equivalent of "R" rated if filmed when it was published back in the 50s, for its violence, language and sexual and thematic content, though it's a tragedy that nobody's come up yet with a filmable script for it. And in the present economic climate, I also hope some director out there is looking closely at "Jailbird", "Galapagos" and "Hocus Pocus".<br /><br />The other thing is his narrative style, heaping irony upon irony upon irony but still making it hilariously funny. It seems impossible to objectify, and that appears to be the biggest obstacle to making great films of his great novels, because the little authorial comments that colour our response as readers are just not possible in movies without resorting to too often clumsy techniques like "talkovers". Vonnegut suggested that there was a character missing from filmed versions of his work, himself as author/narrator. To its credit, "Breakfast of Champions" (the movie) tried to keep the comedy and came a bit of a cropper for its pains. As did another turkey made from a Vonnegut novel, "Slapstick" in an even more spectacular way.<br /><br />Still, there's nothing wrong with a director giving us his subjective interpretation of Vonnegut, and "Mother Night" is an excellent example of how, as another reviewer put it, a good director can add a visual poetry to a source like this. But so much of the humour is lost that though it's the same plot, it's not really from the same novel I read. If it had been, I'd probably have been rolling in the aisles laughing a few times watching it. For a reader of the novel, I think a chuckle even at the end is forgivable. The end of the film, however, is truly poignant, and I think one of the film's successes is that it can genuinely leave you feeling that you've watched someone walk a razor's edge between good and evil, and the jury is still out.<br /><br />Standing alone and of itself it's well worth a look. Technically there are some minor but glaring errors, notably in continuity, and it too often looks drab and theatrical, but most of the time it hits an acceptable note and occasionally shows considerable imagination and resourcefulness. The acting in general is of a high order, even if maybe the dialogue is by today's standards a little stilted.<br /><br />It survives quite well watching back to back with "Slaughterhouse-5", and there is actually quite a bit more "good" filmed Vonnegut out there, mostly versions of his short stories - "Harrison Bergeron", "Who Am I This Time?" and some other things like, of course, the misfiring filmed version of his very funny but disposable play, "Happy Birthday Wanda June". Also there was an interesting piece , if it still exists, done in the 70s called "Between Time And Timbuktu" which Vonnegut apparently didn't like much, although he was involved in its production, because he felt it misinterpreted him in its generality. He said it reminded him of the bizarre surgical experiments performed in the HG Wells tale "The Island of Dr. Moreau", but it did for many people serve as an excellent introduction to his work.<br /><br />But if the films don't make you want to go to the superior source material, they're not doing their job.<br /><br />As the man said, more or less, the big show is inside your head. | positive |
I love MIDNIGHT COWBOY and have it in my video collection as it is a favorite of mine. What is interesting to me is how when MIDNIGHT COWBOY came out in 1969, it was so shocking to viewers that it was rated X. Of course, at that time X meant Maturity. Since I was only two years old at the time of the movie's release, it is hard for me to imagine just how shocked viewers were back then. However, when I try to take into account that many of the topics covered in the film, which included prostitution (the title itself was slang for a male prostitute); homosexuality; loneliness; physical (and to some extent emotional as well) abuse and drugs are hard for many people to talk about to this day, I can begin to get a sense of what viewers of this movie thought back on its release. It is worth noting that in the 1970's, MIDNIGHT COWBOY was downgraded to an R rating and even though it is still rated R, some of the scenes could almost be rated PG-13 by today's standards.<br /><br />I want to briefly give a synopsis of the plot although it is probably known to almost anyone who has heard of the movie. Jon Voight plays a young man named Joe Buck from Texas who decides that he can make it big as a male hustler in New York City escorting rich women. He emulates cowboy actors like Roy Rogers by wearing a cowboy outfit thinking that that will impress women. After being rejected by all the women he has come across, he meets a sleazy con-man named Enrico "Ratso" Rizzo who is played by Dustin Hoffman. Ratso convinces Joe that he can make all kinds of money if he has a manager. Once again, Joe is conned and before long is homeless. However, Joe comes across Ratso and is invited to stay in a dilapidated apartment. Without giving away much more of the plot, I want to say that the remainder of the movie deals with Joe and Ratso as they try to help one another in an attempt to fulfill their dreams. I.E. Joe making it as a gigolo and Ratso going down to Florida where he thinks he can regain his health.<br /><br />I want to make some comments about the movie itself. First of all, the acting is excellent, especially the leads. Although the movie is really very sad from the beginning to the end, there are some classic scenes. In fact, there are some scenes that while they are not intended to be funny, I find them amusing. For example, there is the classic scene where Dustin Hoffman and Jon Voight are walking down a city street and a cab practically runs them over. Dustin Hoffman bangs on the cab and says "Hey, I'm walkin' here! I'm walkin' here!" I get a kick out of that scene because it is so typical of New York City where so many people are in a hurry. Another scene that comes to mind is the scene where Ratso (Dustin Hoffman) sends Joe (Jon Voight) to a guy named O'Daniel. What is amusing is that at first, we think O'Daniel is there to recruit gigolos and can see why Joe is getting so excited but then we begin to realize that O'Daniel is nothing but a religious nut. In addition to the two scenes I mentioned, I love the scene where Ratso and Joe are arguing in their apartment when Ratso says to Joe that his cowboy outfit only attracts homosexuals and Joe says in self-defense "John Wayne! You gonna tell me he's a fag!" What I like is the delivery in that scene.<br /><br />I would say that even though MIDNIGHT COWBOY was set in the late '60's, much of it rings true today. That's because although the area around 42nd Street in New York has been cleaned up in the form of Disneyfication in the last several years, homelessness is still just as prevalent there now as it was 40 years ago. Also, many people have unrealistic dreams of how they are going to strike it big only to have their dreams smashed as was the case with the Jon Voight character. One thing that impresses me about Jon Voight's character is how he is a survivor and I felt that at the end of the movie, he had matured a great deal and that Ratso (Dustin Hoffman's character) was a good influence on him.<br /><br />In conclusion, I want to say that I suggest that when watching this movie, one should watch it at least a couple of times because there are so many things that go on. For example, there are a bunch of flashback and dream sequences that made more sense to me after a couple of viewings. Also, what I find interesting is that there is a lot in this movie that is left to interpretation such as what really happened with Joe Buck (Jon Voight's character) and the people who were in his life in Texas. Even the ending, while I don't want to give it away for those who have not seen the movie, is rather open-ended. | positive |
Seriously, can you imagine such a spread of talent in one film without a huge budget: Daniel Day-Lewis, Ray McAnally, Brenda Fricker, Hugh O'Conor AND Fiona Shaw? There's no doubting that Fricker and Day-Lewis deserved their awards: but it would have been entirely justifiable to have seen O'Conor (as Young Christie) and McAnally awarded: the cliché is true here: they don't perform the roles, they inhabit them. Day-Lewis' performance is a tour de force - such a transformation that it is awe-inducing, but it was truly a mark of the Academy's intelligence that alongside this performance, they also honoured Brenda Fricker's beautifully restrained, still and heart-wrenching work as Christie's mother. By the way, if you haven't seen this magnificent actress in "Swann", that's another film well worth checking out for her contribution (and the sublime Miranda Richardson). | positive |
I saw a version of this in a 4 DVD Mafia collection put out by Brentwood and I have to admit that it was a good film. The quality was a little worse for the wear, but it was a well acted and realistic drama involving low level New Jersey gangsters. Pesci once again though, steels the show! | positive |
I saw Peter Watkin's Culloden and The War Game a few months before this and was very impressed. The technique is essentially the same, or at least very similar, in this film detailing on the one hand a trial of dissidents in California in the (apparently) near future, and on the other the attempts of a group of convicted "criminals" to slog through 50 miles of desert to win their freedom in a government-run "punishment park" as an alternative to prison. Watkins films everything in a documentary style, which causes for more than a little awkwardness or required strong suspension of disbelief: how is it that the camera crew is with the group of starving and parched prisoners over 2 days without either offering help or sharing in their misery? And that's merely the most obvious example. But questionable storytelling aside, this packs a punch; no question you have to be interested in political film-making to really get involved, but the film really isn't like anything else of its era: it pulls no punches, offers no simple solutions. The leftist political figures are certainly painted broadly at times, but they aren't all alike; the right-wing government functionaries seem a little more cartoonish, but even they are allowed to show at least a little humanity. Overall, the film gives much to think about and leaves an indelible taste.....8/10 DVD rental | positive |
I have been a huge Errol Morris fan ever since I saw Thin Blue Line and heard it saved a life. To date, this movie is his best piece of work.<br /><br />The plot is a mixing of Stephen Hawking's Book of the same title intertwined with the man's life. The story is told through interviews with family, friends, and Hawkings himself.<br /><br />Don't be fooled; It totally sounds boring but the whole package is dynamic and thought provoking. The blending of life and theories is seamless and thoroughly entertaining. I was particularly moved at how well they humanize this genius and omniscient man. Tho physically powerless, Hawking's greatness and shear brilliance is encapsulated into a real live human being that we are allowed to laugh at and aw over at the same time.<br /><br />Find this movie. Watch it and enjoy. And if the studio who owns this picture reads this, A 15 year Anniversary edition would be perfect NOW... | positive |
Please do not let the cover of this movie fool you. And if you're looking for a cheap horror movie to laugh at: this isn't it. Usually I will go for stupid if it's funny, but this stupid was so stupid it almost (or possibly did) make me stupid.<br /><br />The film quality is better than a handheld, but not by much, and it's quite possible the music was created by pressing the Samba 2 key on a Casio keyboard. These problems should never really be a deterent from seeing a horror movie but add this amazing (weep) cast, and you have a real humdinger.<br /><br />The story is about a guy who invites his friends up to his family cabin in Texas for the weekend. He also extends the invitation to his lady crush in his office. On the way there they meet a female in distress, who is then invited to come along by the other girls.<br /><br />The stay at the cabin includes sex and nudity and soon everyone's panties are in a bunch when one girl disappears and odd items turn up in the house.<br /><br />From there you (the audience) and the morons, um, actors, try to figure out what's going on and they soon begin to distrust one another. Overall I think I have made it sound better than it is. The main struggle with this movie is that the characters are very underdeveloped, the plot contrived, the acting bad and the motivations clueless. Once more this could be forgiveable it it was the least bit funny but alas, it is not.<br /><br />The twist ending is only a twist in that no one would guess it simply because if you really thought back through the movie it would not have made sense anyway. Please don't let this review stop you from seeing the shear wonderment of this movie. (Woah, my nose just grew eight inches.) | negative |
Babyface - Notorious Barbara Stanwyck flick where she is told by the local professor type that she has power- he tries to get her to read Nietzche- she says books ain't never done her no good.Soon we find out her father is basically pimping her out to a local politico and others.Finally she has had enough and relocates to the big city.We follow her trail of men up the ladder of success in an international bank.The dialogue is quite saucy for it's time and it was one the last films to come out before the self inflicted Hollywood production code.Look for a cameo by a young John Wayne as one of Stanwyck's willing victims.Part of the Forbidden Hollywood collection - I watched the extended version- the DVD has both versions plus Red-Headed Woman and Waterloo Bridge.An interesting movie and foreshadowing for future femme fatale roles that Stanwyck would play in the era of film noir. B+ | positive |
Nine out of nine people who watched this have declared themselves to be mentally scarred for life. No-one should ever have to see this abomination. The English Language is poorly equipped to express how utterly, dreadfully atrocious this "film" is. It's really not worth the plastic it's made of. No greater crime has been committed by the human race in the entire history of creation; never is there likely to be anything worse.<br /><br />It was agreed unanimously that the scene involving the shrunken head of Tommy and the young girl's blouse was unbelievably sick and twisted; in fact many of us have not yet recovered from the ordeal and are currently sitting in the corner of the room rocking, sucking our thumbs and whimpering.<br /><br />The fundamental question on everyone's lips, however, has to be "Why???". How is it possible for anyone to create such a monstrosity and then subject it to so many innocent people? After viewing the trailer we thought that this film might be a laugh: how wrong we were.<br /><br />Please sign the petition to rid the world of "Shrunken Heads" so that no other poor civilians be exposed to it. Please, for the good of humanity. | negative |
In need of work, straight man Bud Abbott (as Jack) and comic partner Lou Costello (as Dinkel) get the latter a job babysitting self-described "problem child" David Stollery (as Donald). Young Stollery winds up reading Mr. Costello's favorite novel (see if you can guess the title), which puts Costello to sleep, dreaming he and Mr. Abbott are reliving the story of "Jack and the Beanstalk" (you guessed it).<br /><br />The sepia-tone switches to color for the bulk of the production. Apparently, this was an attempt at something different for the duo, a colorful children's fantasy. It fails, but this is where you get to see Abbott & Costello in color, silent film superstar William Farnum (as the King) make his last performance a bit part, boxer Max Baer's brother Buddy, and Stollery before Disney's "Spin and Marty".<br /><br />** Jack and the Beanstalk (4/4/52) Jean Yarbrough ~ Lou Costello, Bud Abbott, Buddy Baer, William Farnum | negative |
One of the less widely lauded of recent Asian period action affairs Gojoe is an at first slow and often curious but overall pretty terrific offering, exciting, layered and beautiful. I'm sad to say I know virtually nothing of the Buddhist philosophy or Japanese history and legend that surrounds this film so its deeper meanings are lost on me, but even without contextual knowledge this is still rich fare, taking a traditional fantasy structure into a, impactful higher plane. The story is of Benkei, a warrior monk and perhaps demon who seeks enlightenment by destroying the demon of Gojoe Bridge: Prince Shanao, himself a mortal seeker after his own higher plane but this time the power of demons. Thus the film becomes a matter of illusions and in Benkei's case, indecision, a conflict in which the real goal is self knowledge, for Benkei to come to terms with his true nature and for Prince Shanao to come face to face with the nature of what he seeks to become. Benkei is even more hampered here by the fact that his dark nature makes him fundamentally at odds with the world, even when not in open conflict he is never at ease. Director Sogo Ishii handles this one as an epic, with measured pace, camera work always stylish and often frenzied, without neglecting the need for more sedate moments to let the location sink in, there is also great use of lighting and fog to give an ethereal atmosphere, there is an air of fantasy to much of the film but outside of the overtly supernatural moments it is a down and dirty fantasy with more period fell than flights of fancy. The cinematography of Makoto Watanbe is important here, vivid and detailed, a richly evocative affair. Actingwise Daisuke Ryu is dignified and powerful with a mysterious savagery as Benkei, while Tadanobu Asano has a driven, cold arrogance as Prince Shanao. Of the leads Masatoshi Nagase rounds things out as an ordinary man, smart and cynical but still unaware of just exactly what the stakes are. The film all fits together well, it is however a touch flabby at times, it begins slowly, some shots are a little drawn out and the epic fight scenes at times go on longer than strictly necessary. As for the fighting it is filmed frenetic rather than for actual moves, it has artistic impact but may disappoint regular action fans, often obscured by objects, flashing blades and fast moving individuals, whirling with deadly force through their adversaries are the order of the day, it is invigorating to watch but in the end I could have done with a little more traditionalism. There is some unfortunate cgi bloodshed as well, it somewhat works in the context but is still distracting. Overall though I found this to be a pretty great film, its not one for regular action fans or swordplay enthusiasts seeking another Azumi, rather a deeper and more mystical beast, its ending in particular will not go down well with fans of the more generic wing of such fare. But as for myself it really hit the spot and for those more adventurously inclined it might do so too. Well recommended at any rate. | positive |
After reading some of these reviews, it is apparent that some have missed the point. What is great about this film (here comes the point), what is incredible about this film, what is astonishing about this film is that there is no proselytizing. There is no preaching. There is no preaching. There is no preaching. Life goes on. It is a masterpiece in letting an audience think for its collective self. These are just kids doing what kids do - without consciousness. We all went to school with kids like these. We are being numbed by fiction-/movie-/tv-/news-based reality/invention.<br /><br />Feck's (Dennis Hopper the great) girlfriend alone and his relationship with her is worth the price of renting this movie.<br /><br />There have been few movies before or since that measure up to the intelligence of this film. AMEN.<br /><br /> | positive |
I am a relative latecomer to the transcendent work of film auteur Yasujiro Ozu, whose masterfully understated views of Japanese life, especially in the post-WWII era, illuminate universal truths. Having now seen several of his landmark films such as 1949's "Late Spring" and 1953's "Tokyo Story", I am convinced that Ozu had a particularly idiosyncratic gift of conveying the range of feelings arising from intergenerational conflict through elliptical narratives and subtle imagery. It is Taiwanese director Hou Hsiao-hsien's keen aspiration to pay homage to Ozu on his centenary with this generally enervating 2003 film. Among with co-screenwriter T'ien-wen Chu, Hsiao-hsien appears to get the visuals right but does not capture the requisite emotional weight that would have made the glacial pacing tolerable.<br /><br />The story concerns Yôko, a young Japanese writer researching the life of mid-20th century Taiwanese composer Jiang Wen-Ye in Tokyo after coming back from Taiwan where she taught Japanese. After 25 drawn-out minutes of character set-up, she reveals to her father and stepmother that she is pregnant by one of her students in Taiwan. At the same time, Yôko's coffeehouse friend Hajime, who runs a used bookstore, has an obsession for trains and seems likely to be in love with her. Hsiao-hsien connects this slim plot line with a series of shots held for inordinately lengthy takes as the frame composition changes. There are also long stretches of silence as well as an abundance of scenes featuring trains. While these techniques are consistent with Ozu's style, Hsiao-hsien cannot seem to dive into the characters' psyches the way Ozu did with maximal fluidity and minimal theatrics, in particular, Yôko's plight seems rather non-committal in the scheme of the drama presented and her parents' reaction overly passive to hold much interest. In fact, the whole film has an atmosphere of exhaustion about it, which makes the film feel interminable.<br /><br />The performances are unobtrusive though hardly memorable. J-pop music star Yo Hitoto brings a natural ease to Yôko, while Tadanobu Asano is something of a cipher as Hajime. The rest of the characters barely register, even Nenji Kobayashi and Kimiko Yo as Yôko's parents. Cinematographer Lee Ping-Bing provides expert work though he violates a cardinal rule of Ozu films by not keeping the camera stable during shots. Hitoto speak-sings the fetching pop song used over he ending credits, "Hito-Shian". The DVD includes an hour long, French-made documentary, "Métro Lumière", which actually does help provide some of the context for Hsiao-hsien's approach to the film. It includes excerpts from Ozu's films, in particular, "Equinox Flower", to show the parallels with this film though surprisingly no mention of either "Tokyo Story" or "Early Summer", the obvious basis for some of the scenes and situation set-ups. There are also edited interview clips of Hitoto, Asano and Hsiao-hsien, as well as the film's trailer. | negative |
I work as a hotel concierge in Washington DC and take my word, there was nothing remotely accurate about the character played by Michael J. Fox- # 1 we simply do not walk around with our pockets bursting with theater tickets and $100 bills! #2 If I ever let anybody use a room for some 'afternoon delight' time I'd be fired on the spot! The organization to which I belong (Les Clefs d'Or) has very definite standards of ethics and conduct that we take seriously. #3 Similarly untrue was the concept, at the end of the movie, of Doug simply removing his gold key emblem and passing it on to some other employee- we earn those keys and it is a badge of honor and knowledge to be allowed to wear them. There is a whole application and vetting process to joining our organization.<br /><br />This film does nothing to dispel the unfortunate perception of a concierge as nothing but a money grubbing mercenary. In short it does a disservice to our organization. I welcome any comments. | negative |
Simply the best and most realistic movie about World War II I've ever seen. Not only because the German soldiers talk German and Russian soldiers talk Russian (no English in a German or Russian dialect)also because of the realistic decor in which the movie was shot. The acting is outstanding. No Hollywood-sentiment at all even no love story...Stalingrad was supposed to be one of the most horrific battles during the war, and in such context there's no place for sentiment or romantic scenes. What you get is a movie which will make you thrill to the bone and which have one of the best unhappy endings a movie could have. | positive |
If any style of film could be called my "guilty pleasure", it'd be this generic fantasy type. Guilty is the wrong word for it, though, as I'm pretty pleased to be an escapist from time to time. "Stardust" is good stock fantasy, the likes of which one should expect from Neil Gaiman (or Gaiman adaptation, as it were). It isn't the visual dream-scape of Mirrormask, it isn't the adult pretension of Pan's Labyrinth, and it isn't the fun-loving classic The Princess Bride, but it contains just what the fantasy-lover is familiarized enough with to be completely comfortable during the entire viewing. Fantasy lovers should rejoice--special effects work has finally become good enough and cheap enough that this stuff is in regular production now.<br /><br />The story of Stardust involves a young man named Tristan who, in order to gain the love and approval of the most beautiful girl in their small town of Wall, goes on an adventure to retrieve a fallen star. To make things difficult, however, Tristan's fallen star is actually a woman named Yvaine, and he's not the only one looking for her... some witches have their greedy eyes on the immortality the star's heart can give, and a brother's feud over the magic kingdom leads murderous princes in her direction.<br /><br />From there it's all pretty predictable, but it involves some attractive fantasy elements, some warm-hearted commentary on the nature of love, and the best part, Robert DeNiro as a gay pirate. On that note, DeNiro's performance is spot-on... it's not the excessive lisp that most actors use to portray gay people, but a surprisingly effective one from someone used to being seen as a rough-and-gruff typecast character (thus the ongoing joke surrounding his character matching DeNiro's own opening up into alternate forms of acting). DeNiro hasn't been so unique to his own image since Brazil, and that's saying something.<br /><br />Stardust is the type of movie, perhaps, that will subsist on children's and fantasy-lover's shelves for a long time. I can't say it offers anything new, but it's not really there to. It's actually those most familiar with it's tropes that will enjoy it the most.<br /><br />--PolarisDiB | positive |
Of all the movies I have seen, and that's most of them, this is by far the best one made that is primarily about the U.S. Naval Airships (Blimps) during the WW-II era. Yes there are other good LTA related movies, but most use special effects more than any real-time shots. This Man's Navy has considerably more real-time footage of blimps etc. True, lots of corny dialog but that's what makes more interesting Hollywood movies, even today. P.S. I spent 10 years(out of 20) and have over 5,000 hours in Navy Airships of all types, from 1949 through 1959. Proud member of the Naval Airship Association etc. [ATC(LA/AC) USN Retired] | positive |
Considering it was made on a low budget, THE DAY TIME ENDED manages to make the most of its budget with some surprisingly good special effects work.<br /><br />The story involves a family who are about to move into their solar-powered home in an isolated part of the Mojave Desert in southwestern California, only to find it trashed--by motorcycle vandals, they think. But their youngest daughter (Natasha Ryan) has begun to see mysterious things--a green pyramid, strange humanoid figures, etc. And only recently, the light from a trinary star explosion has caused extremely unusual auroras to show up in the desert skies. Thus the family, led by Jim Davis and Dorothy Malone, finds themselves face-to-face with strange alien forces who have put them in a time-and-space warp.<br /><br />Mixing in elements of 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY and CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND, THE DAY TIME ENDED, despite its obvious flaws and uneven acting, remains interesting due to the superb special effects work of David Allen. The desert setting is very appropriate for this film's close encounters; and while the movie cannot really be compared with either Kubrick's or Spielberg's films, THE DAY TIME ENDED is much better than many other 2001/CLOSE ENCOUNTERS knock-offs. I give credit to director John 'Bud' Cardos, whose 1977 thriller KINGDOM OF THE SPIDERS made for an interesting precursor to ARACHNOPHOBIA, for at least trying--and on that basis, I give THE DAY TIME ENDED a 7 out of 10. | positive |
Just finished watching this movie as it were playing on TV and I did'nt have anything else to do. Went right here to IMDb too look on the trivia page and happened to glance at the user comments. And what do I find? Every dumb idiot raises this movie to the sky! I would'nt even have written anything but when no one else takes the time to spread the word about this suck-ass movie I thought that I could.<br /><br />The acting sucked from pretty much everyone in the cast. The worst one was the guy playing Brian Wilson (think I got the name right) as he were overacting, especially when he was high. The rest was'nt as bad as him but no one was good neither. I ain't no expert on the beach boys though so cant really complain on the story that much.... except it sucked though. No motivation for any of the characters decisions most of the time but hey, maybe they were idiots in real life to. And what I found worst was that I thought it were going to be a movie about the beach boys, but you really only got a grip about a few of the characters. I hate when they do that in movies, same thing in the doors, even though I like that movie more. Don't have any energy left to write more... it sucked! don't buy or watch it! | negative |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.