review stringlengths 32 13.7k | sentiment stringclasses 2 values |
|---|---|
This has got to be one of the most magnificent things I've ever seen on film. I don't know if it's as serious as it seems to try to be, but that hardly matters. This film is extreme, absolutely wild and surreal. The packaging and the marketing only make it more so because you *know* that ever so often some mother has to reprogram her kid to accept our reality after he checks this out from the video store expecting something completely different. Look at the roadmap, for one thing! And where else in America can you see a ten year old kid swear as much as this one does and then get his eye ripped out by pervert the rival of Pulp Fiction's Zed? And that food inspector scene is the best! The amount of well known to vaguely recognized actors in this film is one of the best things about it: Soon, much sooner than you realize, you too will find yourself saying, "Is that Meat Loaf? Is that Drew Barrymore? Is that the holideck doctor from Star Trek: Voyager? Is that Flea? Is that the sawmill owner from Twin Peaks gassing squirrels with car exhaust? And isn't this guy from the new Rob Zombie movie? He looks an awful lot like Shrek." I think my favorite scene is at the very end, with Phil in a full body cast. I mean, please, why aren't more movies like this shown in airplanes? This director hardly has anything else to his name higher than Return To Salem's Lot, but he displays true stumbling man-child genius in this creation! If you're an intellectual looking for something to p**s away your evening on, I highly suggest this film for satisfaction. This movie's plot is all too ridiculous, but imagine it taken out of context: *boy arm wrestling an over aggressive Meat Loaf, who seems hell bent on taking out his anger at not being accepted into Guns N Roses, looks over his shoulder and sees the doctor from Voyager enter the bar* Can you imagine what any half brained channel surfer active through the last six years would think of seeing that? Now imagine if you actually cared about Meat Loaf or Voyager to begin with! Or imagine if you're a Flea fan. Rocky Horror Picture Show fans, this film contains notable music, mind you, but its soundtrack is more plasticine than Mad Max 3. What does that entail for you? This is the retarded, inverted mongoloid cousin-sister-mother-puppy of The Rocky Horror Picture Show. How about when Gus' sleeve flies back onto his arm in an act of cable-access special effects quality mastercraft? When I saw this film, it was on the suggestion of my cousin who had watched half of it in a fit of half-aware childhood in the early half of the nineties and who has since been haunted by vague memories of it, I myself had not slept in three days. It made me laugh! Of course, it's also an anxiety movie. The music doesn't encourage the suspense but it eventually gets to the point where it's been fully established that the American Censorship Committee has obviously missed this film entirely and absolutely anything can happen in it and probably will any time Gus turns a corner or the view so much as changes camera angles. I found myself obsessing over the possibility of those cards flying out his window at any second. Watch this movie. Awesome! | positive |
Suburban kids meet the forest. Killjoy is better in this part. He is more wicked and stronger as well. Nevertheless, most part of the acting is bad as well, like in the first one. Sometimes the characters say things to each other that do not make sense and are not convincing. I made an error to watch this one sober. You'll probably enjoy it more if you are not ;-). If you did not already stop loving clowns after the first movie, you definitely will after the second.....;-)<br /><br />Problem kids and their watchers are on their way to a camp in the forest. And what a coincidence, their car broke right in the middle of a forest and.....at night? That's just their luck. They find a house and one got shot, one of the watchers stays behind (why I do not know) and the rest eventually finds another house. In that house a voodoo priestess lives.....but she is not responsible for the resurrection of Killjoy. Who is it then? Well, you better watch the movie and find out for yourselves.... | negative |
After seeing this piece of crap you will know why the limeys drive on the left side of the street...this movie is an absolute NO-BRAINER! The jokes (if this is the right word for it...) are mostly sub-standard (about 98%) and do miss any punch-line at all. Save the money and get drunk. You might enjoy this movie being totally wasted, perhaps! | negative |
I absolutely LOVED this movie! Since I don't want to give much away, it's basically about about a mother and a daughter and the life they have together. It's very heartwarming story, between the struggles they have. I also think Natalie and Susan have perfect chemistry throughout the entire film! This is definitely worth seeing! Two thumbs up, way up! | positive |
One of Disney's best films that I can enjoy watching often. you may easily guess the outcome, but who cares? its just plain fun escape for 1 hour forty-two minutes. and after all wasn't movies meant to get away from reality for just a short time anyway? The cast sparkles with delight. -magictrain | positive |
No day passes without a new released computer animated movie, so we now really have chances to see more than some nice effects. After watching Ice Age I felt that's it was not that big impact on me than some other films of this genre.<br /><br />But it's because I am a Big Guy now, and I am pretty sure that this is a very enjoyable movie for children (maybe up to 14). The story is quite simple, and the "actors" are funny in a cute way, without any crude or complex humour. Even the "evil" is lovely, fluffy big cat with those funny teeth. And the story has a happy end, which was a small disappointment for me (knowing that most of the main characters are doomed to extinction in a sad way) but a great thing for children. And apart from some fights nobody dies (not even when he gets stomped on by a mammoth, several times), which made a cartoony feeling.<br /><br />The computer animation part is nice but nothing special, apart from some really nice cartoony feeling scenes, when you feel like walking in a nice painting or pages of a comics. [Which means lots of work nevertheless!]<br /><br />There were some gags which made me smile - I accept, the creators tried to satisfy those grownups - but they are hard to spot and (in my opinion) better left unnoticed, since it does not feel to fit into the story.<br /><br />Overall it's a nice movie, but it's rather in the ideal-world-and-fluffy-animals-for-children disney cliche. If you don't hate cute animals making funny things, watch it at least once. | positive |
This was essentially a remake of "Diagnosis Murder" minus Victoria Rowell, Scott Baio & Charlie Schlatter. Dick is playing a college professor who teaches Criminology 101 and can't even find his own classroom. Barry is now a private eye, not related to Dick. This lets Barry shoot at guys speeding away from him, which a cop can not do. Barry still gets the girl in the end. Tracey Needham portrays the girl. She is the prime suspect and Dick and Barry believe she's innocent and prove it. That's all the spoiler you get. The ending is sufficiently unexpected that you don't already know it half way through the movie.<br /><br />Don't take it seriously. Don't critique it. Just sit back and enjoy Dick and Barry Van Dyke. | positive |
Doe-eyed high school student Kathleen Beller is found beaten and<br /><br />raped in the opening scenes of this made for TV movie. The film<br /><br />then flashbacks to the few days before the rape, as Beller is<br /><br />harassed by a stranger.<br /><br />Beller and Scott Colomby and her best friend Robin Mattson and<br /><br />Dennis Quaid are double dating early on. Beller's anxious parents,<br /><br />laid back Tony Bill and shrill Blythe Danner, wait at home wringing<br /><br />hands and so on. Right away, the 1970's makes its dated<br /><br />entrance, as the young couples discuss the romance and love in<br /><br />"Three Days of the Condor."<br /><br />Beller, an amateur photographer, begins getting threatening notes<br /><br />stuffed in her locker at school. The film makers wisely give us a<br /><br />whole slew of suspects: Beller's new boyfriend, Mattson's<br /><br />boyfriend, Beller's dad, Beller's ex-boyfriend, and what about that<br /><br />overly friendly photography class teacher who wants Beller to be a<br /><br />little more sexy in her self-portraits? I knew who the rapist was<br /><br />because the Worldvision Video company video box has a picture of<br /><br />the attack on the back cover, destroying any suspense in that<br /><br />regard.<br /><br />Without giving away who the attacker is, Beller begins getting<br /><br />harassing phone calls, and is eventually raped. The movie then<br /><br />heads south as she makes like Nancy Drew and secretly sets up<br /><br />a time lapse camera to catch the guy stalking another student.<br /><br />Finally, the film makers tack on a hokey ending narration from<br /><br />Beller about the lack of understanding for the victims of rape in that<br /><br />day and age.<br /><br />The suspense here is very real, without going over the top into<br /><br />scary movie stuff. Beller is very good, and watch for her and<br /><br />Mattson's scene in an abandoned theater- both do great jobs. The<br /><br />film is full of familiar faces, including Ellen Travolta in a small role,<br /><br />and everyone is professional.<br /><br />This was made in 1978, and it shows. I am sure no one had any<br /><br />idea that this would be reviewed in 2001 by an overcritical horror<br /><br />movie lover who needs to get to bed and be up early in the<br /><br />morning, but some of the attitudes here are embarassing. The<br /><br />teacher who tells Beller to be sexy is never made to explain what<br /><br />exactly he had in mind. Nowadays, if any high school teacher said<br /><br />that, then THAT would have been a made for TV movie on its own.<br /><br />After Beller is raped, the rapist is still a part of her life, as warrants<br /><br />are issued, blah, blah, blah. There may not be a case because<br /><br />Beller is not a virgin, and cannot prove she was raped by whom<br /><br />she said. Many of these problems have been addressed with<br /><br />modern technology and policing efforts, but this film obviously<br /><br />knew it would have a chance to add to the reform debate. Rape is<br /><br />an act of violence that has not gone away, but efforts today to catch<br /><br />the attackers are miles ahead of twenty four years ago. The<br /><br />problem is the anti-rape angle feels tacked on, like an<br /><br />afterthought. Before that, we have a tight little suspenser that has<br /><br />real honest to God characterization. After the rape, everything<br /><br />changes, filmwise, and not for the better.<br /><br />I remember Beller from the '70's and '80's (and who could forget<br /><br />her revealing role in "The Betsy"), but she has not done anything in<br /><br />almost ten years. This is a shame, since she was very good way<br /><br />back then.<br /><br />I will recommend "Are You in the House Alone?!" based on the<br /><br />acting alone, with a reluctant nod to at least the first two-thirds of<br /><br />the film. If you want to relive 1970's made for TV high school life,<br /><br />this is your cup of Tab.<br /><br />This is unrated but contains physical violence, some sexual<br /><br />violence, and some adult situations. | positive |
Based upon the recommendation of a friend, my wife and I invited another couple to this film. I really apologized to them--all 4 of us hated it and spent the whole time looking at our watches waiting for the film to finally end. Half the vignettes are bizarre, with very little entertainment value. There were few scenes of Paris--for example, I was looking forward to seeing some pictures of the Latin Quarter, but I couldn't really recognize anything. Most of the scene was inside a bar. No one in the theater laughed at anything, or reacted in any way. If you like bizarre, pretentious, pseudo-intellectual films, don't miss this. If you are down to earth like me, you will be sorry you saw it. | negative |
I like "Hack." Think the "Lone Ranger" reincarnated as a 2000s cab driver, a decent but flawed guy, in Philadelphia doing his best, while seeking to work out issues from a troubled past, and you've got the synopsis. David Morse is nearly perfect as Olshansky. He helps people but instead of riding "Silver" in the old west he drives a cab through the mean streets of contemporary Philly, without handing out silver bullets. The supporting cast is first class and well above average. At times, the witty dialog almost reaches the level of that 70s classic series, "The Rockford Files." This show deserves a return, hopefully in a better time slot than 9PM Friday(eastern). | positive |
"The Man Who Knew Too Much" falls into that Hitchcock middle ground that characterized many of his films during the 1950s: not a masterpiece of suspense by any means, but an awful lot of fun nonetheless.<br /><br />James Stewart and Doris Day play a vacationing couple who get caught up in a plot heavy on foreign intrigue. The famous climactic scene takes place at a classical music concert, where someone is going to be assassinated during a particular cymbal clash in the score. The impish Hitchcock of course lets us know what that point is, so that the race to stop the assassin becomes a nail biting race against the cymbalist.<br /><br />So much of this movie reminded me of the 1978 Chevy Chase/Goldie Hawn comedy "Foul Play" that I have to believe that film was inspired by this. Neither film is a big deal, but both are easy to enjoy.<br /><br />Grade: B+ | positive |
Eh. I watch this movie in class because someone taped it and brought it in. I was expecting some half hearted attempt to portray the Herakles myths, and because the commercials for it looked serious, I was expecting something that was halfway decent.<br /><br />Ten minutes into the film, I realized that it was utter CRAP. The only things in the film that are halfway true to the myth are the bare(and I mean bare) minimum. Parents, half brother, and labors seemed to be named correctly. Other than that, the rest of the film seemed to be one giant inaccuracy. <br /><br />I would say that this was not much better than the Disney version of the film. The Disney version was made for little kids, therefore wasn't too serious. This movie, with all the sex, violence, and nudity, was clearly intended for an older audience, yet the story presented in this was nearly inaccurate as the Disney film. | negative |
This 1939 film tried to capitalize on the much better Michael Curtiz's film "Angels with Dirty Faces". As directed by Ray Enright, the only interesting thing is how tamed these kids were in comparison with what's going on with the youth in America's inner cities today.<br /><br />The film is only worth seeing because of the presence of Ann Sheridan and Ronald Reagan, who showed they were well paired together. The Dead End kids have larger parts as the plot concentrates on them rather than in the older folks.<br /><br />In a way it's curious how arson was used in the same way some scrupulous landlords did in later years right here in New York. It was the quickest way to turn a property around never considering the social problems it created. In today's climate with so many guns around there is a new reality. The young kids of the story seemed mere pranksters rather than criminals. How times change! | positive |
I saw this movie when it was first released and thoroughly enjoyed it. The music and scenery are beautiful. I purchased the VHS tape a few years ago and watch it frequently. I would recommend it to anyone who loves a romance movie or older Elton John music. | positive |
I generally LIKE Sion Sono's work, but this movie was completely retarded. But sadly, not retarded enough to make it entertainingly retarded. I just sat, mouth agape, wondering when it would end. The plot makes only a whisper of sense. I think it was intended to be campy. I mean, haunted hair extensions - how could it not be? But the humor, such as it was, fell flat. Not funny. Not scary. Not gory. I would say perhaps Sono was a hired hand on this project, but he appears to have written this boring trash as well. I still need to fill a couple more lines, what else is there to say? I suppose I could finish by saying: Better luck next time, Sono-san. | negative |
This short film (and the poem which is behind it) is one of the greatest metaphors I've ever seen! <br /><br />The poem is beautiful! It describes exactly the feeling of a person that chases a dream and can't realize it
but it also tells how to fulfil it! I see the "Story of the Cat and the Moon" as one beautiful metaphor to the Human relationships, passion and love. <br /><br />Technically it's done a good work too. In spite of being very simple, the animation, in black and white, gives a tone of allegory to the movie and to its message, but also of tenderness and nostalgia. <br /><br />In addiction, the music also contributes to this poetic feeling. <br /><br />"Nothing else matters! I will wait! She will come when she can, or when she wants to!" | positive |
I went to see this because of snipes / statham, but honestly, Chaos is terrible. This movie has absolutely nothing going for it - it should not have been made.<br /><br />Don't read this review if you don't want to read spoilers, cause I'm going to address a lot of plot-holes here.<br /><br />First of all - the opening scene. It's the great big event that made the two semi-lead characters (Statham and Snipes) turn crooked. But it's boring and mundane. Only at the very end we get to see what really happened and by the time you won't care anymore. Also - this whole event, where one bad guy and his hostage get killed is hardly big enough news to fill hundreds of newspaper articles, as referred to in the movie.<br /><br />Then the bank job - it doesn't get off the ground for any second. The bank robber makes some un-needed references to chaos theory (which has NOTHING to do with the whole story, by the way). The way Statham gets summoned is very 'Die Hard With a Vengeance', but more boring. Then the things that happen in the bank are strange and pointless. -What's with the safety deposit box. There seems to be some plot unfolding there, but then, it doesn't. -Why go through the trouble of stringing up two people, when it leads to nothing? It involves a lot of preparation and it's used for nothing at all! -Why doesn't the SWAT leader listen to the officer in charge when he tells them to stand down?<br /><br />And this is only the first 10 minutes. It keeps getting worse and worse. <br /><br />-The whole romantic / love interest story (with the 'he wasn't just a better cop, he was a better man' remark to finish it of) is painful to watch. It's just pointless -Why would Statham's character point out the change in camera position in the footage reviewed from the bank. This essentially leads to finding the 'virus' that will get him all the money. -Why go through the trouble of forging some guys signature and killing him, but then NOT kill the guy that can identify you.<br /><br />I could go on for ages (really), but it's like this movie is... pointless. The whole script is a mess. The 'smart' references to chaos theory are really laughable and quite pathetic. The plot 'twists' can be seen from miles away and the lead characters seem to be making mistakes all the time. It is really painful to watch a movie like this, where the audience is taken for granted as dumb popcorn crunching people, of which the director hopes they won't see all the plot holes and the over-all ridiculous script. The 'explanation scene' at the end only adds to insult. It is really, really not a good movie. In any way.<br /><br />People who come to see an action film don't get what they come for. People who come to see a cop-buddy movie don't get it. People who come to see a smart thriller don't get that. In essence, everyone gets the same - a huge disappointment and a waste of time and money. Do yourself a favor and skip this one. | negative |
was this tim meadows first acting role in a movie? the character, leon, is funny enough but shortly after that the sexual jokes and humor are too dumb to listen to anymore. some movies can get away with the sexual jokes, and base their audiences to know that right when the advertising comes on. some movies that do this are american pie and scary movie. scary movie was stupid, and american pie wouldnt have done well without the sexual jokes. the only role, besides leon, that had some humor that followed was will ferrell. the character really was dumb and that was all, the dumb humor was all that had me watching. the movie was ok, and nothing else. i dont really understand why the snl people that are dying to leave the show always get a movie based on a character they played on the show. the skits last about 5 minutes, and if they can make a movie off a 5 minute skit, then what is the world coming to? molly shannon had superstar, cheri o'terri had scary movie, but she wasnt a leading role, and will had elf. but that was good, but he did some dumb movie, but i cant remember, and mike myers with wayne's world. how come the mad tv crew dont ever get movie deals? seen only one guy break through, but only in like 2 movies and a tv show with andy dick. but that guy relies on comedy for his life to continue, funny or not. this movie is not good, but had some positive humor. what a waste of film and people's money. (D D-) | negative |
I borrowed this on DVD from a friend the other day. I didn't really know what to expect. I haven't seen a lot of Russian movies, and i don't think i've ever seen a Russian war movie. Maybe that made me expect something different, something more along the line of an imagined Russian mentality. But whatever those expectations came from, they were put to shame as this is a quite ordinary war movie.<br /><br />The whole formula of following a few young people from their recruitment, through training, to deployment and through some battles, is well known. We have seen it done both many years ago, as well as more recently (as with Jarhead). Sure, there's a difference here because the movie is about Russian soldiers instead of Americans as is almost always the case. But in general this could just as easily have been a Vietnam-movie. I guess that just underscores my feeling that Afghanistan was the Soviet unions Vietnam. A country that should have been a pushover for a superpower made the war drag on for years with terrible loss of life both for soldiers and civilians.<br /><br />The good points in this movie i felt were good photography (there are some beautiful ambiance shots) and decent effects for what i guess must have been a rather low budget movie. What made me disappointed is mostly the story itself. It just doesn't manage to stir any emotion in me. Mostly because the character development is lousy. And to really feel something when people are gunned down you have to make them people, not just faceless cardboard cutouts. They fail to do that in this movie. Also it's overly long, and that seems to a kind of trend lately. In my opinion a movie that's more than two hours long has to have a lot to offer, and this movie doesn't cut it. Also there is a disturbing music that's put like a wet blanket over every scene. Especially in the action scenes this is highly disturbing, not that you need action-music but something more than just slow keyboard-music would be nice. Otherwise the production values were good enough, that was not where the problem was.<br /><br />I don't know how to view this movie. As a reminder of the fact that no matter where you are, war sucks? That Russian film-makers have already watched too many American war-movies to make something original? Regardless of which, this movie is rather clichéd, lacks in spirit and while it has acceptable technical qualities, it lacks in script and character development. In the end it just becomes another of all those war-movies that fails to make you think, and fails to add something to the genre. I've seen a lot worse, but a lot better too. I rate this 4/10. | negative |
I know some people think the movie is boring but I disagree. It is a biography of a very complex and extraordinary person. I liked the characters in the film and think that leaving parts of Archie's life a mystery captured his humanity. I don't think the purpose of a good biography should be the detailing of someone's life but rather the complexities and relationships that make them interesting. And what is more fascinating than someone so successfully reinventing themselves? "Men become what they dream - you have dreamed well." Good job to Lord Attenborough. I also wanted to mention that Nathaniel Arcand really stood out to me as a charismatic actor and I hope to see him in more films. | positive |
This movie doesn't have any pretense at being great art, which is good. But it is a well written script with well developed characters and solid acting. I think if I wrote it I could do without the drama surrounding the wife, but it wasn't distracting enough to detract from the main story concerning Minnie Driver's character. I think that all too often Hollywood abandons an attempt at real quality writing to try and inject more visual drama when, with an adult themed movie such as this, the emotional type of drama is all that's really needed - and probably more believable too. Overall, it's a very well done offering and well worth seeing. | positive |
Perhaps Disney was hoping for another Mary Poppins but this is a very different story and while Angela is delightful she was a very different performer to the great Julie Andrews. Having said that Lansbury is perfectly cast and delivers a magical performance. There is something deliciously dotty about her character and she is given wonderful support by David Tomlinson. Tomilinson can carry a tune but he is certainly not much chop as a singer. It does not matter he was such a gifted actor you hardly notice. There are some great cameos from much loved stars of another time like Roddy McDowel who gives a winning performance and the much loved Tessie OShea who does very little but its nice to see the old gal again. Its also lovely to see Sam Jaffe and the king of English television Bruce Forsythe in small roles. The score has a couple of beautiful songs especially The briny sea and The age of Not Believing. The big number Portabello Road is stretched to the limit but it has plenty of theatricality. The effects look a bit cliché today but the scene with the German invaders being attacked by the wildest army in film is pretty impressive. The kids are not as annoying as other movies but one does struggle to understand what the youngest boy is saying. I loved the marching song of the home army. The home guard were very important to Britain and this is a warm tribute. The animation is delightful, much better than Pixar which I find grotesque. A warm happy film and its a wonder its not done on stage. | positive |
I can't believe they do this kind of filth out of a serious theme. Totally unrealistic (they seemed to want it to be HIGHLY realistic but all the elements are based on clichés), real propaganda stuff. After seeing this, an addict probably just want to continue his/her career :-) I gave it 2. | negative |
I love Korean films because they have the ability to really (quiet eerily really) capture real life. I tend to watch Korean movies just for that reason alone. I've seen this directors other movies before. The one that comes closest to the feelings I got from this is Oasis and another awesome film called This Charming Girl.<br /><br />However, my title summary is supposed to be from a Chrstian perspective so I'll just start doing that instead of just showering it with praise.<br /><br />For a non Christian perspective Director Chang-dong Lee has captured an unbiased and almost eerily real portrayal of a modern Protestant church (regardless of denomination) warts and all. I've always been waiting for a Christian film that truly portrays the darker recesses of church life. Because Christian films tend to speak in a language that is different to those they want to share their faith to. Many films with religious undertones, though having good motives, tend to just have the resonance of a Disney film or after school special. They need to show life as it is. Real people curse, real people lust, real people fall. And though Christians believe that salvation is available to those that seek it, we are still challenged by the everyday horrors of this life. And Do-yeon Jeon's character is a totally honest and almost brutal portrayal of a woman that found God, but because of life's bitter realities, loses that love for Him she once had. She doesn't deny God exists. It is just that she refuses to accept to live with the idea that He is an all loving and forgiving God.<br /><br />In her decent to the edges of morality and madness, her character asks questions that are in the mind of every one, religious or not.<br /><br />"If God is Love, why does He allow such terrible things to happen?" This film doesn't answer that, rightly so. And I believe the last 10 minutes of the film, though open to interpretation, leaves us with a hopeful future for our main character and brings the idea of "secret sunshine" full circle.<br /><br />I don't believe for a second that this film tried to be religious or had in any way tried and set out to be that. There in lies the reason why it worked even more. It's real, it's honest. And because of that, it is by far the best summation of a real Christian life I have seen on film. | positive |
***SPOILERS*** Feeling alone and needing companionship as well as love Frances Austen, Sandy Dennis, keeps all these emotions inside as she goes through life as a popular young single lady who has many high class friends. But for reasons of her own deep insecurity she keeps them at arms length. As for Frances male friends non are anywhere near her age so that she won't have any reason to have any romantic involvement with them. <br /><br />One early evening as Frances was entertaining some of her friends she spots outside her apartment window a young man, Michael Burns, sitting alone in the cold pouring rain. Feeling that he's homeless and alone after her friends leave Frances goes outside to the park and offers the young man shelter at her place until the rain subsides and even to stay over for the night at a guest bedroom that she has. You can see right away that Frances is more interested in just having the young mans safely out of the cold and rain then she wants to have him as a friend lover or even play-toy all for herself and as the movie progresses you see that you were right. <br /><br />A really amazing performance by Sandy Dennis that in a way is very much like that of Kathy Bates' Academy Award performance in the movie "Misery" that was made in 1990 some twenty one years later. Frances thinking that the young man was alone and homeless and, later when she meets him, mute sees the perfect person for her to have as a true friend. He's in no way her equal or better then her like the friends that she has, doctors lawyers Indian chiefs, and thus is totally dependent on her. It later turns out that the young man is not the lonely and homeless person that Frances thought that he is. It's when she slowly finds out that he really doesn't need her as well as him manipulating her instead the other way around it sets off something in Frances' mind that turns out to be a compulsion of murderous proportions. <br /><br />A really weird film by director Robert Altman that goes deep into the depths of loneliness and depression of the human mind. Actress Sandy Dennis is perfect as the Dr. Jekyll and Miss. Hyde personality in her acting as the lonely but at the same time dangerous Frances Austen and it's a pity that not only didn't she get an Academy Award for her role in the film but wasn't even nominated for it. <br /><br />Like most Robert Altman movies there seems to be a lot of improvisation among the actors in the movie and ad lib dialog especially between the young man's sister Nina, Susanne Benton, and her boyfriend Nick, David Garfield. The only thing in the movie that I found confusing is when we see Frances go to a city clinic to have a full gynecological exam and tells the doctor that she expects to get married very soon. Was her husband to be the young man staying at her apartment? But besides that the movie sticks to the story pretty well and the ending is a real shock to the audience as well as the young man. When he finally, in the end, realizes that Frances is not only a bit off-the-wall but murderously insane as well. | positive |
Halloween is not only the godfather of all slasher movies but the greatest horror movie ever! John Carpenter and Debra Hill created the most suspenseful, creepy, and terrifying movie of all time with this classic chiller. Michael Myers is such a phenomenal monster in this movie that he inspired scores of imitators, such as Jason Vorhees (Friday the 13th), The Miner (My Bloody Valentine), and Charlie Puckett (The Night Brings Charlie). Okay, so I got a little obscure there, but it just goes to show you the impact that this movie had on the entire horror genre. No longer did a monster have to come from King Tut's tomb or from Dr. Frankenstein's lab. He could be created in the cozy little neighborhoods of suburbia. And on The Night He Came Home...Haddonfield, Illinois and the viewers would never be the same. There are many aspects of this movie that make it the crowning jewel of horror movies. First is the setting...it takes place in what appears to be a normal suburban neighborhood. Many of us who grew up in an area such as this can easily identify with the characters. This is the type of neighborhood where you feel safe, but if trouble starts to brew, nobody wants to lift a finger to get involved (especially when a heavy-breathing madman is trying to skewer our young heroine.) Along with the setting, the movie takes place on Halloween!! The scariest night of the year! While most people are carving jack-o-lanterns, Michael Myers is looking to carve up some teenie-boppers. Besides the setting, there is some great acting. Jamie Lee Curtis does a serviceable job as our heroine, Laurie Strode, a goody-two-shoes high-schooler who can never seem to find a date. However, it is Donald Pleasance, as Dr. Sam Loomis, who really steals the show. His portrayal of the good doctor, who knows just what type of evil hides behind the black eyes of Michael Myers and feels compelled to send him to Hell once and for all, is the stuff of horror legend. However, it is the synthesizer score that really drives this picture as it seems to almost put the viewer into the film. Once you hear it, you will never forget it. I also enjoy the grainy feel to this picture. Nowadays, they seem to sharpen up the image of every movie, giving us every possible detail of the monster we are supposed to be afraid of. In Halloween, John Carpenter never really lets us get a complete look at Michael Myers. He always seems like he is a part of the shadows, and, I think that is what makes him so terrifying. There are many scenes where Michael is partly visible as he spies on the young teens (unbeknownst to them), which adds to his creepiness. If you think about, some wacko could be watching you right now and you wouldn't even know it. Unfortunately for our teenagers (and fortunately for us horror fans), when they find Michael, he's not looking for candy on this Halloween night..he's looking for blood. Finally, Michael Myers, himself, is a key element to this movie's effectiveness. His relentless pursuit of Laurie Strode makes him seem like the killer who will never stop. He is the bogeyman that will haunt you for the rest of your life. So,if you have not seen this movie (if there are still some of you out there who haven't, or even if you have), grab some popcorn, turn off every light, pop this into the old DVD and watch in fright. Trick or Treat! | positive |
Jack Frost 2 is out of the question, I'm actually surprised people are allowed to make these sort of movies.<br /><br />As Sam and his wife take to the Tropicana for a relaxing Christmas, Jack returns to kill off the fun and take on a revenge with inbreeding...<br /><br />Don't take a swip at this film at all, most people say its a laugh with your mates, but frankily its a waste of time. If the people who made this film can get a job by doing what they do, they can at least take the time and effort to write up a better story, especially the cheesy character names. | negative |
Though this movie is cheesiness at its best, it is pulled off perfectly. This movie, without a doubt, has to be considered a modern classic. There are basically two kinds of movies I like - movies with depth (chick flicks, if you must - I blame my wife for this) and mindless comedies where I can sit back and relax. This movie is a perfect example of the latter.<br /><br />A friend of mine turned me on to this movie shortly after its release. Considering me to somewhat shallow, he said to me, "You've got to see this movie. It's just your type of movie." Foregoing the insult, I started watching. I know they mentioned The Ramones a million times, but when you actually see them, I said, "Hey, it is The Ramones." My friend replied, "I don't know they were a real band." I had my moment of glory.<br /><br />This movie, though now somewhat dated, is a must see for Ramones fans - or anyone else for that matter. | positive |
Imagine you have just been on a plane for 18 hours. You have been on a business trip to South Africa. You are a high-paid professional. You've lived in the US for 20 years. You are in your thirties, you have a wife a little boy and another baby on the way. One thing, even though you have a green card, you are still Egyptian. On transit you are asked to come with 2 security guards, next thing you know you are overpowered, hooded and chained and after a brief ( but still reasonably civil) interrogation you are to be rendered! This is what happens to Anwar el Ibrahimi at the beginning of the movie. His is a story of pain and ( literally )torture. It's one of several story lines. One follows his wife's attempts to get more information. One follows the (cold) bureaucrats behind the rendition. Another story deals with the family of the man who leads the interrogation of Anwar el Ibrahimi. There are some other stories too and by the end they all neatly come together. Though the more famous actors like Reese Witherspoon ( as the distraught pregnant wife ) Jake Gyllenhaal ( as the CIA rookie forced to watch the interrogation in Northern Africa) and Meryl Streep ( as CIA hotshot Corine Whitman) it is really the more unknown actors that carry the story and give it it's heart. For me the actor playing the unfortunate Mr El Ibrahimi ( Omar Metwally ) was the heart and soul of this movie. His portrayal of a man in distress was shockingly well done. It's almost as if he was being tortured for real! Also Israeli actor Yigal Naor was very impressive as the part worried family-man and part extremely cruel chief of torture. Hard to watch and not exactly fun, but still very worthwhile. | positive |
I gave Soul Plane the benefit of the doubt and thought there would actually be something of comedic value in it. Im not black, but that does not mean I cant appreciate black comedy. I know that because I happen to enjoy watching the Wayans Bros, Good Times and other series. <br /><br />I've seen crap movies and Im not easily repulsed. As for Soul Plane, I didn't even bother finishing it. Don't know if they managed to land the plane and I couldn't care less. It would be unfair to say I didn't find some parts funny as I did laugh, but I also laugh at Youtube videos of skateboarders falling on their nuts so that doesn't say much. The men in the movie were like a bunch of howling horny hyenas in mating season looking to "get some" whenever and where ever possible. And we wonder why all those stereotypes don't seem to disappear. To summarize: Soul Plane makes the Harold and Kumar series look like The Godfather. | negative |
I don't know why I'm taking the time to review this waste-of-time movie. If you stick with it long enough in hopes of a satisfying conclusion good, bad, or surprising don't. It finally fizzles out after stiff, formulaic, predictable dialogue and acting. Indoor scenes are so harshly lit you think if the camera were zoomed out one millimeter further you'd see the klieg lights. Costumes, hair-do's, and sets are starched, pressed, and immaculate. Are we supposed to imagine common people really lived like that in early 20th-century Arizona? Other reviews' comparisons to Sam Peckinpah are an insult to Peckinpah: at least that director wove his violence into the context of chaos and mayhem. HARD MEN's gore is gratuitous exploding squibs from wooden impersonations of bad guys with manicured fingernails. Huh?!? I can believe Heston thought he might have been making something of worth with this film. (He does get to clutch his gun in his cold fingers.) But Coburn? I'll never guess why he signed up for this travesty. Want to see a movie about the end of the West as we knew it, the end of Westerns as we knew them? Watch THE SHOOTIST or UNFORGIVEN again. THE LAST HARD MEN is a mockery of an obituary to the Western. | negative |
WARNING: I advise anyone who has not seen the film yet to not read this comment.<br /><br />This movie was on the shelf at a movie store and since I had seen a handful of very corny horror flicks there I had really low expectations for this one. Well, I put it in, and almost immediately I was sucked right in. While watching, I got deeper and deeper into the story and pretty soon I was staring in complete interest. This movie is surprisingly spectacular and I loved every second. The story is about a boat ride down a river in Australia. It seems safe enough until their boat is ambushed by a croc who's ready for some food. When I looked at the back of the case I thought that this movie was going to have crappy visual effects like in Lake Placid 2 and a lot of others, but when I first saw the crocodile it looked amazingly real! Don't laugh when I say this, for I am being serious, but this is one of the most creepiest films I've ever seen. It really knew how to build up nail-biting tension and suspense with it's intense situation, I mean, think about it; Your stuck, in a tree, nowhere to run, nowhere to hide with a hungry predator in the depths of the water below. You can not tell me that doesn't freak you out just a little. It even managed to give me a few chills down my arms, like when Adam was taken by the croc and Grace and Lee are left baffled. This is a very appealing movie. There were maybe 1 or 2 parts where I found myself SLIGHTLY uninterested but other than that, I would say this is my favorite animal attack film that I have seen. | positive |
This film is definetly Fonda's best film. The Plot is amazing, the acting is amazing, and the directing is amazing. An all time classic, this should have won best picture not kramer Vs. Kramer. Though it was not even nominated. Jack Lemmon and Micheal Douglas are also at their best. One of the best endings ever. If you haven't seen this film run don't walk to rent it. Should have been on afi's top 100. See it not just for Fonda but for everything.<br /><br />**** out of **** 4 out of 4 | positive |
I had no expectations when seeing the movie because I was seeing it with a bunch of friends and had no idea what it was. Some parts were silly and some parts were lame, but overall the movie was worth watching. I like goth looking women; this movie has plenty of it. The fangs do look really lame though. | negative |
The Secret of Kells is one of the most unique, beautiful, and eye- popping animated films I have ever seen. Before watching this film, I was convinced that nothing could give Up a run for its money and that it was a shoo-in to win in this category, but I found in Kells a serious contender.<br /><br />The Secret of Kells tell the story of a young orphan named Brendan, who lives with his uncle, the Abbot of Kell. The Abbot is a loving guardian, but perhaps a bit too strict and much more concerned with fortifying the wall around the town from a coming attack by vikings than he is at nurturing the boy's imagination. When the legendary Brother Aidan (who looks surprisingly like Willie Nelson) shows up and takes the boy under his wing, Brendan goes on a journey into the woods and meets a lovely forest nymph named Aisling who takes a liking to him (and saves his life more than once). With Aisling's help, he attempts to save the town and help Brother Aidan complete the mystical book whichlegend has itcan turn dark into light.<br /><br />See my full review of The Secret of Kells at: http://theoscarsblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/movie-review-secret-of- kells.html | positive |
Early 80's creature feature concerns a long abandoned gold mine that some intrepid miners are determined to check out. Naturally, they find no gold down there but one very hungry monster that slithers along in search of prey.<br /><br />While I have to be honest and admit I found it dull at first (I personally prefer the thematically similar "The Boogens"), it actually grew on me as it went along. Now, the characters aren't too interesting nor the actors either. The closest to an interesting character is Morgan, played by Keith Hurt. In any event, female lead Terri Berland is quite good looking and Rolf Theison makes his domineering jerk an easy person to hate. The writer played by effects man Mark Sawicki wears thin quickly.<br /><br />It begins in a comfortably predictable enough way, with a nighttime set piece in which two victims are claimed to get things off to an acceptable start. The monster itself is intriguing for its design (as you can imagine, it gets revealed a bit at a time until late in the game) and for being the product of stop motion animation when this process was no longer used very much. Director Melanie Anne Phillips (directing under the pseudonym of David Michael Hillman) and crew deserve some credit for their creation of atmosphere. They manage to make the film look quite claustrophobic and gloomy, and their use of lighting works well. The film does build in intensity towards a pretty good ending. Suffice it to say, they do the best they can on their low budget.<br /><br />An obscure little item worth looking into for die-hard horror buffs.<br /><br />7/10 | positive |
Apart from some quite stunning scenery, this Steven Seagal vehicle is devoid of reasons to spend any time watching it. For a Seagal movie it has very little (almost no) action but he does put in some reasonable (for him) acting in contrived character development scenes. Not recommended. To anyone. | negative |
One wonders why anyone would try to rehash successful movie plots that have already been seen, like it's the case with this movie. "The Wedding Date" is one of the best examples of why not to even try to remake, under the guise of a new story, something that should have been let alone. If a project like this goes ahead with the studio big honchos' approval, then go all out with big stars and glossy production values, that way, people will come for the stars.<br /><br />Alas, that's not what happens in this misguided attempt at comedy. The problem seems to be the way the screen writers have transplanted the story to London, when basically, this seems to be a typical American situation that not even the setting will be able to fix. Then there is the problem with the stars. Debra Messing and Dermot Mulrooney? They have as much chemistry as oil and vinegar!<br /><br />Since the Kat and Nick have no conflict from the start, the viewer is not pulled into the film the way the creators thought they would be. It's clear that Kat will fall for Nick, and vice-versa in this predictable story. Amy Adams, who was the best asset in "Junebug", comes across as a shallow girl who is willing to keep her lie going on and not come clean to the man that loves her and is going to marry her.<br /><br />For anyone interested, the credits at the end of the film run for almost seven minutes! | negative |
conventional and superficial ,Claude´s portrayal was incomplete it is supposed that just a few moments with Sheila , makes him win her love , but the story itself and the songs make it and enjoyable experience essentially the final sequence .Altough i don´t know why it was given a PG rating .<br /><br /> | positive |
I've read up a little bit on Che before watching this film and you wanna know something, he was a real hero for the people because he only wanted to see equality for everyone and that he hated what the oppressive forces were doing to his people as well as all other Latin Americans in general! Now, I don't know about others, but to me he did the right thing by wanting socialism so that everyone had to pay their fair share. However, the powerful elite obviously weren't going to go for that. So, rather than understanding what Che Guevera wanted, they were forced to kill him in attempting to suppress the revolution. It didn't work since there were too many of his other followers who only picked up where he left off. A good example of this was when Castro continued his leadership in Cuba. As far as I'm concerned and as Che said it himself right before he died: "If you kill me, that's fine. But you're only killing a man, you'll NEVER kill the cause!" I couldn't have said it any better myself.<br /><br />But ... ANYWAYS.... that's why I give this film a 7 out of 10. | positive |
... sings David Bovie in this movie. BUT IT IS!!! It's ALL about America, so don't be ashamed to watch it. Just think, if you can, to prevent more damage... You know, you're just the same regular guy next door, so, be careful! One of the best critics of "common" mind and friendship. Still don't care? Go for it for the music - it's worth a try, just close your eyes and Pat Metheny and David Bowie will touch you so deep you'll start to scream! And while watching, if you'll dare to open your eyes, please don't do the popcorn&stuff, you're gonna miss quite a lot. You may think that it's not worth, but, think twice - and don't look at your neighbours lawn - you never know what to find there... Is It worth? Try it! Just don't die or gloat over it... | positive |
...But it definitely still only deserves 4/10 stars and no more. A moronic dumb kid's father is a fighter pilot who gets shot down by some Arab country. They never name the country in the movie, its really ridiculous, they just vaguely refer to some Arab nation, this movie is really ignorant like that. But Lamar from Revenge of the Nerds is in here, he is friends with the main character Doug Masters. Well, Doug Masters, who lives on an Air Force base, his father is an air force pilot, yet he fails to get into the air force academy, conceives of a plot (with help from his retarded friends) to steal two jets and go rescue his father. Yea, exactly - this is One of the Greatest Films Ever Made!!! Louis Gossett Jr is fantastic in his role. You can tell he basically wanted to smack the hell out of Doug Masters the whole movie. Well anyway, you can probably guess how the plot ends, I can't believe they made 3 sequels to this movie. | negative |
As others have noted, this movie is criminally inaccurate in its portrayal of the artist's life and I for one was very annoyed and offended... by its transformation of her rape into a tragic love affair, by the implication that her rapist was responsible for 'awakening her talent,' by its complete disregard for her work, by the way it turned her into a sex object, on and on, you get the idea. Also, I find it disturbing that people who aren't familiar with Gentileschi will see this film and walk away with that kind of impression of her. | negative |
As Joe Bob Briggs would say, this movie relies a lot on the actresses' talents rather than their talent. This early 1990's show-the-babes-in-bikinis-fest has very little to redeem it, other than showing beautiful women nearly naked. Joe Estevez, Martin Sheen's little brother, proves once again that his movie career will be nowhere near what his brother's career is.<br /><br />Avoid this one unless you like watching beautiful women in skimpy clothing. It's about the only thing that redeems it. | negative |
A bus drops off a nameless man outside a run-down Standard Oil gas station in the middle of nowhere. We never learn where the bus came from, or why he is on it, or who he even is. Why is he the only passenger? Is he a prisoner? Is he the "bothersome man" referred to in the title of the movie? Has he died and gone to heaven, or hell? Like our man, we don't get a chance to stop and wonder. He is met by a gatekeeper of sorts and shuttled off to a nondescript city. From day one, all the choices are made for him. An apartment has been rented, a job has been found, an office assigned. In fact, his life is not entirely unlike life in the virtual reality of corporate cubicles and suburban condos. Women are heartless, dinner parties are a drag, office jobs suck. But some pieces don't fit the puzzle. Silently efficient, gray-clad goons roam the streets. Are they some sort of paramedics, or the secret police? And why are there no children? Is the story even set in the real world? Whenever we think we might be getting some answers, new mysteries unfold. "The Bothersome Man" leaves you half relieved that it's over, half wanting more. I hope they make it into a computer game soon. | positive |
How LIVING THE DREAM managed to get into the Laemmle 5 in West Hollywood is beyond me, as it is the worst film I have ever seen in my life. I should have known when the first scene opened in-gasp, Eugene, Oregon-,that this dud of a film with characters that you want to like and feel sorry for from their exclusion days from high school,but can't, as they are such losers, is so wooden and atrocious with dialog that is beyond bad.<br /><br />Then, cliché, the three high school losers end up in LA, and here is where the film could have been realistic if it had shown them trying to find a career in acting. But no, one works as a used car salesman, the other is a true loser in a garage call center selling magazines. Even the bastard that runs the place has more audience appeal than that dreadful actor with the horrible foreign accent. And, they fraudulently get money from an insurance scam to set up an Executive Recruitment firm with no experience, just showing "the supposed good life" in LA night spots with a cast of actors that are so wooden and bad, they better not have SAG cards...<br /><br />I could go on and on about this bad film, but I ended up walking out of the theater, which had at the start six people, and when I left four men were the only ones in the audience. I wanted to like this film, but I couldn't find one merit in the story, characters, writing, dialog, nor the actors. Whoever cast this film should retire. Amen...enough... | negative |
I entered my first comment on this film almost five years ago. Then, the ideas presented in the movie still seemed mostly fictional, if indeed they could ever transpire at all. Not any longer. Now, the politics, society, and media in The Running Man seem very close to home indeed.<br /><br />Consider the following factors, which were mostly absent in 1987 (the year The Running Man came out) that are present today:<br /><br />Concern with, as Richard Dawson's character Damon Killian puts it, "traditional morality." CHECK<br /><br />Entertainment in the form of extreme reality, including pain, fear, and discomfort on the part of contestants. CHECK<br /><br />Cameras everywhere. CHECK<br /><br />Restricted travel for citizens at the whim of the government, controlled by a centralized computer system complete with barcoded passports ("travel passes" in the movie) and sanctioned under the guise of national security. CHECK<br /><br />An increased intermingling, bordering on incestuous, of government and media. CHECK<br /><br />Computer-generated graphics that are advanced enough to manipulate real film footage (such as the "digital matting" of Ben Richards' image onto the stunt double). CHECK<br /><br />Jailing of conscientious objectors or detractors of the current administration. CHECK<br /><br />Flagging economy further widening the gulf between the wealthy and not-so-wealthy; increasing numbers of fringe groups reacting to the tightening noose of big government; civil unrest brewing just under or at the surface of nearly every sizable public event regardless of its origin or intent. CHECK, CHECK, CHECK<br /><br />Then again, maybe it's just a movie based on a Stephen King novella. But just to be safe, I'm moving to Switzerland. | positive |
This is the movie that finally pushed me over the line into registering with IMDb so that I could vote for (and comment on) it. I've only recently come to appreciate well-produced "war" movies, and this is one of the most thoughtful I've seen.<br /><br />"Stunning" is the word that comes to mind when I think of this viewing experience. My husband and I watched this film last night for the first time. It is gently moving, yet exciting at the same time (not a contradiction). This story in the hands of Hollywood could have become just another smarmy, action-packed, Top Gun time-waster.<br /><br />The two lead actors playing Frantisek and Karel played off of each other marvelously well; and Krystof Hadek is a very "pretty" boy without seeming to exaggerate or exploit that fact. In terms of Hadek's acting ability and appearance, my husband said (tongue-in-cheek), "Well, he's no Tom Cruise." I replied, "Thank God!" If you appreciate beautiful and understated acting, see this one. | positive |
Like most of the festivals entries Hamiltons makes for an interesting watch a film thats all ideas and little execution. Although impressive for it's obvious low budget the film falters in it's final twist and becomes dreadfully long during it's drawn out and obvious conclusion. The film is about a family of murderous outcasts trying to survive after there parents have died. They kidnap people , drain the blood from them and feed something locked away in their basement. There's some nice darkly humorous performances from Mckellhar and Firgens and the rest are just so-so. The film never feels realistic or very disturbing for that matter. But for the first half taps into an oddly humorous and dark mixture which is a surprising accomplishment. The next half isn't so successful as it receeds into film oblivion with unrealistic twists into a ridiculously cocky finale that turns the entire film into utter crap. It's a shame though there is no doubt that some talent was involved with this production and although deeply flawed it remains original and creative. too bad that when it comes to the delivery it completely fails on every level.<br /><br />**/5 | negative |
Four holy young men from Mormon country go to L.A. to preach the gospel to urban heathens. But, one of the young Mormons is a repressed gay who "happens" to cross paths with a very "out" young L.A. party boy. (What would film plots be without coincidences?). These two, very different, young men become friends, and in the process, affect each other's outlook which, in turn, sets up an inevitable clash between gay and Mormon cultures.<br /><br />That is the premise of "Latter Days", a 2003 film, written and directed by C.Jay Cox, himself a former Mormon missionary. The film's story is, of course, highly relevant, especially in contemporary America. Variations of this story need to be told, and retold, and retold, hopefully in future films ... because the underlying theme brings to light the hatefully superior attitude that Christian fundamentalists too often display toward gays. By its nature, "Latter Days" is provocative, and I doubt that the film was well received in Provo or Pocatello, even though the script is intelligent, sensitive, and insightful. | positive |
Having searched for this movie high and low, I actually found it when I least expected, playing on the Sundance Channel very early in the morning one day. Why I searched endlessly for a small vanity project that Chuck Barris that was made during the last waning years of the TV show, I haven't a clue. The film is simply put horrible. The scripted part that deals with a week that is. Of course the highlight of the film is seeing the real performers that were "too hot for TV" or rejected for some reason or other. That part is still horrid, but campy bad which was enjoyable in it's own way. Now that I saw what I sought after for so long will I watch it again in my lifetime? Resoundingly NO!! Do yourself a favor and just watch the MUCH MUCH better "Confessions of a Dangerous Mind" or find old copies of the actual show. The girl act where there just lick popsicles provocatively was fun, but having to endure seeing Jay P. Morgon flash the audience has in all likelihood made me sterile. In hindsight, I'm so very happy that this was massive flop, for if it was a massive hit, there could have been a "The $1.98 Beauty Show Movie" and THAT my friends would surely have brought upon the Apocalypse.<br /><br />My Grade: D | negative |
I agree with the user "SpecialAgentFoxMulder" that this episode is awful- posisbly thr worst of the entire show. Now I'm not keen on many episodes of the later series but this one takes the biscuit! It was unfunny and unoffensive. As for the ending, I'm sorry but it disgusted me more than any other episodes combined.<br /><br />I mean, the boys think they meant well but the ending was so upsetting- that they think the whale belongs on the moon and over the credits, we see it has died. Wht could have saved the episode was if the pranksters were able to confess for what they did.<br /><br />There seem to be no outgoing message. Okay, South Park may be guilty of preaching too much and its always nice to see an unpreachign one (such as Make Love Not Warcraft") but this episode was just wrong! Avoid at all costs! Helen xxxxx | negative |
"Mr. Bean", starring the legendary Rowan Atkinson, was a huge hit during its run in the 1990s, and I probably first saw it when I was around ten, shortly after it ended, so I was seeing reruns. I certainly wasn't much of a fan at the time, and didn't see too many episodes. I didn't really get into the show until my late teens, just a few years ago, which was when I finally watched every episode. Unlike before, it made me laugh many times, and since then, that has always been the case during repeat viewings of episodes! <br /><br />Mr. Bean is a mysterious, self-centred, antisocial, extremely naive buffoon whose best friend is his Teddy! He is pretty much isolated from society, and life is not easy for him, as he constantly struggles with very simple things! This is because he lacks some fairly basic knowledge, and has the mind of a child. He finds himself in various kinds of trouble wherever he goes, and comes up with very bizarre ways to try and solve the problems he faces! Not only does he often cause trouble for himself, but sometimes for other people as well, which he often doesn't tend to realize! In other words, Mr. Bean is a walking disaster! <br /><br />The humour in this show is very visual, and there is very little dialogue. The gags are almost always sight gags, which is mostly what the show is about. While there may be an occasional lacklustre gag, I would say the vast majority of them are funny, often hilarious, (there are so many highlights)! While "Mr. Bean" is certainly not the most sophisticated comedy ever made, it's still great for many of those who like visual humour, and due to the very limited dialogue, you don't even have to speak fluent English to enjoy the show, which is why it has received such a world-wide reputation! The show ran for a few years, but the episodes were made very gradually, so only fourteen were made in total. Nonetheless, it is a classic series, and deserves its wide appeal! | positive |
(aka: The Bloodsucker Leads the Dance)<br /><br />Lots of naked babes in this one with a couple of lesbo scenes thrown in. The film is supposed to take place in Ireland but it looks more like Rome and the Adriatic to me.<br /><br />Gothic lesbians get invited to a Count's island castle for the weekend. One by one they seem to be missing their heads due to a madperson running around.<br /><br />It's not very scary or bloody and the rooms look like they are lit with floodlights even though candles are lit. Go figure...(sic)<br /><br />Dubbing is worse than usual and the plot only serves as an excuse for the eroticism and nudity. Directed by euro horror actor Alfredo Rizzo, this is one snoozer.<br /><br />Pretty boring 2 out of 10 | negative |
I can't get over the quality of the score, the book, and the performances. This is the first production I've ever seen of Sweeney Todd so I have no others to compare it to. But the impact is so strong, I just can't imagine anything better.<br /><br />First, there's the music -- take "Johanna" (Act II), during which Sweeney, Anthony and Johanna sing an interwoven vocal line incorporating the melodies from three songs. It's like a Bach chorale in that sense -- just a masterpiece of composition. And the underlying chord structure and voicings are so perfect -- a little bit of melancholy, a little bit of contentment, a little bit of yearning, all expressing these three singers' points of view.<br /><br />Then -- the lyrics. The rhymes are so clever. The rhyme schemes sometimes seem random but they always add up at the end. (The DVD, which I watched, has Closed Captions, and these are indispensable for appreciating the dialog and the lyrics.) Sondheim deserves a literary award for his poetry alone.<br /><br />Finally, the performances. I can't imagine anyone better than George Hearn. Why haven't I heard of him before? His singing, alone, is masterful, but the range of his acting is simply amazing. Angela Lansbury totally surprised me. The song about "you and me down by the seaside" -- who could do it any better? Her timing is flawless, pitch is perfect, every beat of the score is accounted for; and overlaying this achievement in musicianship is her utterly delightful comic delivery.<br /><br />It's a dark tale but I found it to be sweet at times; and the tune to "Johanna" continues to play in my head. | positive |
I thought this movie was amazing. I was a bit skeptical since I really had no idea what it was about, but it was beautiful story. I cried a lot and I also laughed out loud.<br /><br />I think it is very important that there are movies being created that are about the Holocaust and how it affects people (It only happened 60 years ago!) I have been to Germany and Eastern Europe and I have studied the Holocaust, so this film meant a lot to me. I think this film did an amazing job capturing this story (I wont go into detail, I do not want to spoil it) But I definitely recommend it for anyone looking for a movie that, I know this may sound cliché', but will change your mindset on things. | positive |
Guys, you got to watch this awesome movie. At the end of this movie you will have a strong passion and profundity imbued into yourselves. The acting of the two characters, Billy Sunday and Carl Brashear deeply touches the heart from inside. This movie is about principles, dignity, patriotism and HONOR. You will hear Chief Carl Brashear say, the Navy has greatest tradition of all - Honor - practiced thoroughly by these two characters. Mere glances of these characters during the movie fills you with enthusiasm. Dialogue delivery of this movie is perfect. You can't find any flaws in the dialogues. What the Master Chief Billy says roams in and out of your mind for a long time after watching the movie. Please watch this movie. | positive |
I really have problems rating this movie. It is directed brilliantly, there is obviously a lot of money in it. Gere and Danes are intense (although her screen personality could use a bit more defining and spicing up), editing and cinematography are excellent. On the other hand, it is one of those really really sick movies where one cannot help but wonder whether the director himself likes to stage specific scenes, and, yes, one cannot help but wonder how many copycats will such a movie inspire.<br /><br />In purely artistic terms, it is a 9, but I really have to ask myself who these people are giving their money to produce such a movie .... | negative |
Yes, I was lucky enough to see the long-running original production of Michael Bennett's hit musical. It was an amazing experience and I paid to see the movie when it hit theatres back in 1985. It is awful. Almost everything fails. First off, Attenborough (a fine actor, a good director with the right material) is a sorry choice - almost as bad as when John Huston was hired to mangle ANNIE. The camera is always in the wrong place - they chop up the songs and the CASTING!!! They are awful - the power of the play was these dancers - these hungry, talented performers just wanted a chance to show what they could do and when they got their chance - you couldn't take your eyes off of them. But this cast just gets by dancing, does a "nice" job singing but none of them spark one bit. In fact, look up the cast on IMDb - none of them really went on to do anything much. (OK, OK, Janet Jones married Gretzky - sheesh). So this cinema trainwreck does not capture for one second the magic, the desperation, the passion of the stage musical. A total strike-out! (But even though they try to smother the music - the great music still rises up at times and reminds people how great the score was). | negative |
Roman Polanski is considered as one of the most important directors of our time, as the mind behind classics such as "Rosemary's Baby" and "Chinatown". Probably what makes Polanski's cinema a very interesting one is the fact that while he is capable of creating commercially attractive films such as the afore mentioned masterpieces, he is also fond of making low-key movies that are of a more personal nature. "Le Locataire", or "The Tenant", is one of those movies; a horror/suspense story about paranoia and obsession that is among his best works and probably among the best horror movies ever done.<br /><br />Polanski himself plays Telkovsky, a young man looking for an apartment in France. When he finally finds one, he discovers that it is empty because the previous tenant, Simone Choule, attempted to kill herself by jumping out of the window. After Simone dies of the injuries, Trelkovsky begins to become obsessed with her, to the point of believing that her death was caused by the rest of the tenants in the building.<br /><br />While sharing the same claustrophobic feeling of his other "apartment-themed" films ("Repulsion & "Rosemary's Baby"); this film focuses on the bizarre conspiracy that may or may not be entirely in Trelkovsky's head, the catastrophic effects the paranoia has on his mind, and the bizarre obsession he has with the previous tenant.<br /><br />Trelkovsky's descend into darkness is portrayed perfectly by Polanski. While at first his performance seems odd and wooden, slowly one finds out that Polanski acts that way because Trelkovsky is meant to be acted that way; as a simpleton with almost no life, who traps himself in this maddening sub-world that happens to be inhabited by a collection of bizarre people. The supporting actors really gave life to the people in the building creating memorable characters that are very important for the success of the film.<br /><br />Also, the beautiful cinematography Polanski employs in the film helps to increase the feeling of isolation, and gives life to the beautiful building that serves as cage for Trelkovsky. The haunting images Polanski uses to convey the feeling of confusion and madness are of a supernatural beauty that makes them both frightening and attractive.<br /><br />If a flaw is to be found in the film, is that it is definitely a bit slow at first. this may sound like a turn-off but in fact the slow pace of the beginning works perfectly as it mimics Trelkovsky's own boring life and how gradually he enters a different realm. Also, the convoluted storyline is definitely not an easy one to understand due to the many complex layers it has. However, more than a flaw, it is a joy to face a thought-provoking plot like this one.<br /><br />While "The Tenant" may not be for everyone, those interested in psychological horror and surreal story lines will be pleased by the experience. "Le Locataire" is really one of Roman Polanksi's masterpieces. 10/10 | positive |
"What would you do?" is a question that will stick in your mind for weeks after watching the emotional Brokedown Palace. You will also be left wondering if Alice (Danes) was telling the truth or not - a issue that is left unresolved, and rightly so. This is a particularly well acted and beautifully shot film. Although it is slow at times, its pace is reflective of the story line - but a lot of the film will have you on the edge of your seat; wanting to know what happens next. The ending will also leave you imagining yourself in the shoes of the lead characters, which are brilliantly played by Kate Beckinsale and Claire Danes. Bill Pullman's performance is commendable, too. | positive |
This movie was awful, especially considering the work that must have gone into its production. Though it's not as bad as Ax 'Em, it is quite awful. Take into account the obvious rip-offs from Gladiator and Raiders of the Lost Ark, and what do you get? This smorgasbord of awful make-up and wooden acting.<br /><br />The movie starts as most zombie movies nowadays do. A montage of interesting jump-cuts and a radio broadcast of the outbreak at hand. We see our hero (Ryn, quite possibly the worst 'zombie hunter' in modern era; counted about four or five times where he either scratched his head with the barrel of his pistol or looked down the barrel while blowing) cutting off fingers of zombies. We later learn that these fingers are collected for bounties.<br /><br />Well, Ryn seems to be a rebel in his ways of dispensing of zombies; going so far as to purchase chum *gasp* from his French buddy Hans (who isn't really French, speaks with an odd Middle-Eastern accent). As Ryn uses the chum to collect a plentiful bounty from Lost Hills, all hell breaks loose.<br /><br />And cue the awfulness of the movie. The zombies are put together quite poorly. I've seen comments praising their make-up, but it was quite amateur in my opinion. Obvious Halloween adhesives were used to make the zombies' faces and there were points at which one girl looked as if she were donning a clown mask instead of a freshly peeled face. Oy Vey.<br /><br />To sum the next sixty minutes up in a few lines: Ryn is back stabbed by Hans (who made a deal with some other zombie hunters, Blythe being the ringleader), gives him a second chance, gets back stabbed again by Hans, then shoots Hans and gets to Union City where he finds Blythe is poisoning the cities for profit.<br /><br />That's it really in regards to plot. When Ryn reaches Union City all the baddies are gathered around in a house that evidently is so massive it takes Ryn hours to reach the top floor. People die, Ryn lives, and the movie ends with one of those cynical "is he going to kill himself?" scenes.<br /><br />*END SPOILERS* I'm going to have to blame most of this mess on Nott. The direction was awful. EVERY character featured a scowl other than Hans, who was easily the best 'actor' in this group of MacBeth rejects. When they reach Union City, a hoard of zombies attacks the crew and the zombies were obviously given no tips or ideas about how to walk as if your appendages were rotten. One woman is swaying as if she's swimming in mid-air on a Sunday stroll.<br /><br />Some movies are awful. This movie is one of them simply on the grounds of how logic seemed to be abandoned in order to keep a story flowing. Works occasionally, but in this regard (where the story was already in shambles), it doesn't.<br /><br />Avoid it unless you want a decent laugh. | negative |
I'm far from a Sylvester Stallone fan and I guess the only time I really appreciated his appearance was in the French movie Taxi 3, which is an almost inexistent small role. And yet I must admit that this movie was actually not that bad, even though I feared the worst.<br /><br />When Gabe (Stallone) fails to rescue the girlfriend of one of his friends and she plunges to her death from a 4000 feet high mountain top, he can't possibly force himself to keep working as a mountain ranger. For almost a year he doesn't set a food in the reserve, but than he returns. Soon after he's back, they get an emergency call from a group of hikers who got trapped in a snow storm. At least, that's what the rangers believe. In reality it is a group of robbers who crashed with their airplane in the mountains after their daring plan to steal cases full of money from a flying government plane failed. The cases are spread all over the reserve and they need the help of professional climbers to retrieve them...<br /><br />This is of course not one of the most intelligent movies ever, but in its genre it's an enjoyable one. I especially enjoyed John Lithgow as the evil master mind and leader of the gang of robbers. I know him best from the TV-series "3rd Rock from the Sun", but I enjoyed his performance in this movie as well. Overall the acting is OK, it had a lot of action to offer and of course also some one-liners, but it also offered a very nice decor. This movie was filmed in a magnificent natural environment. I loved the snowy mountains and valleys, the mountain rivers and the forests... Perhaps that's why I give this movie a score higher than what I normally give to an action / adventure movie of this kind. I give it a 6.5/10. If you don't expect too much, this is an enjoyable movie. | positive |
...but of course I was wrong.<br /><br />Now, I never expected to like the first movie. I'm not sure what's up with Disney's marketing group, but it seems that every trailer they make for an animated film ends up turning me off as too childish, or silly, or stupid, and yet the movies themselves are usually anything but. And no movie looked worse to me in the trailers than The Emperor's New Groove, which is why I was quite surprised to actually find myself quite enjoying that film when I finally broke down and saw it. I entered with zero expectations and came out pleasantly entertained.<br /><br />Despite Disney's track record with direct-to-video sequels, I had nonetheless hoped for a better experience with Kronk here... but in the end I was nothing but disappointed (and unfortunately not exactly surprised that I felt that way). There's almost no humor targeted towards adults. The original songs are uninspired and sickly cute. The animation, while not bad, still doesn't come close to Emperor (which was no Lion King to start with).<br /><br />The main plot, as such, is astoundingly "minor" and is comprised mainly of a sequence of mini-plot flashbacks - in fact the while thing felt more like a sequence of pilot episodes for a Saturday morning cartoon series than a well conceived single entity.<br /><br />David Spade gets about four lines throughout the entire movie and there isn't exactly a lot of John Goodman either, so overall we're just left with far too much of Patrick Warburton's Kronk - who was entertaining as a secondary character in the first movie but is completely inappropriate as the main lead here.<br /><br />Although kids might find it somewhat fun, the only thing Kronk's New Groove managed to do for me is make me want to go back and watch the far superior original. | negative |
Lucio Fulci's Cat in the Brain is an inventive and somewhat egotistical tale of a director's decent into madness. The director in question is Fulci himself, who stars in the film. Fulci has become known to horror fans everywhere as 'the godfather of gore', and for good reason, as he has provided us with some of the nastiest and most gruesome films ever to grace the silver screen; from the eyeball violence in films like 'Zombi 2', to a man been hacked to death with chains in 'The Beyond', all the way to the full on gore fest known as 'The New York Ripper'; if you want gore (and let's face it, who doesn't), Fulci is your man. However, all this catering for gorehounds like you and I has taken its toll on Fulci's mental state, and he's quickly delving into madness, brought about by what he films. Fulci's problems don't end at his mental state either, as his psychiatrist that he has gone to see about his problem has took it upon himself to take up murder as a hobby, using Fulci's films as blueprints for the murders!<br /><br />I've got to say, the acting in this film is absolutely atrocious. There is one scene in particular that involves a hooker, and it's only fit to be laughed at, for both it's acting and it's stupidity. Fulci takes the lead role of the film (obviously). He's not an actor, and it shows, but his performance is actually the best in the film. It's even safe to say that one the whole, the acting is bad for an Italian horror film. Of course, nobody goes into an Italian horror expecting good acting, so it's somewhat forgivable, but I do think that Fulci could have hired some better ones. Bad dubbing doesn't exactly help either. However, something that does help is the fact that the terrible acting is counterbalanced by lots of gore, and it's extreme to say the least! People get their heads cut off, a woman is slain in the shower (and unlike Psycho, here we REALLY see it), people are hacked up, fed to pigs and there's lots and lots of cinema's finest melee weapon - the chainsaw on display, which delighted me no end. The amount of gore is massively over the top a lot of the time, which gives the film something of a 'spoof' feel, but Cat in the Brain is obviously a tongue in cheek film anyway.<br /><br />It would be hard to make a film about yourself and not come across as being a bit of a big head, and Fulci does indeed come across as a bit of a big head in this movie. His name is mentioned often, and he's on screen nearly all the time; it's not too much unlike 'New Nightmare' in the ego stakes, but it's obvious he had a good time making this, and I for one had fun watching it, so we can forgive him a little egotism. The film's ending lets it down - I saw it coming a mile off, but then didn't seriously think that the movie would take that route, but I was wrong; it did, unfortunately. The ending left me cold, and the film is a better watch if you turn it off just before the final two minutes. However, despite it's ending and terrible acting, Cat in the Brain is a lot of fun and will please Fulci enthusiasts no end, and it is therefore recommended. | positive |
Bronson and Ireland, in their last film together, make a likable pair. He is more restrained than usual and she has become a winning actress. But as a thriller the film is totally worthless. Its premise is downright silly and its pace is much too rushed. | negative |
Ain't it hilarious when an average schmo leading a pathetic life suddenly has something outrageously magical happen to him, turning his life upside down and causing him to learn a few valuable lessons along the way? That formula never gets old, does it? It's such a sure fire way to make a classic film! Just look at major hits like Liar Liar and Big!... This must have been Rob Schneider's line of thinking when he made semi-successful Deuce Bigalow: Male Gigolo and followed it with The Animal. Since I've already traced the plot through sarcasm, allow me to color it in more: Schneider plays a loser cop who's suddenly involved in a tragic accident but is saved through surgery... by a loopy veterinarian who loads him up with animal parts, causing him to whinny like a horse at inappropriate times, run like a cheetah, etc. This movie is slightly more likable than other Schneider-starring flicks (such as another lame same-plot follow-up The Hot Chick), but it almost feels like they want audiences to hate it by casting a reality TV star as the romantic lead (Colleen Haskell from "Survivor") and inserting a cameo by Norm MacDonald. My favorite scene... just does not exist. Sorry - nothing memorably good except the production value. I just want to end this review by saying that slight references to other movies in a movie can be okay, but when it comes to lines being delivered the exact same way ("You can DO it!"), there's a word for that - "milking." Actually, here's another word - "cheap." | negative |
If only the writer/producer/"star" had the slightest inkling of the limits of his acting range, and the way he is perceived on-screen (wearing glasses and a side-parting is not enough to make you look gawky and quirky if your face and teeth have been sculpted by various medical professionals to conform to American ideals of generic, characterless symmetry, erroneously perceived as beauty in this obsessively superficial society) he would have cast John Heder as the main character instead of attempting to pull a Good-Will-Hunting and create a vehicle to showcase his... his... well, himself.<br /><br />The excellent supporting cast (Lord knows, they must be having problems to agree to this) is wasted in an agonising perpetual struggle to react convincingly to a main character incapable of delivering even the simplest line with appropriate intonation, and believe me, he is not short of simple lines to choose from, as the dialogue appears to have been composed by a five-year-old. Ah wait... it's the same person pretending to be a writer as pretending to be an actor. It's not often that I don't see a film through to the end, but this ejaculation was irredeemable from the outset and showed no signs of improving after the first hour. Excrement. | negative |
This is one of those "family" movies that I can't imagine having much appeal to anyone over about 9. A group of siblings discovers a "sand fairy" (yes, really) conveniently located at the end of a not-so-secret passage at the country home of their eccentric uncle, to which they've been evacuated from the London blitz. ...And there you have it, all in one sentence. The story is about the role of magic in childhood and the danger of getting wishes fulfilled, but neither of these issues is examined in a way that would be interesting to adults or instructive to children (or vice versa!). The only reason I can think of for watching this is to see how starkly Freddie Highmore's outstanding talent stands out from the rest of the mediocre performances. | negative |
What if Somerset Maugham had written a novel about a coal miner who decided to search for transcendental enlightenment by trying to join a country club? If he had, he could have called it The Razor's Edge, since the Katha-Upanishad tells us, "The sharp edge of a razor is difficult to pass over; thus the wise say the path to Salvation is hard." But Maugham decided to stick with the well-bred class, and so we have Darryl F. Zanuck's version of Larry Darrell, recently returned from WWI, carefully groomed, well connected in society and determined to find himself by becoming a coal miner. <br /><br />Or, as Maugham tells us, "This is the young man of whom I write. He is not famous. It may be that when at last his life comes to an end he will leave no more trace of his sojourn on this earth than a stone thrown into a river leaves on the surface of the water. Yet it may be that the way of life he has chosen for himself may have an ever growing influence over his fellow men, so that, long after his death, perhaps, it will be realized that lived in this age a very remarkable creature." <br /><br />The Razor's Edge has all of Zanuck's cultural taste that money could buy. It's so earnest, so sincere...so self-important. As Larry goes about his search for wisdom, working in mines, on merchant ships, climbing a Himalayan mountain to learn from an ancient wise man, we have his selfish girl friend, Isabel, played by Gene Tierney, his tragic childhood chum played by Anne Baxter, the girlfriend's snobbish and impeccably clad uncle played by Clifton Webb, and Willie Maugham himself, played by Herbert Marshall, taking notes. The movie is so insufferably smug about goodness that the only thing that perks it up a bit is Clifton Webb as Elliot Templeton. "If I live to be a hundred I shall never understand how any young man can come to Paris without evening clothes." Webb has some good lines, but we wind up appreciating Clifton Webb, not Elliot Templeton. <br /><br />Zanuck wanted a prestige hit for Twentieth Century when he bought the rights to Maugham's novel. He waited a year until Tyrone Power was released from military service. He made sure there were well-dressed extras by the dozens, a score that sounds as if it were meant for a cathedral and he even wrote some of the scenes himself. The effort is as self-conscious as a fat man wearing a rented tux. Despite Hollywood's view of things in The Razor's Edge, I can tell you that for most people hard work doesn't bring enlightenment, just weariness and low pay. <br /><br />After nearly two-and-a-half hours, we last see Larry carrying his duffle bag on board a tramp steamer in a gale. He's going to work his way back to America from Europe with a contented smile on his face. "My dear," Somerset Maugham says to Isabel at the same time in an elaborately decorated parlor, "Larry has found what we all want and what very few of us ever get. I don't think anyone can fail to be better, and nobler, kinder for knowing him. You see, my dear, goodness is after all the greatest force in the world...and he's got it!" Larry and the audience both need a healthy dose of Dramamine. <br /><br />Maugham, lest we forget, was a fine writer of plays, novels, essays and short stories. To see how the movies could do him justice, watch the way some of his short stories were brought to the screen in Encore, Trio and Quartet. And instead of wasting time with Larry Darrell, spend some time with Lawrence Durrell. The Alexandria Quartet is a good read. | negative |
I saw this movie two weeks ago at the "festival des nouvelles images du Japon" in Paris. Though i wasn't expecting much from it, i have to say i've been disappointed just like many people in the audience... if i wanted to sum up how i felt, i'd say i've been comparing it to princess mononoke and nausicaa from the beginning to the end. Of course it's silly. But i couldn't help it. The stories are quite different, but the worlds pictured are very much alike. And from this point of view, "a tree of palme" definitely can't stand the comparison with Miyazaki's masterworks. Even if it's quite good technically, boredom remains... in the end its complete lack of originality makes me advise you not to care to watch it. I rated it 2 out of 10 (a bit harsh, i guess it deserves 3 or 4) | negative |
I always thought this would be a long and boring Talking-Heads flick full of static interior takes, dude, I was wrong. "Election" is a highly fascinating and thoroughly captivating thriller-drama, taking a deep and realistic view behind the origins of Triads-Rituals. Characters are constantly on the move, and although as a viewer you kinda always remain an outsider, it's still possible to feel the suspense coming from certain decisions and ambitions of the characters. Furthermore Johnnie To succeeds in creating some truly opulent images due to meticulously composed lighting and atmospheric light-shadow contrasts. Although there's hardly any action, the ending is still shocking in it's ruthless depicting of brutality. Cool movie that deserves more attention, and I came to like the minimalistic acoustic guitar score quite a bit. | positive |
OK, I've now seen George Zucco in at least four separate horror/suspense films recently as I worked my way through various 50 pack collections, and I have to say, the guy had a limited range, but he was good at what he did. He wasn't Karloff, but PRC was lucky to have him. <br /><br />But the poor guy was stuck in a kind of back-water ghetto of horror films, and he wasn't good enough to take them to the next level of interest....not with the thread-bare screenplays and direction and budgets he worked under. That's the case here. <br /><br />This movie is, well, slow, stodgy and unexciting for the most part. The "heroine" seems to be doomed to be a rent-a-center version of Judy Garland, the "hero" is bland as white rice, and the poor guy playing the monster doesn't even get a good transformation scene out of the deal. His make up effects aren't scary at all - he looks like a slightly more shaggy version of a farm hand, is all. <br /><br />It's not a total waste. Zucco looks good on camera, he chews the scenery while managing to deliver some terribly affected and contrived set speeches without flinching or losing the flow. There are some moody B&W shots here and there that don't completely suck. <br /><br />So all in all...this movie helped some "C" through "Z" level actors pay their rent for another month, and it never sinks below a certain hacked out level of quality. Watch it once if you like George Zucco, or just feel the need to see every wolfman-themed movie ever made. | negative |
This film to me deserves a lot of praise, because even though I am not a surfer or skater, I remained inspired throughout the whole documentary.<br /><br />The depth of history and development of these two extreme sports emphasised what they were able to do for two groups of individuals. The dedication that these individuals had/have is truly inspiring and it was because of them that others can now enjoy and do what these guys founded.<br /><br />Unlike most other documentaries, this one was cleverly put together, the amount of footage that was recorded and survived throughout the decades is outstanding and it was because of this that some of the greatest editing I have ever seen was put together and resulted in the subject remaining focused. Without the urge for them to retort to recent footage of the more famous surfers and skaters that remains popular today.<br /><br />The film explores areas such as the success, such accomplishing new tricks, winning competitions and gathering fame. As well as failures such as injury or burning out.<br /><br />It was also fulfilling to hear the experiences come from the skaters and surfers themselves and not from second hand information. This resulted in a better picture to be drawn.<br /><br />Overall, a truly outstanding effort. | positive |
Having seen the full length film Kieslowski made out of this episode of "The Decalogue" years ago, came back to this viewer as we watched the complete ten vignettes. As with the other films, this one is loosely based on the fifth commandment, or, "Thou shalt not kill".<br /><br />Kryzsztof Kieslowski, writing with Kryzsztof Piesewicz, took a look at the mind of a young man who commits a heinous crime in murdering an innocent person to vent his own frustrations. This installment has a Dostoyevskian character that kept reminding us about "Crime and Punishment", or at least some of the qualities of the novel are passed to the aimless youth who apparently has no redeeming qualities.<br /><br />The story shows the young man as he roams the streets of the city without a clear idea of what to do, or where to go. The only tender moment he displays is when he visits the photographer's place to ask to have an old picture of his sister restored. Kieslowski leaves it up to fate to have the murderer board a taxi with the intention of robbing the driver, but it's his anger and frustration that get the best of this youth to kill a man that didn't deserve to die. The last moments of this criminal is one of the most gripping sequences in any film, past, or present.<br /><br />The other element in the story is the relationship between the public defendant and the criminal. Nothing can prevent the court to condemn to death the young man. The lawyer feels at the end he has failed his client and goes to the judge to see where he went wrong. All he is asked by the young man is to retrieve the picture and send it to his mother.<br /><br />Kieslowski's account of how he interprets the fifth commandment makes for a surprising film that will stay in the viewer's mind long after this episode is forgotten. | positive |
This motion picture comes straight out of the dark dungeon of Full Moon Entertainment. This production company gained fame and fortune during the first half of the 90's by producing terribly bad and cheesy horror movies. The most famous disasters in their ouvre are "Subspecies", "Seedpeople" and "Trancers". None of these are recommended and neither is Doctor Mordrid, actually. Hyperactive director Charles Band did come to the right company for his film. Doctor Mordrid is amazingly dumb and cheesy and almost completely humourless. I only saw it because it stars Jeffrey Combs. I learned that it can have several disadvantages if you're a fan of him. For every good movie, it seems like he has made 5 inferior ones. Anyways, the story is about the battle between 2 ancient sorcerers. One good one who's here since 150 years to protect the humans ( Jeffrey as Dr.Mordrid ) and one wicked one called Kabal. He wants to destroy every form of human life for some reason I already forgot. Combs gets his instructions from mentor. That "guy" only exists of a pair of eyes in space. Very very cheesy, that is ! Every once and a while a blinding lightflash is shown on the screen but that's about the only form of Special effects this movie has got. The whole thing is just a piece of whining and nagging and when the two wizards finally face each other, it's over before you know it...I would have expected for the wicked wizard to at least fight back a little, but nooooooo.... In some scenes, you really can detect some originality and creativity ( like for example Jeffrey's lecture about the influence of the moon on criminals ) and if you really pay attention, you might even find some very small but nice aspects ( like the raven which is called Edgar Allen) but overall, it's a terrible waste of time and energy. I'm a big fan of Jeffrey and maybe he is a superhero in my eyes...but he sure doesn't have to put on a stupid maillot for that. | negative |
The wit and pace and three show stopping Busby Berkley numbers put this ahead of the over-rated 42nd Street. This is the definitive 30's musical with a knockout frenetic performance from Jimmy Cagney. One of the last releases before the Motion Picture Production Code was strictly enforced. A must see. | positive |
Totally ridiculous. If you know anything about poker, you will find it absolutely appalling but also entertaining because it is so clueless. The nerd who made this movie is obviously very religious and knows slightly about the game of poker, but I doubt he's ever played above 3-6. (I think he also knows nothing of golf.) Where to start. I've seen better productions in the Intro to Film class I took freshmen year of film school. The actors to watch in this movie are Queen Momma, Scotty Nguyen, and the loser who can never win at poker. Everyone else is as wooden as they come, like bad porn actors.<br /><br />*Spoiler* The man the movie starts with in the opening sequence is the only reason the film got made. He is a railbird who doesn't play poker and never has a line of dialogue, but the actor is the man who obviously paid for the movie. I can't think of a more useless waste of money than this man shelling out for this pointless production. It's fitting that he had such a useless role.<br /><br />There's very little poker in this movie. Most of the time is spent on useless side characters whose plots aren't resolved in the slightest. Queen Momma does have a show-stealing scene where she throws her loser boyfriend through a window and tries to shoot his brains out. Also the nameless Arabs in the convenience store also give brilliant performances when they debate whether to beat up or kill an older lady who robs them. Their subtle performances are easily among the film's highlights. It makes you wonder why they bothered getting all these white people to play the leads.<br /><br />In conclusion, complete nonsense. Plan 9 from Outer Space has slightly more coherency. If you play poker though you might want to have a laugh. Also if you're Christian you might enjoy some of the heavy-handed religious conversation that pepper the movie like pointless pepper. I hate movies made by religious people. Especially ones who think they know something about things they know nothing about. It's sad that Jennifer Harman and Scotty Nguyen got involved in this travesty as I can't help but think less of them. They must be envious of Johnny Chan for getting in Rounders. | negative |
Insane really. Even if you haven't seen the original George Cukor movie with Norma Shearer, Joan Crawford, Rosalind Russell, Paulette Goddard, Joan Fontaine and a cast of a thousand other stars you may dismiss this forced, politically correct, depressing comedy. Depressing for many different reasons. Meg Ryan for one. What has she done to herself? Her face can hardly move. That alone puts her miles away from Norma Shearer. Annette Bening should be suing the DP and Debra Messing, what the hell was she doing here? Actresses with no connection in the public's subconscious trying to pass for friends, totally unconvincingly. Eva Mendes in the Joan Crawford part is an outrageous piece of miscasting. What a terrible idea! Her character is like a trans-gender performer without any taste or subtlety. Bizarre to think that a woman adapted and directed this women.The only positive things I can mention are a short but very funny appearance by Bette Midler and Cloris Leachman as the housekeeper. | negative |
As with all Haneke films, make your own decision--don't be swayed by what you read and if you are interested in someone using the medium of film for their own unique ends, see it yourself. Isabelle Huppert is stunning in this film--combined with Haneke, these two never pull their punches. Haneke reels us in with the lure of golden boy, Benoit Magimel, but this is an anti-romance as much as Funny Games was an anti-thriller. You'll have to force yourself to watch much of it and the catharsis is much more in the range of sustained anxiety than any kind of emotional release but it's incredibly nervy and thought provoking; Haneke continues to hold up a mirror to how desensitised Western civilization is or has become. People may turn their noses up at this but it's only taking what Solondz did in Happiness a few steps further. While grounded in reality, much of what Erika (Huppert) does can be viewed as emotional metaphor. I'm not recommending it but I wouldn't dissuade you either...it definitely divides people but given it's largely about repression--that's no surprise. | positive |
I'm a big fan of Lucio Fulci; many of his Giallo and splatter flicks are amongst my favourites of all time, but this made for TV movie is extremely sub par and not what I've come to expect from the great Italian director. The film is neither interesting, like some of Fulci's more tame Giallo's, or gory like the majority of his cult classics; thus leaving it lacking in both major areas, and ultimately ensuring that the film isn't very good. The film works from a plot that has been used many times previously, but still it's an idea that always has the chance of springing an interesting story just because it focuses on the theme of the afterlife, which is the ultimate unknown. This film focuses on Giorgio Mainardi; a man that isn't exactly well liked and after he dies of an apparent stomach hemorrhage, there aren't many people that are sad to see him go. This means that his ghost is trapped somewhere between life and the afterlife, and so he decides to try and get to the bottom of his death, and his only ally in this endeavour is his daughter.<br /><br />The video that I saw this film on is proudly proclaimed that the film is "in the style of HP Lovecraft", and that's one of the most blatant attempts to sell a film I've ever seen. There is nothing even slightly reminiscent of the great horror writer in this tale, and the reason for that tagline would appear to be because of title similarity to the Stuart Gordon/Lovecraft film, 'From Beyond' - which is a lot better. The film does benefit from a distinctly Italian style, and the score is rather good. Unfortunately, however, Fulci has seen fit to positively roast every scene in it - and so the theme quickly becomes annoying. The plot plays out in a really boring way, and most of the scenes simply involve the ghost 'desperately' trying to find things out, or the daughter placing her suspicions over her family members. This movie was made for Italian TV, and so it's not surprising that it's all rather tame. There's a little bit of gore and a nightmare sequence with zombies; but this isn't the Fulci we all know and love. Overall, this film is extremely mediocre and not a good representation of Fulci's talents. Not worth bothering with, unless you're a Fulci completist. | negative |
This is a harrowing movie, and it moves relentlessly. Still it is utterly unique among war films in that it focuses exclusively on the civilian experience, the loss of humanity ordinary people undergo during wartime. The two young, married musicians undergo a slow, battering process of degradation at the hands of both sides of a civil war. Utterly stripped of sentimentality, the film offers a bleak vision of the modern world, and one I believe particularly recognizable to many Europeans. With brave, intense performances by Liv Ullmann (never better) and Max von Sydow (likewise). For my money, the most indelible film Bergman ever created. | positive |
We all know that some of the greatest movies of all time were based on books. While not particularly accurate adaptations, these movies were nonetheless excellent films. Some great examples are the Harry Potter series, the Lord of the Rings trilogy, and, to a lesser extent, almost every Disney film ever made. However, I must regretfully announce that A Wrinkle in Time is not one of those movies. Not only does it fail to meet some of the most basic expectations of Madeleine L'Engle's fan base, it manages to defy the standards of scriptwriting, acting, special effects and, ultimately, respect for the audience. Mind you, I'm not trying to be mean; on the contrary, I went into this affair with an open mind. I figured that a made-for-T.V. movie would make up for its lack of razzle-dazzle in its script. After all, the Star Wars spin-off Ewoks was decent, if a little silly. Come to think of it, the original Star Wars was made on "a lunch money budget", and look where it took George Lucas! However, from the first scene onward, disappointment started enveloping me as if I'd gotten too close to the Black Thing while tessering. <br /><br />The same way Greedo shooting first became the symbol of the Star Wars Special Edition of 1997 (a disaster of monumental proportions involving a disgruntled director making several hideous changes to a beloved classic), Mrs. Whatsit has officially become my personal symbol for the confusion and stupidity that is A Wrinkle in Time. The reason for this is the fact that she has been mutated beyond belief. Aside from the slightly controversial decision of casting Alfre Woodard (Star Trek: First Contact and Radio) as our favorite star-turned-mentor, the filmmakers decided it appropriate to introduce her as a crow. That's right, a crow. Moreover, the heavenly centaurion form of this greatly beloved character has been hacked at by what looks to be a demented eight-year-old; the majestic half-man, half-horse with wings has become a huge human head with a creepy smile mounted awkwardly on the bowlegged body of a horse that happens to be sporting a pair of wings in the middle. Had I been five, this would have psychologically traumatized me for life. The worst part is the fact that when it spoke, it was shown from behind so as to avoid the responsibility to lip sync, resulting in a scene that was spent looking at the back of its head and seeing a single, unmoving cheek, thus rendering the piece of special effects less believable than E.T.<br /><br />Having gotten the most painful part out of the way, I must go on to the tear-inducing one: the characters, the acting, and the story. I, personally, had always imagined Meg to look somewhat similar to Moaning Myrtle from the Harry Potter films: plain hair, glasses, and a figure most supermodels would find laughable. She was always a slightly anxious, humorously pessimistic math genius who quite simply could not have cared less about the imports and exports of Nicaragua. In the film, she is an unpleasant know-it-all for whom I have no sympathy whatsoever. In fact, she makes me feel sorry for poor Mr. Jenkins, her school principal, who continuously has to deal with her. Calvin, the kind, intelligent kid who everyone thinks is a jock has become
a jock! The irony is horrible. As for the memorable Happy Medium, they took the pleasant old woman who liked to look at happy things and replaced her with a being who is "above gender" and likes to look at "funny" things, such as girls falling off of swings. The only three people I can think of who did a decent job are Charles Wallace, Mrs. Whatsit and the Man With Red Eyes (nicknamed "the Dude With Red Eyes" due to his complete reinvention as a character).<br /><br />The story is a mess. A good comparison to this aspect of the movie is Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, which didn't do a good job of retelling the story found in the book, yet kept the sole of the original work. Here, the sole of the book is having a pleasant chat with Hades down in the underworld, apparently unaware that its body is being destroyed. As the Dark Lord complements the sole on how well it showed that truth has to be felt and not seen, the flat-nosed wookies of Ixchel (who replace the wondrous beings who hold Aunt Beast among their ranks) tear the spine up. As the God of the Dead notes how subtle the terror of the Earth-like Camazotz was, the torn pages are scattered in the sandstorm and lost in the darkness of the land of evil. <br /><br />I am very sorry that this film exists. I do not believe that the actors were genuinely bad. It's the way the characters are written that ruins it. A Wrinkle in Time deserved to be adapted by Lawrence Kasdan, directed by George Lucas or Steven Spielberg, enhanced at Industrial Light and Magic, scored by John Williams, given its sound at Skywalker Sound, edited by THX and marketed by Twentieth Century Fox. In its current state, the film is unworthy to be shown to self-respecting people. Even Madeleine L'Engle thought it was bad. The book was Good, the film was Bad, and Mrs. Whatsit was Ugly.<br /><br />Score: 0.1/10 (If I could) <br /><br />Pros:<br /><br />They got the names right. <br /><br />Cons: <br /><br />It had horrible problems with the Cliffs Notes level of adaptation, script, acting and special effects, not to mention lack of evidence of ever having read the book. Oh, and the main cover/poster has a picture of the three main characters riding a flying horse over a castle. Some might say that this symbolizes high adventure. I say it symbolizes the irresponsibility of the cover artist who didn't even bother to Photoshop Meg's arm on properly. | negative |
Suzumiya Haruhi no Yuuutsu is a very high-rated anime in almost every review page you'll find on the web. So I really wanted to know why, and I was anything but disappointed.<br /><br />If you can get past the very bizarre (but rather funny) first episode, you'll find yourself in a very entertaining and much strange world. A very well drawn, perfectly animated world, that is.<br /><br />I can't tell much of the story without spoiling it, so I'll just say that it's a high school comedy... and yet it's not. I can't really say what it's about, really.<br /><br />Seriously, I'm a HUGE anime fan, and I've got around 50 full series, and I'm not kidding when I say that, even though I haven't finished watching Haruhi Suzumiya, it is actually standing in a very high rank in my personal collection. I fell in love at first sight with this one, and I assure you that, at the very least, you won't be indifferent to its irresistible charm. Trust me, I don't go around giving a 10 to every thing that I watch. | positive |
Having enjoyed Mike Myers previous work (Waynes World and Saturday Night Live) my expectations of a 60s bond spoof were fairly high. It became plain after the first minute that this was an exercise in how to be as puerile and unfunny as possible. I swit ched off after ten minutes. I watched it the other day a second time to see whether I had been unfair the first time. I switched it off after ten minutes. I find it hard to believe how even a twelve year-old boy could find this funny. The dialogue is an e mbarrassment, Myers is painful to watch (as is Heather Graham) and the succession of characters including Fat Bastard makes matters even worse. Apart from the mildly amusing title and the psychedelic set design this is one of the worst films I have ever seen. I personally recommend you avoid this like the plague, though several friends of mine enjoyed it (maybe they were blindfolded at the time).º | negative |
One of my best friends brought this movie over one night with the words 'Wanna watch the worst horror movie ever?' I always enjoy a good laugh at a bad horror flick and said yes. I had expected your typical cheesy b-slasher but this was beyond B. This is Z-slasher, the lowest of the low. With obviously low budget, extremely bad acting, bad lightning, no plot, really bad so-called 'special effects', shaky cameras and a horrible soundtrack this makes movies like House of Wax look like Oscar-winning masterpieces. The only good thing about it is about 15 seconds of one of the characters getting topless - she had some very nice tits. Most of what I said during this film was along the lines of 'Wow this is actually SO BAD', 'This is the worst movie ever' and 'I'm not drunk enough for this'. So in conclusion: don't waste your time (or money!). | negative |
In this movie "Virtual Sexuality" the 17 year old Justine is not lucky in love. One day when she is stood up, she goes with her friend to a virual reality conference, there she is introduced with a machine that can change your look, dody and whatever you like in Virtual Reality. She decides to try it out, but begins to make a boyfriend of her own, her dreamdate. Then suddenly there is an explosion in a gas pipe and her creation comes to life. I'll say no more, you'll have to watch the movie, which is quite fun to watch. | positive |
If you thought this is the french The Mummy and if you're hoping for another "Vidocq"...well look elsewhere. It does have the same kind of story like The Mummy concerning this book of the dead and a soul that needs to find 7 missing pieces that are scattered in the Louvre. I found the movie to be slightly entertaining, boring for the most part. The special effects aren't bad, but it's nothing spectacular as I was expecting big explosions and perhaps the eiffel tower crumbling down until I realized that those kind of scenes were in The Mummy and this is Belhpegor. Apparently based on a french cult tv series, Belphegor could have been so much better. I voted this film a 4/10 only for the beautiful Sophie Marceau...she must be almost 40 and she looks breathtaking! | negative |
i like full house and step by step the same. i don't have a favorite episode i just like certain scenes. but some scenes i don't like but i haft to say the reason i started watching this show is because it had Suzanne Summers in it. and my most favorite character was Dana. and Karen could be a snob sometimes, but she was good character also. i just like to watch family shows instead of trash that has a lot of drugs and violence. this show is a lot like other family shows where one of the parents are always strict about curfews and dates. other than step by step, my other favorite shows are full house, Sabrina the teenage witch, gomer pyle usmc, the andy griffith show, and dukes of hazzard. | positive |
Being a freshman in college, this movie reminded me of my relationship with my mom. Of course, my situation doesn't parrallel with Natalie Portman and Surandon's situation; but my mom and I have grown up with the typical mother and daughter fights. There is always the mother telling you what to do, or not being the kind of mother you want to be. I was balling my eyes at the end of this movie. Surandon's reaction of her daughter going to the East coast, miles away, after all they've been through reminded me of how I felt, being from a small city in the West coast, going to New York. <br /><br />The movie is meant for women who have children that are now all grown up. It is very touching, I was moved by the movie. Every feeling out of the characters in this movie was utterly real, you didn't get any phony sentimentality. I was sitting through the credits at the screening of this movie, alone, wishing my mother was sitting next to me so I could hug her and thank her for everything. This movie is a bit corny of course, but everything is trully momentous. Its all about what a mom can learn from her child; and what a child learns from her mother. 8/10 | positive |
Ned Kelly (Ledger), the infamous Australian outlaw and legend. Sort of like Robin Hood, with a mix of Billy the Kid, Australians love the legend of how he stood up against the English aristocratic oppression, and united the lower classes to change Australia forever. The fact that the lower classes of the time were around 70% immigrant criminals seems to be casually skimmed around by this film. Indeed, quite a few so called `facts' in this film are, on reflection, a tad dubious.<br /><br />I suppose the suspicions should have been aroused when, in the opening credits, it was claimed that this film is based upon the book, `Our Sunshine'. If ever a romanticized version of truth could be seen in a name for a book, there it was. This wasn't going to be a historical epic, but just an adaptation of one of many dubious legends of Ned Kelly, albeit a harsh and sporadically brutal version.<br /><br />Unfortunately, Ned Kelly is nothing more than an overblown Hallmark channel `real life historical drama' wannabe! The story plods along at an alarming rate (alarming because never has a film plodded so slowly!) The feeling of numbness after the two hours of pure drivel brought back memories of Costner's awful Wyatt Earp all those years ago. Simply put, nothing happens in the film, but it takes a long time getting to that nothing. This would possibly have been a tad more bearable if the performances were good (because the direction sure as heck wasn't). However, unless you are looking to play a game of spot the worst Oirish accent, then you're gonna be disappointed. Between that, the game of `Who has the stupidest beard?', `Spot the obvious backstabber!' (clue, they are all ginger for some reason), and `Nature in Australia.including lions', it is an experience similar to flicking through Hallmark, The History Channel, Discovery Channel, and Neighbours whilst suffering a huge hangover. Yup, nature pops up a lot, as to fill even more time (possibly an attempt to look arty), the film keeps showing pointless wildlife shots, and once all the native species are shown, here's a circus to allow for a camel and a lion (which is used during one fight to try to make us actually feel more sorry for the lion than the massacred people).<br /><br />This is a turgid, emotionless piece of historical fluff which should have gone straight to TV. There isn't even one good word I can say about this film. Even the usually fantastic Rush seems embarrassed to be here. When one of the characters comments that there is only 2 bullets left for him and his pal, I myself was wishing I had a gun to blow any memory of this film out of my head! | negative |
80 minutes, and it felt twice that long! Brief Crossing is not brief enough. Indeed, the first 50 minutes or so consist almost entirely of a dialogue (more of a monologue, really) of a woman approaching middle age, tediously droning about "men," disappointment, sex, aging, and her recent breakup, to a French teenager she met in the ship's cafeteria.<br /><br />The tedious monologue continues as they go to duty-free shop, and to a bar, where finally her self-involved rant pushes him away. The "story" can't end there, of course, so she persuades him to listen to her drone on more as she brings him to her cabin.<br /><br />What little romance, sex, or for that matter, anything at all this film has besides bitter rantings is hardly enough to justify the price of a rental unless you are one of those who love dramas where nothing interesting happens at all. Yes, the ending is very nicely done, but it is scant reward to subject yourself to what amounts to a turning your living room into a virtual therapy session with a narcissistic whiner.<br /><br />Of course, some people like it. I could be wrong. | negative |
This is the question that astronauts Roy Thinnes and Ian Hendry ask themselves when they discover a parallel world of Earth always hidden on the far side of the sun in this 1969 cult science fiction melodrama, released here in America as JOURNEY TO THE FAR SIDE OF THE SUN. The plot of the film was devised by British writers Gerry and Sylvia Anderson, the creators of such TV shows as "UFO", "The Thunderbirds" and "Space 1999". It is exceedingly weird at times, betraying the influence of "The Twilight Zone" and even Stanley Kubrick's classic 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY. The visual effects work of Derek Meddings, who would also later work on SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE, holds up surprisingly well under the last three decades of special effects advancements; and while they are not really on the same exalted level of the Kubrick film, they are very superb. If you don't anticipate a STAR WARS-type of a film and can overcome the occasionally trite dialogue, DOPPELGANGER is a good film; it was good enough for me to rank it a '7' and consider it an undiscovered sci-fi gem. | positive |
From a military historian's standpoint, nearly everything in this movie is historically accurate. Beyond that, it is an enthralling story that leaves you depressed at the end but quite glad you took the time to watch. | positive |
After reading some very good reviews about this film I thought I would give it a watch and after being very disappointed with the film I thought I would give it my own review. This is my first ever so bare with me.<br /><br />First of all I would scratch horror from the genre as in no way is it horrific or scary in the slightest (with the exception of a few feeble attempts to make you jump unfortunately one of which worked on me.) I would say that calling this film a thriller is pushing it as I wasn't particularly thrilled either! The film is about a spoiled mischievous girl who faints a few times. During these times she visits a house which she has been drawing, after each visit she decides to add something else to the house to make it a bit more lively one of the features being a sad little boy who is also ill in reality. As she befriends the boy she realises that her imaginary world that she created is actually better than the real world that she is in. Until she adds her constantly away father to the house, due to a misdrawing her dad turns out to be evil and her and the boy must escape from his clutches.<br /><br />Think its an attempt to be a slightly more mellow version of A Nightmare On Elm Street but is more like a trip to the beach.<br /><br />In conclusion my generous 3/10 will hopefully stop at least one of you from watching this drab! | negative |
This movie is definately one of my favorite movies in it's kind. The interaction between respectable and morally strong characters is an ode to chivalry and the honor code amongst thieves and policemen. It treats themes like duty, guilt, word, manipulation and trust like few films have done and, unfortunately, none that I can recall since the death of the 'policial' in the late seventies. The sequence is delicious, down to the essential, living nothing out and thus leading the spectator into a masterful plot right and wrong without accessory eye catching and spectacular scenes that are often needed in lesser specimens of the genre in order to keep the audience awake. No such scenes are present or needed. The argument is sand honest to the spectator; An important asset in a genre that too often achieve suspense through the deception of the audience. No, this is not miss Marble... A note of congratulations for the music is in order A film to watch and savor every minute, not just to see. | positive |
Things I learned from "The List".<br /><br />A decent cinematographer, a hot girl who can act and Malcom McDowell couldn't stop this movie from sucking.<br /><br />Blockbuster won't give you your money back.<br /><br />Even when he reads the script and says "Ugh! Really?!", Malcom McDowell still tries.<br /><br />Chuck Carrington desperately needs acting classes.<br /><br />Hire a writer.<br /><br />Jesus hates me too and punished me by making me pay $ 5.50 to see this movie.<br /><br />When making a movie, you don't need an ending. Just leave everything unexplained, unresolved an uninteresting enough so that the audience falls asleep BEFORE the ending. Genius.<br /><br />Any random landlord can cure death just by drawing a cross on a window. So make friends.<br /><br />Your maid can sing you back to life.<br /><br />Chuck Carrington still needs acting classes.<br /><br />Your roommate will hate you and make fun of you if you bring home this movie.<br /><br />Apologies will not be accepted. | negative |
This drama apparently caused a bit of a stir six years ago when it debuted on television - not taking in much TV news myself, it passed under the radar; but after having seen it, I'm not surprised that it did cause a stir. Not particularly because of the content (although it is a bit more 'offbeat' than the usual TV fodder) - it has more to do with the reactionary media in this country. Anyway, this three part series is based on a book by Sarah Waters and puts its main focus on lesbians - although the plot also has room to explore some other 'dark' sides of sexuality. Our main character is an oyster girl named Nan (short for Nancy) from Winchester. She is bewitched by female to male drag performer Kitty Butler after seeing her at a theatre show and soon begins attending all of her shows - eventually catching the eye of the performer and becoming her dresser. It's not long before Kitty is offered a chance to play on bigger stages in London and having become good friends with Nan, she invites her along for the ride. The act gets bigger when Nan takes to the stage also and the pair becomes a stage duo...but Kitty breaks Nan's heart, leading her into an odyssey within London's seedy underbelly.<br /><br />I must admit that my DVD collection contains no shortage of sleazy and sordid films so there wasn't anything in this one that was enough to shock me. Despite being rather jaded to it, I have to say that I'm still surprised at anyone who says this film went too far; naturally there is some lesbian sex and other stuff, but it's never exploitative or overused and the film really couldn't have been made without it. The main focus is always on the story; and the story is really well done. The film is almost three hours long in total, but if anything that isn't long enough to get everything across. Sarah Waters is obviously an inventive writer, and the film remains interesting for the duration. The acting is solid as you would expect, but I must admit that I found lead actress Rachael Stirling awkward and hard to get on with at first; although she grows into her role well as the film progresses. The execution is a little bit of a problem and director Geoffrey Sax is a bit too gimmicky for my liking. The story does get a little bit sappy towards the end also, which is a shame because this film is at it's strongest during the dark moments (episode 2 being the high point of three for me). There's not really a defined point to the film - or at least not one that I could see. That's not important as far as I'm concerned; however, as Tipping the Velvet tells a good story and more than surpassed my expectations. Worth checking out, for people that like this sort of stuff. | positive |
Romuald et Juliette is one of those French romantic comedies where they seem to break all the rules, rather like Trop Belle Pour Toi. The gorgeous Daniel Auteuil learns about true loyalty and love when his life threatens to crash around his ears. The film isn't a preachy morality tale, but a wonderful story that will keep you hooked until the last. Firmine Richard (as Juliette) is a heroine that women will cheer - her laughter is my abiding memory of this warm and witty film. The down-to-earth way she has of including all her children by their different fathers - particularly the birthdays - gives the film an edge that lifts it above your average romantic comedy. But its always the French that seem to show us how effortless this all is! | positive |
American icon Henry Fonda portrays "Elegant" John Howard, an aging trucker who has had his beloved big rig "Eleanor" repossessed after a lengthy hospital stay has forced him to miss his payments. Deciding that he would like to make just one more perfect run, he breaks out of the hospital, steals back Eleanor, and hooks up with old friend Penelope Pearson (Eileen Brennan), who is in need of relocating her troupe of prostitutes.<br /><br />Fondas' wonderful performance is a natural anchor for a film that tugs at the heartstrings as effectively as it tickles the funny bone in the more comedic scenes. A superb cast including Robert Englund, as a reluctant young sidekick, Susan Sarandon (who also gets co-producer credit), and Dub Taylor (a delightful ham, as always, in the most blatantly comedic portion of the picture) helps immeasurably.<br /><br />The ultimately life-affirming nature of the picture and the poignancy of the journey carry incredible weight; this is a picture, that provided you get into it, you can remember long after it's over.<br /><br />The promise of the open road is vividly displayed here; the countryside just looks beautiful. Set to Craig Safans' wonderful music score, it's a remarkable picture in terms of aesthetics.<br /><br />It loses a little something in its final act (the characters played by John Byner and Austin Pendleton are little more than intrusions), but it still maintains its good vibes thanks to the appeal of its central characters.<br /><br />Not at all the exploitation / drive-in schlock picture one might expect from the title (especially its alternate title, "The Great Smokey Roadblock"), it's a rewarding movie experience that I can recommend without qualms.<br /><br />9/10 | positive |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.