review stringlengths 32 13.7k | sentiment stringclasses 2 values |
|---|---|
Ah yet another Seagal movie.In no less than a few mere months arrive to populate the video store shelves.As bad as Submerged?No.But that is not saying much.Like perfume on a pig.<br /><br />Seagal is professional thief who wants to quit,but goes for one last job only to be double-crossed by his boss.He lands in Prison and is befriended by a Gangster who helps him to break out and seek payback.<br /><br />Its good to see Seagal finally not playing an agent,cop,or what he usually plays.We actually get a USA Location in Las Vegas it seems. Then an eastern European territory as usual. There is no wire-Fu either here.Don Fauntleroy does an okay job.<br /><br />However most of the action and fight scenes with Stevie are clearly doubles.Scenes from other movies,a lack of realism and logic in even tiniest situation.Seagal and Treech make a so-so team inspiring(unintentional) laughs one minute.Sighs the rest.<br /><br />Several notable faces turn up to slum it.. sleepy Kevin Tighe is a long way from his emergency days.Nick Mancuso shows up in sleepwalking mode to take a check.No more rappers.Please? At this point the action scenes and plots are more predictable and recycled generically more than ever.Its a stale scene that Seagal needs to get out of or hang it up.He should have gotten out a while ago. | negative |
I first saw this film in 1980 and it touched a cord which reminded me of a more innocent time. The opening narrative, music and paintings by Norman Rockwell set the tone for me. You either love the movie or hate it. Jan Michael Vincent was at his all time best and portrayed Cpl Marion Hedgepeth in a most innocent and touching way. This movie is at the top of my all time favorites, a shame it isn't available on DVD or VHS anymore. The ending was also wonderful. John Hancock did a marvelous job of capturing the essence of the time. | positive |
But at least this movie got what it deserved - to be sent to the Satellite of Love to be ridiculed on by Mike, Tom Servo, and Crow T. Robot from Pearl Forrester on "Mystery Science Theater 3000!" "Soultaker" is one of those long lost, forgotten movies that are so bad you'll be guaranteed to have nightmares or depression later on in life. Even though the movie is not that old, it's still a very forgotten type of movie. If it had never been for the intelligent minds at "Mystery Science Theater 3000," the movie would not only seem like it was never made, but the movie wouldn't be very enjoyable by us moviegoers.<br /><br />In real life: this movie is really bad. In the Satellite of Love: this movie is excellent! | negative |
Ted Nicolaou made a lot of great horror and fantasy films. I am looking for all his films to see. I could not find this one for 3 year, until I unexpectedly found it in youtube. To tell the truth I wanted to see more ghosts and less talks here. It looks like in 1999-2001 Ted had a crisis , maybe in money. His features of this time look more like real low budget thrash z garbage movies. But I do not claim him to be a bad director this time . Everything happens. The ending has some nice creepy details and suspense but the whole film was long dull dialogues .<br /><br />only for real Ted's fans.<br /><br />www.myspace.com/neizvestnostlab | negative |
What garbage, is there actually no part II? If this movie actually ends the way it did, everyone involved with this movie should be ashamed. This movie is nothing close to a movie like Outbreak, which was actually a fairly decent movie. This movie was rushed in hopes of being able to gain a few easy dollars. I started watching the movie under the assumption that it would be bad, but I never imagined it would be this bad. This movie was nothing more then a way to exploit the fears of the American people for profit! If you have not seen this movie, don't bother. Movie is full of poorly developed characters and poor acting. I really hope the production of this movie was only a couple of weeks. Stay away! Don't be fooled by the hype! | negative |
Alice (Florinda Bolkan), a translator living in Italy, discovers that she has a memory loss and can't recall the last couple of days. She starts to follow a trace of memory fragments, which leads her to the small town of Garma. People in the town seem to recognize her and she's beginning to suspect that the re-occurring nightmares of astronauts conducting horrible experiments has something to do with her own amnesia.<br /><br />The movie is interesting and the plot is good, but it's a bit to slow moving and arty for my taste. The plot takes some nice twists and it's really hard to figure out where it's heading. Florinda Bolkan is good in her role (but even better in "Flavia the Heretic") and it's always nice to see "star" child actor Nocoletta Elmi. Klaus Kinski's role is too small though. This is not a movie for the die-hard gore hound or exploitation addict, but still a very nice hour-and-a-half mystery. | positive |
Of course, how could he. He obviously co-opted several aspects from that excellent movie, which was also based on the sensational French case of the self-described "doctor in the World Health Organization" who murdered his family and himself when finally unmasked as a fraud. Emilio refers to his son as "monster," he sings to the radio in his car, he hangs out on park benches, and he specializes in investment schemes to defraud his family and friends -- all of this and more directly lifted from "Time Out," which came out the year before "Nobody's Life." It's too bad because this movie is pretty good on its own, with good acting and writing. Whereas Vincent from "Time Out" is a much more subtle character who seems to have a sense of ethics even though at times it gets twisted into knots, the protagonist here seems devoid of any character at all save for his winning looks and charm. Seriously, the part where he used X-rays that show his mother-in-law's cancer to bilk more money from his father, then utilizes a subtle twist on the same scam to avoid eviction from his fancy home for failing to pay the lease on time -- it's almost too much. The guy has no shame whatsoever, In fact, he's more like the lead in "Stepfather" than some poor schmuck who gets fired and is so humiliated that he can't face the disappointment of his family and friends and feels forced to invent a shiny new life for himself, as Vincent did in "Time Out." Thus, one could feel the tension mounting in "Nobody's Life" and the violent conclusion coming. One thing "Nobody's Life" has that "Time Out" definitely lacked was a love interest apart from the protagonist's trusting wife. It's not hard to understand how the sexy babysitter was able to fascinate and ensnare Emile to the degree that he ignored the danger of her natural curiosity and allowed it to lay bare his less than carefully constructed con. Given the reservations mentioned, this is a pretty good movie that we found entertaining. If you long for something touching on similar elements that goes a might deeper and is more intellectually and spiritually satisfying, I strongly suggest "Time Out." | positive |
I thought this movie was really good. It ends up showing the viewers in the end that Leila should of kept what she had. Leila was sick of her husband Jim, who was more worried about work then her. He was so into his work that he forgot their anniversary. He was also very sloppy. She couldn't take it anymore so she left to see if he would miss her. The movie shows that he misses her, he even tries to make up for the night he messed up. He goes to her and tries to bring her home. She ends up finding another man named Schuyler. He seemed like the man she always wanted neat and notices her. In the end she sorta foreshadows by when she look at Schuylers shoes and the way he let his cigar ashes fall on the floor the way Jim did the same kinda thing. Jim ends off making lots of money and cleaning himself up. Leila thinks in the end that she should of kept her husband because thats all she really wanted and he did changing. | positive |
In Hazzard County, Georgia, cousins Bo and Luke Duke (Scott, Knoxville) and their cousin Daisy Duke (Jessica Simpson) run moonshine made by their Uncle Jesse (Willie Nelson) while avoiding the local authority, Boss Hog (Burt Reynolds). Their problems with the Boss are only beginning as they learn he's been plotting to strip mine the town for valuable ores found below it.<br /><br />I have never seen the TV show and after watching the movie, I'm not going to start any time soon. I like stupid comedies but this one didn't offer many laughs. It was a pretty dull picture with the first hour being really hard to sit through. The second part was a little better but this film was still a missed opportunity. The film focused on Bo and Luke way too much. The characters in general weren't very interesting and the actors portraying them didn't do a very good job.<br /><br />The acting wasn't very good. I wasn't expecting it to be good in the first place but none of the leads were very funny. Seann William Scott and Johnny Knoxville both give below average performances. The latter was pretty good as Stifler but he tries way too hard here. The latter just seems to be looking for a paycheck and nothing else. Jessica Simpson isn't known for her acting nor is she really known for her singing. She's famous for having her own reality show and for saying really dumb things. She is pretty but she's a weak actor. It doesn't matter though because she doesn't really appear in the movie and the character she plays isn't complex or anything. Willie Nelson also has a minor role and he doesn't do anything special.<br /><br />The screenplay was written by John O'Brien and he made two films prior to the Dukes of Hazzard. The first one was Cradle to the Grave, which was okay. The second one was Starsky and Hutch which was pretty funny. He doesn't do a good job here though as the story is a mess. He also forgot to add jokes and a few other things that would have made this film work better. The movie is also pretty long for a comedy. Okay, 106 minutes isn't exactly long but it feels so much longer because there's very little humor in the first hour. I think comedies should be kept short or else they have to find a lot of material to cover the entire running time. The Dukes of Hazzard barely has enough funny gags to keep it going for thirty minutes let alone 106 minutes. The car sequences were average and they don't save an already troubled film. In the end, Dukes of Hazzard may appeal to a few people but most people will probably find it dull and it's better if you just skip it. Rating 4/10 | negative |
...now please move on because that's getting on my nerves.<br /><br />Seriously, the man behind brilliant pieces like "My Own Private Idaho" and "To Die For" (and others not so brilliant movies, i.e. the unnecessary "Psycho" remake) started an experimental phase with "Gerry", which reached its peak with the thought-provoking "Elephant". "Last Days" had some interesting aspects but was very uneven, while "Paranoid Park", his new film, also has good-looking 15 year-olds walking around... and not much else. Some cool references to Fellini (the soundtrack reuses some beautiful pieces by Nino Rota) and the elegant cinematography by the legendary Christopher Doyle ("In the Mood for Love") are the highlights, but the movie is just too artsy-fartsy and meaningless for its own doom. We've had much better coming of age stories, and "Paranoid Park" brings nothing new. I don't see anything artistic about seeing excessive shots of Gabe Nevins in his underwear or showering. Or when Nevins and 13 year-old Taylor Momsen (the little girl from "How the Grinch Stole Christmas"), who plays his cheerleading girlfriend, have sex for the first time, just because she felt like they had to do it and after they're done, she calls her friend to say how amazing it was (and you can say from Nevins' face how traumatic it was). Everybody knows that they're starting earlier and earlier nowadays, movies like "Thirteen" and even "Elephant" itself (which shows how lost their minds are in general, not only when it comes to sexuality) have done a better portrayal of that. Gus tries to be minimalist and artistic, but the final result is just boring and uninteresting. His next project, "Milk", a biopic about Harvey Milk starring Sean Penn, will, hopefully, bring the good old Gus back, because, frankly, this obsession over underage kids is almost... creepy. 4.5/10. | negative |
Melvyn Douglas once more gives a polished performance in which, this time, he inhabits the role of a detective who can't place love before duty and adventure, and the warmly beautiful Joan Blondell (who, far from being illiterate, as one reviewer suggested, wrote a novel about her early life) is as enjoyable as ever as his ever-suffering sweetheart.It's almost a screwball comedy, almost a Thin Man-type movie, almost a series, I guess, that didn't quite make it to a sequel. It doesn't quite reach classic status, but it has all the ingredients for a fun 85 minutes with an episodic but pacey script, fine character actors, and direction that keeps it all moving fast enough so that you nearly don't notice that Williams (Douglas) isn't exactly Columbo when it comes to detecting. I wish there were more films like this. | positive |
The comparison to Sleuth, the earlier stage-play-turned-film, is obvious and upon my first viewing I too thought Sleuth was better, but Deathtrap has, at least for me, many more repeat viewings in it than Sleuth.<br /><br />I purchased Deathrap in the bargain bin at Wal-Mart, figuring that it had Caine and the underrated Reeve and was worth the 6 bucks. It was one of the finest DVD purchases I could've picked up.<br /><br />It's one of those best-kept-secrets that movie buffs always are always delighted to discover. And it's totally worth repeat viewings.<br /><br />Though Laurence Olivier and Michael Caine turned in bravado performances in Sleuth, I was doubly impressed with Christopher Reeve as Clifford Anderson. Reeve, rightfully associated with his now legendary portrayal of Superman, stole the show in what should've been an Oscar worthy performance. I've always felt Reeve was a type-cast actor who didn't get much of a chance to shine outside of the Superman films and a few other flawed but entertaining films like Somewhere in Time, but this film shows that his potential was truly tapped and put to use, thank goodness.<br /><br />I absolutely relished Michael Caine's performance. He was glib, deliciously manipulative and sadistic. And watching him work with Reeve and Dyan Cannon was an absolute pleasure. In fact, it was thanks to this movie that I got into a "Michael Caine phase" and started renting as much of his stuff as humanly possible. <br /><br />As for Deathtrap, there's enough juicy dialogue in here to fill up its "memorable quotes" section. (Unfortunately, much of the dialogue would inherently spoil the immensely entertaining plot).<br /><br />It's really, really hard to talk about the movie without spoiling important plot points that are infinitely more fun to discover on your own. Needless to say, it's a must-see. But for me, it was the greatest and most rewarding blind purchase of all time.<br /><br />Repeat viewings are a must. <br /><br />And it deserves to sit alongside Sleuth on your DVD shelf.<br /><br />I'll leave you with this beautifully written quote from the film: "I wonder if it wouldn't be...well...just a trifle starry-eyed of me to enter into such a risky and exciting collaboration...where I could count on no sense of moral obligation...whatsoever." | positive |
The story told by The Cranes are Flying is not, admittedly, all that original. Young lovers are separated by war; bad things happen to both. We've seen it many times before.<br /><br />Nonetheless, we haven't seen it filmed this well, with bold shots that take liberties to emphasize separation, or destruction, or hopelessness. All the more remarkable coming from the Soviet Union, and reason to conclude that Tarkovsky is not the last word in modern-era Soviet cinema.<br /><br />I was reading Chekhov's "Three Sisters" the other day, and chanced upon what may be the meaning of the title of this film. In Act 2, Masha objects to the notion that we must live our lives without meaning or understanding:<br /><br />"MASHA: Surely mankind must believe in something, or at least seek for the truth, otherwise life is just emptiness, emptiness. To live and not to know why the cranes are flying, why children are born, why there are stars in the sky. Either you must know why it is you live, or everything is trivial - mere pointless nonsense."<br /><br />Likewise, Veronika has a hard time believing that the war, and her and others' sufferings, have been pointless. Better to assign a meaning, to live as if one's life is significant, and not to give in to despair. It is perhaps this thinking that prompts her to her final act in the film.<br /><br />BTW as a minor correction to one other comment here--there may be a pattern of V's in the film, though I hadn't noticed them myself. But the first letter of Veronika's name is not a further instance of this; in the Cyrillic alphabet, her name begins with a letter which looks like an English "B". | positive |
When I stepped into the theater, I thought this was going to be a great movie. And I was not disappointed one bit. WOW! This movie is brilliant! The emotions felt through out the whole movie are extraordinary! Great acting by Madhavan and Simran. Beautiful music by A.R. Rahman. This might most probably be the best Tamil movie I've seen in ages. Mani Ratnam has yet again proved that he is the best in making meaningful and heartfelt movies.<br /><br />This movie is basically about a young girl (P.S. Keerthana) who is in search of her biological mother (Nandita Das) who abandoned her in a refugee camp to fight for her country just like her husband (J.D. Chakravathy). A young novelist (Madhavan) finds out about this young girl's story and decides to write a story about her. He and his wife (Simran) decide to adopt this young child but one day she finds out that they are not her real parents and decides to search for her biological mother.<br /><br />This movie really screams EXCELLENT. The way Mani Ratnam presented the movie is magnificent. <br /><br />My Rating - 10/10 | positive |
If I have to give this movie a score on a linear scale, then I have to give it a low score 3/10.<br /><br />But it was entertaining, and there are several good things to say about the movie.<br /><br />The psychiatrist candidate James Bishop is assigned to St. Andrews Hospital for his resident, and is exited and eager to "change the world".<br /><br />From the beginning of the movie you know that the hospital is hiding an evil truth, but James thinks he can make a difference and doesn't recognise this evil. <br /><br />The story builds fairly well, you know all the time that there is a truth in what the patients are telling about some resident evil, and wonder when and how James will discover this. Also when the break comes, James is in a way hunted by the evil, and you feel some suspense until "the fight" is over.<br /><br />Add an innocent beautiful girlfriend that arrives at the worst possible time and other standard horror elements, and you get the picture.<br /><br />The character buildup is actually fairly good, you are introduced to most of the people that gets killed, some of them you "get to know".<br /><br />The film sets an unpleasant scene, this is also done fairly well. There are mysteries that are unveiled - in an acceptable way.<br /><br />The main character, James is very believable - the story about an eager student starting to work is good in this setting.<br /><br />What kills this movie is: * Stupid special effects - a modern version of "Plan 9 from outer space"-type bad (the evil monster looks like a red scarecrow) * Some bad acting (or probably very few takes when filming) - The main characters sometimes acts badly, and somtimes good. * The sound is at times very cheap.<br /><br />I kept thinking "I could make a movie like this with my home video camera" throughout the film. | negative |
Wayne Wang's direction may be the ingredient which made this film much more impressive to me than "Slums of Beverly Hills", which covers remarkably similar ground. The interplay between Susan Sarandon and Natalie Portman is riveting. Real chemistry there. This film succeeded in bringing me inside the dysfunctional life of these two women without dragging me down into depressed frustration. Susan Sarandon's character hammers at all the nerves which a narcissistic parent is capable of touching in an insecure adolescent. She amazingly manages to do this without coming across as floridly insane or intentionally sadistic. And, Natalie Portman deflects each attack on her character's ego with the resigned grace of an intelligent codependent child, untainted by the smug cynicism of the Natasha Lyonne character in "Slums of Beverly Hills". Portman's character is an adolescent with dignity under stress, an unusual creature in modern films. The film reaches a very satisfying resolution without trying too hard. I highly recommend this film to the viewer who wants to be challenged and entertained. | positive |
This is supposed to be the story of the life of a man named Wirey Spindell from age 8 through to 36 told in narrative by the character at each age point in his life. So for example, when he's eight, it's the eight year old's voice that is doing the narration; when he's in junior high, it's that one doing the narration, etc. That's about the only interesting thing about this movie. It looks like each actor playing Wirey is a separate character. Not only do they not look alike, their life experiences don't seem to match up.<br /><br />Avoid this movie like a bad cold. | negative |
So what is one to do if you are a porno star with fading looks? I know, become a pop star! This documentary - and I use the term loosely - follows the trials and tribulations of Colton as he tries to transform himself from a gay porn star into a singer of electronic (read: dance) music. I only wish Mr Ford's voice was as muscular as his arms...sorry to say his vocals are painfully thin. There isn't much interesting going on here but Mr Ford and friends are eye candy.<br /><br />See him record a song that sounds exactly like every other mindless dance tune. See him travel to New York to make "connections." See him go back to L.A. with little success. See yourself look in the mirror and ask, " Why am I wasting time watching this mess?" | negative |
and rent a GOOD horror movie. It's like the writer had never seen a horror movie before and didn't realize every single thing he wrote was clichéd and hackneyed and has been parodied to perfection in movies like "Scream" and "Scary Movie".<br /><br />In between the scary bits is the most BANAL and BORING dialog ever written. Stupid "we're going to the prom" junk. I wanted to claw my ears off. Honestly, "The Hills" has better dialog.<br /><br />There really was no need to make this movie. Leading lady is uninteresting and I kept thinking "Her? Really? Guy is obsessed with her? Really?" <br /><br />All the characters act in stupid ways, including the police. (Cover the place in teams of 2! Front and back! Not one sleepy cop sitting in his car with the window rolled down just waiting for his throat to be slashed.) <br /><br />The serial killer just swans about murdering everyone he wants without the least bit of problem. No resistance from victims (or doors). Nobody has any protection or the least idea of fighting back (or flipping the security lock on the hotel room door). The people are like mentally disabled sheep.<br /><br />By the by, if you're a gore fan, you'll be disappointed too. All the killing is kept offscreen and is -- ahem -- tastefully done. (So boo hoo for you!) <br /><br />None of the killings is the least bit interesting. Most of the time they've already happened by the time we find out.<br /><br />The only cliché missing was the cat that always pops out in this kind of movies. "Oh kitty! You scared me! I thought you were the killer -- AIIEEEE!" <br /><br />And then at the end when it's time for the killer to die -- well, let's just say it's the easiest and most obvious choice. Snore.<br /><br />The audience was jeering and talking back to the screen throughout. It was too dumb to believe and not really scary enough. Don't encourage this kind of lazy film-making.<br /><br />(Oh, and by the way -- no crowning of a prom king or queen. No tiara. No bucket of blood.) <br /><br />So save your money and rent "Carrie" or "Friday the 13th" or "Halloween" or "Scream" or "Scary Movie" (any of them) to get a good scare with some original twists. | negative |
Dreamgirls, despite its fistful of Tony wins in an incredibly weak year on Broadway, has never been what one would call a jewel in the crown of stage musicals. However, that is not to say that in the right cinematic hands it could not be fleshed out and polished into something worthwhile on-screen. Unfortunately, what transfers to the screen is basically a slavishly faithful version of the stage hit with all of its inherent weaknesses intact. First, the score has never been one of the strong points of this production and the film does not change that factor. There are lots of songs (perhaps too many?), but few of them are especially memorable. The closest any come to catchy tunes are the title song and One Night Only - the much acclaimed And I Am Telling You That I Am Not Going is less a great song than it is a dramatic set piece for the character of Effie (Jennifer Hudson). The film is slick and technically well-produced, but the story and characters are surprisingly thin and lacking in any resonance. There is some interest in the opening moments, watching Jamie Foxx's Svengali-like manager manipulate his acts to the top, but that takes a back seat in the latter portion of the film, when the story conveniently tries to cast him as a villain, despite his having been right from a business stand-point for a good majority of the film. Beyonce Knowles is lovely and sings her songs perfectly well, but is stuck with a character who is basically all surface glitz. Anika Noni Rose as the third member of the Dreamgirls trio literally has nothing to do for the entire film. Eddie Murphy acquits himself well as a singer obviously based on James Brown, but the role is not especially meaty and ultimately has little impact. Foxx would seem ideal casting, but he seems oddly withdrawn and bored. The film's biggest selling point is surely former American Idol contestant/Oscar winner Jennifer Hudson in the central role of Effie White, the temperamental singer who gets booted from the group and makes a triumphant closing act return. For me, Effie has always been a big problem in both the show and the movie. The film obviously wants you to feel sorry for her and rather ham-handedly takes her side, but I have never been sure that this character deserves that kind of devotion. From the start, Effie conducts herself for the most part like an obnoxious, egotistical, self-centered diva, who is more interested in what everyone else can do for her rather than having much vested interest in the group of which she is a part. When she is booted from the group for her unprofessionalism and bad attitude, the charges are more than well-founded, but the stage show/film seem to think Effie should be cut unlimited slack simply because she has a great voice. Even though the film tries to soften some of Effie's harder edges to make her more likable, the charges still stand. Her story becomes more manipulative by suggesting she should have our further sympathy because she is an unwed mother struggling to raise her daughter - using the implication that (much like the talent card) motherhood immediately makes any behavior excusable. Indeed the only big effort the film makes to show Effie's mothering is to tell us about it and then include a scene where she barks at her daughter in the unemployment office, insists that the girl has "no father" and then refuse to look for gainful employment to support them since singing is all she knows. In the hands of a skillful actress, the gaps could perhaps have been remedied with technique and charisma. Unfortunately, Hudson is not that actress. She sings well, but the dialog-driven moments do not come naturally to her nor do high emotional moments. Effie's signature moment (the aforementioned And I Am Telling You... number) is well-sung by Hudson, but emotionally flat in the acting department. Effie is supposed to expressing her rage and desperation at her predicament, but Hudson comes off as a cabaret performer belting out a hot number. All in all, not quite the emotional highlight one expects. The latter portion of the film is basically a predictable melange of events that maneuver Foxx into Hudson's earlier position and allow her to strut back in and lord it over everyone. Foxx's criminal offenses in the film are undoubtedly par for the course of many struggling record producers, but the film's seeming implication that he has it coming because he helped usher in the disco era is rather ridiculous, not to mention pretentious and condescending, particularly coming from a film with all of the depth of a puddle. The end result is a faithful rendition of the stage hit, drained of emotion, energy or anything that can be described as dynamic. | negative |
OK I went to this website before I watched this movie, read the comments, got pumped, - cause they where all pretty good for a B-flick - watched it and was completely disappointed. The main characters wannabe lone rebel straight out of the mid-west act was sickening to the stomach, and don't even get me started on the two cops, I mean there's a bloody door right there in plain view, check it out! The plot was completely predictable, the editing was rather limited, I swear the editor was even dozing off near the end when he was cutting this movie, and the direction was clouded by bad cinematography. Now please don't get me wrong, I love B-flicks, some are really good.<br /><br />Want to watch a good B rated flick???<br /><br />Dave recommends<br /><br />" High Tension "<br /><br />http://imdb.com/title/tt0338095/ | negative |
During university, our Philosophy professor, Mr.R, played us "Roger & Me" in its entirety. This was at a time when the obese misfit was still pretty much unknown; a charlatan-in-the-making, a soon-to-be-household-name who was still busy honing his fact-bending skills and still learning how to manipulate the easily impressed, the pathologically paranoid, the mentally ill, the sexually frustrated, the illiterate, the semi-literate, the clueless, and the laughably gullible among ye.<br /><br />As we finished viewing it, I thought: "Yeah, it was somewhat entertaining - in a totally daft Bugs Bunny kind of way - but what an ultra-biased, anti-Capitalist propaganda turkey that has no objectivity whatsoever this is; its sole purpose being to take cheap shots at people and ideas which the film's creator has pet-peeves for. This isn't a documentary by any stretch of the imagination." However, our beloved Marxist professor was absolutely thrilled with R&M, and we ended up not only NOT criticizing any aspects of it, but Mr.R actually spent the remainder of class praising its "qualities". Just so we understand each other, the words "propaganda", "viewer manipulation", "left-wing Extremist", or "selective fact presentation" never exited his perpetually smiling mouth... And just to remind you: this was supposed to be a philosophy class, not INDOCTRINATE YOUR STUDENTS WITH YOUR OWN POLITICAL B.S. course.<br /><br />Anyway, now I get to the really interesting aspect: this professor, Mr.R, is now a highly successful screenwriter in Hollywood. He has written several left-wing scripts with A-grade stars in them.<br /><br />The moral of the story: those are the kind of people for whom all doors are open in Hollywood.<br /><br />Michael Moore is a talentless filmmaker (which he proved beyond a smidgen of a doubt with "Canadian Bacon"), but being a Marxist liberal opens doors to just about anyone. Tinseltown is teeming with rabid pro-Chavez extremists, hence why political brainwashing through simplistic portrayals of reality has been part-and-parcel of the Hollywood experience for many decades now.<br /><br />Embrace this demagogue and you've betrayed your own brain forever. | negative |
Absolutely enjoyable singing and dancing movie starring Frank Sinatra and gen Kelly, as well as Kathryn Grayson.<br /><br />The film won and Oscar for George E. Stoll's score, and it garnered nominations for Best Picture, Best Actor for Kelly, and Best Cinematography, as well as a Best Son nomination for "I Fall in Love Too Easily" sung by Sinatra.<br /><br />It was a cute story about Kelly helping his pal Sinatra get a girl and falling in love with her himself. The lovely Grayson (The Toast of New Orleans) dazzled us with her singing, and we had a lot of great songs and dance routines by Kelly and Sinatra, as well as the artistry of pianist-conductor José Iturbi.<br /><br />A classic Hollywood music from an era gone by. | positive |
After a few misfires, we are still waiting for THE French horror movie that the critics will certainly vilify, but will launch a new trend. Not this time. Doug Headline can't be accused of not being knowledgable in the genre (He is editor of a high-class fantasy imprint, has worked for legendary magazine Starfix.), but why a scenario that uses EVERY cliché in the book (except maybe the Odious Comic relief) ? Why make it so predictable ? Even the nods towards Argento fails flat. It's not even an euro-teen movie like the German "Anatomy", much better, just a compilation of scenes that barely seems to have any relation one with the other and features LOTS of plot holes. The whole "Celtic" aspect is barely touched. And, after a "revenation" painfully predictable, the screenplay offers us a boring, endless chase in a subterranean necropole which seems bigger than Parisian catacombs. I really wanted to love this film. Really. But even a mother would not. Oh, and writer Valerio Evangelisti was supposed to have a cameo, but I vainly looked for him. | negative |
I had a really hard time making it through this move. It was extermly slow and at times wondered when the plot of the movie would actually come to life.<br /><br />This movie seemed to flow to slow and I kept on wondering when it was going to end. I am normally a person who likes a good indie file every once in a while but this did not satisfy what I was looking for.<br /><br />It seemed they tried to make to much out of this movie. At one point it seemed to turn political which I am not a big fan of in movies. If you are looking for a slow moving movie with little to no plot then this is the right movie for you. As for me I felt I wasted 2 hours when I could of been doing something else. | negative |
Lauren Himmel's debut movie is well directed with a nice polished feel to it. There's a strong storyline going on with a meaningful point to it all even if at the end nothing is resolved hence the name Treading Water. The storyline revolves around a Lesbian couple and their battle with ones mother for acceptance. 7.5/10 | positive |
It is a surprising movie that gets you in your chair waiting for the last minute of the film, leaving on your leaps a sweet taste of: ... I want more! There are very good actors, Portuguese actors that have a lot of experience in the world of theater and films. It is not a million Euros budget film, but still we can see the destruction of a car in an excellent perspective that gets you in the movie. If you have the opportunity of getting your hands on this excellent film, don't wait for another minute: just see the film! I think that Portuguese film are increasing the quality. Watch out Spanish producers... The Portuguese are getting a high quality standards. I saw the film and I'm waiting for more... | positive |
My bad film guru (and the president of the Exposed Film Society) sprang this one on us last week. There was no denying the demented gleam in his eye as he pulled it out of its brown paper bag and announced what he had in store for us: "The Most Dangerous Game", filmed on a budget of about $2.95.<br /><br />Of course, $2.95 went a lot further back in 1962, but still...<br /><br />Anyway, there is certainly a lot to dislike about this film. It abounds with serious technical gaffes (my favorite was the 'repeating musket' that fired twice in two minutes without benefit of a reload). The hero is a wuss who stands by while his wounded friend fights the henchman and gets killed. <br /><br />More? OK -The plot is a shambles with no continuity to speak of. The movie wastes five minutes with a 'special guest star' who serves as the physical embodiment of the villain's madness and paranoia, but never shows him again. The hero is choked unconscious by the henchman but makes no mention of it when he wakes up and first meets his host. The mute servant girl is captured, put on the rack...and then the movie (and the hero, who put her in this predicament) just sort of "forgets" about her. <br /><br />More? Well, the sets are cheap, and the special effects are cheaper (the makeup is an exception to this). Much of the plot is carried by the narrator's droning, monotonic voice-over, which carries less dramatic impact than the menu recital at Denny's. Most of the dialog is simply ridiculous and stilted , as if it was translated from Japanese. ("I demand that our conversation be pleasant!!!") And the color values tended to shift violently from shot to shot, as if cheap film stock and problematic lighting equipment were the order of the day. (Note - this last may have been the fault of a bad print, rather than the camera crew). <br /><br />But there were a couple of nice moments here and there. The makeup effects were startlingly good in contrast to the rest of the film, the actors were LOOKED interesting, especially the mute servant girl and the Countess. And in spite of everything, there was a definite creepy atmosphere to be found, very nasty and disturbing.<br /><br />So what was the deal with this movie? I thought about it a bit, and realized that director/writer Pat Boyette basically tried to put a story from of the old "EC" horror comics on film. That would account for the stilted dialog, the sketchy character development (in a comic, physiognomy = character even more than in film), the loopy interior logic of the story ("EC" horror stories went out of their way to include a nasty "shock" ending and weren't big on psychological realism), the over reliance on the narrative voice (which belongs in captions over the panels), and the interesting makeup effects that mimicked the grisly pictures that the old EC artists did so well.<br /><br />In fact, I'd be willing to bet that when Boyette saw his leading man during casting, he instantly saw that the fellow was as close to being the equivalent of the lanky, shambling figures and caved in faces that artists like Johnny Craig and Jack Davis drew as an actual human could be and still exist in the real world.. He used costumes and lighting to emphasize the cartoony aspect of the visuals and turned everyone into living EC comics characters. (See: the leading lady's blank beauty, the Count's strong bony features, oddly bronze skin and sharp chin, the platinum 'do on the tall, bony black henchman, etc.) <br /><br />This would explain the movie's failings. Boyette knew how to 'frame' things, but he didn't know how to deal with three dimensions and moving bodies. Boyette knew how to tell a creepy story within the confines of a comics page, but the nuances of film and live actors escaped him. He wouldn't be the first person with this problem of course - look at what Joel Schumacher did to "Batman". But he didn't have a big budget to hide behind.<br /><br />In any case, I'm imagine that Boyette walked away from this train wreck and probably spent less time thinking about "Dungeon of Harrow"than the folks who post on this film's message boards. He did, within certainly vague boundaries, what he set out to do, and you have to respect him for it...even if you don't care for "Harrow". | negative |
The writers and producers of this little outing have plummeted new depths of depravity. Did writer's block set in so badly, OR had ideas dried up so much, that they were forced to include a disgusting scene where a young woman defecates in the back seat of a van, and then promptly throws the excrement at the car behind (mind you at least this summarises what this film is worth). We had already been treated to one of the other women urinating over one of her friends at gunpoint, as well as numerous episodes of graphic vomiting; once would have sufficed... we got the message! This really is taking toilet humour to another level! Had the script and acting been better then I could have easily forgotten that I was watching a film shot entirely on low budget video. This was a fairly original storyline, with a clever (the only) piece of direction in that we only ever got to take the viewpoint from inside of the van; thus making it feel much more real. We never got to see inside any other locations, such as the store or the field where several of the women disappeared, and this could have added much needed tension.<br /><br />The script was dire. Lines like: 'I don't feel too good... I want to go home' after one of the girls has been pursued by a psychopath; subjected to rape by a screwdriver and shot at, seem a little undercooked.<br /><br />The acting was diabolical (apart from the maniac). Did all the main 5 actresses in this learn acting by taking a correspondence course during a long postal strike! The sound was so bad that I had to watch the entire film with the subtitles on.<br /><br />The director seemed to have an easy job in this. It seems that the only direction he must have given was: 'Scream girls'.<br /><br />AND AS FOR THE SCREAMING...... If you watch this please be sure to have some paracetamol at the ready! | negative |
Ettore Scola is one of the most important Italian directors. My parents and I watched together "C'eravamo tanto amati" on a summer night: we liked it, but we didn't love it as we loved "A special day". I believe Ettore Scola is pretty underrated: we often forget to remember him, maybe because his latest films were disappointing. And so, yesterday night, my mum and I sat on our sofa to enjoy this masterpiece. Writing, direction, cinematography, score and production design were sober and accurate, but the thing I liked the most was the chemistry between Loren and Mastroianni. They're both excellent actors and play the main roles of Antonietta and Gabriele. Antonietta is an housewife: married with a fanatic Fascist, she has six children but her husband wants to have another child to get a prize for the huge families. Gabriele is simply an Anti-Fascist. They spend together a special day, that special day of 1938 when Hitler came to Rome visiting Mussolini. I don't want to spoil anymore about the plot: go looking for this film! | positive |
This piece ain't really worth a comment.. It's simply the worst "horror" movie i have ever seen. The actors are bad as bad can be and the whole plot is so silly it nearly made me cry. Shame on you I say!! | negative |
I hadn't heard about Brashear before I watched this. This is the story of him and the man who trained him, helping him to become the first African-American US Navy Diver. A tale of will-power. The plot is well-written, and develops nicely throughout. This is what it seems, the typical underdog thing, and it doesn't hold too many surprises. It's also quite Hollywood, but hey, I don't know the actual man, maybe it's close to how it actually happened. Nevertheless, it gets the job done, with dramatic scenes and adversity along the way, and this is inspirational for anyone who's ever heard the words "no, you can't" be spoken about their life-long dream. The acting performances are all excellent. DeNiro and Gooding Jr. both shine whenever they're on-screen. Rapaport is marvelous, as well. The characters are well-written, credible and consistent. This is well-edited, and features good cinematography. The production values are high, and this does a fairly convincing job of transporting us back to the 50's. This is the only film I've seen by this director and the writer, though I may now consider looking into more they're responsible for. There is a moderate amount of strong language, otherwise no offensive material. I recommend this to anyone who finds the subject interesting, and/or fans of those who made it. 7/10 | positive |
Lucille Ball tries to look 30 years younger than she actually was in this poor excuse for a musical.<br /><br />The movie features some of the worst choreography ever seen laced with the constant threat that Lucy might break into song with her bourbon voice at any moment. Lucy's total lack of talent as a singer and dancer sinks the film before it can begin and aside from die-hard Lucy fans, no one is likely to fancy it very much. Bad costumes and cheesy set designs don't help. Further proof that Lucy wasn't good at anything except making stupid faces.<br /><br />Directed by Gene Saks. | negative |
I'd never heard of this Aussie horror prior to Michael Elliott's enthusiastic review; in fact, after having read it, I decided to check if the DVD was available at my local rental outlet and it was (albeit a German edition i.e. sans the R1 extras), so I opted to check the film out immediately.<br /><br />While I wouldn't go so far as to give it full marks only a select few titles get them from me, let alone an obscure modern flick I have to say that I was quite impressed with BLACK WATER. Rather than looking back to previous crocodile movies, such as ALLIGATOR (1980) and LAKE PLACID (1999), it evokes the memory of two which saw a small group of people who go on a trip, get lost and find themselves at the mercy of the elements and the creatures inhabiting the place namely LONG WEEKEND (1978), itself a little-seen but impressive Australian production, and OPEN WATER (2005).<br /><br />The compact, simply-plotted film involves a couple and the woman's younger sister who decide to go fishing in a remote and forbidding part of the Australian wilderness, known as crocodile territory; very soon (in fact, before even 15 minutes have elapsed!), their boat is capsized and the guide killed by an alligator so our luckless adventurers take refuge up a tree. The DVD Talk reviewer believes the film suffers from spending too much time in this one location with the three arguing about what they should do, attempts to retrieve the boat, seeking a way out of the jungle through the trees (only to be met with nothing but water) and the occasional attack by the monster. However, I think the makers take the situation as far as it will go without slipping into tedium: this is due to the palpable suspense and, as Michael said, the believability of the characters (particularly the two women)
but also the fact that the crocodile here makes for one of the scariest and most memorable in recent memory (I wonder how they got it to 'perform')! <br /><br />I also agree with Mike that the film contains some really effective shock moments the alligator leaping out of the water to take a bite at the petrified heroes; its head suddenly emerging in front of the women as they're making for the boat; even though one of them does reach the vehicle, the monster manages to lift its massive weight and get in the boat with her!; towards the end, as the same girl manages to find a gun (on the mangled body of their guide), loads it and lies in wait for the alligator to appear, the latter sneaks up from behind her (incidentally, the creature is bestowed with the craftiness of the shark in JAWS [1975]). With this in mind, the finale is just as crowd-pleasing (though on an obviously smaller scale) as that of the classic Spielberg blockbuster even if it has a downbeat follow-up. Another definite asset is the film's sparse score which is generally rather lovely, but becoming unnerving at just the right moments.<br /><br />At the end of the day, BLACK WATER emerges as a breath of fresh air in the face of the demoralizing slump into which horror cinema has fallen of late; for this reason alone, it deserves greater exposure so as to remind us that there's hope yet for our beloved genre (without the real necessity of resorting to the gimmickry of a CLOVERFIELD [2008] to command attention)
| positive |
This is why i so love this website ! I saw this film in the 1980's on British television. Over the years it is one i have wished i knew more about as it has stayed with me as one of the single most extraordinary things i have ever seen in my life. With barely a few key words to remember it by, i traced the film here, and much information, including the fact it's about to become an off-Broadway musical !<br /><br />Interestingly, unlike the previous comment maker, i do not remember finding this film sad, or exploitative. On the contrary, the extraordinary relationship between the mother and daughter stuck in the mind as a testimony of great strength, honour and dignity. Ironic you may think, considering the squalor of their lives. Maybe it's because i live in Britain, where fading grandeur has an established language in the lives of old money, where squalor is often tolerated as evidence of good breeding; I saw it as a rare and unique portrayal of enormous spirit, deep and profound humour, whose utterly fragile and delicately balanced fabric gave it poise and respect. In a way i was sorry to see it being discussed as a 'cult'. Over the years, as it faded in my mind, it shone the brightest, above all others as a one off brilliant & outstanding televisual experience. It was such a deeply private expose, it seems odd to think of it becoming so public as to be a New York musical. But perhaps somewhere, the daughter will be amused by such an outcome. It is she who will have the last laugh maybe..(They made a musical out of her before you Jackie O' ) | positive |
Don't waste 90 minutes of your time on "Fast Food, Fast Women." It's annoyingly episodic script with three story lines patched together is laughably bad due to predictable writing, horrific acting, and even bad music. I found the anorexic main character upsetting to watch every time she was on screen. SHE needs the fast food.<br /><br />Spend the 90 minutes you'd devote to this turkey doing something more exciting...like trimming your toenails. You'd have more entertainment value.<br /><br />The only redeeming thing about this film is Louise Lasser, but she deserves much better than this tired script. It's as impotent as the elder guy she courts in the movie.<br /><br />VIEWER BEWARE! | negative |
Unless there's some huge ironic conspiracy going on, my jaw dropped when I read the positive reviews of this film; I cannot believe that this film was even released, it's so bad.<br /><br />I admit it is not my kind of movie, but I tried to watch it objectively anyway, you know, so bad it's funny, and was still offended at its sheer awfulness.<br /><br />The acting is atrocious, they can't have watched the rushes and I'm guessing there was one take per scene, it really is that terrible. It is the worst film I have seen in many a year, in fact, I wouldn't even call it a film, it's a tragedy. The gay black friend, whom no-one actually calls "gay", it's just implied because he's so crazy? Homophobic. This is not good, in fact, this is downright vomit inducing. The jokes die on their pathetic arses, the music is so bad it defies belief. The person who compiled the soundtrack essentially chose the most ear-mutilatingly bad songs they had ever heard and put them in this waste of film stock. Oh my good Christ I can't believe the 80's produced utter garbage like this, I grew up through them, and I cannot find one thing worth of note here, it must have been a dark time to be a cinema-goer.<br /><br />If you even contemplate watching this film go see a psychiatrist, he will then accordingly slap you, you sick, sick person. | negative |
"Gandhi as a husband and father?" has always been discussed by people in India. 'Gandhi...my father' is a story that only a few would have known to such details. Surely an insight into Gandhi's personal life.<br /><br />Overall, I liked the movie for story and cinematography. Jariwala, Akshay Khanna, and Shefali Shah have all done a good job. Most scenes of the movie would be nice desktop wallpapers...commendable job. Traditional Indian folk music as background score during certain parts of the movie gives a good feel of the happenings.<br /><br />However, what I didn't quite like was the narration style. At several points, I found the tone over-dramatized.<br /><br />Overall, good work by Anil Kapoor Productions. I would recommend it as "must-watch-once". 8/10 | positive |
The movie contains a very short scene of Deneuve in a bathtub. She looks absolutely stunning for a lady age 56, but this is the only saving grace of the movie. Otherwise, it has a mindless, unmotivated script and the lead actress has none of Deneuve's appeal. The director apparently watched too many Peter Greenaway films and Pola X comes across as a student's imitation of the Greenaway style, without any of his inspiration. | negative |
Recently I borrowed a copy of this mess of a movie, which took me three sessions over three days to get through. That's another comment in the making.<br /><br />But what I wanted to comment on first was the carelessness on the special features of the DVD. It included a game of memory, which asks the player/viewer to match up pairs of animals in order for them to board the ark. However, every time it reveals the chosen animal, the screen prompts the player to find (or congratulates the player on finding)"it's mate." This is a spelling error since it should be "its mate" as possessive pronoun, not a contraction for "it is." It is an annoying error to keep repeating 16 or more times to finish a game. Of course, it's a kid's activity really, but teaches kids incorrect spelling.<br /><br />And, oh yeah, the game never changes. It is the same game with the same locations of the same animals each time. Plus it doesn't keep score, like the number of moves it took to solve the game. So there is no lasting value or challenge to it. It's just a feature to list on the packaging.<br /><br />Simply put, there could have been more thought and care put into this "special" feature, just like there could have been more thought and care put into this muddled film. | negative |
Now we were chosen to be tortured with this disgusting piece of blatant American propaganda. It came no wonder for me that this is admired by most American viewers and hated by Europeans. This show is made for Americans - it is too stupid and full with hatred and clichés to be admitted elsewhere. Almost everyone involved must be return to school, acting is utterly predictable and bad, script is pile of garbage all round. operator work is ground zero etc. etc.<br /><br />You have been warned. It doesn't even have "guilty pleasure" entertainment for those brainwashed iq=0 human beings.<br /><br />I wish I could enter negative values, admins? Anyone? | negative |
This movie was SO stupid I couldn't believe what I was seeing as I was watching it, it was like a huge train wreck -- I couldn't look away because it was just SO horribly awful! I can honestly say I've never seen anything this bad in my whole entire life. It was so cheesy and the acting was just so deplorable that I just kept thinking "this just has to be some kind of a joke, right? Nobody would actually make a movie this crappy on purpose, right?" I really hope this is all just a bad joke and these people don't actually expect people to watch this with a straight face, and I really hope the people who were in this movie were doing terrible acting on purpose and don't actually believe that they are good actors?! The drag queens are pretty funny to watch, though, and so are the cheesy special effects straight out of a bad 80's sci-fi movie.<br /><br />Only watch this if you've already seen every other movie in existence first and there is nothing left to watch at all! I would give this a "0" if it were possible. | negative |
This movie is maybe the most touching and uplifting one that I have ever seen. I am not a religious person, but sometimes a great piece of art like this movie can give me an almost religious experience. One suddenly realizes that there is really meaning to life.<br /><br />I must admit that when I first heard about this movie I was sceptical. I thought the plot sounded contrived and I was afraid that the story would be banal. But being a David Lynch fan I decided to give it a go. It took me about 30 minutes to be fully captured by the movie, but then I was completely lost in it. There is so much wisdom and warmth in this movie! I left the cinema feeling that I had truly learned something valuable about life.<br /><br />This is not a typical David Lynch movie, and in some ways it was very surprising that he should make such a film after exploring the dark sides of human nature for so many years. On the other hand, I am not surprised that he manages to convey deep emotions and profound human insight because I also thought he managed that very well in The Elephant Man. Lynch is one of the most gifted directors around and I think The Straight Story is his best yet. 9.5/10 | positive |
This movie was horrid and at the end made me wonder why someone went to the trouble to make it. Now it was not all bad, I have studied film and this film was put together very nicely and had very good cinematic everything with interesting angles to very nice lighting and excellent camera work. I wish I could have seen it back in school because it would have made a good film to write a paper on. BUT........ Since I have graduated and lost most of my film pretentiousness I have realized that a film should be entertaining above all, this movie was long and boring and I'm not sure when it finally got to the point that it was worth my time.<br /><br /> | negative |
I usually enjoy films like this. It's shot documentary style, but the acting and writing are just awful. The acting is wooden and stiff and the writing is just so cliché, but not at all in a good way. As of typing this, I'm surprised it's at a 5.2/10 on IMDb. I'm certain that most of these votes must have come from relatives of people in the movie. I suppose if that's the case, you might manage a couple of laughs, as it's always funny seeing your relatives/friends make a movie. Well, in a way, I guess this gives hope to all up and coming writers, directors, actors, etc., 'cause if they can do it, you can do it. Although, maybe you shouldn't. | negative |
Great movie, enough laughs and action for any audience.<br /><br />Since the last person who posted on this movie took it upon themselves to call Woody Allen incestuous and not comment on the film, here I am.<br /><br />The film follows an unlikely duo, Johansson and Allen, as they follow a tip given to them by the ghost of a recently deceased English reporter. Their search takes them into the home of the killer, and eventually to a somewhat tragic end. But don't let the plot fool you, the film truly is hilarious and the acting is superb.<br /><br />It seems that as directors reach a certain age they really get things right. Clint Eastwood, Allen and Pollack all seem to making some of the most imaginative work of their respective careers. Also, from watching the movie in a pact theater, you can just tell that people really love Woody Allen and are ready for him to really make a comeback. The second he walked on screen audience lit up. There's just something about the man and he really shines in Scoop. <br /><br />Check it out, it's worth the trip. | positive |
With a cast like this, I knew the acting would be amazing. Still, I was cautious, as I always am of sequels. Would it sustain the feeling of the first film? Could they possibly replicate the tension and thrill of the masterful heist of Ocean's 11? We'll never know, because they didn't try. At least, not in the way I expected. Instead, they made a light and truly funny parody of the heist genre. If you want a gripping, logical heist, don't watch this. If you want a good laugh, with witty dialogue, quirky characters, and an absolutely genius scene where Julia Roberts has to impersonate herself, then you'll love Ocean's 12. | positive |
I was very impressed with this small, independently made picture. The story, about a pair of social outcasts who meet, become friends, and provide each other with a support system both seemed to lack as children, is at times hilarious, at times sad, but always provocative. Music, mostly by underground bands, was used to great effect, as was the experimentation with camera angles, filters, and slow or fast motion techniques. The performances (the leads are played by the writers and directors of the film) are some of the best I've seen in the last couple of years. If you ever felt like a square peg being forced into a round slot, I really believe you'll appreciate "By Hook or By Crook". | positive |
A neat 'race against time' premise - A murdered John Doe is found to have pneumonic plague, so while the health authority and NOPD battle everybody and each other trying to find his waterfront contacts, the murderers think the heat is because the victim's infected cousin is holding out on them. <br /><br />This movie is freely available from the Internet Archive and it's well worth downloading. A lot (all?) of this movie was filmed in genuine New Orleans locations, which makes it interesting to look at for what is now period detail, though to me it does look under-exposed, even for noir - maybe mobile lighting rigs then weren't what they are. There is also a plenty of location background noise, which is slightly distracting - car horns in the love scene, anyone? There are a lot of non-professional supporting artists in crowd scenes, and this may explain why the pacing of the film is slightly saggy to begin with - not much chance for retakes or recasting, though the final chase is worth hanging on for. There's not much wrong with the lead actors either: Jack Palance is genuinely scary as a charismatic, intelligent psychopath - the later scene as he alternately comforts and threatens the sick cousin is terrific, while Widmark, as he often did, pitches the righteous anger of the man on a mission at a believable level - most of the time. <br /><br />Somebody should remake this - no supernaturals, no mysticism, no special FX, just a good yarn full of character conflict, and a topical theme. Another reviewer mentioned the writer John Kennedy O'Toole, and that's spot on with the number of oddball New Orleans types peppering this dark, sleazy, against-the-clock drama. There's even a midget newspaper seller.<br /><br />"Community? What community? D'you think you're living in the Middle Ages?" | positive |
I have just started watching this show. Its airing in Ireland at the moment on the Irish television station RTE1 at 12.30pm in the Afternoon (as of 26th July 2006).<br /><br />This program literally makes me laugh out aloud and I cannot boast that on most sitcom's (apart from UK's 'The Office' with Ricky Gervais in it).<br /><br />Todays episode of TKoQ (26 July 2006)was the one where Carrie starts a new job and invites her friends home and goes off to make some coffee and Doug wants Carrie to have no 'outside' friends so he lifts up his top and shows off his 'belly hair!' and licks plates when he goes out to dinner! But another funny episode was the other week when the old fella (carries Dad) won on the Bingo and that episode creased me up with laughter especially when they went out and got a replacement fridge and Carries father stood there looking at it and thought it was new.<br /><br />So I don't know how much longer this has got to run on Irish TV or at which stage (year recorded) we are at but I hope it don't end soon because I am really enjoying it.<br /><br />To sum up there is some great writing, some great characters and comedy acting (namely by Carrie, Doug and Carries father) some great punchlines and delivered well - a bit saucy and near the mark sometimes (send the kids out the room!) but i think this US Sitcom is a winner and very funny. | positive |
Jack and Kate meet the physician Daniel Farady first and then the psychics Miles Straume and they demonstrate that have not come to the island with the intention of rescuing the survivors. Locke and his group find the anthropologist Charlotte Staples Lewis, and Ben Linus shoots her. Meanwhile, the group of Jack finds the pilot Frank Lapidus, who landed the helicopter with minor damages that can be repaired. Jack forces Miles to tell the real intention why they have come to the island.<br /><br />The second episode of the Fourth Season returns to the island, with four new characters, stops the confusing "flash-forwards" and it seems that will finally be the beginning of the explanations that I (and most of the fans and viewers) expect to be provided in "Lost". Why the interest of the government in Ben Linus, and how he is informed from the boat are some of the questions that I expect to see in the next episodes. My vote is eight.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): Not Available | positive |
Very silly high school/teen flick about geeks trying to prove themselves better than the rich brats. Sound familiar? This television movie from director Rod Amateau ("Uncommon Valour" and some "Dukes of Hazaard" episodes believe it or not) says nothing, does nothing, and surely will entertain very few.<br /><br />Notable for its "who's who" of television cast, including Michael J. Fox, Bob Denver ("Gilligan"), and Todd Bridges ("Different Strokes"). This lame effort barely limps over the line. Also stars Anthony Edwards ("E.R.").<br /><br />Saturday, September 5, 1998 - Video | negative |
It looked cool from the movie sleeve, but after five minutes we weren't sure if it was a homosexual documentary of west side story without any female interest. The film quality was poor, and there was hardly enough gang fighting action to sustain even the drunkest person's interest for long enough to watch the entire film. May god have mercy on the souls of both the actors and the filmmakers responsible for what I can only describe as my new one and only reason why I never will want to see (or trust) an Australian made film again. I have to write more so I will again say that the actors were so bad that I'm positive I could make a better movie with fifteen dollars and a box of Trojans. Please don't see this movie for your own sake. | negative |
Arguably the most disgusting thing to come out of Australia since Vegemite... Predictably distasteful comedy with Barry Humphries in a dual role as boozy Australian diplomat Les Patterson and undercover agent Dame Edna! So many bodily function gags that even the Farrelly brothers would have been sick, and several gross-out moments, especially the effects of the horrible H.E.L.P. virus. Only for fans of extreme toilet humor. Oh, and that´s the "NeverEnding Story II", NOT the "Mad Max" George Miller, who directed... *½<br /><br /> | negative |
I am guessing the reason this movie did so well at the box office is of course Eddie Murphy. I think this was his first movie since "Beverly Hills Cop" so at the time he was hot. Considering that one made over two hundred million and it was R and this one made about 80 million and it was pg does say it was not all that popular. I have never been a big Eddie Murphy fan, so that is probably another reason I didn't care for it much at all. This one has Eddie as some sort of finder of lost kids. He must find the golden child or the world is in terrible peril. The plot is very bad, but as bad as it is it does not compare to the special effects. I had seen better stuff done in the 70's than some of the stuff this one offers, Ray Harryhausen did better stuff. Still the main reason you see a movie like this is because of Eddie, unfortunately he is not very funny in this one at all and it just seems stupid to put him in the "Raiders of the Lost Ark" type scenes. I guess they were hoping for a fish out of water effect, but to me it just did not work. | negative |
I have just seen this delightful classic again after many years, the next to last film directed by Henry Cornelius, who died three years later at the age of only 45 (the same age at which the film's male star Larry Harvey was also to die in 1973). Three future directors were in the crew: Jack Clayton (Associate Producer), Guy Green (cinematographer), and Clive Donner (editor). This film is based upon the autobiographical story 'Goodbye to Berlin' by the well-known British author Christopher Isherwood, which was first turned into a play by John van Druten, then made into this film, then turned into a musical, 'Cabaret', and finally filmed as 'Cabaret', which brought the amazing Liza Minelli to world attention, with her voice which can shatter a glass at the distance of a mile. Isherwood appears as a character in the film under his own name. He was gay, but in those days that was illegal and could land him in prison, so he disguises his proclivities under the description of being what he calls 'a confirmed bachelor'. This is the key to his Platonic relationship with the wildly eccentric, wacky, promiscuous, ever-cheerful and thoroughly unique character whom he calls Sally Bowles. The portrait of Sally Bowles in this film is a tour-de-force by the young Julie Harris, who sweeps every scene into a magical and captivating web of sparkling personal charm. What a vehicle for an actress with plenty of charm of her own! It is one of the great cinematic performances of the 1950s. Isherwood is played to perfection by the young Lawrence Harvey, in a finely-judged performance which never allows the comedy to go over the edge, and even the moments of farce bordering on slapstick remain somehow 'almost believable'. Larry is so funny at portraying a wimpish hypochondriac. What an irony, considering the total lack of hypochondria shown by his bravery and stoicism in the last year of his life as he died from terminal stomach cancer and behaved with such dignity and lack of complaint. I knew him well in the last three years or so, and he was a generous, warm, and modest person. He adored his little girl Domino, now alas also tragically dead.This film was his finest early performance, to be followed by his spectacular work in 'Room at the Top' (1959), 'Summer and Smoke' (1961) and 'The Manchurian Candidate' (1962). Larry was often undervalued in his lifetime because he was too handsome, was often cast as a cad, and glamour boys are not always accepted as good actors, but many of the finest actresses played opposite him, and they were in no doubt of his abilities, and he was a strong lead in many of the most important films of his time. If he had lived beyond middle age, he would have gone from strength to strength and become a 'grand old man' of the screen. Sitting in his house in Hampstead one day, he gave me a glass of his usual white wine from a huge barrel which he had brought from some foreign cellar. I said he always gave me such delicious wine, what was it? He proudly answered that it was a Sancerre which he had chosen himself at the vineyard in France and had shipped over specially. He then added with extreme wistfulness: 'You know, I've been waiting for four years for someone to comment on it and ask me what it is, and you are the first person who has ever done so.' What mattered to him was to be recognised for having taste in wine,and his more glamorous friends had denied him that satisfaction. In this film, Anton Diffring gives a touching early performance as an earnest young man (later he was to have to play Nazi officers far too much, poor fellow), and the young Shelley Winters plays a rich German Jewish girl, in her usual noisy but effective manner, but it was not too difficult, as she was a noisy Jewish girl herself anyway. This film has such an air of joie de vivre about it, that it is pure delight. | positive |
This film, like the first one ("The Man From Snowy River") has the same good and bad features, perhaps even more so than the original. Unfortunately, the bad outweighs the good. <br /><br />The GOOD - Magnificent scenery, better than the first film. I love those high country shots in Australia. Tom Burlinson is still a likable guy, as "Jim Craig." Bruce Rowland did a nice job with the music, too.<br /><br />The BAD - Once again we get an extremely obnoxious feminist heroine "Jessica" (Sigrid Thornton) who is a world-class pouter with an extremely annoying face and manner about her. In this film, we also get a big downgrade in who pays the father. Previously it was Kirk Douglas, now replaced by the always -profane Brian Dennehy. Speaking of that, it is a disgrace that a Walt Disney film would includes usages of the Lord's name in vain. That was one reason was almost totally down the tubes in the 1980s. This film, like the first one | negative |
First off, I would just like to say what a big fan of Bette Midler's I am. Stella is a very good movie with a wonderful cast (Bette Midler, John Goodman, Trini Alvarado, Stephen Collins, Marsha Mason) This is one of my favorite films of all time. It deals with a mother raising a child on her own, she goes through a lot of things that are out of her way to bring up her daughter Jenny played wonderfully by Trini Alvarado. This movie is very good and I suggest that you pick up a copy to watch it. Roger Ebert gave is 3 1/2 stars! And it deserved 4! WONDERFUL! I give it 4 out of 4! | positive |
John Cassavette's decided as his first film, obviously as one shot on a shoestring in New York, to not even have a script with dialog, and delivers a 1959 feature equivalent of Larry David's Curb Your Enthusiasm- all the actors know what to do and say and even have the right look in their eyes when they talk. In other words, it's one of the most realistic looks at the beat generation, jazzed sweetly in it's score and telling a tale of racial tensions. A group of black siblings are the center-point, with one trying to get better gigs than the average strip-club, and has a sister, much more light-skinned than him, who gets entwined with a white man in a relationship, which shatters both sides. The film, however, isn't exclusively about that; Cassavettes likes to have his characters wander around New York City (which not many films did in 1959/1960) and his style of storytelling is like that of the improvisational jazz artists of the day. Dated, to be sure, but worth a glance for film buffs; Martin Scorsese named this as one of his heaviest influences. | positive |
When Uwe Boll, cinema con man extraordinaire, released the first House Of The Dead adaptation to completely deserved mockery, it was generally agreed among fans of the source video game that one would have to be incredibly moronic to contemplate making a sequel. Hollywood's per-capita ratio of morons must indeed be high, for not only do we have a sequel, it was distributed in the antipodes by Sony, a company not normally known for its taste in expensive write-offs. Released direct to television in America, the sequel does improve on the original in most respects, but in so doing, it becomes bland rather than interesting. The scale of the scenario is enlarged, with the action taking place in a deserted town that just happens to surround a university where experiments in a virus that can reanimate the dead have been occurring. In particular, the action is spread throughout the university, where the first infected denizens can be found. Put simply, the film differs from the original in that it actually occurs within a house where dead people can be found.<br /><br />The cast, on the other hand, is a real step backward. Emmanuelle Vaugier was specifically made up to resemble a low-rent Angelina Jolie, while the rest of the cast never reaches the level of a slumming-it Jürgen Prochnow. In fact, the only name that will stand out among this cast is one Sticky Fingaz, who probably did not want to be recognised that easily by the people he faces at home. Put simply, these people could not convincingly order pizza on the big screen, even under the best direction. Say what you will about Boll, but he at least inspired actors like Ona Grauer to fight against his ineptitude. That said, the people involved here at least seem to be aware that their film sucks and that they might as well have some fun with it. Much of the problem with the original was that the director thought he was crafting some kind of misunderstood masterpiece, and he took himself seriously. Unfortunately, with the actors failing to take their characters or the predicament seriously, what little dramatic tension there could have been is undermined.<br /><br />Much of the plot concerns itself with the search for a generation-zero victim of whatever plague is causing the dead to rise. Or to translate into more practical terms, they are trying to find someone who was infected just after the virus mutated into a form that was threatening to humans. How this would help when a non-mutated strain is usually required to create a vaccine is anyone's guess, but the manner in which this quest is paced out suffers problems of its own. The we-have-to-go-back plot device is used in order to pad out the running time, but the actual timing of the extra quest is also problematic. We are told at one point that the town will be obliterated by Cruise missiles in ten minutes, yet the heroes drive back into the university, locate the sample they are looking for, and fight off enough zombies to eat the army of China, all in this space of time. Filmmakers take note: it only pays to be specific with time when it can serve rather than hinder dramatic tension.<br /><br />The special effects used in House Of The Dead 2 leave those of the original in the dust. Where Uwe Boll simulated the deaths of the characters using idiotic rotating camera tricks, Michael Hurst instead uses all the graphic details his budget can allow. Necks are bitten, arms are cut off, heads are shot. It all makes for a much more convincing throughput, but it also disallows the mockery of obvious fakery. The photography is also much improved. As DVD Crypt put it, the fact that it is in focus throughout makes it an improvement upon the original, but this also deprives us of something to have a laugh at the expense of. The writing is also both an improvement and a setback. Throughout the script, references to other horror and survival horror games, the most obvious being Run Like Hell, are offered. The first couple of times, they work because they offer clever ways to work titles into ordinary, everyday dialogue. After the eighth time, however, they just get on the nerves because they remind gamers of things they would prefer to do with their time.<br /><br />Interestingly, House Of The Dead 2 cost a mere six million to bring to television screens across America. Given that Tom Savini on his own would cost more than this to work on a film nowadays, I have to say I am somewhat impressed with the visual results. In contrast to the much-reviled original, the zombies here look like actual zombies rather than extras in bad makeup shot poorly. In a further contrast to the original, the actors appear to have a clue what they are doing. Sealing the deal is the fact that apart from some real zingers scattered throughout, the characters speak like real people. However, the story is nothing that we have not seen a thousand times already. When Aliens, the real Dawn Of The Dead, or The Evil Dead were released to acclaim, the acclaim came from the fact that these films either did something we had not seen before, or did it so well that we did not really care. House Of The Dead 2 is competent enough that we do not mock it, but it brings nothing new or particularly brilliant to the table, so we end up not caring either.<br /><br />For that reason, and many others, I gave House Of The Dead 2 a two out of ten. It is too good to be bad, but too bad to be any good. Unless you are into sucky films as much as I am, you are best to steer clear of it. | negative |
A swedish splatter movie? Has the world gone insane?<br /><br />Probably not, but it's still not a common sight in these days with swedish gore-flicks, the b-movie business in Sweden seems to have troubles these days, long gone are the golden days of "Rymdinvasion i lappland". And this movie seems to have some troubles on its own: it's just too much talk in it, it still manages to be somewhat amusing mainly for the good FX, which are great for a b-movie. The script and most of the acting is still pretty bad though, but that actually don't matter that much, it's supposed to be a gore flick and nothing more, that's where it goes a bit wrong for some reason. There's is simply not enough blood to fill the void. <br /><br />Every person who know about Gert Fylking will have a good laugh over his role as a sgt. though. I nearly laughed my ass off. It's really that hilariously bad. <br /><br />Besides the good parts I've listed there's really nothing else to recommend here unless you're starved for swedish B-movies.<br /><br />4/10 | negative |
Butter Battle is an entertaining story about two fictional cities and their arms race. It is also as misguided allegory about the Cold-War and arms races in general. Yes, it is a children's book, but like so many of Theodor Seuss Geisel's works it hits people over the head with its moral.<br /><br />And that moral is what, exactly? Sure it is laudable to encourage us to concentrate more on what unites us than what divides us. It is even a good thing to encourage international cooperation. But to equate the differences between the Warsaw Pact nations and the Nato west to a difference in butter application is just plain wrong. To point out the obvious, many Warsaw Pact nations enjoyed intermittent periods of shortages of butter and bread -- they would have been happy to eat it butter sideways if it were available. On a less literal level, and whatever your political inclination, Soviet socialism versus Western (particularly Anglo-American) democracy is not a mere question of preference and custom.<br /><br />To make the point even clearer, nuclear weapons were not developed in a Cold War with the Soviets, but in a hot war with the Axis powers. There is no doubt that Germany was developing nuclear capability during the war. Should the US have refrained from nuclear weapons research putting their trust in their (less than inevitable) victory in the conventional war? Once the weapons were developed they were used against the enemy who attacked us at Pearl Harbor. What does a nation do at this point when the genie is out of the bottle? Furthermore, hindsight is 20-20, which is to say that there was no way of assuring another half crazed dictator wouldn't crop up with his eyes on developing nuclear weapons. The second Gulf War has shown the incredible difficulty in ascertaining credible threats and neutralizing them.<br /><br />In any event, the cartoon is little more than simplistic propaganda which does little to explore the nuances of the ethical questions behind nuclear armament and instead tries to inculcate fear of weapons technology into children. | negative |
I never really thought about watching this film. I kept seeing it perched on the horror movie shelf in my local video rental shop and never thought much about it. Just your run of the mill, bland zombie flick with a bit of gore and a sex scene. Nothing special, might as well watch Python...oh no wait, that's a terrible film.<br /><br />I only decided to watch it when some of my friends saw it on TV and said it was an awful piece of trash. So, I decided to verify these tales, and only then did I realise how terrible the film hiding behind the bland and uninteresting DVD box cover was.<br /><br />Not that the idea is bad in itself. A plane is a confined area, and would be a real death trap for the people on board should zombies make their appearance...a good premise for a zombie film. But this film took a good setting and crapped all over it with poor acting, unsteady camera work, annoying characters and a terrible score.<br /><br />The characters all have different levels of hatefulness. There are two young couples who are basically friends going on a vacation in France. One couple is composed of a jock and his annoying bitchy girlfriend who is having an affair with Mr Jock's best friend, who came along with his girlfriend who is a blonde psycho. There is also a policeman escorting a con-man (an effeminate and highly annoying con-man). The policeman is probably one of the least irritating characters of the lot. Then there is a bunch of air hostesses who mostly end up as zombie chow...no I didn't watch the whole film, it was just too painful an experience to carry through, almost as bad as watching Cannibal Holocaust. Oh and there's also a golfer on holiday with his wife, some strange air marshal who really does not appear to be important until he's summoned to help deal with the zombie escapees, a trio of scientists who all fall victim to the undead and a couple of pilots. The camera work is often shaky, and although many people don't seem to mind, it can really get on your nerves after a while, like having a small fly buzz constantly around your head. It's small but it's there and it's annoying.<br /><br />The adulterous couple are genuinely annoying. All they do is have sex in the plane's toilets while their spouses aren't looking...in fact all the young adults in this film are insanely annoying. They whine, bitch, argue and have some of the most inane and mind-buggeringly boring dialogue in the movie...yes, it makes you glad to see them die.<br /><br />The score is atrocious. It is so generic and uninspired it kills any kind of suspense a scene could have generated and replaces it with the feeling that someone is scraping a blackboard with their nails and laughing at you. In fact, it sounds like the score from...Python! That film will never stop haunting me.<br /><br />There is also a character that the film makers seemed incredibly intent on having in as many shots as possible. A nun, sitting near the young adults and clutching her Bible who is included in so many shots you start to wonder if she plays any major part in the film...but no she doesn't, so why have her in so many scenes? Was it because the film's creator's original project was a nun porn flick? Nobody will ever know.<br /><br />The zombies look pretty good. Their makeup is good and they are probably far better actors than the living characters, they are far more convincing and likable! The guard responsible for keeping an eye on the scientist's illegal cargo was quite funny. A large crate appears to fall on him, and the camera briefly shows the audience that his leg has been pierced with some kind of sharp object...yet he doesn't scream, wince or moan in pain. He just grunts and squirms in an attempt to get the thing out of his leg...in fact he sounds more like an overweight man trying to scratch his back than a man in pain.<br /><br />Ah well, all in all I give it 1 for the interesting setting and 1 for the zombies.<br /><br />Watch this movie only if you like young adults bickering and throwing things at each other, and sadly, there really isn't anything funny about the whole thing so watching for a laugh would probably fail, unless you're high on some kind of psychoactive drug. | negative |
I think that this film has become an important record of the most horrifying aspect of the East German regime - the imprisonment of its people by what the regime called its anti-fascist protective wall. It is a document of desperation and courage not to be missed. I would however like to comment on the actual location of this escape. It did not happen in or around Berlin as supposed by some respondents and was nothing to do directly with the Berlin Wall. The escape balloon was flown over the Iron Curtain which not only divided Germany but it divided the whole of Europe at that time. The balloon took off from Pössneck, 170 miles south-west of Berlin in the German Democratic Republic (East Germany) and flew 14 miles to Naila in Bavaria and freedom in West Germany. The opening of the Iron Curtain in Hungary in 1989 preceded the fall of the Berlin Wall later that year. Whilst the balloon flight created entertaining suspense cinema, it should remain as a monument to those who lost their lives whilst attempting to escape from East Berlin, other parts of the GDR or other Soviet-controlled states. | positive |
What we know of Caravaggio suggests a strutting brawler with a healthy sense of entitlement who lived amongst whores and thieves and hustlers and put them on canvas. His works' themes were sex, death, redemption, above all, finding the sacred within the profane. He lived at a time where homosexuality carried a death sentence and political intrigue normally involved fatalities in a society defined by the maxim "strangling the boy for the purity of his scream".<br /><br />You can't fault Derek Jarman for his cinematography, nor his recreations of Caravaggio's paintings and you certainly can't accuse the man of shying away from the homosexuality. But frankly, Jarman never strays beyond 80s caricature. Italian patronage becomes the 80s London art scene complete with pretty waiters and calculators. Sean Bean is a sexy bit of Northern rough oiling his motorbike. Tilda Swinton performs a transformation worthy of a Mills and Boons ("Why, Miss Lena, without that gypsy headscarf, you're beautiful..."). Jarman provides Caravaggio with a particularly trite motive for the murder which left him exiled.<br /><br />This could have been a visually stunning treatment of a man whose life was dangerous, exciting, violent and decadent but who nonetheless elevated the lives of ordinary people to the status of Renaissance masterpieces, looked on by Emperors and Kings. Instead, what you get is Pierre et Gilles do Italy. The pretty bodies of young boys are shown to perfection, but never the men who inhabit them. Jarman appears to satirise the London art scene, showing it shallow and pretentious. To use Caravaggio and Renaissance Italy to make the point is to use a silk purse to make a pig's ear. In fairness, this film remains visually stunning, but ultimately as two dimensional as the paintings it describes. | negative |
Nightmare Weekend stars a cast of ridiculous actors with even less of an idea of what is going on than the director had, if you can imagine that. There is no decipherable plot or story, the special effects are a joke, and even the sound is terrible. This film was directed by Henry Sala. It was the only film that he ever directed, and the reason is obvious. | negative |
I saw this film when it first came out and have never forgotten it. My Uncle Antoine is much, much greater than the sum of it's parts. The movie, loosely, is about a pre-adolescent who is sent to live with a relative in a small town in Canada. There are adventures that seem more or less typical but underneath there is a current building. MUA has a leisurely pace but have patience, the reward is coming. I believe the film was sub-titled and as with all non-English speaking movies I've seen it is well worth avoiding any dubbed version. Inevitably dubbed movies reflect the attitudes of a new director and actors, with the additional necessity of lip-synching lines that don't quite fit. The English speaking Amarcord is a travesty, for example, while the sub-titled version sings. My Uncle Antoine is well worth the time to find and watch it in French. | positive |
I took a group of young people who were the same age as the protagonists and it appealed to us all. I agree with the other post, the Wilson guy worked a thankless script into a great minor character. It is good to have a movie for a certain age demographic (too old for PG, too young for R). It also shows how they think and maneuver in junior high school. You had to love how well Jimmy Buffet did as the cool teacher. He kept us adults awake. The level of kids questioning authority was kept reasonable. Their motives were specific and not like some A.D.D. rebel. The setting and music were beautiful. Overall, if you enjoyed Holes, this is really similar. | positive |
Up until the sixth and last episode of the Star Wars saga, which finally ended in 2005, I had always looked at this 1983 entry as my favorite film of the long-running series. The varied action scenes and really different characters (Jabba The Hut, furry woodland creatures, etc.) made this a particularly appealing movie.<br /><br />None of the action ever focused too long in one spot, either. The last half hour exemplifies this the most as the scene switches every few minutes from the woods to the battle among space ships to the individual laser-duel between Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader.<br /><br />Another nice characteristic this film had that the two previous did not was the absence of in-fighting between two of the stars. Gone was the incessant bickering between Carrie Fisher and Harrison Ford. Finally, everyone was on the same page! It was nice to see.<br /><br />In the end, this was simply a wonderful adventure tale, more than anything else. | positive |
I really enjoyed this movie. During the movie, I felt that I wanted Pelagia and Captain Corelli to get together. I heard myself screaming: Come on, kiss her! The movie has a happy ending. Good movie to watch in the evening when you want to chill. | positive |
This was fun to watch, spookily atmospheric and effects were pretty good considering they were bang in the middle of World War Two. The plot did unravel pretty quickly at the end with the villains getting their comeuppance.<br /><br />It must have been a good one to watch at the local flea pit in the 1940's when they were facing the biggest threat to their liberty from the Nazis - well made with quite a serious message about the dangers to Britain from third columnists.<br /><br />But Arthur Askey was so annoying & unfunny you just wanted him to shut up - well at least I did ! I suppose different tastes in different times but the clowning around became tiresome. If he was playing an annoying little man as part of the script then he succeeded.<br /><br />A good watch and quite short at just over 80 minutes - a good background for older kids too so they have an idea of what train travel in austere times was like; uncomfortable slow, dirty trains, being thrown off for no reason, surly staff .... | positive |
How to lose friends and alienate people is decent comedy with a bit of romantic approach.<br /><br />It's actually a story of Sidney Young(Simon Pegg) breaking through in journalist and magazine writing business which is interpreted in a funny way. Simon Pegg made an OK appearance, slightly worse than his usual. Movie is not hilarious or funny all the way or anything like that but it has its moments, and those moments are really hilarious.<br /><br />I recommend this fun and worth watching American with English cream comedy to all people who just wanna sit, relax and enjoy movie for what it is. If you're about to watch this movie with critical approach then you should pass unless you want to be disappointed and start trashing it. | positive |
The combination of Dan Haggerty (Elves) and Linda Blair (Exorcist) is enough to make any horror fan excited about this movie. And once you see the cover art to this film of a frozen zombie coming out of their cryogenic chamber, you'll think you were in B-Movie Horror Heaven. At least that's the way I approached this film. But boy, was I in for a shock<br /><br />I love horror movies. I love B-Movies as well. Nothing makes my day more than a cheesy little film about zombies, monsters, murderers, that sort of thing. But to say that this movie was lacking, is an understatement. This movie was pure trash. You'd think the zombies would look somewhat like what the cover-art of the box displays, but instead, you get actors with masks that are clearly sold at any Halloween display counter. Furthermore, the script is beyond pitiful. Our main character, Joseph, suffers the loss of his wife and son and seeks solace in the warm-hearted Mary, played by Blair. Not once do you see any sign of sadness or discomfort on the part of Joseph's character. Instead, we see the head of the cryogenic labs, a man named Dr. Miller, eager to get the dead bodies and experiment with their organs. There is no emotion or anything to make you believe you should give a damn about anyone in this film.<br /><br />All and all, very disappointing. All the elements to make a great horror film were there. You had your zombies, your decent actors, and your story. But the lack of good writing and little if any sense of direction screwed this one up royally. Overall, 4 out of 10 | negative |
Have you ever read a book, then seen the movie, and wonder-How did they screw it up so bad? This is one of those. The book by Huffaker, "Nobody Likes a Drunken Indian" was great, riotously funny...this movie is not. It seems as though nobody cared enough to move the direction along so we CARED about the characters. This movie, which touches on some real concerns about Indians, makes you wonder why we haven't seen more comedies about the holocaust, or slavery. Not well done. | negative |
Ok, first I have to point the fact that when I first saw this flick I was 9 years old. If I had seen this one two weeks ago for the first time, I´d probably have noted that this is just another cheaply-made-cable-TV horror film with some well-made scenes. But when you´re nine you just don´t care about those facts. This scared the hell out of me back then, especially those aforementioned Zelda- scenes (and they still do). Nowadays I´m kind of hooked to this film. I have to see this maybe once in a month, and on every new year´s eve I watch this with a 12-pack of beer & bunch of friends. It´s like an appetizer for a good party! I kinda agree to those people who said that the acting here is pretty unintense. Midkiff and Crosby do look like I wanted Louis and Rachel look like, but one can´t see very much devotion or feelings on the faces of these two. Hughes and Gwynne pretty much save the scenes which "the Creeds" underact. What I actually want to say about this is the fact that there really is no other film that has any kind of similarity to Pet Sematary, and I don´t mean the zombie stuff here. THE ATMOSPHERE OF THIS FILM IS CERTAINLY A NOVELTY AND ONE OF A KIND. Honestly, how many times you have seen a film which on superficial level looks like a cable-TV one, but leave you with a chill compared to only the best horror-chillers out there? Alright I busted some of the cast´s balls a minute ago, but I have to say that all pieces in that level too hone the overall acting to perfection. But hey tell me if you really know some film which is similar to Pet Sematary! I really would love to know...And I don´t mean night of the living dead here...this one is way beyond compare in intelligence compared to that stuff. | positive |
This is without a doubt the most stunning and amazing documentary I have ever seen! The images that are shown are absolutely breathtaking and stunning. On top of that, it is a wonderful learning experience. I'm not one for educational documentaries, but this one grabs hold of you and doesn't let go until the end. You'll be so hooked and entranced by what you are watching that you'll forget your at home watching TV! This series is available to buy on DVD and I HIGHLY recommend picking this one up! With all the evil and death in this world, this documentary series gives us proof that life is beautiful and worth saving and preserving. | positive |
I wouldn't say this is a *bad* movie. Unfortunately for me, I get the feeling that the more you know about fencing, the worse it gets simply due to the fact that it becomes totally unrealistic. I've been fencing since i was 14 years old, and this movie portrays it very poorly. F. Murray Abraham is good (and appears to have some fencing background), but most of the other actors--especially the students--just seem to be lost. | negative |
Giorgino can to some people look a bit long but it's one of rare real romantique adventure film. It could be compare to Docter Jivago with a bit of Sleepy Holow. You must see it. | positive |
Well, I've watched this movie for over 25 years now and it's still almost as interesting as when I first saw it. It is definitely one of the most unique films ever made.<br /><br />I still think Martin Sheen got "dissed" big-time in the billing, too. He dominates the film yet gets lesser billing than Marlon Brando, who only appears in the last 30 minutes of this 2 hours, 17 minutes film (theatrical version). How unfair is that?<br /><br />Sheen is fantastic in here, especially his narration, which runs throughout. It's one of the best narrations, if not THE best, I have ever heard in a movie. His voice is just haunting as he relates his thoughts on this incredible, nightmare-like adventure. I never fail to appreciate his work in this movie.<br /><br />The other thing that strikes me about the film over the years are the number of memorable scenes, ones I have never forgotten, such as......<br /><br />Sheen losing it in his hotel room in the movie's first scene; Robert Duvall and the totally out-of-place surfing scenes and then the ensuing attack with Wagner's dramatic classical music blaring out of the helicopters; The Playboy bunny entertaining the troops; Frederic Forrest being freaked out seeing a tiger close up in the jungle; the weird scenes on the long riverboat ride; the appearance of hippie journalist Dennis Hopper greeting the crew in Cambodia and then Brando's bizarre character. It goes on and on with strange scenes.<br /><br />That's not to say I enjoyed everything. No, there are a few very unpleasant scenes, such as the one in which an ox is sliced in half (can't watch that anymore), an innocent family is slaughtered on a small boat by Sheen's young stoned-out crew, and the crew is a little too goofy at times. Then, there is the huge amount of profanity, led by way too many f-words.<br /><br />So, there is a lot of good and a lot of bad things in this movie for almost anyone who watches this One thing for sure: it is a film you WILL remember! | positive |
The spoilers in this review are offered as a public service, because the only way to enjoy this costume melodrama is to know that our protagonist, the Lady Barbara Skelton, gets raped and gunned down in the end. And not a moment too soon. I'd have shot the screen myself but I was afraid I'd hit James Mason.<br /><br />The original 1943 novel, called "The Life and Death of the Wicked Lady Skelton" (I guess people didn't whine about spoilers back then), was written by a woman, an English navy brat who was either troubled or cynical or both. Her heroine is devastatingly beautiful, and the author seems to think that if you have beauty, nothing else matters. But other things do matter, such as the fact that Lady Barbara's immediate and only response when someone gets in her way is homicide. She murders three men in five attempts. A serial femme fatale, she's got a case of dissocial personality disorder that should have landed her in either Bedlam or Newgate. <br /><br />Lockwood plays her as a narcissistic vamp, wearing so much makeup that I thought of her as a Restoration-era Joan Rivers (or a restoration-era Joan Rivers, ha!). Yet Lady B. is irresistible to all three principal male characters-- Michael Rennie, James Mason, and Griffith Jones, all of whom do good work, as does Patricia Roc. Of course, all three admirers realize in short order what a psychotic bitch Barbara is, but the plot keeps them all in her orbit until one of them finally does gun her down - accidentally, in what is meant to be either irony or just desserts. Given the dramatic death scene with a boom lifting the camera out through the windows and heavenward, I presume we're meant to give a damn about her death. But hers is the first corpse we don't care about. | negative |
First of all, despite the low rating on this site, I saw something quite worthy in this film and will gladly defend it. And no, I'm not connected to the crew in any way...<br /><br />I came across the DVD of The Wind by accident, and had this strong feeling that it wasn't going to be quite like the video packaging described. So I took a chance, and was pleasantly surprised by this strange, very different drama. I'm assuming the DVD marketing and summary were the work of MTI Home Video to hook a rental or sale (the tag line "Love comes in many forms" was changed to "Terror comes in many forms"). Sure, smaller films' rentals and sales depend strongly on grabbing a person's attention, especially if they've never heard of the film before (a similar case happened with the film THE ITEM). That's probably what is working against this release, as horror fans read the description of an "ancient wind" carrying with it "omens of the apocalypse." It's easy to think that that is what this film is all about, and will turn some college students in the story into crazy savages that go on a killing spree. Thus, at the time this review was submitted, is most likely the reason for the lower rating on IMDb. I can understand people becoming upset and thinking they were fooled by that summary , seeing the apocalyptic intro but then experiencing a dark drama. I can forgive the marketing choice since I enjoyed The Wind and thought it was a refreshing change of pace from major Hollywood offerings, it's just that if the intended audience was given the attention, more might voice a higher rating.<br /><br />The "wind" in this film is basically just a metaphor for society, and is the story of four friends who make some bad choices and how their lives quickly turn into ones of desperate self-preservation. After going too far in 'teaching a lesson' to one of their own, a death occurs and each person tries to save his/her own standing. Manipulation between them becomes the norm, and by the end we see how self preservation becomes their main motivation over good judgment. Civilized to savage, basically. This is very apparent throughout by noticing that the use of a knife, branches as clubs, fists and kicking are instruments of violence instead of guns. These characters are, in a way, doing all the wrong things for the right reason just to stay on top of the situation since they've already taken things too far. While there are many implied violent images, it's interesting to see that there is an absence of cussing and nudity. <br /><br />What works in favor of The Wind are the "unknown" actors. Bigger stars were originally intended, but I find it works better when you have lesser known, capable actors. This way you can get into the story without sometimes thinking "oh, that's Tom Cruise" for instance, instead of an actual tormented person dealing with an extraordinary situation. Even unusual conversations (like between Mic and Billy in a field, and Mic confronting Claire in her bedroom) hold up well and feel quite natural in the strange universe of Fairview...which has cozy homes,a forest, and wide open fields. I kept thinking of the calm landscapes concealing darker secrets in The Reflecting Skin, which director Michael Mongillo mentions as an inspiration in his commentary. <br /><br />The Wind manages to get messages across without being heavy-handed about it.<br /><br />Sure, if you look carefully you'll see many symbols and dialogue that other directors would just pound you over the head with. I even understood the infamous "kissing scene" between Claire, John, and Billy within the context of the story without being surprised it happened. I am still amazed at how some people (guys, mainly) who complain about two men kissing in a scene would obviously have NO problem if the scene were of two gals kissing instead. All is handled nicely here, and additional viewings will make things more clear without making you groan and say "oh man, how did I miss THAT...." Things sink in gradually and I appreciated that. Or you could listen to the DVD commentary as well for more things revealed!<br /><br />For those of us that "got" the intentions of this film, The Wind is a breath of fresh air (no pun intended) in a time when most films are made in order to JUST make money and be heard knocking other films out of their "box office competition" standing when mentioned on Entertainment Tonight or CNN.<br /><br />Years later, it's always the great little discoveries like The Wind that stay in my mind, not processed star-driven blockbusters.<br /><br />Get past the marketing ploy from MTI Home Video, and you just might find this an engaging story indeed. I strongly recommend it to friends that seek out unusual films like this one. | positive |
Watching It Lives By Night makes you wonder, just who in the world greenlit this crap. A newlywed couple go spelunking on their honeymoon, get attacked by bats and the husband starts to run around in his pajamas attacking various people. And where exactly are they? They're in the desert, then they're skiing, then they're in a small town that looks like it has mountains nearby. The town is run by a sheriff who likes to watch and has a personal vendetta against whiny doctor boy. The ski hospital is run by a really groovy guy with a nice thick mustache and the wife looks like Mary Tyler Moore or Marilyn Quayle. There's no dramatic tension and the ending will leave you filled with anger. Special effects and makeup guru Stan Winston did the effects for this movie. I guess you have to start somewhere. | negative |
Watching Smother was perhaps the longest not-quite-90-minutes of my life. There wasn't a laugh to be had; in fact, I don't remember ever cracking a smile. Diane Keaton was horridly unfunny as a middle-aged chain-smoking dog hoarder, the textbook overbearing mother character, a relentlessly irritating woman who clearly suffers from some kind of personality disorder. She is manipulative, conniving, melodramatic, childish, narcissistic, and worst of all, boring.<br /><br />I suppose I should briefly mention the other characters, but why bother? It was just a long string of movie clichés--the dippy, socially inept distant relative who's just trying to break into "The Industry", the gruff and long-suffering but somehow still lovable father, the mild- mannered wife who just can't take it anymore (but eventually moves beyond the discord and resignedly comes home), the herd of unhousebroken dogs who like to chew throw pillows while everyone is away, etc.<br /><br />God, what a snore. I've never been a Diane Keaton fan and Smother only reminded me why. Overacting is overacting, no matter how many pictures you did in your prime. Her attempts at physical comedy were especially humiliating. What was the director thinking?<br /><br />While I like Dax Shepard and can even sometimes tolerate Liv Tyler, their performances were so lackluster and dull that it was clear that neither actor gave a damn about this movie. That was okay, because neither did I. Keaton's endless self-absorbed prattling was intolerable and at times Shepard's dislike for her seemed genuine. By the end of the movie I wanted to slap her myself.<br /><br />Awful. | negative |
I saw this movie the other day in a film school class, and I hadn't seen an Almodovar movie before but went in expecting it to be good. Unfortunately, it turned out to be a pointless film with only a couple of laughs mixed in with two hours of sheer boredom. High Heels is just a collection of random scenes that might have worked in their own separate movies but together don't add up to any kind of meaningful whole at all.<br /><br />Or so I thought. Then, the next day, my film professor spent the entire class period explaining all of the movie's hidden little details, like how the mural depicting stereotypical flamenco dancers in the background of the drag queen scene is some kind of commentary on the lack of identity that Spain as a nation has developed under fascist rule. Apparently, the whole movie is chock full of clever little visual tricks and references like this.<br /><br />Great, but you know what? It's still a bad movie. It takes more than depth and complexity to make a good film--you still need to give the audience a reason to keep paying attention, something to interest the viewer enough to actually care about all the subtle tricks. High Heels gives us strange, off-beat characters but keeps them in mostly mundane situations recycled from other movies, and Almodovar doesn't seem to be using them to make any kind of point. What is the significance, for example, of the Hitchcockian surprise character revelation that occurs towards the end of the film? Why is that even in there? Just to surprise us?<br /><br />There is one funny scene that has to do with a news broadcast. And that's it, that's the only entertaining moment. The rest of the movie is just nonsensical filmic references and visual cues that apparently exist only for the sake of showing us how smart Pedro Almodovar is. But no matter what my film professor says, it takes more than self-indulgent trickery for a movie to be good. | negative |
Following the disasterous Revolution, this film was pretty much the final nail in the coffin of Goldcrest and thus the British Film Industry. The film is absolute pants, it's full of music from the attempted mid-80's jazz revival and based on a book & author that was briefly popular at that time and has deservedly sank back into obscurity. Temple searched for ages trying to find Suzette and came up with 8th Wonders Patsy Kensett another person who was briefly popular at the time. By the time the film came out of post production the Jazz revival was over, as was Kensett's career and the film met a totally uncaring film public.<br /><br />Mediocre would be an overstatement for some of the worst/campest/cheesiest acting to ever grace the British silver screen watching it almost 20 years on and the film is truely cringeworthy. | negative |
The last (I believe) of the movies The Boys made with Hal Roach, this is also the last truly funny film they made, before going to 20th century fox, which so famously misued their talents. Although there are weak moments - the business with the "lung tester", for instance, is a bit, ah ... overblown (but worth having, just to see "Dr." Jimmy Finlayson) - but on the whole this flick is a good summary of what the boys brought to the screen. Richard Cramer (uncredited) appeared in other L&H flicks, and he is delightfully threatening here as the convict Nick Granger. The scene where The Boys have to eat their own synthetic meal ("Looks good, smells good, and it probably tastes good. Eat it.") is one of my favorite moments in the oeuvre. Stan & Ollie will always be pleasant companions in the lives of their millions of devoted fans. | positive |
I have watched Farscape from first episode to now, and I will continue to watch it! The setting and the characters are amazing and the plots are great. The show really keeps me on the edge of my seat and when the show goes off after an hour I keep hoping it will be another hour! | positive |
Director and playwright Richard Day adapted his own stage material for the screen, clearly inspired by Rock Hudson's real-life dilemma from the 1950s: what to do with a screen idol who is secretly homosexual? Marry him off to an unsuspecting woman in order to quell the gossips (and keep him working). Wispy-thin idea given some energy by the good cast and retro production design which amusingly resembles a greeting card by Shag. The dialogue isn't very clever, and there's some slapstick goofing around near the beginning which fails to work (spitting out food, etc.). Still, when a serious tone comes over the final act, it is handled with great taste--and is far more welcomed by the viewer than all the klutzy silliness. Matt Letscher does good work as movie hero/male whore Guy Stone, but are his experiences here enough to strengthen his character, or would he be right back at the bar the next night? The movie seems not to know--or care. Day wants to get off a few one-liners and one carefully written pro-gay speech--a plea for tolerance--but he has no other agenda. For audiences who invest their time and interest in these people, the sentimental bow on this thing can look like nothing more than a prank. *1/2 from **** | negative |
I'll tell you what happened, some people with money thought it would be nice to ruin one of the best shows that was on TV. Did we really need a big screen re-make? Did they ask the fans? I wonder how all the fans would feel if they did a remake of "Rocky Horror Picture Show" with actors like Ashton Krutcher, Steve Martin, Britney Spears, and Kiefer Southerland, took out all the music, and made it a drama. Do you think they would like that! This movie does not have the same feel to it that the original had. Sure the original was a bit corny at times, but Bo and Luke were always nice, they got into trouble because they were always set up to get into trouble, and their main objective was to help people that passed through town. None of that mattered to the people that made this film, they might have never even seen the original show all the way through. My big question is, what will they ruin next? | negative |
Accepted is one of the best teenage comedies I have seen in a long time. It has an original script, talented cast and it delivers an hour and a half of pure unadulterated fun.<br /><br />It tells the story of a high school graduate Bartleby "B" Gains (Justin Long) who is not accepted in any of the collages he applied to, so to avoid his parents' disappointment he creates a fictional collage. In the attempt to fool his parents completely he creates a fake website and turns an old psychiatric hospital into a school. Everything goes smoothly until a lot of other "accepted" students turn up on his doorstep. Now he and his friend have to figure that collage thing out not only for themselves but for the others too.<br /><br />Justin Long as a lead man is absolutely brilliant, his character is as natural as he can be and the supporting acts are outstanding- Jonah Hill as Sherman Schrader, Columbus Short as Hands, Maria Thayer as Rory, Adam Herschman as Glen and Lewis Black as Uncle Ben.<br /><br />The humour is fresh and simple and most importantly funny, right from the start to after the credits .The plot develops so easy that by the time you stop laughing at the last joke you start giggling at next other. Along with all the fun the movie brings a very common subject to our attention i.e. the collage education. If usually the students in the movie are united against the school government, in this case they are united by the mutual desire to go to school and learn.<br /><br />Yet the movie doesn't brand all other schools as wrong, it just shows that there is another way. You what they say "If there is a will there is a way.And may be sometimes the children know better what they need than their parents.<br /><br />This movie is an unmissable little story about the great opportunities in life wrapped up in the best format possible. | positive |
Randolph Scott is heading into Albuquerque to take a job with his uncle. However, on the way there, the stage is held up--even though they are not carrying a strongbox. However, a nice lady on board is concealing $10,000 for her and her brother's business...and the robbers seem to know this.<br /><br />Once in town, Scott goes to this uncle about the job. However, he soon learns that this uncle is a jerk--the typical bad guy from Westerns. You know, the rich guy who only wants to become richer by cheating and stealing and threatening until he owns everything. And, it just so happens that this jerk was behind the robbery. Scott demands that the uncle returns the money and then Scott goes into business with the nice lady and her brother.<br /><br />Not surprisingly, this is NOT the end of the problems---just the beginning. Again and again, intrigues of various types occur to try to crush the uncle's opposition. One trick is to bring in a pretty lady to befriend Scott and his partners. She's a crack shot and it looks bad for Scott--until he figures out why she's come to town.<br /><br />Unlike most later Randolph Scott films, this one shows Scott as a bit more headstrong man. All too often in his films he's the last one to suggest violence, but in this film he's quick to suggest a lynching (screw the law, let's have a hangin') and later he's quick to threaten the uncle. What a surprise to see him as such a hot-head--though in most other ways, he's the same old Scott you'd expect.<br /><br />As far as the film goes, there's nothing particularly unusual about it. Gabby Hayes plays the usual character, Scott is a hero, the baddie cannot be reasoned with and ultimately is destroyed and Scott gets the girl. Despite this very typical plot, it's all handled very well and as a result is well worth your time.<br /><br />By the way, there are two weird scenes in the film. First, late in the movie, there is a fist fight between Scott and the uncle's #1 henchman, Lon Chaney, Jr.. In it, Chaney smokes as he fights--something I never saw before and I did admire how he could puff away as he got his butt kicked. Second, get a load of that runaway cart scene with the whip--now THAT was one impossible feat! | positive |
In reality that happened: the royal mother in law and father in law lunched with the couple the day after the wedding and gave her the money in public. This troubled young Elisabeth so much that she never forgot the issue. We must remember she was only 16. She was so embarrassed that she kept a fear for sex all her life. Perhaps this began to appear as a trauma. Also the constant meddling of her aunt and mother in law. As you say, she kept all her children away from her, critiqued her teeth and manners (which she considered inappropriate for an empress), and when Sissi finally went to Venice with her husband and children, her eldest daughter died, and the mother in law blamed her for that unfortunate and premature death. She never recovered. | negative |
First let me say the director has some wonderful use of titles in his establishing shots. I really enjoyed them. I really enjoyed this movie but I got to say next to Pierce Brosnan, Greg Kinear is pretty lackluster. Brosnan melts into this character so well, that it is really hard to remember that this is the same guy that played bond. It also shows his range and depth as an actor. It is kinda of an indie flick and was really nice to see especially with all of the mainstream movies that flood the movies at this time of the year. I found the characters to be well crafted. The twist in the middle I felt was especially good. I also liked how the characters come off realistically. So many times we have in film these caricatures of people that are not really characters but walking-stereotypes... I like the different approaches this movie takes. I think of sideways when I think of this movie but I think this is more watchable and a better movie overall... | positive |
Stewart is a Wyoming cattleman who dreams to make enough money to buy a small ranch in Utah ranch
His only real companion is his sidekick Ben Tatum, the great Walter Brennan
To accomplish that, they drive the cattle clear to Alaska and on to Dawson, in Canadian territory, where they sell them...<br /><br />Along the way they meet the man who runs the gold-crazy town behind a dishonest lawman John McIntire... He attempts to steal them the herd... Later, in Dawson, McIntire and his gang reappear, this time interfering with Stewart's gold claim... <br /><br />Captured by Mann's camera in the wonderful scenery of the Canadian Rockies, Stewart is a thoughtful loner forced into violence by his need to get rid of the treacherous actions of a corrupt entrepreneur robbing local miners of their claims
<br /><br />In this entertaining, beautiful Western, Stewart has two leading ladies to struggle with: Ruth Roman, a bit too valuable to describe as a sexy woman resisting the worst vicissitudes of the territory and the more docile, the French Canadian girl Corinne Calvet who does create a nice portrait of a likable girl with the ability to form a judgment... In spontaneous manner, Stewart is lost between the ostentatious saloon owner and the wife-candidate... | positive |
A genius. My genius. I remember the exact second in 1994. I was sat in a pub in Shropshire, England. I recall the exact seat. "Bill Hicks dies of cancer" said the headline in the NME. I felt like someone had punched me in the stomach. Buy this DVD. If you don't find something in it one way or the other I'll be astonished.<br /><br />RIP Bill, I wish so much you were still here. | positive |
I guess if a film has magic, I don't need it to be fluid or seamless. It can skip background information, go too fast in some places, too slow in others, etc. Magic in this film: the scene in the library. There are many minor flaws in Stanley & Iris, yet they don't detract from the overall positive impact of watching people help each other in areas of life that seem the most incomprehensible, the hardest to fix. Both characters are smart. Yet Stanley can't understand enough to function because he can't read; he can't read because he's had too much adventure in his childhood. Iris, although well-educated, hasn't had enough adventure and so can't understand how to move past the U-turn her life took. In both their faults and strengths, the characters compliment each other. It may be a bit of a stretch to accept that an Iris would wind up working year after year in a factory, or that a Stanley never hid his illiteracy enough to work in construction or some other better-paying job. And while these "mysteries" are explained in the course of the story, their unfolding seems somewhat contrived. I assume no one took the time to rethink the script. Even so, it's a good moviejust imagine what De Niro, Fonda and Plimpton would have done on screen if someone had! | positive |
I wonder sometimes if maybe Meryl Streep has become so accepted as the most impressive, versatile actress since, well, maybe just about the beginning of the sound era that maybe her talent is now taken for granted. There are probably about three tics that she relies on consistently throughout her performances (most noticeably a pinched lip), but other than that, her performances are amazingly variable and original and fresh expressions of internal workings. Even though "Sophie's Choice" and "A Cry in the Dark" and "Silkwood" may be showier, her work here and in "Bridges in Madison County" is remarkable, too - just more subtle. In "One True Thing", she is mostly sweet and in love with her domesticated life, and Streep makes what could be routine, even boring, seem attractive and charming. I think that she must work out these mini-theses for each character and find what things make this person real and interesting. She works from the inside out with each character, and maybe it's this essential quality that has evoked the main criticism of aloofness or self-consciousness. I don't think she's cold at all, but instead has thought out her character's unique qualities. I think her critics are confusing self-consciousness with intelligence. Not too many other actors would be so complexly thoughtful and creative as to make Kate Muldrun lightweight and carefree within her beloved, homey environment, only to later reveal unprecedented depth because of her genuine attachment to that homey environment. Her performances are of an unsurpassed consistency, she rarely does anything wrong. I wonder if it's conceivable for any of Streep's pictures to not seem diminished because of her presence... Anyway, Kate loves her home, and her affection for her "family life" is as endearing as her new conflict within the home is jarring. When all of this comes together, and Kate starts to recognize that she can no longer function in the same capacity, and she breaks the pie dish and screams out that she is not handicapped, it is painfully sad to watch because this has not been someone prone to emotion. Streep is smart enough and generous enough to recognize how much better everything works because she has felt out the dramatic validity of Kate and it's really the only scene when she allows her character to go. But how refreshingly true it is to see a character who can really surprise you by displaying something that you wouldn't have thought possible. Once again, Streep's character has at least three dimensions... God, this sounds like a thesis itself, but as an actress, Streep just has a special kind of intelligence, incredible empathy and great expressive skills. The movie itself is probably somewhat mediocre. I suppose William Hurt is meant to be an unlikeable jerk, and he does pompousness very well. I think Hurt is really kind of creepy, though. Script is quite standard - another tribute to Streep that she was as touching and believable as she was. | positive |
In the classic sense of the four humors (which are not specific to the concept of funny or even entertainment), Altman's "H.E.A.L.T.H." treats all of the humors, and actually in very funny, entertaining ways. There's the Phlegm, as personified by Lauren Bacall's very slow, guarded, and protective character Esther Brill, who's mission in life appears to be all about appearance, protecting the secrets of her age and beauty more than her well-being. There's Paul Dooley's Choleric Dr. Gil Gainey, who like a fish out of water (perhaps more like a seal) flops around frenetically, barking and exhorting the crowds to subscribe to his aquatic madness. The Melancholy of Glenda Jackson's Isabella Garnell smacks of Shakespeare's troubled and self-righteous Hamlet -- even proffering a soliloquy or two. And let's not forget Henry Gibson's Bile character, Bobby Hammer ("The breast that feeds the baby rules the world"). Then there's the characters Harry Wolff and Gloria Burbank (James Garner and Carol Burnett, respectively), relatively sane characters striving to find some kind of balance amongst all the companion and extreme humors who have convened for H.E.A.L.T.H. -- a kind of world trade organization specializing in H.E.A.L.T.H., which is to say anything but health. This is Altman at his classic best. | positive |
I loved the Batman tv series and was really looking forward to this. But they tried to do too much.<br /><br />Why they had the story of Adam West and Burt Ward trying to recover the batmobile was beyond me. I don't want to knock Burt or Adam for the way they look now.....It's been 35 years since they appeared at Batman and Robin, but to see them dressed in dress suits and fighting 'badguys' was kinda sad. I would rather of just seen the ex-stars do commentary. The batmobile side story was stupid.<br /><br />As for the flashback movie, I think it was too short and left out way too much. It was really just a quick overview in my opinion. I'd like more background. They showed the Penguin and Joker for about a minute each just to tell the same stuff I already knew. The Joker had a mustache under his makeup and the penguin had to smoke even though he hated it and was an ex-smoker. That was it on those 2.<br /><br />I'd love to read the book. I am sure it has more in it that this showed. Like why was there 2 Riddlers or why 3 Catwoman's or 3 Mister Freezes. Where was Commishioner Gordon, Cheif OHara, Alfred, Mister Freeze, King Tut, etc. the List goes on. Like I said even the ones that were in this one were barely in it.<br /><br />Very disappointing. And really corny. | negative |
I loved the first "Azumi" movie. I've seen Ms. Ueto in a variety of her TV appearances and I've seen my fair share of samurai and ninja flicks. I have to say that this movie was much weaker than I'd expected.<br /><br />Given the movie's cast and set up in "Azumi", they should have been able to do a much better job with this movie, but instead it was slow, plodding in parts, and sprinkled with very poor, unconvincing, and wooden acting.<br /><br />When they bothered to reference the first movie, they did so in a manner that was pretty loose and weak. In "Azumi", the title character is the best of a group of superior killers. In "Azumi 2" she seems somehow diminished and less-impressive.<br /><br />That's not to say it was a total loss. There were a few decent fight scenes and some over-the-top characters. Unfortunately, the movie suffers overall from the simple fact that Shusuke Kaneko and Yoshiaki Kawajiri are not Ryuhei Kitamura and Isao Kiriyama. The latter two truly captured the "manga" feel in their screenplay whereas the former never quite "got it." | negative |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.