review stringlengths 32 13.7k | sentiment stringclasses 2 values |
|---|---|
Carnosaur 3 is bad... awfully bad. Bad to the point where it is funny. How matter how much I try to convince myself, I just can't believe anyone in this world could find this entertaining for serious reasons. I mean, come on, even the cover is bad! OK, the special effects are absolutely ridiculous. Those "Carnosaurs" are really ridiculous. A scientist tells the soldiers that they move incredibly fast, yet when you see them run, they run at the speed of... an actor in a rubber suit trying to run as much as he can. And the explosions are funny(there is no other word to describe it). At the beginning, a bullet hits a Jeep AFTER a guys says "What was that?"... And the other explosions are also laughable. But the worst thing is the screenplay and the so-called story. You don't expect a good story(or, I don't think anyone renting this movie expects a good movie) but at least the story has to try to make sense. I mean, how hard is it to make a story about dinosaurs killing people at least coherent. Incredibly hard if you look at this. Oh, and if you think that it's easy to makes believable commandos as your characters, tell it to the writers of this awful, awful piece of crap. I mean, what sick human being would make cheap jokes after one of his buddies is dead? And they do lots of it. And if you think that a movie about dinosaurs killing soldiers can only be at least action-packed, WAKE UP!!! This movie is incredibly dull. The carnosaurs(who invented this lame name anyway?) attack(in boring action sequences where you don't see much happening). The soldiers think of how to beat them(in incredibly funny scenes where they try real hard to be serious but can't seem to convince even just one second). So, then, they attack the carnosaurs, but their idea doesn't work(another laughable action sequence). Back to planning(with a few lame jokes thrown in) in another ridiculous scene. And this goes on, and on, and on. And let's not forget the acting which is about as convincing as the special effects... and the story... Oh OK, this movie simply sucks from A to Z.<br /><br /> | negative |
I just spent about 1.5 hours waiting for the movie to begin. It didn't. The story is vague and uninteresting, the speed in the movie is absent and the voiceover irritating. I can't understand why movies like this one are even distributed. | negative |
This movie has no heart and no soul; it's an attempt to whomp up a cult film out of the leavings of other, better, directors, principally David Lynch and Tim Burton. Rifkin seems to think that if he overloads on a kind of rotted visual style and fills the street with crud and garbage, he's making a statement. But it's not a statement ABOUT anything -- except the director's shrill shriek of "HEY LOOK AT ME! I'M AN ARTIST, TOO." But he doesn't have the imagination of an artist, just a good memory for things that worked -- such as some of the actors trapped in this -- for other directors. All of this would be almost acceptable if this movie was not a turgid, boring chore to sit through. | negative |
The Booth puts a whole new twist on your typical J-horror movie. This movie puts you in the shoes of the protagonist of the story. The director wants you to see what the protagonist sees and thinks.<br /><br />The story is about perception of the people who works, lives, and loves of our protagonist, and how he perceives the people who surrounds him in an antiquated radio station DJ booth. The story peels back the layers of the main character like an onion in flash-backs as the movie runs its course, and from it we learned that things are not always the way it seems. The movie mostly took place in a small, out-dated radio station's studio with a very bad history, where the main character was forced to broadcast his talk show due to the radio station was in the process of re-locating. It is from this confined space that this movie thrives and makes you feel very claustrophobic and very paranoid. At time our protagonist can not determined the strange happenings in the old studio were caused by ghost or some conspiracy by his co-workers or it was all in his mind. What I like about this film is that the film-makers makes you see through the eyes of the main character and makes you just as paranoid as protagonist did. This movie is a very smart, abide rather short 76 minutes film. | positive |
When I found this film in my local videostore I expected it to be another cheesy American vampire film in the same vein of "The Lost Boys"(1987).To my surprise "To Die for" is a really good movie.It's a little bit corny at times,but still there are enough stylish set-pieces and surprises to satisfy vampire enthusiasts.This is a perfect mix of romance and horror and it's surprisingly gory at times.Highly recommended. | positive |
Herman has made northern drama his own with Little Voice and Brassed Off, but the formula falters in this ropey, flat and contrived tale of two teenage delinquents trying to get season tickets to see Newcastle.<br /><br />Truancy, underage smoking and drinking, underage sex, teenage abortion, school bullying, drug abuse, substance abuse, depression, child violence, child sex abuse, shoplifting, housebreaking, auto theft, violent assault and armed robbery all put in an appearance here. None of these issues are explored, they merely serve to move the story along from one implausible situation to another. The film is not as acutely observed as Trainspotting, as poignant as The Full Monty, or as reflective of the times as Wonderland (from which it shamelessly steals music in an overly-manipulative manner). I suspect none of the filmmakers are from Newcastle, and have certainly never experienced the social problems the film references. I am all for entertainment, and Herman's track record shows he is aware of the need to balance the social message with laughs and tears. Quite simply, he comes up incredibly short here.<br /><br />The film has a nice ending, but there are far too many flat, banal moments to sit through to get there. Nicely shot, not very well acted, and ultimately fails on three crucial points: script, script, script. | negative |
The plot: A crime lord is uniting 3 different mafias in an entreprise to buy an island, that would then serve as money-laundering facility for organized crime. To thwart that, the FBI tries to bust one of the mafia lords. The thing goes wrong, and by some unlikely plot twists and turns, we are presented with another "cop buddies who don't like each other" movie... one being a female FBI agent, and the other a male ex-DEA agent.<br /><br />So far, so stupid. But the strength of this movie does not lie in its story - a poor joke, at best. It is funny. (At least the synchronized German version is). The action is good, too, with a memorable scene involving a shot gun and a rocket launcher. But the focus is squarely on the humour. Not intelligent satire, not quite slapstick, but somewhere in between, you get a lot of funny jokes. <br /><br />However, this film is the opposite of political correctness. Legal drug abuse is featured prominently, without criticism, and even displaying it as cool. That's the bit of the movie that seriously annoyed me, and renders it unsuitable for kids, in my opinion. <br /><br />All in all, for a nice evening watching come acceptable action with some funny jokes, this movie is perfect. Just remember: In this genre, it is common to leave your brain at the door when you enter the cinema / TV room. Then you'll have a good time. 8/10 | positive |
In light of bad reviews - or car crashes - I feel possessed to get in gear and make a transmission to give merit where due, and do a service. I'm not sure people have license to say it was so bad, almost automatically.<br /><br />It's rare for a movie to have SUSPENSE. This movie maintained suspense it's whole length, for me, despite any flaws that may be. How many films can say that? Not even many big ones. Because of the simple premise you don't know if the people will get out of the life-threatening situation, which lasts the whole movie. Yeh, the suspension was tight, and over some bumps the shocks did their work. It's not just a TV movie, but an all-action movie; there is no point where it stops, or deviates, or becomes talky. It would be hard to make a film like this, always on the road. Only Duel, or Speed, are this that I recall. The best thing in them also was the constant tension.<br /><br />ACTING is not bad: The Judge is as good as ever, and the others are. <br /><br />SCRIPT is good. But the jury is out as to whether it sometimes may be - or seem to be - a little awry. What seems unrealistic is not necessarily so. Your first judgments are not always right, but I think the lead actor's was right in being in this movie.<br /><br />STUNTS are mostly terrific, especially for a TV movie. Their only failing may be the noticeable, and again, apparent, slow speed. But we all know how deceivingly slow Grand Prix cars can look.<br /><br />I liked that THE BEGINNING said, "inspired by a true story." So you are not going to go how much is true? You know just the basis is. The usual "based on a true story" makes me think it should mostly be true. But maybe that's my error.<br /><br />HOW TO SAVE THEM: Good idea of the reviewer to suggest a tow truck to lift the back wheels up. Just a few inches would do. A stunt driver could do that at 100 mph. Odd that they didn't call a car expert - or auto electrician or mechanic - to see if there's a way.<br /><br />I hope this review has put in reverse that this film is a disaster. Or at least neutral. And help it become a runaway success.<br /><br />Pic quality is a little soft for a DVD.<br /><br />SPOILER: They would have been winched out after the baby was, but strangely that life-saving idea was cleverly dealt with in some joking conversation to fade it out. I guess we know why. End of movie. Suspension of disbelief went out the top window with the baby. | positive |
Don't kill me fans but I have something to say about this.<br /><br />Pros: Well, the most mildly interesting season that I've watched out of all the seasons that are out there of Inuyasha just has tobe the Shichinintai arc. Unlike the rest of the seasons, I personally think that this one has more of a real plot line and those mercenaries; good god they're such likable characters. Shame they were killed off. Of course, I would write a 15 page essay one why I like the Shichinintai so much but that would be boring for some of you. So this series actually does have some likable characters. I'll miss Bankotsu... poor, poor psycho little boy.<br /><br />Cons: Outside of Shichinintai arc, the series was overall boring, repetitive and some of the characters are extremely irritating. Kagome for example: She overreacts too much to my taste; she acts like Yuka from Elfen Lied. Inuyasha: He's a loud mouth dog demon with a huge sword. What's so unique about him? He has ADORABLE DOG EARS! Tch. Sesshomaru is all talk, no action and very cocky. Naraku has just got to be the wimpiest villain that ever existed in the anime world. Miroku and Sango... they have some color but they just seem to stand on the sidelines too much. But what bugs me the most if the fact that they have absolutely no COMMON SENSE at all. Rumiko Takahashi has done a LOT better then this. I've seen it before.<br /><br />If you like series with a lot of action, no annoying love triangle, no over repetitiveness, this is not for you then. | negative |
This documentary was nominated for an Oscar and it's easy to see why. Even 45 years later, it is quite an impressive piece of work. Why it isn't in-print is a mystery that only Disney can explain. Good use of live footage and animation in tandem. This used to run as part of "Vault Disney" every few months or so, but I haven't seen it listed in quite a while. *sigh* Most recommended. | positive |
Simply delightful claymation feature from Nick Park and company spoofing such film-greats as "King Kong" and "The Wolf Man" has Wallace and Gromit as rabbit security finding it difficult to solve a major problem in their village..a giant were-rabbit is feasting lavishly on the vegetable crops of the citizens! What makes this even worse is that the great vegetable festival is about to commence and the citizens have all prepared dutifully to win the top of prize. What makes the situation even worse is Wallace is the reason behind the whole vegetable-eating rampage..he was testing out a new invention regarding taking his brain waves in an attempt to brain wash captured rabbits into disliking vegetable crops. What occurs is catastrophic as some sort of hybrid were-rabbit is created in the process..and it has more to do with Wallace than he could ever imagine. It'll be up to his loyal(..and startlingly intelligent)and fast-thinking dog Gromit to save the day.<br /><br />This is a clever and imaginative effort from the crew behind other Oscar winning claymation features starring Wallace and Gromit. Seeing good ole-fashioned claymation is refreshing considering the CGI boom that has featured rather lackluster fare here recently as the industry spits out more and more mediocre product. Here, we get a full feature with witty humor and some wild stunts featuring marvelous animation, not to mention gut-busting sight gags. | positive |
I simply love this movie. It is a perfect example of the well-rounded surprising stories that come out of Asian cinema. There was a recent Hollywood remake of this movie, with Richard Gere and the simply awful Jennifer Lopez. Please do not confuse the two movies. The original Japanese film is touching, subtle and wonderfully acted. The Hollywood version is the exact opposite. I was aghast when I first saw the trailer for the remade US Version and who was starring in it. It's typical Hollywood unoriginal crass commercialism at it's worst. The remake cements the argument that some foreign films can never be improved upon. The ONLY reason the original film did not become more widely viewed is the US audience's aversion to subtitles.<br /><br />One of the main reasons this movie would never work in an American telling is that the reserved, ultra socially conservative character of the public Japanese persona is at issue in this movie. Certainly the main character awakens to a more full understanding of living a vivacious life through dance, but half of the movie's tension comes from the stereotypes and ridicule ballroom dancers face in Japan.<br /><br />Please try to see this movie in it's original form, not the terrible full screen. And please DO skip the US remake....it's a shallow travesty in comparison to the original Japanese movie.<br /><br />Yes, I know the "original" movie is much older, and this is simply a Japanese take on the story, but the only two people are likely to see any time soon are this one and the new US remake.<br /><br />Speaking of foreign films, I'll make a few quick recommendations: 1.Monsoon Wedding-I list this first for a reason, outstanding film! 2.Johnny Stechino-Very funny Italian mistaken identity flic! 3.Shiri-A Korean action pic that mixes both Asian flare & US style plot 4.Run Lola Run-A German film that integrates it's techno score ingeniously.<br /><br />Well, just a quick list anyway :-) | positive |
Someone once defined what is the definition of AN INTELLECTUAL as being: "A person who can listen to "The William Tell Overture" without thinking of the LONE RANGER!" In this, we heartily concur! It surely would be a tall order to accomplish this, and one that Leopold Stokowski, Arturo Toscanini or .Leonard Bernstein would all find nigh well impossible to do.<br /><br />And in this there is no disgrace. The Radio Series and the Television Series, along with some Movie Serials, Feature Films, Syndicated Newspaper Comic Strip and Comic Books, all did their part to make "the Masked Man of the Plains and his Faithful Indian companion, Tonto" a deeply seeded element of our collective psyche and of our literary folklore.<br /><br />As with most legends, it all started gradually, first with a series of Radio Plays, written for local use in Detroit over Radio Station WXYZ. The Creator was one George W. Trendle and the Principal Writer on the Series was Mr. Trendle's brother-in-law, Mr. Fran Striker. The year was 1933 when the Ranger first rode out to "
the Plains of the Early Western United States!" The Lone Ranger, Tonto and the Radio Series all successfully guided Depression Era Americans through the mid and late '30's up to and through World War II. But the Post-War Era found the country in the midst of a Super-Nova Explosion of invention and technology. There had been a new communications medium standing ready in the wings, but unable to go forth until both VE Day and VJ Day had been achieved. Once these were accomplished and the World and America was ready to settle down to both Peace and Prosperity. The "New Technology" was, of course was TELEVISION! And we would surely need something else than "Roller Derby" and "Wrestling From Marigold Arena" to fill up the broadcast hours. And while at first, the time that a TV Station had anything on, except that portrait of that Mohican Chief (Test Pattern, Schultz!) Very soon and with post haste, the Networks began tapping their existing Natural Resources, their existing programming! Virtually all would be ripe for adaptation to the TV Screen.<br /><br />So, the folks over at Lone Ranger, Incorporated were very interested when Producers Jack Chertok, Harry Poppe, Sherman Harris and Jack Wrather all approached them with a deal to put The Masked Man and Tonto on the Television waves, as well as the Radio.<br /><br />Immediately they went to work and gave us the first season, which made use of the considerable back log of Radio Dramas, all potentially adaptable to TV dramas. They cast Clayton Moore, a fine supporting actor in many a feature film, and with about a dozen years experience. He also had done some work in Serials over at Republic Pictures' "Thrill Factory", which would be invaluable experience in doing "THE LONE RANGER". Cast as his "faithful Indian companion" and partner in bringing Justice to various parts of the Frontier, we had sheer perfection in character-supporting Actor, Jay Silverheels.** We must mention that there was that rift in about '53, when Clayton Moore walked and was replaced with John Hart. After a season or so, Mr. Moore was back in-having been missed so much! Now, Back to Our Story!! The first years of filming gave the episodes a look and a sound all of their own. They made good use of off screen Narrator, which gave these shows a feel of authenticity and an individual, stand-out one of a kind series. The actors employed were all veterans of the movies of the late silent era thru the 1930's and 1940's. A lot of them had been just about exclusively "Cowboy Movie" players. A good example of these is the casting of Glenn Strange (Bartender Sam on "GUNSMOKE") as the vicious, murderous Gang Leader, Butch Cavandish. And it was the Cavendish Gang's massacre of the Texas Rangers that led to the origin of John Reid (thought to have been slain with the other Texas Rangers) as the "LONE RANGER".<br /><br />In addition to the old timers in the cast, you will find a lot of new and up and coming talent (then) in the cast. We see people like Phyllis Coates, Dwayne Hickman, Denver Pyle and others in the cast from week to week. All of this, along with an always calling for fair-play, justice and peace in a western world.<br /><br />The last couple of seasons brought some big changes. First was the use of Colour Filming. That made no difference as a Colour TV Set was still a long way off for our household. The second was a new set of musical themes and queues. (Other than Rossini's Finale from "U NO Wutt!") The new music was never a big deal to us, as we preferred the "old Radio" stock stuff.<br /><br />With this series and two Feature Films done during this period, THE LONE RANGER (Warner Brothers, 1956) and THE LONE RANGER AND THE LOST CITY OF GOLD (United Artists, 1958), the character has been permanently and indelibly impressed in our identity as a People, we Americans! | positive |
WWE Armageddon, December 17, 2006 -- Live from Richmond Coliseum, Richmond, VA <br /><br />Kane vs. MVP in an Inferno match: So this is the fourth ever inferno match in the WWE and it is Kane vs. MVP (wonder why was it the first match on the card). I only viewed the ending parts where Kane sets MVP's ass on fire as they're on the apron and then MVP is running around the arena while yelling eventually the refs put out the fire with a fire extinguisher as MVP sprawls around the entrance ramp. Funny and visually quite entertaining ending. 7/10<br /><br />WWE Tag Team Championship: This was originally supposed to be William Regal & Dave Taylor vs. Brian Kendrick & Paul London (c) in a regular tag team match. However, GM Teddy Long comes to the ring and announces that it's going to be a Fatal 4-way tag team ladder match. MNM and The Hardys are thrown in and it's all chaos. One word to describe this eye-opener wow. Man, I really can't remember how many sick spots there were in this match and words can't really do it justice. There was one particularly notable spot where The Hardys set up a ladder in a see-saw position and Jeff jumped off the top rope while Matt held MNM for the kill, and then WHAM! Nitro blew away while Mercury apparently botched it and was bleeding like hell with lacerations over his face. He had to be taken away and Nitro continued the match alone. Another spot was when Jeff powerbombed London while FLIPPING off the ladder. There were other high-flying breathtaking spots too many to remember. London finally unbuckles the belts to win this rave show-stealer. 8.5/10<br /><br />The Boogeyman vs. The Miz: The two men get thrown in and around the ring until Boogeyman explodes a sit-out powerbomb for the victory and then and drools worms over The Miz's mouth as usual. 5.5/10 for this three-minute incognito.<br /><br />United States championship: Chris Benoit (c) faces off Chavo Guerrero in yet another typical Guerrero match. Some good spots included a superplex off the top rope by Chavo and an unusually long chain of German suplexes by Benoit. Vicki Guerrero comes in the ring with the belt to nail Benoit but Benoit scares her off and takes a long time deciding whether to put her in a Sharpshooter or not. This allows Chavo to go for a roll-up but Benoit rolls it up once more and Chavo is locked in the Sharpshooter. Game over. Nice hard-fought battle albeit slow at times. 7/10<br /><br />WWE Cruiserweight championship: Gregory Helms (c) vs. Jimmy Wang Yang for this one, in a fairly moderate-paced match. The match had some good high-flying spots most notably Helms' moves off the top rope but the crowd didn't seem to be into it after witnessing the ladder match, and Yang needs to get more airborne. Helms won the match after blowing Yang away with a facebuster on the knee. 7.5/10<br /><br />The Undertaker vs. Mr. Kennedy in a Last Ride match: After a series of matches between these two, this time it is a Last Ride match, the second ever of its kind and the winner has to escort his opponent out of the arena in a hearse. Pretty good indeed for what these two could offer. Kennedy manhandled a good deal of Taker and even broke free of a chokeslam to throw Taker off the Armageddon set about 15 feet below; and thank God for Kennedy, otherwise it would've been brutal. Kennedy almost got the win until Taker got back up inside the hearse (I liked the camera view inside the hearse). Taker then missed a steel pipe hurl on Kennedy and broke the hearse's window instead, but then later busted Kennedy open with a chair, and followed with a consecutive chokeslam and Tombstone on the hearse's roof. Kennedy was unconscious and Taker drove him out of the arena to win. I actually found myself really interested into these guys' willingness to take/give real sick shots. 7.5/10<br /><br />Santa comes into the ring, I go "what the hell?" like many of the kids in the crowd, and then the word "lingerie contest" gets in my ear. Break time.<br /><br />Batista & John Cena vs. Finlay & King Booker: talk about charisma vs. technicality. This match was actually a quite good main event with the momentum rationally shifting from one team to the other and retaining good suspense. Even Finlay got some legitimate good shots on his opponents this time (I kind of doubted his strength against the champs), and him and Booker mainly didn't succeed in trying to cheat except at one point where Booker rammed his scepter into Cena's throat. Batista hits the Bomb on Booker for the win, didn't get to see the F-U; Cena performed the 5 Knuckle Shuffle anyhow and I think he also did the STFU. This was probably the best technical match of the night and the participants did superbly indeed for what they could without a ladder 7.5/10.<br /><br />Being an on-and-off WWE fan, I have to agree that Armageddon was laced up with numerous eye-catchers throughout, and the ladder match ultimately swallowed half of the show; the Last Ride match featured some fairly nerve-wrenching spots, and the main event also did very well for its category. All other matches also lived up to their billing except perhaps the Boogeyman vs. The Miz bout and the ever-useless lingerie contest. Overall Armageddon was a highly enjoyable pay-per-view and despite some big setbacks earlier in the PPV chronology, Armageddon wishes this year's goodbye respectably. PPV rating: 8/10. | positive |
Thats right I can't watch Comedy Central anymore just because I can't bear to watch the repeated commercials for this show. I'll tell you the truth, this is a terrible show not because I'm offended by it, but because Carlos Mencia is one of the worst comedians I have ever seen. I rather watch Carrot Top do a George Bush impression than watch this no-skill hack. And to believe he calls himself the greatest. Even if he didn't steal the jokes, he is still bad at telling them, he's way off-timing and unoriginal. I remember in one joke he said "Why do white people go camping? to pretend there poor for a week?" Now what is that suppose to mean? That all white people are rich? Another one I didn't understand was when he did a skit of the Price is Right and he told some fat guy "You should know how much a fridge cost, you're fat" and the fat guy had the saddest look on his face. But what does that mean? That "fat people" are always looking for refrigerators? Those are just the two I seen in his commercials, God knows what his show is like..<br /><br />This show falls in the likes of Epic Movie and Date Movie.. | negative |
This horrible! The acting, costumes, production values, editing, the script, everything about this film is as bad as it can get. It looks as if it was filmed with a video camera. Can you give a movie a negative rating? Watch The Ring instead. | negative |
The great James Cagney, top-billed in big letters, doesn't show up till the movie's second third, and probably has less screen time than Dudley Digges, who plays the eee-vill reform-school potentate. But when Jimmy arrives, as a deputy commissioner of something-or-other out to reform reform schools, he slashes the air with his hands and jumps on the balls of his feet and spits out punchy Warners-First National dialogue with all the customary, and expected, panache. The psychology in this crisp antique, one of Warners' many efforts to assert its place as the "socially conscious" studio, doesn't run deep: Digges is bad just because the script requires him to be, and there's the quaint notion that juvenile delinquents will turn into swell kids if they're just given a dash of autonomy. But it's made in that spare, fast style that the studio specialized in, and it never bores. Frankie Darro, who got into all kinds of onscreen trouble during a brief tenure as Warners' favorite Rotten Street Kid, is an ideal JD -- a handsome, charismatic toughie with a pug nose and a hate-filled stare that could wither steel. No kid actor today can touch him. | positive |
All credit to writer/director Gilles Mimouni who fashioned this winding, twisting tale of deceit and betrayal. While keeping the utmost control, he maintains the audience at arm's length, never allowing them to become completely aware of the goings on. Even his clever denouement has you guessing.<br /><br />The three central performances are also top class, with Vincent Cassel, Romane Bohringer and Monica Bellucci doing their utmost to add to the mystery. Jean-Phillippe Ecoffey supplements strength in his supporting role. To give away plot details or character specifics would not be fair.<br /><br />Thierry Arbogast uses the camera effectively to sweep us through this enigma, and Cardine Biggerstaff's editing keeps the story a step ahead of us. The theme from Peter Chase is sublime in its marriage to the ideal of the script.<br /><br />Many may say Gilles Mimouni is trying to confront several deeper issues on the them of love. For me this is simply a haunting, elusive riddle that weaves a fascinating web. Only the French are capable of such tantalisation. Hollywood would have ruined this with a happy ending.<br /><br />Monday, March 2, 1998 - Hoyts Croydon<br /><br />No-one does thriller quite like the French. When they get it right, they really get it right.<br /><br />Vincent Cassell is intriguing as the deceptive Max, Romane Bohringer obsessive as the new Lisa, and Monica Bellucci is mysterious as the first Lisa. The plot from Gilles Mimouni is a whirlwind of deliberate deception and fatally crossed wires.<br /><br />All credit must go to his manipulation of the clever plot, and the performances from the three leads. As Lucien, Jean-Phillippe Ecoffey is strong and emotional.<br /><br />Friday, January 15, 1999 - Video | positive |
'Tycus' is almost as bad as a science fiction film can go.<br /><br />I can hardly find something good to say about this film. The premises are completely wrong. A comet is supposed to hit the Moon and cause catastrophic damage to Earth, but nobody believes the scientist who predicts this.A whole underground city plus a launching pad for nuclear armed rockets is build in the California mountains without anybody noticing. When the comet nears Earth the news make it to the TV and newspapers hardly a day before the event. And so on, and so on ...<br /><br />Neither does any kind of emotion make it to the screen. Is the genius who discovers the comet and builds the underground city a savior of humanity or a beast? The director or Dennis Hooper who is playing the role did not seem to decide until the film was done, and actually it does not make any difference because acting and directing is so confusing that you end by wondering what does this film try to say. The special effects are so cheap that not only that they cannot be convincing in the era of computer effects, but they could not have been convincing even in the 50s, four decades before this film was made.<br /><br />A total waste of time. | negative |
This was such a great series for Black folks at the time. We loved it so much. It was the only show about Black middle class families on t.v. at the time. Please release this on DVD. I know many...many people who still talk about the show. If it its released i am certain that many black youth will find this enlightening as well as interesting. The show addressed many topics from racism, intra-race discrimination, teen pregnancy, sibling rivalry, single parenting, peer-pressure and much more. The show ended in such an abrupt way and left it's fans speechless and wondering why it was taken off the air. Since then we have only seen a few of the actors and actresses. Please release it on DVD ASAP. | positive |
If there was a scale below 1, it would get a -10, following in the footsteps of Godspell. The acting (if there was such a thing) was atrocious, the plot in shambles. And Rene Russo was sickeningly sweet in her role, enough to make a person retch. Ten thumbs down for a dumb movie. Saving grace: kudos for era costuming. | negative |
I always wrote this series off as being a complete stink-fest because Jim Belushi was involved in it, and heavily. But then one day a tragic happenstance occurred. After a White Sox game ended I realized that the remote was all the way on the other side of the room somehow. Now I could have just gotten up and walked across the room to get the remote, or even to the TV to turn the channel. But then why not just get up and walk across the country to watch TV in another state? "Nuts to that", I said. So I decided to just hang tight on the couch and take whatever Fate had in store for me. What Fate had in store was an episode of this show, an episode about which I remember very little except that I had once again made a very broad, general sweeping blanket judgment based on zero objective or experiential evidence with nothing whatsoever to back my opinions up with, and once again I was completely right! This show is a total crud-pie! Belushi has all the comedic delivery of a hairy lighthouse foghorn. The women are physically attractive but too Stepford-is to elicit any real feeling from the viewer. There is absolutely no reason to stop yourself from running down to the local TV station with a can of gasoline and a flamethrower and sending every copy of this mutt howling back to hell. <br /><br />Except.. <br /><br />Except for the wonderful comic sty lings of Larry Joe Campbell, America's Greatest Comic Character Actor. This guy plays Belushi's brother-in-law, Andy, and he is gold. How good is he really? Well, aside from being funny, his job is to make Belushi look good. That's like trying to make butt warts look good. But Campbell pulls it off with style. Someone should invent a Nobel Prize in Comic Buffoonery so he can win it every year. Without Larry Joe this show would consist of a slightly vacant looking Courtney Thorne-Smith smacking Belushi over the head with a frying pan while he alternately beats his chest and plays with the straw on the floor of his cage. 5 stars for Larry Joe Campbell designated Comedic Bacon because he improves the flavor of everything he's in! | negative |
The most agile fat guy in martial arts does it again. An early Sammo film that has him imitating his character's hero, Bruce Lee, Sammo is amazingly Lee like in his actions and fighting. The way he slips into Bruce's style and then back to his own, more familiar kung fu is a joy to watch and shows how accomplished and adaptable he is at his art. Throw in a bit of slapstick humour so beloved of this type of flick and this a movie that has it all - comedy (some unintentional, like the fake black guy), action and some incredible fight scenes.<br /><br />A great beer and buddies movie that is worth an hour and a half of anyone's time. | positive |
A beautiful reflection of life's desperation and misdirection of finding love. Tragic, while at the same time, absurdly entertaining. Most people do not give this film a chance- ignorance- just a mere reflection in itself. Until next time... | positive |
The master of cheap erotic horror, Rolfe Kanefsky, finally makes a movie that doesn't go straight to the Playboy Channel. "The Hazing" borrows heavily from everything that came before it from Nightmare on Elm Street to Evil Dead, but still manages to do it with enough humor to make it watchable... just barely. The characters are cardboard, the dialogue is wooden, the story is paper-thin and the actors couldn't act their way out of a grocery bag. Put that all together and you have a pulpy ball of mulch for a movie. Sometimes, when I'm bored, I like to eat paper. Watching this movie is a lot like that. Chew on it for 90 minutes and you're left with a weird taste in your mouth and no nutritional value. | negative |
Over the past year, Uwe Boll has shown marginal improvement as a filmmaker, cranking out the competent "In the Name of the King" (a "Lord of the Rings" clone) and the proudly vulgar, post-9/11 satire "Postal." But then came "Seed," and the counter was reset to Zero, keeping his bid for legitimacy and respect that much further out of reach. And I'm a fan of the guyhis films exhibit a uniquely screwball vision, and are never dull.<br /><br />Spawned from his frustration over the savage notices his early films received, "Seed" is a colossally misguided attempt at social commentary, and an even worse jab at creating an iconic slasher mythology (Boll often seems to be taking a page from Rob Zombie's successful reboot of "Halloween"). The antagonist is Maxwell Seed (Will Sanderson), a mute, hulking brute who's slain 666 people and sits on death row, awaiting execution; after unsuccessfully frying the beast, he rises from the grave to seek revenge on those who put him there...and so begins a string of wholly gratuitous mayhem.<br /><br />Trying to create a new-millennium slasher in the vein of Michael Myers or Jason Voorhees, Max Seed is too nondescript and boring to leave an impression, ultimately resembling a washed-up pro wrestler doing "The Toolbox Murders" on a succession of equally boring victims. Furthermore, Seed's character and Boll's "message" run contrary to one another: the death penalty is wrong, sure, but are we really expected to sympathize with a soulless killer who's left a couple hundred corpses in his wake? I think not.<br /><br />Meanwhile, Michael Pare acts like a listless, long-lost brother to James Remar's character on "Dexter": a cop who sits at his desk a lot, thumbing through newspaper clippings, and watching pointless stop-motion scenes of decomposing animals and people trapped in Seed's lair. By the time he and a bunch of cardboard cops storm Seed's hideout, the sequence is so drawn-out, ill-conceived (the lighting is almost non-existent), and unexciting (despite a healthy dose of gore) that it almost put me to sleep.<br /><br />The shoddy film-making isn't limited to just that sequence: "Seed" appears to have been shot by a drunken cinematographer, since the camera bobs and weaves endlessly, a technique that's more stomach-turning than the gore itself; these protracted takes of very little happening only draw attention to the meandering, almost non-existent narrative. At 90 minutes, the film is distended enough to be considered a form of torture, which might have been Boll's intent all along.<br /><br />Pure genius...I guess the joke's on me. | negative |
I really loved this movie. I thought it was very well done. The character interaction was wonderfully done as was the characterization. The actors were definitely believable. The plot was very deep and intriguing. Even though parts of it are a bit slow and sometimes a bit boring, it's definitely worth watching several times. The chemistry between the three main actors was great. If you don't want to watch it for that, then at least watch it for the drama between the characters. I mean, the whole thing was just "Whoa!" It was like I couldn't look away. The whole movie grabbed my attention and kept my interest, even through the slow parts. I loved this movie and almost everything about it. I loved the ending because it was so interesting and, if you watch the movie a second time, makes perfect sense. But I'm not spoiling anything. | positive |
What the movie The 60s really represents (to those of us who growled around in the belly of America in those times) is the turbulence and diversity of the decade. Despite the exaggerated, stereotyped characters, the genuineness of the issues remains clear.<br /><br />Not only were those radical times of change, but also very confusing times. Two basic things changed our world then: the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and the overwhelming influence of the media. Those two new freedoms began social changes that soon became institutionalized.<br /><br />From chaos came sensitivity, from disorder came values. Bear in mind however, that the bulk of Americans were not involved in this... they worked, they played, they watched the news... and slowly they became effected by the efforts and struggles of the minorities... the Civil Rights workers, the Political Activists, the Anti-War efforts, the War on Poverty....<br /><br />The representation of the power of the press and TV in particular, was well reflected, although the conflict between the general public's attitude and those seeking to change things was at best ignored... and at worst, misrepresented.. Middle class Americans weren't all standing around angrily holding baseball bats, or disowning their wayward daughters. They were confused too. Let us not forget how Folk Singers suddenly became Protest Singers, and how The Beatles began an onslaught that killed the Folk-Protest Movement. There are no Beatle songs in the movie, or even any mention of them.<br /><br />I think if you didn't live the decade, you might not have a sense of what the movie is about, the overall picture is a bit dim. At one point I held down a steady job while my sister lived at the Hog Farm Commune and went to Woodstock. At another point I was in Haight Asbury and in the Detroit Riots while she worked and played the housewife in Maine and Connecticut. Roles were constantly changing.<br /><br />The movie depicts three siblings of a middle class family. They represent the hippie child, the political activist, and the active military personnel. Dad represents the typical attitudes, and mom represents the voice of reason, tolerance, and sometimes compromise... for the sake of peace.<br /><br />The Black family comprises a minister and his son... disproportionately, I think. I assume the producers knew all the variables and had to settle on limitations, or else the film would have become a long, boring, documentary. Dad's message was that anger produces bitterness, and bitterness produces chaos. It was clearly a message directed to today's youth.<br /><br />We are looking at a unique solution to social problems, and also how issues divide us... The 60s were unusual in that way, and only the Roaring 20s compare. In other words, this movie has a moral after all. In the end, it is our Collective Individualism that survives. Put that in your oxymoron list.<br /><br />Everyone was a God, a Guru, or a free-spirited genius in the 60s. It was a time of magic and madness. No one will ever nail the 60s down right... it was too diverse (this movie is close). At least we can say we are not ashamed of it, that we learned and grew from it, and that for once, a generation shaped and changed America... for the better. | positive |
Here's yet another blasphemous European story in which they blast the religion of their country. (These atheist filmmakers are relentless.) Here we see a brutal blasting of Catholics and/or the Catholic clergy (and I am not Catholic).<br /><br />This won actually won an Academy Award for bes foreign film. That's probably because the story made Catholics and religious belief in general look extremely weak. One of the main characters is a priest and he cares more about food than anything else. He's portrayed as nothing but an idiot. No wonder the secular- dominated Academy loved this movie.<br /><br />Also, there is some overacting fool who plays a guy who renounces his religion so he can marry one of the four daughters featured in the story. The daughters take turns seducing the "seminary" student (who states he studied for six years but says he's an agnostic!). I mean, how blasphemous IS this film??!!!<br /><br />This is a disgrace and another excellent example of the secular-progressive bigotry of the film business, worldwide (not just Hollywood). | negative |
One doesn't get to enjoy this gem, the 1936 Invisible Ray, often. But no can forget it. The story is elegant. Karloff, austere and embittered in his Carpathian mountain retreat, is Janos Rukh, genius science who reads ancient beams of light to ascertain events in the great geological past
particularly the crash of a potent radioactive meteor in Africa. Joining him is the ever-elegant Lugosi (as a rare hero), who studies "astro-chemistry." Frances Drake is the lovely, underused young wife; Frank Lawton the romantic temptation; and the divine Violet Kemble Cooper is Mother Rukh, in a performance worthy of Maria Ospenskya.<br /><br />The story moves swiftly in bold episodes, with special effects that are still handsome. It also contains some wonderful lines. One Rukh restores his mother's sight, he asks, "Mother, can you see, can you see?" "Yes, I can see
more clearly than ever. And what I see frightens me." Even better when mother Rukh says, "He broke the first law of science." I am not alone among my acquaintance in having puzzled for many many years exactly what this first law of science is.<br /><br />This movie is definitely desert island material. | positive |
An interesting and involved film about a "lifer" just trying to live out his days peacefully. Elements of the main character appear in Michael Mann's later films, like Thief (1981), Heat (1995), and so on. You can see this one at the UCLA Instructional Media Laboratory-- one of the only places in the country that has copies readily available to the public. It's a great one! | positive |
This is just my all time favorite movie. Nothing special. It's just so incredibly detailed. Makes me cry just thinking about it. Geronimo Bill is the nicest guy I can imagine. Money is not important. Bamboo spears are important. You don't need money to get what you need. If you need something it will just come to you. If people would realize that the world would be a much better place. Whatever you do, don't do it for the money. | positive |
I have the entire Weissmuller Tarzan series on DVD (fully restored editions) & I never tire of watching them. My personal favorite is "Tarzan and His Mate", due entirely (well almost entirely) to Maureen O'Sullivan's costume and the occasional flashes of her genital area beneath that leather flap hanging in front. Before anyone claims that A - It wasn't really her, or B - It wasn't really what it looks like, let me say that I have watched it numerous time, in high zoom mode, and trust me...it IS her, AND she is completely naked underneath that costume...several times, especially during the lion attack at the end, careful viewing in slow motion and maximum zoom will reveal that she was shaved except for a tiny patch of dark hair covering her labia...There is NO mistake about that at all. As to the swimming scene being a body double in a "skin" suit, yes, it is a double, BUT she is NOT wearing any "skin" suit or anything else...again, slow motion and maximum zoom shows everything to those who want to see it. Now, that controversy out of the way, let's move on the actual movie...I thought the script was really well thought out and written tightly...The action sequences were simply great, although it is obviously a stuntman riding the rhino, Weissmuller actually wrestles the big male lion...The use of background shots that were second unit stuff from Africa is very well blended with the studio & US locations making it sometimes hard to tell which is which. Don't complain too much though, remember that 90% of ALL films is phony anyway, so just relax and enjoy the damned thing with a big bowl of popcorn, some cold beer, and a fresh pack of smokes...a sexy and willing girlfriend/wife isn't out of line either...lol. Oh...One final word about nudity...at the very beginning, while the white hunters are speaking dialogue, keep your eyes on the background extras...there are several good shots of nude African girls (obviously shot on location) behind them. One more thing, the movie is not racist by the standards of the 1930's until the 1960's...that's the way colored people were thought of and portrayed back then. Shaft hadn't even been thought about at that time, nor would audiences have accepted any other portrayals of them at the time in history. Safaris actually did use natives carrying luggage on their heads...and Tiny's character did die a heroic death trying to save the white hunters and Jane. As a matter of fact, it wasn't until Gene Autry treated the native Americans and colored people in his Westerns like real human beings that Hollywood began to see that it was okay to do so. | positive |
Now here is a movie that does something that hasn't been done in a long time. It take ten or so different elements that we're already familiar with (Vampires, martial arts, a techno beat, top-o-the-line special effects, etc.), and turns it into something that feels brand new. In what could have easily been merely a combination of "Mortal Kombat" and "Buffy: The Vampire Slayer," Wesley Snipes (no favorite of mine since and mostly because of "Passenger 57") gives a really good turn as the half human/ half bloodsucker. He acknowledges the internal conflict, but doesn't dwell on it more than necessary. He makes Blade as deep a character as Michael Keaton made Batman.<br /><br />I'll say that the only part of the movie that got me a little miffed was the always present horror movie cliche of that one person that the hero happens to know who happens to know exactly how to stop the evil guy. On the other hand, you sort of have to have that in a movie like this, so it's easily excusable.<br /><br />Well, Snipes is good. And Steven Dorff, hyped in the previews, makes a more than bad enough bad guy to Snipes' hero. He's got class, presence, and enough control in his little pinky to teach Al Pacino how to tone it down a bit. Who would ever think that a comic book movie would be a launching pad for an actor? I sincerely hope this is. And whoa! where the heck did Kris Kristofferson get acting talent? Don't get me wrong, but the prolific actor hasn't done anything memorable since "Millennium," and how many of us watched that just 'cause of the cool video box? Well, here he is, folks, in a very Obi-wanish turn, as Blade's mentor and father figure. And good job, too.<br /><br />The quality of the acting is matched by the quality of the choreography and special effects. Accompanied by a pulsing techno beat, the fight scenes brings back and quickly banish memories of Mortal Kombat. Hey! It had a script, too! I was wondering what had happened to all the good writers out there.<br /><br />The two major indications to me that I saw a quality flick were these; I had no feeling of remorse about paying full price to get in, a la any Schumacher "Batman," "The Avengers," "MK: Annihilation," "Godzilla," or "Armageddon." (wow, how many of those came out this year? Ugh) Also, I look forward to the inevitable sequel, as per the film's ending. Let's just hope they do as good a job with it as with the first one.<br /><br /> | positive |
First of all, what is good in the movie ? Some pretty actress ? the exotic background ? the fact that the actors don't laugh while acting (I would have if I had been in their situation) ? I don't know. The storyline is simple : a catholic priest who does abstract painting tries to find out who (another abstract painter) killed his little brother, a male prostitute (raped by another priest when he was young...). I'm afraid there is nothing here to learn or to let think a little about serial killers, art or religion. Dennis Hopper is not very good here. This is the worst episode of the worst season of "profiler" (the serie) with replacement actors and unbelievable coincidences (the uncle is the policeman who, the girl who lives at another victim's house could have a baby with the priest, etc., etc). | negative |
This film is terrible. Not only is the story unbelievable, the situations the characters put themselves in are so silly, to the point where it isn't shocking. I find it sad that Daisy Eagan, star of Broadway's The Secret Garden, decided that this would be a career step. The idea is interesting, two young girls coming of age very quickly. But the sex isn't even arousing. The film is silly, the story is silly, the performances are silly, and the whole concept while interesting falls flat. I'm sure all 14 year old girls make out with guys after they've had their first period and tried to flush their panties down the toilet. Better Luck next time guys. My Scale * T-Scale * | negative |
Welcome to Collinwood is one of the most delightful films I have ever seen. A superb ensemble cast, tight editing and wonderful direction. A caper movie that doesn't get bogged down in the standard tricks.<br /><br />Not much can be said about this film without spoiling it. The tag line says it all - 5 guys. 1 Safe. No Brains.<br /><br />William H Macy and Sam Rockwell lead an amazing cast. George Clooney should be congratulated for producing this gem.<br /><br /> | positive |
Having had a great grandfather be captured and sent to Changi during World War two I was hesitant to watch this when it was first screened on TV. My great grandfather kept a diary whilst he was in captivity and when he died over there his mates bought it back and I have been lucky enough to read it and feel I have at least some idea of what Changi was really like, first hand.<br /><br />This is a fantastic recount of what happened to those poor blokes who were sent to Changi Prison and shows what hardship and cruelty they witnessed in order to protect their country. It is a terrific story of mateship, commitment and Aussie Spirit, that never going to give up attitude. It is worth watching if you like Australian History or anything to do with World War Two.<br /><br />I enjoyed this mini very much and give it 10 out of 10. | positive |
At times, this overtakes The Thing as my favourite horror film. While Carpenter's film is the more efficient and more entertaining flick, Kubrick's is more artistic, more thought-provoking, and probably scarier. It's one of the few films where I can look past its flaws and truly and wholly love it. I try not to compare it to the book which I've only read once, a number of years ago, and which scared me to death because the two don't have a lot in common, besides the story and characters obviously. It's almost as if Kubrick was banking on people's love of the novel in order to make his film more frightening. And it that way, it's certainly one of the most interesting book adaptations ever made, as well as one of the greatest horror films.<br /><br />What makes the film so terrifying is not the jump scares, not the blood and gore, not the various ghosts that pop up from time to time. It's the destruction of Jack Torrence. Some people have complained about the casting of Nicholson in this role, saying that it's too obvious that he's going to go crazy in the film, given his past roles and his appearance. I disagree. We know he's going to go crazy since most of us have read the book and Jack's appearance only furthers this notion. But it's the way he acts at the beginning that makes us truly scared. He's calm, quiet, patient. He engages in inane small talk with the hotel managers and even with his own family. And with a wife and son as irritating as his, it's a small wonder that he manages to do so. But once he gets to the Overlook, he changes. He becomes irritable, angry, on edge. The scene that always shocks me is when Wendy interrupts him typing, and he utterly loses it, telling her to "leave him the f*** alone". This is the first f-bomb dropped in the film, and it's a shock to the system. From then on, all bets are off.<br /><br />Another thing I love is the multiple interpretations present in the film. We're never really sure if what we're seeing is actually happening. Many critics have noted that whenever Jack talks to a ghost, there's a mirror present, showing that he may as well be talking to himself. But what of the other characters? Wendy never sees anything until the film's climax, until she is given a tour of the hotel's many ghostly inhabitants, but she is well aware that something is wrong, while Danny connects with the place almost immediately. His psychic powers are not in question how else would Hallorann know to come to the hotel? but does he ever see any of the ghosts that his parents witness? It's easy to claim that Jack merely loses it, being trapped in a hotel with his family, and Wendy later does as well seeing your husband attempt to kill you with an axe will do that but what of Danny? It appears that his body is taken over by Tony, but how do we know for sure? None of these characters are reliable witnesses. Hallorann probably would be, and he warns of the dangers in 237, but he's killed as soon as he arrives at the Overlook (a scare Kubrick achieves by playing on the assumptions of fans of the novel). And that final shot. Has there ever been a more enigmatic ending in cinema? Has Jack really been there before? Or was his body merely 'absorbed' into the hotel? When talking about the acting in this film, any discussion begins and ends with Jack Nicholson. Shelley Duvall gives one of the most annoying performances in cinematic history probably on purpose, to give Jack's character more of a reason to snap and Danny Lloyd is no better, but Jack is a powerhouse. Part method, part improvisation, he's simultaneously terrifying and appealing. For better or for worse, he's the character with whom we identify with, not the annoying kid or nagging wife. We all want to have a hotel to ourselves for a season, be able to do whatever we want. Who cares if it's haunted? Of course, the technical aspects are terrific. Kubrick's long takes, strange angles, and bizarre imagery all contribute to the horror. The use of colour, mirrors, long hallways, and every other motif only heightens this. And don't even get me started on that score. I don't know if the film would be half as scary without that haunting, electronic tune. Its strangeness perfectly reflects the hotel, the mood, and the entire film itself.<br /><br />I know King doesn't like this film, but King's input on cinema is nothing to brag about. As great of a novel writer he may be, his screenplays are terrible, and his attempt at directing is better left unnoticed. This is not a very faithful book adaptation, but it doesn't need to be, and it really shouldn't. Part of the horror of the film is that the viewer doesn't have the book to fall back on; there's no reassuring source material. Kubrick masterfully alters the narrative to terrify the audience even more. If only for that, this is one of the most innovative films in any genre. And it's got everything else on top of that. | positive |
The Museum of the Moving Image here in New York recently put on a comprehensive retrospective of Jacques Rivette's films. Having fallen in love with his "Paris Nous Appartient", I decided this was not to be missed.<br /><br />Largely through extended shots and flexibly structured scenes, the movie depicts two avant-garde theater companies preparing their renditions of Aeschylus' "Seven Against Thebes" and "Prometheus". Additionally, we are shown the directionless day-to-day lives of two individuals distantly connected to the companies: a working class woman named Frederique who finds creative ways of hustling men out of their money, and a young man named Colin who visits local cafés posing as a deaf-mute, and plays shrill harmonica at the patrons until they pay him to go away. The first four hours or so are devoted to establishing the characters and their patterns, before a somewhat loose, whimsical plot finally emerges involving a conspiracy and the decoding of clandestine secret letters.<br /><br />The film is largely about life on the fringe of society. The theater companies are a despairing affair, using their elaborate, emotionally draining exercises (which are really something to watch) to distract themselves from the fact that their acts are unlikely ever to be staged or even seen. Colin and Frederique both have very few friends, who only briefly find any excitement or purpose after the conspiracy touches them, as they are spurred to find out more about it. The film meditates on the consequences of rejecting normal society in several memorable sequences, including a long shot of Colin as he wanders the streets of France shouting poetry to himself. As such, the film has been referred to as an analysis of 1960's counterculture.<br /><br />There is not a frame of the film that is not bursting with energy and vitality. The fact that much of the dialogue and movement is improvised makes the characters much more spontaneous, much more immediate. The camera also becomes an important character in this regard; throughout the movie boom shadows are visible here and there, or other similar errors, yet they seem natural and fit with the flow of the action because the camera is so important a player therein.<br /><br />More than anything for me, the film seems a great example of another way of making movies, a venue for film outside the usual pattern. For me it was a mind-opening experience, even more than "Paris Nous Appartient", though the latter bears many similarities of theme and structure. A must-see for anybody pondering the nature of art. | positive |
A scientific experiment designed to create a superhuman being has gone wrong.The creators become trapped in a remote desert outpost,pursued relentlessly and mercilessly by their own creation.James Stockton,the scientist whose research was used despite his protests to create the monster,is called the outpost to help undo the horror that now lurks somewhere within the dark halls.James,together with his son and daughter,soon find themselves trapped inside with the others,trying desperately to survive.And with the outpost sealed from within,there is no way out..."The Outpost"/"Mind Ripper" is highly unoriginal.The sets are pretty claustrophobic and there's a bit of gore.However as a horror it fails miserably on almost all levels.There's zero suspense,the script is weak and filled with big holes and the ending is extremely predictable.So-called master Wes Craven produced this one-I wonder if he is happy with this trash.Joe Gayton directs without any style.The acting is horrible,only Lance Henriksen can act at all.OK,I'm a big horror fan and was bitterly disappointed.Avoid it like the plague-it's just the same old boring crap again! | negative |
My friend recommended this movie to me.Is should have known not to watch it because my friend is kind of a video game nerd. But the name and the cover made it look good for some reason. I was so wrong. I mean first of all, what is up with their suits? And the acting! It seems like they got the people off Barney. Except for Ben Kingsley. And why was he even in this movie? Did he think it was a comedy! But I have to say the special effects were pretty good. But that was like the only good thing in it. I mean seriously, the movie is worse than Pearl Harbor. And thats actually an understatement. Everyone must have thought "oh I am getting paid so it doesn't matter if its the worst movie in the world." I would understand why someone would make this kind of movie if they were directing, acting, producing, writing, and getting their hopeless life best friend to do filming and editing. Probably one of the worst sci-fi movies ever. One truly jacked up film | negative |
I entered the theatre intending to pass a pleasant 90 minutes being entertained if not enlightened. I left neither entertained nor enlightened. This movie can't make up its mind what it wants to be and ends up being not much of anything. There are a few funny lines and a few incredibly pretentious movie references (The 400 Blows--for this character? come off it!). While none of the characters gets treated with much respect, the over thirty gay men get the worst of it: all predatory, fat, sad, slobs. If you're in the mood for a movie dealing with gay relationships check out Parting Glances, Longtime Companion, Trick, All Over the Guy, Red Dirt, Maurice, Philadelphia instead. You'll thank me.<br /><br /> | negative |
Erroll works for The Department of Public Safety and his job is to check up on sex offenders. Sometimes he pushes the line at his job and beats on the sex offenders. I don't blame him but his boss is ready for him to retire so along comes Allison. Erroll is now training her to do his job and it's like job shadowing. Allison is somewhat naive about the job in the beginning but she doesn't realize how much danger she really is and it's all Erroll's fault. He starts to go to far with his obsession of finding a missing girl when his job isn't to be a police officer.<br /><br />It's a fairly decent movie about a crazy guy who pushes the boundaries and works outside his "scope of practice." Erroll did do a good job but at the sake of the safety of Allison. It has some good mystery to it too and just when I had it figured out, there was more to it. | positive |
I watched this movie in the wee hours of the morning when I should have been asleep. This, in itself, was testimony that Deliverance was a spell-binding movie. I think Boorman did a wonderful job on directing this film. How expertly the early scene with the hill folk and the dueling banjos was done. It showed so well and early on how inherently reserved and simple the people of the area were. Case in point - near the end of the "duel", the banjo-playing boy was smiling (loved his banjo), but when Drew tried to shake the boy's hand after the "duel", the kid was too reserved to respond. The river trip never left you bored, for sure. The rape scene was brutal, but necessary to show just what the group was up against in this backwoods area of Georgia. I think Beatty's traumatic shock afterward was well done. Some have said he was pretty unaffected by the ordeal. I disagree - if you really payed attention, he was unresponsive during the entire action immediately following, in which Reynolds put the arrow through the attacker and they chased off the toothless guy. It was confusing when Ed killed the other guy later, at the top of the cliff. It almost appeared that the arrow was shot while Ed was curled up and expecting to die, but then you realize the arrow he had shot earlier had finally taken effect.<br /><br />Anyway, a great movie, and I was wavering between an 8 and 9 on my vote, but after reading a message from a disgruntled voter who gave it a "1", I gave it a "10". This individual's reasoning seemed based on personal bias, rather than an objective viewpoint, and his vote was obviously a non-correlating attempt to lower the rating. | positive |
This movie clearly has an agenda, which could be summed up like this: Never, never cross the border (either physical or metaphorical). Let's shun everything that's on the other side with a wall or a fence or something else, let's pretend all "gringos" are evil, satanic, or drug dealers. All that is outside one's country's border (and specially US borders) is dangerous, malevolent and people there will hate you, or envy you or try to steal you or something else. The "based on true events" is only a perverse tag that can be pinned on anything to give it some aura of credibility or, in this case, just to help pushing the film's ideology down some naïve throats out there. The perversity of the film lies in the fact that it reduces countries, people and all else into very black and white stereotyped categories: Mexicans into disgusting people, Mexican police into a bunch of corrupt cops, republicans into the right-wing morons, democrats into almost hippie humanists and so forth. Is there anything good about the film? I hardly think so, but may be you think differently. | negative |
"The death of a performer at a Broadway stage play brings a theatre critic and a police detective together as an unlikely crime-solving duo. The dead performer's niece becomes not only the object of affection for our critic, but also a prime suspect in this death, and some other murders that occur at the theatre. 'The Phantom Killer' sets his sights upon the young woman as his next victim; so, it is a race against time for our heroes to catch the killer," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.<br /><br />Milton Raison's screenplay puts a little spark in this low-budget mystery whodunit. Helpfully, Dave O'Brien (as Anthony "Tony" Woolrich) does well in the lead role; his skills as an actor appear to be much greater than the productions employing him. O'Brien and cab driving sidekick Frank Jenks (as Egbert "Romeo" Egglehoffer) would have made a fine 1950s TV detective team. Leading lady Kay Aldridge (as Claudia Moore) and the supporting cast are also good. Unfortunately, the story becomes meandering, and anti-climactic.<br /><br />**** The Phantom of 42nd Street (5/2/45) Albert Herman ~ Dave O'Brien, Kay Aldridge, Frank Jenks | negative |
I like to think I have seen it all. SS DOOMTROOPER. The one about a family of sabertooth tigers. The one about a family of pteranodons. GOAT EATER. DEMON CHILD (a nonanimated child's rubber doll with horns glued on its head. Several SASQUATCH flicks, none of them good. A couple of giant spider/insect flicks. Endless HELLRAISER sequels. Endless LEPRAUCHAN sequels. Endless JASON sequels. A kickboxing scarecrow. AX 'EM, which is actually about an urban street parade recorded on someone's $199 camcorder. And so on. I watched part of an STV the other night about folks stranded on a desert island kickboxing to the death with a group of badly animated totems. I have even sat through DREAMCATCHER, as recently again as last night -- well, I should say I sat through parts of it, having seen it in all of its awful glory years ago. But nothing compares to PREDATOR ISLAND, about a group of youths trapped on an island during a storm, forced to do battle with aliens that arrive in a meteorite. The meteorite looks like it came out of a SUPERMAN cartoon from the 1940s. So do the aliens, for that matter. The photography and acting and directing and writing are all equally bad. I turned it off halfway through. Good luck. | negative |
Couple having financial trouble gets a box delivered to their door. If they push the button they get a million dollars but someone they don't know will die. Do they push the button? <br /><br />This is an odd film based on a Richard Matheson short story has a few chills but mostly is a messy affair. The trouble is that there is so much going on it feels as though writer director Richard Kelly didn't know what sort of movie he was making. Is this a straight out horror film with supernatural overtones? At times it seems like it with talk of moral choices, damnation and the afterlife. Is it a science fiction film? Possibly, there are lots of questions about that Mars project. And what are the strange looks that people seem to have as if in some grand conspiracy? Is this Invasion of the Body Snatchers or a demonic take over film? Don't know, maybe. And that's the problem there are lots of questions, most of them intriguing, but there are too many. Little seems to have been explained and when we get to the end of the film things seem more to stop then to conclude (even in an open ended way). I'm all for making a film rich with themes and points but writer Kelly fills his script with simply too many that director Kelly can't handle, or does so in such away that each theme or plot thread gets its ten minutes of screen time and for those minutes it hold court before its cast off the next bit. It made me crazy. (I won't get into the two leads, Cameron Diaz and James Marsden, who aren't very good or more likely don't know what to make of the material which is so ever shifting ) <br /><br />It's a heady mix that doesn't work (there are ultimately too many holes). I got to the end and suddenly realized I had no idea what I just saw. I really didn't like it, but its more in a this isn't good because it just misses sort of a way rather. I'd take a pass or wait for cable where its not going to cost you anything | negative |
David Mamet is a very interesting and a very un-equal director. His first movie 'House of Games' was the one I liked best, and it set a series of films with characters whose perspective of life changes as they get into complicated situations, and so does the perspective of the viewer.<br /><br />So is 'Homicide' which from the title tries to set the mind of the viewer to the usual crime drama. The principal characters are two cops, one Jewish and one Irish who deal with a racially charged area. The murder of an old Jewish shop owner who proves to be an ancient veteran of the Israeli Independence war triggers the Jewish identity in the mind and heart of the Jewish detective.<br /><br />This is were the flaws of the film are the more obvious. The process of awakening is theatrical and hard to believe, the group of Jewish militants is operatic, and the way the detective eventually walks to the final violent confrontation is pathetic. The end of the film itself is Mamet-like smart, but disappoints from a human emotional perspective.<br /><br />Joe Mantegna and William Macy give strong performances, but the flaws of the story are too evident to be easily compensated. | negative |
At first sight The Bothersome Man seems like several other movies/books rolled into one. Kafka's The Trial, Melville's Bartleby, The Fall and Rise of Reginald Perrin and Groundhog Day instantly spring to mind. A man, Andreas, arrives in a nameless city where he is immediately given a job in an office and finds a beautiful new girlfriend. However, there's a catch: his colleagues are all friendly, bland and utterly characterless, and everyone he knows, including his girlfriend, seems to have only one topic of conversation -interior design. Welcome to the hell of modern consumerism, in which people throw themselves from buildings and no one raises an eyebrow, or spend their days reading furniture catalogues and eating food that tastes of nothing.<br /><br />Andreas quickly realises his predicament and spends the rest of the film trying to escape, in various ways. Suicide turns out not to be an option, and when he finds a new girlfriend she is just as bereft of feelings as the old one - there is a wonderful scene in a restaurant where he asks her to move in with him and all she can say is, 'I don't mind'.<br /><br />In fact, much of what The Bothersome Man has to say has been said before, and after about 45 minutes you begin to feel that you indeed are experiencing a certain sense of deja vu. Yet its point is one that is probably worth repeating, over and over again: an unexamined life is one that is not worth living. Added to which, it provides a decidedly modern take on the perennial theme of how capitalism is destroying our souls. More than one character reminded me of people I've known, especially his furniture-obsessed girlfriend, and if by the end of the film the film-makers have run out of ideas, maybe that's the point - there will no end unless you can find other people who share your sense of alienation. | positive |
This film is the best film Jim Carrey has ever made. Carrey did not have his usual face making stuff in this film. He was both funny and sad. Carrey played a reporter named Bruce Nolan. Nolan blames God(Morgan Freeman) for everything that goes wrong in his life. Then, God comes down from heaven and gives Bruce his powers. As I said before, Carrey did an excellent job. I also thought that Morgan Freeman and Jennifer Aniston were great as supporting actor/actress. The plot was good because it had many subpoints in the main point. This movie can be funny(Bruce's dog) as well as sad(the "break-up"). The script worked well, too. I am glad they made a sequel to this film. I rate this film a 9/10. | positive |
When Tsui Hark experiments, nothing and no one can withstand him. Legend of Zu is possibly 6Hours condensed into 1h40. One does not understand all, but like at "2001 A Space Odyssey" you also don't have to, but one feels the power of the film to every second, every picture. An extraordinary vision of the future of the 7th art and the one of the most pioneering, astounding, rejoicing in the recent years. VITAL severe MASTERPIECE! It's absolutely perfect as it is.<br /><br />When Tsui Hark experiments, nothing and no one can withstand him. Legend of Zu is possibly 6Hours condensed into 1h40. One does not understand all, but one feels the power of the film to every second, every picture. An extraordinary vision of the future of the 7th art and the one of the most pioneering, astounding, rejoicing in the recent years. VITAL severe MASTERPIECE! It's absolutely perfect as it is. 10000000000000/10000000000000 | positive |
Wow, what a snoozer. Definately one of bacon's worst films. The bad acting coupled with a formulatic, if not incredulous, script make me yearn for time I wasted on viewing this on cable television back. Not really much I can say about it, a basketball scout gets too attached to the person he's recruiting, who happens to belong to a tribe that happens to be on the verge of war which happens to be decided by (spoiler) a basketball game. Grade: F+ | negative |
Mario Van Peebles pops up for less than a five second cameo. Glenn Plummer shows up a little longer but its a ladies show all the way. Stacey Dash and Lisa Raye have been in better projects. Bobby Brown leers and mugs through his little time on screen. This is how it was pitched...Five tough women shootin' and lovin' in the Wild Wild West. Four black and one Asian. Oh and Lil' Kim is a tough talking' heartbreaker and Marie Matiko can bring in the pacific rim market. We can shoot it for less than 15 million. Straight to video and we'll double but more likely triple our dollars.<br /><br />Greenlight that puppy.<br /><br />You got it boss. | negative |
Poorly acted, poorly written and poorly directed. Special effects are cheap. Best performance is by Yvette Napir, but that's not saying much. Story is a confusing mess about corporate greed leading to sabotage of a space station and an attempt to rescue those stranded aboard.<br /><br /> There is little suspense and even less action. There's one car chase that's not bad, but the rest of the movie is simply a waste of everyone's time. | negative |
I rented this film for $5 and felt sorry I did it...I wouldn't give a 5c for it if I knew.This is the worse movie ever...None of the filming locations was in former Yugoslavia,map at the beginning what the...???English actors are trying to speak Serbian eg. pretending they are Serbs and they did it terrible bad.My first language is Serbian and I could not understand what they were mumling about.They drove a big jeep in a country where 3 sides (Croats,Serbs and Muslims) are in war and they wrote on it peace 4 Sarajevo???Ha,ha, how stupid was that...Don't know why English are making stupid films about war like this one...or even if they do why they are blaming Serbs for everything,when there was another two sides in a war too.And we all know they were killing too,not just sitting and pretending innocent,so they should at least show the whole truth.This film also Harrison's flowers,Behind enemys lines,The hunting party and few others were total bullshit and that's proved eg The hunting party was biggest loser in 2007/08 spent 20 mil 4 it and they earned 800.000 ha,ha, what a crap...The truth will come out sooner or later.Proud to be Serb!!! | negative |
(Only minor spoilers except as noted).<br /><br />I've enjoyed a lot of Spanish cinema recently; both the actual Spanish cinema of people like Almodovar, and the Latin American cinema of directors like del Toro, whose superb "Devil's Backbone", set in Civil War Spain, was the finest horror film of the last decade. It's no surprise, then, that this film is both well-made, well-acted, and manages to sustain that distinctively different Spanish atmosphere. But it's also as nasty and pointless a film as one could hope not to have to see.<br /><br />What actually is the purpose of all this? We have no real idea what caused the creepy central character to embark on his killing spree, despite the fact that large amounts of narrative voice-over are drawn directly from his own narcissistic journal. In a routinely unpleasant opening sequence, set more than a decade earlier, we see the central character killing his girlfriend in a rage of jealousy and control-freakery ("
if I can't have you nobody can
."). Oddly enough, that is perhaps one of the best sequences in the film, but it has no discernible relation to his subsequent killing spree, which appears completely different in both motivation and execution. What happened to him in jail to cause this change? We have no idea, though we do later discover, as an absurd sort of afterthought, that he obtained a law degree while imprisoned.<br /><br />In Britain, in several of our notorious "serial killer" or "sex killer" cases, the terrible question arises; what about the wife? Did she know, or suspect what was going on? This is a question that this film could have asked, and indeed the wife does begin to emerge as one of the more intriguing characters. But banally, the answer to the question is quite clearly: "No, she didn't". Even when a dramatic opportunity like this is presented on a plate, the film still manages to bungle it. All we actually get, sketched perfunctorily out at the end, is her slightly amoral preparedness to cash in on the proceeds after the event. Compare this to the awful revelatory moment in Ten Rillington Place, where Christie's wife says "you know what I mean
." thereby sealing her own fate and allowing us an appalled glimpse into unimaginable chasms of suppressed knowledge and horror.<br /><br />(Major spoiler in this paragraph). In the meantime, we are supposed to believe that the killer himself is a criminal mastermind who comprehensively outwits the police, thereby securing the briefest of incarcerations in a mental hospital before being released so that he can kill again. How exactly did he achieve this? The plot gets extremely sketchy at this point; something to do with deliberately leaving certain clues for the police; but how this all works or why, or how the subsequent court case actually proceeds, remains a mystery.<br /><br />I actually don't believe serial killers are like this. The Silence of the Lambs may be comic book stuff, but Lecter aside it gets its serial killers right. They are deeply disturbed, deeply dysfunctional, deeply inadequate people; not the creepily charming mastermind presented here (closely related to the equally implausible suave killer of The Last Horror Movie, or indeed even Man Bites Dog, though it appears not to have been noticed that that was a satire).<br /><br />This film has little suspense, and bungles what little intrigue the plot might have generated. It has nothing useful to say about the motivations of serial killers, either generally, or in the specific cultural milieu of Spain. This is nothing more than a poorly plotted excuse to show some pretty misogynistic violence to women. And oddly, what makes that violence even more repulsive is a certain prissy failure of nerve even in how it is presented. The soft core character of what is actually shown just makes it seem even more repellently titillatory. Just one explicit shot, properly timed, would have been infinitely more shocking, and would have rendered all the rest completely unnecessary, freeing up more film time to flesh out the gaping holes in plot and characterisation. Instead we just get endless shots of young women vulnerably spreadeagled on a table in their pretty but slightly revealing underwear. Very, very creepy. I'm sorry to be rude; I love horror films, and can tolerate even the most extreme, to the extent even of worrying my partner. But I think anyone who finds this film good, or interesting, even I'd find myself edging away from. The purpose of a horror film is to scare you; this is just lascivious.<br /><br />It leaves a very bad taste in the mouth indeed. I have to give this film more than one star just because it's competently executed, but morally it deserves none at all and should never have been made. | negative |
What surprised me most about this film was the sheer audience it attracted. Similar films such as Anita and Me have never caused as much hype as this film has, though I think that's probably because of the mention of 'Beckham' in the title more than anything else.<br /><br />It's a brilliant film putting across a brilliant message - you can do anything if you're determined enough, and put your mind to it, which is such a positive message to anyone watching this film.<br /><br />I think this is one of Keira Knightley's better films, and I think she's a brilliant actress, and was excellent for the role. Parminder Nagra was brilliant too. Sadly, I can't say this for Jonathan Rhys-Meyers, because I don't think that he was that much of a good actor, and to be honest, his eyes were a little scary.<br /><br />All in all, a brilliant film, and a brilliant story | positive |
"Ko to tamo peva" is one of the best films I ever saw. A tragicomedy with very deep implications on the fate of humankind shown through the eyes of seemingly very plain and common people from a God-forsaken Serbian province just before the start of the World War II. I saw it in a small movie theater in Russia where the film had had a very limited distribution, and I had no chance to come across it ever since. It is such a pity that this excellent film is almost forgotten now. I searched for a VHS or DVD copy of it many times, and alas - could find none. I would be most grateful to other fans of this little gem of movie-making for a suggestion of the ways to purchase a copy. | positive |
The form of the film is that of a suspense shocker. There are surprises, twists and turns, reverses and excitements. At times, this is truly an "edge-of-the-seat" film. But it disappoints, and disappoints severely.<br /><br />The villain of the piece is not believeable; his character does not hold together. I refuse to "spoil" the film, but will only say that the character we meet at the beginning just could not be he whom we see at the end.<br /><br />The second major disappointment of the film is that--finally, it becomes little more that a bloody slasher film. There is little qualitative difference between this and one of the "Friday the 13th" films. Not that every film need always be totally tasteful, but this film does drip gore on occasion.<br /><br />Though the film features the magnificent Sean Connery, even he does not measure up to his usual standard, and often just seems to be walking through the paces. | negative |
This is a badly made, poor remake of Bimalda's classic Parineeta. The story is based on Sarat Chandra's book of the same name and it is a distortion of the original. Well one can appreciate some degree of creativity but not sham creativity. The acting by everyone is affected and the entire movie is a sham. Shekar's father's choice of words in abusing Lolita ( Balan ) sounds cheap and morbid and destroys the spirit of the original story. Again the scene where Shekhar ( Saif ) slaps Lolita is quite out of place with the flow of the movie and the characters, is quite jarring to the senses, and could have been easily avoided. Similarly the sex scene between Saif and Balan is quite unbecoming the movie and a cheap gimmick to attract the audience. When a creative work is not faithful to the original and destroys it's spirit, the work falls apart. The song "piyu bole" is quite OK. Another silver lining in the dark cloud of this movie is the scene where Saif stands up for himself and rebels against his father. This is a positive departure from the original and deserves credit. On these counts this movie deserves 3 stars. The song and dance by Rekha smacks of artifice and it is a put on. The song is tuneful but I remember having heard it somewhere before and if Iam not mistaken the tune appears to have been plagiarized. <br /><br />Well, agreed the times have changed from then to now. But then this movie is not even reflective of the modern times.<br /><br />This is what happens when the modern Bollywood film makers get increasingly obsessed with impressing the NRIs and grabbing the lucrative NRI entertainment market. Such movies end up neither belonging to India nor to any other part of the world. | negative |
I have to differ from the other comments posted. Amid sporadic funny moments, there are a lot of actors trying too hard to be funny. The strain shows. I watched this with two friends on another friend's recommendation- none of us were thrilled. | negative |
I've rented and watched this movie for the 1st time on DVD without reading any reviews about it. So, after 15 minutes of watching I've noticed that something is wrong with this movie; it's TERRIBLE! I mean, in the trailers it looked scary and serious!<br /><br />I think that Eli Roth (Mr. Director) thought that if all the characters in this film were stupid, the movie would be funny...(So stupid, it's funny...? WRONG!) He should watch and learn from better horror-comedies such as:"Fright Night", "The Lost Boys" and "The Return Of the Living Dead"! Those are funny!<br /><br />"Cabin Fever" is THE reason why I registered to www.IMDb.com so I can release my thoughts of discontent about it.<br /><br />I've decided to watch the movie a second time >AAARGH!< and make notes for my partial "review" to show how foolish the movie is. "Resident Evil" (horror) or "Dude, Where's My Car?" (comedy) I can watch over and over again and still enjoy! But this...!<br /><br />How bad can a script and a director be??? This bad. Here are the awful scenes in chronological order:<br /><br />In the early scenes we see Henry, who doesn't realize his dog lying on the ground with its tongue hanging out of its mouth and dead-glazed stare is dead!<br /><br />The movie doesn't explain anything about the blonde long-haired kid who like to bite people.<br /><br />And my answer to Marcy's unanswered question ("What's wrong with the woods?") is "nothing". The script has that bearded guy warn them about the woods just for "suspense".<br /><br />Then the "smartest" of the 5-pack, Bert, almost gives us an example of how to start a forest fire. He meets now-infected Henry who begs for help and from here on the movie wants to break the record in using the "F-word". Bert starts to freak out because Henry looks awfully ill. Bert:"Don't make me shoot you!" (he forgets to add: "...with my BB gun!")<br /><br />Bert heads back to the cabin but how about that? He meets Marcy and Jeff who were having sex, but now suddenly decide to go out for a walk! Marcy wisely takes out the unguarded campfire Bert had started earlier (A moment of clarity for a change?) Bert doesn't mention a word about Henry because the fool thinks he has killed him with his BB gun.<br /><br />Later, as the Five Estupidos sit around their campfire, another weirdo shows up with his dog. (Maybe that's what the warning about the woods is all about? It's filled with weirdos...and their dogs!?) They let him sit with them only because he has a huge bag filled with cannabis. (Their brains are completely intoxicated! No wonder why they are all so DUMB!) This is the last time we'll see this forgettable character...alive!<br /><br />Henry shows up at their cabin, (NOTE: He was lying all the time a few yards from their cabin!!!) looking worse, almost like a zombie, covered in goo! He says he needs a doctor. But the Young Einsteins refuse to help the poor sucker. He gets into their unlocked truck which of course also has its key in the ignition. Henry almost seems smart enough to drive the Hell away from there but instead starts puking blood all over the dashboard, seats and windows. The Fantastic Five come out running, armed with: a BB Gun, a knife, a baseball bat (*huh? Ever tried playing baseball in the middle of the woods???), a poker, and a (insecticide?) spray-can, ready to combat the single, unarmed and terribly sick man. (clever script!) Bert manages to kill the car with one single shot of his BB Gun, which is only possible in the mind of director Eli Roth. "What else am I supposed to do?" Bert yells in his defense. Jeff and Paul try to knock Henry down with their bat and poker but miss and crash the truck's windows instead. Henry walks up to the dumb girls who say: "He's coming towards us!" (Thanks for the info, dumb broads, I can see that! But I don't think he wants to do you any harm!) Marcy sprays in his eyes, making Henry yelp! And our "hero" Paul touches Henry's arm with a burning log from the campfire, which they recklessly left burning while they were INSIDE the cabin! (Where has all that wisdom gone? I guess the cannabis had started to take its toll!:-) Henry turns into The Human Torch and runs away, screaming.<br /><br />The following day, Bert and Jeff head out for a mechanic. And Marcy decides to "go for help" all by herself, in the woods, as Paul stays behind with Karen...Doesn't that sound idiotic? Marcy could have stayed with Karen and Paul because Jeff and Bert were already "going for help"!<br /><br />I skip my comments now to how we suddenly see Marcy in a CANOE rowing over a huge and winding river! How did she get a canoe? Does she even know where she's going!? Anyway, she goes to the riverbank and finds a very big and seemingly abandoned cabin and, like in most horror movies, walks inside the cabin saying:"Hello? Is anyone there?" Bert suddenly pops up from behind a furniture and scares her (and me at first). And along comes Jeff, as well. How did THEY get here!? Did they swim across the river??? Do you see how brainless the script is!?<br /><br />Deputy Winston meets Paul at the cabin. He somehow doesn't notice the blood on their truck. This happens around 35 minutes of viewing and I have decided to stop torturing myself anymore and popped the DVD out. (Before I take my own eyes out!...Now, THAT's funny!)<br /><br />If you liked this movie, do yourself a favor and watch "Fright Night", "The Lost Boys", or "The Return of The Living Dead". Then you'll see they are MORE entertaining than this...thing. Even the "Toxic Avenger part 2", which is also a lousy film, is way MORE funnier than "Cabin Fever". | negative |
You may consider a couple of facts in the discussion to be spoilers.<br /><br />I'm sorry, but Spielberg didn't deserve to win any Oscar for this piece, and I think the Academy was right in that vote. (Other Oscars for best actor nominations and such... that I don't know about. But it would be hard to justify, given what they were told to do and what you see in the final product.) The way Spielberg directs this is so contrived, so meddlesome. While watching this movie a distinction made during a Film as Art course I have taken was screaming at me: "Sentiment is honest emotion honestly rendered. Sentimentality is sugary and unreal, a false view of life." This is over-the-top sentimentality. When in real life to two people ever begin to read out loud in synchronicity, as Celie and Shug Avery do when sitting on the bed going over the letters from Nettie they have found? There are examples of this type of faux behavior throughout the film: all the men crowding around Miss Millie's car and then jumping in unison like a flock of birds taking off when she goes to drive away; Harpo falling through the roofs of various buildings he's working on (a cheap slapstick gag); the whole troop of revelers heading from the Jook Joint en masse to the chapel, as if magically entranced by the choir's singing... on and on. Nothing rings true. I even wondered if Harpo's name was chosen purposefully because it's his wife Sophia's real name, "Oprah," backwards. Spielberg isn't above such "cuteness."<br /><br />It's not that Spielberg is incapable of honestly rendered action and emotion. Schindler's List was amazing, deeply touching for me, and I greatly admire Saving Private Ryan too for its realism, even if the story is a bit contrived. | negative |
I liked Timothy Dalton very much even though he was a bit young and too handsome for Mr R. but I thought Zelah Clarke too plump and short. This version however was very true to the novel and very well filmed. I have seen 4 versions, Orson Welles is still my favorite Mr R , though George C Scott did very well and it's a toss up between Joan Fontaine and Sussanah York, although they were both a bit too old for the role. I recently saw a brilliant TV version of Rebecca with Charles Dance and Emilia Fox. I would love to see those two do Jane Eyre.By the time I got to watching the Ciarin Hinds version, I think I was Jane Eyred out, but I will never tire of those first few minutes of hearing Joan Fontaine's voice narrate the opening of the first version I ever saw. I always want to go back and read the book again. | positive |
This isn't quite the best Canadian film ever, IMO. I won't get off track and name 3 or 4 better. Just a couple of nights before I'd seen "The Bicycle Thief", the highly rated Italian classic, and there are some parallels. Both filmmakers shot their film in a specific time and specific place, with minimal resources in terms of sets and cast. And the result in both cases is fascinating and a joy to watch for the realistic setting and characters alone. The lingering shots over faces and landscape almost make this worth watching on its own. That being said, this one isn't quite in the same league as the Italian classic. The movie is shot in a frigid, barren Quebec asbestos mining town. That frigidity is contrasted with the warmth of the people and the eye of the filmmaker Claude Jutra. Basically, what you get is a series of vignettes that are likely nostalgic recollections of Jutra - not ha, ha funny - but poignant, and probably sometimes difficult at the time, but now warmed over with the patine of nostalgia. The movie meanders; there is little tension. Somewhere around half to two thirds way through the story begins. Everyone you've met to this point is involved, and you've gotten to know these characters rather well; so have a little patience at the outset. The story is a good one; it will leave you thinking, and it involves sex, love and death, all the basic elements. If you like Bergman, Godard, Truffaut, all that kind of stuff, you won't be disappointed by this. | positive |
When I first saw the cover of this movie (a giant bug chasing a few nurses) And the name "Blue Monkey", I knew I wasn't in for any big Hollywood movie. I was pleasantly surprised to see Steve Railsback in this cheese-ball flick, who always does a good job in whatever role he tackles.... The FX are pretty corny, there isn't too much of a plot, and I'm still not sure why this movie is called Blue Monkey, because there is nothing in this movie to do with monkey. But come on people, what did you expect?? It's not really as bad as it seems.... If you enjoy the old 50's style black and white bug attack movies, this one is basically an updated version, without the updates special FX | negative |
I just don't understand why this movie is getting beat-up in here. Jeez. It is mindless, it isn't polished and it is (as I am reading) wasted on some. The cast of this movie plays their characters to the 'T' (If you watched Permanent Midnight and became a Ben Stiller fan then yes you will be disappointed). These are misunderstood, well-intentioned misfits trying to save the city/world with nothing but grit and determination. The problem is they don't realize their limits until the big showdown and that's the point! This is 3 times the movie that The Spy Who Shagged Me was yet gets panned by the same demographic group, likely the same people who feel the first AP movie pales in comparison to the sequel. I just don't get it. The jokes work on more then one level; if you didn't get it I know what level you're at. | positive |
It is not generally my practice to review movies that I dislike to any great degree. However, one or two times a year, I temporarily set aside my rule to only comment on things I like to give a word of warning. I find it more enjoyable to comment on something I like and boost it than I do shooting at bad movies. But some "movies" cry out for the razor.<br /><br />Bilitis is one of them. The cinematography isn't the only aspect that is blurry and out of focus here. An almost indiscernible plot (certainly incoherent, if there even is one) bad acting, cheesy script and awful pacing. Those are its major problems.<br /><br />Understand, I firmly believe that not all movies are created equal and films should be judged according to their category. It is not reasonable to judge, say, Beach Blanket Bingo against Gone With the Wind. I judge Bilitis against other movies in its weight class. Measured against movies like Emmanuelle or Secrets of a Chambermaid, it comes off very badly indeed. Even eye-candy has to be entertaining and Bilitis most definitely is not. | negative |
** WARNING - CONTAINS SPOILERS! **<br /><br />First of all, I would like to say that I really liked this game. I got it for Christmas after two months of dropping hints to my parents. I am glad that I did that.<br /><br />First off, I would like to say that the single player was very good. The first level is probably one of the best in the game, when you are at a party in London, and some evil guys ruin it by kidnapping the Prime minister's daughter. Of course you have to rescue her, and it is quite a big level, but should probably take you at least five minutes. The best part, and I think also the funniest part, is when you are in the jet-pack, and people are rappelling down Big Ben. Just equip the jet-pack's most trusty rocket launcher and blast the clock faces and the enemies down. Pure fun!<br /><br />The rest of the levels are very good, but pretty short. There are four mini-levels you can unlock, and that is one of the let downs, because only the first two of them are actually fun, and the last two to unlock are just 'kill 25 enemies' objectives, I mean, c'mon! We got loads of points to unlock these missions and the last two bonus missions are really bad!<br /><br />The multi player, me and some of my friends agree, is very good and challenging, even if there are no bots. Halo didn't have any bots but that is still some fine multi player games! You can be a load of bad guys, and you go against each other, and you can also set traps, which is the best way of killing people without going into view of their character.<br /><br />Gameplay - 8.5/10 (levels can be quite repetitive and bonus missions could be improved). Graphics - 9/10 (there is the odd bad graphic, but that isn't extremely often). Multiplayer - 10/10 (needs no comment, just great, you get to drive in jet-packs and vehicles). Sound - 8/10 Replay value - 7/10 (the only levels I go back on are the Loondon level and Istanbul Part 1).<br /><br />I give this game: 8.5/10<br /><br />Could have a bit of improvement, but it's still good. | positive |
Scanning through the comments, there doesn't appear to be a lot of love for this movie, and it's not very hard to see why, it's rubbish.<br /><br />Now, I will start by saying that the finished product was hurt, in any number of ways, by the death of Donald Pleasance (Dr Loomis) in post production. This required a re-jigging of the film's conclusion with Loomis buying the farm and took away what was supposed to be a double twist at the end with Micheal swapping places with mysterious "Man in black" and I do not mean Johnny Cash.<br /><br />Now to the story. The fifth movie ended rather unsatisfactorily with Micheal Myers escaping from jail with the mysterious man in black. It turns out (aggh) that this man knows the origin of Micheal's evil and is also a colleague of Dr Loomis named Dr Wynn. They also kidnapped Jamie Lloyd (played by Danielle Harris in parts 4 and 5 but here played by JC Brandy). Jamie, pregnant, escapes from Dr Wynn's lair and so Micheal follows her and kills her. But she'd had the kid so now he needs to track the baby down so he can kill his great nephew.<br /><br />We hear some ludicrous explanation to Micheal's evil involving Gaelic curses down bloodlines and mysterious symbols. A radio show is broadcast from Micheal's home town for some reason, which gives Micheal some more hapless victims.<br /><br />In the end the movie, just like this review is vague, confusing and directionless with a very anticlimactic ending.<br /><br />Some sex scenes and nudity. Poor plot, passable effects, with some good run of the mill slasher kills, but severely lacking in motivation. For what was supposed to explain everything, this only stirred up some new questions, made parts 4 and 5 pointless and was a poor way for a great actor in Pleasance to end his life and career. | negative |
This film was quite a surprise. I wasn't expecting much, to be honest. Greta Garbo's first Hollywood film? So what? Probably something rough and with the usual exaggerated arm-waving and facial contortions that low-grade silent films so often show.<br /><br />Well, was I mistaken. Greta Garbo must have just shocked the studio people as much as she did me, because this film made her a star, and deservedly so. She instinctively understood the power of just standing still, or of simply holding a meaningful expression for a long, lingering moment so its effect could be felt and not just seen. I kept thinking to myself, how did this modern actress get into a creaky silent film? She was just years and years ahead of her time.<br /><br />The story isn't all that interesting, it is the usual tale of love found and lost. It is only the performance of Garbo as Leonora, the poor village girl who makes good in the big city and then returns to get the man who got away, that gives it life. Co-star Ricardo Cortez is serviceable, but his character is never really developed and he is demeaned by the script throughout. At one point he is made to wear Garbo's clothes, leave in a huff, then ignominiously return and give them back. And let's not even talk about his horrible final scenes with Garbo and then his wife. Way too ordinary, he didn't have much of a career after this and I can understand why. But he suffices as the somewhat mystifying object of Leonora's obsession.<br /><br />There is one utterly fantastic line in this film that just says it all. "Leonora, you are becoming conspicuous." Yes, conspicuous indeed.<br /><br />If you really want to know what it's all about without seeing the whole film, just watch the last 30 seconds or so - Garbo's glance as she sits quite alone in her luxurious car says everything. "She must be so happy, she has everything she wants" - yes, Garbo's face says it all about that. I have to see this one again, Garbo is just amazing. | positive |
Compared to Battle of Britain, this is a real film, with real characters and a real plot. Battle of Britain is basically a documentary with the occasional Lawrence Olivier and Michael Caine, but the real protagonists are the Spits, the Hurricanes, etc. Here, on the other hand, you have two well-wrought characters (actually three) and a real plot. I strongly recommend it to anybody, even to those who are not particularly fond of war movies. It's well filmed, and I wonder what the director might do if he had the big capitals behind him. And I do not think that it's over-sentimental. It's only that in the fighters you have real people, with real feelings and a real life--as real as any fictional life in any great film. | positive |
Young beautiful Eva (Hedy Lamarr) marries an older man (Zvonimir Rogoz). Unfortunately he can't satisfy her sexually and ignores her. Frustrated she goes home and plans to get a divorce. Then, one day, she's skinny dipping in a lake in the middle of the woods. Her horse gallops off with her clothes...and she runs after it! She meets young and very handsome Adam (Aribert Mog). They make love and she realizes this is the man she wants.<br /><br />ENDING SPOILER!!!! Naturally, since this was made in 1933, she has to be punished for her sin so it leads to a tragic finale. END OF ENDING SPOILER!!!!<br /><br />This horrified people in 1933 but it's pretty tame by today's standards. Lamarr's nude swim shows nothing and when she runs after the horse totally nude, it's either shown in extreme long shot or is covered by branches and such. There's only a few minor shots of her breasts. Also when she has sex with Mog, nothing is shown but her face but you see her achieving an orgasm. These scene were considered pretty extreme in their day and were cut out completely of the American release. Now today they're back in. This film would get by with a PG-13 easily now.<br /><br />Shock episodes aside this is just OK. It is beautifully filmed and there's next to no dialogue. Except for the music score this could be a silent picture. Luckily all the actors are good--Lamarr and Mog especially and they're so attractive that they just take your breath away watching them. Also the sequence where they make love is easily one of the most beautifully shot and acted sequences I've ever seen in a movie. The scenes with the sexual symbolism (there's quite a few of them) are unfortunately pretty obvious today. I actually started to giggle during one!<br /><br />So, great direction, beautiful imagery, attractive actors, good acting all around--but I wasn't exactly bowled over by it. I found the movie slow-moving (beautiful imagery does not make a picture for me), somewhat dull, obvious, static and had a negative ending. I can live with the ending but it doesn't excuse the other problems I had with it. Also the final sequence is REALLY strange--and out of place. So I admire this film more than anything else. It was well-done and I'd recommend it but with caution. Many people seem to love this movie so I'm in the minority. Use your own judgment. | positive |
I found this very touching as Spike and Heaton stay together all the way through this film not to say there isn't a few betrayals along the way. I thought the chase was put aside the relationship between the two was foreground I think. I had already guessed that there were so gay intentions on the part of Heaton. My favourite scene had to be the bit where Heaton and Spike were stuck in the marsh and Spike runs off I generally thought Spike wasn't coming back. I have to say that if it wasn't for our film studies teacher making us watch this I would have probably never seen it. Overall I thought this film was pretty good and I would recommend it to any person who is a fan of British made films. | positive |
One of the myths of the early sound era is that they couldn't make Westerns because they had trouble recording sound on location. In fact, it was the financial restrictions of the depression that temporarily killed off the genre, at least in the "A" budget bracket. However, in the period 1929-1931, before the economic downturn had really kicked in, the "A" Western flourished, notable examples including The Virginian, Billy the Kid and Cimarron. The Big Trail was perhaps the biggest of them all a gargantuan pioneer Western shot in an early widescreen process appropriately titled grandeur. Thanks to a recent DVD release we now get to see the widescreen version alongside the fullscreen that was shot simultaneously.<br /><br />The director was Raoul Walsh, a man for whom the spirit of adventure lay in vast outdoor vistas, and thus in many ways a perfect choice. He makes great use of the wider frame to show off the Western landscape at its most breathtaking. Very typical of Walsh are a number of shots towards the beginning, such as the one where a woman is chopping firewood. Most of the screen is tightly filled by the wagons and other clutter, but in one corner we see the wilderness stretching out invitingly. When the wagon train gets going, the open plain is gradually revealed to us, with wagons pulling away like stage curtains. These shots are not so effective in the fullscreen version, yet on the wider canvas Walsh's expression of the outdoors was never better.<br /><br />But there's an unfortunate flipside to this. When it comes to dialogue scenes, Walsh's tendency is to place the actors in the middle of the shot, as if they were in an imaginary fullscreen box. The extra width becomes just that extra. It may seem logical at first, because it means that height-wise we see as much of the actors as we would in a fullscreen picture. However it makes the players look small and insignificant within the frame, while all the background business dominates the shot and there is a lot of background business in the Big Trail. When widescreen formats re-emerged in the 1950s, many directors would make the same mistake, before eventually realising that in talkie scenes it is better to frame actors from around the chest up, losing some of their height but allowing them to fill the screen.<br /><br />It's a pity, because The Big Trail is a particularly well-balanced and finely scripted effort. The romance and revenge subplots are simple but well defined, and do not threaten to overbalance each other or the pioneer story. It could have been a great intimate epic, but it loses dramatic weight because every time characters start talking to each other we get distracted by herds of cattle, drifting wagons or whatever else is filling every spare inch of frame. Still, Walsh's sensitivity to deeply emotional romantic moments is still on display, and he manages to make the final scene effective and memorable. There are also some nice comedy touches, largely courtesy of "comical Swede" El Brendel.<br /><br />The Big Trail is also notable for being John Wayne's first lead role. While Wayne is another victim of the distant framing in dialogue scenes, we do at least see his strong physical presence and hear his warm but assertive vocal delivery. He betrays his lack of experience, but the potential is clearly there. Sadly that potential wasn't widely realised at the time and he spent the rest of the decade slumming it in B-pictures before he finally hit stardom. Also appearing in this picture is Wayne's buddy (and later prolific character actor) Ward Bond. He's not credited, but you can spot him in a number of scenes, most prominently around the 80-minute mark where he is stood to Tyrone Power's left.<br /><br />The Big Trail is a glorious epic that manages to defeat itself as a drama. And it was this stupendous scale that would put the Western (and widescreen) to bed for some time. And although the 40s and 50s are now regarded as the golden age of the Western, it was by then a changed genre, with stories of individual adventure and heroism in an established West no better or worse, but of a different form. The early talkie period was the end of an era in which Westerns could be truly gigantic. | positive |
**1/2 for this Diane Keaton farce.<br /><br />Someone should tell Ms. Keaton, enough with your Annie Hall philosophy and hats.<br /><br />This flick is just too much as Keaton's daughter, Sara, dies in a traffic accident, while her boyfriend survives.<br /><br />Keaton, who could not be reached by phone at first, as she was in the sack with her pal and had pulled out the phone plug, grieves in a new way for grievers.<br /><br />She retreats to the summer locale where all of Sara's friends are staying. She cleans the house, sleeps for two days and then begins to reveal things which were better not to be revealed. It appears that sweet Sara slept with her girlfriend and the guy who ultimately married the latter. In addition, she had an abortion thanks to this guy. We're all now put on this guilt trip.<br /><br />Her only hope is to find the elusive diary that Sara kept. She also hopes that boyfriend,Adam, who is a playwright, will not include all this in another play.<br /><br />When the diary is found, it has been written in Japanese. Sara had a Ph.D in this language. It's not that great news for mom when an excerpt of the diary is translated by a Japanese cook in a Japanese restaurant.<br /><br />Naturally, everything seems to tie up nicely in the end. <br /><br />The title of this shmaltz comes from The Wizard of Oz. Every time mom and Sara would speak, they would both utter Surrender Dorothy.<br /><br />As if this isn't enough, during the course of this bizarre extravaganza of mourning, Keaton tells Adam not to be another Woody Allen in his film, Interiors, where he tried to successfully emulate Ingmar Bergman. Ms. Keaton also tries drugs with the group. Come on, folks, can we realistically believe that anyone in his right mind could mourn like this? <br /><br />Fair to mediocre best sums up this film. | negative |
Take a SciFi Original Movie and mix in a little alternative/revisionist history, and you get "Aztec Rex." Apparently Hernand Cortes, before conquering the Aztec empire, had to first conquer a Tyrannosaurus Rex and her mate. That's the thrust of this movie. Given the plot it could have really sucked; the fact that it only kind of sucked is a tip of the cap to the writers. There are a few problems. For starters, Cortes is played by Ian Ziering. Even with a black wig, Ziering as Cortes is about as convincing as Axl Rose playing Gandhi. And though Cortes conquers the indigenous peoples of Mexico, the Aztecs here seem to be played by an all-Hawaiian ensemble. Casting aside, the T-Rex(es) look reasonably good, though every time one of them gets shot it just oozed CGI. And they die too easily; I suppose if a T-Rex were around in real life they probably could be felled or at least wounded by some rather rudimentary, 16th-century weaponry. But it takes something away from the movie. There are also some graphic T-Rex-swallowing-human scenes, which is surprising, but in this context I thought they worked OK. There's plenty of action, and the whole colonization angle is prevalent throughout but doesn't overwhelm the dinosaur angle, unlike the other recent SciFi Original dinosaur movie "Warbirds." Overall, a mediocre (but decent by SciFi Original standards) movie that rates a modest 4. | negative |
The person who wrote the glowing review of this misguided project must be related to the writer/director/star--or is, in fact, the same person as it defies rational thinking that this movie would be appealing to anyone not connected to a very tightly woven inner circle. How about this? You want to make a movie--tell a story; entertain; draw me in with vivid characters. Sure, you can do it artfully without bowing to the commercial elements designed for mass appeal. However, do not address elements of artistic expression in a vacuum in which the audience is in a continual struggle to grasp at skimpy narrative threads. If I'm to be moved by a dreamy psychological thread then make the concrete fabric easier to buy. | negative |
this is not just a bad film, it's one of the worst films ever. it's so bad that i found it to be quite enjoyable. the acting, oh my god, the script, you gotta be kiddin'. how can you imagine the writer coming up with things like: - a kid who makes fireworks in school, fireworks SO powerfull, that when someone gets hit by it, they fly a hundred yards backwards and explode. -a girl is trapped in the celler, the killer is trying to break open the door. she gets a drill, but the wire isn't long enough. she first makes an extension cord, oh the horror, and then, when she's done, she drills through the door and drills through the head of the killer. WOW - and there are plenty more examples like that. oh yeah, and what happened to George Kennedy, he used to be great (Thunderbolt and Lightfoot/Cool hand Luke) | negative |
I remembered this awful movie I bought at Camelot music store in the summer of 1989 when I was visiting my Grandparents. It was a time when I had just discovered movies like Re-Animator, From Beyond, The Return of the Living Dead, and Dawn of the Dead. I was ready for all the horror/gore genre had to offer.... or so I thought! I was only about 12 years old at the time so I really don't remember it all that well. I remember a psycho running around with a corkscrew killing people, and a couple of cops (I think) who were riding in a car that wasn't actually moving, but being rocked side to side to look like it was... true cinemagic. I also remember it being the worst film I had ever seen up to that point and I promptly threw it in the garbage.<br /><br />Something tonight made me think of that movie (I can't believe I actually remembered the name), so I jumped on imdb to see if it was listed. To my surprise... IT WAS! And a full other 5 people have seen it.... Amazing. Even though I remember hating the film at the time I sort of wish I had kept it hidden away somewhere because I'd love to check it out again for a laugh (it would probably make a good drinking game movie). Anyway, I'm glad I'm part of the elite few that's seen this little "treasure". I would love to pick it up somewhere for a couple of bucks.... but beware, this is not a recommendation... it is awful... it's just for nostalgia. | negative |
Another of those flimsy stories coupled with most forgettable musical numbers. Powell and O'Keefe as battling publicists are quite forgettable. However, there are two shining moments. Hubert Castle is the most incredible tightrope walker you will ever see - his "drunken walk" on the wire has to be the most spectacular piece of balancing ever recorded on film. He has to be seen to be believed. The other is Sophie Tucker doing a turn near the end of the film. Her magnetism, her professionalism, her sheer talent at being herself - well, charisma is not learned - you have it or you don't. A great lesson for all would-be cabaret artists. A sad note: W.C. Fields in his last film cameo is completely forgettable. | negative |
I've been reading through some of the other user comments and decided to put one in too. Some of the users are stuck in a 'realist' type of mentality. This film was meant to be a 'fantasy'....a 'what if' fun film. It was never meant to be 'real' or serious. It was thoroughly enjoyable for everyone I knew when it came out - even though it shadowed the tragedy of the Challenger explosion...I was 30 at the time and totally enjoyed this one - my young son loved it too! Later, I shared it with my daughter and she, too, loved it. SpaceCamp is a fun family film that should be enjoyed for just that - fun. All the 'realists' in the world should lighten up or stick to watching documentaries or docudramas and avoid any other type of film. So sorry for those young folks who watched this movie first and then were able to go to the real SpaceCamp (one in Alabama and one at Vandenberg AFB in California) - they must have gone expecting to find the same type of environment that was portrayed in the movie and then felt 'letdown'...I guess their parents didn't explain the difference between fantasy and reality. Oh well. If you love fantasy-fun films and haven't seen this one, I highly recommend it! Enjoy! | positive |
Countless TV displays and the memorable appearances from 4 of today's mega-stars(plus Hope Davis's screen debut) keep Flatliners still in prudence. The plot is about a non-academic research of five medicine undergrads pursuing one's crazy idea on discovering the secret of death, and learn what's after death, then come back to life again. Yet the storyline hasn't been designed as fascinating as the idea of the plot.<br /><br />There are popular stereotypes to develop a regular teen-slasher script in Flatliners. There is Nelson who creates the idea of decoding death, pretty but introverted Rachel, David who cuts the Gordian knot on luckily not to be dismissed from the school, ladies' man Joe and finally the smart guy Randy("I did not come to medical school to murder my class mates no matter how deranged they might be"). They join hands altogether in an experiment where Nelson's heart will be stopped and rerythmed. Then they decide to continue this experiment in strict confidence at night times in the campus. Not long after Nelson's experience everyone starts a race over having the wildest and the longest death experience, risking their lives one by one. Yet, soon they realize their daily life becomes affected from those experiences they had. The visits to the afterlife brings back their delinquent feelings from their childhood memories. Depolarizing their deep subconscious watchfulness, they begin having somatic delusions and visual hallucinations.<br /><br />When the point comes where the explanation of subconscious, director Joel Schumacher skips that every humankind has a subconscious personality which they are not aware of. This inner personality keeps one from altering into identity loss. If you lose or if you depolarize this subconscious personality you certainly lose your identity instead of refreshing childhood memories. I wanted to add this as a movie mistake, which already has been mentioned via movie critics in the earlier 90s'. Obviously here in this movie Schumacher made the actors have it least affected. Then why do they hesitate continuing on the experiment after learning their lesson, as if death is designed indiscoverable by God? David had been introduced as an Atheist, now he turned out to believe in God when he recalled a flashback from his childhood. After witnessing this 180 degreed change in David, it's clear to see that Schumacher's film was so conservative and lily-livered; that's ultimately why it's never classified as a work of science fiction. Alas! It had a good potential. It even tried to tell the unconscious maturation from having a death experience, beginning to believe that death is so simply natural and it's only a part of a human's life.<br /><br />More than what's in the movie, it was also memorable to recall what's with the movie. Jan de Bont as the cinematographer, who had worked almost every time with Schumacher, creates an dreamy atmosphere like it's being an Gothic horror movie. The blue color schemes all over the walls reflecting into the actors' faces deliver first class of lighting, that suits perfectly with the film. The close-up shots of the gargoyle statues in the campus buildings, Catholic frescoes in the walls, stop-motion cameras, and the dynamic camera speeds were all belong to Bont's skills.<br /><br />Flatliners became a cult movie in time with its sociological pen-portrait of the X-generation juvenile especially via its futuristic editing style with storyboard connection sequences like being part of a video music clip so much aesthetically. Those were the times where fast-paced and multi-sequenced video music clips were on rise. This style was very rare to come across in those years after its pioneer Tony Scott's "The Hunger(1983)". | positive |
Kirk and crew land on a lonely planet where the sun is about to explode. They intend to evacuate the inhabitants but find the place deserted except for a Mr. Atoz who operates some sort of high-tech library. Despite trying to get a straight answer from him about everyone's whereabouts, Atoz is indifferent to their questions and insist they must quickly 'make a selection while there is still time'. They have no idea what he's talking about but wander about looking at the hand mirror-like disks on the viewers and they see images of the planet's past. Then, while a disk is in the viewer, Kirk runs through the doorway and is magically transported back in time to what on Earth would look like the time of Louis XIV (the 1660s). When McCoy and Spock follow, a different disk is in the viewer and they are sent to an ice age hell. All too late they realize that the library is a time travel machine and repository.<br /><br />While Kirk's visit is pretty short and not all that exciting, Spock and McCoy's is much more eventful, as Spock falls head over heels for Mariette Hartley--who was sent to this awful place as a punishment. The scenes with Spock are exceptionally interesting and very atypical of the normally logical guy.<br /><br />Spock's departure from the norm, the wildly inventive script and very diverse locales make this an exceptional episode--one well worth seeing.<br /><br />FYI--Ian Wolfe, the excellent character actor, played Mr. Atoz. I am a huge fan of older films and have seen him as a supporting and bit player in countless films in the 30s and 40s and he looked almost exactly like he did in this episode from 1969. Interestingly enough, despite looking ancient, he lived on another 23 years--dying at over 95 years of age!! | positive |
If you take the films, Mad Max, Beyond Thunderdome, and the movie Steel Dawn with Patrick Swayze, you will have a pretty good idea what the film is about. The only problems is, that the film lacks the production values of either, and represent mainly cheap copy of the former two. True, the film has plenty of action, but asks the viewer to suspend belief. No one can shoot a 50 Caliber Machine gun by holding it in his hand - and miss everything to boot, nor can you shoot at a group of people with an automatic weapon and miss the whole bunch. There is also a problem with poor editing, when the school bus flips over, it is easy enough to see the cannon used to do the job. And the lady driving the truck through it is superfluous, since she had more than enough time to stop the truck. If you are interested only in mindless action and violence then the movie is easy enough to watch. But don't expect anything on paar with Thunderdome, or even the somewhat cheap and tacky Steel Dawn. | negative |
Even duller, if possible, than the original (I hope I may say that under the IMDb guidelines). THE FRENCH CONNECTION at least tried to absorb European influences, to complicate the conventional view of the American police detective, even if the attempt was foundered by Friedkin's ambivalence, Americaness and general indirection. The (relative) arthouse boom of the 1960s (especially with the nouvelle vague) allowed for a huge influence of European cinema in Hollywood. This lent a new vigour and complexity to a weary medium, and, in the best of them (eg BONNIE AND CLYDE, early Scorcese), a new subversion of received practice. The original CONNECTION was part of this movement, with its difficultly distanced style, and anti-detective figure. TWO is old Hollywood's right-wing reassertion of American values.<br /><br />This is figured in the film's very tiresome America vs France dialectic. For instance, TWO is shot like a 70s French policier. It was the French, of course, who insisted on the greatness of American movies when they were ignored at home, and this, in a sense, is a reclamation, a warning against Gallic presumption. This can be seen in the pattern of the two movies. CONNECTION has French gangsters invading New York, with the French style smothering the American thriller - this leads to the dissolution of the detective figure, and irresolution of plot - the baddie got away. <br /><br />TWO has the American returning to France, with American thriller values imposed on the native genre - the power of the detective is reasserted and conventional resolution is achieved. This is further dramatised in Doyle's relationship with French inspector Barthelmy, whose dominant influence he must shake off before he can control the plot.<br /><br />TWO seems to follow the original by undermining its detective hero. From the start, Doyle's importance is diminished at every turn. Despite the ending of CONNECTION, he is considered a hero. But he is an American in a foreign land, and his inability to control language or customs means he cannot dominate the plot. He even misreads the signs of the police force, mistaking an informer for a criminal, and getting him killed. <br /><br />A detective's power comes from his power as subject to see and interpret, but Doyle spends much of the movie being watched, controlled, an object, a body (literally in the scenes after he is dumped by Charnier) to be viewed and interpreted. In CONNECTION, he instigated the action, chasing the criminals, forcing the plot; here he is passive, tied to a bed, locked in a cell, an addict, a dependent.<br /><br />This loss of phallic power is predictably symbolised in the loss of his gun, and the film follows a depressingly familiar Oedipal trajectory. In the heroin sequences, he is comforted by an old lady who says he looks like her son. His drugged state is like a return to the womb, robbed of adult pressures. Her taking his watch reinforces the timelessness of this state, doubly significant for a man whose career depends on timetables and precision.<br /><br />Oedipus was the first detective, and to avoid his fate, Doyle must reject this false mother who is dissolving his unified identity, and kill the father (Charnier) so that he can take his accepted masculine role in society. Psychoanalytic theory was popular among academics in the 70s(ironically instigated by a Frenchman, Jacques Lacan), but it's rare to see a film so literally full of it. <br /><br />If all of these facts tended towards the minimising of Doyle, then the film's style doesn't. Friedkin distanced us from his hero by refusing empathy or character motivation, focusing on the mechanics of plot. Here, Doyle is a very conventional Hollywood hero. Instead of being lost in murky long shot, he is made knowable and understandable to the viewer with the traditional devices - point-of-view shots, close ups, connecting shots etc.<br /><br />TWO is all about the fall and rise of Popeye Doyle. Plot in this case is subservient to the acting, which is the usual Hackman showiness. The cold turkey scenes, therefore, despite their tediousness, are not disturbing. We are allowed to share rather than coldly observe; this a far less discomforting experience. The scenes are also shot through with a lachrymose manly sentimentality that is very American. <br /><br />So while CONNECTION tried to imitate the complex thrillers of Jean Pierre Melville, TWO does the complete opposite. Melville's LE SAMOURAI featured a gangster who started the film whole, powerful, outside language, and charted his eventual disintegration. TWO starts with a disintegrated character, achieved partly through inability with language, whose dominance begins when he steps outside language - the concluding action sequences are largely wordless. <br /><br />In the film, the locale and language are important as they fixed and undermined the detective, but as he regains his power (figured in the return of his gun, and the cathartic burning of the primal site of vulnerability, the tower block where Charnier held him), the Marseilles setting becomes more irrelevant, and the mythic stand-off, which could take place anywhere, takes over. Compare the endings of the two films: one admits ambiguity and despair, the other absolute certainty.<br /><br /> | negative |
Although i am inclined to agree with the other comments made by people who have seen this movie, i am ashamed to say i rather like it. Not often can such a huge pile of 80s pap be found outside of a Wham! video, so it is most definitely worth a viewing (£0.79 a night in my local store!). Watch out for the insanely obvious seams and zip on the monster's costume, the fact that the 'hero' looks a lot like Keith Chegwin and such classic lines as the following: Evil Wizard-Type Bloke: "At last we meet Kor..." Kor: "Thrilling, isn't it?"<br /><br />Amazing!!I also like the fact that although the video box looks quite exciting with images of a castle surrounded by raging seas and a dangerous falcon-like bird carrying a handsome hero to safety (among other such 'interesting and engaging' suggestions of what goes on in the actual film, none of them actually happen. No, I'm not joking...there really isn't a raging sea or a ferocious bird, it's just trying to make you interested...classic in my opinion. This film gets 10 for pure entertainment value!! | positive |
There are two things that I noticed in this film. (This is not a spoiler, just a mistake in storytelling.) When Cole takes Bill to his first B&E, he finds the "box". As soon as Cole finds it he says, "The box. Everyone's got a box". A minute later, just before he dumps the contents on the floor he says, "We're actually very fortunate. You don't see these often".<br /><br />Observation #2 (Spoiler Alert!)<br /><br />I had to watch the thing three times, I couldn't figure a couple of things out. Then I watched the Chronological version and saw that they were having flash backs from the latter to the previous during the time changes. So at some points we were actually watching three different times in about 1 min of wall time.<br /><br />That was a good thing because I don't know how many more times I could watch it before returning it to Netflix.<br /><br />Color me obsessive. | positive |
Like classic Hollywood musicals, the plot is just an excuse. A must see for those interested in French music hall (including a song by Édith Piaf) and for the wonderful 10 plus minute cancan finale. The dancing in the film is not at all like what usually passes for cancan.<br /><br />Some might object to the Technicolor costumes and the bright lighting, but it gives you a clear view of some grand costumes and sets.<br /><br />Consider it Jean Renoir's love letter to the Paris he grew up in. Certainly the Jean Renoir film for people who don't like his serious films or who only like his Hollywood productions.<br /><br /> | positive |
This is by far the worst thing I have ever seen on film. My uncle's home movies have more talent in them then this piece of crap.<br /><br />The plot summary is basically that these twin kick boxers are playing some sick survival game with a man and his private army on some island. The man has a very cheap paper maché looking hand.<br /><br />The acting is atrocious in this movie. There are scene changes at the drop of the hat. For instance, for at least 30 seconds we see some guy humming a song to himself which adds NOTHING to the movie. This has the worst dialogue I have ever heard of in my life, I don't think this movie could get any worse then it already is. I would describe it as a want to be chuck Norris action film gone wrong. And I hate chuck Norris. | negative |
I had never seen a silent movie until July 24, 2005. I had never seen a movie with Mary Pickford in it. I've seen thousands of movies. Very few are hypnotic to me. I found Last of the Mohicans and Unforgettable (Ray Liotta) to be hypnotic, so consider the source as you read this. I started watching Tess of the Storm Country on TCM just to see who this Mary Pickford was, who has been credited by many for launching Hollywood. I had no idea what I was in for. Two hours later, I snapped out of it, and realized I'd watched one of the most beautiful women I had ever seen, playing a role perfectly suited to her. Imagine a movie fan in 1922, having never seen anyone that gorgeous and that expressive before. You would have to see her again and again. The setting was perfect for a girl that expressive. She was a poor squatter, couldn't speak the King's English, but you had to admire her. What a movie... time to start my Mary Pickford movie collection! | positive |
The title is onomatopoeic, the sound of a streetcar clacking on the rails. It is metaphoric for all that the people who live in the dump cannot have. The misery of those people is illustrated by the passing streetcar which represents the relatively unobtainable rich life of the middle class. The pathos of the little boy and his beloved yet sadly insane father is most touching. This was Kurosawa's first film in colour and he uses beautifully shocking hues, colours seen only in dreams. The movie is surreal and surpassing in beauty. The compassion for humanity is the underling force, but as always, Kurosawa is focused on capturing the beauty of the film. It is a masterwork by a genius of cinema. | positive |
Scary Movie 1-4, Epic Movie, Date Movie, Meet the Spartans, Not another Teen Movie and Another Gay Movie. Making "Superhero Movie" the eleventh in a series that single handily ruined the parody genre. Now I'll admit it I have a soft spot for classics such as Airplane and The Naked Gun but you know you've milked a franchise so bad when you can see the gags a mile off. In fact the only thing that might really temp you into going to see this disaster is the incredibly funny but massive sell-out Leslie Neilson.<br /><br />You can tell he needs the money, wither that or he intends to go down with the ship like a good Capitan would. In no way is he bringing down this genre but hell he's not helping it. But if I feel sorry for anybody in this film its decent actor Drake Bell who is put through an immense amount of embarrassment. The people who are put through the largest amount of torture by far however is the audience forced to sit through 90 minutes of laughless bile no funnier than herpes.<br /><br />After spoofing disaster films in Airplane!, police shows in The Naked Gun, and Hollywood horrors in Scary Movie 3 and 4, producer David Zucker sets his satirical sights on the superhero genre with this anarchic comedy lampooning everything from Spider-Man to X-Men and Superman Returns.<br /><br />Shortly after being bitten by a genetically altered dragonfly, high-school outcast Rick Riker (Drake Bell) begins to experience a startling transformation. Now Rick's skin is as strong as steel, and he possesses the strength of ten men. Determined to use his newfound powers to fight crime, Rick creates a special costume and assumes the identity of The Dragonfly -- a fearless crime fighter dedicated to keeping the streets safe for law-abiding citizens.<br /><br />But every superhero needs a nemesis, and after Lou Landers (Christopher McDonald) is caught in the middle of an experiment gone horribly awry, he develops the power to leech the life force out of anyone he meets and becomes the villainous Hourglass. Intent on achieving immortality, the Hourglass attempts to gather as much life force as possible as the noble Dragonfly sets out to take down his archenemy and realize his destiny as a true hero. Craig Mazin writes and directs this low-flying spoof.<br /><br />featuring Tracy Morgan, Pamela Anderson, Leslie Nielsen, Marion Ross, Jeffrey Tambor, and Regina Hall.<br /><br />Hell Superhero Movie may earn some merit in the fact that it's a hell of a lot better than Meet the Spartans and Epic Movie. But with great responsibility comes one of the worst outings of 2008 to date. Laughless but a little less irritating than Meet the Spartans. And in the same sense much more forgettable than meet the Spartans. But maybe that's a good reason. There are still some of us trying to scrape away the stain that was Meet the Spartans from our memory.<br /><br />My final verdict? Avoid, unless you're one of thoses people who enjoy such car crash cinema. As bad as Date Movie and Scary Movie 2 but not quite as bad as Meet the Spartans or Epic Movie. Super Villain. | negative |
I saw "The Reader" at a film festival in Manhattan this week. It touched my heart in a way that few short films have done. In ten or so minutes, it tells a poignant two-character story that resonated deeply with me. Duncan Rogers has done a superb job capturing very real, tender moments on film. What I really admire about this film is that the director has chosen a story appropriate to the short format. These are genuinely interesting characters, and their story is told in the perfect length of time. This is no small feat. Haven't we all seen shorts that are simply longer stories squeezed to fit the format, or stage stories that weren't properly adapted to screen? I applaud "The Reader" for really doing it right, and I encourage anyone who is interested in film and in storytelling to look at it seriously. Worth every moment! | positive |
Terrible. The only way I could even begin to consider it funny is if it made fun of itself. "Amazing. It's about an ass that fights crime. And he drinks/smokes! How very funny! It's funny because where most people put things in their mouth, he puts them in himself! And now he's getting sexual service from some lady! This show is so great!" That is what I would have to say if I liked the show, though I'm sure you can see the obvious sarcasm. I've noticed some people have been comparing this show to 12 oz. Mouse and Squid Billies. Why would you even try? There's nothing to compare. The other two shows actually have some decent character development. In conclusion, I hate Assy Mcgee. I twinge at the name of it. | negative |
This was Chaplin's first all-talking picture, and the results are mixed. The movie is a biting satire of Hitler and Mussolini, their henchmen and their fanatical way of life, especially regarding the persecution of the Jews. It was daring and forward for 1940 and must have made a lot of people squirm.<br /><br />When compared to Chaplin's earlier works, this is quite pale in comparison. The sweet, funny style of his silents, in my opinion, is far superior to his first talkie. There are lots of meaningless bits that drag on. If this was a silent, it probably would not have happened.<br /><br />I find one of the funniest moments to be the musical barber moment and the globe dance. One of the most touching moments is, obviously, the speech at the end.<br /><br />The Great Dictator is an effective and at times moving film that is a very big part of both Chaplin's history and movie history. It is flawed, but Chaplin is in great form. | positive |
By all the fawning people have been doing over Miike and his work. I sat through this flick tonight. I figured, if it's half as good as Ringu, as I assumed from these comments it might be, than it will be worth my time.<br /><br />No such luck.<br /><br />I'm all for finding the next great director (or writer), but I don't think Miike is the one. I don't have an NYU Masters of Fine Arts, but I do know this much: a horror movie has to have pacing. It also has to give the viewer more credulity than this movie does.<br /><br />This film's pacing had me shaking my head. Some of the scenes near the end dragged so badly, I went to the fridge and lingered there while Kou Shibasaki stared at the camera for seemingly minutes on end, eyes wide and mouth agape. A famous director once made the claim, and I'm paraphrasing, a movie could be made by turning the camera on a beautiful woman and letting it roll. Kou is not a good enough actress to make that work. She stares paralyzed at the undead girl for more scenes than I care to remember. And she isn't the only one doing an impersonation of a deer in headlights; other cast members apparently feel the need to imitate this non-performance. The script gives them little room to do much else for far too much of the time.<br /><br />I like Asian cinema. Hong Kong action flicks from the last 30 years, Korean horror like "Phone" and "Koma", Ang Lee's work, some of the trashy but fun Filipino movies with gratuitous sex and fighting, as well as others. Chakushin Ari I could have done without. | negative |
With the current trend of gross out humor, this film is the granddaddy of them all. While some of the humor is dated, every skit will either shock, repulse, or make you laugh out loud. Most memorable is the sex games commentary and, of course, the VD commercial. It doesn't always work, but pays off when it does. I give this a 7. | positive |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.