review stringlengths 32 13.7k | sentiment stringclasses 2 values |
|---|---|
Not that I dislike childrens movies, but this was a tearjerker with few redeeming qualities. M.J. Fox was the perfect voice for Stuart and the rest of the talent was wasted. Hugh Laurie can be amazingly funny, but is not given the chance in this movie. It´s sugar-coated sugar and would hardly appeal to anyone over 7 years of age. See Toy Story, Monsters Inc. or Shrek instead. 3/10 | negative |
Really, everybody in this movie looks like they want to be someplace else! No wonder, the casting is done not with the left hand, but rather not at all. I haven't seen anything worse than Natascha McElhone impersonating some sort of agent, carrying a gun. You don't use a spoiled city-brat-look in such a role. The only worse thing I can imagine is casting Doris Day as a prostitute. The rest of the cast is likewise awful, possibly with Hurt as the sole exception, sometimes you can see him trying, but suffering. Oh, did I mention that it is a completely insane story? Jeopardizing many peoples lives because you are divorced and want to see your family? Well, it must be because the guy (Weller) is German?<br /><br />2/10, because the photography could be worse. | negative |
I've seen this movie at least fifty times and after watching it last week for the first time in a long time I still FELT it.<br /><br />The story itself was incredible but came alive by Spielberg's expertise and the fabulous cast including Whoopi Goldberg, Oprah Winfrey, Danny Glover, and Margaret Avery. Akosua Busia deserved an Oscar nomination for her short but powerful portrayal of Nettie.<br /><br />You'll experience every human emotion while watching this film. I laughed, cried, and got angry. Like most great movies it was looked over by the Academy with a host of nominations but no wins. But this movie, without a doubt, is definitely one of the best films of all time. | positive |
Released as Zentropa in North America to avoid confusion with Agniezska Holland's own Holocaust film Europa Europa, this third theatrical feature by a filmmaker who never ceases to surprise, inspire or downright shock is a bizarre, nostalgic, elaborate film about a naive American in Germany shortly following the end of WWII. The American, named Leo, doesn't fully get what he's doing there. He has come to take part in fixing up the country since, in his mind, it's about time Germany was shown some charity. No matter how that sounds, he is not a Nazi sympathizer or so much as especially pro-German, merely mixed up. His uncle, who works on the railroad, gets Leo a job as a helmsman on a sleeping car, and he is increasingly enmeshed in a vortex of 1945 Germany's horrors and enigmas.<br /><br />This progression starts when Leo, played rather memorably by the calm yet restless actor Jean-Marc Barr, meets a sultry heiress on the train played by Barbara Sukowa, an actress with gentility on the surface but internal vigor. She seduces him and then takes him home to meet her family, which owns the company which manufactures the trains. These were the precise trains that took Jews to their deaths during the war, but now they run a drab day-to-day timetable, and the woman's Uncle Kessler postures as another one of those good Germans who were just doing their jobs. There is also Udo Kier, the tremendous actor who blew me away in Von Trier's shocking second film Epidemic, though here he is mere scenery.<br /><br />Another guest at the house is Eddie Constantine, an actor with a quiet strength, playing a somber American intelligence man. He can confirm that Uncle Kessler was a war criminal, though it is all completely baffling to Leo. Americans have been characterized as gullible rubes out of their element for decades, but little have they been more blithely unconcerned than Leo, who goes back to his job on what gradually looks like his own customized death train.<br /><br />The story is told in a purposely uncoordinated manner by the film's Danish director, Lars Von Trier, whose anchor is in the film's breathtaking editing and cinematography. He shoots in black and white and color, he uses double-exposures, optical effects and trick photography, having actors interact with rear-projected footage, he places his characters inside a richly shaded visceral world so that they sometimes feel like insects, caught between glass for our more precise survey.<br /><br />This Grand Jury Prize-winning surrealist work is allegorical, but maybe in a distinct tone for every viewer. I interpret it as a film about the last legs of Nazism, symbolized by the train, and the ethical accountability of Americans and others who appeared too late to salvage the martyrs of these trains and the camps where they distributed their condemned shiploads. During the time frame of the movie, and the Nazi state, and such significance to the train, are dead, but like decapitated chickens they persist in jolting through their reflexes.<br /><br />The characters, music, dialogue, and plot are deliberately hammy and almost satirically procured from film noir conventions. The most entrancing points in the movie are the entirely cinematographic ones. Two trains halting back and forth, Barr on one and Sukowa on another. An underwater shot of proliferating blood. An uncommonly expressive sequence on what it must be like to drown. And most metaphysically affecting of all, an anesthetic shot of train tracks, as Max von Sydow's voice allures us to hark back to Europe with him, and abandon our personal restraint. | positive |
Bill Rebane's "The Capture of Bigfoot" is one of the most awful horror movies ever made.A greedy sawmill owner Harvey Olsen(Richard Kennedy)decides that he wants Bigfoot captured at all costs.However local game ranger Dave Garrett(Stafford Morgan)learns that the Bigfoot used to live in peace upset by a geological expedition,and sets out to protect the creature.There is nothing even remotely interesting in this piece of crap.The film is extremely dull and filled with horrible songs and cheap special effects.No gore,no suspense-just gigantic boredom.Avoid this horrible junk like the plague. | negative |
Rock Star is a "nice" movie. Everyone is nice. Even the guys who aren't supposed to be nice, really are nice. Chris is a nice guy, who learns a lesson in life. He goes back to his girlfriend Emily, who is also nice. <br /><br />It's a good movie, despite all the niceness. Maybe I'm just used to all the angst of the X Gen music. In some ways the film was a caricature of Rock Stars and not hard edged enough to be believable.<br /><br />Mark Wahlberg's acting is quite good. Jennifer Aniston played her role well, but it was uncomplicated. She was a nice girl. <br /><br />Go see it. If you have ever been to a rock concert or seen Spinal Tap, go see it. | positive |
Philip. K. Dickian movie. And a decent one for that matter. Better than the Paycheck (Woo) and that abomination called Minority Report (Spielberg). But lets face it, the twisting and cheesing ending was a bit too much for me. Half way through the movie I already started to fear about such kind of ending, and I was regrettably right. But that does not mean that the film is not worth its time. No, not at all. First half (as already many here have commented) is awesome. There are some parts where you start to doubt whether the director intended to convey the message that showmanship is highly important thing in the future (we will do such kind on corny sf things because we CAN) or is it simply over combining. But the paranoia is there and feeling "out of joint" also. Good one. | negative |
This movie was painfully awful. Most of the movie consisted of people running in the woods, walking thru the woods, or dancing in the woods. More than half, at least. Then two kids who discover two 'horribly mutilated bodies' in the woods, return to the woods the very next night for a romantic walk. ????? There is no time continuity. its day, its night, its day, its really really night, its dusk, its pitch black, its day. All the woods scenes go on like this until you think you will lose your mind. really bad. The sheriff discovers a five foot claw print embedded in the dirt of the woods and theorizes that a super large alligator may have learned to walk upright. Really a silly movie with no real motivation written in for the characters. Might be entertaining for young kids, as an alternative to really graphic stuff. | negative |
I admit I have a weakness for alternate history stories, from ITS A WONDERFUL LIFE to GROUNDHOG DAY to 12:01. Among those greats is this little gem. It's pretty difficult to get through MR. DESTINY without giving a nod of appreciation to each and every cast member, from the goodhearted James Belushi to the murderous Courtney Cox. This movie lacks the gravitas and scale to make it a great film, but it's a fine cheer-up on a rainy afternoon. It's also a great rental for an inexpensive date. | positive |
This would have worked a lot better if it had been made as "Mitchell in Malta." At least then we would have been spared the sight of Joe Don Baker running around an otherwise scenic Mediterranean locale clad in that ridiculous looking cowboy outfit...not to mention acting like an Old West gunslinger. Mitchell being Mitchell, the film wouldn't have suffered from a lack of gratuitous police brutality either. Oh well. At least the comic comments of Mike and the Bots made this enjoyable fare as an episode of MST. I can't imagine watching it on it's own, however. | positive |
Personally I couldn't get into 'This is Not a Love Song', its a brilliant film and there's a great story line to it, I just found myself checking the time on my phone every two minuets to see how much was left of the film.<br /><br />I love the relationship between Spike and Heaton, there that close they depend on each other to get along in life. At the same time I wish the relationship was more than what it is. Heaton is in love with spike, but Spike Ibsen't in love with Heaton, or he doesn't know how to love him. The acts of betrayal, on both parts, have a big effect on the two men. They are both devastated by the fact that the other ran away and abandoned them, at a time when they truly needed each other for survival. | positive |
Oh God. Why is it that Nickelodeon has such a hard time producing even a half-decent movie? I mean, this movie might have been good, but it was:<br /><br />A. Too short B. Rather superficial, stereotypical, and insulting to some C. Ultimately pointless<br /><br />First of all, the "dress up the nerd to look cool" thing was VERY consumerist, VERY superficial, VERY pointless, and VERY insulting. It has the stereotypical nerds-stupid faces, glasses, never kissed, vacations with his mom, etc. Well maybe the reason that guy has never kissed a girl is because he's gay! Does that mean that all gays are nerds? And what's wrong with being friends with your mother?<br /><br />The worst part, by far, was the ending. The whole drama of the movie revolved around Zoey finding out Chase loved her, and blah blah blah, and then, when Chase finally decided to tell her, <br /><br />A. he didn't tell her in person because right as he was about to the typical distraction came along B. he tried to text message her, but her PDA fell into a fountain and died before she got the message.<br /><br />The End.<br /><br />HOW LAME IS THAT????? I mean, why is it that cartoonists just can't change anything in the series? So many of us would like to see these two get together. Why can't we see it? I mean, are the producers really that uncreative, that they can't think up new problems to go with changes in the series? So they have to stick with the same plot and outlines, and make as many episodes as they can just using those? After a while, it gets dull and frustrating.<br /><br />I WANTED TO SEE SOME ACTUAL ROMANCE IN HERE, DARN IT!<br /><br />Okay. I'm done with my rant. | negative |
1) Bad acting.<br /><br />2) For a bunch of castaways on an alien planet, it sure looked like home, especially with the houses and roads you can glimpse in the background.<br /><br />3) Terrible plot with stupid caracters making idiotic decisions and blithely losing precious survival equipment and clothing left, right and center.<br /><br />4) Cool 70's scifi jumpsuits (possibly the only good thing about this movie)<br /><br />5) Interesting ship at the beginning (this crew must have been watching Space 1999 a lot). Too bad it blows up so early. The escape ship also got sunk too fast. *sigh*<br /><br />6) Anthropologists might find some aspects of the movie interesting in terms of primate group behavior. | negative |
The use of "astral projection"(wandering soul), to exist outside of body, with the result inflicting horrible death(..crushing the insides of victims leading to broken spine and ruptured organs)on those close to the one with such ability, is the threat of ETERNAL EVIL, providing Karen Black(..as Janus) with another "unique" character to fool around with as a woman who influences a commercial director, Paul Sharpe(Winston Rekert) tired of his waning marriage and dull career. In actuality, she's dying and needs his body, her spirit potentially harmful to his wife and son(..his son has a "special friend" who talks him into things, even poisoning himself at one point). A detective, Kauffman(John Novak) investigating the unusual homicides concerning those killed by the benevolent spirit, links Paul to the deaths and through him uncovers Janus. Soon both realize that Janus must be stopped or she'll simply move to another human host. What Paul doesn't know is that his new secretary is Janus' lover, both were actually older intellectuals featured in his documentary of astral projection called WANDERING SOUL.<br /><br />Director George Mihalka(My Bloody Valentine)certainly creates a weird atmosphere with this movie which contains a rather bizarre premise. It seems that Paul's boy can see the spirit moving in the shape of a "blue man", manipulating the kid into disorderly conduct. Black, despite the star treatment, rarely is shot close up taking advantage of her face which can produce the type of malevolent evil her character warrants. Instead, she's shot from afar, her voice dubbed, and she never quite establishes herself with the proper menace which is an opportunity lost, in my opinion. For some reason, despite the intriguing(..if oddball)idea of astral projection causing a spirit to kill folks from within, the film just never takes off. The soundtrack is very "Yanni-ish" and the lighting(..and sound), while at times moody and effective, often is quite murky. The pacing is a problem, also, as the story mules along. The cast is rather limp, especially Rekert in the lead, his performance erratic, at best. It doesn't help that there are few characters(..except Paul's wife)we could care less about, and what really hurts is that Paul himself isn't exactly the most lovable person in the world..he can be quite difficult and moody, his unfulfilled career a reason for such behavior. Black should've been a more prominent figure in the film, yet remains mostly in the background, talked about in dialogue between Paul and Kauffman, but rarely does she get a chance to amuse us with her histrionics, which is a shame. | negative |
Wow, I can't believe i'm the first and only one to post a comment on this great movie.<br /><br />Although the movie itself seemed interesting enough the real thing that attracted me to this one is Matt lillard, granted most people probably either think he's too caffeine happy or just plain sucks but we're both the same age and from the same generation and i've watched this guy so many times that he's one of my favorites now. This is one of the few movies where he is the big shot and main star kind of like in SLC Punk, another great Lillard film.<br /><br />Baiscally this is storywise your usual heist movies but with more twists than anything, which start to amount to craziness. Also very notable in this movie is another great actor named vincent D'onofrio, a very under appreciated person in the film industry. The woman in the movie is a newcomer and she isn't too bad although you know they hired her mainly for her accent and the nude scene =)<br /><br />It's a game of jack vs jill vs bob as each want to reap the rewards but share with no one. They all try to get eachother to kill off the other and it's a timebomb waiting to explode. Matt shows his true prowess as the scheming JAck who initially starts the whole scheme. Vincent and woman play a couple of art thieves who are in need of money due to a lack of business. Vince's character is a bit deranged and skitz's throughout the movie but that only add to the intensity of the film.<br /><br />The surprises left and right are well welcomed and the ending is very non cliche and makes you feel happy, well maybe that depends on the type of endings you like. This movie kept me very interested besides the fact Matt was in it, it's a great movie and i'd highly recommend it to anyone who likes movies. Critic's probably won't like this movie, but they don't watch movies cause they like movies anyway. | positive |
I can't believe anyone liked this movie. I've seen a lot of low-budget indie films, but this one absolutely sucked. Low budget doesn't mean the movie has to be demented. Horror doesn't mean the movie has to be demented. There was nothing scary about this movie at all. It was just a gore-fest, and a particularly disturbing one at that. The acting was average, considering they were all unheard of actors, but the story was pathetic, the dialog was pathetic. The movie tries to come off as "artistic", or something. This is not one of those really great indie films that cost only thousands of dollars to make, but are incredibly well done. This was nothing more than an excuse for some extremely sick people to put their perverse obsessions on film. Other reviews here also said that the soundtrack sucked...that's because most of it was written by the same person, and some of the songs were written by one of the writers of the movie. There were no redeeming qualities to this movie at all. A complete waste of my time and money. | negative |
Normally, I am a pretty generous critic, but in the case of this film I have to say it was incredibly bad. I am stunned by how positive most reviews seem to be.<br /><br />There were some gorgeous shots, but it's too bad they were wasted on this sinkhole of a movie. It might have worked if "Daggers" was purely an action flick and not a romance, but unfortunately the film is built around an empty love triangle. There is no chemistry between either of the couples, whatever exists between Mei and her men seems to be more lust than love, and for the most part the dialogue is just silly. This may be just a problem with translation, but the frequent usage of the word "flirt" in particular reminded me of 8th grade, not head-over-heels, together forever, worth-dying-for love; I also felt we were beat over the head with the wind metaphor. The audience is given very little about the characters to really care about, and therefore very little emotional investment in the movie as a whole. I was wishing for a remote control to fast forward, I was slumped in my seat ready to snore, but mostly I just cringed a lot.<br /><br />*******spoiler*****<br /><br />Now, the icing on the cake. Or rather, adding insult to injury. The ending was truly one of the most horrible, laughable ones I have ever seen. The boys are having their stag fight and screaming and yelling and hacking at each other. Oh, and then it starts to snow. Randomly. Oh, and then Mei (dagger embedded in heart) suddenly pops up out of the weeds. Then she throws a dagger that seems to take about 5 minutes to reach it's destination, even slowing conveniently midscreen to hit a tiny blood droplet. Wow, cool.<br /><br />Well, then Mei dies finally I guess because she threw the dagger that was lodged in her chest and bled to death. Jin sings, sobs, holds her body close, screen goes blank. I, and the people surrounding me, are chuckling. Not a good sign.<br /><br />Visually stunning, but ultimately a failure. | negative |
Horrible film. About an old crusty painter who hangs around with a young girl. Boring. Tatum O Neil goes through the motions in her part, and has some of the corniest lines in film history. Richard Burton looks close to death in this film, and we're supposed to believe he looks "Good for sixty". The acting is bad, as is the plot. The characters are awful, as is the story. It's really hard to feel for anyone in this film, except Larry Ewashen who plays a guy in a porno theater who hits on Tatum, he's kind of funny. This movie is really a waste of time. If you are a Tatum fan, like me - which is why I rented it in the first place - please don't see this movie. She is really bad in it, and you'll wonder if maybe PAPER MOON was a fluke. It wasn't, because of BAD NEWS BEARS and LITTLE DARLINGS it's known she can act well, but still, don't rent this movie. And if you're a fan of Burton, rent something when he was good looking, and not a fossil. | negative |
The movie is more about Pony than Grey Owl. It's also about aboriginals, Canada, the English, Grey Owl's aunts and the North Bay Nugget. Excellent story.<br /><br />This is an excellent movie, more like a book, that raises interesting questions about cultural identity and values. The key scene is Grey Owl admitting his imposture to Pony and her reaction.<br /><br />A few observations on the user ratings. Note that the user ratings are bi-polar clustering at 5 and 7; it's not for everyone, but has a strong following. This movie is underrated and overlooked but will be noticed for years to come. Also, few women have watched the movie but they rate it more highly than men. Has it been marketed properly?<br /><br /> | positive |
Rented this from my local Blockbuster under the title SPECK - that may be the way to look for it if you still feel the need to see it after this review.<br /><br />It's a movie about the serial killer Richard Speck, who killed several nurses in Chicago in the sixties. Watching the movie, one gets the feeling that it follows the crimes to the letter. Unfortunately, that doesn't make for a good movie.<br /><br />Another problem I had was the near-constant music letting us know that this was a SCARY MOVIE, and some god-awful narration letting us know what's motivating Speck. The acting was average for this type of film; to give credit where credit is due, the movie is very beautifully photographed for my taste. Your mileage may vary.<br /><br />Over all, if you're interested in the subject matter, it may be worth your time. | negative |
I still find it difficult to comprehend that a movie as bad as this could be made in Hollywood. The acting and story is simply pathetic & the direction is awful. I don't see any logic behind this trash except may be that the director had nothing good to do. I took me ten minutes to realize that i had wasted my precious thirty rupees. It filled me with dismay that i was going to waste some more time of my life on this crap. I bet the movie was made in less than a day. I don't know what category it falls into. Please, avoid this movie at all costs, just do anything, even bang your head against walls but don't go for this movie. | negative |
This movie must have looked when it was being pitched at development stage and getting a Redgrave and a Jacobi on board must have excited the money men. All I can say is that they clearly did not have anything on that week. Jacobi camps it up in the way that only Jacobi can do and I thought that he seemed to more of the actor that he parodied in his cameo role in Frasier a few years back. Vinnie Jones is not exactly bad, he is just clearly out of his depth as a leading man. He is really quite amiable throughout and if this was a pilot for a TV series, it may have just got picked up. However, the scipt and the camera work were appalling. Quite why this "jounalist" and a press officer from the Met would ever work together is never explained. It certainly cannot have been because of the sexual chemistry, of which there is none. There is nothing wrong with a ridiculous and far fetched plot that you can pass off as original, but the whole thing is just so contrived that the two stories just do not make sense at all. It was like two stories confusingly edited in to one just to make up two hours. Go watch some paint dry for a couple of hours. You life will be more fulfilled than watching this rubbish | negative |
What a terrible movie. The acting was bad, the pacing was bad, the cinematography was bad, the directing was bad, the "special" effects were bad. You expect a certain degree of badness in a slasher, but even the killings were bad.<br /><br />First of all, the past event that set up the motive for the slaughter went on for 15 or 20 minutes. I thought it would never end. They could have removed 80% of it and explained what happened well enough.<br /><br />Then, the victims were invited to the "reunion" in an abandoned school which still had all the utilities turned on. One of the victims thought this was a little odd, but they dismissed it and decided to break in anyway.<br /><br />Finally, the killings were so fake as to be virtually unwatchable.<br /><br />There is no reason to watch this movie, unless you want to see some breasts, and not very good breasts at that. This movie makes Showgirls virtually indistinguishable from Citizen Kane. | negative |
This is yet another gritty and compelling film directed by Sam Fuller in the early 1950s. This minimalist and fast-working director has something unusual for his earlier films--a cast with some stars. Richard Widmark, Jean Peters and Richard Kiley star in this film about a group of Communist agents who are trying to sneak secrets out of America--and they'll stop at nothing to succeed.<br /><br />The film starts with Peters on a subway car being watched by federal agents. They know she is a link in a long espionage chain. Unknown to everyone is the wild card in the equation--a small-time pickpocket (Widmark) is also on the train and he manages to steal the secrets that Peters is carrying. Widmark thinks it's just another purse he's ransacked--only later does he realize the seriousness of what he's stolen. Now it's Widmark on his own--with Commies and the FBI hot on his trail.<br /><br />Widmark and the rest are exceptional and the film is gripping from start to finish. Although she didn't get top billing, a special mention should be made of Thelma Ritter. This supporting actress had perhaps the performance of her lifetime as a stool pigeon. Seldom was she given this much of a chance to act and I was impressed by her ability to play a broken down and sad old lady.<br /><br />As far as the script and directing go, they are very good--but with one small exception. At first, I loved the way Widmark and Peters interacted. It's one of the few times on film you'll see a woman punched square in the mouth! Now THAT'S tough. Later, inexplicably, they become amazingly close--too close to be believable. Still, with so much great drama and such an effective Noir-like film, this can be overlooked. See this film. | positive |
Stinger starts '3 Months Ago' on the submarine the SS Newark where genetic experiments have gone awry & the crew member are brutally slaughtered by large killer scorpions... Jump to 'Camp Pendleton' a couple of months later where General Ashford (James Cagnard) brief's Lieutenant Williams (John Miranda) on his mission to board the Newark & assist genetic scientist Dr. Carly Ryan (Michelle Meadows), before anyone knows it a group of corporate scientists & marines are on-board the Newark & are shocked to discover he mutilated corpses of the crew apart from Dr. Mike Thompson (Casey Clark) who doesn't make much sense. It's not long before the scorpions attack, first to fall is Lt. Williams so Sergeant Sam Harmon (Christopher Persson) is promoted & takes the responsibility to get everyone to safety & end the menace of the giant scorpions forever...<br /><br />This Sweedish America co-production was directed by Martin Munthe & he also handled the cinematography & I thought this was a strictly by-the-numbers uninspiring creature feature. It's early into the new year & Stinger is the first giant genetically mutated monster/creature/insect type film I've seen in 2007, hopefully things can only get better... The script by Mat Nastos is incredibly clichéd & gets all of it's ideas from other films most notably Aliens (1986), lets see there's the isolated location in this case being a submarine, there's the hastily assembled team of marines including one who chews on a cigar throughout the entire film, there's the scientists including a blonde Sweedish one to try & explain it all & the evil money grabbing corporate villain who puts the mighty dollar above human life & the final ingredient being the monster/alien/insect or whatever, in this case there's loads of large scorpions running around but they're not utilised in any sort of unique or imaginative way so they might as well have been killer grasshoppers. Yeah, it's all here, unfortunately Stinger isn't an Aliens if you get what I mean. It's a touch long at over 100 minutes & it's throughly predictable although it moves along at a reasonable pace & as a dumb creature feature you could do worse despite what many say on the IMDb...<br /><br />Director Munthe doesn't distinguish himself, it's not scary, there's a lack of atmosphere & the action scenes are dull & unexciting. There's not many scorpion attacks & it's almost an hour before any significant action occurs, the special effects are at the bottom end of the scale but I have seen worse that's for sure. I mean that's not to say the effects in Stinger are good but I've seen worse. There isn't much blood or gore, there's some mutilated bodies, some decapitated heads & someone is ripped in half. The only clever & amusing moment in the entire film is when the naked Sweedish female scientist ask's her lover to turn her on by talking about all the money their going to make from the scorpions... However there was a moment which had me groaning & tearing my hair out in it's stupidity as a bloke tries to repair the submarine's circuitry & get the lights working by hitting the power supply/computer boards with a hammer & it works as well...<br /><br />Technically Stinger is average at best & there's the usual endless amount of dark corridors which gets monotonous. Stinger was shot in Stockholm in Sweeden if your interested. The acting was poor & there's nothing else to say.<br /><br />Stinger isn't a great film & it isn't a great horror film either, I can't recommend it at all but I've seen worse. If you liked Stinger (unlikely) you might like the similarly themed 'giant scorpions on the loose' films Tail Sting (2001) or Scorpius Gigantus (2006) (just as unlikely). | negative |
The first thing I thought when I saw this films was: It is not really a film, at least it is not what we imagine spontaneously when we hear the word "film". it is entirely symbolic, everything in it has a figurative meaning. So if you are not used to express thing in a symbolic way, you will find it strange, if you are not acquainted with philosophy, religion, spiritual life, you will think it's just a fairy-tale... and even a weird one, chaotic. For me "The legend of Zu" is perfectly transparent. And I do like it. It tells us in images the story about the fight between light and darkness, the fight that is as old as humanity, and every one who is in search of the sens in this life is confronted with it. The film is obviously made by Buddhists. I am not a Buddhist. My religion and the vision of the world and human is different. But as far as we are all humans and have the same human nature we necessarily have common experiences and can understand each other. It is a really beautiful film! And I which we had more films like this - films that have a meaning. There are too many empty stories which are good only to make time pass more quickly. | positive |
Leonard Maltin must've been watching some other movie. (Though I find his Guide to be quite a valuable resource, please disregard his comments on this one.) He states "starts off well then fizzles" when it's really the reverse - "starts off tepid then catches fire". The plot is about as simple as it gets. Happy Mom, Happy Dad and Happy Son take a vacation at an isolated beach, Dad incapacitated in accident, Mom runs off to get help, meets up with dangerous escaped convict. Mom tries to trick convict into helping while Dad waits and hangs on for dear life.<br /><br />Good white-knuckler given an electric jolt by Ralph Meeker, appearing suddenly (the director, John Sturges, films it in a clever way that will make you gasp) around halfway through as the cunning, desperate criminal. Meeker is an unusually flippant, reckless actor (at least here and in the classic "Kiss Me Deadly") and he happily snatches the keys to the film's narrative and speeds off with the top down. His character has a habit of grinning childishly and saying "Pretty neat, huh?" when he's especially pleased with his misdeeds. There is a funny break in the action when they get a flat tire and he tersely instructs his hostage, Barbara Stanwyck, "Don't go away". She fires back "Where would I go?" (they're in the middle of nowhere) and he realizes sitcom-ishly "Yeah, that's right". The friction between them is a hoot.<br /><br />There are flaws, somewhat ridiculous ones. There's one scene where the police, who have been chasing after Meeker for some time, stop Stanwyck's car and to evade detection Meeker rests his head on her shoulder like a loving husband supposedly would, and pretends to be asleep as she's being questioned. A. He looks conspicuously un-masculine in this pose and B. I think it's safe to say that any adult who appears to be asleep during an encounter with law enforcement would certainly arouse suspicion.<br /><br />Still a sturdy thriller which builds to an exciting and edifying conclusion.<br /><br /> | positive |
This movie is spoofed in an episode of Mystery Science Theater 3000. I think MST3K was at its best when they ripped this movie.<br /><br />Terrible acting, bad makeup, poor effects, chick in skimpy (1960's)underwear. I give it a 2.<br /><br />The villain is hard to understand due to the makeup. The assistant says things like 'not you' that sound like NACHOO!! (think sneezing). It's just poor oration. The long eyebrows are hilarious on one of the characters. <br /><br />I still don't know what 'The Projected Man' means in terms of the plot. I missed some of the beginning though. <br /><br />What is up with this 10 line minimum on posting?? | negative |
An accurate review of nuremburg must consider the door to history inadvertently opened with the movie "valkyrie" (Tom Cruise). "Valkyrie" (2008) at long last tells the world there was a German resistance during world war two professionally organised with bureaucrats, military generals, soldiers and civilians who tried to over throw the Nazi political regime, install a new chancellor, obtain peace and close the concentration camps. However, these unknown absolute heroes received no help at all from the allies who helped the French resistance just next door. History writers have used an institutionalised agenda ever since to conceal an allied evil which cost many tens of millions of lives with everyone conditioned to believe a deception that the German people completely supported the Nazis and consequently deserved the 24 hour bombing genocide and "unconditional surrender" that was imposed on the Germans. <br /><br />The German enigma codes were broken by English scientists in 1943 so much of what the Germans were doing was known. During 1943 the Germans developed new jet fighters and jet bombers by companies including Arado, Heinkel and Messerschmitt. However, even if the Nazis were eliminated and the German resistance succeeded the allies wouldn't allow any democracy in the world to have jet fighters, jet bombers, high speed submarines, ballistic missiles and radio guided missiles without the USA having them first! This is where the institutionalised agenda is relevant. Consequently, the German resistance got no help at all from the allies although they always had crucial intelligence to eliminate Adolf Hitler. The 20 July 1944 coup is proof there were significant efforts by the Germans to obtain peace. Instead, the Germans got ultimatums of "unconditional surrender" and 24 hour saturation bombing in an agenda to avoid peace. The allies wanted to steal the world's greatest technology and scientists from the Germans and contain complete ownership through an "unconditional surrender." It was a premeditated allied agenda to allow the war to perpetuate and keep the Nazis in power to justify the 24 hour bombing but it took one year after d-day before allied armies advanced into Germany to steal the world's greatest technology and scientists at the barrel of a gun. However, tens of millions of people had died since the allies abandoned the German resistance for their own greed. <br /><br />The allies imposed "unconditional surrender" on the Germans as a pretext to complete ownership and control of German property and government and it was done without using the German resistance to over throw the Nazis. The allies wanted to steal the world's greatest technology and scientists from the Germans to achieve world technological supremacy. Consequently, everything else took second place to the evil allied agenda which killed millions of German people in the 24 hour bombing; the concentration camps stayed open; the war was prolonged and led to the "cold war" with weapons based on German industrial achievements, technology, and scientists taken from the Germans in world war two.<br /><br />The 1946 Nuremburg war crimes trials were a public relations deception and mass murder perpetrated by the allies as retrospective justice to the Nazis. It was a smoke screen to hide the evil and greedy allied agenda for world technological supremacy rather than help the German resistance overthrow the nazi political regime.<br /><br />Tens of millions of people died because the allies abandoned the German resistance to an agenda but they inflicted retribution against the German chiefs of staff anyway whom paid with their lives at Nuremburg war crimes or not although the allies had perpetrated genocide to achieve world technological supremacy. | negative |
Without doubt, GRAND CHAMPION has the most impressive cast of "AAA" level stars and musicians ever gathered together for a fun, "G" rated family adventure. This is a MUST BUY for every video collection! Director BARRY TUBB skillfully combines the drama of the rodeo / 4H competition for the "GRAND CHAMPION" cow with a touching and funny story of perseverance against difficult challenges. Joey Lauren Adams delivers her typically solid performance as the well-intentioned mother, but the star of the show is 12-year-old EMMA ROBERTS, whose on-camera presence is a glowing as that of her famous aunt, JULIA. You can expect a lot from this young Roberts-protégé' as is already proving itself in her new, hit Nickelodeon series, "UNFABULOUS." | positive |
Excellent story about teenagers, leaders, high school football "stars". How far will you go to protect your friends? Lie, kill? How much can You lose if you stud by an innocent girl? Can love beat the odds? Can you defeat narrow-minded small town people? When your friend scores and you "lose", will you do everything in your power to make her pay for it, or will you be a man about it, and respect her right to chose? Will you rape her and show it as your victory over a "problem" girl? Can you stand by the one who's only sin is to have an opinion of her own, to be able to make her own decisions, to chose for herself? It made me think twice before giving my judgment about who was right and who was wrong, but one is for sure - very disturbing movie and theme in general. Thumb up! | positive |
**SPOILERS** Looking for a little more excitement then seeing crocodiles being fed at the local game reserve sisters Grace and Pat, Diana Glenn & Maeve Dermody, together with Grace's boyfriend Adam, Andy Rodoreda, decide to take a trip upstream in the desolate and deserted, of human habitation, Australian Mangrove Swamps.<br /><br />With their swamp guide Jimmy, Ben Oxenbuld, at the helm of his motorized boat the four get upended by a giant saltwater crocodile who quickly grabs and drags a terrified Jimmy down to the bottom along with him. Grace Pat & Adam end up stranded on a tree in the swamp with Pat hanging on for dear life on the capsized boat. The rest of the film has the hungry and determined crocodile play a cat and mouse, or crock' and human, game with the trio that ends in a showdown at a mud bank just where the dead and dismembered body of jimmy finally came to it's rest.<br /><br />Both the director and actors in the film take full advantage of the swamp making it at times far more scary then the giant crocodile swimming in it. We get to see the killer crocodile just about a half dozen times in the movie but everyone of them hits you, and Jimmy Grace Pat & Adam, right in the gut.<br /><br />Alway there were kept in suspense by the giant reptile always doing his damage from beneath that comes so unexpectedly that it, the crock attacks, has far more effect when you don't see them coming then, like in the last ten minutes of the movie, when you do. You wonder right from the start who in the end would survive the crocodile attacks and eventually live to tell about them. The ending with the crocodile vrs human confrontation was about the weakest and most unrealistic part in the film. <br /><br />The crocodile who was both so cagey and effective in the earlier scenes seemed to have punched, or swam, himself out not having either the strength or speed to grab, with his deadly jaws, and finish off the sole survivor of the expedition. In fact the killer crock was so ineffective that even after he gabbed his victim, or victims, he just couldn't hold on to them. This in the end turned out to be fatal on his part.<br /><br />A lot like "Jaws" the film "Black Water" has the killer crocodile, like the great White Shark in "Jaws", more interested is killing his human prey then eating them. With all the food available in the swamp and rivers that he inhabited the crocodile was only after the quartet, Grace Pat Adam & Jimmy, for invading his watery domain that he felt was the grand ruler of. And for daring to do that they were to pay with their lives! | positive |
Admittedly, when the chance to see this horribly infamous legend of a movie, my expectations were pretty low. They weren't low enough. Scholckmaster Roger Corman somehow came into ownership of the rights to produce the Marvel comic book characters sometime in the late 80's or early 90's, and handed it off to Oley Sassone, whose directorial work has largely been in campy TV series such as 'Hercules' and 'Viper'. With a supposed total budget of 1.5 million dollars, it was produced, shot and briefly released on video and then sent to the wasteland of forgotten film. There it should have remained. However, like a banana peel in a vaudeville act, this "Fantastic Four" sits out in the ether waiting to cause a pratfall for those rare people unlucky and foolish enough to step on it. <br /><br />If you have ever heard of these comic book characters, you know what to expect. The people who made this were very true to the source material, and that is the only thing for which they deserve any credit in this fiasco. This presents the origins of the heroic group that develop superhuman powers when the shielding on their experimental spacecraft fails to protect them from cosmic radiation. Reed Richards (Alex Hyde-White) develops the ability to stretch his body and becomes 'Mr. Fantastic'. His girlfriend, Sue Storm (Rebecca Staab) can become invisible, and her brother, Johnny (Jay Underwood) can spontaneously cause fire to erupt from his body. Finally, Ben Grimm ('credited' to both Michael Bailey-Smith and Carl Ciafarlio) receives superhuman strength when his skin mutates to a rock-like hyde and is then referred to as The Thing. There is a prologue that sets up a former classmate of Reed's, Victor von Doom (Joseph Culp) to become their enemy, Dr. Doom, who orchestrates the sabotage of the Fantastic Four's space flight as an act of revenge for injuries he blames on Reed. There is the set-up, then the discovery of the powers, the revelation of the villain and ultimately a climactic fight. There are more details to the poorly-written script, but they are negligible.<br /><br />This is a movie that was made simply because the creators (I use that in the technical sense of the word. There isn't a whole lot of creative imagination at work here.) had the legal rights to do so. The plot will be undoubtedly mirrored in the anticipated big-budget release set to be directed by Tim Story in 2005, but tackling a massive special effects project like this without a comparable budget or qualified actors qualifies as an act of cinematic insanity. What special effects exist are mostly hand drawn or simple camera tricks that have existed since the days of the original 'The Great Train Robbery'. When half of the climactic fight reverts to full-on hand animation, you're almost relieved to be watching a cartoon instead of the poor actors who were damned to be in this project. There is very little consistency of style in this mess as well. Most scenes are either shot flat in available light or wild primary colors, and the only dressed sets are the obvious sci-fi pieces. There is camera-work, but it is mostly just keeping the characters centered on the screen and minimal information flowing to the audience. Editing includes leaving in extra lines and using obvious wipes (at one point there is even a transition using the center of a number 4). Editing spins are even used to supplement the poor special effects when The Thing transforms. The one scene where morphing technology was put to use was shocking only because it was such a positive jump up in quality.<br /><br />Limited camera work is not unforgivable. In 'Clerks', only the most basic camera movements are used and there is almost no style. It worked for that film because it was about people whose lives had no style, and it was consistent. Kevin Smith never let his reach exceed his grasp. 'The Blair Witch Project' caused some audiences to suffer motion sickness from the jerky hand-held stuff that put that pseudo-documentary together. When all was said and done, it was an effective work about the terror of getting lost and being consumed by a frightening situation. There is no sense of story or theme here on either a spoken or visual level. With this 'Fantastic Four', you never get more than an accidental laugh at the fact that the film makers and performers seem to be actually trying to rival other comic book movies with this poorly budgeted entry. <br /><br />Any film involves a great deal of time and work. It just so sad that so much of both was poured into a project like this. If you're one of the people who were involved with this, it was most likely done as a stepping stone on the road of a (hopefully improved) film career. Everyone knows about taking jobs to make the most of what appears to be an opportunity. For those who are curious about watching this movie, my advice is to only do so with a group of friends (so you can all point and say "you watched it, too") who have been forewarned about the experience (so nobody gets hurt from the shock), and maybe you can come up with a drinking game to ease the pain between the accidental laughs.<br /><br />1 out of 10 | negative |
I absolutely love this film and have seen it many times. I taped it in about 1987 when it was shown on Channel Four but my tape is severely worn now and I would love a new copy of it.I have e-mailed Film Four to ask them to show it again as it has never been available on video and as far as I know hasn't been repeated since the 80's. I have had no reply and it still hasn't been repeated. The performances are superb. The film has everything. Its funny,sad,disturbing,exciting and totally takes you back to school days. It is extremely well paced and grips you from start to end. The scene in the shower room is particularly horrific. I also cannot hear the song Badge by Cream and not think of this film. This film deserves to be seen by a much larger audience as it is superb. Channel Four please show again or release on Video or DVD. | positive |
To put in simple words or rather a word, would be best suited by PATHETIC !!!!!! The movie starts with attracting a little interest by the plot, but, BUT as few minutes by audience is getting restless for restrooms and getting snacks, or to get a breathe of fresh air outside the closed dark hall....<br /><br />It seems like watching a movie from 1960's where colors were dull, directed by a debutant, and acted by high school students ! Movie revolves about a American high headed actress trying make a comeback into films by acting in one of the not-so-great Indian movie. Her acting is real Sad complimented by the worse dialogue delivery.<br /><br />OverAll: i would not recommend anyone to watch this movie Still want to watch: Then try watching it at home, when some TV channel airs it, believe me it would be fun as this movie would not get a Single advertisement and no sponsors.<br /><br />And better carry a aspirin, u might need it if you cant find a remote control to change channel ! p.s. I have no clue, if the other reviewers even watched the movie ? i did and wasted my $10 on the ticket ! | negative |
We all want to fall in love... The experience makes us feel completely alive, where every sense is heightened, every emotion is magnified... It may only last a moment, an hour, an afternoon, but that doesn't reduce its value, because we are left with memories that we treasure for the rest of our lives...<br /><br />I love watching people fall in love... It must have something to do with the excellent chemistry between the main characters...<br /><br />Mark Elliott, a charming sensitive American war correspondent, arrives in Hong Kong at the dawn of the Korean war... He finds in Han Suyin an awesome beauty of true grace...<br /><br />Han Suyin, a lovely Eurasian doctor is captivated by Mark's tenderness and insight...<br /><br />It was instant attraction when they first met... The two commence a passionate affair, leading them to fall deeply in love...<br /><br />Their love is so strong, so wonderfully expressed that highlights Elliot's married status, and the difficulties of the troubled time of the Korean War, communism and race relations... <br /><br />Holden is an inspired choice for the role... Not only does he have an imposing screen presence, but he brings the perfect mix of enlightenment, compassion and emotion to the part...<br /><br />Opposite him Oscar Winner Jennifer Jones, perfect in her oriental look, radiantly beautiful in that traditional and modern Asian-inspired Cheongsam... Jones floods her role with personal emotion giving her character a charismatic life of its own... She delivers a heartfelt performance turning her character into a woman who undergoes a spiritual and emotional awakening...<br /><br />Her scene in that verdant hill where she takes refuge is exquisitely touching specially when we heard Mark's voice whispering: "We have not missed you and I... that many-splendored thing."<br /><br />Henry King - who has established himself as a masterful director of romances - spreads the theme tune (by Alfred Newman) in the air above the cosmopolitan harbor... His film is colorful, elegant, with excellent cinematography and set design...<br /><br />Nominated for eight Academy Awards, this beautiful and sensitive motion picture won three: Best Costume Design; Best Music and Best Score... | positive |
If there was anything Akira Kurosawa did wrong in making Dodes'ka-den, it was making it with the partnership he formed with the "four knights" (the other three being Kobayaski, Ichikawa, and Konishita). They wanted a big blockbuster hit to kick off their partnership, and instead Kurosawa, arguably the head cheese of the group, delivered an abstract, humanist art film with characters living in a decimated slum that had many of its characters face dark tragedies. Had he made it on a more independent basis or went to another studio who knows, but it was because of this, among some other financial and creative woes, that also contributed to his suicide attempt in 1971. And yet, at the end of the day, as an artist Kurosawa didn't stop delivering what he's infamous for with his dramas: the strengths of the human spirit in the face of adversity. That its backdrop is a little more unusual than most shouldn't be ignored, but it's not at all a fault of Kurosawa's.<br /><br />The material in Dodes'ka-den is absorbing, but not in ways that one usually finds from the director, and mostly because it is driven by character instead of plot. There's things that happen to these people, and Kurosawa's challenge here is to interweave them into a cohesive whole. The character who starts off in the picture, oddly enough (though thankfully as there's not much room for him to grow), is Rokkuchan, a brain damaged man-child who goes around all day making train sounds (the 'clickety-clack' of the title), only sometimes stopping to pray for his mother. But then we branch off: there's the father and son, the latter who scrounges restaurants for food and the former who goes on and on with site-specific descriptions of his dream house; an older man has the look of death to him, and we learn later on he's lost a lot more than he'll tell most people, including a woman who has a past with him; a shy, quiet woman who works in servitude to her adoptive father (or uncle, I'm not sure), who rapes her; and a meek guy in a suit who has a constant facial tick and a big mean wife- to those who are social around.<br /><br />There are also little markers of people around these characters, like two drunks who keep stumbling around every night, like clockwork, putting big demands on their spouses, sometimes (unintentionally) swapping them! And there's the kind sake salesman on the bike who has a sweet but strange connection with the shy quiet woman. And of course there's a group of gossiping ladies who squat around a watering hole in the middle of the slum, not having anything too nice to say about anyone unless it's about something erotic with a guy. First to note with all of this is how Kurosawa sets the picture; it's a little post-apocalyptic, looking not of any particular time or place (that is until in a couple of shots we see modern cars and streets). It's a marginalized society, but the concerns of these people are, however in tragic scope, meant to be deconstructed through dramatic force. Like Bergman, Kurosawa is out to dissect the shattered emotions of people, with one scene in particular when the deathly-looking man who has hollow, sorrowful eyes, sits ripping cloth in silence as a woman goes along with it.<br /><br />Sometimes there's charm, and even some laughs, to be had with these people. I even enjoyed, maybe ironically, the little moments with Rokkuchan (specifically with Kurosawa's cameo as a painter in the street), or the awkward silences with the man with the facial tics. But while Kurosawa allows his actors some room to improvise, his camera movements still remain as they've always been- patient but alert, with wide compositions and claustrophobic shots, painterly visions and faces sometimes with the stylization of a silent drama meant as a weeper. Amid these sometimes bizarre and touching stories, with some of them (i.e. the father and son in the car) especially sad, Kurosawa lights his film and designs the color scheme as his first one in Eastmancolor like it's one of his paintings. Lush, sprawling, spilling at times over the seams but always with some control, this place is not necessarily "lighter"; it's like the abstract has come full-throttle into the scene, where things look vibrant but are much darker underneath. It's a brilliant, tricky double-edged sword that allows for the dream-like intonations with such heavy duty drama.<br /><br />With a sweet 'movie' score Toru Takemitsu (also responsible for Ran), and some excellent performances from the actors, and a few indelible scenes in a whole fantastic career, Dodes'ka-den is in its own way a minor work from the director, but nonetheless near perfect on its own terms, which as with many Kurosawa dramas like Ikiru and Red Beard holds hard truths on the human condition without too much sentimentality. | positive |
I've enjoyed this movie ever since I first saw it in the theatre. Some movies have a cast of characters and a script that come together in perfect synergy, and this is one of them. The characters illustrate some truths about getting the best out of people, working together harmoniously, building a team and achieving goals, without ever preaching morality. The situations are crafted well and are consistent with the movie's opening premise. The tension builds nicely and the humor is clean and consistent throughout. The movie manages to pull me right in to root for the characters, and to laugh pretty well all the way through. This is a feel good movie as good as they come.<br /><br />What amazes me is that a movie which appears so simple can be so long term entertaining. The music is a perfect copy of music in the typical serious post war navy movies, which helps to create the humor and point out that greatness is in the eye of the beholder. The scenes in the credits are a great music video of "In the Navy", which deserve their own full screen special feature. The scenes and cuts are crafted well, and the casting and acting is right on.<br /><br />This movie is a classic as great as any ever made, without any pretensions. In fact, the lack of pretension is what makes it so much fun to watch. I love these guys and gal.<br /><br />The other day I thought of the film, and wondered whether it was available on DVD. Good fortune has come to us, and the DVD came out in May 2004. I headed to the store, and snapped up a copy. Then my wife and I enjoyed another hilarious night in front of the big screen. I've rated this movie as a 10 because it comes together on all levels, far better than many high budget films and Oscar winners. This is entertainment.<br /><br />Listen up Fox home video: you have a great movie in your vaults, and it's a shame to find a cheap shot DVD with badly degraded off tint colors only 8 years since release. So why not restore the colors and present the film as it was meant to be seen? I'd gladly pay a few bucks more to get the picture right. I'm grateful to have my own copy. Now give us the eye candy that the film deserves, and how about recreating the credit sequence as a full screen music video special feature. | positive |
God Bless 80's slasher films. This is a fun, fun movie. This is what slasher films are all about. Now I'm not saying horror movies, just slasher films. It goes like this: A high school nerd is picked on by all these stupid jocks and cheerleaders, and then one of their pranks goes horribly wrong. Disfigured and back for revenge, sporting a Joker/Jester mask (pretty creepy looking, might i add), Marty begins to kill off those teens one by one many years later, after he manages to make them believe that their old abandoned high school is having a reunion. That is basically the plot? What's wrong with that? That's the beauty of 80's slasher films, most of them i would say. A lot of things could be so ridiculous, but they keep drawing you more in an' in as they go by. Especially this film.<br /><br />It features some outrageous killings, and some are quite creative as well. (poisoning of a beer can, acid bath, i can't remember a javelin ever being used before in any other slasher film either)It really is a fun, fun movie. That's all it is. Nevermind the fact that the characters are complete idiots, never mind their stupidity, and never mind the outrageous, random things that occur in this film. Such as lights being able to be controlled by the killer (when he's not even switching any buttons, you'll see) and toilets being able to cough up blood, baths being able to have acid come out of them, just use that as part of your entertainment! Because thats what really makes it entertaining.<br /><br />Movies like this represent 80's slashers. Never again could movies like this get made, know why? It isn't the 80's anymore. That is why you should just cherish them for what they are, good fun! I highly recommend this film if you're a hardcore fan of Slahsers such as Friday the 13th.<br /><br />One last note this movie also had a kick ass villain as well, Marty Rantzen. A disfigured, nerd, who kills all his old foes in a creepy Jester mask. A good villain makes a good slasher. Simon Scuddamore, who played Marty apparently committed suicide shortly after Slaughter High was released. That alone adds something creepy to the film, and sticks with it and it even makes you feel more sorry for the Marty character, i guess. All in all, great 80's slashers fun! It's a shame it will never be the same again... | positive |
The film has so much potential which was not developed. Mark Hamill gives a good performance and so does Bill Paxton. The scenery is beautiful and the ultralight aircraft are neat. The problem with this film is that the story is way underdeveloped and the plot goes nowhere. The film at certain points almost puts you to sleep. I give it 3 out of 10 stars for the flying scenes. | negative |
I don't know why I like this movie so well, but I never get tired of watching it. | positive |
When i looked at this years Wrestlemania's match card, i was SO stoked and unable to control myself because i was full of excitement.<br /><br />It starts...and it ends.<br /><br />I'm sitting there, angry to hell because of how much i wanted my money back. I mean, you watch Wrestlemania 22 (one of my favorites) which will go down as a classic and then you expect the same and get the average garbage they have every now and then. The one moment in the entire show that ruined it for me was when HBK tapped out!!!! That very moment of HBK losing to JOHN CENA!!!!!!!!!! John Cena is such a loser/poser. It almost ruined Wrestlemania 22 for me when he beat TRIPLE H! I couldn't watch WWE after seeing Wrestlemania 23. I'm starting to watch it again (luckily). I again have faith in WWE after Wrestlemania 24 (the greatest i have ever seen) which was a pure classic Wrestlemania. It definitely made up for 'Mania 23 and gave us lots of memorable moments as well.<br /><br />If you have watched ANY of the Wrestlemanias before this one, like the ones that turn you into fans (Wrestlemania 20 turned me into a fan), PLEASE don't watch this and make the same mistake i made and leave WWE behind. And if you DO watch it and are angry, start watching it again and watch Wrestlemania 24, it is absolutely classic. | negative |
I saw "An American in Paris" on its first release when I was still at school and fell in love with it straightaway. I went back to see it again the next day and have lost count of the number of times I have seen it since, both in the cinema and on TV. It makes fantastic use of some of the best music and songs by the greatest popular composer of the twentieth century (George Gershwin) and features the greatest male (Gene Kelly) and female (Leslie Caron) dancers in Hollywood history. The supporting cast of Oscar Levant (as quirky as ever), Georges Guetary (why didn't he make more movies ?) and Nina Foch (brilliant in an unsympathetic role) are at the top of their form. The closing ballet, superbly choreographed to the title music, makes excellent use of the sights and sounds of Paris and of the images of impressionist and post-impressionist artists. All the Gershwin songs are beautifully staged, but the most memorable are "It's Very Clear" (Caron and Kelly on the banks of the Seine) and "I Got Rhythm" (the kids of Paris joining Gene Kelly in "Une Chanson Americaine"). If you love Paris, see this movie. If you've never been to Paris in your life, see it. But see it ! | positive |
I am not going to spoil the contents to anyone, who has not yet watched this humble masterpiece by Kay Pollak.<br /><br />A world famous conductor brilliantly played by Michael Nyqvist seeks peace from stress by moving back to his childhood village. The villagers, who has followed the genius in silence, are slowly tempting him to share of his greatness.<br /><br />Each role in this movie, has a very specific purpose and shows a remarkable potential in each of the actors playing their own chord in short but precise words, a symphony of love.<br /><br />Not love in the sense of relationship, but in the tone of the spirit deeply buried within each of the characters, each revealing their own present story, their needs, their skeletons, desires and much more.<br /><br />I shall not forget to mention, the two main parts played by Frida Hallgren and Michael Nyqvist, whose dramas are played in unforgettable harmonies of emotional feedback. They touch each other with a pain connected in their own disability to love themselves.<br /><br />Michael Nyqvist is really put to the test here in a very difficult setup, in one of those movies that either end up as catastrophic or fantastic. And fantastic it became from start to end, not one second less or more than enough, you are left with a feeling of change and a taste for more.<br /><br />To this day, definitely one of the best movies I have had the pleasure of watching. | positive |
River's Edge is an extremely disturbing film written by acclaimed American screen writer Neal Jimenez.It is based on an actual event which happened at a time when most of American youngsters were trying to make sense of their lives.This is one of the most outstanding films made by American director Tim Hunter.Much of film's attention is focused on a reckless murder committed by a feckless teenager.This unfortunate event sets in motion a whole range of questions about real motivations of youngsters in American society.Those who saw this film during its initial release must have had vivid memories of great actor Dennis Hopper in a confused role as a sympathetic social outcast. Matrix star Keanu Reeves also looks good as one of the teenagers before he reached star status.At a time when teen flicks are made without any kind of serious preparation,it is hoped that "River's Edge" cannot simply be ignored as just another silly teen flick.It had massive impact on people who lived during turbulent times of the past when being an inhabitant of a sleepy town was akin to not having being born.For today's generation with their heady overdoses of Internet props such as Facebook,Twitter and Orkut,River's Edge might appear to be outdated but its importance cannot be denied by any serious film admirer. | positive |
This film is a fine example of why the Shaw Brothers are among the finest directors (probably the best in the Kung Fu category). The movie is well paced, the story is excellent and intriguing, and while the humor may not be in your face, it is nested within the character interactions. Once the story builds up, and the characters begin to assess the situation does the whole tower come crashing down in one of the best fight scenes (tiger, crane and crab Hung Gar are very present). There is even a scene that mocks 18th century Western social events, and ends with clever and entertaining fighting. The movie ends with a sudden, cheesy moment, but if you are a fan of the Shaw Brothers, you'll understand that the cheese is just a topping, and not the main course of the movie. | positive |
Spoiler Alert Well I think this movie is probably the worst film ever made. Probably in the style of Ed Wood(without the heart). The lightning is terrible. The music is very bad(piano and orgue... come on!). The acting is... well there is no acting!<br /><br />There's a guy who actually goes in the wood to search for his missing wife and take the time to have sex with a stranger.<br /><br />The killer is a fat, unscary clown who couldn't outrun a turtle!<br /><br />Every members of the cast is stupid and the director put every clichés of slashers movies in the film without effort.<br /><br />The end is so far the most stupid ever made. Think about it: The guy(ken hebert) who's acting skill is about the same as his writing(he's the brain behind this flop) invite a co-worker and two of his friends to his cabin for the week-end and kills them... On monday morning he goes back to is office like nothing happen.<br /><br />The tragedy is that Mr.Hebert try to make us beleive that it's a family affair that goes on for generation(his uncle is the clown killer)<br /><br />So of course NO cops are gonna question him after his co-worker goes missing...<br /><br />WHATEVER.<br /><br /> | negative |
The premise of this movie is ugghhhh. The guy is married and yet everyone on this site seems to think, "Yeah, this is funny, cute, and a good movie." What the Hell?!?! What is funny about immature girls fornicating with a married man with a new baby? What is cute about the fact that he is cheating on his wife? What have been wrong with them finding some teenage boys to have sex with before starting college? Noooo, that is not good enough, the guy has to be married, off-limits, off-the-market, that's the one we gotta have. Dumb-ass GIRLS! Then one of the girls decides that she "loves" the guy. No, she just "loves" the way he makes her feel. Two of the girls are having fun with it, they think it is funny and no one seems to have any moral problems with what they are doing. It just shameless, but yeah this is all good with everyone one this website. The dark-haired girl even has the audacity to have her dad pick her up from the guys house, under the ruse of baby sitting. This is a morally disgusting movie and where is the wife? Poor woman working and paying the bills while he screws the baby sitter. | negative |
I remember trying a few minutes of this film, I'm very surprised I didn't watch all of it, from director Steve Gordon, his only film directed before dying of heart failure. Basically Arthur Bach (Golden Globe winning, and Oscar nominated Dudley Moore) is the happy drunk millionaire with everything he could want, a mansion, a butler Hobson (Oscar and Golden Globe winning, and BAFTA nominated Sir John Gielgud), and plenty of booze. He is to inherit $750,000,000 if he marries the daughter of fellow millionaire Burt Johnson (Stephen Elliott), they woman he and the family have chosen, Susan (Jill Eikenberry). But instead, Arthur finds himself falling for Queens waitress Linda Marolla (Golden Globe nominated Liza Minnelli), which of course is threatening the inheritance, and 3/4 of his family's fortune from father Stanford (Thomas Barbour) and Aunt Martha (Geraldine Fitzgerald). After the death of Hobson, Arthur, on the day of the wedding, disobeys the family's wishes, but Aunt Martha still gives Arthur the inheritance to live happily ever after with true love Linda. Also starring Ted Ross as Bitterman, Barney Martin as Ralph Marolla, Anne De Salvo as Gloria - Hooker, Maurice Copeland as Uncle Peter Bach, Justine Johnston as Aunt Pearl Bach, Florence Tarlow as Mrs. Nesbitt, Marcella Lowery as Harriet - Martha's Maid, John Bentley as Perry and Peter Evans as Preston Langley - Party Guest. Moore is wonderfully funny and a little cringing as the almost always drunk millionaire, Minnelli is likable as the woman he loves, and Gielgud of course makes a great Oscar winning impression as Moore's humorous humble sarcastic servant, a terrific screwball comedy. It won the Oscar for Best Song for "Arthur's Theme (Best That You Can Do)" (it also won the Golden Globe) (it was number 79 on 100 Years, 100 Songs), and it was nominated Best Writing, Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen, it was nominated the BAFTA Anthony Asquith Award for Film Music for Burt Bacharach, and it won the Golden Globe for Best Motion Picture - Comedy/Musical. Sir John Gielgud was number 35 on The 50 Greatest British Actors, and the film was number 53 on 100 Years, 100 Laughs. Very good! | positive |
There's a lot of movies that have set release dates, only to get pulled from distribution due to a legal snafu of some kind, and then put in limbo for a long time. You can only wish a film as rotten as "Slackers" remained in a coma for what it's worth, which is miniscule. Release dates were continually shifted around for this truly awful movie that is so much a bleep on the radar like it deserves. The premise kicks off under the guise of Ethan, a creepy nerd with a scary obsession for the campus bombshell Angela. Ethan devilishly enlists the aid of David and his friends who have been scamming the school for their entire run with blackmail to help win Angela. I don't like to give spoilers out, but for a piece of crap like this I can make an exception. Angela falls for David, Ethan intentionally screws everything up, the good guys win. That's what happens in a nutshell for another tired retread of the teen gross out genre. Gross humor is funny, it always has been dating back to the days of the immortal classic "Animal House", to the likes of contemporaries like "There's Something About Mary" and "Road Trip" amongst dozens of others of which there are too many to mention. But when you use it as a plot point you can only get so far, case in point, Ethan has an Angela doll composed of her individual strands of hair of which he does god knows what with it. No one wants to take witness to watch Ethan urinating in the shower while singing to himself. No one wants to watch a young man singing "She'll be coming around the mountain" with a sock on his penis. But nothing can prepare you for the full visual assault of seeing 50's bombshell Mamie Van Doren bare her breasts at 71 years old. I don't know if it's the story's lack of coherence, which cuts to scenes that make absolutely no sense. Director Dewey Nicks was a former fashion photographer, and after reviewing this film, you can only wish he'll go back to the profession. The worst thing you can do on any film, is to make it look like you're having fun, because you detract from your objectives, just like "Slackers" does, by burying it's plot outline under a pile of gross out gags, pointless vignettes, and lack of construction. It's like a bunch of college students got drunk, took one's camcorder, and shot a bunch of random crap and compiled it together. If you want to see a teen gross out comedy that's actually good, then I suggest "American Pie" and "Animal House", or "Road Trip", just something that's entertaining, and not dreadfully bad like "Slackers". Coincidentally Cameron Diaz makes a cameo in this film, just as she did in another bad film such as "The Sweetest Thing" where the story treats gross humor like another plot, instead of a device much like this disaster.. If you pass by "Slackers" at your local video store, just keep on walking, and let it end up at the bottom of the shelf like it deserves. | negative |
fascinating look at fascist italy and the people who carved out a life under mussolini. street scenes and lifestyle glimpses alone are worth watching. combine this with a masterful plot and premier acting and you get a film that you will want to watch again . .. and maybe again. | positive |
This is a film of immense appeal to a relatively well-defined group (of which I am not a part). I went to a preview of this movie not knowing what to expect - I ultimately found it disappointing. The history of a dreadfully dysfunctional (oftentimes downright "twisted") Hungarian Jewish family is not my cup of tea. An epic saga like this should really provide its viewers with something more in the end. Ultimately, pictures such as this are about the human condition - this picture cast almost no new light on any of its more meaningful facets. | negative |
I wish I could have met Ida Lupino. When people ask who you if you could have 6 extraordinary 20th century persons over for dinner, well, for me one person would be her. I think she is now one of the great unsung and unprofiled personalities in the film industry. Her life story would make a great tele movie (Hey, Mr Bogdanovich........). Ida Lupino has been the driving force in many fascinating noir films of the 40s and 50s. I can remember being saddened at seeing her reduced to a horrible part in a ghastly AIP film is the late 70s. She was bitten by a big worm at the kitchen sink. Ugh. I should have contacted her then as she died not long after.. more from the part than the worm too. From High Sierra, Roadhouse and the extraordinary RKO thriller On Dangerous Ground, Ida Lupino was often the producer and the lead actress. Later, with her husband Howard Duff they produced many now timeless noir dramas that are still very engrossing today. One of them is JENNIFER which I think is the last film with a Monogram Pictures copyright. Monogram changed the company name formally to Allied Artists in 1953 and JENNIFER has both company names on the opening credits. This is a superior haunted house thriller equally as scary as both The Innocents and The Haunting made 8 years later. Really chilling and very creepy, this tiny film is exactly the sort of really good film Ida Lupino made and was responsible for. Try and find it...you will always remember it and as I feel, much admiration for this great and almost forgotten actress/producer. | positive |
Grand Canyon falls under a very scarce category: it is a very clever film, with very clever dialogs and food for thought everywhere from start to end. I have the impression that it never made it to it's deserved ranking (and never will), because of it's simplicity. This kind of flick needs sensitive watchers. Pity thought that IMDb makes me write ten lines, because this is in no way necessary in this particular case. Anyway in order to fulfill this request, I will tell you that the weak point of the film if any is in the acting: not that it is bad but it could have been done much better. Exception made for Kevin Kline who was perfect. Go ahead and watch it. | positive |
Dr. McCoy and Mr. Spock find themselves trapped in a planet's past Ice Age, while Capt. Kirk is in the same planet's colonial period. However, it's the former pair that has the most trying time. Besides the freezing temperatures and sanctuary to be found only in caves, there is a third inhabitant, the beautiful and so sexy Zarabeth (Mariette Hartley). As Spock spends more time in this era, he slowly begins to revert to the behavioral patterns of his ancestors, feeling a natural attraction to Zarabeth and throwing "caution to the wind" about ever leaving this place. Only with Dr. McCoy's constant "reminders" does Spock hold on to some grasp of reality.<br /><br />This stand as one of the few times when the character gets to show some "emotion" and Nimoy (Spock) plays it to the hilt, coming close to knocking the bejesus out of Deforest Kelly (McCoy). Surprising to previous installment, Captain Kirk (William Shatner) wasn't allowed to get the girl, another plus for this one.<br /><br />Perennial "old man" Ian Wolfe assays the role of "Mr. Atoz," the librarian responsible for sending the trio into the past. | positive |
John Carpenter's "The Thing" is undoubtedly one of the best horror movies ever made. Sadly as with most Carpenter movies go it is also one of the most underrated movies being panned by critics shortly after it's release for a reason that is almost pathetic. It seems that at the time people were overwhelmed by the idea of the "good" alien. An idea spawned after the success of "I.T.". And the very thought that a movie dealing with aliens could deviate from that idea was regarded as heresy. Human ignorance is truly a frightening thing, people need to judge films for what they are not for what they want them to be.<br /><br />"The Thing" itself is an interesting study on human paranoia as members of a U.S. Antarctic base discover the presence of an alien being (refered throughout the movie only as a "thing") able to imitate any form of life. Not knowing who might or might not be the creature, we see how every character reacts to the situation. There is no mass hysteria or panic just a slow and gradual descent in to chaos as more and more people turn up to be... not quite human.<br /><br />Carpenter succeeds into elevating this movie into something far more than your average Sci-Fi/horror. There are no "whats behind you?" jumping moments here. Instead relying on an intense atmosphere of mistrust and pre-apocalyptic despair along with some nicely balanced moments of visual terror with no small thanks to Rob Bottin's impressive creature effects, he gives us an experience not matched by many other horror films.<br /><br />Instead of just throwing facts and plot elements at our face Carpenter offers us a much a more gradual and delicate approach. By implying a sense of mystery he gives the viewer enough freedom to interpret-ate what has transpired in certain scenes, while giving enough plot to those who are not so fond of interpretation in movies.<br /><br />Ennio Morricone's score works all the way. It's minimalistic and depressing sound perfectly fits the movie's overall tone. Although I've always wondered how would it have sounded if Carpenter (he has been known to compose all of his movies's OSTs except this one) did it? Characters while not as deeply developed are still memorable thanks to the good performances of the actors especially Kurt Russel who plays the "down-out" apathetic helicopter pilot R.J. MacReady. Its worth noting how his character transforms through the movie. From his disregardful "don't give a ...." attitude in the beginning, to that of a unifier and leader of the group of men who try to fight "the thing". But even with that said, there are no false heroics here, there are no "laughing at the face of death" moments and there certainly isn't any sort of comic relief, the movie keeps its atmosphere from the very first scene to the last. Speaking of which, here once again Carpenter keeps his tradition of creating a powerful ending.<br /><br />Quarter of a century after its release "The Thing" doesn't feel dated. And with the disturbingly growing use of computer-generated effects it feels even stronger then before because it shows the life's work and dedication of human beings not computers. Combined with its openness for analyzing it gives the viewer a lot more reasons to watch it for a second or third or fourth or ... time. A masterpiece of terror that will never be forgotten. | positive |
I think this could've been a decent movie, and some of its parts are OK... but in whole it's a B movie. Same about the plot, parts are OK but it has several holes and oddities that doesn't quite add up. Acting is mostly OK, I've seen worse of this too. :)<br /><br />The beginning sets the level, with cars driving in the desert, making "cool" but totally unnecessary jumps through some small dunes (In slow motion! Cool!), like the drivers had never seen sand before... It gets slightly better from there, but not much.<br /><br />If you're gonna rent this, get another one too and use this one as a warm-up. Keep expectations low and it might work for you. | negative |
This film plunges headlong into the realm of the surreal à la Lynch and Jodorowsky--with an atmosphere that is strangely compelling, lulling the viewer with the dream-like intensity of its images.<br /><br />The narration is to be savoured--the narrator being trapped behind a painting (adjacent to the bed), who often speaks for it, vocalizing its desires and reasoning. Yes, Beardsley would sound like that.<br /><br />There are some flaws, but its strengths overwhelm its weaknesses. The sequence with the woman wrenching herself out of the bed and crawling across the floor, trying to escape, will leave you breathless. <br /><br />The film possesses a fin-de-siecle air about it; and should be read as a disarming cry from the bowels of the 20th century.<br /><br />Find this film and bathe in it. | positive |
Let me tell you a story.<br /><br />One day on the streets of Athens a film director bumped into a male prostitute and decided that the world just HAD to know his story because...you know... he's deprived...and he takes his shirt off a lot and...so on.<br /><br />This film is the result of his revelation. Repulsive, depraved, homophobic, misogynist...but of course filled with pretty guys with their chests showing. If this is your idea of a good film then enjoy, if not avoid it like the plague.<br /><br />It's put me off ever going to Greece that's for sure. | negative |
STAR RATING: ***** The Works **** Just Misses the Mark *** That Little Bit In Between ** Lagging Behind * The Pits <br /><br />Some plutonium's gone missing and some very nasty people now have the means to develop a bomb capable of wholesale destruction- so Josh McCord (Chuck Norris) and his cocky young protégé Deke (Judson Mills, a different actor from the previous film) with the assistance of Josh's adopted daughter Que (Jennifer Tung) set out to stop them.<br /><br />This was another film that dealt with terrorism a year after the events of 9/11. Filmed in 2001, Norris himself even commented afterwards how eerily the plot line to the film resembled what happened in downtown New York that day, so there'd have been those that would have been in the mood for a film where Norris and his side-kick kick some terrorist ass if nothing else. Other than that, it's as interchangeable as anything Norris has ever been in. It makes you wonder what the original did to warrant a sequel in the first place, and whether if this one could get made a President's Man 3 might come out sometime soon.<br /><br />If you've seen one Norris film, you've really seen them all and there's really nothing new or unexpected that happens with this one, but at least you know what you're getting and, like I said, it might have been just what some needed to let off some steam. ** | negative |
I like the shepherd! Sure the acting wasn't good but the fight scenes were nice. Van damme throws some nice kicks and so does adkins. The story was average. A Texas cop battles smugglers. This movie did everything a van damme movie should do which is martial arts and action. Van damme was never a good actor. I think this movie is better than van dammmes last 2. If you're looking for an Oscar winning performance you're not gonna get it here but if you're looking for action and martial arts then this movie is for you. Scott adkins is an amazing martial artist and unfortunately the public has gotten tired of martial art superstars but his movies in this movie are great. Van damme delivers strong kicks and it's good to see him performing martial arts again since he has not in his last 4 or 5 movies. This movie is definitely worth watching if you're a van damme fan. | positive |
Didn't really know what to expect from this movie-and found myself being pleasantly surprised. I picked it up because I recently stumbled across Norman Reedus and am trying to find more of the films that he's been in.<br /><br />I'm not big into hustler movies or con movies, but I have to say, this one roped me in within minutes. Probably because I couldn't quit figure out exactly who was hustling who. This movie is stylish and fast-paced, with a story that is believable thanks to location and fantastic performances.<br /><br />While I was impressed with most in the film, I must say Dagmara Dominczyk was simply excellent.<br /><br />Give it a chance-it's a really fun film. | positive |
This story has held a special place in my heart for the last thirty-one years. As a boy, I enjoyed stories of mountain men and the wilderness. Books like "Call of the Wild", "White Fang", "The Frontiersman" and "My Side Of the Mountain", influenced me tremendously. I wanted so much to live like a mountain man, but nothing inspired me more to do so, than when I saw this movie on television in 1975. I wanted to be just like "Trapper". However, as I got older I found I was just too domesticated to live like that. Nonetheless, I still romanticize about living that kind of life. I agree with some other reviews of this movie that the storyline has the simplicity that is quite prevalent in "Disneyisque" type movies, but if you can look past the mechanics in which it was made and see the heart of the story, the true themes, then I think you find yourself pleasantly touched. I make it a point to watch this movie once a year. After thirty-one years, I still get a chill running through me when I see torrent of snow rushing down the mountainside and hear the echoing, haunting laugh of the Trapper.<br /><br />-Good luck old-timer and stay free-<br /><br />PS If you want to read more about the true story, I found this link on the Mad Trapper of Rat River:<br /><br />http://www.mysteriesofcanada.com/NWT/madtrapper.htm | positive |
The Incredible Melting Man plays like an extended episode of The Six Million Dollar Man, but with violence and some nudity. I know this film is a bit crummy but I found it impossible not to kind of like it.<br /><br />The acting and script are not the best. But the effects are good for a 30 year old movie with a budget of $50 - the title character takes quite a while to actually melt but when he does it's reasonably impressive; we also have one inventive death scene involving electrocution. Of note too is the music, it's insane - a cheese-tastic medley of nonsense.<br /><br />Notable highlights: <br /><br />* Marvel at the slow-motion nurse who jumps through a pane of glass for absolutely no reason whatsoever.<br /><br />* Be amazed by a day in the life of a severed head.<br /><br />* Beware of the psychotic cannibalistic melting humanoid. Called Steve.<br /><br />* Be astonished when our hero takes a break from hunting the melting lunatic to have a bowl of soup and complain about insufficient crackers in the kitchen.<br /><br />This film is just too 70's for me to hate it. It's tacky and trashy but I thought it was a lot of fun. You could do a lot worse. | negative |
This esteemed production has it's fans. But to paraphrase the classic bad review of 'Mary Reilly,' Moby Dick is like a painting, only slower.<br /><br />This is because the philosophical grounds for a movie "production" are never to make a great film, rather it's to substitute the lack of a strong guiding idea (in this case for a books transference to film) with a list of hopelessly atomized, undynamic but dazzling conceits in an effort to trick viewers into thinking they've seen greatness. As viewers & critics are apt to fall for this, Oscars follow, feeding the whole dumb equation.<br /><br />I don't share in the pleasure all these reviewers found. Moby Dick is stunningly uninvolving. Actors dutifully recite essays about Jonah, Moby Dick, the ocean, Moby Dick, Moby Dick... all things that can't respond, and not one of which is absorbing in the slightest. It's dramatically inert. It doesn't build. In narrative terms Moby Dick (as a movie) is little more than a foregone conclusion in search of an actual story. After half an hour I was muttering "Oh terrific... another oath ...another 4 minute soliloquy!"<br /><br />In the failed effort to involve you, it's a pretty campy overacting showcase. A lot of grey hair here. Starbuck is supposed to be a golden god. (!)<br /><br />One knows one is looking at a great director when he makes the medium his own rather than trying to replicate the feel of someone else's paintings & palette, or reverently embalming a classic as Huston does here. Paintings and books are nice but they're a different mediums. A movie like this fails to grasp that an honestly enjoyable piece of crap (Village of the Damned) is better in most respects than an insufferable piece of culture. This is the Eat Your Vegetables school of film-making.<br /><br />One appreciates the work that must have been done to make the movie, but not the narrative. Only a few segments reflecting maritime research are interesting; the recording of shanties as a means of structuring work & various sea efforts; and the technology of whaling. And that doesn't call for a two-plus hour movie. | negative |
This outlandish Troma movie is actually a very good movie. It is known as their epic and best and most highly rated production. Their version of Shakespeare's play is extremely funny with the usual dose of Troma nudity and gore. Troma has made some very good gore films, one of my favorites is "Street Trash" and of course the Toxic Avenger movies. I have one Troma movie, "Terror Firmer", which has a reputation as their goriest and nastiest movie. I enjoyed "Tromeo and Juliet" so much, that I need to finally watch "Terror Firmer". This is a 2-disc Collector's version with four commentaries and many many features. "Tromeo and Juliet" is an absolute hoot and highly recommended. | positive |
MR. BASEBALL is a film of paradoxes. Written and filmed as a "light, sports comedy" it truly has a heartwarming core as human and universal as some of Capra's finest. At the plot level, you have the paradox of baseball, a fine old American game, as it is played in Japan - turned around, with American values cast off and Japanese values imprinted upon the game. (Some of the superficial "sports comedy" results from Jack's uncomprehending disbelief at how "basa-boru" is played in Japan.) You also have a lead character who's presented as an over-the-hill, aging baseball star, but who is actually quite immature - pro ball allowed him to postpone growing up. And you have a lead character who is rudely resistant to the changes in his life that are being forced upon him, refusing to accept the curveball that life has given him, in the midst of a new country, a new manager, a new team, and a new girlfriend, who have all welcomed him and try to accept him. Sound like heavy stuff? Not really. It's a charming "clash of cultures" comedy that takes place on the national, sports, romantic, and professional levels. But if you watch it sensitively enough, you will also find a great story about a man who has to abandon his immaturity and grow up way too late in life (causing some amount of personal pain), and finds success in places he never expected it. I love the story, but I also have great respect for Selleck's performance; he bares his tush (literally) to portray an ugly American, insulting people and throwing tantrums in public, then lets us inside this character to understand his dismay. It also doesn't hurt if you're a big fan of Takakura Ken like I am. MR. BASEBALL is a surprising "loss of innocence" tale. | positive |
My all-time favorite movie. Oscar-caliber work by everyone involved, both in front of and behind the camera. The screenplay is perfect, and works out the relationship between Lady Caroline and George Briggs in a completely satisfying way, unlike the novel. The care with which the other leading characters have been drawn is a tribute to screen writer Peter Barnes, and the intense visual beauty should have won Oscars for director Mike Newell and cinematographer Rex Maidment. It is Josie Lawrence's best work by far, and transformed my opinion of Joan Plowright. Having watched this movie at least 50 times, I can find no fault in it. The music, by famed composer Richard Rodney Bennet is a marvel. | positive |
I have to say, when "Pushing Daisies" came out I was immediately won out by the fairy-tale like setting of such grimness. The narrator made a cake out of the whole ordeal by making death seem as routine as, well, Ned (Lee Pace) baking pies. And that bringing them back to life was just as routine.<br /><br />The trio of Ned, Emerson Cod (Chi McBride) and Charlotte "Chuck" Charles (Anna Friel), plus sometimes-sidekick Olive Snook (Kristin Chenoweth, who made the musical Wicked such a delight) made for some fantastic dialogue and silliness. It definitely deserves the title of a (romantic) comedy/drama.<br /><br />Ned and Chuck made for a shy and not-quite-ready-for-love couple who are still exploring their feelings even though they cannot touch - an obstacle that seems to be truly no obstacle with aids such as gloves, cellophane, and quirky schedules around the apartment. But despite the awkwardness presented as they work their feelings around a strange secret which only a few know, they still manage to show their on screen chemistry in touching scenes like when Ned gives Chuck the beehives. The presence of Olive, though, makes for some break-out-in-song moments in the pie shop and unforeseen complications for the couple.<br /><br />Second season sharply declined, putting a damper on a show that had real potential. On some of the episodes, the plot line was rushed and awkward, making you ask "what just happened?" in both the overall dead-person-of-the-week plot and in the overriding plot line. The addition of Chuck's father plus two half-brothers for Ned didn't help, and at least one of the plot lines felt almost recycled (didn't the episode "Comfort Food" feel like the episode "Bitter Sweets" in the fact that the dead-person-of-the-week died in food?). A few touching moments (the beehives) happened to help advance the relationship between Chuck and Ned, but every time they got close, the writers decided to throw in another monkey wrench rather than let the relation develop (Oliver comes back from the monastery, Chuck's dead father comes back to life and doesn't go back, you get the picture).<br /><br />Shame it didn't work out, but the concept was good and seemed surreal in a good way, just enough Pleasantvillesque color/happy-smiley going on and implausible scenarios to remind you that it's not "Dead Like Me." Then again, it's in "Pushing Daisies time," according to Creator Bryan Fuller, so it makes it plausible again.<br /><br />It should have lasted longer, but it's merely wistful thinking at this point. Kudos to whatever new show attempts to replace this short-lived gem. | positive |
This is a made for TV movie by Hallmark. Hallmark has always made quality movies that are family orientated. Just Desserts is a boy and girl fall in love while working together movie. Two bakers competeing for a $250,000 prize against a field of professional bakers. It is fun and light hearted. The desserts look great. The movie has a catchy, upbeat little song played during the competition. I assume that it is a made for the movie song by Roger Bellon. To bad that no soundtrack is available. I would really like to get a copy of the song. I don't even know the name of the song, because the credits are squished at the end of the movie to make room for hundreds of promos. Anyway, the cast is great. It is always nice to see Brenda Vaccaro. She is very bubbly and upbeat. Lauren Holly is always a plus and Costas Mandylor rounds out the good guys with a wonderful performance. Professional chef Wolfgang Puck has a guest appearance. The movie is worth watching. | positive |
It's a refreshing breath of air when a movie actually gives you a story line with a beginning, a middle, and a end, a nice, clever mystery, with an appealing heroine for all ages, who wins us over with her wit and charm. Andrew Fleming's film is indeed a modern marvel, a comeback to the good old reliable storytelling that was the norm in Hollywood. He puts away the over-reliance on special effects that now passes for entertainment and gives us a terrific film, with a very capable young actress, and a talented supporting cast.<br /><br />The film is based on the old books, but it has been given updated enough to put in this century; however, the props might be different, the heart still is a good mystery, and there is clever one here, one that ties the traditions of the old and the nuances of contemporary youth. Emma Roberts is an old fashioned girl, who believes in good behavior and respect for others; details that are sorely missing from today's films. She is still good enough to get boys' attentions but she also knows how present poise and self respect. She earns her medals by working hard and is not afraid to show a little guile when it is needed to achieve her goals.<br /><br />While taking a vacation to California, our heroine is drawn into the mystery of a Hollywood actress who was the victim of foul play; suddenly she is "visited" by her ghost and this sets off a series of events that might solve the mystery or result in something dreadful for herself. What makes the movie quite entertaining is the little details, as she discovers that her customary world is nothing compared to the California scene, and this is well presented, without resorting to unnecessary vulgar language or anything graphic or overtly sexual. Eventually, the director has enough control to make it all very palatable to all types of audiences, from the young ones to the adults in the audience. It is a movie that deserves to be seen, appreciated, and enjoyed, a film that is rare and delicate, and it's not afraid to be classified as fun! Five Stars | positive |
If there's one thing I want to distinguish myself from all the other great reviewers here, it's that I am the Queen of Finding Strange Movies in Thrift and Dollar Stores. That said, you can't possibly imagine how happy I was when I found this one. <br /><br />I can even remember that Saturday morning when *every* station simulcast it, so you were stuck if you wanted to watch something else (then again, I guess that was the idea). As a kid, I didn't know if I liked the way all the different characters were stuck together (there are some crossovers that just do *not* work). But I guess the special had it's intended effect. Don't do drugs because you will have nightmares about the Muppets.<br /><br />Now, if you watch this as an adult, on the other hand, you will be treated to the *strangest* anti-drug movie this side of "Reefer Madness". I think I'll just leave it at that before I get into trouble. | negative |
What a cast of actors and actresses in this Columbo episode, beside Peter Falk, you have Julie Newmar, Jeannette Nolan, Martin Landau as twins. Anyway, the old uncle dies mysteriously and it looks like a heart attack on the bicycle discovered by his fiancé, Julie Newmar, who plays the role so deliciously. Jeannette Nolan plays the other woman of the house, the housekeeper who prides herself on her talents and chides Columbo's sloppy and often typical behavior with his cigar. Martin Landau plays identical twins in this one. Each who accuse the other of murdering their uncle for money. Well, you'll just have to watch and see the outcome but I can assure you that it's always worth watching this one for the cast and the crew. | positive |
...this one just isn't worth the cost of a movie ticket. What these filmmakers have done cannot properly be called filmmaking; rather, they just chose sixteen students of some diversity (though not quite as much diversity as the reviews have suggested) and set them loose. The results are, to be brutally frank, far more often boring, self-indulgent, overwrought and off-puttingly grainy than truly insightful.<br /><br />There are, of course, moments of recognition and identification of the sort only possible in documentary film, but overall there's not much more truth here than in "Bully" or, for that matter, a decent TV documentary of the same sort. Though full of talk about sex and sexual diversity and racism, the film brings nothing to the table that will be of use to anyone who has thought about any of these issues with any seriousness. And while certain segments serve absolutely no purpose other than to inject a bit of (admittedly welcome) comic relief, most often the five-minute limit keeps up from becoming emotionally involved with any of the students. An interesting idea, but thumbs down for CHAIN CAMERA. | negative |
This movie must be exported to the rest of the world! An absolute masterpiece, with a both bizarre and grim film about four different stories from four different locations in Sweden. The one with the newly renovated hotel with the improper wooden figure of an old finance minister is absolutely the best of the four, odd story about love or career. I would love to see all four as a film on their own they can be so much more extended. <br /><br />Also the unique pause in the middle is something I've never seen before.<br /><br />Can't wait for the series (if they're doing one) or the extended DVD. Apparently they had cut out a lot to fit it in to just 3,5 hours. | positive |
Star Trek Hidden Frontier will surprise you in many ways. First, it's a fan made series, available only on the web, and it features mainly friends & neighbors who have the computer programs and home video cameras and sewing machines to, as Mickey & Judy once put it, put on a show. It's definitely friends & neighbors to, you can tell. A lot of these people aren't the most beautiful looking folks you've ever seen, or the youngest, or the thinnest
some of them stumble through their lines like they're walking on marbles
some of them have thick accents, or simply don't seem to speak well in the first place, whick makes it virtually impossible to understand a single solitary word that they're saying. Still, you have to admit, for everything these friends & neighbors have put together, it's actually fun to watch. Yes, some of the dialogue is hokey. Yes, it's a little odd (though admittedly a little cool too) watching two Starfleet males kiss (although some of the kissing scenes seem to go on and on.) Yes, you cringe a bit when they clearly quote from ST:TOS, TNG, other shows and the movies, or when you hear the theme from Galaxy Quest played at the beginning and end of every show. Okay. We can get by that. Why? The graphics are first rate. Better than almost anything you've seen. And sometimes, a show or two really stands out story-wise
some of them are actually real tear-jerkers.<br /><br />Hidden Frontier is a total guilty pleasure in every sense of the word
but you have to give the people involved credit where credit is due. It takes a lot of effort to put on a production of this magnitude. People, sets, costumes, graphics
it's a huge effort on a lot of people's parts. We watch, we return, and we thank them. | positive |
OK by the time you read this I MIGHT have stopped crying. This movie was so horrible as to be quite vexing. The creatures are kinda cute, but the only really good thing about the movie was the growing attachment among the prisoners and their guard after getting marooned on this daffy island. Even seeing Barbara Bach with her hair all riffled was no payoff for buying this sterling bit of poop. She goes about with a whispery I've-never-used-my-voice-before breathiness that just don't wash when one is screaming bloody murder. (Hey the leading man was cute too but I'm still not assuaged.) This is a cry-into-your-beer ripoff of the good ole Island of Dr. Moreau. Poor Richard Johnson, who was surely born for better things, is just unrelievedly bad as the bad guy. I mean, HOW bad can a BAD guy BE? (Ask Richard Johnson). Joseph Cotten tries hard not to look embarrassed as he staggers through his cameo appearance. In the name of all that's holy, don't rent this darned bomb. | negative |
Greetings, Moviegoers! As I watch Octopus II, I contemplate the inherent lameness of the Octopus/Croc/Dino Horror Genre. Many moviegoers may blame the poor acting, nonsensical screenplay, or poorly constructed plot as the reasons that cause the OCD movie to flounder. These reasons may indeed be floundering factors, but it is the inherent difficulty of filming an OCD movie that is at the heart of the lameness.<br /><br />You see, the technology does not yet exist to make a realistic, life-size OCD and the CGI technology currently used by studios lacks the ability to blend in smoothly with real world environments and characters. Even with clever cinematography, you can only film the semi-dark depths of the sea/semi-dark forest/semi-dark cave/semi-dark corridor so many times before the Sci-Fi aficionado becomes bored with the genre entirely (the OCD sub-genre, that is).<br /><br />What can be done, you ask? I wouldn't suggest that the genre surrender to cheesiness, but another avenue needs to be explored. We can't really go back to the days of the "Fade-to-Black" cue that someone has been killed. Or can we? If we can't reach the goal of realism, we have to compensate in other ways, such as plot twists, innuendo, and photo-ingenuity.<br /><br />It will be through ingenious and alternate methods that the disease of lameness, so common to the OCD sub-genre, will be cured. | negative |
Having spent the six years previous writing and producing, Luc Besson returns to the directors chair with Angel-A. I'm a huge fan of Léon, and quite liked the prospect of a black and white French film from the same chap.<br /><br />André is a liar and gambling addict, owing money to almost every loan shark in Paris. Unable to repay his debts, and fed up with being held over the edge of the Eiffel Tower, he decides to kill himself. He happens to do so at the same time as a mysterious woman, who he decides to save. Determined to thank him, she begins to help him fix his own life.<br /><br />The film starts with some laughs, which run well throughout. The visuals are quite nice and work well with the sights of Paris. But that is it. That's all the film has got going for it. And these mere two facets can do nothing to hold back the torrent of terrible film-making the movie unleashes. Though I can't hugely fault the main character (his inconsistencies are close though), the eponymous one is ghastly. A terrible screen presence and bitterly annoying. The plot is ridiculously inconsistent itself, and at times bizarrely silly, particularly the ending; an ending which completely bloodied the fledgling redemption engendered by the scenes immediately prior to it. Perhaps the most ridiculous scene I've had the ignominy of observing, it is stupid, indulgent, melodramatic, and considerably too awful to be "so bad it's funny". The overall premise of the film could conceivably have once held potential, but it is brutally massacred by the unendingly terrible implementation of its ideas. The film really was a task to watch, and one which had me screaming at the screen the whole way through.<br /><br />Massively and immeasurably flawed, Angel-A is just plain bad. Though its occasionally fun dialogue manages to draw out chortles at rare intervals, by the end it is clear that this film is nothing more than repugnant. | negative |
Whereas the movie was beautifully shot and reasonably well acted, the script was dull. plodding and nothing we have not seen before. Not once in this film did I ever get the feeling that these people were really in danger. No noticeable climax and a very standard resolution. I believe these type of movies have been overdone and should be given a rest. After all, didn't EVERYONE on the planet see "Schindler's List"? | negative |
In the first one it was mainly giant rats, but there were some wasps and a giant chicken too. This one, however, is just giant rats period, well giant rats and one really growing little boy. This one is about this growing boy and a scientist that is trying to help him so he accidentally creates giant killer rats...you know how it is. This movie has some kills and its moments, but I find it to be on par with the original, I just prefer some variety in my giant creature movies. Well, that is not true...I actually like "Empire of the Ants", maybe I just do not care for giant rodents. All in all a rather drab movie though it does have one rather odd turn of events in this one dream sequence that is truly bizarre. I just can't recommend this one. | negative |
The Master Blackmailer, based off of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's short story, "the Adventure of Charles Augustus Milverton," is the first feature length Sherlock Holmes story with Jeremy Brett that I have seen. The story is interesting and dark. The film has a somewhat dreary, sad feel to it, but it is quite entertaining (with some especially funny scenes).<br /><br />*Spoilers* Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson attempt to uncover the identity of an illusive blackmailer who has been ruining some of the most prominent families of England by publishing private letters that will, in one way or another, destroy their lives. They eventually find out that he is Charles Augustus Milverton, an "art dealer," after the few tragic consequences for victims that could not pay up. Our heroes must next help Lady Eva Blackwell, who must pay a sum that is beyond her means or else her upcoming marriage will most definitely be called off. The scene in which Holmes and Watson burglarize Milverton's house are intense. Although the film has an essentially happy ending, the tone is sad and regretful.<br /><br />Outstanding performances by Jeremy Brett and Edward Hardwicke (as usual), and Robert Hardy as the notorious villain (most audiences probably recognize him today as Cornelius Fudge in Harry Potter), Serena Gordon as Lady Eva Blackwell, Norma West as Lady Swinstead and Sophie Thomson as Agatha (the scenes involving her and Holmes are a riot). I give it a ***1/2 out *****. My only complaint is that there wasn't enough Inspector Lestrade. (I wish they would have added in the scene at the end of the short story where he gives the description of the two burglars, one of which matches Watson.) | positive |
No doubt that the indie flick Eddie Monroe is one of the better independent films I've seen in a long time. The highlight for me was the performance of Paul Vario. I first saw Paul, or "Big Paulie" as he was called in Danny Provenzano's hit indie, "This Thing Of Ours". Thankfully, the "Eddie Monroe" filmmaker(s) did the same and utilized Paul's undeniable skills in a principle (principal?) role. Out came a performance (on camera and voice-over utilization as well) that shows worthy of big-budget studio roles in the very near future. It's refreshing to see a trained actor who is committed to the trade, prove the same to the audience. Keep up the good work Big Paulie and we'll be seeing you in Hollywood real soon! Not bad for a kid from Canarsie, huh? | positive |
Having obtained a copy of Bostocks Cup I must confess It is not as funny as I originally thought!! IT IS BETTER!!!!! Charlie Williams ... eat your heart out. Match fixing???? Never! Sloping pitch at 45%? Ronnie and Reggie Kay? George Best? The Coach Driver who thinks Pontefract is in South Wales ( It's all Ponty this and Ponty that)Bertie Masson's (Tim Healey's)lucky Cup hat!! (not that he's into gimmicks) Sugar Plum Fairy????? Confused???? Watch it again. The innovative use of real footage with Bostock players was brilliant and the producer should be proud of giving us a MASTERPIECE. Come on ITV do the viewers and yourself a favour - show it again!!! Please> | positive |
Millie is a sap. She marries a rich guy named Maitland and they have a child. She then catches him cheating on her and divorces him...but lets him keep the kid she claims to love. Back then in the early 1930s, she would have been entitled to hefty spousal and child support but lets the guy off amazingly easy...with no support...what a sap! Later, when she has a boyfriend and life seems pretty good, he turns out to ALSO be a cheat! Wow, does she have a hard time picking men.<br /><br />As a result of these bad relationships, Millie changes. Now she's a wild party girl--doing everything she can to distract herself from her hard luck. Suddenly, many years pass. Millie's daughter who she left early on in the film is now 17 and oddly fashions haven't changed one bit. An old friend of Millie's (yes, it's another evil man!) is now pretending to be the daughter's friend, but he has lecherous designs on her. Millie promises him that if he touches the girl, she'll kill him. Take a wild guess what happens next! <br /><br />Overall, the film is a confusing and often bizarre mess--a bit like "Madam X" but much, much less focused. So often Millie's motivations and actions seem to make little sense. And, the film seems to have a little of everything tossed into it--so long as it substantiates the notion that all men are pigs. Unusual but not particularly good. | negative |
A very charming film with wonderful sentiment and heart. It is rare when a film-maker takes the time to tell a worthy moral tale with care and love that doesn't fall into the trap of being overly syrupy or over indulgent. Nine out of ten for a truly lovely film. | positive |
This film is a joy to watch and should do well on DVD and video. I suppose you really have to be Irish to appreciate the some of the subtlties such as accent, colloquialisms and the dress sense of some of the characters but let me assure you that when Dylan Moran impersonates 'Barreler' the impersonation is quite familiar to most people from Dublin because we have many characters in our fine city that look, act and talk like that! The sheer simple comedy employed and Michael Caines genius acting alone are worth the money but on top of this the plot is great, the script is fantastic and the dialogue fast moving and catchy. A perfect light entertainment movie without the madcap humour of Jim Carrey. | positive |
This is just Art house rubbish. I sat watching this trash with my Bosnian Friends they found it as boring as i did. For a more interesting and more true account watch the excellent movie Saviour. This is just a snoozefest with people talking in coffee shops.A cure for insomnia. 1 out of 10 | negative |
Lotsa action, cheesy love story, unexpected actors and overall great fun. The special effect are acceptable/decent, some of the fighting is kinda neat with some interesting acrobatic moves. The overall story moves along, and is cheesy enough to keep you wondering when the inevitable is going to happen, although there is a bit of a twist (just a small one). The overall naivety of the movie make it quite whimsical at times. Cute enough chicks too what more could you want. PS. if you're gonna review a movie like this, try to review it in terms of the category the movie would fall (not necessarily where it was intended to fall). ie don't bomb out good cheesy movies! | positive |
Now, I loved "Lethal Weapon" and "Kiss Kiss Bang Bang", but I cannot believe Shane Black wrote this pile...or that David Morse and John C. McGinley are in it. I screened it for a film festival. Awful. Everyone was laughing. It's preachy and heavy handed...not to mention stupid. Also, it's surprising how little L.A. looks like Cambodia. The entire idea of time traveling through post-traumatic stress disorder is kinda dumb. Imagine "Born on the Fourth of July" mixed with "The Butterfly Effect 2" (I used to sequel as the example to really show how bad this movie is) but directed by Michael Bay's 2nd unit director. That bad. The 2 stars are purely based on the production value. | negative |
After a long hard night being partied away at the Walkabout in Islington, I needed a pick-me-up. My throat hurt, my wallet was empty and I ended up chatting to a drug addict at a bus-stop trying to sell me some petrol. Today, I watched "Red Sonja" and I can honestly say that I felt much better last night than I do right now. Brigitte Nielsen leads a bunch of ass-kicking warriors in various shapes and sizes to recover a green rock from some evil queen whose motives are never fully explained. Yep, it's that good.<br /><br />"Red Sonja" isn't in a genre known for great films until Peter Jackson came along with a certain Oscar-winning trilogy. In fact, the best swords-and-sorcery film I could think of before "Lord Of The Rings" was George Lucas's kiddie-friendly "Willow". Perhaps, in view of this, one should go a little easy on this film. But I can't - it's poorly written, badly acted (with the exception of Paul Smith, who's just average) and dreadfully put together. The film is as convincing as an episode of the Flintstones, with costumes and scenery seemingly lifted straight outta Bedrock. Considering the comic-book source material, it is easy to forgive the various plot inconsistencies. Why Sonja insists on saving the most annoying kid, in this world or that one, is bewildering. His personality seems to flick from spoilt brat to polite gentleman at the flick of a switch. Schwarzenegger displays less charisma than a field full of cows and just goes through the motions, a perfect actor for his breakthrough role in "The Terminator".<br /><br />It's simple to kick a film when you're down but the fact remains that this is not a good film, by any stretch of the imagination. When Nielsen mourns the death of her sister and Schwarzenegger tenderly places his hand on her shoulder to comfort her and then blurts out, in that distinctive Germanic accent, "she's dead" then you know you're in for a rough ride. A few smiles were raised at inappropriate points, such as the priestesses of a temple who, when sent plunging to their deaths in a hole in the ground, seemed to enjoy the experience - at least, judging from the orgasmic moans that seemed to echo around the place. If you have to watch an Eighties fantasy film that wasn't porn, watch "Willow" (but never take that as a ringing endorsement). For the real thing, take yourself to your local multiplex and show Peter Jackson what a great job he did with "Lord Of The Rings". Trust me, 11 Oscars really does mean it's a great film - unlike bloody "Titanic". | negative |
i think this one sucked on ice, because it left the cube, and gave us to much information as to the who's and why's. The original CUBE never left the cube, and it left everything to your imagination. This crap fest however, gives you it all. and i didn't like it...Though the acting is solid, I think the reason this one was a downer was because it was done by people other than the ORIGINAL filmmakers, if they had Vincenzo Natali do this prequel, or even the sequel i think it would have done better and would have been more true to the source. so i recommend you stay far, far away from this one, and HYPERCUBE, another movie i don't even want to discuss...(i gave it a 2 for the acting only) | negative |
I saw this movie in the theater when it came out. I grew up in Scottsdale and I went to Arizona State and really enjoyed seeing locations where I spent so much time. I remember at the time thinking that Barbara's venture into more of a rock sound (actually R and B-to my ears) was a successful one. I was never a fan of Kris's singing until his last effort for New West. As a songwriter and an actor, though, he has serious chops, IMHO. I think it is a fine romance. I like it better than the Judy Garland version and never saw Selznick's Janet Gaynor original. <br /><br />I do believe that they made some changes in this long-awaited DVD release. Among other things, I recall the helicopter shot which reveals a packed Sun Devil Stadium being longer and more dramatic. I wish they had done a better job writing music for Kris or God forbid, put some of his original songs in there. <br /><br />Along those lines I have some information from a primary source that says that the music was a problem for Kris and Barbara. While doing interviews for my own new music documentary, Rocking the Boat: A Musical Conversation and Journey, I interviewed Stephen Bruton, a fine singer/songwriter/guitarist with close professional and personal ties to Kris, Bonnie Raitt, and Delbert McClinton, among many others. Stephen was in "Speedway," the John Norman character's band. Kris was having a real hard time turning what was essentially a pop score into something that could pass for rock. Stephen was and is Kris's friend and long time band member. There was tension on the set and at one point the band was barking at Kris in Barbara's presence. She remarked to the effect that the band shouldn't talk to him like that. Kris came right back to the effect that they were his friends and they WERE rock and roll! In the end, Barbara came around and decided to use Kris's band's live performances in the movie and specifically sited Stephen's role in making things work. I gained even greater respect for her as an artist upon hearing this story. Much is made of her as a diva. What she is is a pro. And I am not gay. Not that there is anything wrong with that. | positive |
Anthony McGarten has adapted his play, Via Satellite, and directed the best comedic film to come out of New Zealand for a long time. Chrissy Dunn (Danielle Cormack) is a drop-out. She hasn't achieved much in her latter years and has grown resentful of her family since her father's deathbed confession. Her twin sister, Carol (also portrayed by Danielle Cormack) is basking in the media limelight as she represents New Zealand in swimming at the Olympics. A middle-aged, desireless and desperate director (Brian Sergent) and his good-natured cameraman - who is also Chrissy's one-night stand from the night previous - Paul (Karl Urban) film the Dunn family's proudest moment; watching Carol swim to victory. This wouldn't be so bad but Chrissy's family is the epitome of embarrassing. First of all there is the matriach of the Wellingtonian Dunns, Joyce (Donna Akerston). She makes fairy cakes and cocktail sausages for the all-important film crew and refuses to change the way she is. Her oldest daughter, Jen (Rima Te Wiata) is desperate to be something more than common. She has a nice home (with bedroom walls painted "Blackberry sorbet"), expensive tastes and a nasty parasitic attitude to match. She is also nearing 40 and desparate for a child. Her husband, Ken (Tim Balme) is an electrician and forces himself on jobs that don't need doing...as well as doing jobs that need to be done, ie Jen. The middle daughter, Lyn (Jodie Dorday - who won Best Supporting Actress at New Zealand Film Awards for this portrayal)is a "knocked-up" tart who has a dubious history with Ken. Both older sisters clash, the mother is in a state, Ken is as bad a ToolTime Tim Taylor, Carol is fuelling her Olympic desire and Chrissy is aware all of this is to be splashed on national tv - why shouldn't she be embarrassed? It is great to see some famous New Zealand faces perform in the suburban comedy that has witty lines to spare. I loved the sparring between Jen and Lyn. One is like an adult Mona-my-biological-clock-is-ticking-away, the other a narcisstic tramp who has what her sister desires - a bun in the oven. Climax of the film is quite sentimental and is nicely done. The performances are a treat and the film works perfectly. A great way to spend an hour-and-a-half.<br /><br /> | positive |
I have seen this movie at the cinema many years ago, and one thing surprised me so negatively that I could not see any redeeming virtues in the movies: Dennis Quaid was cast as a policeman that never smiles or grin, while his smile and grin are two of his trademarks. Danny Glover was cast as the bad guy, but - again - most viewers' imagination could not go far enough as to believe him in that role. Also, Jared Leto was not believable as the former medicine student. The tension was just not there, since the killer was known very early. The finale was, again, neither dramatic nor tense: nobody around me cared about what was going to happen next. All we could wait for was the end of the movie. All in all, a disappointing evening spent at the cinema. | negative |
This movie was a real torture fest to sit through. Its first mistake is treating nuclear power as so self-evidently a 'bad thing' that it barely needs to convince the audience of it. When it does stoop to putting in its argument, it has the participants breathlessly deliver barely substantiated facts ; all that's missing is someone crying "when is someone going to think of the children!". While watching this movie, I kept thinking "where'd you hear that?" or "that can't possibly be true" - yet little of the info was backed up by any reliable sources. And bless 'em, the 'regular folks' in the movie came across more like Luddites than people with any understanding of the pros and cons of nuclear power; to be fair, that might be the fault of the film-makers, but equally fairly, it's a condition shared by the movie's rock stars.<br /><br />As for the performers........... Now some of these people are highly respected musicians whose music I've enjoyed, and I'm sure a few of them really did believe in this cause. But they all come across as wheezing old hippies desperately searching for something to get worked up over, now that the 60s have passed them by. Particularly embarrassing are Graham Nash and James Taylor. Nash seems to be trying too hard - he looks like he can't possibly believe the things he's being told (not that I blame him), but desperate to feel noticed and included. James Taylor performs what has to be the wimpiest protest "anthem" ever, "Stand and Fight", in the most sickeningly cheerful way you can imagine. In fact, most of the performances are pretty bland when they're not being patronizing. Nobody seems worked up by this event, as if it really doesn't mean much to them at all. It's worth noting that the driving force behind this whole event seems to be John Hall, of the band Orleans, and responsible for some of the wimpiest MOR pop of the 70s. (Remember, if you dare, "Dance With Me" and "Still the One".) It's worth noting because that's symbolic of how the cause here fails to inspire any real passion in the music. The cause is supposedly life-or-death, but everybody sleepwalks through their numbers like they're playing the Catskills. Except maybe Gil-Scott Heron - his protest number "We Almost Lost Detroit" is on topic at least, but delivered with all the smugness of a high-schooler impressed with how 'controversial' he's being.<br /><br />Only Bruce Springsteen's performance raises a pulse; I've never been a big fan of the Boss, but he absolutely smokes, no question. Part of me thinks he was taped separately, at another event, and edited into this movie to give wake the audience. Compared to the general blandness and air of self-satisfaction here, it's no wonder Bruce was hailed as the savior of rock'n'roll.<br /><br />But even his performance is hobbled by the lifeless concert shooting. I don't expect a lot of flashy camera movement from a '70s film, but the shots are unnecessarily static, broken up only by split-second cutaways to a back-up singer's tonsils. Now, some of this may be because the performers are lifeless to start with; and *maybe* the film-makers are more skilled at shooting documentaries than concert footage - but all you have to do is watch "Rust Never Sleeps" or "The Last Waltz" to see a movie like this done with more skill. And with more exciting musicians. <br /><br />So really, there's only two things to watch this movie for: Springsteen's stellar performance, and as a sad snapshot about a counter-culture in decline. | negative |
John Wayne & Albert Dekker compete for oil rights on Indian territory, and for the attention of Martha Scott in this Republic Pictures film shot out of Utah, USA.<br /><br />An interesting Western of sorts due to its characters and its more modern setting, with Wayne & Dekker playing the old and new factions of the West. It's based on a story by Thomson Burtis who co-writes the script along with Eleanore Griffin and Ethel Hill. Albert Rogell directs in the workmanlike way that befits his career. A pretty mundane story is in truth saved by its final third, where thankfully the action picks up and we are treated to something resembling a pulse. The light hearted approach to the romantic strand doesn't sit quite right, and a glorious fist fight between the two protagonists is ruined by Rogell being unable to disguise the stunt men doing the work. But hey, stunt men deserve their moment of glory always. Solid support comes from George 'Gabby' Hayes and Wayne as usual has much screen charisma, particularly when rattling off his pistol. But in spite of its better than usual Republic budget, it remains a film of interest only to 1940s Wayne enthusiasts. 4/10 | negative |
Tarantino once remarked on a melodrama from the 1930s called Backstreet that "tragedy is like another character" in the film. The same could be said- and not withstanding bringing up Tarantino- for Sidney Lumet's best work in years, a melodrama where character is of the utmost concern not simply because of what's at stake with the cast involved. Kelly Masterson doesn't have a masterpiece of a script here (it basically breaks into crazy killer mode by the end in a series of climactic events that only work by the very end, and even there suspension of disbelief is paramount), but her script does convey character before plot, and in a story where the actions surround a heist it's crucial to know who these people are beat by beat. It's bleak as hell, unforgiving as Satan, but also absolutely riveting 90% of the time.<br /><br />Chalk it up not just because Lumet knows how to handle a non-linear script where we see the day-to-day actions of character to character before during, and mostly after the botched 'mom-&-pop' jewelry store robbery occurs, but because of the formidable cast assembled (which, I might add, is Lumet's specialty). Philip Seymour Hoffman and Ethan Hawke are brothers with their own respective financial f***-ups, and the former approaches the latter on what looks like a fool-proof heist: looting their own mother and father's jewelry store in Westchester. Hawke's Hank involves another shady character though, murders occur, and suddenly it's tragedy on a Greek scale affecting the brothers and their father, played by a perfect Albert Finney. It's the kind of material that most actors love- characters who, like in Dog Day Afternoon, are painfully human, flawed to the bone but only wanting love &/or things to be set right, and have the complete inability to fulfill their wants and needs.<br /><br />In this case though Hoffman and Hawke are matched splendidly; Hoffman has, until the aforementioned last ten minutes, a super-calm and occasionally joking demeanor that reveals him as the brains of the operation, but then smaller scenes where he breaks down emotionally (i.e. with Finney or the car scene with Tomei) push his talents to the limit; Hawke, meanwhile, is called a loser by his ex-wife and daughter, can't pay any debts at all, and is called a baby by his own father, and he fills the bill of the part in all the ways that matter- he's not quite as flawed as his older brother, but who wants to pick a straw for that title? And Finney, as mentioned, is spot-on all the way through, making his turn in Big Fish look like child's play (the final scenes with him are terrifyingly tragic, his face recoiling in a horror that has built up all through the second half).<br /><br />Also featuring supporting turns from a finely ditsy and perversely two-timing Marisa Tomei, Bug's Michael Shannon as bad-ass white trash, and Amy Ryan, Brian F. O'Byrne and Rosemary Harris making brief, exact impressions, this is a film with a tremendous lot of skill and heart- but not a forgiving heart- with a story that doubles back on details not for showy plot devices but to make clear every step of a family's perpetual downward spiral. If it's not as mind-blowing as Serpico or Network or the Pawnbroker or 12 Angry Men it comes as close as anything Lumet's done since. | positive |
Aah yes the workout show was a great. Not only did many women get in shape, but many teenage boys got a great workout as well. I am not saying that the show was in any way not appropriate for family viewing, but if you check the other works from the shows producer, you will find more adult themes in his works, which are also excellent. Many of the viewers looked forward to the show, men and women alike all gained good information and a wonderful release,from the workouts. The girls were perfect, and Beautiful, the show is a classic and should do well in syndication. The show should still be on, as there are never enough choices to view when it comes to health and beauty. | positive |
This film should have never been made. Honestly, I must admit that before I saw it I had some serious doubts. The director is not a great actress, though she did a lot of movies in Holland, and the young woman who took the main part is a TV-personality with a constant smile on the face and not much self-criticism. The actor who played the other main part I recently saw in Bride Flight and although that film is better, he did not convince me than. To start with the the story, I have not read the novel it is based upon, but the script that underlays the film is something that might have been done with in mind kids having a birthday party on a rainy Sunday afternoon, not someone of the same age as the director who likes to watch a good movie. Something really disturbing were the overdubbed dialogues, it was most of the time spoken out loud. My regards go to the cameraman, at least he tried to make something out of it. It is a pity that the film is edited lousy, if not, some scenes were certainly more credible. | negative |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.