review stringlengths 32 13.7k | sentiment stringclasses 2 values |
|---|---|
Even with only 6,000 bucks and a cast of part-time actors, Christopher Nolan was a master. Nolan is in my opinion, the next great and our first taste of Nolan doesn't contradict that.<br /><br />None of the problems that constantly plaque and discredit the low budget independent picture haunt Nolan and crew. Our actors are inexperienced and young but they deliver and engage us in this story. In all honesty I think Following is Nolan's best screenplay because it is the one he had the most control over. It's a beautifully imagined film. It takes us into a world where we don't feel limited by the constraints of budget. The dialogue and atmosphere is bold and intelligent.<br /><br />Nolan's trademark method of telling the story out of continuity is applied for the first time here and here it is done in a way that throws the story full out at you. With Memento and The Prestige you have to think a bit to truly get a complete grasp on the genius but Nolan doesn't try to confuse people with his prototype film. We can distinguish time by the appearance of our protagonist. This method of telling a story is both creative and engaging. I am Glad that Nolan has had so much success with it because his films become more than what they could be with this method. The pay offs in the Prestige and Memento would not have been thrilling at all if the movie was told in a conventional format. This idea has been done with moderate success before but Nolan has truly made it his own.<br /><br />The script here is Nolan's finest. I had some doubts about his writing abilities, I all ways imagined that his brother Jonathon was the writing talent but he proves me wrong with Following. It is a thought provoking story which makes interesting observations of people and how they function. Cobb's assessments about burglarizing and how it can lead you to discover what makes people tick actually sounds plausible.<br /><br />My only real complaint is the camera work gets shaky at times but it doesn't take away anything from the story or the acting.<br /><br />Following is the first film of the man who will personify 21st century film-making at it's finest. | positive |
"Footlight Parade" is just one of several wonderfully jaunty musicals that Warner Bros. produced in the early 1930's to ward off the Depression. "42nd Street" and the Golddiggers series were also produced during this era, and they made literally, millions of Americans forget their troubles for a little while, and enjoy themselves.<br /><br />While most of the films produced had the great talents of Joan Blondell, Ruby Keeler, and Dick Powell, only Foolight Parade had the incomparable James Cagney. Almost ten years prior to his most well-known musical, "Yankee Doodle Dandy". Here he dances in that most original of dance styles, with his arms usually lowered at his side, and his legs doing all types of undulations and kicks. It's easy to see that he is enjoying himself, and that makes us enjoy him all the more.<br /><br />While almost all of the musical sequences appear at the end of the film, they are well worth the wait. I believe that this film was made just prior to the installation of the production code, so some of the costumes and scenes are a bit risqué. But it's all in fun.<br /><br />It doesn't matter what the plot of the film is, just know that there are plenty of laughs and a superlative cast. Besides those already mentioned, Guy Kibbee is at his flustered best here.<br /><br />7 out of 10 | positive |
Mike Brady (Michael Garfield who had a minuscule part in the classic "The Warriors") is the first person in the community to realize that there's murderous slugs in his small town. Not just any slugs, mind you, but carnivorous killer bigger then normal, mutated by toxic waste slugs (who still only go as fast as a normal slug, which isn't that frightening, but I digress). No one will believe him at first, but they will. Oh yes, they will.<br /><br />OK, killer slugs are right above psychotic sloths and right below Johnathon Winters as Mork's baby in the creepiness factor. So the absurdness of it all is quite apparent from the get go. The flick is fun somewhat through and is of the 'so bad that it's good' variety. I appreciate that they spelled out that this was Slugs: the Movie as opposed to Slugs: the Children's Game or Slugs: the Other White Meat. Probably not worthy of watching it more than once and promptly forgetting it except for playing a rather obscure trivia game. Director Juan Piquer Simón is more widely known for his previous films "Pod People" (which MST3K deservedly mocked) and "Peices" (which is quite possibly the funnest bad movie ever made) <br /><br />Eye Candy: Kari Rose shows T&A <br /><br />My Grade: D+ <br /><br />DVD Extras: Merely a theatrical trailer for this movie | negative |
Every country which has a working film industry has some sane (and maybe some insane) artist which make movies that you can only completely understand when you're a part of this country. I guess Hundstage is such a movie.<br /><br />You see the lowest level of Austria's society, dirty, disturbed, weird, hateful. But they still have enough money so they can afford tuned cars and big houses. And they are definitely doing a lot of strange things here which maybe seems for them 'normal' because they're doing it through their whole life. From a normal human viewpoint you can now easily follow the movie and be disgusted or fascinated and watch a fine piece of Austria's art movies.<br /><br />But if you LIVE here and you know the people you see the characters in Hundstage as the tumor of the society. A society that is going more insane from day to day, creating their own rules that nobody else can understand, cave the social system from within. And you SEE the people. Sitting in the park, standing at the opposite street corner, queuing in the same line. Maybe you meet 'em in a bar or a disco you may visit. Maybe you even work with them in your job or they are living next to your house. You start to hate them without exactly knowing why. You'll try to get away - but you cannot. Maybe you'll end up like them. But it seems 'normal' for you because you're doing it through your whole life now...<br /><br />Life isn't so bright though Austria is one of the richest countries in the world. It has beautiful people... but some are also ugly. There are a lot of hard working persons trying their best... but there are also some riding on the back of others and destroying everything that the folk of Austria has built up so far.<br /><br />A very pessimistic movie. | positive |
This is the biggest piece of crap ever. It looks like they spent more time, effort, and money making the DVD cover than they did on the actual movie. I really thought the DVD had been switched out with someone's homemade porno until I recognized one of the actors from the cover. This movie looks like someone made it with a hundred bucks and a camcorder and they spent half of that on rats. The picture is really clear, but that, along with the very unfortunate lighting, cinematography, if you can call it that, production, acting, if that is actually what they are doing, and script, if they had one, makes this movie look worse than an old porno. At least the old porno has a point. This just looks like some PETA members got together and decided to make a really disturbing, pointless PSA about animals rights and feelings. This is so not worth the money or the time. It has nothing in common with the actual BTK serial killer other than the name of the killer and that of some of the victims. The people who made this movie should be glad he's not still free, or he might have come after them just for screwing up this movie so bad. | negative |
My introduction to a lifelong love of Shakespeare. My brother was 5 and I was not quite 7 when WTTW Chicago broadcast An Age of Kings. It became a family ritual to watch, including the reruns. As an autumn series, my father used to buy us a rare treat for the Midwest--pomegranates; and my mother would pop corn on the stove. Wonderful acting from actors whose names meant nothing to me then (although I will never forget the achingly young Sean Connery as Hotspur), but do now! And they published the scripts in paperback so we could follow along and figure out the language. I managed to memorize most of Richard III over that. So glad to see it coming out on DVD! Highly recommended for all ages and any level of familiarity with Shakespeare or English history. | positive |
1st watched 8/26/2001 - 3 out of 10(Dir-Tobe Hooper): Scary, yet sadistic(which makes sense) portrayal of a relative of the Marquis De Sade carrying out the same sadistic acts and enjoying it that supposedly his predecessor did. This Tobe Hooper film really doesn't do a whole lot different than his similar in style Freddy Krueger movies with the same star (Freddy himself - Robert Englund) playing a dual role(the Marquis De Sade and his relative). It is also seems like it wants to really poke at Christianity but then loses that in the end much to my chagrin but leaving an inconsistent feel to the movie. Could have been much worse if excesses were taken in sex and violence, but they try to keep this at a minimal despite some disgusting scenes. My final thought is why would Hooper want to make this movie. It obviously took awhile to actually get distributed, then it has to be advertised gruesomely and with Hooper's name in the title to hopefully make some money on his name and his gore. It's obvious this didn't work. | negative |
This is one of the most touching films I had ever watched. No movie has effected me the way this one did. This is a great film and you have to see for yourself. I'm normally impregnable with these sob story movies but this one did it for me. I was in tears at the end. You'll yearn for the friendship that is portrayed in this movie. If I can give this movie a billion stars I could. | positive |
I watched the Pie-lette last night and the word that comes to mind is "original." It is a word not used much in TV as they all tend to copy whatever the other network is doing and you end up with seven nights of crime shows, unfunny comedies, and reality crap.<br /><br />The first thing that hit me like a brick was the presence of Jim Dale. Those not familiar with the British "Carry On ..." series or those who have not listened to a Harry Potter book, may not be familiar with Dale. I am not sure whether his presence as narrator adds or distracts. I will have to tune in more, but it does give the show a "Harry Potter" atmosphere. Maybe that's a good thing.<br /><br />Lee Pace (Infamous, The White Countess) has a gift. It never explains where he got it, but he can bring someone back from the dead for a minute. He teams with Chi McBride ("Boston Public," Roll Bounce) to solve murders using this talent. Everything is fine and funny until he comes across a childhood love, Anna Friel (Goal! The Dream Begins, Timeline) and things really get complicated. He can't send her back and he can never touch her. Boy, would that make a relationship difficult.<br /><br />I will be tuning in to see where this series goes in the expectation that it will continue to entertain. | positive |
The movie has taken a little flack for playing fast and loose with the facts. But it will put you close to being in a time and place that no longer exist by getting to the *feeling*.<br /><br />As Keith Richards remarks in Paul McCartney's movie about Holly, there's some Buddy Holly in almost all rock made since his day. The tragedy that took him is dealt with gently, and the rest of the movie recreates the joy of a great music career and a joyful body of music.<br /><br />Gary Busey does a remarkable, energetic portrayal of Holly, and his performances hint that he really gets into the music. As a long-time Holly fan and rocker, so do I. | positive |
Excellent movie about a big media firm and the goings on both on and off camera. Covering several years, the film centers on 3 upwardly mobile, young hopefuls, all striving for their place within the corporation. Well written dialogue, flawless acting, and a riveting story made for 2 hours of solid entertainment. | positive |
talk about your waste of money.. im just wondering why Michael would star in such a turkey of a movie..Michael is a Great actor especially in the movie where he plays a man dying of cancer.. that was wonderful. as he tapes himself for his son to see it once he grows up .. Michael is such a talented actor.. so what made him do this one??? i watched it and thought it was really dumb.. i guess at one time in their career they have the crappy movies .. especially "The Squeeze" i didnt understand that one At all, and i feel his best performance was in "Pacific Heights" , his character really creeped me out.. and i really enjoyed "Multiplicity". .that one was so Hilarious !!! and he was just Perfect for the role of "Batman" .. and i kind of liked "Night Shift" and i love "Johnny Dangerously" too .. just too bad some of them end up doing lousy movies .. like this one was... | negative |
Witchy Hildegard Knef traps a group of people in an isolated hotel and picks them off one by one in twisted, disgusting ways. I thought I'd seen it all until one unfortunate man here is crucified and then has his head set on fire. Hildy is quite the prankster too: she takes a nagging harpy and sews her mouth shut...then hangs her upside down in the chimney just in time for a roaring fire! "Witchery" made me sick. It made my eyes hurt. I was ready to write it off as the worst movie ever-ever-ever made by otherwise competent people...until the finale. I have to admit I loved the ending. It involves a boy and his toy tape-recorder cornered by Linda Blair looking fantastically possessed. The scene only lasts for about a minute and the movie's over, but you know that old saying: "If you've got a great ending, people will forgive you for just about anything!" | negative |
Flat, ordinary thriller about a conniving woman who deceives all those she supposedly loves in order to boost her bank account. Nicole Kidman plays the deceptive Tracey, married to the doting Andy (Bill Pullman). When an old school friend of Andy's named Jed Hill (Alec Baldwin) turns up as the resident surgeon, trouble is not far behind him.<br /><br />Script fails in that it does not carefully develop the promising premise into an effective, tantalising thriller, and the severe lack of character motivation, background and development leaves the whole show reaching. None of the cast are able to generate interest in their shallow characters, especially Bill Pullman, whose own inexplicably curious Andy is impossible to believe.<br /><br />Poor director Harold Becker is left trying to resurrect an impossibly dead project, and is unable to make entertainment from any of it. By the time the 'secret' of the plot is revealed, you just won't care.<br /><br />At least the cinematography has Massachusetts looking good. Also stars George C. Scott, Peter Gallagher and Josef Sommer.<br /><br />Sunday, February 25, 1996 - T.V. | negative |
Stunning blonde Natasha Henstridge is the young, not-so-grieving widow in the mansion on the hill, telling her story to a TV reporter in Monroeville, Virginia. And among the community's well-heeled horsey-set, she's suspected of involvement in the death of her older husband. That's James Brolin, trusting as a babe-in-arms. Flashback teledrama made in Canada, based on an article that appeared in Vanity Fair magazine. It must be true! Whatever, it's far more romance than mystery, and a very familiar tale. Leggy Species star Henstridge as a gold-digging hospice nurse? It could happen, I guess. And it's good to see Brolin in a sizeable role after his titchy turn in Antwone Fisher, even if he doesn't make it to the end of the picture. The end of the picture? He doesn't even make it to the beginning of the picture. Which is why flashbacks were invented, of course. | negative |
This movie was just plain bad. I can forgive low-budget films for being low budget but it wasn't funny, it wasn't smart, it had no redeeming qualities at all unless you really like looking at fake boobs. I don't know what this genre is classified as, possibly erotic horror, but if so-- well, it's neither sexy nor scary. Tying it into the Slumber Party Massacre movies was useless; I'd never seen the previous movies myself, and except for one scene that attempted to tie it together, I had no way of knowing who the escaped psycho killer in 'Cheerleader' was or why they were bothering with including him, especially because (and I don't think I'm revealing anything here) it was really obvious that the cheerleader killer in this film wasn't him. As for the actual murderer? All I can say is, lame. Really lame. When you find out why the killer is offing the cheerleading squad (and the squad's coach, and two stoners who happened to be on the bus trip they're taking, and the bus driver just for the heck of it, apparently) you will sit there and go-- WTF? Worst excuse for a murdering spree ever. The "actors" (two guesses why I added the quotes) generally looked like low-budget porn rejects, which they most likely were. Those poor people, trying to break into "legitimate" film. One of my friends had this to say about the actor who played Buzzy, the bus driver: "He looks like the guy who, you know, gets really into it, and his face gets all red and stuff." We had a good larf at that. Half of the other actors had all the skill and subtlety of the actors in the sixth grade production of "Annie" I just saw. The other half pretty much seemed bored to death (especially in the deleted scene, this one redhead...), and by ten minutes into this movie I was, too.<br /><br />A note: the DVD contains one deleted scene, which would've put the movie from R-rated to NC-17 if it had been left in. It was entirely gratuitous, and as adult entertainment goes of no quality whatsoever. The only reason to bother with it is to laugh, a lot, at the badness. | negative |
Just given the fact that it is based on the most infamous mass suicide incident of modern times would have been enough to give this 2-part 1980 made-for-TV film attention. But the fact is that it is a superb recreation of the life of the Rev. Jim Jones, who built a church into a virtual empire, and then encouraged it to disintegrate into a sleazy cult in which a Congressman and his entourage were assassinated, and 917 cult followers committed suicide by drinking Kool-Aid doused with cyanide.<br /><br />Done very tastefully but horrifying enough, unlike the excruciatingly sadistic CULT OF THE DAMNED, GUYANA TRAGEDY features an all-star cast, including Ned Beatty (as Rep. Leo Ryan), Meg Foster, Randy Quaid, Brad Dourif, Brenda Vaccaro, LeVar Burton, and Madge Sinclair. But it is Powers Boothe (in his first big role) that really stands out as Jim Jones. He actually BECOMES the man, and his performance is riveting and chilling. Thus, it is no wonder that this film still manages to attract attention after more than twenty years. | positive |
The only thing worse than surfers without any waves is a film about surfers without any waves. For viewers who love surfing this film will be a gigantic disappointment since the total number of minutes of surfing footage struggles to reach three.<br /><br />The story is a slice of life about beached surfers who are waiting not for the perfect wave, but for any wave at all. J.C. (Sean Pertwee) is an aging super surfer who is flirting with a commitment with his girlfriend Chloe (Catherine Zeta Jones). Just as he is about to find grown up bliss with the woman he loves, three old surfing friends turn up and convince him to hit the beach looking for monster waves at the Bone Yard. The trouble is, there are no waves until the very end of the film, so most of the story dissipates itself on a meandering succession of disconnected beach happenings.<br /><br />The acting is mostly mediocre. Sean Pertwee has a few comical moments, but mostly his acting was mundane. Ewan McGregor was decent as the drug dealing wild man, by far the most interesting and peculiar character of the bunch. Probably the funniest performance was turned in by Peter Gunn as Terry who turned his corpulent body into a continual sight gag. Catherine Zeta-Jones was sexy as usual, but her character didn't really have enough meat for her to show much acting ability.<br /><br />There is really not much here on which to comment. I rated it a 3/10. It's a real beach bummer. | negative |
I saw "Shiner" on DVD. While I was watching it, I thought, "This is a really bad porn flick without the porn." I also thought, "Whoever wrote this has some real issues." Then I watched the director/writer Carlson explain his process as a special feature. Yeah, it was real special.<br /><br />The emphasis of the film is placed on two alcoholic losers who hit each other to get off. They are marginally attractive. There is frontal and full nudity. These factors probably account for the film being seen at all.<br /><br />The most upsetting element of the film is the gay bashing and the subsequent further gay bashing of the same victim who tries ineptly to exact revenge from his assailants, the two drunken losers. Not only is the subject handled absurdly and badly from a technical point of view, but the acting is horrendously bad.<br /><br />Then there's the boxer-stalker theme. This is really insane, not just absurd. This hunky boxer is somehow traumatized by the persistent attentions of a fleshy momma's boy who works at his gym's parking lot. This is in LA, mind you. The boxer is so traumatized that he turns up at the stalker's house, strips in front of him and gets excited in the process.<br /><br />Well, all I can say is, why would a boxer who is at heart an exhibitionist be so traumatized by the attention of a stalker? It simply makes no sense. And, I'm afraid, some psycho-dynamics actually do make sense, if you take the time to read about them. However, bad scripts seldom make sense at all.<br /><br />The director/writer seems to have thought that this film represents a considerable minority within the gay community. Well, he may be correct, I suppose. We may never know, since that minority would be so dysfunctional they would hardly be able to get organized enough to ever get to an obscure gay film festival or DVD store, the only two places they could possibly find this turkey. Thank goodness for that. | negative |
"I Am Curious: Yellow" is a risible and pretentious steaming pile. It doesn't matter what one's political views are because this film can hardly be taken seriously on any level. As for the claim that frontal male nudity is an automatic NC-17, that isn't true. I've seen R-rated films with male nudity. Granted, they only offer some fleeting views, but where are the R-rated films with gaping vulvas and flapping labia? Nowhere, because they don't exist. The same goes for those crappy cable shows: schlongs swinging in the breeze but not a clitoris in sight. And those pretentious indie movies like The Brown Bunny, in which we're treated to the site of Vincent Gallo's throbbing johnson, but not a trace of pink visible on Chloe Sevigny. Before crying (or implying) "double-standard" in matters of nudity, the mentally obtuse should take into account one unavoidably obvious anatomical difference between men and women: there are no genitals on display when actresses appears nude, and the same cannot be said for a man. In fact, you generally won't see female genitals in an American film in anything short of porn or explicit erotica. This alleged double-standard is less a double standard than an admittedly depressing ability to come to terms culturally with the insides of women's bodies. | negative |
Hilarious, evocative, confusing, brilliant film. Reminds me of Bunuel's L'Age D'Or or Jodorowsky's Holy Mountain-- lots of strange characters mucking about and looking for..... what is it? I laughed almost the whole way through, all the while keeping a peripheral eye on the bewildered and occasionally horrified reactions of the audience that surrounded me in the theatre. Entertaining through and through, from the beginning to the guts and poisoned entrails all the way to the end, if it was an end. I only wish i could remember every detail. It haunts me sometimes.<br /><br />Honestly, though, i have only the most positive recollections of this film. As it doesn't seem to be available to take home and watch, i suppose i'll have to wait a few more years until Crispin Glover comes my way again with his Big Slide Show (and subsequent "What is it?" screening)... I saw this film in Atlanta almost directly after being involved in a rather devastating car crash, so i was slightly dazed at the time, which was perhaps a very good state of mind to watch the prophetic talking arthropods and the retards in the superhero costumes and godlike Glover in his appropriate burly-Q setting, scantily clad girlies rising out of the floor like a magnificent DADAist wet dream.<br /><br />Is it a statement on Life As We Know It? Of course everyone EXPECTS art to be just that. I rather think that the truth is more evident in the absences and in the negative space. What you don't tell us is what we must deduce, but is far more valid than the lies that other people feed us day in and day out. Rather one "WHAT IS IT?" than 5000 movies like "Titanic" or "Sleepless in Seattle" (shudder, gag, groan).<br /><br />Thank you, Mr. Glover (additionally a fun man to watch on screen or at his Big Slide Show-- smart, funny, quirky, and outrageously hot). Make more films, write more books, keep the nightmare alive. | positive |
There are very few films that are able to tell such a complicated story on so many levels as well as Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters. One of the most difficult aspects of story telling is the ability to flashback and forward without losing the pace of the film. This film not only flashes back and fourth with the greatest of easy, but it also flows through some of Yukio Mishima greatest stories. This film exceeds in every aspect and is a joy to watch. Not to mention the incredible Philip Glass Soundtrack. | positive |
I thought that the interplay between Crystal and DeVito was great. The movie is rather off the wall, but there are some unforgettable lines. Ramsey as "Momma" is vulgar and over the top, but also very funny and effective. The character HAS to be pretty awful for why else would someone entertain thoughts of killing his mother? Now Crystal's wife -- she is a "slut" whom everyone would like to receive her comeuppance, thus her role, though minor, is also effective, because it has to justify Crystal's ridiculous case of "writer's block." While there are certainly dark moments, the movie is not depressing and, despite the murderous urges that the protagonists feel, they have redeeming qualities too.<br /><br />Overall, this is one of the funniest movies I can remember, one that I don't mind watching over several times. | positive |
Hard to describe this one -- if you were a fan of Russ Meyer films back in the day, you will surely be pleased to see that Haji is still looking really hot, though Forry Ackerman has not fared so well (what is he doing still making these movies anyway? If I go up to him with a camera will he be in my movie?). It was a pretty fun premise -- a superhero whose giant mammaries are her secret weapon -- but sometimes it did not pan out for the whole length, and the jokes were on a level with your average Joe E. Brown comedy (or, Abbott and Costello if that's your thing) -- basically just bad puns. Still, I found this movie fascinating to watch, and for more than 2 reasons. Good job, but still a fundamentally flimsy production. | negative |
This is one of the worst movies I've seen in my life. If you're looking for a nice theatrical effect, skip it and watch something else.<br /><br />But if you're looking for camp-value, this is it. Here's my advice: Gather a few sarcastic friends and watch the movie strictly for the purpose of making fun of it. | negative |
After watching this for 15 minutes I knew how it would end. Its a cliché film with a stupid setup. I'm a big fan of thief films, but this one does not deliver anything new smart or special. It's about an insider heist gone bad because "hot head-bad guy" shots a bum, and of course "do goody-bad guy" goes on a moral trip. The reason why it's stupid and not believable is. When you've already gone so far to kill a bum, why not just kill the one guy that stands between you and 43 million. They got 45 minutes to stash the money and stage a robbery nobody in there right mind would hesitate to shoot Mr "do goody" and in this case he is a guy they known for a few days.... All and all I was leaning to fast forwarding from the middle of it, but I duked it out and boy do I regret it | negative |
One thing I'm sure everyone who has seen this film will agree on is that it is very creepy. The other films in Polanski's unofficial trilogy are creepy too, but they are all different in what makes them creepy, but they all roughly deal with the same thing, they all deal with the mind. Definitely the staring people are very creepy, each of them sent shivers down my spine that made me incapable of sitting still. Again, if you have seen the other two films mentioned, I'm sure you'll find this quite creepy, because you begin to expect typical Polanski traits that you think you have caught onto, he is aware of this and will keep teasing you with simple things, personally every time Trelkovsky would slowly turn around I would be bracing myself for a jump, maybe that's just me, but it felt intended to do that, though it was quite subtle, there is no build up of the music in those moments.<br /><br />The acting in this was pretty good, mostly that from Polanski of course, the other characters in the film don't have all that much time to outshine the lead. Polanski really proves himself as an all-round great filmmaker, he not only can direct and write great films, but he can actually act too. I don't think there is any other better person who could have pulled off the Trelkovsky character, Polanski settled right on in perfectly. I like seeing films where the director is also apart of the main cast, to me it really highlights their fantastic versatility and talent, which I respect greatly.<br /><br />One thing I didn't like about this film is how it was done in English. For those who don't know, this is a French film, American financed, and as well to make it more commercially successful it was mostly done in English. There are parts which it is very obvious there has been dubbing, and I don't know why it is, but 3/4 of the time when there is a dub they get the complete wrong person to do the dub. There is a women in the film who when she speaks it's obvious it's a dub, but they got the most annoying person to do the voice-over, it was seriously pain to my ears to hear her speak, she had the loudest high pitch voice I've heard in a while, it almost seemed fake, but I don't see what the point was, she was a rather small character. I honestly would of preferred if they just left it as it was filmed, parts of it in French and parts of it in English, because the dubbing in this film was a pain and was not near (two completely different films, I know) the high standard of another film that did a similar thing, which was, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. I realise it's not a big problem, just when you do realise it, it gets annoying, but I'm sure you won't sit there the long trying to lip read what they are actually saying, regardless if you know French.<br /><br />Whats so great about Polanski is that he will let you think you know him, that you know his style, which in some aspects you do, but really, you can't see whats behind that corner. This film is a lot more open to interpretation than the other two films mentioned, which I think really strengthens this one in particular. I personally feel this is the best of the three, I'm unsure which comes next, but they are all relatively close in their level of greatness. The ending is fantastic, it is so easy to dwindle on it for a long time to come and get nowhere. I choose not to think to much on it, just to have my personal opinion and leave it at that.<br /><br />I've rambled on, and I haven't really given any insight on what makes this film so great, I don't think, so I'll quickly do it here. If you liked Repulsion and/or Rosemary's Baby, I guarantee you will enjoy this film to say the least. For those who are too unfortunate to have seen either then I recommend you check this film out if your looking for something that is quite a creepy film that is quite intelligent, particularly the end, as well if your looking for something that deals with the mind, paranoia even, though that is better fitted under Repulsion. | positive |
I watched this expecting to see the usual British stiff upper lip stereotypes and was surprised to find the dialogue remarkably natural and tinged with black humour. It was more like Eastenders Goes to Sea than In Which We Serve. The scenes during the approach and attack are remarkably realistic in their depiction of a fighting ship and the stuff ups and banter among the ship's company (well at least based on my service in the 1970s). Some of the throwaway lines are very witty ("I'm not joining the Band of Hope just to please some greasy fish fryer!). My only complaint is that they didn't show what happened to the Irish coxswain and his bride to be, or the tattooed PO and his "I Love Arabella" tattoo! | positive |
I really enjoyed this movie. Yes there was disrespect throughout the movie, but Bruce Willis learned, from The Kid, that there is more value in repecting others, and his life of disrespect needs to change. This movie was a refreshing change from the trash that Hollywood is trying to shove down our throats. There are some very good lessons to be learned in this movie. I really believe this was one of Disneys best, even though a couple of things could have been left out. I was impressed with the lack of swearing and lack of sexual inuendos. It isn't perfect, but much better than most everything else out there. | positive |
Some films are so bad that they're good. This is clearly not one of them. Based on a true story, this film was about as true to the story as Pinocchio's chances of becoming a real boy. The acting was terrible, the direction was poor, and it travelled way too fast. It was as if the director just wanted to get it over and done with and go home.<br /><br />Nor did Melissa Joan Hart ever strike me as a talented actress, but then every film she made was pretty low-budget anyway. Like most of her other films, she lets down her characters by hamming them up too much, talking too quickly as if speeding up her words is going to make her more dramatic. She really brings out the sense that there is a crew in front of her and she's talking to a camera, when she should be engaging the viewer in her character. It pretty much lets down the whole film, and any leg that it may have had left to stand on, is ruined.<br /><br />Probably the only good thing about the film is when she got nailed in the end. But even that wasn't satisfying enough to subdue my loathing for such a bad film.<br /><br />Watch it if your taste in film is blander than a piece of dry toast. | negative |
I was one of the few who went out of my way to see this in the theater. I've thought about it frequently ever since. After two DVD viewings I'm glad to say it held up perfectly. Like any great comedy, I laughed more on each viewing, both in anticipation of gags, but also after catching things missed before. <br /><br />Mike Judge does very well with creating insanely comedic characters and fitting them into their world so they make sense. In Office Space, the environment make the characters believable. Idiocracy's future gives him liberty to write unbelievably dumb characters and make them work. I'll be waiting to see if they release a better DVD with some actual features before buying it. But this movie deserves the support on DVD not offered to it at the theater. | positive |
No movie I've ever seen before has even come close to being as boring and stupid as this hunk of junk. And I have always been a big B-movie fan. After viewing this total piece of crap, though I can honestly say that this doesn't even come close to being a B-movie. <br /><br />No one in this movie could act if their life depended on it. The script is so stupid I don't think I've ever heard anyone talk like this in my life. The writer should go spend a few years studying real-life people to see just how they act and talk, even then they would not be able to make a watchable movie because it is so obvious that no one involved in this movie has any talent driving them at all. <br /><br />I could make a better movie with a digital camera and some monster toys. Also, forget about any sexy scenes, the women in the leather outfits are so grotesque, you would sooner puke than get turned on!<br /><br />Avoid this pointless drivel unless you want to be bored out of your mind! | negative |
as a habit i always like to read through the 'hated it' reviews of any given movie. especially one that i'd want to comment on. and it's not so much a point-counterpoint sorta deal; i just like to see what people say on the flipside.<br /><br />however, i do want to address one thing. many people that hated it called it, to paraphrase, 'beautiful, but shallow,' some even going so far as to say that norm's desire yet inability to help his brother was a mundane plot, at best.<br /><br />i'd like to disagree.<br /><br />as a brother of a sibling who has a similar dysfunction, i can relate. daily, you see them abuse themselves, knowing only that their current path will inevitably lead them to self-destruction. and it's not about the specifics of what they did when; how or why paul decided to take up gambling and associating with questionable folks; it's really more how they are wired. on one hand, they are veritable geniuses, and on the other, painfully self-destructive (it's a lot like people like howard hughes the same forces which drive them are the same forces which tear them apart) and all the while you see this, you know this, and what's worse, you realize you can't do a damn thing about it.<br /><br />for norman maclean, a river runs through it was probably a way to find an answer to why the tragedy had to occur, and who was to blame. in the end, no one is, and often, there is no why. but it takes a great deal of personal anguish to truly come to this realization. sometimes it takes a lifetime. and sometimes it never comes at all. | positive |
did anyone notice?when miss brook went skinny dipping,she left the water wearing white bikini bottoms and yet had previously taken it all off to join cabin boy.this could have been a good film without miss brooks phony accent and a year on the island please.how come that Kelly looked always clean and ready for a FM photo shoot.what started out with premise turned in to soft porn.and billy Zane come on,you cant be that hard up for film offers.check out dead calm.also when the people took her away ,how come she scoffed her face and after all that time didn't feel like throwing up.i suggest billy find decent scripts,Kelly stick to photo shoots and cabin boy play the son of Zorro in a future sequel. | negative |
I remember watching this film in the eighties as a teenager. But i wanted to see it again, because Traci Lords is now earning a living as a "serious actor". What the hell was going on in the eighties? This is a really bad film with bad taste and bad actors. Definitely a waste of money. | negative |
So, I know that I voted 1 out of 10 but really this deserves no more than half of a star. I hated it. It was so stupid and unrealistic, I can't believe any of the stars signed on to make this ridiculously absurd project.<br /><br />James G. and Cathrine O'Hara were excellent in their characters and Ben Affleck and Christina Applegate were just as good too, but the story sucked and I encourage anyone who sees this in the video store to not even bother picking it up and reading the back cover, but to just walk away...I don't even want to get into what the movie is about, because it is too stupid to pontificate about.<br /><br />Don't rent this! It's horrible! Horrible! | negative |
Arthur has always been a personal film for me for two reasons. A good friend of mine who worked on the film as an extra and to help out with the horses during the stable scene just recently passed away. If you look fast you can see Frank Graham during the restaurant scene in the background while Dudley Moore and Jill Eikenberry are in conversation. Frank was a champion equestrian and will be missed by all who knew him.<br /><br />Secondly though, I actually knew a real life Arthur Bach. He was not quite as wealthy as Arthur, but spent 47 years of his life basically as a kid. His parents tightly controlled his purse strings, but his rent and utilities were paid for in a basement apartment in Greenwich Village. He spent a good deal of his time getting himself intoxicated on various spirits and making a public spectacle of himself, just like Dudley Moore does. <br /><br />The wonder with Arthur is why anyone would bother with him wealth of not. But that's the other half of the equation. My friend was a most charming person when you got to know him. In fact it was almost a compulsion to be charming. He couldn't buy a newspaper or magazine without trying to establish some level of relationship with the vendor. He spent his life being a perfect party guest. The term wastrel which was in common use in the 19th century would apply to him.<br /><br />And that's what Dudley Moore is, a wastrel. Unlike my friend Moore has John Gielgud to clean up after him. That's a full time job as we see demonstrated in Arthur. My friend also never found a Liza Minnelli, a male Liza Minnelli in fact because he was gay. Still Moore's portrayal of Arthur Bach is deadly accurate and so real for me.<br /><br />Arthur, 20th century wastrel, is being forced to marry another trust fund baby in Jill Eikenberry. Since he won't work for a living, the threat of being cut off is quite real for him. He only has his butler Hobson played by John Gielgud and chauffeur Bitterman played by Ted Post to pour his troubles out to. We should all have such troubles.<br /><br />John Gielgud in his nearly century of life certainly did better work than in Arthur on film and in fact Gielgud is more prominently known for his stage performances. Yet 1981 was a year of sentiment at Oscar time. The Academy gave Henry Fonda and Katharine Hepburn Oscars for On Golden Pond and Gielgud the Best Supporting Actor Award essentially for the work of a lifetime. That man was amazing, still at his craft almost to the end.<br /><br />So to Frank Graham who worked in the film and to Jackie Weiss, a genuine real life Arthur, I dedicate this review. | positive |
This piece of crap doesn't worth a critical review so I'll write some information for those who don't know the background of this movie. First off all it is not the first Saudi movie, they used this wrong info for commercial purpose (they lied!). Second they made it for money not for anything else so they picked the jerk (Hesham) who won Star Academy (like Big Brother) it is a popular show and the jerk Hesham is popular but dumb, cheesy & untalented then picked the famous Kuwaiti actor Mohammed Al Sairafi (also dumb & untalented) but has a popular (count how many times I'll use the word "popular" then email me to get your prize, however..) has popular show and the Jordanian actress Mais Hamdan who appeared in POPular comic show CBM (unfunny) so she is famous * PoPular! Then they picked some Saudi actors for .. blah blah blah. The funniest thing is the director! He is Canadian with Palestinian roots (I believe that the identity of the movie is the identity of its director) .. wait a minute! The screen play was written by an Egyptian screenwriter (very awful one!) with some help from Lebanese critic (famous as critic but actually he is a money collector!). This group of the multi races (money slaves) doesn't know anything about the Saudi culture they don't represent it but when we know who is behind this garbage all our questions will be relieved! Waleed bin Talaal is Saudi prince and (B U S I N E S S M A N) who doesn't care about the Saudi culture or Saudi people he even doesn't live in Saudi Arabia (even if he lives he will live in his own world, his world is far far far away from the real world the people world) so he doesn't know anything or care about anything except raising his endless fortune.<br /><br />*Not Saudi movie(not anything movie).<br /><br />Screw them all.<br /><br />Beep out of 10! | negative |
The creativeness of this movie was lost from the beginning when the writers and directors left out a good story line, only to substitute with horrible special affects. This movie seemed to be focused on amusing children, but couldn't even accomplish that. Many small low budget films have the potential to become great movies, but this movie is no where near that. Fortunately this will be another film easily made, and easily forgotten. This movie was probably a chance for the actors to make a little money on the side until their chance came along for a real role in a good movie. Anyone who has a shred of respect for films, should avoid seeing this movie at all costs. | negative |
I first encountered Arthur Penn's "Four Friends" late one night on HBO. Having never heard of it, I expected very little, but watched because I was interested in seeing what a creation by a teaming of Penn and screenwriter Steve Tesich would be like. For the next two hours or so, I sat mesmerized, watching this incredible teaming of talent and the story they wove. A semi-autobiographical tale of a young immigrant to America growing up amidst the turbulence of the 1960s, "Four Friends" follows the story of Danilo, an eastern European immigrant (the brilliant Craig Wasson), from his arrival in the United States through a decade that changed the American landscape. Accompanying Danilo on his journey are his friends Georgia (the radiant Jodi Thelan, in a role that sadly, she has never had the opportunity to equal), Tom (Jim Metzler) and David (Michael Huddleston). "Four Friends" covers way too much territory for me to attempt to explain it here, but if you haven't seen this film, I urge you to find a copy (it's just been released on DVD) and watch it. You won't be disappointed. Tesich's script is wonderfully poignant at times funny, at times incredibly sad, but always fascinating and honest. Penn directs with a sure hand, and an obvious love for the period and the people whose lives we're following. The cast is uniformly superb. This film should have made a major star out of Wasson who is truly one of this country's most wasted talents. Jodi Thelan, not your standard brainless Hollywood sexpot, heats up the screen in a performance that makes the audience fall in love with her character as easily as the characters in the film. Metzler and Huddleston subtle performances could easily be overlooked in the shadow of their co-stars, but they are excellent and help anchor the film. Also superb are Miklos Simon and Elizabeth Lawrence as Danilo's parents, as well as Reed Birney and Lois Smith. I have not been without a copy of "Four Friends" since the day after I first saw it on HBO those many years ago. It has been and remains one of my all-time favorite films for more than 20 years now. I can't recommend it enough and feel, if you give it a chance, you'll feel the same way. | positive |
This extremely weak Australian excuse for a motion picture is sort of like the Pavlov Dog Experiment amongst horror movies. You remember this famous "Conditioned Reflex" experiment from your school books, right? The Russian scientist Pavlov proved that dogs tended to salivate before the food actually came into their mouths and this through repetitive routines stimulating the animal's reflexes. Pavlov rung a bell a couple of instants before the food was delivered to the dog and, after a while, he became anxious and excited and already started salivating from hearing the sound of the bell. What the hell has this whole boring explanation in common with a sleazy and low-budgeted Aussie slasher flick, I hear you think? Well, the modus operandi of the maniacal killer in "Nightmares" is an exact variant on Pavlov's experiment. Each and every single murder sequence is preceded by the raw sound and image of the killer breaking a window, because he/she insists on using a sharp piece of glass to slice up the victims. So this means that, after a short while, inattentive and bored viewers can afford to doze off and simply look up again when they hear the sound of shattering glass. That way they still don't miss anything special! <br /><br />Regarding the quality of "Nightmares" as a film I can be very brief. This is a cheap, uninspired and largely imbecilic Aussie cash-in on the contemporary popular trend of American slasher movies. In the early 60's, a four-year-old witnesses the cruel death of her mother as her throat gets slit open in a nasty car accident. Twenty years later the same girl Helen Selleck is a successful stage actress, but she still has severe mental issues and regularly suffers from horrible flashbacks and traumatic nightmares. She auditions for a role in a black comedy play revolving on death and gets the part. Shortly after the big premiere, everyone who's even remotely involved with the production gets slaughtered. It is truly retarded how this movie attempts to uphold the mystery regarding the killer's identity and motivations even though even the most infantile viewer can figure it out after the first murder already. I don't think I've ever seen a more obvious whodunit than "Nightmares" and the creators should have just showed his/her face straight away and save themselves from embarrassment. The murders are explicit and very bloody and there's also an unhealthy large amount of gratuitous nudity to "enjoy". However, the production values are poor and thus the movie is never at one point shocking or provocative. The few clips we get to see of the actual play make it appear that it quite possible could be the worst thing ever performed on stage. The only positive elements in the film are the characters of the director and the gay newspaper critic, whom are both delightfully sarcastic and insult the rest of the cast members as much as we do. "Nightmares" is a dreadful piece of exploitative horror cinema, but hey, at least I gave you a golden tip to make it more digestible. | negative |
I only watched this because it starred Josie Lawrence, who I knew<br /><br />from Whose Line is it Anyway?, the wacky British improvisational<br /><br />comedy show. I was very pleasantly surprised by this heartwarming and magical gem. It is uplifting, touching, and<br /><br />romantic without being sappy or sentimental. The characters are<br /><br />all real people, with real foibles, fears and needs. See it.! | positive |
Name just says it all. I watched this movie with my dad when it came out and having served in Korea he had great admiration for the man. The disappointing thing about this film is that it only concentrate on a short period of the man's life - interestingly enough the man's entire life would have made such an epic bio-pic that it is staggering to imagine the cost for production.<br /><br />Some posters elude to the flawed characteristics about the man, which are cheap shots. The theme of the movie "Duty, Honor, Country" are not just mere words blathered from the lips of a high-brassed officer - it is the deep declaration of one man's total devotion to his country.<br /><br />Ironically Peck being the liberal that he was garnered a better understanding of the man. He does a great job showing the fearless general tempered with the humane side of the man. | positive |
Born, raised, and educated in Scotland, I was appalled at this disgusting portrayal of a man who was no more nor less than a cattle rustler. Worse yet, the thread of the entire movie was sex in one form or another, by implication or verbally. To view it, one would think that 18th century Scotland was populated by a bunch of sex perverts and homosexuals. Lange was a joke acting as the "young" mother at age 49 but Liam Neeson was even worse! Taking a "bath" in a Scottish loch is NOT commonplace as they portrayed him - but, it did give them yet another opportunity to demonstrate how sexually driven we were. Save your money and watch Pinnochio. | negative |
Final Fantasy: Advent Children is and will remain a classic example of style over substance gone wrong. Instead of drawing upon the memorable characters and captivating mythology of the original game, Square Enix has churned out a frivolous montage of incomprehensible battle scenes. Yes, I said "incomprehensible." Did you know that Tifa knows blindingly fast Kung Fu techniques that magically cause the camera angle to shift every second? That Cloud can effortlessly suspend himself in midair for a full minute while wildly swinging away with his 2-ton sword? The English dub is mediocre. While not egregiously bad, it is far from well-produced. The quality is comparable to that of an average anime dub.<br /><br />Here is what I'd like to say to the die-hard FFVII fans who can't stop gushing over this movie: Advent Children is the best fan service you could have hoped for from Square Enix, but even a trashy CG flick like Galerians: Rion had a better story. You'll be embarrassed by this movie and its lack of thought in due time. The days of its novelty are numbered.<br /><br />Movies like Advent Children make me question whether Square Enix recognizes the potential of its franchises. After all (and no offense), it's a Japanese company. Japanese developers can deliver fun games, but most of their offerings are disappointingly shallow. They are utter psychos, however, when it comes to production quality. Advent Children features some of the most breathtaking renders in CG history, but that doesn't save it from its convoluted plot and cardboard characters.<br /><br />Any fan who followed this film knows Sephiroth comes back. Bending the story to accommodate his resurrection was a big mistake.<br /><br />NOTE: The one point I give this "film" is in honor of the 10,000 enslaved Japanese animators who gave their lives to render each bleached blond hair on Cloud's effeminate Caucasian head. | negative |
Just above the box i am typing in now, i was required to pick a number between 1 and 10, and rate this feature film. Unfortunately there is no option for a number less than zero, and i have to put something. If i had my choice i would just put nothing, no number, because there exist no digits that express the worthlessness of this movie.<br /><br />If you do decide to watch this film even after reading all of these horrible reviews, make sure there are no sharp or blunt objects in the area, this will help prevent you from trying to kill yourself in the middle of the film.<br /><br />I don't know how this film was released to the public, it should be locked up and guarded 24/7 somewhere in Fort Knox. I am angry that this film was even available for me to watch. I feel cheated by humanity, i had no idea humans could be this cruel. Stalin, Saddam and Hitler got nothing on this douche bag Cowell.<br /><br />Do not be fooled by the movie's cover. 1) There are no scarecrows, no one knows why there is a legit looking scarecrow on the front. 2)None of the characters on the back of case are even in the stinking movie! 3) The tag line says something about "new moon, more victims", there were no frigging victims no one even died. We don't know if the dam cop died, and i'm assuming the killer didn't die because it sounded like he was being hit over the head with a frigging whiffle ball bat.<br /><br />Do yourself a favor and stay away from this movie, it wasted about 4 hours of my life. That's right four, it took an hour for me to watch it (i fast forwarded thru the 4 minute zooming scenes that reveal nothing in the plot), i stared at the television for about an hour after it was over, contemplating my life and the direction it was heading after watching this crap, and then i began to cry for the next two hours because i know someone out there will unfortunately see this movie and there is nothing i can do to stop it. | negative |
This movie felt so real. I actually felt all of the emotions portrayed here during my life at various times - that of both Rory and Michael. I have Duchene's Muscular Dystrophy like Rory so what you see here is exactly what I've actually felt myself. Some won't believe there ARE disabled people like Rory, full of anger and rebellion. I know they exist because I'm one of them.<br /><br />The story is great. For a drama, character-driven movie, the story moves fast. I was never bored, maybe partly because I was seeing stuff that is close to my heart. But I think most people, with intelligence, will be glued to the screen and care about the characters. The acting is phenomenal! James McAvoy is perfect as Rory O'Shea, who has Duchene's muscular dystrophy. He Steven Robertson deserves an award for his portrayal as Michael Connolly, who has cerebral palsy.<br /><br />Michael's love isn't returned by a girl and Rory helps him come to terms with it. I've felt this many times and the question is "doesn't she love me because I'm just not the one or because my disability turned her off?" No matter what the girl says, we will always be skeptical as to the truth. It's just natural and it hurts either way.<br /><br />A few parts made me cry a little because it is sad and I have to face the issues myself. People without a terminal disability just cannot begin to fathom how it can feel. This is a must-see film for everyone. Disabled people are everywhere and greatly misunderstood. This film brings a little light on some of the facts of life, which are so taken for granted by the able-bodied. We want to be just like you - to live on our own terms, to go out, to get drunk, to be loved. On the outside, we can't do much but on the inside, we're dancing! | positive |
Unfortunately, the director Amos Guttman died from Aids-related illnesses the year after making this film, so we don't know how many more gay-related films we might have had from him. I found this used DVD, from Cinevista, on Amazon, but it looks like none of his other works are still available. Hessed Mufla (Amazing Grace) contains full frontal male nudity, at least in magazines, which turn into a wishful dream sequence. and some drug use. This is the story of two families getting by, or trying to, but the mothers, the daughters, and the gay sons all have their own problems to figure out. Jonathan (played by Gal Hoyberger) meets up with the next door neighbor Thomas, who has his own problems, of course. Either the translations are a little weak, or maybe Guttman kept the conversation sparse on purpose, for a little mystery. Watching this, I get the feeling we're not getting the whole story, but that's OK. Throw in a cute gay roommate ex-lover Miki (Aki Avni, who went on to do many projects, mostly Isreali TV) Lots of smoking. Lots of worrying by the mothers. A great blues song "All Night Long Blues" done by an unknown female artist; if she is listed in the credits,sadly it was not translated to English. Nice to see mothers and siblings treating gay relationships with respect, like any other relationship. But then, USA always has been years behind other countries in this way. A good way to spend 98 minutes... I wanted to see even more of it. Won awards at several film festivals, acc to IMDb and the film jacket. | positive |
In the Comic, Modesty is strong. Alexandra Staden who plays Modesty Blaise looks more like an anorectic fashion model. She does not either have the moral or personality that Modesty have in the comics. Modesty would never give a woman an advice to show more skin to earn more money. I cannot see any similarities with my comic books with Modesty and this movie. Its like a Mission Impossible movie would be about Ethan Hunt locked in the detention room in high school talking with the janitor about when he went to junior high school and Hunt would have been played by DJ Qualls (in Road Trip). Soo if you are an Modesty fan do not see the movie you will just get angry. If do not know much about the Modesty comics rent an other movie do not wast your time with this one.I cannot understand how Quentin Tarantino can put his name on it. I will ask for a refund at my DVD rent store tomorrow. | negative |
If I guess your "palabra", will you let me go through?- Asks William Geld, a Tim Robbins that keeps on acting like if they told him a fantastic joke and he is attempting not to laugh.<br /><br />He is trying to get to a forbidden area. The woman stopping him continues blabbering: -Your "palabra" is Carrefour.<br /><br />-How did you know?- the lady asks, surprised. He answers, in the name of Wisdom: -I was hearing when you weren't talking. :/<br /><br />Yes, this defines the movie. This precisely. It doesn't matter if Carrefour is "road conjunction" in french, or if the Future is coldly bureaucratic and mixes languages. Or if Samantha Morton has nothing, nothing of Spanish (Maria Gonzalez being her name in the film) with her Irish, Scotish whatever tone.<br /><br />It's boring and dull. If you fall in believing there are multiple symbolisms, you will buy the most bizarre, sickening love relationship ever, set in a future that may well be in seven seconds. I can guess this movie's palabra: it will be "painful". | negative |
A bigoted soldier kills a man for being Jewish and tries to pin it on a fellow soldier. Not as good as the novel it was based on ("The Brick Foxhole") in which it was a gay man who was killed...but Hollywood wouldn't touch that in 1947. That said, it's still a very good film. The anti-Semitism is handled very well, but it's hammered into the audience that bigotry is bad...well duh! But this was 1947. The picture is well-acted by the entire cast (especially Robert Young and Robert Ryan) and the tone is very dark...as it should be. Very atmospheric too. A deserved big hit in its day...well worth seeing. | positive |
The beginning of the film is promising. When Jeanne Pollet(Anna Mouglalis) hear the story of the incident that happen on the day she was born that raise the possibility that she is the daughter of a famous pianist, André Polonski (Jacques Dutrone), she set to find out whether it's true or not, and giving the fact the she plays also the piano that's not such a remote idea. Jeanne meet André and his wife "Mika" Muller(Isabelle Huppert) and their son and on the way uncover the fact that there are some secrets in that family as much in her own.<br /><br />O.K. we have seen this before and it has been done in a more interesting way than here.The character of "Mika" Muller is left with out us understanding her motives to her action and she is not interesting enough to care for her. The piano scenes look fake and the whole piano sub-plot doesn't add anything to the character's insight but serve as to make the film longer than it should have been in the first place.<br /><br />In short a very disappointing outing from Chabrol, who can do better than this | negative |
Words alone cannot describe the sheer beauty and power of this film.<br /><br />Think "Toy Story". Now, think "Toy Story", circa 1934. Now, imagine the animation looks as lifelike, as fluid. Think of the movie not as something adults and children can enjoy, but imagine it as a filme-noire.<br /><br />Imagine trying to do something like that back in 1934. Somehow, "The Mascot" delivers. In a story where toys come to life, and one of them is trying to deliver an orange to his sick owner, Starewicz delivers a level of animation completely unexpected. It's so fluid, you will wonder for a long time whether what you see is really stop-motion animation. <br /><br />Comparing "Toy Story" and "The Mascot" is an excercise in futility, plot-wise: while "Toy Story" is a children's story adults can enjoy, "The Mascot" is a dark, chilling story aimed at adults. Meaning, NO, your kids won't like it. One bit.<br /><br />Still, get it if you can. You might be able to find it along "Vampyr" in DVD and LaserDisc. And prepare to be stunned at what Starewicz was able to do back in 1934 with a couple of puppets. | positive |
I have seen the recent Region 2 DVD of this movie displayed in the "horror" section in an Oxford Street store and also advertised as a "classic thriller". In reality it is almost solely a vehicle for Arthur Askey, one of the most popular names in British comedy and light entertainment for over four decades.<br /><br />Perhaps his incessantly cheerful, exuberant and essentially good-natured humour comes as a bit of a culture shock to many accustomed to the sour and cynical flavour of much British comedy of the past twenty five years. However there are still those who appreciate his lively and cheery persona and total avoidance of pathos. Askey was an idol of the great Tommy Cooper who frequently borrowed the "self-strangulation" gag that Arthur attempts to entertain the stranded passengers with.<br /><br />There is a striking, rare appearance by the under-rated Linden Travers, who makes an impact as the mysterious Julie. | positive |
Updated from a previous comment. The great and underrated Marion Davies shows her comedic stuff in this late (1928) silent comedy that also showcases the wonderful William Haines. Davies plays a hick from Georgia who crashes Hollywood with help from Haines, a bit player in crude comedies. They appear together in cheap comedies until Marion is "discovered" and becomes a big dramatic star.<br /><br />A great lampoon on Hollywood and its pretensions. Davies & Haines are a wonderful team, and the guest shots from the likes of Charlie Chaplin, Douglas Fairbanks, William S. Hart, John Gilbert, Elinor Glyn, Norma Talmadge, Mae Murray, Rod LaRocque, Leatrice Joy, Dorothy Sebastian, Estelle Taylor, Louella Parsons, Renee Adoree, Aileen Pringle, and Marion Davies (you have to see it) are a hoot. A must for any serious film buff or for anyone interested in the still-maligned Marion Davies! Dell Henderson plays the father. Polly Moran is a maid. Paul Ralli is the slimy leading man.<br /><br />SHOW PEOPLE was said to have used the career of Gloria Swanson as its model (I think Mae Murray is closer). Davies and Swanson were friends. But this film's story does parallel the rise of Swanson from one-reel Mack Sennett comedies with Charlie Chaplin to STAR in Cecil B. DeMille films of the late teens and early 20s.<br /><br />Davies and Haines were huge MGM stars and friends. Odd that MGM never teamed them up in a talkie. They're great together! A sweet romance and delightful spoof of early Hollywood. Greta Garbo and Bebe Daniels are mentioned but do not appear. | positive |
Dude, I thought this movie rocked. Perfect for just sitting around alone and watching at like 3AM with just you and a bottle. The whole time you are watching it you are thinking WTF? What's gonna happen next.... dude just get with the chick already. Alright..... they are pickin mushrooms... this is odd... but kinda creepy cool. Damn this whole movie has an erotic dirty naughty cold evil undertone to it... it's subtle dance just keeps you drawn to it... you're just waiting for someone to get whacked. But damn... WTF!? You get that and then some. For the morally enraged stomach it is great running to the toilet to barf material. Any movie that can get that kinda reaction out of you deserves an award. | positive |
This is a dumb movie. Maybe my judgment wouldn't be so harsh if the film didn't promise so much, but I just felt like this movie cheated and played me for a fool at every turn.<br /><br />I didn't have any beef with the acting, but I thought the characters were awful. The movie starts off with Clive Owen's character telling us what a criminal mastermind he is, and how he planned the perfect bank robbery, something he frequently reminds us of later. Oh yeah, he also tells us he's in a prison cell, although that turns out to be a dumb metaphor. Any idiot knows that the best bank robbery is one where a minimum number of things could potentially go wrong, and you're long gone before the police show up. But Clive Owen's scheme requires hanging around the bank for hours - for no reason but to stalk around and look scary as far as I can tell. He also has to control hostages, negotiate with cops, and most fantastically of all, perform a This-Old-House job on the bank's stockroom and hide out there for a week (I hope he brought enough food, and a bucket to pee in) and then sneak out again. Yeah, that sure sounds like the perfect crime to me, Clive! This plan has so many moving parts that the only reason it didn't fall apart was the screenwriter said so.<br /><br />And then there are the many unexplained details: Why were the cops so convinced that the crooks had accomplices among the hostages? Who the hell is Jodie Foster's character, and why is she so important that she has the mayor at her beck and call and she doesn't have to tell Denzel Washington her agenda because "it's above his pay scale?" How dumb are these cops that they can't figure out one guy speaking in a foreign language for hours is not the sound of a criminal gang planning a robbery? How did the robbers slip away, and why did Clive Owen stick around for a week? How did they find out about the bank chairman's past, and the number and contents of his safe deposit box? Why the hell would Clive Owen let in Jodie Foster or the cops? Since when do they make toy AK-47s that look real up close? How the hell do you bug a pizza box, anyway? How did Clive Owen manage to sneak out of a secure area of the bank during working hours, undetected? Did this dispassionate criminal really feel bonded enough to this cop Denzel to slip him a diamond?<br /><br />None of these questions are ever answered. There are films that achieve depth by leaving you to wonder about events that happen off-screen, but I never felt that way about Inside Man. It felt like the scenes that explained these things were cut from the movie, or these questions never had any answers in the first place, and that's weak. Particularly annoying is Jodie Foster's character, who won't disclose what she does, but never seems to tire of reminding us how important she is. We're just supposed to take her word for it, I guess.<br /><br />The only reason I gave this movie two stars is I laughed at Denzel's "taxi cab" and "pina colada" gags, and at the kid's outrageous video game. Other than that, this movie has no redeeming features. | negative |
This movie should have NEVER been made. From the poorly done animation, to the beyond bad acting. I am not sure at what point the people behind this movie said "Ok, looks good! Lets do it!" I was in awe of how truly horrid this movie was. At one point, which very may well have been the WORST point, a computer generated Saber Tooth of gold falls from the roof stabbing the idiot creator of the cats in the mouth...uh, ooookkkk. The villain of the movie was a paralyzed sabretooth that was killed within minutes of its first appearance. The other two manages to kill a handful of people prior to being burned and gunned down. Then, there is a random one awaiting victims in the jungle...which scares me for one sole reason. Will there be a Part Two? God, for the sake of humans everywhere I hope not.<br /><br />This movie was pure garbage. From the power point esquire credits to the slide show ending. | negative |
Ok - I admit. I think Kenny Doughty looks amazing in this movie - but beyond his good looks, the movie is carried by a sometimes predictable, but reasonable plot.<br /><br />Starting out, we're introduced to the three lead females of the movie. One a headmistress - very concerned about her image and never married. A police officer - with child and a bad ex to go on about. The third - a power & status hungry doctor with a desire for recognition and three ex's.<br /><br />They are almost the "First Wives Club", and indeed there is much verbal bashing of ex's involved as well as some "he left the credit card" behaviour. Characters set - the movie continues.<br /><br />McDowell's character, the headmistress, arrives late at a funeral - where a young organist, filling in for the regular player (Doughty) catches her eye. What will her two friends say about the ensuing mischief? Will they live happily ever after?<br /><br />A tissue or two recommended if you're the teary type - the end uplifting, but maybe not what you'd expect. All in all a great movie which stands out amongst the current choices of action, special effects and schlock horror. | positive |
Strange, almost all reviewers are highly positive about this movie. Is it because it's from 1975 and has Chamberlain and Curtis in it and therefore forgive the by times very bad acting and childish ways of storytelling? <br /><br />Maybe it's because some people get sentimental about this film because they have read the book? (I have not read the book, but I don't think that's a problem, film makers never presume that the viewers have read the book). <br /><br />Or is it because I am subconsciously irritated about the fact that English-speaking actors try to behave as their French counterparts? | negative |
Claustrophobic camera angles that do not help the movie: Too long face only shots where you most of the time get the feeling that the lower half of the film is missing (that the screen is cut off), because there seems to be important actions going on, but you cannot see them. There is anyway already too much confusion in the movie, so these viewing angles make it worse and do not contribute to artful visuals. <br /><br />I like artfully made movies and unconventional camera work. I can handle deep and slow movies. But this one is trying too hard to be something artful and fails in my opinion painfully.<br /><br />Nothing to get attached to, to any of the characters, because they are not worked out well enough. To work out characters more is needed, than just minute long face shots, at least with this set of script+director+actors.<br /><br />I wonder whether some of the not so good acting is due to the script and director or due to the actors. <br /><br />I will stay away from films both written and directed by Le You for sure in the future. <br /><br />What an annoying film even for someone who would be interested in that part of history, and for someone who spent time in Shanghai. | negative |
This flick is sterling example of the state of erotic B-movies: bad porn movies without the hardcore sex. The plot in this one isn't so bad as these things go; it involves a female lawyer trying to prove her lover is innocent of killing his wife. The rest of the movie, however, leaves something to be desired. Bad acting, bad direction, bad looking woman, bad sets, bad cinematography, bad sound and bad sex scenes. The filmmakers should learn the difference between raunchy and erotic. They don't even have the common sense to have Gabriella Hall naked or in a love scene.<br /><br /> How dumb is that? | positive |
Don't tell me this film was funny or a little funny. It was a complete disaster, and one of the worst movies I've ever seen. Ali G is only funny on Channel 4's Ali G Show. After watching his performance, all i can say is He is not made for Movies. With a Daft script, or more like no storyline, there's nothing to keep you entertained. Full of annoying, unrealistic character's this movie is a complete garbage all the way. At the end of the film, Ali G gives a speech. He mentions, if you hated this film, tell people it was good. Not even the speech could save the movie, He probably knew its gonna be a stinker. I would of given this a 0/10, but the minimum start is 1. Overall, Don't even waste your time on this rubbish. | negative |
I watched the presentation of this on PBS in the U.S. when it originally aired in 1988 (?). Assuming the miniseries was available on DVD I purchased first editions of all three books last year. Since then I have been searching for the series on internet movie sites. Today I found this web site. I will give up the search.<br /><br />I too would like to buy this complete - 26 episodes - miniseries. After buying the DVDs I would read each book, then watch the episodes for that book. That is what I did with John LeCarre's Karla trilogy and Larry McMurty's Texas ranger trilogy.<br /><br />Does anyone have any suggestions for great books or book series that became very good TV miniseries - or movie series - that are now available on DVD? | positive |
Another "must have" film. Henry Brandon is a favorite! I was so surprised when I learned years ago that he was from Germany because he sounds & looks so typically American! And wasn't he great in "The Searchers" as Chief Scar??!! Another of my favorites, I have it & watch it over & again. Now if I could add this one to my collection, it would make my day! This is a great wildlife story & film for all ages. The scenery is so absolutely beautiful & the plight of the endangered snow leopards is told with such great emotion it will spark the interest in endangered species in anyone, especially children. If I could I would give a copy to all of my grands & great grands! | positive |
Other than cop rock and that show where the kid dies from eating a spoiled hamburger he found under the bed, this has consistently been the worst and dumbest show to survive prime time. If not for Jason Lee's unjustifiable success in film, this show would have never made it out of conception if pitched with a relatively unknown as the lead. <br /><br />The concept is TERRIBLE. Moron redneck hick spends his lottery winnings to redeem himself with the white trash of his past. Is it funny? periodically but not consistently. Is it stupid? Each and every single episode. <br /><br />I've seen a lot of great shows come then go before their time yet this blunder has survived longer than I ever could have imagined. The dialog is incredibly unfunny as are the episode themes. Every episode for someone with an IQ over 100 is an absolute struggle. And the icing on the cake? Jason Lee's annoying voice narrating each episode. If it weren't for the state's Southern culture and rednecks of the south, this show wouldn't have an audience.<br /><br />If you're a moron and need a show completely lacking humor yet overflowing with bad taste, bad dialog and dimwit characters failing at life...well then you're probably an actor on this show. | negative |
Last night I finished re-watching "Jane Eyre" (1983), the BBC mini-series adapted from Charlotte Bronte's Gothic romance novel which is deservingly a classic of English literature with Timothy Dalton (my favorite James Bond) as Mr. Edward Rochester and Zelah Clarke, as Jane Eyre, a poor orphaned 18-year-old girl, a governess at Mr. Rochester's estate, Thornfield. "Jane Eyre" has been one of my most beloved books since I was an 11-years-old girl and the friend of mine gave it to me with the words, "This book is amazing" and so it was and I have read it dozens of times and I am still not tired of it. Its beautiful language, refined, fragrant, and surprisingly fresh, the dialogs, and above all, two main characters, and the story of their impossible love have attracted many filmmakers. "Jane Eyre" has been adapted to TV and big screen many times, 18 according to IMDb. The actors as famous and marvelous as Joan Fontaine and Orson Welles, William Hurt and Charlotte Gainsbourg, George C. Scott and Susannah York, Ciarán Hinds and Samantha Morton have played the couple that had overcome hundreds of obstacles made by society, laws, religion, by the differences in age, backgrounds, experiences, and by the fateful mistakes that would hunt one for many years. Of all these films I've only seen one, 300 minutes long BBC version from 1983 that follows the novel closely and where Timothy Dalton who frequently plays dark, brooding characters did not just play Edward Rochester brilliantly and with class, he WAS Mr. Rochester - sardonic, vibrant, the force of nature, powerful, passionate, sexy, and tormented master of Thornfield. Zelah Clarke was also convincing as sweet, gentle, intelligent and strong Jane who feels deeply and is full of passion mixed with clear reasoning, and quiet but firm willpower.<br /><br />Added on September 17, 2007: During the last two weeks, I've seen five "Jane Eyre" movies and it was a wonderful experience. There is something to admire in every adaptation of "Jane Eyre" even if not all of them are completely successful. This version is still my favorite "Jane Eyre" film. | positive |
It ran 8 seasons, but it's first, in early 1959, and it's last, in the autumn of 1965, were shorter than seasons 2-7. CBS chief William Paley canceled Rawhide's production after watching the 1st show of season 8, in September, 1965, because he disliked the series without Eric Fleming as Gil Favor, who had departed after season 7. The last new episode aired in November, 1965. The lone 1966 CBS broadcast, on January 4, 1966, was a rerun. <br /><br />I have often wondered why Rawhide didn't switch to color filming for it's last season? Most of the big westerns of the 1960s had gone over to color by 1965. CBS was broadcasting in color that autumn, for many of their sitcoms, but westerns like Gunsmoke and Rawhide remained in black and white. Gunsmoke was the last western (and last prime time network series to switch to color) on September 17, 1966, for the episode Snap Decision. | positive |
one of the most awaited movie!i thought himesh will do a bit of acting but Alas all my hope went wrong..given that the heroine is 15 yrs old!!!!omg!!what did they thought before considering the actress..may be its because no boby wants to work with HR(as he is called in the film,(human resource as many people wrote in mazagines!)nevertheless it was a disappointment.i hope the producer doesn't make himself bankrupt by making a part 2 of this as this news is roaming around...the story was predictable one with himesh showing his generosity character throughout the movie which i doubt very well.<br /><br />anyways..the movie is good from those people's angle who thinks himesh cant do anything wrong. >>4 out of 10<< | negative |
This isn't one of Arbuckle's or Keaton's better films, that's for sure. Fatty's wife is tired of all his heavy drinking, so she takes him to a sanitarium where a psychiatrist (Keaton) claims to have a guaranteed cure! Well, once there, Arbuckle accidentally eats a thermometer and is taken to surgery. Then, he escapes and is chased about the place where he meets a cute girl who also wants to escape. Finally, despite staff chasing them about, they escape at which point it becomes apparent that the girl is crazy and Arbuckle is soon recaptured. However, he awakens and everything AFTER the surgery has all been a dream--there was no sexy crazy girl and Dr. Keaton isn't as big an incompetent as he seemed in the dream.<br /><br />A lack of humor is the biggest problem with the film. Sure, making fun of mentally ill people is pretty low, but in its day it was guaranteed laughs. I'd laugh, too, if there was just something funny to respond to! A lot of energy and that's all.<br /><br />FYI--during one of the chase sequences, Fatty wonders into a race for men over 200 pounds (wow, what are the odds of that?). And, shortly after this, he backs into a post on which the number 5 was just freshly painted. As a result, the five is now on the back of Fatty's shirt and he looks like a regular participant. HOWEVER, the number SHOULD have appeared backwards on Fatty's shirt but came out front-ways--a mistake, as they should have realized the mirror image would have been a backwards 5. | negative |
To start with, I have done some further research on the film. Firslty, Jules Dassin directed and acted in this extremely imaginative and different film noir crime film. Secondly, This was a very low budget film, created in the Rennaissance of the prime moment of film noir. Thirdly, the jewelers where the robbery was attempted is an actual jewelers. The producers of Rififi asked them to film their, surprisingly, (I quote Jules Dassin in a recent interview on the subject, "surprisingly, for some not very obvious reason, they were delighted at the idea of a crime film being set in their shop). <br /><br />It's impeccable characters and plot fit in so beautifully with their surroundings. To add on to my praise I will say this; some might say that this was a typical Hollywood film, on the contrary, this set the base for the regular plot of a Hollywood crime film. <br /><br />Laslty, I would like to say that I support this fresh idea of a film where not only one side wins, and that side doesn't always have to be the good one. For once, I can say that a film is not predictable! Ten stars! | positive |
Pushing Daisies is just a lovely fairy tale, with shades of "Amelie"'s aesthetic and romance. It's got a beautiful palette, its shots well thought out and detailed, its names and dialogue whimsical and too cutesy to be real, its imagination great, and its romance deep.<br /><br />Watch the blue in the sky pop out at you, as blue can't be found in the rest of the sets or shots (with few exceptions).<br /><br />Watch a weirdly natural and totally satisfying song break out of a scene.<br /><br />Its score is gorgeous, its cast is supremely likable, there's great music, and the two leading romantic stars can't touch each other or she'll die. How much more sexual tension do you need? (Actually, I had wished they found a way around this one, but c'est la vie).<br /><br />It is simply a show that it is a pleasure to spend an hour with, and I recommend it highly. There hasn't been other television quite like it, and I would like to see more. It got me through a flu one crappy week, as it makes for good company.<br /><br />Bring it back! | positive |
(Note: I saw I SELL THE DEAD at the Glasgow International Film Festival on 20th January 2009.) I Sell the Dead is a jet black horror comedy set in late medieval times, and stars Dominic Monaghan (Lost, Lord of the Rings), Ron Pearlman (Hellboy), Larry Fessenden (Session 9) and Angus Scrimm (Phantasm).<br /><br />The movie opens with grave-robber Willie Grimes (Fessenden), still indignant and unremorseful, being dragged to the guillotine and executed. His apprentice and partner-in-crime Arthur Blake (Monaghan) is locked in the tower awaiting his turn when Father Duffy (Perlman), a whiskey-swilling priest with an unhealthy interest in the occult, pays him a visit with the apparent intention of recording Blake's final confession. It soon becomes apparent, however, that Duffy main interest lies in the more... otherworldly side of Blake's exploits. Most of the plot from here is told in flashback form as Monaghan regails Duffy with tales of his macabre career.<br /><br />Initially, Grimes and Blake start out as simple wise-cracking body snatchers, working in the employ of the ghoulish Dr Quint (Scrimm), a callous, corrupt anatomist who uses blackmail as leverage over our two anti-heroes, and takes a rather unhealthy relish in his work. The pair have their first run-in with the undead when, one evening, Quint sends them on a mission to a bleak moonlit moor to retrieve a corpse that has been mysteriously interred at a crossroads, apparently according to some ancient custom. But there's something different about this corpse. This one has been wrapped in cloves of garlic... and buried with a stake through it's heart...<br /><br />Following a terrifying encounter, not only do they devise a plan to rid themselves of the scheming Doctor's machinations, but they also uncover a secretive subculture of occultists who will pay good money for corpses, and even better money for LIVING SPECIMENS of the undead. This leads our intrepid duo into the hidden underworld of the "ghoul hunting" trade, where they find themselves going head-to-head not only with vampires, monsters and zombies (and one other paranormal entity for which I will not spoil the surprise), but also rival ghoul hunters in the form of the inbred and murderous Murphy clan.<br /><br />I went into I Sell the Dead expecting a low-key, mildly distracting, low budget chiller. I was not prepared for the incredible imagination, giddy humour, quality acting, great dialogue, thick atmosphere and sheer personality that makes I Sell the Dead a strong early contender for my horror film of the year.<br /><br />With the exception of a couple of rough edges, the production values are truly fantastic for such a low budget flick - it looks like it was made for about $20 million, and I was surprised when the director told the audience it was made for significantly less than half of that (although he was unwilling to give exact figures as the film was still being sold to distributors). The "look" and tone of the film is a visual comic book somewhere between Tim Burton and Hammer Horror, with smart little Creepshow-esquire artwork inserts. The plot is wonderfully surreal, but the idea of a hidden underworld, running parallel to everyday life but which the general populace is either unable or unwilling to believe in, is one that actually makes quite good sense within the context of the film.<br /><br />The acting, as you'd expect from this cast, is top notch. The characters are fleshed out surprisingly well, particularly Grimes and Blake, and all the actors deliver their sharply scripted lines with just the right amount of deadpan tongue in cheek to make the dialogue both hilarious and realistic. Angus Scrimm also turns in a good performance in a somewhat brief but memorable role as the gently menacing, violin-playing anatomist Doctor Quinn.<br /><br />Conclusion - I loved it. It's a long time since I was so entertained by a movie. I struggle to find anything bad to say about it. Mark my words, this is one of those cult films like Evil Dead 2 or Phantasm that people will still be discovering and falling in love with 20, 30, 40 years down the line. | positive |
One of several musicals about sailors on leave, it is the usual sailor meets girl, complications ensue, sorted out happily kind of plot. It proceeds along smoothly enough but it does drag in places too. The dialogue is not as zippy as 'Top Hat' for example and Randolph Scott seems out of place.<br /><br />There are compensations. It has some of Irving Berlin's choicest songs including 'Let Yourself Go', 'I'm Putting all My Eggs in One Basket' and 'Let's Face the Music and Dance'. It has Fred and Ginger who when they are dancing take any film into heavenly heights and they don't disappoint here. They do a snappy tap dance, a knockabout comic dance and a swirling graceful dance, all in the same film! Great versatility and artistry.<br /><br />It also has Harriet Hilliard who is rather good in her role. She had a varied career, becoming the more famous Harriet Nelson with Ozzie. Here she is touching without being sentimental.Her two songs are simply and effectively delivered. She makes a good contrast with Ginger but you can believe they are sisters in the film. <br /><br />More tightening up have made the film even better. Pretty good though. | positive |
Envy stars some of the best. Jack Black, Ben Stiller, Amy Poehler, and the great Christopher Walken. With such a cast, one can only expect the best. However, with "Envy", no one could save this disaster.<br /><br />Tim Dingman (Stiller) and Nick Vanderpark (Black) are best friends and co-workers at a sandpaper factory. Both are making a decent living, but because Tim has a better performance at work, he's able to afford more than his buddy Nick. Nick is a dreamer who's always coming up with new ideas for inventions. One day, Nick comes up with the idea for a spray can that makes dog poop disappear (Yes, I'm serious). Falling in love with the idea, Nick decides to really invent this product. He makes an offer to Tim to invest in his idea and share the profits 50/50. Tim refuses thinking the idea will never work.<br /><br />Nick's invention, titled "va-poo-rize" (again, i'm serious), ends up making millions. He enjoys spending his money on things like a much larger house, a horse, a personal trainer, and fancy deserts. Tim starts feeling envy for Nick. Hence the name of the movie.<br /><br />The concept isn't bad, but it still turns out awful. This movie contains some of the worst dialog and very poor performances from all the cast. Then again, as I mentioned earlier, none of them could save this mess. Not even the great Christoper Walken, playing a homeless character named "J-man", made this movie funny. The movie is bad from the start and only continues to get worse.<br /><br />I recommend this movie if: *you like crap (no pun intended) *you want to see Jack Black in a white tux<br /><br />I say, avoid this movie at all costs, but avoid ESPECIALLY if: *you're offended by bathroom humor *you love animals | negative |
Dr. Ben McKenna (James Stewart) and Jo McKenna (Doris Day) travel to Morocco for a holiday where they meet a mysterious man named Louis Bernard (Daniel Gélin) on a bus.The next day this man is murdered, but before he dies he tells Ben a secret; an assassination will take place in London.The crooks kidnap the couple's son Hank (Christopher Olsen) making sure Ben won't reveal their plan to anybody.Alfred Hitchcock's The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) is a very intense thriller.The acting is superb as it always is in Hitchcok's films.James Stewart is marvelous.Doris Day is a delightful person and actress and she gets to show her singing talents as well.The song Que Sera, Sera has an important part in the movie.This movie is a movie of many classic scenes.In the final scenes at the Albert Hall, done without dialogue, you can barely blink your eyes.This movie is fifty years old now.Time hasn't decreased its power in any way. | positive |
SPOILERS<br /><br />I love the Simpsons, and I have seen every single episode that had ever come out. I must admit, season one is by far the most underrated season, and this is the most underrated episode in season one.The episode begins with the family playing a game of Scrabble to get Bart ready for an intelligence test he needs to take at school. He says the game is stupid and he doesn't want to play it, but he needs to. He spells out a word that angers Homer and he chases Bart around the house. The next day Mrs. Krabappel reassures the class that the test isn't part of their grade, just a test that would tell them what their future would be like. Bart can't answer one question. He thinks fast. He quickly switches test with Martin Prince, the smartest one in class. Later that day Marge and Homer are called to go to the Principal's office to discuss Bart's behavior. Suddenly, out of nowhere, the school psychologist comes and tells Skinner and Homer and Marge that Bart is a genius and should go to a special school for the gifted. Bart agrees to go since he wouldn't need to do any homework. The next day Homer drives Bart to the new school. He is introduced to everyone and everything. Unluckily, his day isn't very good. The smart students take his lunch smartly, he can't read any comic books, but he does anyway, and he is criticized by his fellow students. Luckily for Bart, he and Homer start to have a great time together, but Marge bought tickets to an opera. They go to the opera, and make fun of it. The next day he goes to his old school but is made fun of by his friends. They call him a point dexter. While at his new school, Bart is told to do a Chemistry Experiment. He does it wrong and blows up the school, leaving himself green. Bart is told by the psychologist to tell him why he did it. Instead, Bart tells him he wants to go undercover and go back to his old school to observe other kids. The psychologist is intrigued and he asks Bart to explain it on a piece of paper. He finds it too hard and instead writes a confession that he really isn't a genius. He gives it to the psychologist. All he cares about is that he spelled the word confession wrong. That night Homer bathes Bart and Bart tells him that he really isn't a genius and that he cheated on the test. Homer gets angry and chases Bart around the house as Lisa and Marge look at them casually.<br /><br />Overall, this is a very underrated season one episode.<br /><br />8/10 | positive |
The lavish production values that you generally find in a Merchant/Ivory film are all here, but this is an exceedingly dull take on what could have been a very lively affair. I agree with an earlier poster that it makes no sense for the story to be unfolding through the eyes of an African American family and yet their own ancestor, Sally Hemmings, has barely a role to play in the proceedings. There is not much clarity to be found in helping the audience understand the motivations of any of these historical figures. And I was very bothered by the accents of a number of the characters. Nancy Marchand sounded very British for what one assumes is a French nun. And both Gwyneth Paltrow and Greta Scacchi seemed to be trying out different accents in various scenes. In fact, Gwyneth is very poorly served in this biopic. Her role as Thomas Jefferson's daughter, Martha, is written in such a manner that we never get a handle on who she really is. One moment she is slapping a slave, and another moment, she's deploring the whole system of slavery. Nick Nolte performs the role well enough but doesn't ever make us truly care for Jefferson or any of his exploits. Very disappointing all in all. | negative |
THE NOTORIOUS BETTIE PAGE (2006) ***1/2 Gretchen Mol, Lilli Taylor, Chris Bauer, Jared Harris, Sarah Paulson, David Strathairn, Austin Pendleton, Norman Reedus, Dallas Roberts. <br /><br />Mol shines as legendary pin-up queen Bettie Page in a fine biopic.<br /><br />Gretchen Mol is probably best known for being tauted as The Next-It-Girl a few years ago when no one knew who she was despite an infamous cover story by Vanity Fair among other media dubbings but despite a few co-starring roles here and there her predicted stardom seemed to twinkle less brightly until now. Here as the famous pin-up queen Bettie Page, Gretchen Mol is indeed a shining star on the rise.<br /><br />Bettie Page was Tennessee born raised as a God-fearing and family oriented proper girl who seemed to find herself the unwarranted object of lust and affection, as she grew older. A gang-rape that is flashbacked is wisely not graphically depicted nor is the subtle showing of her own father having less- than-decent designs for his own kin which is important to understand how Page managed to escape the possible nightmarish life for a career as an actress by heading to New York City in the 1950s when in fact that was the time and place to be to catch lighting in a bottle. What Page didn't realize is that in fact she would be just that when she arrived.<br /><br />A beautiful raven haired sweetheart with a divine figure, Page is spotted on Coney Island one summer day by a black policeman asking to take her photograph which leads to her posing in his basement and eventually to the studios of Irving Klaw (Bauer) and his sister Paula (Taylor) who cater their kitschy but considered pornographic stills to a unique clientele: fetish types.<br /><br />Although Page is rather naïve she is undeniably smart and knows that her body is not a sin and can see the forest for the trees in the sense that she is in control - or at least abides in what is offered her as work in that it is not indecent and she is having fun in her increasingly less-clothed portraits - until a Congressional witch-hunt seeks out a few scapegoats to make pornographic images a crime. <br /><br />Talented filmmaker Mary Harron and her screen writing partner Guinevere Turner ("An American Psycho" and "I Shot Andy Warhol") streamline the biopic trappings rather neatly and maybe a bit too hasty in getting at who really was Bettie Page although they do justice in depicting an era of uptightness at its zenith. Large thanks to gifted cinematographer Mott Hopfel for his languorously gorgeous black and white images and also the sprinkled color segments that recall Douglas Sirk films of the era for its melodramatic kindlings. Part feminist treaty and part American dream fulfilled the story chugs along nicely with fine performances by its ensemble including the comical Bauer and Taylor as siblings in smut and Harris having a field day as a fellow fotog with a taste for wine and chatter. It's amusing to see Strathairn in a bit of stunt casting as a senator on a campaign for righteousness after portraying news bulldog Edward R. Murrow in his last outing, "Good Night, and Good Luck" as an opposite the table role.<br /><br />But hats off to the truly fine talents of Mol as the uninhibited yet deeply morale and most importantly intelligent Bettie Page who lets her child-like innocence beam through her bold nudity and now-considered-tame-and-quaint-borderline- kitschy poses that caught the male fancy for decades and is still a bookmark for human sexuality in this country and perhaps the world overall. Mol is perfect and uncannily resembles her portrait's subject down to her knowing-teasing smile. The real Bettie Page was reportedly not involved with the project but apparently gave her blessing and continues to live a somewhat secluded life that is alluded to in the final moments as to having found Jesus and shirking her 'notorious' image once and for all. A shame since this film oddly embraces the resounding decency imbued within its subject, radiating for all to see in its naked splendor. | positive |
A refreshing black comedy starring some of Australia's finest. In the same way that Lock Stock and 2 Smoking Barrels captured the funny side of London gangsters, Two Hands rips through the Sydney underworld. It wouldn't be so funny if it wasn't so close to the bone.<br /><br />An Australian classic. If Australia could pull more rabbits like this out its hat it might actually have a film industry worth keeping an eye on. | positive |
what a waste of time! i expected better from cameron diaz! i guess it wasn't really her fault for being in a terrible film. the film does not capture the beauty of europe.....and wasn't successful in leading the audience into suspense or wonder. weak attempt at storytelling and narrating -- dialogue is dull and wasn't able to convey what i sometimes think simplicity is beauty. no love, energy, electricity on screen. too bad!!!!!!!!1 | negative |
For me this movie was powerful. I don't want to be a spoiler, but I had a friend years ago; we were like brothers. This movie brought back some vivid memories.<br /><br />For some reason, I couldn't place my vote for this movie which would have been a 10. I kept getting a message like "No votes have been placed...." And yet I saw in the stats that there were. Will try again tomorrow (Monday).<br /><br />Minor flaws I overlooked. It was the relationships between the characters that got me. Beautifully acted and real situations. I've been in a couple of them.<br /><br />A small gem of a movie. Just like "Spring Forward" is another overlooked gem. I'm very glad movies like these are still being made; about relationships between people, well written, sensitively unfolded with first-class acting and direction. After all, isn't that what it's all about? | positive |
This movie is horrendous. The acting is cheesy and laughable. If you know anything at all about Rugby the match action is boring. In fact any episode of Power Rangers contains more realism than this movie. The 'action' consists of no more than one pass and a shot of guy landing over the try line or being tackled without the ball and hectic hand held shots of who knows what. It's impossible to tell. There is nothing of the excitement, skill and construction of try scoring that real Rugby contains. As for the haka, this is a bunch of yanks trying to imitate a tradition they know nothing about, much like the white rasta character that should have been left out of the film. Next time there's a Rugby movie made we can only hope that people who know Rugby make it. | negative |
This is simply the most astonishing movie you will ever see. I thought it was just another documentary, but it really is something else. It doesn't try to teach you anything, it shows you how life works in nature.<br /><br />I won't talk about the quality of the pictures, because you obviously know from other comments it is unmatched.<br /><br />Earth is funny, tense and sad. It can make you laugh, it can make you cry. Sometimes both at the same time. This is the first movie that made me cry, not because you feel sorry for the animals, but because you come to realise how fragile our planet is and what treasure we were blessed with, yet we don't appreciate it one bit.<br /><br />This movie should be shown obligatory in schools. It is the most wonderful film you will ever see, so go and see it. Who knows, maybe it is the last time we might see our planet like this...<br /><br />10/10, but I would easily rate it more if it were possible. | positive |
As a great admirer of Marlene Dietrich, I had to (finally) watch this very, very dull picture. It is Miss Dietrich's first color film, and the world's most beautiful blond is a redhead! Bad start. The story is a tremendous bore, involving a subject which itself bores bores me stiff: religious guilt. (Who needs it???) Suffice it to say, perhaps, that of all Dietrich's films (and I have seen most, including "Pittsburgh") this is the only one where even her performance is barely worth watching. The color photography is OK (this is a very early Technicolor release), but to no purpose. Ridiculous casting: C. Aubrey Smith, Basil Rathbone (enough said?). The only thing of any interest at all is John Carradine's outlandish caricature of a performance as "The Sand Diviner," who foretells all that will happen. The supposed "happy ending" is one of the most depressing ever conceived. Yet another example of David O. Selznick's highly inflated reputation (did he ever make a really good film? -- other than That One?) And, for one final annoyance, the soundtrack of the MGM DVD is a mess, with volume levels seemingly randomized. Highly unrecommended. | negative |
When I saw this movie, I was amazed that it was only a TV movie. I think this movie should have been in theaters. I have seen many movies that are about rape, but this one stands out. This movie has a kind of realism that is very rarely found in movies today, let alone TV movies. It tells a story that I'm sure is very realistic to many rape victims in small towns today, and I found it to be very believable(which is something hard to find in other rape centered movies). I also thought that Tiffani Theissen and Brian Austin Green were awesome in the parts that they played. I definitely recommend this movie to anyone who enjoys movies that have a bit of a harsh reality to them. I enjoyed it very much. | positive |
The undoubted highlight of this movie is Peter O'Toole's performance. In turn wildly comical and terribly terribly tragic. Does anybody do it better than O'Toole? I don't think so. What a great face that man has!<br /><br />The story is an odd one and quite disturbing and emotionally intense in parts (especially toward the end) but it is also oddly touching and does succeed on many levels. However, I felt the film basically revolved around Peter O'Toole's luminous performance and I'm sure I wouldn't have enjoyed it even half as much if he hadn't been in it. | positive |
Cuba Gooding Jr. is back on top! Jesus, he did a great job in this film! I LOVED this movie. Its one of those feel good movies that makes you want to run out and volunteer at a mission or something. Anyway, I would recommend seeing this movie in a heartbeat! Well worth the price of admission. And as for Cuba Gooding Jr., just give him his next Oscar right now!!!!!!!!!!!!!! | positive |
As an avid reader of Clive Barker, I truly anticipated this film prior to it's release... I was not let down. "Nightbreed" is a horse of a different color. Rich in the underlying decay of western civilization and dripping with alternative existence in a way we have never seen before. Barker is at his best when he allows us to peek into his world of unprecedented horror, yet showing us the other side of the coin. Here the "Monsters" are the hideously beautiful beings, while the humans are the deceptively ugly creatures of self indulgence. We soon learn that we were wrong all along. By far my favorite performance by the often under-used Craig Sheffer, and the added bonus of David Cronenberg as "Decker" is a cast best seen then believed. The "Monsters" are portrayed flawlessly by a bevy of English creature masters, whom many also brought the "Cenobites" to life in "Hellraiser", including "Pinhead" himself Doug Bradley. "Nightbreed" is an absolute must see for any fan of the horror genre, and anyone who needs just a little (Something) more out of their horror story. This IS Clive Barker at his finest. | positive |
If this book remained faithful to the book then we can only assume that the author was ignorant of history. Mark Anthony never died of injuries obtained in battle as depicted. He died a coward's death by committing suicide and even then, he asked his slave to do it for him. The slave chose to kill himself instead. In the real story Mark Anthony was ashamed by the slave's great valor and decided to copy him. But even in death Mark Anthony was a drunken failure and failed at his own suicide attempt. He cried out for Cleopatra and was taken to her, bleeding. She hauled his litter up on ropes and Mark Anthony died a while later. If you want history don't watch this movie. If you want romantic drivel then you will probably enjoy it! | negative |
I'm really surprised seeing all these positive reviews for this movie. Don't get me wrong, it's not that I don't like 'these kind of movies'.<br /><br />While I very well can enjoy a good mindless Hollywood action blockbuster like Die Hard 4.0, I like the 'dogma' kind of movies, or 'real-life-as-it-is'-movies just as much, IF they are well made.<br /><br />A good example is Festen (1998): no music, no dramatic camera angles, no special fx, no fancy locations. Just a good story combined with excellent acting and the result is an excellent movie.<br /><br />Is Nine Lives devoid of dramatic camera angles, special fx and fancy locations? Yes. Is it a good movie? I'm glad you asked. <br /><br />The answer is: Absolutely not.<br /><br />First of all, everyone is raving about the acting performances. I'm terribly sorry, but you can act all you want, but if the story and the dialogue is not believable, the acting falls on its behind immediately. And that is exactly the case with Nine Lives.<br /><br />Not once did I have the feeling while watching 'Nine Lives' that I was watching real people having a real conversation. I had the feeling I was watching actors trying to come across as 'real characters' while they were were saying things a 'real person' would never say under the circumstances.<br /><br />You can hardly call it a SPOILER, but there are some dialogue excerpts below. If you think that reading ten lines of (ridiculous) dialogue will ruin your movie experience STOP READING HERE. If you want a good laugh, continue reading.<br /><br />The dialogue was often so ridiculous that it was tragical. You want examples? Plenty of those in 'Nine Lives'.<br /><br />EXAMPLE1:<br /><br />Picture this. Couple visits their filthy rich friends in their new mansion. Woman sees this castle of a house and says to her husband:<br /><br />Woman: I could get used to this (meaning the expensive house). Man: Don't. Woman: Why not? It could be. Man: No. They are who they are and we are who we are. Woman: I like the sound of that -- we are who we are.<br /><br />She likes the sound of that? Her man is acting like a jerk, but she likes the sound of that. Then an elderly couple walks past them holding hands. This is what the woman comes up with:<br /><br />Woman: Look! They are like children after school. They lived through so much. Shared everything. I love you.<br /><br />They are like children after school? And then the most overused cliché lines you ever heard? Finishing with 'I love you'? She says this while her man is being a jerk to her? Yes, very logical, very realistic, NOT. If anything, this kind of dialogue made me wanna strangle some of the characters in the movie for saying these horrible, horrible things.<br /><br />EXAMPLE 2:<br /><br />Elderly mom, dad and younger daughter at a funeral. Dad: I didn't realize Andrew was religious. Mom: It's for comfort. Daughter: It's for strength. Mom: Life is fleeting. Dad and daughter BURST OUT LAUGHING. <br /><br />Yeah, this one-liner cracks me up any time, especially at a funeral! Sorry, I must have missed the joke here.<br /><br />And it goes on and on and on....<br /><br />How about the camera work? Don't even go there. 'Boring' would be a compliment. It supposed to come across as 'realistic'; instead, you miss half of the actors facial expressions (the only thing left to watch in this movie), while half the time the camera is aimed at someone's back or side instead of the face.<br /><br />Conclusion? Well, don't say I didn't warn you! It's a good movie to rent if you want to make out with your date or something during the movie, because you won't even care whether the movie is playing or not after the first five minutes.<br /><br />Overrated and more boring than watching grass grow kinda sums it up. | negative |
Well, okay, maybe not perfect, but it was pretty close. This movie jumped from crime drama to romantic goofball comedy and back again so quickly all the way throughout that it seemed like two different movies that played simultaneously and then joined up again at the end. But they did it smoothly, and some in the theater found the bloody parts (like the scalping scene) to be funny as well. I just about threw up, but I guess that's just me. Greg Kinear is perfect as a soap opera actor. He has the ability to perform those over-dramatic soap scenes with just the right facial expressions and voice intonations. His scenes with Betty seem like something out of "Sleepless in Seattle" or some other romantic comedy like that. You almost forget that Morgan Freeman and Chris Rock are searching Betty down. Morgan Freeman's fascination with Betty was rather creepy, considering that he could practically be her grandfather, but the scenes where he is conversing with her photograph are definitely worth a few laughs! Chris Rock's performance seems rather wooden, but he has his moments. Renee Zellweger is so sweet as Betty, the lovable waitress with the crude, unfaithful husband who treats her like dirt. It's very unlikely that she would have actually gotten a job at a hospital without any real credentials, but, hey, it's a movie, just go along with it! Her roommate, Rosa, shines as well, as a woman who cares about Betty, but doesn't quite know how to deal with Betty's sickness. And, lastly, there is Crispin Glover. As a fan of his, I, naturally, thought that the movie could have been funnier had he been in it more. No one else has the same style of acting that Crispin has, and the argument between Chris Rock, Crispin, and the sheriff about the soap opera is hilarious. I guess I'm saying that I liked this movie quite a bit! If you can stomach blood, violence, and a lot of foul language, it's worth the watch and will give you plenty of laughs! | positive |
I love bad movies. Not only, because they often are as entertaining as 'really' 'good' films (like Pirates of the Caribbean series and other Hollywood pathos), but they often are far better than those films. And that's the reason why I love Italian rip off cinema of 1970s and 1980s. And that's the reason why I especially love this movie, The Barbarians & the Company.<br /><br />Director Ruggero Deodato has made some actually very good movies, like House on the Edge of the Park, and also his Atlantis Interceptors and Live Like a Cop, Die Like a Man are enjoyable action movies. But this is really bad. The Barbarians is so idiotic movie. Peter and David Paul as the Barbarian Brothers Kutchek and Gore are very funny, because of their lack of charisma and acting skills. But if they can't act, they yell and scream every time they do something important. In one scene people try to hang the Barbarian Brothers, and they escape very extraordinary way.<br /><br />Bad acting, bad special effects, very stupid story, bad direction, actually everything is bad in this movie. I can't describe how much I laughed when I watched this first time. The Barbarians & the Company is camp classic everybody should see once. If you thought Plan 9 From Outer Space is fun camp, this will be a real killer. | positive |
Don't Change Your Husband is, on the one hand, the beginning of a series of lightweight marital comedies from Cecil B. DeMille. On the other it is his first picture to star Gloria Swanson, probably the greatest actress of the silent era, and is the film which made her a star.<br /><br />Although the old DeMille formula was beginning to change, and his films were becoming wordier and less purely visual, with such an expressive performer as Swanson we regain much of that silent storytelling style. Her character does very little, but conveys volumes through subtle gesture and facial expression with a particular talent for looks of disdain. In real life Swanson was herself coming towards the end of her disastrous marriage to Wallace Beery, and it's possible that this fact fuelled her convincing performance.<br /><br />As if to best complement his leading lady's talents, DeMille's use of framing and close-ups is particularly strong here. He uses cinematic technique to show off the acting often holding Swanson in lengthy close-ups at key moments and also to clarify the story visually. For example, when we are introduced to the character of Toodles, she is shown reflected three times in a dressing table mirror. Her character disappears from the story, only to become important towards the end. That attention-grabbing first shot of her helps us remember who she was. Later, at the anniversary dinner, Swanson and future husband number two Lew Cody are framed together in one shot, while Elliot Dexter is isolated in his own frame. Also and this is a sign of the increasing sophistication of cinema in general there is much use of reaction shots for example the disapproving glance of the bishop when Cody acts out his intentions with the wedding figure dolls.<br /><br />In contrast to DeMille's visual narrative method was the increasingly verbose screen writing of his collaborator Jeanie Macpherson. As I've remarked in several other comments, Macpherson could put together a strong and dramatic story, but like DeMille she tended to state her themes in a somewhat pretentious and flamboyant style. And so we get these very long quasi-philosophical title cards about the pitfalls of married life which, if they improve the story at all, it is only because they are unintentionally funny. For example, only Jeanie Macpherson could come up with a line like "Fate sometimes lurks in Christmas shopping". Fortunately though in this picture these titles mostly introduce scenes rather than break them up.<br /><br />Although the pictures he made around this time tended to be small scale, it is at this point that DeMille seemed to develop his taste for the spectacular. You can see him start to sneak in excuses for a bit of razzmatazz like the little fantasy scenes of Swanson being showered with "Pleasure, wealth and love". It wouldn't be until the early twenties after the unofficial embargo on historical pictures was lifted that he would get the chance to go all out with the grand spectacle.<br /><br />All in all, Don't Change Your Husband is a fairly decent DeMille silent picture, although to be honest it is only really the presence Gloria Swanson that lifts it above the average. It's curious though that this is supposedly a comedy, and Swanson was cast at least in part because of her background at Mack Sennett's slapstick factory. She hated comedy acting, and here gives a dramatic rather than a comic performance. It makes sense then that the only straight drama she did with DeMille, Male and Female, was by far the strongest of their collaborations. | positive |
this is a really great series. i love the show and i am so glad it isn't canceled yet. it has really good humor and shows the realistic bond between a young mother and her daughter. o yes for Gilmore girls! it is very awesome. they are such a sarcastic humorous bunch. they do everything together just like my mom and me. ya for Gilmore girls. um, i'm running out of lines. but i love how Luke and Lorelei's relationship is finally shaping up. they so needed to be together. and i absolutely just love Sookie St. James! she is so awesome . and the show wouldn't be anywhere without Michel. the whole show is dry humor, sarcasm, and life in a very small town where everyone knows each other....especially the Gilmore Girls. | positive |
Oh dear. I was so disappointed that this movie was just a rip-off of Japan's Ringu. Well, I guess the U.S. made their version of it as well, but at least it was an outright remake. So, so sad. I very much enjoy watching Filipino movies and know some great things can come out of such a little country, so I can't believe this had to happen. Claudine and Kris are such big names there, surprised they would be affiliated with plagiarism. To any aspiring movie makers out there in the Philippines: You do not have to stoop this low to make money. There are many movie buffs that are watching the movies Filipinos put out and enjoying them! | negative |
I am probably a little too old for this movie, 16, and being a guy, the story is a little too girlie, but I really thought it was a cool movie overall. All the girls in this movie are so hot and really great actresses, from Alana, to Adrianne, to Deena, to Kimberly, all the way down to the cute girl that plays Alana's little sister, Rachel. I am not a huge pop-star fan with the lovesick songs, but I thought that Aaron Carter did a really great job in this, and seems like he was really into this movie, and made it seem real. My mom liked all the older farts that she grew up with, so that's cool too. I kept thinking that I liked a lot of the people, and wonder if I will see them again? A sequel would be cool. I rented this, but I might buy it too, since I have a ton of DVD's, and like to go back to see something that I missed. I couldn't buy it at Blockbuster though, so I don't know where I could buy it right now, but I'll look into that. Anyway, I am a 16 year old guy, I already said that, I know, but I would totally take a date to see this. It's really good for all ages, really. I think even my little half sister who is 6 could see this. That's what is so cool about it, that it is something that all ages can see. I'm sure that was done on purpose, but it really works. Girls can dream about being with Aaron Carter, and guys like me can dream about all the hot chicks in this movie. There is something for everyone. | positive |
I didnt think it was possible, but i have found film worse than 'Body Melt'. This film is really really bad! And what makes it worse is that its another Australian film...<br /><br />Shot on what looks like VHS, and with a terrible 80's rock soundtrack, it just keep getting worse and worse, which is hard to believe seeing how bad the beginning is (skinned male hanging up-side-down in a white tomato sauce sprayed room anyone?).<br /><br />And why do their accents keep changing? From bad New York drawl, to prissy english, then pure Aussie! And it happens to the whole cast!<br /><br />This film also claims to have won some film festival on the cover (i believe it was the Utah Film Festival). This has to be a lie because no-one in their right mind would nominate this for anything (perhaps the Golden Rasberries but i thinks its too bad for that aswell).<br /><br />Come on guys! This film has to be number 1 on the bottom 100!!! It has to be ten times a bad as those films already on there.<br /><br />Well done to the "film" makers of this trash, for proving there is a reason not to see films..... 0/10 | negative |
This star-studded British/Spanish co-production looks great, what you can see of it. I have three versions, two VHS, one DVD, and all are terribly cropped, so badly that it looks as if buildings are having conversations with each other. Few films suffer as badly from pan and scan as this one, as director Robert Parrish seems to have been so enamored with the widescreen process that he tended to use both sides of the screen at once, neglecting the middle. Another user comments that we see the entire inhabitants of a church massacred at the beginning; not in any of the copies I have. There are some abrupt cuts of peasants firing their rifles, one Mexican officer is shot, Shaw and Landau celebrating, and that's it. We never find out why Shaw has become a priest (if he really is), we never find out what happens to Don Carlos (Savalas) although I suspect he was called home to star in Kojak, as his departure seems arbitrary. And there is a strange flashback sequence where Michael Craig (Mysterious Island) is dancing around in a bowler hat and bad suit in the great old English music hall tradition to the 1960 hit BATTLE OF NEW ORLEANS, not sung by Johnny Horton here but with some lyrics I've never heard before. On the plus side, the location is great, a huge old ruined fortress with Escher-style stairs leading nowhere, some nice scenery-chewing by Robert Shaw, and good performances by Stevens, Landau, Lettieri, and Telly Savalas as Telly Savalas. I didn't really like this film, but I haven't exactly seen it. I will seek the widescreen version and make my decision then. | negative |
i honestly dont know why so many people hate this movie, i have always thought that it was one of my absolute faves. the fight with tiger and his men rocked, the fight with the pirates with the axes rocked, the whole skit with everyone trying to avoid one another in the house is pure genious...ok so it didnt have the requisite kick ass final confrontation but the manchus were pretty good. i give it a 8/10. | positive |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.