review stringlengths 32 13.7k | sentiment stringclasses 2 values |
|---|---|
During the final throes of the Vitnam war, our central character, Capt. Willard (Martin Sheen) is dispatched by the CIA on an illegal one-man mission to assassinate a renegade US Marine commander, Colonel Kurtz (Marlon Brando), who has allegedly gone 'completely insane', but who is successfully waging a private cross-border war from his base in Cambodia, a neutral and therefore off-limits country.<br /><br />The entire narrated story of what Willard sees and does as he is ferried up the Da Nang river by an undisciplined and terrorised navy patrol boat crew to murder Kurtz is a grand metaphor for the excesses, decadence and ultimately the weakness of the Anglo-Saxon psyche: If we don't understand something, and we are unable to control it, exterminate it. Kurtz had eventually come to know this.<br /><br />Unless you pay complete attention to every emotional gesture, to every word of the dialogue between the protagonists, especially in the scene where the two of them are alone in Kurtz's darkened lair, you will miss one of the central themes of this incredible movie. Kurtz's subtle deal with his executioner, his unilateral 'surrender' in return for Willard agreeing (did he nod?) to tell Kurtz's 'son' (another metaphor for us, the next generation, the ones watching the movie) the truth about all the horrors that they had both seen in Vietnam, is mind-expanding stuff.The bonding between the two men whilst Kurtz cross-examines Willard,--interlaced with some of his own horror stories, is incredible, nay, genius, film. The closing (intercut)scene of the ritual slaughter of a sacrificial bull is the single most powerful of symbols. Coppolla has made, intentionally or not, the ultimate anti-war statement, one that should resonate through the ages. | positive |
Why did it sound like the husband kept calling her Appy ? It ruined a great episode and so I can only give it a 6. Proper grammar and pronunciation are essential to a film.<br /><br />It was very Hellraiser what with all the skin ripping though I dunno how anyone can survive without skin the skin is a vital organ to the body the biggest organ actually and without we would die. The more a horror film is true the more creepy it can be and more entertaining.<br /><br />I do admit though that the stories from the great horror directors are very disappointing and very mediocre. <br /><br />6/10 come on Yankies get your English up to par ! | positive |
My wife and I struggle to find movies like this that are clean and yet enjoyable for adults. If you can't find a cinema that is playing it, call your cinema and request it. Bravo, Five Sisters Productions for courage, tenacity and creative endeavor! | positive |
A truly excellent look at the world and the realities of being a heroin addict. The movie is one that will hit much too close to home to those who were involved in the drug culture and have knowledge of what being(or being around) a heroin addict really is. Good movie, which will never truly be outdated. Excellent performances by all involved and the minimalist set is Preminger's way of showing how bleak a JUNKIE'S world can become. Worth a look--an education of sorts. The golden arm is a worried look at the truth of the underground life of pain a junkie lives in. | positive |
Oh dear! ohdear!ohdear!ohdear!<br /><br />I love science fiction but this... er... 'movie' just puts space flicks to shame. Every sci fi film I've seen over the last YEAR has been disappointing to some degree, and I'm now seriously reconsidering what genre of movies I actually like in future!! (Maybe I'll watch romance flicks from now on!) <br /><br />SPOILERS ALERT! (And thats not saying much!)<br /><br />This flick is so insipidly dumb it rivals Battlefield Earth and Baby Geniuses in sheer badness. The special effects are obviously fake, the Big Mac Truck looked stoopid with its roller coaster seat restraints, the killer robots looked like a more idiotic version of the Power Rangers, a huge fat guy is sucked out of a port hole window butt first and... Space Truck School??? WTF?<br /><br />Mr Hopper can do better than this. What really stunk were the two good-looking young things who accompany him and run around in nothing but their underpants (??) for an entire two thirds of the flick! The obligatory 'sex scene' (snicker!) between our young heroes was so poorly performed I nearly choked on my tonsils laughing at the TV screen.<br /><br />The only character worth mentioning is the pirate ship captain/cyborg/mad scientist. He oozed the word grotesque and was predictably sleazy, but I believe he could've been much more menacing. He does and says things which are quite funny (all the best scenes involve him!) so for the captain I give this movie an extra point.<br /><br />But this flick is so bad it'll make you want to hurl abuse at the TV or maybe throw your TV out the window! It may even kill off a few brain cells and put you into a catatonic state.<br /><br />CONCLUSION? I like the way the captain struggles to walk around on his peg leg when its obviously a fake peg leg!! I would've given it 0 out of 10, but since he cracks me up with his stoopid antics... this flick gets 1/10! | negative |
Is this the future that awaits us? An overpopulated, unforgiving wasteland with a hellish, unwanted existence? This film brings to mind a problem that still plagues us, doubly so since the film was released in back in 1973. Let's hope that the world isn't going to end up like this...<br /><br />Soylent Green is a wild movie that I enjoyed very much. It had likable characters, a semi-apocalyptic setting, a compelling and thought-provoking storyline, and the macho-est macho man out there: Charleton Heston. Richard Fleischer gave the movie a very unpleasant, dirty feel. You're almost choked by the stench from the city and its filthy inhabitants.<br /><br />The characters are wonderful. Charleton Heston, who has become one of my favorite actors, IS Thorn. The man created this role of badass, yet likable tough-guy. I could definitely put myself in Thorn's shoes. He sees that something isn't right, but everyone around him either doesn't listen (more like paid not to listen) or wants him dead. Edward G. Robinson (in his last film, R.I.P.) plays the lovable old Sol, who has had enough of this nasty place. Everyone else is great, especially Leigh Taylor-Young as Shirl, a piece of "furniture" that comes with the apartment in which she resides.<br /><br />The special effects are fantastic, even for 1973. The Soylent Green factory, the futuristic apartments, and especially the "scoops" (bulldozers that get rid of people) were excellent. The polluted air outside looks disgusting and very nasty. The empty city streets filled with the vile and putrid people are very unsettling.<br /><br />One final note is the ending, which even now still shocked me. It is gruesome, but if you think about it, it's a pretty good idea.<br /><br />The Bottom Line: <br /><br />An excellent 70's Science Fiction flick that makes you think and leaves you feeling very uneasy. | positive |
Steve Carell once again stars in a light romantic movie about choices, family and pressure. By judging on the plot and cover art of the movie I was expecting a flat-out comedy, lots of laughs and unrealistic elements, but I guess I was wrong. Sure the movie had some comedy, but it felt much more of a light Drama to me and Steve Carell once again gave a great performance. The movie itself really tackles true observations and that was a strong element I found. But, the ending felt a little bit rushed and predictable. Through-out, the cinematography was great, the acting was great and the message it delivered was obvious but yet still very important. Though, it came down to old, flat and predictable ending. I'd reckon if different choices were made at the end of the movie (perhaps for the bad, even) this movie would get better publicity. Still a fun movie. | positive |
They don't make movies like this anymore though some may say that's a good thing. Although this was amongst the first of Disney's PG rated films, it has more of the feel of the G films their studio turned out in the70s (i.e. "Freaky Friday," "The World's Greatest Athlete") than the PG films that came out in the early 80s (i.e. "Watcher in the Woods," "Tron," "Something Wicked This Way Comes"). Because of Disney's backing, "Midnight Madness" obviously had a large budget. A huge cast and a ton of diverse locations go to show that. But zaniness, a madcap scavenger hunt, and spectacular visual style weren't enough to save the film from being an enormous flop... A failure at the box office, most of us were introduced to the film on HBO in the early 80s, back in the days when the same films would be shown 29 times a week (Oh, wait they still do that!). Essentially HBO did for this film what CBS did for "The Wizard of Oz" they created an enormous cult audience for a sugary-sweet mega-flop....<br /><br />The biggest problem that makes this a "bad" film is that there's too many characters and very few of them are fleshed out Eddie Deezen's "squad" don't even have names! The blue team, although they're the villains, are the most endearing and have the most work put into their characters (with the exception of the girl, who can't act & doesn't have enough to do). Harold, perfectly played to the hilt by Stephen Furst, is really the only one whose character is fully realized in the film. The other standout character is goof-off Melio, played with tons of charm by now-director Andy Tennant. Although then-Dr. Pepper spokesman David Naughton was supposed to be the star, his character often comes off obnoxious, particularly when pitted against his brother Adam, Michael J. Fox. While everyone has favorite characters, I don't think anyone who loves the movie could disagree that Furst and Fox are the only two characters that you really learn anything about.<br /><br />Despite the film's many flaws and bad actors (most of whom fell off the face of the earth after this movie) it still works because the actors appeared to be having fun -- and fun on the set equals fun on the screen. Come on, what college jock doesn't dream of floating around in a beer vat and what zoftig girl doesn't dream of stealing the show at the local discotech... er... I guess it would be at a rave nowadays... Campy, squeaky-clean fun for anyone who was young in the 70s & 80s, it's only fitting that this has finally gotten the massive video release that it deserves. But where the hell's the widescreen DVD release with the commentary, trailer and the full version of the song that plays in the disco? | positive |
I just saw this movie on HBO, and it was really good...a tragic love story indeed! I really appreciated the fact that the guy at the heart of the story had lost the use of his legs in an accident. It's rare to see a love story involving someone who is physically handicapped. The love that developed between that character and the woman who comes into his life nicely portrayed how I'd like to think love can heal someone's heart. Laura Leighton...all of 27 when she made this movie...was great as the woman so full of life she's able to revive this guy's heart. Unfortunately, since his family is wealthy and her's is not, "problems" develop.<br /><br />It's playing on HBO some more times this month. Check out the schedule here - http://www.hbo.com/apps/schedule/ ScheduleServlet?ACTION_DETAIL=DETAIL&FOCUS_ID=598947 | positive |
It was good to see John Denver again though he passed several years ago. I found this film to be very heartwarming and a great film to sit by the fire on a cold winters night recollecting what Christmas is all about. The scenes of Georgetown, Colorado were magnificent and make one want to move there immediately. As I sit here in my own mountain seen in So California I loved the story and the plot. I hope all who see this somewhat older film enjoy it as much as my mother and I did. Merry Christmas! A great film for all the family too see. Enoy and tell others about it. Thanks for the memories. We need to have more films like this come out of Hollywood. | positive |
THE HOUSE THAT DRIPPED BLOOD is the third in a series of seven Amicus horror anthologies. If THE MONSTER CLUB is included as part of the series, this would make eight movies. Although, that movie is very different from the others.<br /><br />I look upon the Amicus anthologies with great memories as I used to love them when I was in my teens. My feelings for them today are just as strong.<br /><br />I spent many years trying to track down this movie. The synopses of the stories was so appealing that I went as far as paying a substantial amount for it when I eventually found a copy. As great as though the movie is, I did feel a sense of disappointment when I finally saw it. It wasn't quite as good as I was led to believe. Whilst better than its two predecessors, it's nowhere near as good as its four successors as I shall demonstrate.<br /><br />The linking story sees John Bennett as a police inspector tracking down a missing person who lives in a mysterious old house. His journey begins at the local police station where he learns the stories of previous occupants. The linking story later sees him visiting the estate agent who sold the house. Whilst this linking story seems enticing on paper, it is flat and lifeless in practice and easily the weakest of any Amicus anthology. I couldn't help but get the feeling that John Bennett is a poor man's version of Donald Pleasance or Ian Hendry. I would much rather have seen one of the two aforementioned actors in his role. We could have even had both here - one as the police inspector and another as the estate agent. They could, and I believe would, have brought this weak element of the movie to life much better.<br /><br />The movie contains four stories, each of which focuses on an inhabitant of the house.<br /><br />The first story sees Denholm Elliott as a writer of crime stories. He is absorbed into an exciting story about a strangler, even going as far as drawing a sketch to aid his writing. Soon after, he begins seeing visions of his own creation. Some excellent direction by Peter Duffell, particularly with the choice of camera angles helps to detract from the restrained script. Elliott's performance is superb as the tormented writer and he also helps to elevate the story. The story ends with a semi-twist but I couldn't help get the sense of a script which didn't allow it to live up to its potential.<br /><br />The second story sees Peter Cushing move into the house. He is a lonely man who is still pining for a beautiful young woman who once jilted him and who he keeps a picture of. Cushing's performance really brings this emotionally-moving story to life. He is helped by the director who chooses to include continual focus on Cushing's loneliness. This is taken further with a great hallucination scene that helps us to see inside Cushing's mind. Anyway, Cushing sees a figure at a nearby wax museum that looks just like his girl. Naturally his obsession grows but this seemingly romantic story has a disturbing twist at the end. Joss Ackland plays Cushing's rival but his performance is massively overshadowed by the late great Peter Cushing.<br /><br />The third story and easily the best sees Christopher Lee - my favourite horror actor of all time - move into the house with his daughter. Mr. Lee gives one his perfect ice cold performances here. He shows no love or attention for his daughter at all. He even brings in a school governess to educate her. The governess, played by Nyree Dawn Porter in another of her superb performances, tries to find out what is wrong. Without giving too much away, I can reveal that witchcraft plays a role. Christopher Lee's presence is truly electrifying in every scene he's in. Chloe Franks deserves special recognition for her massively underrated performance as the little girl who is easily the creepiest character in the whole movie. The movie is worth seeing even for the sake of seeing just this one story.<br /><br />The final story is played almost entirely for laughs but it certainly does entertain and that's what matters. Jon Pertwee plays a horror movie actor who moves into the house. He is very dissatisfied at the approach his producers take to movies, seeing everything as cheap and fake, particularly the costumes. So he decides to buy an authentic cloak for his latest vampire role. Geoffrey Bayldon has an excellent cameo as a dealer who sells Pertwee an ancient cloak. When Pertwee puts the cloak on, he starts developing fangs and basically transforming into a vampire. Pertwee's performance has to be seen to be believed. It truly is hilarious. Ingrid Pitt is also in this story but her talent is wasted in a role that should have been much larger.<br /><br />The linking story finishes with a loose connection to the final story. This is particularly fitting since the inspector was looking for Pertwee and naturally decides to visit the house. The rest you'll be able to work out for yourself. As weak as the linking story is, it does have a decent if somewhat unintentionally comical ending.<br /><br />I'm convinced that the blame for the shortcomings in what should have been a truly magnificent movie doesn't lie with Peter Duffell, the director, who really does his best with what he's got. I think the script was just too restrained and lacking the ambition that can be found in the four later movies.<br /><br />Overall, THE HOUSE THAT DRIPPED BLOOD, despite its flaws is a must-see for fans of the Amicus anthologies, fans of other Amicus movies or fans of portmanteau horror movies. If my summary provides the movie with enough appeal in your eyes, check it out. You'll enjoy it! | positive |
If this film had been directed by DW Griffith or Stanley Kubrick, it would be recognized for what it is: a cinematic masterpiece, told with depth and subtlety and passion, a film with no equal in the visual realm. It is unremittingly stunning and also very brutal in its depiction of our great heritage of greed and annihilation. And of course, what the reviewers could not abide is it doesn't tell a simple narrative dick-and-jane tale like 99% of hollywood output. Its characters are complex and confused by their passions and thoughts, fears and emotions. They even appear to be thinking, something your average movie reviewers do not understand and cannot abide, so they destroyed it. See the original uncut wide-screen version. It is stunning. | positive |
In the wake of Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, the British film industry rapidly became swamped with bad gangster films in the late '90s-early '00s that seem even more desperate today than they did then. In one of the all-time great cases of pearls-from-swine, the producers of Rancid Aluminium brazenly plastered the quote 'The best film of the century' from one review all over the ads while omitting the rest of the sentence pointing out that that was only because, at the time of writing, it was the only film that had been released in 2000. Looking at it today it's hard to imagine how it ever got made, uniting a cast that was briefly considered the cream of Cool Britannia's Lads Mags Brigade Rhys Ifans, Sadie Frost, Nick Moran and Joseph Fiennes but now merely a guarantee of a turkey every time in a confused adaptation of a confused James Hawes novel. That the plot is never explained could be down to the possibility that no-one really knows what it is, or perhaps simply don't think it matters. Something to do with Ifans' businessman being set up with Steven Berkoff's homicidal Russian crime lord in a money-laundering or investment scheme (it's never clear which because no-one ever asks) by Fiennes' crooked Irish accountant, who expects the Russians to kill off Ifans so he can take over his failing company. Things get increasingly confused and underexplained from there on, Ifans alternates between shouting about how terrible his life is while juggling visits to the fertility clinic and sleeping with his secretary and Tara Fitzgerald's ludicrously accented Russian temptress, Berkoff keeps on saying "Bizniss" and "Francis Drake" and Fiennes does a decent Irish accent while proving that just because he played a great writer in Shakespeare in Love doesn't mean he's any judge of good writing when it comes to film scripts.<br /><br />When the most convincing performances come from Keith Allen and Dani Behr, you know a film is in deep trouble. With Poland standing in for a Russia filled with people with Polish accents and a strange score that veers from John Barry pastiche to lounge music to Ennio Morricone spaghetti Western on a stylophone budget, it fails completely in the cool stakes it's aiming for and ends up in a curious overplotted but almost plot less limbo all its own, sitting there like a joke shop dog turd. | negative |
CANNIBAL FEROX (1+ outta 5 stars) Miserable excuse for a movie... which you might enjoy if you really like boring, nonsensical jungle movies spiced up with scenes of graphic violence. A pair of drug dealers on the run from the mob travel to the jungles of Paraguay to search for emeralds and cocaine. They meet up with another young traveler and his two hot babe sidekicks, one of whom is an anthropologist seeking to prove definitively that cannibalism does not and has not ever existed. One of the two dealers turns out to be a bit of a psychopath and he tortures and kills a couple of natives in order to get them to tell him where they hide their jewels. (And how they could even tell him when he doesn't seem to speak their language in the first place?) Well, the natives are suddenly not too thrilled with white folks in their jungle and capture them all for some retaliatory torture. Poor acting, poor plot and poor direction. Not a decent moment of suspense in the whole dreary 90 minutes. Even the special effects are not particularly convincing (though a couple of shots will still make most viewers cringe). The only good scene in the whole movie is when the two women are imprisoned in a mud hut and seem to touch the hearts of the natives with their rendition of "Red River Valley". The following is a quote from the movie but I wouldn't be surprised if many viewers weren't saying exactly the same thing by that point: "Oh God, please let her die soon. Oh, let her die soon. And let me die soon too, please." | negative |
THE FEELING of the need to have someone play the role of Arbiter of Public Taste and Political Correctness always manages to get under our skin. It does seem that these self-appointed, self-superior, pseudo-intellectual types do appear everywhere; be it in one's family, church or bowling league.<br /><br />THESE are the guys who would have society completely disregard and ignore all that went before us; unless, of course, whatever 'it' is does not fly in the face of today's "acceptable" language, mores and general "standards" of "proper" behavior.<br /><br />SO it is that these latter day, high tech book burners have targeted a great deal of what was Hollywood's greatest achievement; namely their participation in our own Allied Propaganda via their unselfishly crafted message and theme films.<br /><br />COLDLY brutal in its generation, the Banned Code and List of Now Unacceptable extends into the Wartime Cartoons that don't meet with the new touchy, feely socially engineered 'official' attitudes; which these "Thought Police" have foisted down upon us.<br /><br />WE were truly surprised to see that there seem to be volumes of such animated short subjects. The majority we are aware of are from Warner Brothers' LOONEY TUNES and MERRIE MELODIES; featuring Bugs, Daffy, Elmer & Porky, all in conflict with Hitler, Goerring, 'Il Duce', Tojo and the like. Surprisingly though, we found an ample supply of cartoons from MGM, Walt Disney, Lantz, Paramount-Famous Studios and the Brothers Fleischer.<br /><br />YOU'RE A SAP MR. JAP (Famous Studios/Paramount Pictures, 1942) is a prime example of just what we're talking about.<br /><br />BEING virtually indiscernible from the cartoons that were the output of the Studios of Max and Dave Fleischer before the 1941 business coup-de-tat that moved them out, bringing the new name of "Famous" Studios, YOU'RE A SAP MR. JAP bore none of the bland plot elements that would reduce the latter day Popeye Cartoons down to the level of the ultimate formula short movie.<br /><br />WE all remember how we'd have Popeye and Olive Oyl together. Enter Bluto, usually the exponent of wolf whistle and an on acceptable on-screen version of a Male reaction to feminine pulchritude. Olive falls for Bluto's less than honorable attentions; until he gets a little too physical and invariably blurts out, "Hey Babe, how 'bout a kiss?" At this point we hear "Help! Help, Popeye and the diminutive sailor shows up to save the day; replete with the obligatory can of Spinach! DO we exaggerate, Schultz? ONCE again this JAP SAP cartoon is nothing like any of that. Oh sure, it follows the storyline of now having Popeye in the U.S. Navy. The Brothers Fleischer put the little guy in the service in 1941 to conform to the mood in the country and as an open gesture of support for the men now being conscripted in the first Peacetime Draft in United States History. Max and Dave even put Popeye in service aboard the mythical Battleship, the U.S.S. Pensyltucky.<br /><br />OUR point is just this. YOU'RE A SAP MR. JAP and others like SPINACH FER Britain aren't cartoon vehicles for comic relief in the Theatre's program at all in the true sense. Rather they are a sort of grouping of Editorial Cartoons much like those from any "Great Metropolitan Newspaper". These animated shorts, much like those still one panel illustrations, have characters that are highly symbolic and representative of Nations, Ideas and Ideals, such as a just and lasting Peace. In most cases, the hero (Popeye, Bugs Bunny or whoever) is alone with the symbol of the Enemy. Both are highly exaggerated visual metaphors for abstract concept and thought; even if they are cloaked in humorous trappings for wider palatability.<br /><br />OUR liberal stupidgencia (the antithesis of intelligencia) may not see themselves this way; but for this sort of behavior, they are no more than Neo Nazi Book burners.<br /><br />PLEASE, allow the future generations to view and appreciate a view of past happenings that is both Historical and Humorous.<br /><br />POODLE SCHNITZ!! | positive |
Bloody marvelous. Recommended by a friend who knew I liked Thomas Kretschmann in The Pianist and Downfall. I loved the flow of the narrative - how the characters moved from hope and ideals of valour through shock, fear, disintegration, desperation and utter annihilation. A first rate anti-war movie that must have created quite the stir in Germany. Not a proud moment for anyone and the study of a generation lost. This movie was excellent at conveying the remove of the command from the ground troops and in pounding the utter futility of trying to control untamed nature and the Russian psyche. If I didn't know I would have thought it was a Russian movie it was so fatalistic. What an uncompromising ending. A pieta. | positive |
The 70s were without a doubt the golden age of "made-for-TV" horror. This is one of those that was probably churned out as an ABC movie of the week. It's the old story of a house and/or ghost possessing one of the new owners. The movie has promise, but it's never realized. Everything is rushed too much. Tension and suspense need time to build and grow. And there's nothing new. We've seen it all before and one better.<br /><br />One final thought: I don't understand why Robert Wagner's character would fall for the long dead movie star when he's married to Kate Jackson for goodness sake!!! | negative |
If you were ever sad for not being able to get a movie on DVD, it was probably 'Delirious' you were looking for. How often do you laugh when watching stand up comedy routines? I was too young to see Richard Pryor during his greatest time, and when I was old enough to see Eddie Murphy's 'Delirious' and 'Raw' (not as funny) I never knew where Eddie got a big part of his inspiration. Now that I'm older, and have seen both Pryor and many of the comedians after Murphy, I realize two things: Everybody STEALS from Eddie, while Eddie LOVINGLY BORROWED from Richard. That's the huge difference: Eddie was original, funny, provocative, thoughtful and more. He was something never before seen. He was all we ever needed. These days Eddie Murphy is boring and old but once upon a time he was The King, and 'Delirious' was the greatest castle ever built. Truly one of the funniest routines of all time. | positive |
I went into the movie expecting a little action mixed with a strong story line. I understand that changes between written works and movies must be made...for many reasons.<br /><br />The changing of the relationship between the scientists ( they were father - daughter in the book) The Director of CERN was eliminated thus causing the scene between the Carmelengo and the Director to be changed to the Carmelengo and the head of the Swiss Guard in the Pope's office.<br /><br />Ron Howard made sure to get his dad inserted as a Cardinal with a hayseed accent but missed all the symbolism. Both Lagdon and the Carmelengo ascended to the heavens in the helicopter with Hanks character landing in the river and the priest landing upon the chapel in what was described as a Christ-like image.<br /><br />At some point this film needs to be remade by a director who is up to the job | negative |
Like many Americans, I was first introduced to the works of Hayao Miyazaki when I saw "Spirited Away." I fell in love with the film and have seen it many times. Now I am on a search to see every film by Miyazaki. One of his earlier works is "Castle in the Sky." Although it's still enjoyable, it's not as good as "Spirited Away" (though comparing this or any film to his 2002 masterpiece is perhaps unfair).<br /><br />A young boy named Pazu (James Van Der Beek) is working in a mine late one night, when he sees a girl fall slowly from the sky. When she wakes up the next morning, she introduces herself as Sheeta (Anna Paquin). But Sheeta has a secret, and before he knows it, Pazu is pulled into an adventure that will lead him into danger with pirates, the army and a lost floating city.<br /><br />Going into a film by Hayao Miyazaki means you can expect one thing: a sense of wonder and magic. Many filmmakers have tried, but no one can create a sense of magic and awe like Miyazaki. Watching a film by Miyazaki is like experiencing a fantastic dream from your childhood.<br /><br />Because the film is animated, dubbing the film does not pose much of a problem because it is next to impossible to determine whether or not the lip movements match up to the words. It also helps that the translated dialogue is well-written and voiced by talented actors. The voice acting is varied. James Van Der Beek fares best. He brings an irresistible enthusiasm and excitement to the role of Pazu that is perfect for the character. Anna Paquin is nearly as good as Sheeta. She's frightened by the events going on around her, but she knows what she has to do. Mark Hamill is unrecognizable as the evil Muska. He's dangerous and wants something from Sheeta, and will do anything to get it. The other voices are bad. Cloris Leachman is awful as Dola. Leachman may have won an Oscar for "The Last Picture Show," but she's annoying as the pirate leader. Leachman gives the character an obnoxious squawk that's nearly always monotonous. It's so bad it nearly ruins the film! Jim Cummings is an effective voice-over actor, but he's miscast as the general.<br /><br />I would definitely recommend seeing "Castle in the Sky." I'll probably end up buying it myself. But even though it's not as good as "Spirited Away," it's still pretty good. | positive |
I saw "Fever Pitch" sort of by accident; it was playing on the airplane going over to Europe. It actually wasn't half bad. Ben (Jimmy Fallon) is the world's #1 Red Sox fan, but his relationship with Lindsay Meeks (Drew Barrymore) may strain that. The movie is a fairly interesting look at how world events can affect peoples' relationships. It's especially eye-opening now that the Red Sox have ended their 80-odd-year losing streak. I guess that these sorts of things happen all the time and we just don't tend to notice them. Not too bad.<br /><br />Another movie portraying an unusual relation to baseball is 2000's "Frequency". Check them both out. | positive |
Last night, I am sitting in my TV room, beer in hand, bowl of pretzels on the TV tray & I decide to put the movie "Monster Man" into my trusty VCR. Expecting a fun-filled, gory, crash & bash cheesefest of a movie. What do I get instead? One of THE most silly, stupid, unfrightening & predictable films I have ever had the displeasure of sitting through. And what's even worse, all during the(& I use this next phrase loosely) "sex scene" the girl keeps all her clothes on! I'll make this summary short & sweet: mix "Dude Where's My Car" (about a good 1/2 of the film) with a very watered down "Hitcher", add a redneck version of the antagonist from "I Madman" as the primary villain & finally some incoherent black magic mumbo jumbo & you'll kind of get a clue how rotten this movie is. It's also utterly predictable throughout. The only notable factor to this buddy movie disguised as a "horror film" is that some of the moments between the 2 guys (even though the "hero" is one MAJOR annoying geek & the other is a Jack Black clone) are kind of funny (just mediocre funny i.e..like most of SNL skits). Other than that, "Monster Man" is a monster mess! 3/10 (This one I'll be handing out at Halloween time-just hope after the person views it I don't get my house egged or worse) | negative |
I'm afraid I did not like this adaptation. When I started watching it I had a strange feeling of watching some 70s TV series, due to the filter and the musical score. I did not like the end scene. Mr Tilney appears dressed only in his waistcoat. Jane Austen would never have a gentleman ride out without a frock coat. Looks like the producers made a modern misinterpretation of a romantic girl's dream. I appreciate the more modern JA adaptations much more, that show an eye for these details, that makes the BBC series so worthwhile. Sorry, looking forward to the 2007 adaptation. I hope that will be better and will show the benefits of 20 years of Jane Austen adaptations. | negative |
A special unit of four police detectives are dispensing justice in their own unique way in 1950s Los Angeles. Nick Nolte plays Max Hoover, the unit's lead officer and his partners are played by Michael Madsen, Chazz Palminteri and Chris Penn. Also starring are Melanie Griffith, Jennifer Connelly and John Malkovich among others. Quite an impressive list of names. Unfortunately that is the only thing even remotely impressive about this film.<br /><br />Our story begins when young Allison Pond, played by Connelly, turns up dead in a remote area of town currently under development. Our band of four detectives is called in and it is immediately obvious that Nolte's Max Hoover is going to be taking a very personal interest in this case. We will soon find out that Allison, in addition to knowing Hoover quite well, was also involved with some rather important military and government types who may have had reason to want her dead. But who exactly was involved and why exactly would they want this seemingly harmless woman dead? Hoover and crew set out to find out. Sounds like an interesting premise but unfortunately it goes nowhere.<br /><br />Despite the impressive array of names, the acting here leaves much to be desired. Nolte is overacting, Madsen seems incredibly bored, Palminteri and Malkovich come off as caricatures, Penn has hardly anything to do and Griffith is dull as can be. By far the best performance is Connelly's in all too fleeting flashback sequences. The dialogue throughout the film is forced and wooden. The sense of drama you would expect from a mystery of this type is missing altogether. Nothing dramatic really happens. In fact nothing at all seems to happen for the bulk of the picture. Instead we just slog along towards a rather ludicrous and incredibly disappointing climax. When the "mystery" is solved you may find yourself saying, "Oh come on now, is that all there is?" But it gets worse as after the mystery is solved we get a completely ridiculous and utterly unbelievable action sequence. And even then we are made to suffer further as another awful, badly acted, completely unnecessary scene is tacked on at the end. And then mercifully it is over. And not a moment too soon. | negative |
"For a Squadron Leader - normally the only guy trained and equipped for navigation in a squadron and very hard to replace - to risk an expensive plane and himself to pick up a crashed fellow pilot, no matter how close a friend he is, in the face of oncoming enemy troops, is hard to believe, especially when they both have to share a cramped Spitfire cockpit - two into a Skyraider, OK, but a Spit?! Come on, this part of the film is a Biggles adventure, not fitting a film that one is supposed to take seriously!" as said by Tord S Eriksson (Gothenburg, Sweden) is rubbish. Not at all Biggles. One true story of the war comes to mind of two grounded spit pilots, who planned and flew (illegally) a strafing mission over France. One had to crash land and his friend landed his spit under fire, while German infantry was moving in on them, and flew them both out of there. In a spit. They were BOTH severely injured in former fights, one had an artificial leg from the knee down. Now that may sound like something out of Bigles, but it happened. Ill get sources if needed | positive |
The 3rd and last big screen spin off from the very popular ITV sitcom of the early 1970's,HOLIDAY ON THE BUSES is every bit as resistible and crude as the previous two efforts,and observing from a standpoint three and a half decades later,it is truly mind boggling that even one film was produced in this franchise.<br /><br />What constitutes the plot surrounds the adventures of Stan Butler (Reg Varney),his conductor Jack (Bob Grant) and their bumblingly autocratic Inspector Blake (Stephen Lewis) after their sackings from their regular jobs at the bus depot.They all find work in similar positions at a holiday camp with Stan's family (Doris Hare,Anna Karen,Michael Robbins) following therewith.<br /><br />British cinema had a deserved and considerable reputation for high quality in the 1960's,but much of this was due to American financial support and guidance which sadly drew to a close as the 1970's dawned.Thereafter,notable homegrown titles (GET CARTER being the among these very few exceptions) became as rare as Mick Jagger in a stable marriage,and UK cinema went down the road of cheap budgets,sleazy and witless sex comedies (The CONFESSIONS series,COME PLAY WITH ME) and flabby,elongated celluloid versions of various TV shows,mostly sitcoms (this being one of many hideous examples).Only DAD'S ARMY and PORRIDGE came off fairly respectably in this regard;the quirky success of the first ON THE BUSES film (it was the biggest box-office hit of it's year in 1971,nonsensical to think now!) led to two further sequels.<br /><br />To be fair,the TV series itself had a cheerful,ripe,non-PC vulgarity about it which was reasonably tolerable in half-hour sitcom form,but stretched to three times that length it taxes the patience beyond belief.It's ironical that HAMMER FILMS produced this effort as it virtually resembles a horror film in the literal sense,with ancient puns,hackneyed,poorly-timed slapstick and awful,seedy production values.<br /><br />A chance to send up the cheesiness of the British holiday camp is totally wasted here in favour of the above elements,and it is most bizarre,if not gruesome,to see the obviously 50-something Varney and the beaky-nosed,long-toothed Grant managing to instantly charm young women barely in their early twenties,while constantly laughing at their own bravado and lame jokes.The presence of Wilfrid Brambell (from STEPTOE AND SON) romancing the aged Miss Hare does not help matters either,and even though the film lasts about 1 and a half hours,it drags on to an interminably depressing degree.<br /><br />Thankfully,this was the last film in this most dire of film trilogies,and the TV series itself came to an end around the same time,with a sequel (DON'T DRINK THE WATER,which was roundly savaged by the critics and ignored by audiences) following in 1975.Most of the leading actors involved were not seen much afterwards,but the worst affected was Bob Grant.Afflicted with depression and other mental problems for many years,he committed suicide in 2003.A sad coda to a sitcom that was the most popular of it's era (it has not aged too well either),and should have remained that way,rather than the three financially successful but artistically hopeless big screen hybrids which diluted the happy memories and occasional merits of it's TV counterpart.<br /><br />RATING:2 and a half out of 10. | negative |
This movie shows how savage the troubles really are. People who do not want to be involved have no say in the way their lives are altered. This movie shows how the people of Northern Ireland, both Catholic and Protestant are held captive. At any moment their lives may be changed forever whether they want to be involved or not. | positive |
Except for the better than average acting skills of the two leads, this movie is really, really bad. The cheap production values don't help. Of course, you wouldn't really notice that the production values are cheap if they didn't keep trying to convince you they HAD a production values to begin with. Even for a B-movie genre freak like myself, this movie really sucks. | negative |
Some people might call "Paulie" a kids' movie, but I wish to assert that it's more than that. Probably more than anything else, this movie successfully goes to great lengths to show the plight of immigrants in the United States - topical given the recent debates. Portraying a parrot telling a Russian immigrant janitor (Tony Shalhoub) of how he searched America for his original owners, the movie tells several stories. There's the elderly woman (Gena Rowlands) whom he befriends, then a Mexican immigrant (Cheech Marin), and others.<br /><br />All in all, it's a very well done movie. I usually don't expect much from these sorts of movies, but this one is a treat. I certainly recommend it. Also starring Jay Mohr, Buddy Hackett, Bruce Davison, Hallie Eisenberg and Trini Alvarado. | positive |
When I read the synopsis for "Messiah" in the television guide, I was not prepared for what was in store. The story follows DCI Metcalfe trying to solve a case of grisly murders being taken out across London. He soon realises a pattern, there is a serial killer on the loose, killing people with similar names and jobs to those of the 12 Apostles and their killings are identical to their matching Apostle. The two part series kept me right on the edge of my seat, with Metcalfe closely pursuing the killer, but always missing him within a couple of seconds and discovering the gruesome mess he has left behind of his ill-fated victim. "Messiah" is sure to cause a great deal of controversy, but nonetheless it is the greatest piece of drama the BBC has shown in a long time. | positive |
Debut? Wow--Cross-Eyed is easily one of the most enjoyable indie films that I've watched in the past year, making it hard to believe that Cross Eyed is the writer's debut film. I mean--I logged onto IMDb to find more films by this writer...because Cross Eyed has that unique signature --you want to see what else this writer might have to say. These days, its rare to see a movie that is well-written, well-directed, well-edited and well-acted. For me--Cross Eyed encapsulates what movie making should be about--combining the best of all film elements to create a clever, artistic and poignant tale. More, please. | positive |
For starters and for the record, the term "Necromancy" describes the black magic art of bringing the dead back to life and it does NOT, in any way, relate to having sex with cadavers. That is called necrophilia and, yes, I know it's an obvious difference but I'm already getting a lot of remarks from acquaintances and relatives that I sport a perverted taste in movies! This movie is quite the opposite of perverted or sleazy, in fact, and merely just qualifies as boring, inept and terribly bad. "Necromancy" makes at least one top five ranking, namely in the list of most incoherent movies ever made! Now, director Bert I. Gordon is not exactly famous for delivering masterpieces (on his repertoire there are titles like "Earth vs. the Spider", "King Dinosaur" and "Food of the Gods") but he really surpassed himself here with a totally senseless, redundant and utterly nonsensical tale about witchcraft and secretive little towns. Shortly after the tragic experience of seeing their baby being born dead, Lori and her husband Frank move to the quiet little town of Lillith, where Frank suddenly got offered a prominent job in a toy factory. Lori is suspicious and senses an atmosphere of morbidity, especially with the town's patriarch and "owner" Mr. Cato behaving very obtrusive and mysterious. That's another thing. How can anybody "own" a town and everybody in it? Either way, Lori gradually discovers that everybody in Lillith is a witch and Mr. Cato exclusively lured her to the town because of her supernatural ability to resurrect the dead. Since many years already, Cato has been trying to bring his deceased son back to life and he's prepared to make any human sacrifice it takes. I honestly don't see the point of the whole movie. It's a blatant rip-off of "Rosemary's Baby" one of the alternate titles even is "Rosemary's Disciples" but the script is muddled and imbecilic beyond belief. Why isn't anyone allowed to have children for as long as Cato's son remains dead? That's just really selfish! When, where and how did Lori suddenly learn to resurrect the dead? "Necromancy" definitely contains a few genuinely uncanny and atmospheric moments, but these are unwarily accomplished either by complete coincidence or through a total lack of budget. The grainy photography provides the film with an eerie ambiance and the set pieces look cheap enough to be creepy. Orson Welles' performance undoubtedly the low point of his career is pitiable, and still it's the best aspect about the entire movie. | negative |
Chan Wook Park is nothing if not inventive. I'M A CYBORG BUT THAT'S OK is chock full of amusing little technical flourishes with some ingenious ideas sprinkled in between. Attempting to walk in the footsteps of the likes of Marc Caro and Jeunet (CITY OF LOST CHILDREN, DELICATESSEN), Park embarks on a fanciful, lighthearted tale which is a radical departure from his usual morbid fare. Hardly one to be faulted for his ambition or his vision, it is genuinely unexpected, then, to see all Park's effort add up to so very little.<br /><br />I'M A CYBORG BUT THAT'S OK seems astonishingly to subtract from itself as it goes along, with the the end result being a fraction of the sum of its parts. The premise is promising, gags are copious and offbeat humour abounds but it all fails miserably to create any meaningful connection with the audience. The characters are cute and quirky and played with gusto by the cast, but, try as i might, i could not bring myself to care for any.<br /><br />SYMPATHY FOR LADY VENGEANCE was a misstep, indicating perhaps that Park was overindulging himself a little bit, but it still managed to showcase some of the director's unique flare and in the wake of an impressive filmography, was readily forgiven. None of the assured confidence that commanded JOINT SECURITY AREA or SYMPATHY FOR MR. VENGEANCE is evident here. I'M A CYBORG BUT THAT'S OK left me so utterly unengaged i caught myself instinctively fast forwarding from time to time (more regularly as the film progressed). I gave LADY a 5/10, and by that measure, this probably deserves no more than a 3. For old time's sake, i'll be generous: 4/10 | negative |
From director Billy Wilder (Double Indemnity, The Seven Year Itch, Some Like It Hot), I can see that this is a bit of an under-shown and underrated film, one to be seen. This is the biographical story of Charles Augustus 'Slim' Lindbergh (James Stewart), who in 1927 wanted to be the first man to cross travel solo flight from New York, crossing the Atlantic ocean, to reach Paris, in a small cockpit. The first half hour or whatever is seeing Lindbergh getting permission to do it, and the construction of the plane, named "The Spirit of St. Louis", and making all necessary preparations. Then of course the rest sees his perilous journey crossing the journey, overcoming tiredness, near fuel loss, and moments of losing sense of direction, but he was successful. Also starring Murray Hamilton as Bud Gurney, Patricia Smith as Mirror Girl, Bartlett Robinson as Benjamin Frank Mahoney, Robert Cornthwaite as Harry Knight, Sheila Bond as Model/Dancer, Marc Connelly as Father Hussman, Arthur Space as Donald Hall, Harlan Warde as Boedecker and Dabbs Greer as Goldsborough. Apparently Lindbergh was a bit younger, so Stewart was a shade too old to play him, but then again, you can't think of anyone else that could do better. It is a witty and emotional drama, with Stewart (as always) being fantastic, great music score by Frank Waxman, and good direction from Wilder, a good little known gem. It was nominated the Oscar for Best Special Effects (the only award it was ever nominated). James Stewart was number 12 on The 100 Greatest Movie Stars, he was number 3 on 100 Years, 100 Stars - Men, and he was number 13 on The World's Greatest Actor. Very good! | positive |
I have never read Sarah Water's book. Although I have not read the book, the 3 hour movie is very interesting. It begins with an interesting storyline with a twisted ending. I have to say these 2 actresses are amazing. Sally Hawkins is stunning successfully portrayed the character in love with her mistress and betrayed by her love. Their romance slowly blossoms as they spend more and more time together. The love making scene is very tender and emotional, well acted. The end is quite intriguing and these 2 ended up together after all they have been thru, which is a bless. Overall, it is a great movie to see, a very interesting plot with excellent performances. | positive |
A movie you start watching as a late night cable porn..... It is hot in that department but it has even a lot more.... It has a sense of humor... some action in and out of the "bed" and it has reasonable acting as well as a story worth watching...A definite adult only movie but well worth watching... | positive |
Remember when Harrison Ford was the biggest star in Hollywood because he made great movies? Those days are feeling like a more and more distant memory.<br /><br />While "Hollywood Homicide" is by no means terrible, it is a routine and surprisingly boring buddy cop movie. It's a comedy that's not particularly funny, and an action movie that's not especially exciting. An overabundance of subplots cannot mask the weakest of the central storyline.<br /><br />Ford at least appears to be enjoying himself more than is his last few projects, and he is able to carry the film most of the time. Hartnett is adequate, but he and Ford aren't exactly Newman and Redford as far as chemistry is concerned.<br /><br />All in all, "Hollywood Homicide" is a reasonably amusing diversion, but just barely. Take out Ford, and it's not even that. | negative |
Wicked Little things was a really good movie.I will say at some parts it seemed really unbelievable, and others it seemed as if there just wasn't enough thought put into the actions of the characters, but overall it was exciting and entertaining.I don't understand why this movie's rating is so low.Nor do I not understand why all the Afterdark Horrorfest film's ratings are so low.These are B-Movies people, and nothing more.They provide great entertainment and most of them don't have many flaws at all.This is definitely worth a look, because you won't be disappointed with the outcome.Wicked Little Things is one of the best 1st Annual Afterdark Horrorfest films, and compared to a lot of other films in the series, this is one of the best overall. | positive |
I am a fan of Randolph Scott Westerns. While some of them are amazingly clichéd (as are most Westerns of this era), his easy delivery and style really elevate the films to classic and near-classic status. While this film features yet another example of real life Western heroes being exploited after their death by Hollywood (in this case, Bat Masterson), the film works well due to him as well as excellent supporting characters. One is the always strong acting of Robert Ryan--an excellent actor who is sadly almost forgotten today. The other is the ubiquitous Gabby Hayes who has one of his best roles as the crusty and very colorful deputy. Here he is more enjoyable than in his many supporting roles for Roy Rogers and John Wayne--mostly because his part is better written and he's given more to do.<br /><br />The plot is pretty much the plot of half the Westerns ever made. There are some baddies who hire a bunch of thugs to run roughshod over the locals and it's up to a do-gooder (Scott) to restore the peace and kill off the villains. However, how the plot is executed is much better than average and due to this the film is still watchable fun. Just don't expect a whole lot of innovation or uniqueness--unless you want to see what might just be Gabby Hayes' best performance. | positive |
There are worse ways to spend an evening than watching this movie, although it IS a tad predictable. Drew Barrymore does a very good job of being the outcast nerd in this film - excellent casting choice. What I found a bit hard to believe is that the popular girls finally accept her - in my experience that crowd has a longer memory than that, and knowing how AWFUL Drew's character was (ostrich feathers?) at the start of the school year would have kept them miles away, regardless of what rumors her brother drums up. (And does "Kole Slaw Food" really make HIM all that popular? I doubt it). As for rooting for Drew's character to win big as a reporter - well, I would have hoped she could have come up with a story long before the prom. A bit contrived. Having said all that, it was a cutsie piece of fluff that will be entertaining as long as you don't expect too much. | positive |
CREEP is a straight up serious horror film set in real time that wants nothing more than to just show people get attacked in a empty subway platform by a mutant for 85 minutes. And it does just that. Nothing more, nothing less. Director Christopher Smith draws out the drama a far as he plausibly can by introducing a series of characters that would actually have a reason to be in the subway after it is locked. He also leaves the origins of the titular Creep deliberately vague (unlawful experiments happening in the 60s underground are hinted at) and that little bit of mystery works for the most part. Sadly, he undermines himself toward the end by actually holding back from a twist ending where more genetic malformations would appear (they are hinted at as well). Yes, you heard me right - I wanted a clichéd twist ending! Franka (RUN LOLA RUN) Potente is good as the terrorized female lead and the rest of the cast is fine. | positive |
Netflix should mention this short feature on the info for Silk Stockings. Superior in every way to that over-produced fluff. This had much better Cole Porter songs and lots more energy. Silk Stockings turned out to be a big disappointment. Fred was getting too old for this sort of thing, though the dances and Cyd are lovely. I will be on the watch for the Garbo--Melvyn Douglas version of Ninotchka. Was Peter Lorre ill during the making of Silk Stockings--he seems to be very passive in the more active numbers and with less lines? Very glad that I ran across Paree--Paree by pure accident. Made the whole experience a lot more enjoyable. Bob Hope, as a simple "song and dance man' is pure joy. | positive |
Joseph Conrad's novel, Heart of Darkness is a dark, profound, and lasting novel that portrays the futility and irony taking place in Africa. If you are looking for a great book to read over the weekend this is not the book for you. Conrad holds nothing back when describing 19th century imperialism, but the novel is meaningless without giving it the reflection and consideration it deserves. If I read this novel looking for a great adventure story I would say that I wasted my time, but looking at in the perspective of explaining the futility of 19th century civilization, I would say this is one of the most significant novels I have ever read. Because of the fact that I read this novel in my English class, and we analyzed every page, I think I appreciated the book more than someone would who was just reading it for entertainment. I am not going to lie, this book was difficult and it challenges the reader to dig deep into this novel to find the true meaning. The movie on the other hand I found tiresome and boring. The movie, "Heart of Darkness" comes no where near giving the book justice. The movie left out many key parts that I consider important to get the true message of the story. If you are having difficulty understanding and visualizing the novel then the movie might be a good recourse but I would not recommend seeing the movie as an alternative to the novel or even a different perspective. | negative |
** HERE BE SPOILERS ** <br /><br />Recap: Mia (Helin) is returning home from capital Stockholm to rural Rättvik to celebrate her fathers 70th birthday. She is by far the youngest child, and has two sisters Eivor (Ernst) and Gunilla (Petrén). Eivor has a family and still lives in Rättvik and Gunilla has divorced and moved a town away. Mia is still single and is focused on her career. There are a lot of jealousy and almost animosity between the sisters and conflicts arise all around as they confront each other and each have personal problems they have difficult to handle. As the party goes on (and alcohol consumed), more and more secrets become unveiled and more and more conflicts arise...<br /><br />Comments: To be the work of a new writer/director it was disappointing to see this movie to follow in the exact same tracks that older Swedish comedy/dramas has been following for years. There are really no new elements or ideas. This movie draws upon three basic areas. 1) Embarrassing humor only based on characters making a fool of themselves. 2) Sorrow and 3) Anxiety. This move has the focus on the last one, almost forgetting the first point as the movie goes along. No loss though, since the humor that is there is not funny. The performances from the cast are good I guess, though it is lost behind all the anguish and soon forgotten. I had hopes that there would be new ideas and influences, but there were none. To conclude, there are better ways to spend one's time than watching this.<br /><br />3/10 | negative |
After seeing the "Batman Dead End" short, I didn't know what to really expect from World's Finest. Of Course, Superman AND Batman. All my World's Finest comic books have them as the team-up.<br /><br />After seeing this 3-and-a-half minute trailer, it made me wish someone would make a serialized fan film for World's Finest, if not an actual full-length film.<br /><br />Sure, some of the Superman stuff was cheesy, but movie trailers in theaters are always teasers, giving you only certain aspects of the entire product. This looks like it needs a complete product.<br /><br />Other than director Sandy Collera's relative playing an achingly poor Perry White, most of the actors were unknown. If an actual movie was made, actors would be cast to fit the bill for the film, though I believe Nina Kaczorowski would make a good Lois Lane, especially if given closer-to-the-character dialogue.<br /><br />Good to see Clark Bartram wearing the Batman costume from Dead End, but it should be updated a bit more and not be like the 40s Batman with the 80s-90s leather cape and cowl. His demeanor is Batman-like, but I still wonder about the validity of white contact lenses instead of just allowing his eyes to show through the mask. I believe the goal was to get it as close to the comic character than the movie persona.<br /><br />Michael O'Hearn cannot play Superman, period. He stands around with a goofy look on his face that simply says, "slap me." And line delivery seems to be a problem with him.<br /><br />Overall, though, I would love to see a complete story and film based on this ingenious piece of work. There was a rumor about a World's Finest movie being made, and with the correct additions to the script, this could be it. Hope more like this are made. | positive |
i thought this was a beautiful film. it is not my favourite of his films - chungking express holds that spot - this one is quite different from anything else i have seen of his. it is slow (but not annoyingly so) - it takes its time and ponders the characters.. there is minimal movement in the frame - the camerawork is wonderful. the acting is great. the film feels like a long warm comforting drink. | positive |
"Kramer vs. Kramer" is a terrific drama about an unhappy woman who walks out on her husband and young son. The husband now has to take up the responsibilities of taking care of the boy. As he does, they get to know each other better. But then, the mother and wife returns, and she wants custody of the boy. "Kramer vs. Kramer" has lots of drama with some wonderful bits of comedy thrown in for good measure. Dustin Hoffman won his first Best Actor Oscar for his brilliant performance here. Most people say his performance in "Rainman", which won him his second Oscar, is his best. He was great in that film, but I disagree that its his best. In my opinion, the best performance of Hoffman's career is in this movie. Scene after scene shows us why Hoffman is one of the best American actors working today. He's also funny at times. Also giving a terrific performance is Meryl Streep, who wasn't as well known when she made this film like she is today. Streep, like Hoffman, also won her first Oscar (for Best Supporting Actress) for her work in "Kramer vs. Kramer" as the wife and mother who tries to find herself after walking out on her family. Justin Henry, who was only 8 years old when the film came out, is wonderful as Hoffman and Streep's son. He won an Oscar nomination for his role here, and still to this day he is the youngest performer to receive an Oscar nomination in a competitive category (Best Supporting Actor). Jane Alexander is also fine as a conserned family friend. She too got an Oscar nomination (for Supporting Actress where she lost to co-star Streep). "Kramer vs. Kramer" is a great film from start to finish. Writer-director Robert Benton has made a film that's absolutely unforgettable. <br /><br />**** (out of four) | positive |
Jeanette MacDonald and Nelson Eddy star in this "modern" musical that showcases MacDonald's comic abilities. Surreal 40s musical seem to be making fun of 40s fashions even as they were in current vogue. Eye-popping costumes and sets (yes B&W) add to the surreal, dreamlike quality of the entire film. Several good songs enliven the film, with the "Twinkle in Your Eye" number a total highlight, including a fun jitterbug number between MacDonald and Binnie Barnes. Also in the HUGE cast are Edward Everett Horton, Reginal Owen, Mona Maris, Douglas Dumbrille and Anne Jeffreys. Also to been seen in extended bit parts are Esther Dale, Almira Sessions, Grace Hayle, Gertrude Hoffman, Rafaela Ottiano, Odette Myrtile, Cecil Cunningham and many others.<br /><br />Great fun and nice to see the wonderful MacDonald in her jitterbug/vamp routines. She could do it all. | positive |
Nurse Betty has that odd but winning combination of a repellent, unease-inducing plot with extraordinary characters. In the same way I loathed Fargo on first viewing, then realized I was still thinking about it days later and enjoying it somehow, I liked Nurse Betty a lot more the day after I saw it. Hard to understand, harder to explain. As others have said, it's quite forced in many ways, but that seems to be part of what makes it so striking.<br /><br />Fair job by Greg Kinnear, great work from Morgan Freeman (although I worry that he's being stereotyped as the principled villain). Chris Rock was good but not a standout. Rene Z. is so natural it's unnerving -- i.e., unnerving to be "natural" playing someone not well in the head. Also liked the sort of "abrasive sparkle" performance from Allison Janney in a small part.<br /><br />Don't go expecting as much of a "road movie" as you might assume from some synopses. (There is "road," but it's only barely relevant.) Rated 8/10. | positive |
This must be one of MGM's and FRANK SINATRAS worst films. An oddball musical comedy that fails in almost every aspect. Silly plot has SINATRA trying to carry on his fathers reputation as a KISSING BANDIT. He's no bandit and doesn't kiss!! He does play the "nerdy" character as well as could be expected given the dialog he has to speak. The scene stealer's are J. CARROLL NASH and MILDRED NATWICK. Too bad they didn't have more scenes together. I've given the film two stars because the sets and costumes are superior and one of the songs sung by KATHTREN GRAYSON "Love is Where You Find It", is sensational. Could have had a repirse of that one. Also, a comic type dance number by RIDCARDO MANTALBAN, CYD CHARISSE and ANN MILLER if fun. So for those reasons and those reasons only, it is watchable. KISSING BANDIT is part of the Frank Sinatra early years collection. | negative |
Nearly everything that Stephen King has ever written seems to have been turned into a film or TV series; in fact, I'm surprised that no one has tried to make a mini-series from the guy's grocery list. Let's face it, if they did, it couldn't be any less interesting than Children of the Corn.<br /><br />Based on one of King's many short stories, this 1984 horror flick sees Linda Hamilton and Peter Horton playing a couple on a long car journey who run into a spot of bother when they chance upon the sleepy Nebraska town of Gatlin, where all of the adults have been murdered by children who worship an ancient evil that lurks in the corn fields.<br /><br />Although director Fritz Kiersch does manage to build a fair amount of atmosphere at the beginning (after Hamilton's silly song and dance, but before we get to meet the freakish Isaac, leader of the killer kids), he completely blows it with endless unexciting scenes in which Hamilton and Horton are hunted down by the town's homicidal half-pints. Courtney Gains, as violent redhead Malachai, manages to appear genuinely menacing, but the rest of the children are not the least bit threatening; as a result, many of the film's 'scary' moments fail to work. <br /><br />Towards the end of the film, when we finally get to see the malevolent force that inhabits the field surrounding Gatlin, the film descends into a glut of terrible 80s visual effects that probably looked pretty ropey almost 25 years ago, but look positively laughable nowadays.<br /><br />Children of the Corn might be of interest to King fans keen to see how the writer's work has been translated to the big screen, but your average horror-film fan will be most unimpressed. | negative |
Oh my GOD ! I can truly say that Maya Angelou is one of the world's most intriguing and important people, especially of my culture. She is incredibly inspiring and her story is the story of a great woman ! When I first picked this movie up I thought to myself the cast was wonderfully put together now lets see them in action ! Maya Angelou is already my favorite PoetEss and now one of my favorite actresses and speakers. I believe she is the greatest of all time. This movie had me on the edge of my seat and reaching for Kleenex while at the same time reminding me that no matter where you come from if you decide that you are going to be great then you will be great ! And Ester Rolle played a wonderful supporting role...... 100% AWESOME...and now even "I know Why the Caged Bird Sings." | positive |
For some perverse reason best known to themselves these IMDb boards seem reluctant to credit the great Billy Wilder as co-scriptwriter on at least two (this one and Ninotchka) of his early classics when any buff can detect the Wilder hand at work. As it happens this represented the first time he was teamed with Charles Brackett (who DOES get a credit) and it was a great start. One commenter has noted how satisfying it is to see these type of films in old-fashioned cinemas and I couldn't agree more. In Paris one of the smaller Revival houses shows in one of its salles a more or less continuous Lubitsch retrospective and I'm pleased to report that this played to a very appreciative audience right across the age spectrum though I doubt whether any were actually alive when it was first released in 1938. The famous Wilder schtick the meet-cute is particularly tasty here when millionaire but-careful-with-it Cooper attempts to buy half a set of pajamas in a department store on the Riviera and meets with sales resistance until Claudette Colbert turns up and agrees to buy the other half. The gag is milked even more when, having exhausted the chain of command at the store itself the manager places a call to the owner, who is in bed and leaves it to reveal that he, too, is only wearing the top half of pajamas. The film is full of sight-gags like this balanced with verbal wit which makes it just about perfect. Claudette Colbert is only terrific and gets great backing from Edward Everett Horton as her impoverished titled father. David Niven in fourth billing has some funny 'business' as does Franklin Pangborn and if Gary Cooper is not up to his role lacking as he does the verbal dexterity and sophisticated persona that Wilder scripts called for at this stage of his career well, you can't have everything and what you DO have is darned near perfect. | positive |
Wladyslaw Starewicz was a Russian-born animator living in France who did incredible things using stop-motion. I've seen a couple of these films before and they feature his favorite subjects--insects, frogs and various animals. They are extremely realistic and lifelike and even today are amazing to watch--the quality is simply fantastic.<br /><br />This one stars lots and lots of frogs. They appeal to their god, Jupiter, to give them a king. Why do they need a king, wonders Jupiter--their lives are perfectly fine now. So, to teach them a nasty lesson, he makes an Egret the king and one by one it starts eating its subjects! Then, the frogs once again appeal to Jupiter, who states the obvious moral that it's best to be happy with what you have! <br /><br />While the animation quality is incredible, this is a very creepy film for kids. I would think this would terrify them both by how real the animals look as well as the story itself which is not for the faint of heart! | positive |
I know a couple people who look just like the lead actress in this film (or, at least, like the character she portrays.) They all give me the creeps and I would be the last person to ever lend one of them a gun or even a sharp knife. She has one mean and ugly-looking expression. If you can conjure up a bit of sympathy for her, let me know.<br /><br />Of course, I might have the same expressions of concern and fear if I had an imaginary friend who had been killing off my real friends and acquaintances for the last 15 years.<br /><br />And for our European friends on the IMDb, I'm saddened to say that, yes, some colleges and universities in the US teach courses on paranormal phenomena, relying on the pathetic defense that it represents "academic freedom" and open inquiry.<br /><br />This film is not worth your while. You will have no sympathy for any of the characters (except for Aunt Lydia, who gets offed pretty early) and the plot makes no sense. | negative |
**********POSSIBLE SPOILER********** Madonna plays an ex-con that needs to recover some valuable information that might clear her from the murder that she was put in prison for four years ago. Griffin Dunne is a tax attorney who's marrying his boss' daughter. Together, the two of them are supposed to come together in a world where chaos keeps you from getting on the bus...<br /><br />When you get down to it, this is a stupid movie. Without trying to give away the plot ****POSSIBLE SPOILER****, the bad guys in the movie are trying to protect their boss by retrieving the information that would incriminate them for the murder that Madonna was sent up for. What kind of bad guys don't commit murder by trying to hide the original murder?!?!?!<br /><br />Then there's the cops who are trailing Madonna who follow the bad guys in a limo, where they have the brides-maids all tied up! And let's not forget those same brides-maids who fought from the front gate to the front door, still all tied together! And I hate to say this, but that patagonious feline sure looks like a cougar! There might be only four of them in the New York City area, so they might be endangered there, but I know there's plenty of them in the Rocky Mountains (see "Charlie the Lonesome Cougar" if you really want to see a large "cat" in the movie). And let's look at the old man who falls asleep on his feet... NAW!<br /><br />The plot is there, but that's all there is to this movie. I was barely out of my teens when this movie originally came out and I was some-what of a fan of Madonna, but that was the only reason I liked the movie, but since then, she's fell out of popularity with me, and I've faced the fact that she is just a terrible actress (good thing she's got that singing career to fall back on). It rated maybe a "5" back then, but it's fallen to "barely making a 2" over the years. | negative |
This film was full of suspense and was well directed, the black and white effect made it a great mystery. Fay Emerson,(Hilda Fenchurch) who was married twice to the famous musician Skitch Henderson and also the son of Elliott Roosevelt, (FDR's Son) fell madly in love with Zachary Scott( Ronnie Mason/Marsh). Ronnie wins the hearts of all the ladies in the picture, even Mona Freeman(Anne Fenchurch) and proposes marriage whenever he can. Rosemary DeCamp (Dr. Jane Silla)(famous radio and tv actress in the 30's and 40's played mostly small town MOM'S) warned the ladies about Ronnie Mason's sick mind, and the abusive childhood he had when growing up, which caused his love/hate relationship with women. Fay Emerson and Zachary Scott would have been greater stars with more rewarding roles, but their lives were short lived in real life. This film is beyond critizing, it is a trully great 1945 film classic for many generations to view and enjoy! | positive |
Super Mario 64 is undoubtedly the greatest game ever created. It is so addicting that you could play it for hours upon hours without stopping for a break. I've beaten the game 4 times, but I've never gotten all 120 stars...(I've gotten 111)...but I hope to achieve them eventually. Even though I didn't officially play this game until I was seven in, I loved watching my sisters play it. Now I am 13 and still play this, erasing games and starting over again.<br /><br />The graphics are unbelievable for an early N64 game. The gameplay is addictive. The controls are great. The levels are tough, but not impossible. The Bowser fights are challenging.<br /><br />I would like to tell you more, but why don't you just get it for yourself? Put the X-BOX 360, PS3, and the Wii away and go find yourself a Nintendo 64 and play this amazing, wonderful game. | positive |
I didn't really know what to expect when going out to watch the film, apart from the slightly surreal basic plotline that a lonely man orders a Russian bride over the internet. That and it had Nicole Kidman in it. I absolutely loved the film though, and came out thinking 'wow'.<br /><br />Refreshingly down to earth, the film moves along nicely, with a few suprises at each corner. The relationships in the film are believeable, with Nicole and Chaplin working against each other beautifully. The humour is subtle, with some great 'Office'-like scenes at the bank, and the thriller element add tension without being Hollywood.<br /><br />Overall the film is about real people in an unusual situation. It's less about heroics and more about delicate relationships. Brit-filmmaking at its best...<br /><br />(9/10) | positive |
The bottom line is: if you come looking for a sci-fi thriller/horror film, The Matrix is what you'll like. If, like me, you long for the rare true science fiction film involving characters with depth and provocative thought about where science will take us, then you need to see eXistenZ. | positive |
Every time I watch this show I just want to turn it off and curse the makers for wasting my time week after week. The dialogs, or monologues rather, as everybody just rants on endlessly about nothing, are just becoming so tedious. For example, the episode I watched yesterday began with a seemingly unending rambling about how a particular dish (I forgot what it was, pasta with meatballs perhaps) always manages to turn the Gilmore family dinner into all-out war. And these were just the few seconds or so.<br /><br />So it seems every time, lots of lines, with absolutely zero content. The scripts they use must be enormous.<br /><br />But then every once in a while something happens. The babbling stops and suddenly there are these wonderful silent, emotional moments. For example, this week it was Lorelai's breakdown at the estate agent's. I just thought it was the best piece of TV I have seen for a long while.<br /><br />Almost makes everything worthwhile. | positive |
This is one lowly film. It has no real plot. We never are made privy to motivations, other than wealth. The characters are some of the worst actors ever to be put on film. The threat seems to be supernatural, but then it's being controlled by these three older people. Why are they doing what they are doing; in order to strike fear into other members of the group? I don't know. There is some mist from a fog machine that rolls around in the halls and everyone seems to be scared of it. Does it do something? I don't know. There's some nudity for its own sake. I'm always surprised to see this in films this old. Things have actually settled down in this regard these days. Anyway, the people run around like chickens, ready for the ax. They have no plan; no resources; no nothing. There are about five silly climaxes in the film. Who are these people and "is" there a ghost or demon. What happened to the other people? I challenge anyone to tell me this with any confidence. What a mess. | negative |
A child-like puppeteer, for a public access children's show, goes over the deep end when he discovers kids he entertains at a hospital were victims of horrible abuse. This movie has some of the worst indescribably monstrous parents you could ever come across. Not an exploitation film as much as an afterschool special on the dangers of child abuse. Seemingly harmless, Mr. Rabby takes matters into his own hands when it seems the police are neutered by lack of evidence to convict loathsome parents of their terrible abuse towards their children. The children are emotionless and zombie-like(..due to the amount of abuse inflicted upon them), the parents loud, inconceivably harsh, contemptible, and belligerent. The mothers, in particular, are so obscene, you'll root for their execution. They are essentially miserable people taking out their frustrations on the kids. Our detectives are a tired lot, frustrated with the whole judicial process, how police procedure is often unable to prosecute those who beat their kids into submission. While the crimes themselves are heinous, the film doesn't explicitly elaborate the grisly activity on screen. I'd say the reason to see this is for Tom Basham's performance as the unbalanced man-child who slips into psychosis. There's quite a weird dinner table sequence between Basham's Mr. Rabbey and his guardian shortly after he murdered the parents responsible for the death of their child, regarding how he lives in a fantasy and how what he had just done has left an indelible mark(..notice the changes in behavior, pretty impressive work, going from innocent to creepy). Peter Renaday is Lt. Hayes, the detective in charge of the homicides cases, expressing on his face the strain that is taking it's toll on him. There's an early performance by John Ashton as detective Matthews, always raising the ire of Hayes because of his inability to follow directions, not to mention how opinionated he is regarding the parents abusing their kids. Awkward laid-back bluesy score that seems improper for a film such as this. Controversial conclusion establishing that even kids can only tolerate so much. A bit too slow moving for my tastes, but there's an effective use, I felt, of Basham's eyes before he takes care of business, waiting patiently as he prepares to strike. | negative |
I started watching this expecting the worst, i was happy to find that the film turned out to be enjoyable, slightly confusing in parts, like when they all justs started singing. It gave me a chance to see Daniel Wu in action for the first time, he is a better actor than i thought, at times he seemed a bit out of place. I thought purple storm deserves its Hong kong legends release, as it is different to most other HK films, it is about a mans emotional struggles when confronted with memory loss, it may sound corny but when he eventually pieces out what and who he actually is it really makes the film a lot more interesting. Once you get into the film you will find it keeps you gripped to it, as if you miss one bit then a lot of the film wil make sense, for example i missed a bit at the start and i recommend to anyone that watches this that they do not miss any of it. So i can say that this film was worth watching and a grateful surprise for me, that i enjoyed it. | positive |
Could anyone please stop John Carpenter from continuously and deliberately ruining his reputation? How low can you go? It seems this man has lost any self respect.<br /><br />This episode looks like it has been done by a film student, it isn't even worth beginning to talk about WHAT was bad, because it was just a borefest, directed by somebody with no talent as a filmmaker or without any motivation...<br /><br />Come on, Mr. Carpenter, please retire immediately with a rest of self-esteem and stop spilling out trash like this in a bad tradition from Escape from L.A. to Ghosts of Mars.<br /><br />Get drunk instead. | negative |
I originally gave this episode a rating of two- I now wish I'd thought more about it. I also wish they had negative rating options.<br /><br />Watching it, I was amazed at how poor the whole thing was from start to finish. I adore Ron Pearlman, and John Carpenter... so what went wrong?? Last season episode 13 was pulled due to the way it handled the abortion issue. I think that this season Mr Carpenter managed to make something so grey-area that you can't immediately see if he is pro-choice or anti-abortion. It was only after I sat and thought about it that I realized he is very much anti-abortion- you get this most clearly in the end when the 'Mother' shoots the baby and kills it, to the dismay of the 'Father', who walks off in grief, leaving the mother unharmed. But you also see it in the way the Ron P. character is treated- I hardly think that if someone has proved themselves enough of a threat in the past so as to have a restraining order against him that they would not immediately be ringing the police. Instead we have the guard almost sympathetically dealing with him (only to pay for it in the end) I don't mind someone having a strong view on something, even if it isn't something I agree in, but I do think its a bit lame not to stand by that view, rather than trying to look like they're sitting somewhere in the middle.<br /><br />But, political issues aside, this episode was beyond poor. The music was retro-70's and just plain didn't work. The acting (other than Ron P.) was poor. The effects were dreadful- it might have been better just to -not- show the monster at all rather than show the lame excuse for a monster they had.<br /><br />All this being said, I'm glad they have the Masters of Horror- I don't mind sitting through some really poor episodes to find the good ones. Its a bit like renting horror movies from the video store- every now and again you get a good one and it makes it all worth while. I do agree with the poster that said maybe the name needs to change from Masters- some of these people just plain don't deserve the title. (Let me stress tho- even tho I hated this episode, John Carpenter TOTALLY deserves the title. He is a master thru and thru) | negative |
Having been pleasantly surprised by Sandra Bullock's performance in Miss Congeniality, I decided to give Murder By Numbers a shot. While decent in plucky, self-effacing roles, Ms. Bullock's performance in "serious" roles (see Hope Floats, Speed 2, 28 Days) leave much to be desired. Her character is at the same time omniscient, confused, and sexually maladjusted (the sub-plot of Sandra's past comes across as needless filler that does little to develop her already shallow character). The two teenage boys gave decent performances, although their forensics expertise and catch-me-if-can attitude is belied by stupid errors that scream "We did it!" Chris Penn as the all-too-obvious suspect is wasted here, as is Ben Chaplin's token partner/love interest character.<br /><br />***Spoilers Ahead*** Mediocre acting aside, the biggest flaws can be traced to a TV-of-the-week plot that never has you totally buying into the murder motives in the first place, and as mentioned, the stupid errors (vomiting up a rare food on the murder scene, an all too convenient and framing of the school janitor, the two boys hanging out together in public, a convenient love interest to cause friction, etc. etc) cause the view to go from being intrigues to being bored and disappointed by the murderers. The ending was strictly "By the Numbers" and was probably the most disappointing aspect of the movie. Using the now-cliched tactic of almost showing the climactic scene at the beginning of the film, and then filling the audience in how we arrived at that moment, the final scenes surprise no one and lacked any of the so-called intelligence the film purported to arrive at it's conclusion. A somewhat promising concept, but poorly executed and weak in nearly every way. * out of ****. | negative |
"Happenstance" is the most New York-feeling Parisian film I've seen since "When the Cat's Away (Chacun cherche son chat). "<br /><br />A film from last year released now to capitalize on the attention Audrey Tatou is getting for "Amelie," its French title is more apt: "Le Battement d'ailes du papillon (The Beating of the Butterfly's Wings)" as in summarizing chaos theory as a controlling element in our lives.<br /><br />Tatou's gamine-ness is less annoying here because she only occasionally flashes that dazzling smile amidst her hapless adventures, and because she's part of a large, multi-ethnic ensemble, so large that it took me a long time to sort out the characters, especially as some of the cute guys and older women looked alike to me, and some of the characters fantasize what they should do such that I wasn't sure if they were doing that or not. <br /><br />But I loved how urban the coincidences were, from immigrants to love nests to crowded subway cars to hanging around cafés.<br /><br />The subtitles quite annoyingly gave both parts of a dialog at once.<br /><br />(originally written 12/8/2001) | positive |
This is the worst film I have ever seen, so bad it is astonishing. I am glad that I have never seen that black sidekick in any other film: OK, it wasn't his fault that someone gave him those lines, but he could have refused the role, and tried to learn how to act instead. How did anyone get the money to put this film together. Is there some corporation in Hollywood that deals with trash for male college students with no brain? "Oh yeah, they will love this one: it's got no believable plot, some kungfu movements, Chuck Norris, a black sidekick with bad corny lines, a sweet little Israeli (or is he an Arab, or does anyone care?) boy pickpocket, and the devil." Brilliant, and many thanks to all concerned for enriching the human race. | negative |
Although the casting for this film was admirable, particularly Dianne Keaton and Tom Everett Scott, the quality of the writing was so poor that it would be impossible for any actor or director to make this film worth watching.<br /><br />My wife and I decided that the reason we watched the entire film was that it was like a train wreck, and it was almost impossible to turn away. It may have been that we "hoped" that the message would eventually make itself apparent, and that we would be able to glean some meaning from this effort. Unfortunately, this did not happen.<br /><br />Of course the audience may have been able to "make sense" of this convoluted tale, a credit to the ingenuity of the human brain to make sense of the absurd. The writers, however, did NOTHING to facilitate this innate need we seem to have for finding meaning.<br /><br />It was apparent that those involved were simply going through the motions of their respective crafts, and that any intrinsic passion for the characters or the story was either secondary or non-existent.<br /><br />Unfortunately, made-for-TV movies have seemed to devolve over the years. Whereas communicating a message to the audience may to have been the primary interest of the writers in the past, present-day writers and producers seem condescending to their audience, concentrating primarily on manipulating us to "stay-tuned" through the incessant advertising which seems to be the only reason movies such as Surrender, Dorothy are made. | negative |
Watching Fire and Ice for the first time reminded me of my experience seeing 300 last year. It wasn't at all a bad movie, certainly not average, but its plotting and dialog stuck out as being at best conventional and at worst kind of confusing and one-dimensional (which, perhaps as based on Frank Miller's comic book, was the right decision to go with). But its primary strengths drew from the intense action and bloody battles and having that jolt of a 14 year old feeling watching beefcake men fighting in bloody sword-led combat, with the occasional freaky creature or super-hot female to go with the painterly surroundings. While I would probably re-watch Fire and Ice before 300 again, they both aroused that similar feeling - the exception this time being, naturally, that it's Frank Frazetta, the infamous artist and designer of countless paperback books and comics, collaborating with director Ralph Bakshi, in what isn't typical Hollywood fare but something for the die-hard fans.<br /><br />What this means for audiences today going back to check out the film for the first time (it may now be coveted nostalgia for those who were young and watched it along with their Masters of the Universe VHS tapes back in the day) is the possible cons mentioned before and, maybe, that you will see something somewhat unique. Fire and Ice isn't even the only Bakshi rotoscoped feature, but it's possibly the most fluid- if not quite my personal favorite- of the few he made, and he and his team create a whole striking world that's part pre-historic, part out-of-this-world fantastic, and part medieval, and all touched up with a painters hand with respect to the backgrounds, the skies and grounds. There's a slight drawback for Bakshi fans in this facet of character design; Bakshi went as far as to say it's more Frazetta than him. This may be true, but it doesn't make it any more absorbing to the eye or curious in those moments where we don't see people killed or gutted in quick or slow motion (my favorite was the momentary skeleton-guide- how they rotoscoped that amazes me).<br /><br />I neglect describing the plot as it would defeat the purpose of really recommending it. If you're already a die-hard into this kind of style and approach of animation the plot will matter depending on what degree two warring factions or a 'damsel' or princess is in danger or a hero has to prove himself or yada yada, so suffice to say it's about, well, Fire against Ice, with characters named Nekron and Darkwolf (the coolest male of the lot and most comic-book in appearance) and Teegra (the typical hottie who's almost *too* perfect for the adolescent male fantasy figure). What the plot does do, as an asset, is allow a series of cliffhangers and suspense bits around the action, the progression of the danger in the oncoming big battle, like when the ogres are hunting after Teegra and have to contend with sudden crazy monsters and creatures popping out of tree trunks and lakes. And per usual for Bakshi, he conjures up some craziness (if not quite his usual inspired lunacy) in the midst of all of this straightforward fantasy material. If you've seen Wizards, you'll understand what I mean to a lesser extent.<br /><br />So, if you're an animation buff, seek this out right away for some 'old-school' (i.e. 1980s) action and incredible design. For everyone else, it's... good, not great, as I would say without fault about its logical 21st century extension, with some alterations, 300. | positive |
This movie is another Christian propaganda film in the line of The Omega Code. Not that that is necessarily bad but for the fact that most propaganda films sacrifice sincerity and realism for the message they wish to deliver. If you enjoy a styrofoam portrayal of life on the streets and the way the Gospel can change a life, than perhaps you may enjoy this movie. I say, save your money and rent The Cross and The Switchblade or The Mission. When will Christian directors learn that sometimes people say bad words? It was frustrating to see criminals depicted who are not allowed to swear (huh? criminals say bad words?) and flat characters I really could not relate to. Also, it would've been great if the movie had shown some T&A. Now that would be something I'd like to pay to see. Who was the blockhead who compared this communion wafer-thin story of a movie with The Boondock Saints and The Sting? | negative |
Mostly uninvolving biblical mumbo-jumbo that drags on for well over two hours. The only thing that saves this film from God's wreath (and there is only one God, remember) is the unintentionally funny dialog, and a good battle scene which comes far too late in the movie. For most of the two hours until the action scenes there is too much talking; the dialog is so inept that the movie just begs to be spoofed by MST3K.<br /><br />George Sanders is absolutely awful; one of the most animated, overly-theatrical performances I've ever seen. Brynner isn't much better; his stiff, wooden acting, combined with the horrendous fortune-cookie wisdom utterings make for a rather boring and silly Solomon. It seems that every time Brynner opens his mouth something oh-so wise and ridiculously high-and-mighty comes out. To an extent it's not Sanders's and Brynner's fault, because of the crappy, comical dialog and the typically biblical one-dimensional characterization, but they made little effort otherwise. Brynner's accent even reminds a bit of Schwarzenegger's; this is not a plus. Only Lollobrigida manages to avoid embarrassing herself, by playing the role with more conviction and in an appropriate way which befits a role in such a silly film. To describe these biblical characters as one-dimensional would be too give them undeserved credit; the characterization is half-dimensional. | negative |
I'm not looking for quality; I'm just trying to get through the 74 famous video nasties that were banned in Britain. This one was initially banned and re-released in 2001 with a whole 10 seconds cut.<br /><br />Some college kids spend their Christmas vacation preparing a dorm for renovation. There are some creepy characters lurking about along with the four kids. Which of them is the slasher? The actual killings are not very gory, so this video nastie is not really nasty. There is the requisite flashing of the boobies, but it has nothing to do with the college kids.<br /><br />I had a suspect very quickly and I turned out to be right. Maybe I've seen too many of these. The end twist was clever; I have to give the writers credit for that bit of originality. | negative |
The simple hand camera both gives some almost documentary feeling to this film, and also relates to the dogma films.<br /><br />Did you ever get bored of those hollywood-style cop flicks with brawny guys who get assignments james bond would be envious of? Fed up with the married-living-single cop, the divorced-but-family-man, the personified doughnut and the tough hunter? Ever wondered how the real police work is like?<br /><br />Well, for germany, this film shows you. Set in the north between west germany and east germany, former DDR, an laid off post office clerk starts her job, fresh from policeschool. She quickly finds her way around the usual customers, and becomes accustomed to life as a policewoman... but this is not much fun.<br /><br />Other german crime films like Derrick, Der Alte et cetera have dignified officers talking calmly with suspects. These cops here have to deal with the lowest on the social ladder. Good dialogue and realism makes this an interesting view, even more if you know that part of germany a bit. | positive |
This movie was total cheese. It stank. The only thing good about it was the acting. Other then that, nothing noteworthy at all.<br /><br />Big Time Spoilers Coming up! Don't Read Anymore If You Have Not Seen It!<br /><br />This movie is centered around a family whose happy and wonderful lives have been shattered as a result of their younger son and later as they find out older son have been molested by their daycare providers. Although, they are called liars in court and the defense attorney is a real prick the jury finds them guilty and convicts them.<br /><br />In the end all I can say to the director is: "The next time you wanna make a movie like this, do it differently". | negative |
There is a lot of talk of torture these days. That's all this movie is. It's about a good person who makes a bad decision. Because of his kindness, he becomes vulnerable to two psychotic women. From then on its a just-for-kicks assault on him. I don't know at what point you do something about it. There is a wife and child out there somewhere; he has great feelings of guilt and fear. But there should have been some times when he could have acted. The movie seems to be somebody's joke. I suppose in the wake of the Manson murders, we had a bit of a fixation on the likes of these two. Nevertheless, why would someone make a film like this? What appeals does it have except for sadism. The conclusion is totally unsatisfying, but that could have been remedied with an obvious plot twist. Oh, well. Another hour and a half of my life. | negative |
This is my favourite film and I think it is perfect. Unlike virtually any other film I can name, I never watch this film and think it would have been better if they'd changed this or that or whatever. Is this the definition of a work of art? I think so. Every brushstroke in Mishima is perfect and it all flows from the Schrader's script. I've always sort of liked Paul Schrader's work (you can't argue with Taxi Driver and Light Sleeper is an amazing film), but while his writing often seems to border on the bombastic, his directing style is usually non-existent. This is deliberate, I think, because his films usually deal with a search for redemption and are set in the real world; ugly and harsh. His style suits his themes as he presents his characters in a simple and realistic way, and lets them show the audience the truth of the situation. Imagine if Schrader had directed Taxi Driver or Bringing Out The Dead, instead of Scorsese. But like the protagonists of those two films, while Mishima the man was ideal Schrader material, right-wing, vain and at odds with society, his works were subtle and beautiful. In fact he had a secondary writing career as a woman's writer, churning out what can reasonably be described as romantic potboilers. So you wouldn't necessarily imagine that Schrader was the ideal man to capture that subtlety and beauty on film. I think the film shows that he was. The script he helped fashion splits Mishima the man into three parts; his life, his death and his mind. His life is represented in black and white, still camera, formal compositions. His death, for which he will always be best remembered, is handheld documentary style. And his mind is represented by the dramatised extracts from his novels, each one revealing the thought processes of this complex man, who hardly ever wrote a character that wasn't a reflection of himself. These dramatisations are beautiful to look at, thanks to Eiko Ishioka's remarkable production design and Schrader's imaginative staging. In all parts, the acting is superb, especially from Ken Ogata as Mishima, who captures the essential charm, arrogance and narcissism of the man. The photography is excellent throughout and contains images that the viewer will retain forever. Finally, the music is simply superb, perfectly matching the images, although written and recorded before shooting, adjusted during the editorial process and then re-recorded. How much the music influenced the shoot I do not know, but it bonds perfectly to the image. I have seen many ideas of what various people think the theme of the film is, what Schrader is trying to say. You know, the big stuff about life, death etc. But I do not think the film is saying anything. Mishima has already said it, the film simply repeats. | positive |
This is far worse than those awful Laurel and Hardy cartoons of the 60s. They were terrible, but at least they were simple ripoffs of a then Stan and Ollie resurgence. New audiences had rediscovered the pair's comedic genius and the cartoons were mind-numbing garbage geared to cash in on children's interest. It was to be expected. But, how does one even attempt to rationalize this work of... I can't even think of a word. I'm sure the makers hoped it would somehow inspire another Laurel and Hardy revival, but you can't inspire interest in the past with a shallow and unfunny caricature of what made the original so appealing. The impressionists (I hesitate to call them actors) do a Vegas act and that's where it belongs. The plot is even flimsier than those used in the old days, trying to stretch out two-reel ideas for a feature. If this film was someone's first exposure to the REAL Laurel and Hardy, I'm sure that viewer would dismiss the original duo's reputation as senility gone amok. The only movie I hate worse than this is I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE. And, you know, these filmmmakers basically did the same thing to Stan and Ollie. | negative |
I went straight to the big screen to view this kicker. This is the only flick that I know of that Tarsem Singh has directed but boy was it intense. This movie was a total mind stimulant and one of the best special effects flick of this kind.<br /><br />The characters were vibrant and and nothing short of beings created in your own mind or nightmare. This movie is scary and interesting and totally bombs the senses with fear and exhilaration. This movie compares to no other I have seen except for the level of being beautifully odd. In that respect it is a fairly large step above `A Clockwork Orange.' Definitely see this movie on the big screen and don't wait for it to come out on tape. It won't be half as good on tape.<br /><br />This movie is not for the easily freaked out. It will mess with your mind and leave you with images that take a while to forget. But for those who like to be freaked out.....ENJOY! | positive |
Corey Haim plays a kid who teams up with a dog to take out a giant troll and OSA hit-man (Michael Ironside) with a 30/30 and homemade bombs (Which plays plausible considering Haim) Oh and he also protects his mother and girlfriend as well in this watchable yet disappointing adaption of a decent story. Corey Haim is terrible, of course but the movie's sheer momentum as well as Ironside's imposing presence make this at least a modestly effective film. Still the plot is ridiculous and it would've been nicer if we could've seen a monster or at least more gore. At least it's something different. Also it's fairly likely that this film will be the last teen movie for awhile to show a teenager making pipe bombs.<br /><br />Matt Bronson 2/5 | negative |
I'm seeing a pattern here. If you see a movie on Mystery Science Theater 3000, chances are if you go to IMDb.com there will be hordes of lovers of the film, yet it was picked to be on that TV show because it was sooo bad. I'm sorry but I read a lot about Rocketship X-M as being some landmark sci fi film that stressed realism. Well if that is the case I could write for several paragraphs about how even with 1950's knowledge this movie is utterly flawed. Gravity might be the first obvious observation, or as MST3K did as a skit "selective gravity", also what about when they are plunging to their death and they are just standing there looking out of the window, um would'nt the ship being upside down effect that scene? I would like to think that they started with good intentions and that it ran over budget or something but I think this movie was just plain cheese as in the from under type. Just compare this to "When Worlds Collide" which was released in 1951 to see the true place where this movie ranks, there's no comparison. The movie gets a 2 or maybe 3 on its own, its not even funny to watch on its own. It gets about a 5 or 6 as a MST3K episode as there is no action or much to make fun of, just bad, bad, bad, oh did I mention, it's bad. | negative |
No sense going over the story since enough reviewers have done that. Here's a few different slants on it from one of those "religious nuts," as one bigoted reviewer puts it so tolerantly. <br /><br />1) "Baby Face" (1933) offers perhaps THE classic example ever put on film of how women can manipulate men with sex. There is a lot of truth to what Barbara Stanwyck demonstrates in this film: look cute, bat your eyelashes, offer your body for free.....and men will fall over themselves to help you out with whatever you want.<br /><br />In this case, it was job advancement with the ultimate goal of money.....lots of it. At least four men in this film do provide just that, even if it ruins their lives in the process. <br /><br />2) The ending - which many of the reviewers here seemed to hate - gives another great message: all the money and material goods in the world won't make a person feel fulfilled. A sad comment that so many "critics" here would rather have immoral messages, preferring sleaze over substance. No surprise, I guess.<br /><br />Any way you look at it, the movie is entertaining start-to-finish and Stanwyck has some great lines, particularly in the beginning when she tells off her crude father and his unruly bar customers. At a little over 70 minutes, this film moves at a fast pace and is over before you know it. | positive |
I, like most other people, saw this movie after hearing of it from Patton Oswalt. Oddly enough, it was easier to find than I thought it would be. Though, it shouldn't come as a surprise that I found it used.<br /><br />The plot is summed upped masterfully within the title. It's a bed that eats. Nothing more, nothing less. There is an effort to throw in a story line but not a very good one.<br /><br />A demon's blood ended up on a bed and, as a result, it becomes possessed. It devours anything that happens upon it by absorbing and then dissolving it in what appears to be orange Fanta. There is an artist who fell victim to the bed, but was sick and ends up behind a painting in the room it inhabits. The narrative is told entirely through him.<br /><br />This movie fails horribly at everything, even at being bad. Still, it's not without its own brand of charm. | negative |
But I still enjoyed watching her, so I gave it a 3 instead of a 1. Her expressions are priceless. Some of the other cast members (e.g., Michael McKean) are really slumming, too. The cat himself is somewhat amusing. Aside from that, the movie is all cliche, culminating in a much-too-long car chase. (It's also at this point that the movie becomes unnecessarily crude, having been very "family" until then.) | negative |
I'd never heard of this film before I caught it on the telly last night. I do hope it was never given a cinema release as this would be an insult to the silver screen and movie-goers alike.<br /><br />Was it supposed to be serious, was it supposed to be funny? Why the outrageously basic plot? Does anyone actually care?...<br /><br />Awful film.<br /><br />2/10 | negative |
Must every good story be "improved" with added corny Broadway music? Apparently those who can't come up with their own plots think that classic literature is just there for the plundering. I confess that Oliver Twist and similar stories are not my favorites, as it is certainly true that Dickens often wrote things that leave you considerably bummed out, and this was a great example of just that... So of course, take this serious tale and add nauseating music and camp it up with every character from prancing orphan boys to mincing bobbies and suddenly it's uplifting? Argh. Fetch me a basin.<br /><br />The four stars in my rating come from casting, which I could liken to that of My Fair Lady. Each of these films had a cast that a play version could be proud of, but then they must go and have them sing (see complaint above). Unlike My Fair Lady, those singing here could actually do so and they mercifully spared us the singing voice of Oliver Reed (pardon if I'm mistaken, it's been a while).<br /><br />My biggest complaint I've stated. Why embarrass everyone except the truly shameless by putting silly songs into a perfectly good story? Seldom has this been done to good effect. Generally it ruins the story. It did with this one. Jury's still out on whether this story is worth saving, but with all that gadding about, it's impossible to tell. | negative |
Eisenstien's "Potempkin", (Bronenosets Potyomkin), is among the finest films ever made and possibly the best of the silent era. Eisenstien was a pioneer of film form and his use of montage editing has influenced films to this day. The Odessa Steps massacre footage is as powerful today as it was when first seen over 70 years ago. DO NOT pass up the chance to see this film! | positive |
As a long time Red Sox fan, I just had to go see the movie. It was great! While there can never be enough live footage from the miracle 2004 Red Sox season, there were great shots of some of my favorite Red Sox players. While the movie is certainly a chick flick, it has enough baseball footage from the amazing 2004 Red Sox comeback to make it one of my top 10 movies of all time. I especially enjoyed the Red Sox fans that were part of Ben's baseball family. The scene where Ben is meeting with his buddies on draft day to determine who will get seats to certain games is hilarious! A must see if you are looking for a wholesome movie to watch with your spouse, date, or significant other...especially if you are a baseball fan...and even more especially if you are Red Sox fan!!! | positive |
I saw this years ago, and it's entertaining, but not profound. The basic story is of a young man who dreams of Midian, though he's not sure where it is or even if it really exists.<br /><br />Spoilers Follow: He finally visits it, gets transformed to a Nightbreed creature by being bitten by another one. Then, he has to help the other members of the Nightbreed because they're being attacked by Canadians. (Save for the accents, they all act like Good Ol' Boys. Not much in tune with the Canadian psyche, eh?) Someone observed for "monsters" or "Nightbreed," substitute "Jews," and for the Canadians/humans, substitute, "Nazis," and you're supposed to get an insight into the struggle by the monsters versus the humans. Well, maybe.<br /><br />One major objection I had was that while the underground city was interesting, it was rather ramshackle and, frankly, dirty. This must be a convention for movies with underground settlements. One would think that if the monsters were the good guys, some would have at least a little sense of decor.<br /><br />The storyline is a tad thin, but that's to introduce characters. But it's entertaining enough for a repeat view. | positive |
This is a wonderful film... First impressions of cynicism and crassness are soon dissipated by a fun loving display of how men and women's baser motivations diverge (Vive la difference !) <br /><br />You can love people despite and sometimes because of their weaknesses. Human beings are a bit rubbish really, but we have big hearts and we try our best, despite temptation. It's not our fault when sometimes temptation can't be resisted, that's just who we are.<br /><br />There is a consistent stylishness from start to finish; crisp photography and sharp composition, very pleasant viewing when you add provocative content, well suited music and laugh out loud scripting.<br /><br />Watch out for the very young "lone wise voice"... brilliant; wisdom from innocence balancing comedy from the human condition. | positive |
You need to watch this show once to have seen them all, the formula is exactly the same in each episode. Jim does something his way he means well but he upsets his wife, at the end she finds out that what he did was really for her, she caresses his cheek and gives a gummy smile while he looks on bashfully. In fact the story lines are so lame and formulaic that I'll take a stab at one now.<br /><br />Episode 'Valentines Pay'<br /><br />Jims wife notices that all of Jims weekly pay has disappeared, he then explains to her he lost it at the casino. She screams and leaves the house lamenting how awful he is. Then on Valentines day he turns up in a limo with tickets to a Ball (hence explaining the missing wages). She realizes 'Her' mistake and the usual 'Oh Jim, you're so lovely'. ..The end<br /><br />Another very obvious item is the fact that Jims character is based on Homer Simpson who as a cartoon character can get away with being belligerent and ignorant, when this is attempted with Human beings it does not work and Jim just comes over as an arrogant self centered jerk. <br /><br />IMO the only reason that this is successful is simply because we're so many now in terms of Human beings with TVs, these days you could make a show about a man who insulates walls and you'd get an audience.<br /><br />'Two and a half men' on the other hand is fantastic and hilarious. | negative |
Well acted drama based on a novel by Arthur Miller. Something as simple as a pair of glasses becomes life altering. Lawrence Newman(William H. Macy)is a man that has chosen to be satisfied with his mundane life; the same job for twenty years and still living with his mother. He is told by his boss to correct his vision with a pair of glasses. Newman's life drastically changes and delves him into hell. The glasses he chose makes him look Jewish. He looses his job and becomes the object of heavy scrutiny by his Brooklyn neighborhood. Searching for a job, he encounters the attractive and outspoken Gertrude(Laura Dern), herself living with conflict because of her Jewish appearance. Soon the couple's new life together becomes a nightmare filled with humiliation and bigotry driven attacks. A very apt cast that features: Joseph Ziegler, Peter Oldring, Kay Hawtrey and of musical fame, Meat Loaf. | positive |
I can't understand why many seem to hate this.<br /><br />This movie ties together many of the overlapping settings of the historical and Biblical epics of the fifties, using set pieces, props, and costumes similar to those seen in other movies. Here, however, the story attempts to run through all of human history, with a frame story about the human race being on trial, with a guilty verdict meaning h-bombs will go off all over the world. The prosecutor is the devil, played with fiendish glee by Vincent Price. OK, so it's a little hokey calling the defender "The Spirit of All Men," but I think that's one of the things that gives this movie a sense of period charm. The Spririt of Man is incidentally played quite well by Ronald Coleman, in his last film. It is also the last movie in which Groucho, Harpo, and Chico Marx all appear, but not together. Groucho plays Peiter Minuet buying Manhattan from the Indians, in a scene played purely for campy humor. Chico isn't funny at all as a monk who thinks the world is flat, and Harpo, we are told, is meant to be Isaac Newton, discovering gravity. Most of the other performances are well done, though.<br /><br />Other hokey things are that the trial is supposedly taking place in outer space, which is depicted as a region of clouds and blueness. There is something called "The Great Clock of Outer Space," which, when striking midnight, may signal the end of the world.<br /><br />But at its heart, the movie addresses the problems of WMDs and the eternal question of whether Man is basically good, or basically evil; and poses it in what I think is an interesting way. Also, anyone who likes the look of costume epics of the fifties should like the look of this movie. | negative |
This movie started out as a quite decent-looking film but it never really kicked off, instead it became predictable and even a bit silly. Some scenes were quite well made, the photography and the cuts used in combination with sounds and such made it a bit more interesting to watch, but since the story was quite slow it didn't manage to keep the interest alive. And more importantly, its not scary at all! It's supposed to be a horror movie but there wasn't a single scene that was close to frightening or even exciting..<br /><br />To be frank, the actors weren't all that great either, no colorful characters you ll remember for the rest of your days..<br /><br />Overall a watchable movie but it doesn't add anything and once you've finished watching it, it wont last long until its already forgotten.<br /><br />The reason I watched it was because I had read some review giving it top scores, but I disagree and instead I would grade it 4 out of 10. If you still want some Japanese horror, I would suggest you watch Ju-On instead!<br /><br /> | negative |
The War Between the States was perhaps the darkest hour in the history of America; a war that pitted brother against brother and family against family and left scars that even today have not yet healed, and in all probability never will. And, as in any story about any war, beyond any historical significance it is the personal discord behind the greater conflict that creates the emotional impetus that makes it involving. It is the human element that renders the context necessary to give it perspective, which is what director Ang Lee provides in `Ride With the Devil,' a Civil War drama in which he focuses on the personal travails within the broader depiction of the War itself, and along the way manages to include an examination of one of the bloodiest chapters of the War, the infamous raid on Lawrence, Kansas, by Quantrill and his raiders, which he succeeds in presenting quite objectively from the Confederate point-of-view.<br /><br />In 1863, the Union influence predominates in the State of Kansas, and even across the border in neighboring Missouri, those with Confederate loyalties are finding it increasingly difficult to hold out against the encroaching Northerners, especially without the aid of what could be considered any `regular' Confederate troops. And when things begin to really heat up around their own town, Jack Bull Chiles (Skeet Ulrich) and Jake Roedel (Tobey Maguire) form a band of their own and join in the fray, doing damage to the Union cause wherever it is practicable. Jack Bull and Jake do not like the War and do not like killing; but they are standing up for what they believe to be right. <br /><br />There are others, however, even among their own, men like the young Pitt Mackeson (Jonathan Rhys-Meyers), who will use the conflict as a vehicle for personal gain and as nothing more than an excuse to express their own violent nature through unnecessary brutality, perpetrated in many instances against innocent victims. And so, for Jack Bull and Jake, as well as many just like them, it becomes a time in which loyalty and moral judgments will be sorely tested; a time during which their souls will be tempered in blood. And they will have to ride with the very Devil himself, against seemingly insurmountable odds.<br /><br />As with all of his films, director Ang Lee approaches his story through an incisive, yet subtle examination of the traditions, cultural aspects and moral attitudes of the people and times he is depicting. And in so doing, Lee provides his audience with at least some understanding of his subject that goes beyond the actual story and ultimately offers, perhaps, a deeper grasp of the motivations that propel his characters and the drama in which they are engaged. Whether it's the traditions and customs that account for the relationship between a father and his daughters (`Eat Drink Man Woman'), the effects of class distinction (`Sense and Sensibility'), the honor and code by which a warrior lives and dies (`Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon') or the moral ambiguities fostered by a lack of all of the above (`The Ice Storm'), Lee infuses his films with insights into the human condition that take them to a higher level. This film is no exception; and (as he does with all his films), Lee presents his story with the aid of breathtaking cinematography (in this film, by Frederick Elmes, who also did `The Ice Storm' brilliantly), which under his guidance is nothing less than visual poetry. It's that special Lee touch, and it adds a wistful, reflective sense to whatever story he is telling, which is one of the elements that make his films so memorable.<br /><br />As Jake, Tobey Maguire initially brings a sense of youthful innocence to the film that contrasts so effectively with the maturity he conveys later on as the story develops, and his character along with it. Most importantly, Maguire convincingly and believably responds to the events that unfold around him, which adds to the credibility of the overall film and underscores the realism of the presentation: His stoic acceptance of death and the news of those `murdered' in the various skirmishes and battles; the moral propriety to which those he encounters adhere, even in such troubled times; the betrayal, which because of the nature of the conflict is almost commonplace; and the loyalty and beliefs to which he and his companions cling adamantly. It is all of this that Maguire achieves through his performance, and it is no small accomplishment. It is, however, the kind of studied, understated performance that is often taken for granted, which is unfortunate; work like this is worthy of acclaim, and should be recognized.<br /><br />Skeet Ulrich is effective, as well, as Jack Bull, and Jewel (in her motion picture debut) turns in an engaging performance as Sue Lee Shelley. It is Jeffrey Wright, however, who stands out in a notable supporting role as Daniel Holt, as well as Jonathan Rhys-Meyers, who brings a chilling Christopher Walken-like menace to his role of Pitt. Also, in what amounts to a cameo role (one scene), Mark Ruffalo leaves an indelible impression with very little screen time.<br /><br />The supporting cast includes James Caviezel (Black John), Simon Baker (George Clyde), Tom Guiry (Riley), Tom Wilkinson (Orton Brown), John Ales (Quantrill), John Judd (Otto Roedel) and Kathleen Warfel (Mrs. Chiles). The Civil War will forever be an open wound upon the nation; but hopefully, as time goes on, it will be through the objective contemplations of filmmakers like Ang Lee and films like `Ride With the Devil' that will ultimately help to close the schism and promote healing. In light of more recent events, it is something that is sorely needed, worldwide. Film is a powerful medium; it can be educational as well as entertaining, and perhaps in the future more filmmakers, like Ang Lee, will embrace and promote a sense of unity through the sensitive depiction of the events and attitudes that make us what we are. 8/10. <br /><br /> <br /><br /> <br /><br /> | positive |
I remember years ago BBC1 used to show this movie in a very cut form. I tracked it down on video a couple of years ago and viewed it again. The film although slow and slightly odd (the mountain men look very strange) the atmosphere was eerily effective. It's one of my favorite slasher films and I have no idea where an uncut version can be found. Currently deleted everywhere (except the USA where it was accidentally put on a horror compilation!). It's a shame you cannot get this movie as it was meant to be seen. Wrong turn (the recent Stan Winston produced movie) owes a great deal to Just Before Dawn. One of the better 80's slasher films and deserves to be seen by a wider audience. | positive |
Some spoilers**** A Soap has some wonderful moments to recommend it. When Charlotte and Veronica get close to intimacy is a beautiful, low key, truly erotic scene. I also loved the music score and the soft, muted cinematography. I'm not clear if the curious stop and start structure of the film comes from it being digested originally in serialized form (the announcer describing the action in sections is quite annoying). My biggest problem with this film is its rather absurd depiction of a transwomen and her life. Of course, she has to be shown as a sexworker (what else), scatterbrained, impractical, absurdly frilly/girly, completely hopeless when it comes to dressing and incapable of making any interpersonal attachments in the world. Moreover, she's always shown with two days growth of beard (for some bizarre reason) as if to emphasize how tawdry her life is. And she's waiting to get gender reassignment surgery when she seemingly has done nothing else to forward her transitioning. In truth, the character resembles a drag queen, not someone in the midst of transitioning.<br /><br />These are typical fantasies of people from the outside who really aren't connected to transpeople. The film's fetishization of GRS surgery is a way of objectifying people who are going through transition. Not impressed with this aspect of the film in the least. At the very least, why not have the character played by someone who really is transgender... I thought the male actor portraying Veronica was okay but no better than that. Much better was the woman portraying Charlotte, a very complex character full of energy, self-loathing, desire and contradictions. If she was so fascinated by someone with female energy, a Charlotte could go out to a women's bar in two seconds and find it. Yes, she was drawn to Veronica but more as an abstract idea of someone with male/female characteristics (a gentle touch but with a good punch), not as a unique person. Yes, what A Soap says about love is often lovely and moving, but that doesn't mean an already stereotyped minority has to be stereotyped some more in the process.<br /><br />This film also proves that Danes are lousy dancers. For such a promising premise (better executed in a film like "Different For Girls") the final film is a letdown. | negative |
Saw this piece of work at a film fest in CA. My god, what was the director thinking? Film professors should use this film as a case study on what NOT to do when making a short film. First off, this project makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. The film takes place partially in "The Waystation", some stupid vapid bar in the middle of nowhere, where nothing really takes place.<br /><br />THe acting is beyond bad. So bad in fact that I almost thought it was a comedy. The lead actress Julia Reading is a step below the acting in most amateur porn films. There is one or two decent performances, including the guys who played Jacob and Fenner but it's like the director had no clue on how to work or use his thespians. The only thing worse than the acting was the dialogue, which bordered on absurd. The writer (whom I assume is also the director) writes each character like they are auditioning for a comic book villain.<br /><br />The overall production value is pretty good, but to be honest, with a film this bad it's easy to overlook it. The production design is pretty good, although the Waystation looks like any ordinary bar. The costumes and make-up are okay, and I understand the production was working with a low budget. It's just when the characters speak, or they try and push the plot forward, the film unravels into a muck of crap.<br /><br />As I've said, this film is god awful. It's like the director/writer watched a lot of sci-fi films and threw all the parts he liked into a blender and came up with this. My only hope is that he used other people's money on this, because if he used his own, he's a total sucker. | negative |
This film, winning Im Kwon-Taek the Best Director at Cannes in 2002 (tied with P.T. Anderson for Punch-Drunk Love), is about a 19th century Korean painter with a commoner's roots and significant impact on Korean painting. One of the strengths?of the film is that Im tries to help us see with the eye of a painter, so we see multiple scenes and objects which help our drunken painter friend, Jang Seung-up (Choi Min-shik),?receive inspiration.<br /><br />The costumes and the art direction are all impressive and the acting is even along being good. It's not a movie that moved me, but it was one that made me think about art and what it means to find your own voice in it. That's pretty cool. It's also interesting to see a version of Korea during those times right before the turn of the century, where Chinese and Japanese powers are both in Korea and the Chosun kingdom is coming to an end. More than one revolution and political ideology are gathered in the film, but are never the center. It's firmly on the painter.<br /><br />In the end, it's a well made film about the life of a painter. But it doesn't exactly have the regular three-act structure plot, so you have to be able to take a non-standard Hollywood story to watch it. Yay for art! 8/10 | positive |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.