review stringlengths 32 13.7k | sentiment stringclasses 2 values |
|---|---|
Steven Seagal movies have never been Oscar material but with each passing release they get worse and worse.<br /><br />This one starts with Seagal getting picked up by the FBI because he killed a few people 'in self defence' he's active military so is saved from jail to rescue a stolen Stealth plane that will be used by the cliché 'evil English villain' that Hollywood is so obsessed with including these days.<br /><br />Suffice to say the film has terrible dialog that is almost always delivered with a hefty topping of cheese and lack of acting talent. The story isn't interesting and there are segments of it which make absolutely no sense and do not add anything to the story, characters of movie as a whole such as the 'lesbian' interaction between the two main females in the cast which is there purely for titilation to get viewers and yet isn't even titilating just confusing as it makes no sense as to why it happened when it didn't need to.<br /><br />In short a terrible script with bad dialog, delivered by sub-par actors, boring and at times badly choreographed action scenes, and non-relevant parts that only serve to achieve the near-impossible and make the movie even worse.<br /><br />Save 98 minutes of your life and give this miss, even if you are Seagal's most ardent fan. | negative |
This movie had potential. The script was not bad, and it presented an interesting dark atmosphere with themes of suicide, patricide, regrets, and--as Chris says--"10 years of going nowhere". It's a sharp contrast to the original MAG7 which was bright, humorous, and even the bad guy was lovable.<br /><br />It's a very interesting change of tone, and if they had developed the characters more, maybe I would've liked it.<br /><br />But instead they waste far too much time on gratuitous (and ridiculous) battle scenes, poorly edited together. At one point you see a horse fall, and 5 seconds later you see the same scene again. But not many people would notice that, since there are already 2 dozen horse trips (I'm not exaggerating), and by then we've already dozed off.<br /><br />Which leads me to the title of my review. This film was extensively cut due to animal cruelty, so chances are (if you decide to watch it) you'll get the watered down, kiddie version. There's a bullfight where the matador stabs the bull, and suddenly as the crowd erupts cheering, there's no bull, just the matador in an empty arena. Like wow, maybe the bull was a Jedi, I dunno. More likely, the scene was cut.<br /><br />Later there's a cockfight scene where, in the original version, one of the birds gets horribly mauled before a crowd of cheering Mexicans. This was cut. But we still see enough to get pretty annoyed.<br /><br />But by far the worst scenes are the horse throws. One after the other, you see horses' legs get yanked, sending thousands of pounds of horse onto its head. In one scene, a horse gets thrown, and then while it's squirming on the ground in paralytic convulsions, an explosive goes off right under its neck.<br /><br />This film was made in 1966 when Hollywood was just starting to regulate animal brutality on film. This is probably one of the last flicks where you can see it happen. So if that sort of stuff it floats yer boat, check it out & you'll get a mild thrill. But if not, you'll either be irritated or flat out bored. | negative |
This movie was an attempt to go into places most don't and perhaps shouldn't venture into. It was a similar trial at the bizarre, head-case perspective given to us in The Cell, although not near as in-depth and well portrayed. The plot is constructed simply with an initial campy feel to it. Then, as the movie takes its supposed "dramatic" turn, the plot falls apart on what few legs it had to stand on in the first place. <br /><br />Basically the idea is that of a kid (Chris McKenna) who needs money. He takes on the role of a hit man, killing a city accountant. Then he doesn't get paid for his work but instead gets tortured for several days because he dreamed up the "brilliant" idea of trying to use a backup file he had as leverage for payment. This idiotic move at trying to force them to pay him backfires as he is horribly and endlessly abused. He begins to go crazy (some very disturbing scenes). Then, thinking he has paid for his sins and can start over, he visits the wife (Kari Wuhrer) of the man who he killed and wins her affections. Soon after she discovers who he is, tragedy strikes, and revenge sweeps through the air as the boy goes after his torturers (Daniel Baldwin, George Wendt, Vernon Wells) for their previous "kindness".<br /><br />I got to ask though, what is it with Kari Wuhrer and horror/gore type films?<br /><br />It seems everything she has put out lately has been in this genre. Granted, I liked her in "Eight-Legged Freaks" and she was okay in "Anaconda". But despite all her obvious cuteness and allure (wow, she's hot!), she can act much better and chose better roles. Or maybe, I'm wrong and that is just a misconception. For all you guys out there, you get to see the "fully monty" of her in this film, although it's rather bizarre and short-lived. I almost felt like she did some soft-porn after watching this film (something not foreign to Kari's career). The sex-simulation is such that it has to make you wonder what things really go on during filming. <br /><br />Anyway, I will say there is some good acting. Just don't expect much of it from Daniel Balwin, whose career seems forever destined to second his brother Alex's. The film did bring out a few old greats though, George Wendt (Norm from Cheers) and Vernon Wells (Commando, Weird Science). Above all, Chris McKenna does the best job in playing the main character, Sean Crawley. His little acting experience and yet his believable nature as a naive youth, bring some elements of substance to the film. <br /><br />I wouldn't go out of my way for this one. If you're bored and are tired of the same old episodes of "The Hitchhiker", then I might advise watching this.<br /><br />And Kari, please start acting in some better films! | negative |
Went with some friends and one of my friends mom, thinking it would be a good way to start off the spring break, but the movie turned out awful. We all agree it shouldn't have been PG-13. More like R material. Lots of sexual dialog, cussing and referring to boy and girl parts (below the waist). Not worth the time or money. Strongly urge you not to go, or rent it when it comes out. If you do end up going, don't take smaller children. Not the type of movie to see with the family! If curious about the content, check out the content advisory section on the Superhero Movie page on IMDb. Most of the content that was meant to be funny was extremely crude. Especially when they make fun of Steven Hawking. | negative |
I woke up and it was a beautiful day; the sun was shining, the birds were singing and i fancied getting a movie, something new, a horror movie perhaps? Like many other reviewers i came across what can only be described as a piece of poopy in a gold wrapper. The front cover is great, and the comment on the back is mesmerising - 'it will scare the crop out of you'...oh how i chuckle looking back at such naivety and ignorance.<br /><br />One of the many things scarier than this movie is the acting skills of these 'actors'. I think, no, i did actually cheer when they got slashed up by these 'scarecrows', who were wearing some classic fancy dress costumes. I used to drive quite quickly past cornfields as i found them to be pretty scary at night, but having seen this movie, i nearly wet myself (through laughing so much) just at the sight. <br /><br />I have seen scarier omelette's quite honestly, not mine though, i'm a dab-hand at cooking omelette's, and if anyone associates this movie with my omelette's, let's just say that i would create a situation in which they would be forced to watch this movie 3 times in a row.<br /><br />If anyone has any good corn (crop not pop) movies they can recommend, feel free to inform me. It's a great comedy if nothing else, OK it is nothing else. Enjoy, but a little advice - before pressing the play button on your DVD player, throw it out of the window. | negative |
Michael Winner is probably best known for his revenge-themed films, such as "Death Wish" and "Chato's Land", but he is equally gifted as a director of occult Horror cinema, as "The Sentinel" of 1977 proves. "The Sentinel", which is based on a novel by John Konvitz, who also wrote the screenplay, is a clever and immensely creepy religious chiller that no lover of occult Horror should consider missing. The film is obviously inspired by successful occult classics such as "Rosemary's Baby", "The Exorcist" or "The Omen", but, as far as I am concerned, it is also easily as unsettling as these more widely acclaimed films, and probably even creepier.<br /><br />Allison Parker (Christina Raines) is a beautiful young New York model. Traumatized by events in her her past and not yet willing to marry her lawyer boyfriend (Chris Sarandon), Allison is in search for an apartment, and finds a big, incredibly nice one, which is also affordable, in an old mansion in Brooklyn. The new apartment, however, comes along with a bunch of very strange other tenants. And the sinister new neighbors soon become more than a little bothersome to Alice... This may not be an adequate plot synopsis, but I would hate to spoil any of this film's great moments, so I will not give any further plot description. What I will say, however, is that "The Sentinel" is a very creepy and effective film that profits from a great cast as well as an often bizarre and constantly uncanny atmosphere. The fact that director Michael Winner and writer John Konnvitz also acted as producers here certainly had its influence on the outcome. The film is imaginatively photographed, and the eerie old Brooklyn mansion is a fantastic setting for this kind of film. As mentioned above, the atmosphere is obscure and creepy, and the film also includes several shock-moments and genuine scares. The film features many sinister and eccentric characters, and the cast is superb. Beautiful Christina Raines is great in her role of Allison Parker, lovable and yet on the cusp to losing her mind. Chris Sarandon is also very good as her boyfriend, a successful lawyer, and the supporting cast includes many big names, such as Christopher Walken, Jeff Goldblum, Jerry Orbach, Beverly D'Angelo and Tom Berenger, before becoming really famous. The cast also includes stars like Ava Gardner, Horror icon John Carradine, Burgess Meredith, and, my personal favorite, the great Eli Wallach as a cynical homicide detective. I've been a great fan of director Michael Winner for a long time, mostly for films like "Death Wish" and "Chato's Land". "The Sentinel" is yet another great film in Winner's repertoire, and also the proof that the man is not only a master of hard-boiled revenge-cinema, but also of atmospheric occult Horror. All in all, "The Sentinel" is a creepy, intelligent, and amazingly bizarre occult chiller that is highly recommended to all Horror fans! | positive |
Outstanding film of 1943 with Paul Lukas giving an Oscar calibrated performance as the head of his family bringing them back to America from Europe as the Nazi menace deepened.<br /><br />The usual terrific Bette Davis maintains her reputation here and for a change was not nominated for best actress for this or any film of 1943.<br /><br />Encounting treachery around them, Lukas successfully deals with the situation. He knows he must return to Europe on a clandestine mission and return he does.<br /><br />Davis again pulls out all the stops with a Katharine Hepburn-like shedding of tears when they must part. Resolute, she knows that her older son, must follow him on his path to liberty.<br /><br />A wonderful film highlighting American positive propaganda against a wicked foe. | positive |
I remember being forced (yes--literally FORCED) to see this film by a Southern Baptist Preacher when I was a kid, and even then I loved its awfulness. It's designed to scare poor suckers into being "saved." The only thing that "saved" me was the fact that it finally ended and I could go out and have a REAL life.<br /><br />Check out the chapter on this film in Sarah Diamond's book "The Politics of the Christian Right." FASCINATING. And certainly more interesting than the movie! | negative |
After some quite OK Dutch action flicks, like Lek and Van God Los, Gerrard Verhage wants to make a movie about the life of a Dutch mobster. Well, mobster is a big word for Klaas Bruinsma. He isn't a real international big guy like George Jung (Blow) or Pablo Escobar. He is just an Amsterdam lowlife who made some money by selling soft-drugs. Things are often blown up in the Netherlands, and this movie is just an other example. But even then, the movie could be very nice if the story was okay told. Now there are major jumps in time: one day KLaas is just an ordinary drug-boy, the next shot he seems to be a big player in the drug-scene. Nobody knows how's that possible (except for those who read the book). The acting is really bad, the non-Dutch movie-watchers get to see one of the worst actresses in the Netherlands: Chantal Janzen. When you think she finally gets naked, then you are watching a stand in model. So: bad acting + bad montage + crap story = De Dominee.<br /><br />Please don't watch it, even if other people say it's good, because it isn't. I've warned you. | negative |
Thelma Ritter did steal the picture. I just finished watching it again. I couldn't help becoming emotional in her final scene. She didn't get the Oscar. That's why you shouldn't put too much faith in Oscars. Richard Widmark never had a better part and was perfect casting as a 3-D, flawed human being. Jean Peters was great as the streetwise, tough girl in her best role ever. And Richard Kiley must have been very good; why else would I have hated him so. Yes, it was heavy handed on the patriotism; but, without it, you don't have much of a film. Watch their faces! The top three stars didn't really need much script. I would like to have seen them do this film without dialogue. If you've ever seen Ray Milland and Rita Gam in "The Thief", maybe you know what I mean. When I was a kid in 1956 on my first trip to NYC, I made my Bronx uncle drive us to the foot of South Street looking for No. 66. That's when I knew that Hollywood couldn't be trusted. But I did find the river.<br /><br />I'm not giving away much of the story because I hate it when I know what happens before I see it for myself. If you have seen it, no elucidation is necessary. Just maybe, someone who is reading these comments hasn't seen "Pickup On South Street". You will like it; just don't go looking for 66 South Street in New York City. | positive |
This is one of those movies which get better with each viewing. I watched it three times and actually registered on IMDb because I wanted to comment on it. Movies "about food" have been done before, some of them are really good - as, for instance, a certain Japanese comedy which aficionados of Asian cinema will know anyway. But this one really is in its own league. At its core is a protestant Christian parable symbolizing the ideal of kindness but, far from being dogmatic, it also addresses the "good" in each and every of us, regardless of our religious beliefs or lack thereof. There is a pervading understatement and refinement in Babette's Feast but this makes the message of the movie, if anything, stronger, not at all weaker. If you cannot attend the extraordinary physical banquet offered by Babette, you're still welcome to this feast of the soul. Highly recommended!! | positive |
Although I don't usually go for relentlessly heartwarming fare like this, I happened to catch the 1994 version of ANGELS IN THE OUTFIELD (AitO) on cable one Saturday morning just as it was starting. Being an Adrien Brody fan, I was curious to see what Brody was like as a youth of 21 (20 when he filmed it, I suppose) in this early role as Danny Hemmerling, utility infielder for the California Angels (in the 1951 original, the hard-luck baseball team was the Pittsburgh Pirates. The name change is a nice touch, since it turns the title into wordplay). I decided to give the flick a chance, and it turned out to be a pretty painless, even amiable experience, with a decent balance of laughs, tears, sweetness, and baseball-based excitement. Also, my 7-year-old daughter liked the angel effects! :-) Directed by Mike Nesmith's frequent collaborator William Dear, AitO is the story of Roger (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), a foster child who prays real hard after his ne'er-do-well dad (the convincingly sleazy Dermot Mulroney) sarcastically says they'll be a family again once the last-place California Angels win the pennant. Soon Roger starts seeing real angels at the Angels' games, led by Christopher Lloyd, whose usual zany, eccentric irreverence keeps AitO from plummeting irretrievably into The Schmaltz Zone. Crusty manager George Knox (Danny Glover in world-weary, exasperated mode) is a hard sell, but once the team starts winning, he believes Roger's angel sightings, and soon Knox has Roger and his cute li'l pal and fellow foster kid J.P. (the adorable Milton Davis Jr.) at every Angels game for good luck. Knox even starts toning down his own temperamental outbursts and profane language, as much to appease the angels as for the kids' sake, resulting in a funny bit when he starts dressing down an umpire in his usual way but starts editing himself as he goes along. Predictable obstacles ensue, such as obnoxious sportcaster Ranch Wilder (Jay O. Sanders) trying to make trouble for Knox because of the angel angle. Sure, it all works out fine for our heroes in the end, but they're so darn amiable you don't mind! :-) Baby-faced Brody has a couple of good lines (I especially like his exchange with Glover about the emotional impact of the National Anthem at a ballgame) as well as a cute bit where a pretty blonde angel massages his shoulders before he goes up to bat. Brody isn't the only future star in AitO's lineup: his teammates include Matthew McConaughey and Neal McDonough, and of course, young Gordon-Levitt went on to co-star in TV's 3rd ROCK FROM THE SUN as well as such films as 10 THINGS I HATE ABOUT YOU. The always-amusing Taylor Negron and Oscar winners (but not for this film :-) Brenda Fricker and Ben Johnson lend able support. If you're a baseball fan who wants to rent a movie appropriate for the kids and check out some notable young actors before they became stars, AitO '94 will do nicely. | positive |
Terrible writing, highly contrived, from a "do-gooder" who knows absolutely nothing about race relations in L.A., or the USA in the present day. The gushing positive reviews are a mystery to me - but could only be provided by folks who think that someone's "good" intentions should be applauded regardless of how shallow, simpleminded and just totally unrealistic the results are. If you want to see a film which deals realistically with modern day L.A. race issues - the movie you need to see (and probably already saw) is Pulp Fiction. There's more honesty and realism regarding race in any two minutes of that film than there are in the full 4 hours (oh I'm sorry, it just felt like 4 hours) of this stinker. <br /><br />If anyone ever needs proof that the path to hell is paved with good intentions - then this is the movie for you. | negative |
Yumiko (Wakana Sakai), the pretty adopted daughter of a recently-deceased Japanese businessman, inherits control of her father's company; her uncle Kazuo (Shun Sugata), miffed that he wasn't left the business to run, orders a hit on his niece. When jug-eared chef Kensuke (Takashi Okamura) enters the wrong hotel room by mistake and knocks out hit-man Invincible (Jung Yuen), he is mistaken for the killer and sent to kill Yumiko. Instead, he falls for the pretty heiress and ends up vowing to protect her. However, she is kidnapped by Kazuo's men while Kensuke is preoccupied playing an arcade game with cop Daniel (Sam Lee).<br /><br />Uncle Kazuo keeps Yumiko in a hypnotic trance, and takes control of the business, but runs into a spot of bother himself, when his gangster pals threaten to reveal his illegal activities unless he allows them total control.<br /><br />Meanwhile, Kensuke teams up with two martial arts experts, Lam Kau (Yuen Baio) and Lam Doi (Candy Lo) who are hunting Invincible. He learns Kung Fu and attempts to free Yumiko.<br /><br />A mixture of broad slapstick humour, spoofery and fight scenes, No Problem 2 is a disappointing film considering the talent involved: 80s kung fu superstar Yuen Baio manages a few fight scenes but is getting a little old for acrobatics these days; director Kar Lok Chin delivers the kind of dumb parody schtick I'd expect from a Scary Movie film; Jung Yuen resorts to mocking his character in Operation Scorpio; and Sam Lee
well, Sam Lee is as annoying as always!<br /><br />On the other hand, Collin Chou, as gangster Ben, impressed me; he has an obviously strong screen presence which has not gone unnoticed by Hollywoodhe has since starred in two of the Matrix movies and is soon to appear in D.O.A., directed by Corey Yuen. I was also impressed by Wakana Sakai, but for an entirely different reason: this beauty is easy on the eye and should go much further in the film business.<br /><br />There is some fun to be had from working out what movies are being parodied, but at 104 minutes I found this film a real chore to sit through. If people pulling funny faces accompanied by silly sound effects makes you burst your sides laughing, then No Problem 2 might appeal to you. Otherwise, I would leave well alone. | negative |
Another violent, angry fantasy from Paul Verhoeven. Verhoeven is a puzzle: it's difficult to tell whether he takes his sordid impulses seriously, with sardonic intent or operates in complete oblivion. He also seems completely ignorant of the fact that all the brilliant visuals in the world (and this has some outstanding ones) cannot hide a negligence to story, dialogue and performance. Kevin Bacon plays a corrupt scientist who has discovered invisibility and uses it to drive himself into moral bankruptcy. Bacon is normally a likable actor who occasionally shows his dark side (`The River Wild') in an attempt to offset his boyish looks; given the material, however, Bacon isn't nearly hateful enough to compel. The other principals are Elisabeth Shue and Josh Brolin, neither of whom are gifted enough to make a solid impression and who, when forced to deliver inane dialogue, embarrass themselves. The climax is a study in preponderance and disbelief has to be truly suspended. | negative |
I can't say this show is perfect. Perhaps all the previous commenters remember the old Tuesday 10:30 slot taken up by the childish humour of butch Elvira Curt ("There's a space shuttle humping a 747!"). Oh the glory of scrambling to hit any button on the remote to make it change.<br /><br />Face it, comedy can't pull a Showcase and create the comedic genius of the truly Canadian Trailer Park Boys. But hey, they try.<br /><br />This show is by far one of the better original shows. However, none of the following will find themselves laughing at the apparent "players" who showcase their stupidity in picking up girls:<br /><br />a) "Dumb" Girls - Obviously, they can't realise that they are just like the girls on the show. Oblivious. Jump on the man meat, you can call yourself a whore tomorrow and get his name. He looks good, he must be popular and nice. HAHAHAHA!!! Oh but you'd never do that! Nobody would... if they knew it was happening<br /><br />b) Unsocial guys who think women like nice guys - Obviously seeing these guys succeed at what you fail at or don't even get to experience is going to make your primal rages boil. Watch more closely, they get shot down most of the time. They say stupid crap.<br /><br />c) Girls with respect for one another - Obviously seeing your separate distinctly female species get caught up in real world situations is wrong wrong wrong. Nobody gets played. Women are not objects, they can't be played, because they are all very faithful angels who are going to clubs to converse politely with one another without fear of guys trying to pick them up.<br /><br />Oh wait... hmmmmmmmm<br /><br />As much as EVERYBODY will say that this show is not funny, and that it doesn't teach you anything, I have to take the opposite side. The show is very good at detailing the way relationships work for both men AND women. The way they think, and the way they think each other think, and social hierarchy. Its funny to see and hear the guys make absolutely idiotic comments to things the women say ("My grandfather died recently" "Oh... well are we having fun tonight?").<br /><br />Besides, its a club. The place people go to have fun, and get laid. No matter who you are, you're going to a club to get or give attention to someone. Guys go there to test their game and pick up girls. Girls go there to flirt with guys and find the one that sweeps her off her feet the best. Lighten up!<br /><br />If you're a guy, learn a thing or two about different approaches and the different effects they have. If you're a girl, learn what these "studly" man whores really think like, and learn to tell them apart from genuine guys. Next time you get broken up with by one of those douchewads, realise its not because of him, its because you're dumb and thought he was the greatest guy ever when he was quite clearly a dick to you the whole time | positive |
The Twilight Zone has achieved a certain mythology about it--much like Star Trek. That's because there are many devoted lovers of the show that no matter what think every episode was a winner. They are the ones who score each individual show a 10 and cannot objectively evaluate the show. Because of this, a while back I reviewed all the original Star Trek episodes (the good and the bad) because the overall ratings and reviews were just too positive. Now, it's time to do the same for The Twilight Zone.<br /><br />While I have scored many episodes 10, this one gets a 3 simply because it was bad. The writing was in fact embarrassingly bad. Two people from opposing sides in a great war are seen wandering about through the entire episode. After a while, it's apparent that they are the only two people left on Earth--as you learn in the really stupid and totally unconvincing conclusion. Usually the twist at the end makes the episode great--this one killed it! | negative |
The more I analyze this film, the worse it becomes. First of all, why a motivational speaker? That part was just stupid. I mean, why would a megalomaniac trying to control the world rely on a motivational speaker? Is Alexander Stone really that disorganized? First he can't decide what he wants to do to control the world, so he looks to the Bible for ideas. Many of these ideas, I might add, really have no reliability(For example, the part of the "The houses of Ishmael and Isaac shall scream out in terror" could have already happened. It could have been have been the synagogues burned during Krystalnacht and the mosques could very well have been the mosques blown up in Baghdad or something.) And Gillen Lane's family! They had no part except to provide a family values platfrom and dab their eyes with water! I might add that since Casper van Dien/Gillen Lane is only in his twenties(or that's the impression that I had)and has a ten year child, he had his child during high school. Yeah, there goes TBN's family values. Also, why did this film have to be so damn propaganda-like? I'll repeat what an earlier reviewer said. The Indiana Jones flicks use Christian mythology as a plot dvice and manipulate it well so that we are intoxicated. This film doesn't do that. The beginnig starts off well, with Michael Ironsides playing a priest who murders a scholar off some sort and steals the dead guy's Omega Code. Then when confronted by two men who he is obviously afraid of, the two prophets tell him "Tell your master that we are here!". Dominic(Ironsides) replies "He already knows" and points to a small surveillance camera. That part sent chills up my spine. Had only it gone on like that one scene I would have loved this film. I'll give Michael York credit: he does a fine job of acting out his character, as does Michael Ironsides. But the good guys are horrible. I've already went on about Lane's family<br /><br />. Now that I'm over the acting, I'll get on to plot. This is obviously a Baptist film, since our beloved Pope of the Vatican is portrayed as an oaf. The world domination plot I liked and found plausible and subtle, as were the action sequences were also thrilling and well-done. Also another diatribe against the Vatican, their leaders are seen as dogmatically minded, since Gillen explains to the Pope that it's not the end of the world, but the beginning of a new one Also, the Vatican (or Israelis)says their going to secede from the World Union aince they used the Omega Code to control the world. Whoever it was, they wouldn't just secede, they'd send over commandoes and kill them. This is the equivalent of America knowing about the KGB going to kill the President and simply saying "We're not going to talk to you any more!". Come on! I did enjoy the scenes where we see bombers headed towards Israel and see them again on the monitor. Mediocre in short. | negative |
STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning <br /><br />This second instalment of the Che films moves the story forward to the late 60s, where the man has now moved his resistance fighters into the hills of South America, surviving without enough food and water and with tensions mounting between the group. Everything comes to a head when he crosses the border into Bolivia and the government forces step up their campaign to bring him down.<br /><br />Without the flitting between time and places of the last film, Soderbergh's second instalment focuses solely on the action in the hills, and manages to be an even duller experience. And more pretentiously, the score has been drowned out, giving the second instalment more of an unwelcome air of artsieness that proves just as alienating. There's just an unshakeable air of boredom to the film that never lets up. You can't fault Soderbergh's ambition or Del Toro's drive in the lead role, it's just a shame that somewhere in the production things managed to take such a disappointing turn. ** | negative |
WE FAW DOWN <br /><br />Aspect ratio: 1.33:1<br /><br />Sound format: Silent<br /><br />(Black and white - Short film)<br /><br />Stan 'n' Ollie get mixed up with a couple of floozies (Kay Deslys and Vera White) after setting out to visit a theatre which burns down in their absence! Needless to say, their tyrannical wives (Vivien Oakland and Bess Flowers) are not amused...<br /><br />Leo McCarey's OK comedy laid the narrative framework for William Seiter's masterpiece SONS OF THE DESERT (1934), with L&H playing brow-beaten victims of circumstance, forced to tell a monstrous lie which backfires in spectacular fashion. Much of it is very funny, especially the scene in which Stan is teased by Deslys, leading to a violent game of push and shove. However, some of the fun is undercut by Oakland and Flowers, playing their roles completely straight, which adds an element of unpleasantness to the 'henpecked husband' scenario. Originally released in the UK as WE SLIP UP. | negative |
I cannot believe how uneducated this movie is. It's like watching police academy, except it's with people that have no clue of what they are talking about, and...Wait, there is a stupid robot that is supposed to be a sidekick. I can understand suspension of disbelief, but this is just complete stupidity. Not only is there no plot to this movie. It's like watching someone that pretends to be a doctor, throw non-medical words around as if they were chief of staff at a major medical facility. Plus the people are wearing clothes that are un-befitting for a space program. I feel like I'm watching a valley-girls "b" movie, in space. | negative |
This is, without doubt, one of the worst films I've ever seen...<br /><br />The plot is so full of holes, the story is like a bad remake of a bad suspense movie and the actors sound like were reading directly from the manuscript for the first time. Worst of all is Steve Guttenberg. He plays his character like he was in "Police Academy" - the same foolish womanizer - and that's not suited for a leading man in what should have been a thriller.<br /><br />It's really hard to believe that Hanson would make "L.A. Confidential" ten years later...<br /><br />Avoid this like the plague... | negative |
I don't understand this movies distinctly average rating!?<br /><br />I really really enjoyed it, i even stayed up till early morning to finish watching it on late night t.v<br /><br />There are three excellent characters here, excellent characters. Danny DeVito played a gem, quite a feat considering he was directing as well. His down trodden laughable at times character was brilliantly written and was surreal in a absolutely believable way. There ARE people like that, Owen was just on the line without crossing it.<br /><br />Billy Crystal's comic syle and sense of timing was PERFECT for his role. His frustration/comedy was interesting and captivating and what's more... you could understand his feelings. To really feel like you know a character is hard to achieve from the writers point of view, to find the right actor to pull it off is an art in itself and both were achieved here thrice over.<br /><br />Thirdly, who else could have played Momma? There is no one that can play this part so well. There is a style there unlike any other, something you love to watch, i found myself waiting for her to appear on screen... and not because the rest was bad, oh no, but because Momma's character was, again, so on the line without crossing it that it was excellent to watch.<br /><br />And what's more? A happy ending with new found friendships, no one getting hurt and everyone getting what they wanted in life... WITHOUT a big hunk of cheese tied on the end.<br /><br />Brilliant script, brilliant idea, perfect cast, great film. | positive |
The movie itself is so pathetic. It portrayed deaf people as cynical toward hearing people. True, some deaf people are wary of dating hearing people, but they are not necessarily angry like of Marlee Matlin's character was throughout the story. Deaf people do not go to the bar and dance the way Matlin did. All in all, the movie itself is more boring than pathetic. It is so boring that I'd like to believe that it is an insomnia-cured movie. If I have a problem sleeping, I can simply pop in Children of a Lesser God and watch. It will put me to sleep.<br /><br />Keep in mind, this is a deaf guy talking. | negative |
If you're amused by straight-faced goings-on that are logical within a given illogical situation, you'll enjoy this whimsical 8-minute Spanish film.<br /><br />A woman enters a small café. The scene looks ordinary, but the counterman, customers, and two musicians seem somehow oddly subdued.<br /><br />Suddenly, the musicians play and one man begins to sing the title song , dancing across table tops with musical-comedy gestures. The customers, at first immobile, at intervals chime in (badly but gamely) with phrases from the song, read from slips of paper in their palms. On and off they jump up and dance (awkwardly but earnestly) in choreographed motions, like backup singers.<br /><br />But why??? the woman wonders. The answer is revealed as the soloist's jacket opens and she sees what's strapped across his chest -- just before the explosive climax...<br /><br />Even if you don't catch the song's (probably ironical) lyrics, the situation-perfect performances should give you a grin and a chuckle... I'd love to see it again! | positive |
This movie wasn't that bad when compared to the first two sequels to the original. It's directed by Martin Kitrosser of Friday the 13th fame. The acting is very bad indeed, but the gore and special effects help make it interesting. Thats one thing I like about Screaming Mad George (make up effects artist for the film), his effects are so off-the-wall and bizarre that they will keep you watching a bad movie just to find out how crazy they're gonna get. The movie isn't really all that gory, but there is an EXTREMELY nasty eyeball-munching scene in the middle involving a toy maggot (what!?!) Mickey Rooney makes a guest appearance that he probably wasn't too enthusiastic about but needed the money at the time, possibly? If you liked the weirdo 4th installment (my favorite of all 5), you'll probably like this one. I liked it better than the Matrix! Enjoy. | negative |
If this movie as meant to discourage people from doing drugs, it fails. I was ready to start using them I got waiting for something to happen and nothing ever really did. This movie is neither horror or drama. It's just the paranoia of meth users. This movie may win an award for the using the "F" word so many times and so uselessly. It was not well stated, but I felt like they were making Meth to replace Meth they owed to someone. Hector just got worse and more paranoid as the movie went on and the girl just got more hopeless. The ending really made no sense. The movie made no sense unless it was just showing how annoying is is to be stuck in a house in the middle of nowhere with a meth-head. I relied on the other feedback when I decided to watch this movie and the rating on this movie should be a much lower average. | negative |
I'm a huge classic film buff, but am just getting in to silent movies. A lot of silent films don't hold my attention, but Show People is a notable exception.<br /><br />Marion Davies and William Haines are simply wonderful in this picture. Davies, in particular, shows a wide range as she morphs from a giggly small town girl to a starlet who takes herself a bit too seriously.<br /><br />Show People is a fast paced film with a fantastic array of cameos by some of the biggest stars of the silent era. The movie captured my attention immediately and I actually forgot that it was a silent film. (I know that doesn't make much sense, but that's what happened.) The actors are so skilled in their craft that few dialogue cards are necessary.<br /><br />Show People is a perfect introduction to silent films. It is a fast paced, interesting film with two of the silent era's best stars. Add in the satire of Hollywood and Show People should be on the 'must see' list for all classic film buffs. | positive |
I can't believe that so many are comparing this movie to Argento's. His work is far more imaginative and vicious--and a lot more fun.<br /><br />The director simply lacks the ability to build real tension. The murder scenes--and let's face it, that's what this genre is all about--aren't interesting. It was not hard to guess who the murderer was, and I really didn't care when it was revealed. The cinematography isn't memorable, and the much-praised 19th century Gothic atmosphere just didn't draw me in. Several of the actors are quite good (especially the headmistress and the sadistic girl who lords it over the younger students), but they're given very little to do.<br /><br />Yes, there are undertones of incest, sadomasochism, and lesbianism, but amazingly, they add very little spice or suspense. <br /><br />If you're looking for a good horror movie, look elsewhere. | negative |
The movie is absolutely silly.<br /><br />But were you expecting a high-brow intellectual film based on a comic called Slam Dunk? Really? Jay Chou's acting isn't exactly the most moving thing I've ever seen, but I certainly enjoyed the movie. Was it somewhere near the level of awesome that someone like Jet Li or Stephen Chow can produce? No, not really. Was it thoroughly entertaining if you're just taking it at surface value? Absolutely. It's a movie about some Chinese eye-candy idols and musicians who can play basketball at an unreal level of expertise. There's an evil Triad-style dude and a wacky scheming guy who gets Jay Chou involved in all of this. A love interest. It's formulaic but really, suspend disbelief for a while. Come on. It's called Kung Fu Dunk. What do you really think you signed on for? Do yourself a favor if you watch it - I found myself a copy with some Engrish subtitles that made the movie nigh unintelligible conversation wise, but we got a great laugh out of it. They would appear to be extremely fixated on Jerusalem and the numbers 1, 10.<br /><br />I laughed, I cried, I hurled. I'd watch it again.<br /><br />Especially for that fight scene in the bar. Well choreographed and well shot. I especially enjoy the plexiglass lit pool table - I'd LOVE to play on one of those.<br /><br />Slick enough for me, but I dig on trash cinema. | positive |
This was a pleasant musical about the creation of the Moulin Rouge dance hall. In many ways, this reminds me of the Hollywood musicals of the 40s and 50s, in that it has many clichés leading up to the inevitable conclusion ("will the show STILL go on?"). While of course none of this is new, it was enjoyable and well made. The musical numbers at the end are frenetic and beautiful to watch. In many ways it reminds me of a sexier version of THE GREAT ZIEGFELD. In real life, Ziegfeld was quite the player but this was sanitized in the American film. But, in FRENCH CANCAN, the characters have fully functioning libidos--but nothing is really shown, so the movie is okay for kids.<br /><br />Nothing new but well done nevertheless. | positive |
This was one of those films I probably never would have picked off the shelf , but it came on IFC one day and I said - Eric Stolz, William Forsythe...why not? If I'd changed the channel, I would have really missed a treasure. <br /><br />The subject is depressing - young author paralyzed in climbing accident convalesces in lower-class rehabilitation center. It would have been so easy and tempting to make this a manipulative tear-jerker. But, that doesn't happen because it was written by Neal Jimenez, after he himself was accidently paralyzed. No Hollywood happiness here. All of the patients in the ward come from wildly different backgrounds, but they share a feeling of helplessness, of being at the mercy of others. Stolz is very good as a "lone wolf" type, forced into embarrassing dependence on his girlfriend (Helen Hunt); Wesley Snipes is fine as a former ladies' man whose family is falling apart; but William Forsythe takes the cake as a tough guy determined to make someone pay for taking away his independence.<br /><br />See this film. | positive |
It's funny. It's not Arthur Miller or T.S. Elliot, but man this is funny. Kline and Fields are great. (Her toss-off line "God, you are so disGUSting" as she climbs in his window - great! Kline's running into the door after scoping out Teri Hatcher - great too!) Robert Downey Jr. and Kathy Moriarty work together flawlessly - until he finds out who she really is... a soap opera turn if there every was one!<br /><br />The scene near the end in the chinese dining area had my kids and I rolling on the floor - that scene alone is worth the rental price.<br /><br />Doesn't solve any world problems or show the seemy underbelly of daytime T.V. (I hope). Just a lot of fun. | positive |
My 10/10 rating of course applies only if you're willing to get completely and utterly grossed out*. Because you know that only John Waters can do that. In "Pink Flamingos" (his directorial debut), he portrays two families locked in combat to see who can be the filthiest person alive. What Divine famously does at the end pretty much answers the question. But even aside from that, the movie is basically an excuse to shock people beyond what anyone would usually imagine. You had better have a very strong stomach to watch this movie. Even some of the lines are rather mind-blowing.<br /><br />*Otherwise, avoid this movie like you would the ebola virus! | positive |
Sure, there's stuff here that the Coens and Elmore Leonard have done before, but so what? If you want entertaining, lusty and smart -- "Judas Kiss" is near perfect. Prudes offended by tongue in cheek porn don't get it (Talk about getting your sex and violence out of the way straight up -- keeps your investors happy. That's independent filmmaking 101). As for the Brits making a bundle, I highly doubt it. This flick is clearly a labor of love and the budget probably not half of Mr. Tarantino's salary. Maybe guys don't like it as much as women. I thought it rocked. Go Coco! | positive |
This movie is great! Brad Pitt will never be able to out act the performance he gave in this movie. Duchovny was top notch, as was Forbes and Lewis. The 4 main characters embark on a scenic road tour of historic murder sites, in one of the coolest cars ever made, 1960's model Lincoln Continental. Early Grace is a simpleton with a taste for dry toothbrushes and carnage. He likes his women to not curse or smoke, and wear PWT dresses. Duchovny and Forbes are a pair of artists from the city, while Early and Lewis are Trailer parkers from the rural outskirts. Even though the majority tone in the film is dark, there are plenty of funny scenes to be had. The writing, directing, and acting are brilliant. If you like road movies, murder, humor, and narration, watch this film. Everyone delivers, and you will want more when the credits roll. One of my all time favorites. "hey...shave that dog n teach it to hunt!" | positive |
"A truly nice story with a moral about brotherly love" describes this odd David Lynch film. This was especially "odd" because it wasn't the kind of film Lynch had been putting out in the last 15 -20 years. Those were dark and shocking films (Blue Velvet, Wild At Heart, Mulholland Drive) and this is the opposite. I know it disappointed a lot of his fans. Others were delighted by it. Count me as one of the latter, and I own all three of those "dark" films, too.<br /><br />This was another supposed-true life story, here detailing an elderly man's trip in a seated lawnmower from western Iowa all the way to Wisconsin to see his ailing brother who he hasn't talked to in years but wants to see before the latter dies. Well, I guess that premise - an old man driving a lawn mower 400 miles - still makes this an "odd" film of sorts, so Lynch stays in character with that! <br /><br />Richard Farnsworth plays the title role. He is the type of guy, face-wise, voice-wise, low-key personality-wise, that just about everyone likes. The wrinkles on his face tell many a story. It was so sad to hear what happened to him in real life a year after this film was released.<br /><br />The first 25 minutes of this film isn't much, and not always pleasant as it shows the main character's adult and mentally-challenged child (Sissy Spacek) and her tragic past, but once Alvin Straight (Farnsworth) begins his trip, the story picks up. I played this for several friends and they thought the film NEVER picked up, but I am more generous with it. I think it's a hidden gem. To them, it was a sleeping pill.<br /><br />I found his trip pretty fascinating but you have to realize in advance this is NOT going to be a suspenseful Lynch crime story. It IS slow and if that's okay with you, you might like this. Charm enters the picture in some of people Alvin meets along the way, such as a wayward young girl running away and some nice town folks who help the old man out when he gets in trouble. (Henry Cada as "Daniel Riordan, is a standout in that regard.) Harry Dean Stanton gets third billing, but that's a joke: he's only in the final few minutes of the movie!<br /><br />The Iowa scenery is pleasant. I lived there for several years and can attest to the rolling hills and the rich soil. It's a nice state with nice people....like this movie. | positive |
....ripoff of a dozen better films. Particularly Steven Martin's "LA Story", which at least had the grace to be obviously fictional even though it starred his then-girlfriend playing his girlfriend in the film.<br /><br />Yes, naive boys and girls, "20 Dates" IS a mockumentary, although I am not absolutely certain that was Myles Berkowitz's intent when he started. My impression is that he started the project semi-seriously, then quickly realized that it would be pathetic and not funny unless he made the situations more and more ridiculous. As a result, the whole thing has an uneasy, cheap and insincere feeling about it.<br /><br />As someone smartly pointed out, the film has two of the "dates" suing and putting restraining orders on Myles and yet they appear in the film, which would be impossible as it would require a consent form. It also appears to me that the majority of women who appear as "the dates" are professional actresses (albiet not famous ones, excepting Tina Carrere) -- they are simply too obviously pretty, polished, thin and comfortable in front of the camera to be average civilians.<br /><br />Mr. Berkowitz makes a classic error in only casting this kind of very pretty thin actress, instead of utilizing a variety of believable women, which might have made the premise (even in a mockumentary) more believable and funnier. He also skates over what is probably his real-world problem, and which is that both the movie character and the real world Myles Berkowitz appear to be functionally unemployed (his real life IMDb credits are practically non-existent, excepting this film). Even in the world of the movie, his ex-wife divorced him for never being employed. I think the viewer (let alone Mr. Berkowitz's real life dates) are deserving of an explanation of he manages to live in one of the most expensive urban environments in the US, in a luxury apartment, driving a fancy car and eating out at pricey restaurants when he doesn't seen to have any source of income whatsoever. (Is he drug dealer? Living off his rich parents? No clue!)<br /><br />You can get away with most anything in a film, if the jokes are really funny. "20 Dates" is painfully, embarrassingly UN-funny. Mr. Berkowitz's idea of a joke is to have his character, while on restaurant dates, announce to his companions how the food served is likely to give him either diarrhea or constipation -- the WORST kind of childish potty humor.<br /><br />It is not very surprising to discover that Mr. Berkowitz never made a film before "20 Dates" and in the last 8 years, has not made a single film, appeared as an actor in anyone else's film OR had a writing or producing credit of any kind. My gut instinct tells me that this film was not financed by "Elie" (the gangster money man who appears off-camera) but more likely by Mr. Berkowitz's affluent parents, or perhaps represents a shocking abuse of credit cards. Whichever it was, we can all rest easy that we are unlikely to have to see Myles Berkowitz or any of his creative efforts EVER AGAIN. Hallelujah!!! | negative |
A ditzy girl (yes, ditzy is about as complex as her character gets) won't take no for an answer and does quirky things to get her husband back. It's too far-fetched to be believable with such flimsy characters going through the motions. But not far-fetched enough to be fascinating in the way that say, Being John Malkovich, was. So it ends up boring.<br /><br />sv | negative |
Johnny and Jeremy are vampires of sorts. Minus the fangs, of course. They're dark, bitter creatures with nothing better to do than to spread their own misery. Through their charms (namely a sharp tongue and a fat wallet, respectively) they seduce desperate souls, who they proceed to torment and victimize. That's more or less the basis of this black comedy, as I understand it.<br /><br />It's not a blend of black humor that I can easily subscribe to, partly because it bothers me to imagine the audience rooting for the sleazy, main character. I did enjoy, however, the sound and the melody of the rapid-fire (and supposedly very witty) remarks. I was very impressed by the cast's strong acting, particularly David Thelis's; only the character of Jeremy seemed too bi-dimensional. The photography and the music, both dramatic and somber, work very well together. <br /><br />What really turns me off about "Naked" (and the main reason I'd never recommend it to anyone) is the way it repeatedly seems to present misogyny as a valid way to vent one's angst. In other words, in a world that sucks so bad, what difference does it make if one inflicts some pain on girls, right? To suggest (as some have on this website) that Johnny is not so unkind a person because he's not as rough on girls as Jeremy, seems completely absurd to me. They're both terrible, nasty people. And they're particularly keen on hurting women every single time they get a chance. One could argue that Johnny eventually gets what he deserves, as if his bad karma suddenly swung straight back and bit him in the ass. But still, his and Jeremy's sadistic behavior are treated to a certain degree as a laughing matter. And I could be wrong, but I'm guessing that most people who absolutely love this movie also find that aspect of the film darkly comical. | negative |
I would highly recommend this movie! And I certainly shall be personally recommending it to my friends and family here and abroad! It was with excited anticipation, that I have just pre-ordered it online, I enjoyed it so much! It is not out until February/March 2008, but it will be well worth the wait! But first go and see it in the cinema if you can. There is nothing quite like the Cinema-Experience of a cinema-made movie! Insist that your local cinema puts it on! I went to see 'Seachd, the Inaccessible Pinacle' tonight, down here in London, and was really impressed. It is a marvel: a truly beautiful film set in the Scottish Highlands: you will laugh, you will cry, you will be moved in may different ways, you will be intrigued, and as the story within the stories is revealed, you will be amazed at that revelation.<br /><br />This movie is in Scottish Gaelic with English Subtitles, but do not let that detract you if you are not a speaker of the Gaelic: I am just starting, and my son does not, nor did many people there tonight, and it did not spoil it for us by any manner of means! Superlatives do not suffice! The photography is superb - there is no CGI here, and the movie is all the better for that- here you have true photography! The script is so skilfully and subtly written. The many-layered plot weaves the magic art of the ancient storytellers. The music is at times rousing, at times haunting, but always adding to the atmospheric ambiance. And the acting? ... it is to behold ... and the actors?... they the true weavers of this delightful yet profound film, particularly the two main actors, 'Padruig-the-young' and 'Padruig-the-elder' (A true bard, if ever there was!), who both carried a very heavy load! And the Direction? Well watch out Richard! And the Producer, responsible for raising funding, hiring key personnel, and arranging for distributors? A task well done! I hope that you will make sure that distribution goes out to our communities abroad! And the Gaelic community? Uill, without you it could not have happened! We were told that this movie was made on a low budget, but you would not know it, and I think it might well be because, for what they might have lacked in money, they more than made up for with the richness of the heart, and the warmth and co-operation of the local Scottish Gaelic community.<br /><br />A heartfelt thanks to all concerned in the making, and the sponsoring, of 'Seachd' - Mòran taing! (Many thanks!) From the Gaels to the World! From the World to the Gaels! | positive |
Ham-handed homage to honest hacking. Felt good in a soft-core way about equivalent to its mild pornography, until its vapid lack of technical and economic reality, emotional and moral sophistication became apparent.<br /><br />Basically a muddled '90s remake of '85's "Real Genius", with fewer and stupider geniuses, and a cynical bad ending.<br /><br />Perhaps this movie would appeal to someone delighted by the thesis that becoming a billionaire is so easy it's almost accidental. Or perhaps to technical types who like seeing themselves depicted as cool and sexy. Speculating about the reasons someone might like this movie is certainly more interesting than the movie itself. The movies closing credits song is more interesting than the movie itself. | negative |
I loved this film!!! It was so easy to become a part of the characters lives and really feel the emotion they were going through.<br /><br />A film filled with laughs, sarcasm, shocks and upset just a fantastic romantic drama really!<br /><br />The only part i didn't enjoy was in the special features. The behind the scenes commentary was a little off putting. Because i'd seen the film before the extras i prefer thinking of the actors like the characters (silly i know) but the actors personality's are very different from the characters they play. But nevertheless its a totally fantastic, spectacular, brilliant film i recommend that anyone who looked at this film and thought hmmmmmmm should i buy it? answer must be a definite yes! | positive |
I think if you are into the sixties kind of thing, as I am, you are obligated to waste about 80 minutes of your life watching this barely watchable trainwreck. The saving graces of this oddity include a surprisingly apt social commentary on sixties values along with a number of relatively well known actors caught in early (and embarrassing) footage. It's as if the producers of Laugh-In sat down and decided to write a full length film, covering all the high points (and more) of the issues between the flower children and the establishment, then put it in the hands of a couple of hippies and gave them about a $10,000 budget to complete it. Hardly a classic, but in its own way it does capture how truly strange that time was, the silliness, the over-idealism, and the uptightness of the establishment. Clearly not for everyone. | negative |
A film starring Salma Hayek and Colin Farrell, two respected and talented actors, sounds like a great idea. An independent film sounds even better. The studios will control less of the content allowing the actors and writers and director more creativity.<br /><br />But then why is this movie so bland? Ask the dust.<br /><br />This film assumes right off the bat that we are deeply invested in the characters. No one is given a proper back story, so we don't ever know why the characters act the way they do.<br /><br />Explanations for physical and emotional scars are left to our imagination, if you still have one left at the end of this movie.<br /><br />I told a friend that I went to see this film, and that I thought it was awful.<br /><br />Her question: "Not even Colin Farrell could save it?" My response: "Not even Colin Farrell's ass could save it." | negative |
Certainly when I saw this movie at HBO, I was bit erratic in following the plot, but it catches my attention when seeing Dustin Hoffman in it. Honestly I'm not enthralled watching old movies, but then in the long run it changes my point of view. Seeing this stirring film made me experience once again couching at my seat not noticing my tears suddenly roll down my cheek, and then after, let loose a heavy sigh in realizing the impact of what I've just witness. Kramer vs Kramer was indeed one of the best classical drama movies I've witnessed for a long time that even I, myself couldn't imagine how it touched me. The story was strongly emotional, but is not saturated with such. The characters weren't unrealistic for their roles; they possess qualities that make viewers like them whatever position they have in the film, like the role of Meryl Streep, she was a mother who honestly concede her mistakes at the past but then she's confident to stand up her emotional motives to get what she desires in a fair and square battle. Dustin Hoffman was way too outstanding, I can't even fathom how this guy could play seriously difficult roles and suddenly jump into another role which is completely different, then performed it well. Even though I have already seen the movies a lot of times, when I seat back and lounge at my home scanning worth movies to peer and buy a time for it, catching a glimpse for Kramer vs Kramer will make my experience another worthwhile moment. | positive |
This movie is so bad it's worth seeing. This movie will have viewers lapsing in and out of a coma within the first 10 minutes. It all started when a bunch of writers came up with the idea of a jetliner being hijacked and a passenger who can fly a small plane has to land the beast. However, they know it's been done before many times so to make it different, let's do it very badly! Major Masters has his name pirated from 80's movie "To Live and Die in L.A." from character played by Willem Dafoe. That saved 10 minutes in writing and production time. The plane is supposed to be a Boieng 747. That plane has a unique silhouette, even in the dark with its characteristic forward hump on the top. Just ask the late Ronald Reagan who lamented this point when them Ruskies shot down KAL 007 in the eighties. Yet when the plane takes off it's clearly not a 747 looks more like a 767. This well researched film also forgets to include the engineer's seat in the cockpit and replaces it with two comfy rumble seats. No need for a flight engineer on this complex plane! Heroine is played by perpetually pouting Gloria Lynn Berg. After tying up the hijacker, despite several bus-loads of people on this jumbo jet, nobody bothers to watch this guy who almost killed all of them. He's just forced to amuse himself.<br /><br />The crippled plane, leaking fuel from all the hijacking shenanigans won't make it back to Hawaii so Masters will try to land at an Air Force base located on an island. Only the runway's 300 feet too short! Four army guys with little Bobcats (the kind you rent to take all day moving a load of horse manure to the back of your barn), are gonna clear a 200 foot wide and 300 foot long swath through the jungle in 20 minutes! No need for a bulldozer here! Where can you find guys like this? These guys could make a highway between Los Angeles and Las Vegas in 3 hours equipped only with tablespoons, a compass and a duck!<br /><br />After that hellish obstacle is fixed, Masters will try to land the plane as heroine pouts away. Hijacker giggles to himself and unsupervised gets free to make more trouble. He is finally subdued in a most retarded manner that I can't tell you. But, can YOU say Moby Dick?<br /><br />There are so many retarded scenes in this movie. The wounded captain is parked prone on the bar on the plane while Masters, who supposedly can barely fly, puts the plane into 60 degree banks and 20,000 feet per minute drops. The pilot should be french kissing the ceiling during these challenging stunts, but doesn't budge an inch. <br /><br />I think that if they had picked different actors to play the parts, this moving could have been way better. If we need a pouting heroine in the movie, why not pick better known actress Bernadette Peters who seems to be perpetually pouting as well? Besides, she can sing and the busty well aging Peters could feature some gratuitous cleavage shots. Now with the singing angle this could be a Hijacking, Let's Land the Plane Movie MUSICAL! Cast Luciano Pavarotti as the Pilot. They can sing a duet in the cockpit prior to the hijacking and there's no way that tubby tenor would fly up to the ceiling as Masters works his magic on that big bird. In keeping with the musical theme, Masters could then be played by Andrei Bocelli, that Peters Can sing with as he lands the plane. Not only is he totally blind but only knows a couple of words of English. Now that's a plot! Think of the edge of your seat conversation between Masters (Bocelli) and the Air Traffic Controller:<br /><br />ATC: "Sir, please throttle back to 180, flaps set to 25 degrees. maintain 230 heading"<br /><br />Bocelli: "What?"<br /><br />ATC: "Sir, arm spoilers now, confirm brake pressure at 250 psi. Maintain descent at 500 fpm"<br /><br />Bocelli: "What?"<br /><br />The hijacker could have been played by the late great Rodney Dangerfield who can spew a plethora of his one liners as he sits tied up and unguarded: "I get no respect. My wife is into group sex. Yeah, she screwed me in front of the judge and jury!" Get the idea?<br /><br />MISSED OPPORTUNITIES The movie has your standard crying and moaning passengers that are never developed. Woody Allen could have been at the back offering one of his neurotic monologues: "She said I was great in bed. I told her I practice myself a lot..." Now THIS is a movie!<br /><br />Also, according to similar movie "Executive Decision" where lazy eyed Steven Segal is mercifully killed at the start giving that movie a chance, 747's have massive attics up top. The plane was introduced in 1969 so who knows what has accumulated in almost 40 years up there? My uncle has old clothes, a sled, magazines and all sorts of stuff in his. WOuldn't it have been cool if Masters opened the trap door and saw a teary eyed Chevy Chase in a woman's housecoat watching old Super 8 movies of his childhood? Just a recommendation.<br /><br />So give it a chance, and as u lapse in and out of consciousness imagine how great this movie could have been if I had my hand in it... | negative |
A funny and scathing critique of Russian society and culture during the transition from communism, OKNO V PARIZH also shows the west in an unfavorable light. A group of Russians living in St. Petersburg (a.k.a. Peter the Great's "window on the west") find a magic portal that instantly transports them to Paris. Mamin's film is truly hilarious, and just "weird" enough constantly keep even the jaded film viewer on his toes. The songs, the dream sequences, and the deliciously disgusting fringes of society from both cultures mingle to create a memorable and meaningful film. Anyone trying to understand the shift in Russian cultural sentiments since the fall of the USSR should begin here. | positive |
This film is fantastic. Finally well-written characters you can love for all their good and bad. Pierce Brosnan is flat-out hysterical in this self-effacing role. I think its the best thing he's ever done. He's done other roles that exhibited shades of being capable of this kind of fully-fledged work, but this role finally gave him the room to run with it. I almost died when he walked across the hotel lobby in his underwear and boots. And Greg Kinnear and Hope Davis are a couple to aspire too, as well as actors to aspire too. Kinnear is so goofy likable that his turn in the end is truly gratifying. You give good actors good work to play with and they give us something more back. | positive |
I have no idea what idiots gave this movie a Palm D'Or at the 1999 Cannes Film Festival because it was atrocious! I actually watched the entire thing simply because I couldn't believe that someone would make such a worthless film. There is nothing interesting about the plot, the characters are devoid of depth and there is no attempt at giving any sort of ambiance with music or sound effects. Also, if you do decide to waste 2 hours of your life by watching this film, be sure to bring something to throw up in because the cinematography is simply someone running around with a hand-held camcorder and half the time you can't even see the main subjects. This style has been used much more successfully in movies such as "Blair Witch" because it creates suspense. In Rosetta, there is no plot and no suspense to which that style would lend anything. I should have known better when it came on at 2 o'clock in the morning that it was going to be horrible. | negative |
I was excited about this movie after reading other reviews. What a disappointment! There are so many ways that this movie is bad. The computer graphics were lacking to say the least. I found the acting stiff and unbelievable. Watch the sand as the lost "e-pods" (what an original name!)are found. Where did all the tracks come from? I immediately recognized portions similar to other movies, ie Alien, Pitch Black. Come on,one huge ship to transport one prisoner? And what is with the prisoner? Does he speak, can he speak? I kept waiting for something to tie the bits of the story together, but it never came. If this movie was made on a low budget, it shows. The only part of the movie I liked was when it finally ended. I don't mean that I liked the ending, I didn't. I just liked the fact that it was over. A trip to the dentist would have been more enjoyable. In my opinion. don't waste your time on this one. | negative |
If you like bad movies (and you must to watch this one) here's a good one. Not quite as funny as the first, but much lower quality. A must-see for fans of Jack Frost as well as anyone up for a good laugh at the writing. | negative |
Bad bad bad....<br /><br />This is another stupid movie. still don't know what is the language of this movie? is itEnglish or french or German!?!! you have to be speaking all 3 languages ( at least ); preffered Italian too to understand it. poor quality translation with very hard to read font. showing a very stupid way of ending this movie!! in the mid of the movie you will lose interest in this movie and start to think why am i watching this?! brad pitt is proving that his acting talent is going down.<br /><br />Maybe this is the movie number 1000000 that talks about Nazis. is there any other subjects that Hollywood can produce?! I think this movie is another American propaganda to show super heros American. I expect next Hollywood movie is American hero will save Jesus!!! | negative |
Youth, sexuality, and the French countryside -- one of the more unique films you're ever going to see. If you can see it that is, no mean feat considering how hard it is to find copies of it (a combination of scarcity and censorship.) It's sometimes erotic, sometimes disgusting, and occasionally funny. A trifle boring also in the middle, but all in all you can't call yourself an aficionado of bizarre film until you've seen this one at least once. | positive |
OK firstly, if your not a fan of the whole low budget horror genre then don't bother with this. You really need to be a fan to get the gag.<br /><br />The move is basically about snakes ..on a train. Lots of them.<br /><br />There is an ancient curse involved and a crazy ending which I wont spoil. The gore effect are full on and real icky... but the movie is mainly one big gory gag about snakes scaring the hell out of a bunch of people trapped on a train.<br /><br />The suspense is built up well and there are some memorable and well composed scenes.. some of the acting is a bit hammy (watch for the surf dudes) but thats not really the point... Give this movie a go. Know what to expect and you wont regret it! | positive |
This movie is really not all that bad. But then again, this movie genre is right down my alley. Sure, the sets are cheap, but they really did decent with what they had. <br /><br />If you like cheap, futuristic, post-apocalyptic B movies, then you'll love this one!! I sure did!<br /><br /> | positive |
As a veteran screen writing instructor at Richland College in Dallas and a former MGM screenwriter back in the days of decent films, I am thrilled to have accidentally clicked on Channel 33 in Dallas tonight and watched this enchanting film in which Betty White is GORGEOUS and makes one yearn for the good old days of truly good movies before Hollywood started banging out all this crap for the teenagers. If a producer is listening, I'd like to state that there are enough of us over 60's who will happily pay a buck to see a movie that has no guns, no killing, no special effects, no sex and violence and just a good touching tale of human relationships that leaves you with a good warm feeling, as this film did for me. | positive |
Dr. Franz Tobel, a Swiss scientist, is smuggled out of his home country by Sherlock Holmes in order that the Nazi agents spying him do not get his invention of a new bomb sight. Arriving in London, he takes residence with Holmes and Watson, but goes out for a visit with his girlfriend, Charlotte Eberli, where he leaves a clue for Holmes as to the locations of his bomb sight, which he has divided into four pieces, but Holmes' eternal nemesis, Professor Moriarity, is also seeking the bomb sight to sell to the Nazis, and abducts Dr. Tobel and the clue left at Charlotte's, a code series of dancing men, which both Holmes and Moriarity are both unable to decipher completely. Holmes eventually discovers the clue to the code and get the location of the fourth piece of the bomb sight, but Moriarity has the other three and a showdown is inevitable. Very good entry in the Holmes series with plenty of mystery and guesswork to go about. Atwill's portrayal of Moriarity is more sadistic than the cunning sort described in the Doyle stories (or George Zucco's performance in The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes), but Atwill's skills as an actor makes his Moriarity quite the benevolent fellow. The script and direction both make this entry more of a cat and mouse game between the two characters and that is one of the reasons this entry succeeds so well. Great job on the cinematography as well. Rating, 8. | positive |
The author of numerous novels, plays, and short stories, W. Somerset Maugham (1874-1965) was considered among the world's great authors during his lifetime, and although his reputation has faded over the years his work continues to command critical respect and a large reading public. Published in 1944, THE RAZOR'S EDGE is the tale of a World War I veteran whose search for spiritual enlightenment flies in the face of shallow western values. It was Maugham's last major novel--and it was immensely popular. Given that the novel's conflicts are internalized spiritual and philosophical issues, it was also an extremely odd choice for a film version--but Darryl F. Zannuck of 20th Century Fox fell in love with the book and snapped up the screen rights shortly after publication.<br /><br />According to film lore, THE RAZOR'S EDGE was to be directed by the legendary George Cukor from a screenplay by Maugham himself--and it does seem that Maugham wrote an adaptation. When the film went into production, however, Cukor was replaced by Edmund Goulding, a director less known for artistic touch than a workman-like manner, and the Maugham script was replaced with one by Lamar Trotti, the author of such memorable screenplays as THE OXBOW INCIDENT. Tyrone Power, recently returned from military service during World War II, was cast as the spiritually conflicted Larry Darrell; Gene Tierney, one of the great beauties of her era, was cast as socialite Isabell Bradley. The supporting cast was particularly notable, including Herbert Marshall, Anne Baxter, Clifton Webb, Lucille Watson, and Elsa Lanchester. Both budget and shooting schedule were lavish, and when the film debuted in 1946 it was greatly admired by public and critics alike.<br /><br />But time has a way of putting things into perspective. Seen today, THE RAZOR'S EDGE is indeed a beautifully produced film--but that aside the absolute best one can say for it is that it achieves a fairly consistent mediocrity. As in most cases, the major problem is the script. Although it is reasonably close to Maugham's novel in terms of plot, it is noticeably off the mark in terms of character and it completely fails to capture the fundamental issues that drive the story. We are told that Larry is in search of enlightenment; we are told that he receives it; we are told he acts on it--but in spite of the occasional and largely superficial comment we are never really told anything about the spiritual, artistic, philosophical, and intellectual processes behind any of it. We are most particularly never told anything significant about the nature of the enlightenment itself. It has the effect of cutting off the story at its knees.<br /><br />We are left with the shell of Maugham's plot, which centers on the relationship between Larry and Isabell, a woman Larry loves but leaves due to the growing ideological riff that opens up between them. Tyrone Power and Gene Tierney were more noted for physical beauty than talent, but both could turn in good performances when they received solid directorial and script support. Unfortunately, that does not happen here; they are extremely one-note and Power is greatly miscast to boot. Fortunately, the supporting cast is quite good, with Herbert Marshall, Clifton Webb, and Lucille Watson particularly so; the then-famous performance by Anne Baxter, however, has not worn as well as one would hope.<br /><br />With a running time of just under two and a half hours, the film also feels unnecessarily long. There is seemingly endless cocktail party-type banter, and indeed the entire India sequence (which reads as faintly hilarious) would have been better cut entirely--an odd situation, for this is the very sequence intended as the crux of the entire film. Regardless of the specific scene, it all just seems to go on and on to no actual point.<br /><br />As for the DVD itself, the film has not been remastered, but the print is extremely good, and while the bonus package isn't particularly memorable neither is noticeably poor. When all is said and done, I give THE RAZOR'S EDGE four stars for production values and everyone's willingness to take on the material--but frankly, this a film best left Power and Tierney fans, who will enjoy it for the sake of the stars, and those whose ideas about spiritual enlightenment are as vague as the film itself.<br /><br />GFT, Amazon Reviewer | negative |
Don't listen to what the critics have always said about this cute, charming little movie. Madonna is GREAT in this clever comedy. I worked at a video store for several years and suggested this movie to lots of customers- no one EVER brought it back and screamed at me for telling them to rent it. Everyone always enjoyed it. It's actually a great movie for kids, too. | positive |
Why did I have to go out and buy (yes buy!) JACK FROST 2: REVENGE OF THE MUTANT KILLER SNOWMAN??? Maybe it was a burst of temporary mental derangement? But I'm guessing it's because I kind of enjoyed the first JACK FROST. It was a silly but funny horror-comedy which had some okay effects by Screaming Mad George. That and the fact that on the back-cover of the sequel there was this nice picture of this guy impaled by this giant icicle (coming out of his mouth with a lot of blood and all). So I thought: if it's as idiotic as the first and has some nice splatter/gore in it, it should be fun, right? Well, I was so dead wrong! <br /><br />Let me first say that the movie deserves some credit for having an immensely insane and retarded plot. I mean, a mutant killer snowman on a tropical island that spawns mutant killer baby snowballs which can only be killed or harmed by bananas??? As much as I love the premise, I really hated the movie. First of all: while the first JACK FROST looked like an actual movie (seemingly being shot on real film and all), this sequel has the look and feel of a third-rate soap-opera. It has this way too slick shot-on-video look. The lighting is just plain awful (bright white spots for the day look, and stupid colors like blue and green at night). The acting... well don't even go there. The dialogues range from stiff to extremely senile (that Jamaican man was just moronic, saying "man" after every sentence). And when it comes to the voice of the killer snowman, all I could think of was a seventh-rate Chucky from CHILD'S PLAY spewing dumb and supposedly witty one-liners before he kills someone.<br /><br />The best joke was were one guy asks "Why are you talking to your watch?". And the best scene was undoubtedly the one with that beautiful Asian chick popping up out of nowhere and taking a swim in the pool totally naked (thank god for that!). Oh, yeah, and that little scene over the end-credits with those two Japanese dudes on a miniature ship being badly dubbed had me laughing too. But the worst thing about this movie was: Where was the gore and splatter action everyone is talking about? There were plenty of occasions to show some decent gory killings. A lot of people were killed off in original ways here, but all off-screen. Like I've read in many other comments, there were indeed nice set-ups to a head explosion, a crushed body, eyes being poked out, tongue ripped out,... but on the crucial moments the editor cuts away to some blood splatters on the floor or nothing at all. That frontal shot of that British guy being impaled (from the back-cover of the DVD) wasn't even in the movie. I only saw that particular killing filmed from the back (meaning I didn't see sh!t!). I was waiting throughout the whole movie for that to happen, and then I get to see nothing?!?! What a let-down! Could it be that I saw a cut version of the movie? That would be a shame, 'cause only a decent amount of splatter-fun could have saved this movie if you ask me. Seeing a lot of killer snowballs reduced to bloody pulp just didn't cut it for me. Speaking of those snowballs: they were done very poorly. They made MUNCHIES look like state-of-the-art 'animatronics'. But I guess that was the whole point of it. At some point, the special effects crew even turned to some laughably bad CGI. Boy, you really have to see it to believe it. Best is to not see it, actually, 'cause this flick is just too bad (okay, I did laugh with it, for it kept getting worse and worse). Just stick with the first JACK FROST (1996) and you'll be okay (just bare in mind that it's a pretty silly horror-comedy but fun in it's own right).<br /><br />It's funny, but writer/director Michael Cooney somehow must have realized that he was a pretty bad director after JACK FROST 2, and then focused on writing. Turns out he then wrote two pretty good thriller screenplays for THE I INSIDE (starring Ryan Phillippe) and IDENTITY (starring John Cusack). So the man seems to have some talent after all.<br /><br />Now it would be far too easy to give JACK FROST 2 the lowest rating possible. So I say one point for that naked Asian babe doing the skinny dipping and one point for those completely retarded snowball babies. Way to go Mr. Cooney! | negative |
OK, if you would judge the movie to now a days it wouldn't fit in to well.If you watched FI now the stage and everything was pretty cheese ( I agree)But weren't all the movies in the 80's like that(Gilligan,Wonderwoman,aso).But too the people born in the early to mid 70's or earlier it has a cult status. Evertime the plane was on approach Tattoo would run up the tower ring the bell and with his accent would yell "Da Plane BOSS Da Plane" and you would wonder what everybody's wish would be.People who are born in the mid 80's or later wouldn't understand the hippe because if you watched it now.It don't have a Harry Potter,Jurassic Park Computer animation FX.It was just a stage where you probably could even almost see the wire attached to a guy who's wish was too be able to fly.But to us during that time it was a FANTASY ISLAND. | positive |
In Iran, women are not admitted to soccer games. Officially it's because they are to be spared from the vulgar language and behavior of the male audience. But of course it is about sexism. Women are lower forms of human beings.<br /><br />Some brave girls oppose this and try to get into the stadium by using different tricks. They are caught by soldiers and hold in a kind of cage, until the police will come and pick them up.<br /><br />Despite the insane situation, this is a film with lots of humor. It's also encouraging to see how people always find different ways of fighting oppression. You'll get touched at the same time as you have lots of laughs. Good job by director Jafar Panahi. This is in many ways a heroic comedy. | positive |
(This is a review of the later English release by Disney, featuring Alison Lohman, Patrick Stewart, and co.) <br /><br />I really wanted this film to be good. Really, really. I'm a huge fan of Princess Mononoke and Spirited Away, and after seeing all the glowing reviews on this earlier Miyazaki film, I was eager to see it. But I was shocked, shocked I say, at the quality of this film. Those later films boast well-crafted plots, 3-dimensional characters, and the best film music since...well...ever. This film just doesn't come close.<br /><br />Might as well start w/ the positive aspects, though. Like all Miyazaki films, this one is still very imaginative, with a bizarre fantasy/sci-fi setting, in a post-apocalyptic world where insects are the dominant species. Nausicaa can also boast some far superior animation to other films from its time. (though not as beautiful and fluid as Miyazaki's later films) And the English voice acting is quite well done.<br /><br />But this film...just...isn't...good... The characters are all cardboard - from saccharine sweet little Nausicaa, to the ruthlessly evil Tolmekians, to everyone in between. Once you've seen each of them for 30 seconds, you've seen all there is. And the fact that the plot just ambles along doesn't help.<br /><br />Then there's the music... Now, Hisaichi is hands down my favorite film composer, but Nausicaa doesn't do him justice. Half the music is 80's keyboards on overdrive, and it usually enters and leaves so abruptly that it distracts the visuals rather than helping them. I highly suspect that Hisaichi was told to compose a lot of the music before he even saw the picture.<br /><br />But wait! There's a great message with this film, right?! Let's all save the environment! Too bad that this film hits you over the head with it like a sledgehammer. There is a scene in which Nausicaa hugs a tree. No, really. I ain't kidding.<br /><br />It makes me a little sad to talk about how lame this film is. But for some reason all the other reviews on IMDb seem to adore it. And when the characters have to talk to themselves in extended sentences to tell you what's going on, that's lame.<br /><br />If you're the kind of person who worships anime, enjoys 80's music, and plants a tree every Arbor day, you will probably like this film. Otherwise, save your money for his later films, because they rock big time. | negative |
"Graduation Day" is a result of the success of "Friday the 13th." Both of those films are about creative, bloody murders, rather than suspense. If you enjoy that type of film, I'd recommend "Graduation Day." If not, I wouldn't. There's nothing new here, just the same old killings.<br /><br />Even though I've given the film a 4 out of 10, I will say that it's not a repulsive film. It is watchable if your curious about it, just not creative. | negative |
As a Mystery Science Theatre 3000 fan, I can withstand ANY motion picture that can be foisted upon me, but there is absolutely no reason for this.<br /><br />Rated "Super Action" in the Blockbuster Video section and given the dreaded "Restricted Viewing Sticker" I'm assuming these are the only methods that film maker (HA!) Robert Napton could use to get at least 4.50 from one unsuspecting person.<br /><br />Shame on you Robert Napton! Shame on you for exploiting these poor Mexican actors who you probably promised hopes for making it big in American cinema. You are a disgrace!<br /><br />There isn't one moment in this movie that holds the slightest bit of action. Did you use snot on these people? Oh, look, they're having a rave in a field! Like all 6 of them. And isn't that an Asian guy in the background? Why is it always daytime? Why did it take 1/2 of the movie to show anything.. and more importantly why did we watch the other 1/2?<br /><br />PS: You owe me 4.50. | negative |
When I first started watching this movie I was looking for some kind of subtle metaphors but it soon dawned on me that this movie was indeed about people on a train. The interactions between people are like those you can see any day on the street and when in occasion there is a slightly more interesting situation the dialogue becomes stilted and boring. Its not that I don't get how this film is trying to portray the way people interact, it's just that in this film they are very boring. If you want to see and analyse these kinds of relationships you'd be best to actually go out and buy a train ticket and look at the people on the train with you. It is realistic but you wouldn't go to a movie to watch a film about you sitting there watching the movie. | negative |
All in all a good film and better for the fact that had the film not been made the story might remain hidden to the masses. Brosnan does a good job as the native American with a hidden past and the photography is stunning. To some, this may be too whimsical, to others boring - for me it is a gentle, well-told tale and perfect for family viewing. Now that's not something you get a lot of recently. | positive |
I couldn't find anyone to watch DiG! with me because no one I knew was a fan of either of the bands. Naturally everyone assumed you can only enjoy this film if you like the music of either The Dandy Warhols or the Brian Jonestown Massacre, but this is so far from the truth. The only requirement is that you have an interest in music and/or pop culture in general. The way in which the careers of the two groups are paralleled is a perfect representation of the paths a band can take, and watching the public eat up and spit out the Dandy Warhols is fascinating. I agree with other reviews that mention it would be nice to get a final word from Anton himself, since he's clearly depicted as his own worst enemy and the bulwark to the band's ability to just remain.<br /><br />Most interesting to me is the Dandys' respect for the BJM (despite their lack or reciprocation) and for Anton (despite his erratic behavior). The Dandy Warhols respect the art the group produces even if the group hates everything the Dandy Warhols now stand for (although that's disputable). The best line is when the drummer for the Dandy's says "I won't have them anywhere new me again" and the guitarist unconsciously blurts out "I'll still buy their records though." To me, this just shows how powerful good music can be.<br /><br />Definitely see this movie, even if you know nothing of either band. It's more about the themes of rock music and how they develop that makes this film so interesting. It's rare to follow a group so closely for so long. | positive |
A schizophrenic has escaped from a NYC mental hospital and soon teachers start getting offed at St. Trinity University. New teacher Julie (Francine Forbes) has to deal with the mess of red herrings. Despite a 78 minute running time, this cheap-o slasher drags on and on until the lame finish where the person you suspect is the killer from the get go is revealed to be as such. Director Richard Haines barely breaks a sweat with some lame stalk-n-slash staging but delivers the grue the early 80s audience was probably craving. For all of our amateur anthropologists out there, this was filmed in New Yawk in early 80s so you can check out all of the culture, beliefs, and practices of living people from that far away place. The film does get some credit for offing the "Final Girl." You rarely see that. Also, always nice to see a horror movie where a priest is the killer. Doth thou not trust the clergy, my beloved film industry? Thankfully, this one is only a phony priest and he gets caught. He is still working the moral high ground angle though. | negative |
Larry Fessenden has been thrashed by most of the comments on this forum. Well, the worst mistake, evidently, is the marketing of the movie and the way the DVD might have been targeted. Obviously, this is not a true horror movie, at least, not for people expecting anything that will be gory and instantly satisfying. <br /><br />"Wendigo" is basically a film that seems to be told from the mind of the young Miles. Things that are not readily understood by children tend to stay in their young minds and ultimately dominate their fears and the menacing world they can't comprehend. It is obvious that Kim, the mother, is a psychologist, but she has no clue to what is going on in the mind of her son. This is also a story of alienation. It's clear that the father, George, is a distant figure, perhaps a workaholic, who seems to be living in a different world.<br /><br />Miles' fears reach a point of crisis during the week end in the country. That part of New York state, with its winter landscape, barren trees, play havoc on the little boy's imagination. It doesn't help that he encounters a strange figure in town, it creates even more doubts in his young mind. Ultimately, Miles' world comes crashing down on him and he can't do anything, even evoking the Wendigo spirit.<br /><br />The film is well paced and acted. Patricia Clarkson is excellent, no matter where movie she is in. Jake Weber is perfect as the distant father who has an opportunity to come closer to a son he doesn't understand. Erik Per Sullivan, as Miles, conveys the inner turmoil within him. I thought he was extremely effective since the whole movie is Miles own take on what's going on around him. Finally, John Spredakos is perfect as the menacing Otis, a man who resents the world for the way he has turned out.<br /><br />Instead of putting this movie down, future viewers should approach it with a open mind. | positive |
After having seen the Canadian/Icelandic/British 2004 production of "Beowulf & Grendel," which I thought brilliant and stunning, I approached this--the first of 3 newer Beowulf movies due out this year--with trepidation. As soon as I heard "Viking" and saw the horned helmets, I groaned. These were Migration Era Swedes and Danes, not Vikings (they came later). And even the Vikings never wore horns on their helmets (horns make it easy for your enemy to knock your helmet off and then brain you). Then there's Hrolfgar's palace, which looks like a set for a movie about Greece or Rome, not 6th-century Denmark. The swords and armor look like props left over from earlier films set in various historic periods. I spotted weapons that might have been used by Crusaders in "Kingdom of Heaven," and one character was even wielding a Windlass Steelcrafts reproduction movie sword from "Beowulf & Grendel"! Beyond the basic plot of the original epic poem, the writing was dismal and the acting totally wooden and unconvincing. The biggest yuk was a secret-weapon crossbow, complete with sighting scope and exploding projectiles, that looked like something bought from Iraqi insurgents. The special-effects monster and his mom were so on steroids that Beowulf could never have torn off an arm, as he did in the poem. Thank the gods for bazooka crossbows! I could go on, but I won't. | negative |
I finally saw this on video, after years of hearing about it. It is by no means a perfect movie, but it is oddly hypnotic - one of those rare, special films that creates its own world. <br /><br />***SPOILERS*** First, the bad stuff. The scenes in Burkewaite's class are excruciating. Even if the subject is Social Studies, this guy is WAY over the top. His speeches are so overwrought they are laughable. And no teachers I ever had would grill their students like that, and tell the ones who protest to "Shut up!". These scenes are brief, but they break the mood and pull the viewer out of the story. Next, how the heck does Layne just walk out of the police station near the end? Also, what happened to Samson's car after the first scene of him riding into town? He spends the rest of the film being chaffeured around by Layne or Feck. ***END SPOILERS***<br /><br /> Ahhh, Feck...this guy is great. Dennis Hopper effortlessly steals the movie. "Check's in the mail", "I love company", "you're my friend" - every line is a classic. He gives Feck an internal logic that makes the story work. Incredibly, he actually makes the audience feel empathy for this guy, especially when Samson talks about his (Samson's) future. <br /><br /> By contrast, Crispin Glover is hard to take sometimes. Yet the scenes of him driving around in the Beetle are perfect - kids with cars in high school always have something to do, and buds to do it with. Matt's low-key attitude makes a good foil for Layne - their friendship is believable. Glover's mannerisms are a little much, but he is consistent throughout. He drives the plot and exudes a sense of urgency that no one else does - just try to imagine this flick if Layne were as much of a zombie as Matt or Samson - snoozefest! <br /><br />***SPOILERS*** What makes "River's Edge" unsettling is the fact that Samson is not really evil, in the usual sense. He is kind of a boring guy who got sick of being taken for granted - in other words, he is like thousands of other boring guys. After he kills Jamie, he starts to unravel, which creates some suspense as we wait to see when he will snap again. ***END SPOILERS***<br /><br />Part of this movie's appeal is the way the action stays centered around the teens and their point of view. The parents are comic relief - Clarissa's mom, Tony's dad - or overwhelmed - Matt's mom. This underlines how the kids hang together for the attention no one else gives them. It keeps the story focused on the relationships within the clique, and emphasizes that the only adult they can relate to is Feck. "River's Edge" is a textbook on alienation. It conveys how awkward, mysterious, and disconcerting adolescence is like no other film. | positive |
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> With their no holds bar cruel offensive humor, sure enough to offended anyone, you would sure think this would be a laugh riot! ............wrong. Worest movie since Open water. Don't be to surprised if you completely miss this movie upon release date as I'm sure it wont do very good at all at the box office. This movie had a lot of Potential but fell to little to short. No enough character development, awkward actors and The upside of this movie was nudity. Boobs. Amazing. If I had to see this movie again, I myself would go POSTAl. <<<<<<<<<<<< <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< <<<<<<< | negative |
The last sentence of this review is a major spoiler.<br /><br />I have enjoyed Joe Dante's work since Piranha. He's done a great deal of different genre parodies that were both funny and honest.<br /><br />But this is pure crap. This is the kind of satire - in line with Thank You For Smoking - that is so literal and direct that it leaves nothing a) to be laughed at and b) to leave the audience to think about.<br /><br />It's a shame, because the plot and the material is so rich, timely and ripe for intelligent commentary.<br /><br />By the way, there is absolutely no reason for the main character to shoot the Ann Coulter character at the end of the film. It's just flat out ridiculous. | negative |
I just had the opportunity to see 'Nuovomondo' (hitherto known in the U.S. as 'The Golden Door'), and was very impressed by both it's dreamy & occasionally surreal tale of a family that immigrates from Sicially to the U.S. in the early days of the 20th century. It also worked as a (proverbial)middle finger jammed into the eyeball of Homeland Security (preferably all the way up to the 3rd knuckle),in it's depiction of the ill treatment of foreigners who just want a better life than they were getting from their original mother land. The (mostly) Italian cast, with a few exceptions works well. This is a quiet,understated film that is lovely to look at (the occasional,but tasteful use of surrealism is always a pleasure),while the screenplay is well written. This is a film for those who are sick & tired of mindless escapism from Hollywood that serves little more than to sell popcorn (not that I have any burning issues with popcorn,mind you!---I actually love the stuff). You would do wise to seek out Nuovomondo/The Golden Door (or whatever it's being titled in your area). | positive |
this is an honest attempt to make a bewitchingly sweet love story. the obvious inspiration behind the successful TV series "Bewitched," this lovely sweet rom-com is a timeless treasure. the comparisons are obvious. jimmy stewart plays a hapless but stolid "straight." kim novac plays a voluptuous blond witch who captures him through the use of a love spell. but when that spell is broken by a stronger witch, she contents herself with the duties of running her own shop and takes comfort in the fact that her beloved pyewacket (her feline familiar) is being cared for by her beloved aunt. you'll recognize the aunt from "Murder by Death." this movie is fun and touchingly sweet, bearing some spectacular wit and a nice witchy feel. worth a look. | positive |
While amiable and amusing for gay audiences, Frank Oz's film "In and Out," about a closeted gay teacher who has been outed on national television by a former student, has been sanitized and deodorized to appeal to the larger and more profitable straight viewers that patronized "The Bird Cage." Although audiences likely patted themselves on the back for being tolerant and liberal enough to see the film, the movie revolves around Kevin Kline's Howard Brackett, who is a grossly stereotyped gay man. The movie asserts that a tendency to dance to disco music, revel in Barbra Streisand movies, and dress well indicates one's sexual orientation. Like "Queer Eye," the film actually takes a backhanded slap at straight men and stereotypes them as slovenly, dim witted, and lacking in taste and culture. OK, so "In and Out" is only a comedy, but even comedies send messages that can hurt.<br /><br />Unfortunately, at the center of the film's humor lies a somewhat pathetic character. Howard is middle aged, deeply closeted or in self-denial, and evidently has never had a sex life. A three-year engagement to a female teacher in the school where he works is described as a series of sunsets, long talks, and watching "Funny Lady." Fortunately, Joan Cusack plays Howard's intended, Emily Montgomery, and she steals the show throughout. Most of the film's funniest moments belong to her, although Kline's attempts to resist dancing during an instruction tape on macho behavior are hilarious. He is a gifted physical performer, but the film gives him only few moments to shine. Matt Dillon also stands out as the student turned actor, and the clip from his Oscar-nominated film about a gay soldier is hysterical. However, despite the movie's gay theme, there is no boy-meets-boy romance, and only one male-to-male kiss, and that smooch is about as erotic as the one between Michael and Fredo Corleone in "Godfather II." <br /><br />Although well intentioned, "In and Out" fails to address the injustices and prejudices that it illustrates. Howard is fired from his teaching job despite his outstanding performance and credentials, yet little outrage is expressed. Most of the characters are more upset about the cancelled wedding than about Howard's self-realization, which seems to take place overnight, and his abrupt and unjust dismissal. Not surprisingly, Howard's parents, endearingly portrayed by Debbie Reynolds and Wilford Brimley, and his students rise to support him. However, the sugary finale is as embarrassing to the audience as it evidently was to Howard Brackett in the film. The movie would have been more refreshing if it had revolved around a gay man who dressed like a slob, was a rabid fan of football, drove a station wagon, listened to country music, and lived on fast food. Despite some good performances and funny situations, "In and Out" perpetuates stereotypes and, whether they be positive or negative, stereotypes should be consigned to the dustbin of social history. | positive |
This movie moved much too slowly for my taste.The concept of the story is refreshingly different in that it explores the family dynamics of living with a mentally-retarded family member in a way that I have not previously seen on-screen.However,the execution of the concept was flawed.Each character was developed fully within the scene of her first appearance,then one had to endure the feeling that each character was treading water the rest of the way.That is,each character flailed about awkwardly in her interpersonal relationships with others in the movie,which I found to be a form of emotional and social retardation.I suppose this has artistic merit,given the irony that the story centers around an intellectually retarded individual surrounded by way above-average intelligence friends and family.The acting,however,was well-done without exception.I agree with other reviewers that the cinematography was beautiful.In summary,I think the film has strong artistic merit because of the fine acting and cinematography,but fails on an emotional level due to the shortcomings described. | negative |
It's a shame that by garnering a restricted rating, perhaps the audience that would find this film the most useful won't likely see it.<br /><br />Imaginary Heroes follows the life of a teenager after his brothers' suicide. Not, of course, the most original story in the world, however it does spend a great deal of time humanizing their parents, the 'imaginary heroes' that failed in their sons' eyes.<br /><br />For teenagers, who tend to put responsibility for their failures on their parents but yet refuse to accept any real responsibility on their own, the movie sends a powerful message, that in the end we all have our own troubles we need to deal with, and that we all make our own paths.<br /><br />But, unlike other movies that tend to urge youth independence, this one resolves the issues between parents and child, and they become a stronger unit for it. That the eldest child committed suicide is regrettable, but not overlooked later in the film, and the responsibility by all parties for the tragedy is thoroughly explained.<br /><br />Although the subject matter has been covered before, it hasn't been covered quite this way -- the film pulls very little punches. Now, why this earned it an R rating is confusing -- you're unlikely to get across to a teenager in this era without being realistic, but yet providing realism restricts that very audience.<br /><br />Were my junior high-school class have been shown this film, two suicides may have been prevented. In this case, the censors seem to have exercised extremely poor judgment.<br /><br />8/10 | positive |
A thematic staple of cinema since its inception is that genre involving seductive women whose wiles and means entice susceptible men not only into their arms but also into dire circumstances that typically will only result in jeopardy for the male victims, along with incertitude as to whether or not temptresses will be forced to take their medicine, and here Susan Lucci performs as a siren, although her acting chops from a primarily soap opera pedigree are inadequate to make her performance a credible one. Isabelle (Lucci), inconstant wife of venture capitalist Stewart Collins (John O'Hurley), begins a love affair merely for fun with yacht salesman Richard Davis (Philip Casnoff), simply a bagatelle for her but an earnest matter of the heart for Richard, apparently mesmerized by his lover while she takes advantage of his ardour by engaging him in a risky plot that will graduate into a scheme of murderous intent. When Davis becomes convinced that guileful Isabelle is a victim of physical abuse administered by her husband, he desperately attempts to free her from what he feels is a marital trap in order that he may wed her himself, coming to believe that the only clear solution to his plight will be found in a rudimentary essay at hiring a professional assassin who will dispose of the allegedly violent Stewart. In the wake of the hit-man's assault upon Collins, a pair of police detectives, performed by Joe Grifasi and Dean McDermott, become increasingly curious concerning Isabelle's possible involvement in the crime, while at the same time reality dawns upon enraptured Richard who might have to pay a dear price in return for his inamorata's maneuvering. Lucci and Kasnoff are properly cast as a viable pair of conspirators, each giving a reading that makes for a boring rather than charming set of lovebirds, but O'Hurley and McDermott offer strong turns in a film that suffers from a hackneyed scenario as well as uninventive direction and design elements. Released upon a Fremantle DVD, this largely lustreless affair depicting a man 'neath the spell of a seductress does benefit from top-flight visual and sound quality, and although no extra features are provided, the above-average production quality enhances able efforts from cinematographer Robert Primes and composer Stephen Edwards. | negative |
I only hope that no classicists/ancient historians saw "Cleopatra", or, if they did, that they took it as a laugh. The movie is horrendously inaccurate, more laughably, even, than "Gladiator" (which is at least a well-written script whose historical errors are articulate and correspond well to the story). Most blatant is Octavius, Caesar's heir, in the Senate before Caesar's assassination: at the ripe old age of 19!<br /><br />Besides this, the acting is mediocre. Timothy Dalton has more than a hint of James Bond in him when he says, "Caesar. Julius Caesar." Billy Zane is a laughably dense Marc Antony. And Leonor Varela tries her best to be the seductive Pharaoh (who in real life was not good-looking at all) but comes off as unbelievable.<br /><br />So this is a warning for all historians--this movie is not true to life! | negative |
I remember following the case of Andre Chicatillo in the newspapers while I was living in South Africa. They had photos of him sitting in his cage while being prosecuted in court. Not, as it turned out, to protect the court members, but to protect him from the public. This was fascinating, albeit morbid, reading. I later heard that a film had been made by HBO about the case, but it was made for American TV. Bummed! Strangely, CITIZEN X got a limited cinematic release in South Africa. I charged down to the local Ster Kinekor complex and duly bought a ticket (I was alone; my girlfriend at the time was only interested in the likes of STEEL MAGNOLIAS and FRIED GREEN TOMATOES). Wow! What a brilliant film. Why wasn't it released to a wider audience? Had it not been made for TV, it could have got an Oscar nomination or 2. There is no way to spoil the ending; who the killer is is never kept from the audience. Jeffrey DeMunn portrays a truly terrifying psycho. He is calm, downtrodden, considered a failure by his wife and subjected to constant ridicule and humiliation by his superiors at work. By committing these horrendous acts, he gets to feel strong, powerful.<br /><br />Fighting to catch him against all odds is a pathologist, played to excellent turn by Stephen Rea, in one of his strongest performances. He must battle the snail-pace of Russian bureaucracy, the primitive resources he has at his disposal and (above all) the refusal by his superiors to acknowledge that the USSR even has a serial killer. The general in charge (Joss Ackland) says that serial killers are "a decadent, Western phenomenon". Only Donald Sutherland is willing to help, but his help must be under the counter. The ever-brilliant Max Von Sydow plays a Russian psychiatrist who breaks protocol and decides to help the investigators in their quest. It is the first time in Russian history that a shrink is used to build a profile of a serial killer still on the loose, and he has everything to lose if his involvement is made public.<br /><br />CITIZEN X is brilliantly acted, well written and the music and editing only add to the tension and theme of the film. Excellent support from a horribly underused Imelda Staunton and a real sense of impending doom make CITIZEN X a film worth seeing. This was too good to be made for TV | positive |
I wish Hollywood would make more movies like The China Syndrome. Because this one scores on every level. <br /><br />It has an intelligent, believable script. It shows you that it's not only nuclear power itself, but the money involved in it, that causes danger. And the movie also gives you a great behind-the-scenes look of how television is made.<br /><br />It scores as a thriller: the first time I saw it, it kept me right on the edge of my seat. And it scores as a character-movie: I really cared for the main characters. Jane Fonda, Michael Douglas, Wilford Brimley and, most of all, Jack Lemmon are great. | positive |
There is no relation at all between Fortier and Profiler but the fact that both are police series about violent crimes. Profiler looks crispy, Fortier looks classic. Profiler plots are quite simple. Fortier's plot are far more complicated... Fortier looks more like Prime Suspect, if we have to spot similarities... The main character is weak and weirdo, but have "clairvoyance". People like to compare, to judge, to evaluate. How about just enjoying? Funny thing too, people writing Fortier looks American but, on the other hand, arguing they prefer American series (!!!). Maybe it's the language, or the spirit, but I think this series is more English than American. By the way, the actors are really good and funny. The acting is not superficial at all... | positive |
A ridiculous, badly acted Mini Cooper infomercial. Includes cameos from Pepsi, Dell, etc. <br /><br />Absolutely nothing worth rescuing here. Particularly bad are Donald Sutherland, the music score, scene transitions, etc. An embarrassing production.<br /><br />Hey, THEY should pay YOU for watching this one. | negative |
Disowned by Richard C. Sarafian, this disaster stunk up Japanese theaters before coming to the States and going immediately to video, where it was not seen again until the Turner networks needed something other than infomercials to fill their 3am-6am time slots and found this tape at the bottom of their bin. The Smithee name is supposed to be used when the studio hacks the movie so badly that the director no longer wants his name attached to it. But I'm afraid that Sarafian can not blame the studio entirely on this one. The actors, mostly recent graduates of "Overacting 101", deliver one cornball line after another. The plot is convoluted. The special effects are unimpressive. The parts that aren't laughable are just plain boring. The script or the book must have been good - why else would Palance, Matheson, Boyle, or Heston agree to appear in this dud? But something went horribly wrong from the page to the screen. Summary: Avoid. Not even bad enough to be so-bad-it's-good. | negative |
When I caught a glimpse of the title I thought are we going to get another try-hard hip slasher, but actually I found "7eventy 5ive" to be a mildly passable, and almost 80s throwback after a tediously slow mid-section it picks up momentum for the final half-hour leading to it's outrageously tacky climax and downright cop out ending. It won't win awards for originality, because it's as systematic as you can get and steals its thunder in the way of thrills (usual cheap jump scares), location (secluded mansion) and motivation from other films. The gleaming direction is by-the-book and the material is quite hackneyed with poorly realised red herrings within its elaborate plotting and flimsy script. Sometimes laughable, but nonetheless I was entertained mainly due to its brutal and grisly acts of pulpy violence towards some rather obnoxiously annoying college students by a psychotic killer with a battle axe. The performances weren't bad in the shape of a spunky young cast, however the characters they were portraying weren't particularly enticing. An always presentable Rutger Hauer shows up in a short supportive role as a grizzled detective. A slickly made, but a shallow and forgettable addition to the fold. | negative |
Where do I start? First off, the story sucks. The acting sucks, the effects really suck, I guess I'll start with the story. The story for Komodo vs. Cobra: number one, it doesn't explain how or when the Komodo and the cobra even got there. Or for that matter, how it was created. The acting: TERRIBLE! It seems like the director just pulled a few people from the street (which is probably what he did). And last and definitely the least, the effects: they are so horrible that the komodo doesn't even look like a komodo, just a dinosaur, that looks incredibly unrealistic. The water doesn't even move when the cobra appears. All in all: terrible piece of crap, don't even think about renting it. | negative |
For starters, I once met the director when he was going to WW2 re-enactments with a period movie camera and making videos of the events which looked DARNED good. I really wish he'd kept that up. Because as much as I applaud what he accomplished on a clearly "next to nothing" budget, when I popped out the DVD, I just wondered why I sat through almost two hours of nothing. There's no real plot to speak of, you don't really care what happens to the characters (maybe the Italian troops and some of the Germans), and the ending is yet another "art film" commentary on the futility of war. I could have told someone how it would end once I got through the first ten minutes. I KNEW the Germans would have a few heroically volunteer to fight to the death, I knew most of the Quartmaster GIs would be killed, it was just too darned obvious! And while I'm on the subject, I was shocked to see so much of the Axis side done well, yet the GI side done comically. All the character development was clearly for non-English-speaking roles. The GIs simply got shafted hard in this film. And I can't help but wonder if they even had someone on the set who understood how the US Army works? The phrases, terminology, actions, were clearly written by someone with no knowledge of the American military at all. Had I now known who had directed this film, I'd have sworn it was directed and written by a German... | negative |
Very good film. Very good documentary.<br /><br />Very good to see those vermin detectives humiliated and found out as the bigoted, narcissistic, heartless swines their one eyed parents, community and environment raised them as.<br /><br />I tip my lid to Pat McGuinness. Can we get this decent human being on some kind of 911 commission or investigation? We need his integrity, endurance, intelligence, clarity and spirit fighting the rigged game that is world politics and big business.<br /><br />All the animals come out at night - whores, skunk pussies, buggers, queens, fairies, dopers, junkies, sick, venal. Someday a real rain will come and wash all this scum off the streets. Pat McGuinness should be the first drops of that real rain. The people who control this earth are animals. They need to be drowned.<br /><br />I'm just in shock. Walking the night is scary business. The inhuman howling and cackling is of detectives, in Murder On A Sunday Morning. In Pat McGuinness' blazing spotlight, they look horribly caught, horribly guilty, and ready for a just and horrible drowning.<br /><br />It is exceptionally satisfying, in a world in which the punters play a rigged game, to see justice done and to see every narcissistic felon drown like the pathetic human rats they are.<br /><br />How does it feel you railroading, abominable, snaky fingers of the law? How does it feel to have your rigged prosecution, your rigged confession, your rigged detective work found out for what it really was? How does it feel? <br /><br />I hope it twists like a knife you miserable, one eyed nothings. | positive |
Sacchi is the best Bogart impersonator ever... dry and droll as Sam Marlowe. The music from award winning composer George Duning [From Here To Eternity, Picnic, The World of Suzie Wong], the cinematography of perfect locations [including the famous Ambassador Hotel] are all right on target as famous tv director Robert Day [Kojak, Streets of San Francisco, The Avengers] guides the most endearing group of well-known character actors through a spoof of every dark detective film every made. See this if you loved all the old serious flicks and have a sense of humor... this one is a hoot. | positive |
The stars and the planets must've all been in just the proper alignment, the day that THRILLER was conceived. Michael Jackson's album was slaying the charts, John Landis still had a lot of good will built up from his genre pic "An American Werewolf In London", (not to mention his classic comedies ANIMAL HOUSE and THE BLUES BROTHERS) and choreographer Michael Peters was creating some of the most innovative and influential pieces for music videos of that period.<br /><br />Not before or since has one single piece of film illuminated, exploited or underscored MJ's incredible talent or the more "otherworldly" aspects of his persona quite like THRILLER, the world's most successful (if not officially the first) long-form video, and the most fondly remembered. Also the most expensive at the time, but every penny and every bit of the talent behind its creation and execution is up there on the screen. And how would it not be complete without the "rap" from the original song, provided by the late, great Vincent Price, to add even more cache to the chills already there? <br /><br />The glory days of one of the world's greatest performers have long since passed, but no one can ever take away the man's towering achievements, of which this is probably the most memorable. If you don't think so, now, remember: Halloween is coming. I won't be one bit surprised when, like other Halloweens before it going back decades, this appears on some Saturday Night Creature Feature special.<br /><br />As it will next year, and the year after that... | positive |
Movies like this give independent films a bad name! This simply a boring compilation of vingettes, with no structure whatsoever. I wouldn't be surprised if the screenwriter was completely stoned. If you want to see a good stoner comedy, watch "Half Baked." It's no award-winner, but at least it made me laugh. The film was obviously made on a micro-budget. Every scene either takes place in someone's house, someone's apartment or some outdoor location. If the writing was good and the dialogue was interesting, I would've ignored the film's budget (like in the case of Edward Burns' films), but obviously that's not the case this time around. <br /><br />I quote Robert DeNiro from "A Bronx Tale" when I say, "There's nothing in the world worse than wasted talent." Everybody in the cast is talented. Luke Wilson, Alicia Witt, Brittany Murphy, Jeremy Sisto--all talented performers! And they all have been in much better movies. The actors give it their all, but they couldn't go too far with such a lame script. The only scene I found interesting was Jack Black's cameo, where he sings a song about being in the woods. And of course, there was the brief strip club scene at the beginning, which I also found appealing. <br /><br />The characters are uninteresting and the story barely exists. Many movies are awful, but at least you understand their intentions. What was "Bongwater's" intention? The world will never know. <br /><br />My score: 2 (out of 10) | negative |
it's the best movie i have ever seen!!!!!! i just love them!! i watch it every day! i have the episodes from the internet! here in Romania is being broadcast the 6 season! i'm happy that i have seen the show from the beginning and i'm glad that through the internet i can see the 7 season. until now, season 5 is my favorite one :D i love it because Logan appears and the scene where they jump is my favorite. i have liked Dean too, but Logan is best. i would like Lorelai to remain with Christopher, because he is beautiful. this show is good for all ages and is worth to be seen. i really want the DVD's but i think that here in Romania will never appear, because i think that they don't even know that they have fans here. but, no matter what, i'll be watching it. bye!! | positive |
Well, I read the other comments. Didn't think it sounded any good, but decided to tape it anyway. Perhaps not so smart to read all the poor reviews before watching this movie, because of course I would be noticing all the same weird things. Excessive use of fade to black, a few weird camera angles and crosscutting dialog for different conversations with the same people taking place at different times! But noticing all that I thought to myself: Well, this would probably be really boring if it was all going chronologically. The conversations aren't that exciting, but kind of mandatory. And the constant fading to black after really short scenes really makes it feel like the story is fast forwarding too the interesting part. Skipping the boring bits. At the end of the movie it gets a bit exciting too. Will they survive? <br /><br />So I actually liked this movie? No, not really. The director had some interesting ideas on how to keep the audience from being bored while he is trying to introduce the characters. But he is overdoing it. It gets annoying, and sometimes confusing. This was apparently only the second movie he directed, so maybe he will learn and make really good stuff in the future. And if you're sitting there (in the future) reading this wondering if the now famous directors second movie is worth a watch. Well, if he is good in the future, sure, watch this crap and wonder how he ever got to make a third one. Otherwise this movie isn't really worth watching unless you very interested in film-making, and want to see one way you can cut the mandatory boring introductory scenes into something watchable. | negative |
First, I'm a huge Buddy Holly fan. I grew up knowing who he was, and I knew all about that fateful plane ride that extinguished three incredibly bright flames just like that. But I had never truly listened to his music. I had heard much of it, yes, but not until I sat down with the intention of getting something out of it did I truly come to see the real Buddy Holly. And let me tell you that my world is a different one now because of him.<br /><br />Because of this adoration for such an incredible man, I bought The Buddy Holly Story without ever seeing it previously. I'm torn on my views of this film. Perhaps it's because Buddy feels so alive to me that I just couldn't bear seeing Gary Busey in this role. I'll admit that he did a nice job acting, but his singing sounded so forced. It seemed to me as if he knew he didn't sound a bit like Buddy himself and therefore was using far too much energy to make an attempt at a similar sound. In some parts of the film, he succeeded. But others.. ouch.<br /><br />The movie spanned a period of several years, but I feel that portraying this time span could have been handled much better. I had a difficult time distinguishing at what point in Buddy's life certain events were happening. I also had a serious problem with some of the historical inaccuracies. I think the worst one was the portrayal of the Crickets. I understand how their real names couldn't be used, and how for simplification there were only two of them in the movie.. and maybe this was a good thing. Because the film's background vocals were cringe-worthy, and I disliked the way they were portrayed as a hindrance to Buddy's career. Something else that really made no difference to the film but irked me was Gary Busey's teeth. They wore me out! Buddy Holly had much better teeth. I don't know why I noticed it.. but I did.<br /><br />I'll end this review on what I felt was the best part of the movie: Buddy's last performance. His final phone call to Maria, the Big Bopper's performance, bringing him and Richie Valens to the stage, followed by the still frame ending. It startled even me, and I feel that it effectively shows the audience how at one moment Buddy Holly was so alive and energetic, and that his flame was snuffed out in the blink of an eye. It was a beautiful way to portray this horrible tragedy I think.<br /><br />Good movie, despite the obvious problems.. 7/10.<br /><br />Some obvious flaws, could use some work... but not bad. | positive |
Eddie Murphy put a lot into this movie by directed wrote starred and produced this story about two nighclub owners in the 30s who try to fight mobsters and corrupt cops from taking over their club..a great cast in Murphy Redd Foxx, Richard Pryor, Danny Aiello, Della Reese, and a gorgeous Jasmine Guy that would make it worth seeing on its own..but the story just doesnt hold up interest or give the great cast enough to work with.. on a scale of one to ten..a 4 | negative |
I've seen just about all of the Coen brothers' films now, and I have to say this is one of their better films. I wouldn't dare say it's better than "The Big Lebowski", but it was very good in it's own right.<br /><br />I thought the story was very interesting and hilarious at times. I loved all the characters, especially Tim Blake Nelson (Delmar) and John Turturro's (Pete).<br /><br />There really isn't anything bad I can say about this movie, but this movie isn't for everyone. It might be safe to say that if you liked the other Coen brothers' films, then you'll hopefully like this one too. And if you liked what you saw in the trailer, I think you'll like the film, but don't hold me to it.<br /><br />Anyhow, I hope that you like(d) the film as much as I do. Thanks for reading,<br /><br />-Chris | positive |
Obviously made on the cheap to capitalize on the notorious "Mandingo," this crassly pandering hunk of blithely rancid Italian sexploitation junk really pours on the sordid stuff with a commendable lack of taste and restraint: The evil arrogant white family who own and operate a lavish slave plantation spend a majority of the screen time engaging in hanky panky both each other and their various slaves. Director Mario Penzauti and screenwriter Tecla Romanelli cram this fetid filth with a teeming surplus of sizzling sleaze: we've got nasty rape, interracial copulation (one white lady makes wild love to a muscular black stud while he's tied to a cross), copious female nudity, brutal whippings, vile degradation, lots of lurid soft-core sex, and a severely twisted tragic surprise ending that mixes elements of incest, murder and miscegenation in a questionable attempt at making a statement about the horrid inhumanity of slavery. Special kudos are in order for foxy brunette actress Paola D'Egidio, whose lusty and uninhibited portrayal of depraved and lascivious wicked bitch Rhonda positively burns up the screen. Moreover, Marcello Giombini's funky, throbbing tribal score hits the groovy spot. Maurizo Centini's fairly polished cinematography likewise does the trick. A satisfyingly seamy chunk of slimy swill. | positive |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.