review stringlengths 32 13.7k | sentiment stringclasses 2 values |
|---|---|
Just saw this movie 2 days ago. A very interesting look at people and our world through the world of wine. I have no special interest in wine, and yet I found this very enlightening. The director gave me the impression that he has the ability to show people as they are. While he exposes a lot of things that are below the surface he manages not to take a stand and leave that for the viewer. He shows a lot of compassion to people (and dogs) and sympathy and let people tell their story and in the same time exposes what they don't want to tell.<br /><br />The movie shows us where our world is going to, what are the benefits and what is the heavy price we pay. It is a movie about the love of wine and the love of making it big, personal and global, character and formula.<br /><br />The real stars of the people for me are the older wine makers with their disillusioned look at the world and themselves.<br /><br />It takes some time to get use to the hectic camera moves and editing, but it's worth it.<br /><br />Highly recommended. | positive |
I adore this film. The chemistry between the two leads Miller and Carlisle is amazing, they spark so well off of each other, creating an unlikely comedy Duo. Alan Cumming is hilarious, his enthusiasm for the role is clearly evident as he camps it up. The acting is superb and it is a genuinely amusing and touching film. Not the greatest film ever made, I'll admit, but it is a huge amount of fun, and I would recommend to those who enjoy other gritty Brit flicks. Includes some of the best British actors, including Michael Gambon so you can't go far wrong. Look out for cameos from David Walliams and Matt Lucas of Little Britain and Rock: Profile fame. | positive |
Fantastic series, one of my few favorites (Miami Vice and Tour of Duty are the other two, and this series is right up there with them).<br /><br />These guys aren't into wearing frilly tights - they dress more like woodsmen. Everything about this series breathes an aire of realism, artistic license or not.<br /><br />It paints a picture of a Europe only slightly out of the grasp of paganism, as most of the villagers still have their local deities, and there are Satan worshipping nuns, and magi, witches and sorcerers casting spells.<br /><br />However, what comes to the fore most, is that it's a series of it's time. Rather than the version of the fifties, which was a lament against centralized government and the McCarthy era persecutions, this series is thoroughly grounded in the 1980s, Thatcherist bleakness, and has a strong environmentalist leaning. Robin's protector is a nature worshipper called Hern The Hunter, who often appears wearing the head of a deer, and is a personification (as is this Robin) of The Green Man, an alternative version of Osiris (the Egyptian god of vegetation and resurrection - it is interesting to note that in these series, Robin In The Hood isn't a person, but a concept; when the old one is killed, a new one is summoned telepathically by Hern - the person may die, but Robin In The Hood will live forever, hence the concept of resurrection).<br /><br />The music and score are really outstanding, and performed by the Irish formation, Clannad. When watching it, I couldn't help but think how _boring_ authentic medieval Anglosaxon folk music would have been. :-)<br /><br />All this is beautifully shot in the lush forrests of Wales, which pass for The New Forrest.<br /><br />The only down side is that in the initial episodes of both series, the actors have to overcome their own skepsis, and convince themselves that this really is a serious work. After that, they get into it and the acting is great! Michael Praed as the first Robin (the second is played by Sean Connery's son, Jason), Judi Trott makes a beautiful and fragile redheaded Marion, Phil Rose as the portly and really kind-hearted friar Tuck, Ray Winstone as the volatile and lovelorn Scarlet, Clive Mantle as the giant shepard Little John, Peter Llewellyn Williams as Little John's bumpkin friend and fellow shepard, and Mark Ryan as the ex-Hashashin/Assassin Nazir - all of them giving great performances. Also great are the steady Bad Guys, Nicholas Grace as the bug-eyed, scheming Sheriff of Nottingham, and his aristocratic, bumbling sidekick (and Robin's half brother, as it turns out) Robert Addie as Sir Guy of Gisburne. Really cool too is fashion designer Richard O'Brien, as the evil Lord Owen of Clun's (Olliver Cotton) magician Gulnar (he appears near the end of the first series and later in the second).<br /><br />The Tithe Barn in Bradford on Avon stood in for the Sheriff's castle. (Check it out on bradfordonavon.co.uk under "places of interest".)<br /><br />So, if you're at all into mythology, the Middle Ages, romanticism, don't waste your time on Xena or Hercules - this is the real thing, so go out and watch it!<br /><br />Alex | positive |
I don't know what has happened to director Abel Ferrara. Ever since the "Body Snatchers" remake he seems to have lost it. "King of New York" and "The Bad Lieutenant" remain two of the best films of the '90s: searing indictments of a decade gone wrong. With films like "'R Xmas" (whatever that means) and "New Rose Hotel" he seems determined to disgust and bore his former supporters. This film has NO LIFE in it. While he gets excellent performances out of his actors in all of his projects the result of this mishmash of ideas just doesn't jell. Whatever the point is -- that the new breed of drug dealer is more or less the same as any other upper middle class New Yawkuh -- gets lost in the mind numbing script and boring direction. <br /><br />I saw this opening night at the 4-Plex in downtown L.A. In the lobby, while buying tickets, I was surprised and delighted to see it filled with a large, racially mixed group of men and women in their twenties and thirties. Then they started into the theater but it was the theater that was featuring "8 Mile" not "'R Xmas"! The theater showing "'R Xmas" (keep in mind, this was opening night!) had a total of 4 people watching it, myself, my wife and two others! <br /><br />Way to go, Abel!<br /><br />2/10 | negative |
This film was made in 1943 when i think Judy was at her peak (looks wise). In her previous film For Me and My Gal people often say that she looks emaciated. Well in this film she looks perfect. She is beautiful and shows that she has a flair for comedy.<br /><br />I think this film is hilarious, especially at the beginning when she is trying to arrange an audition with John Thornway. One of the funniest scene's in my opinion is Judy's rendition of Lady Macbeth and when John is looking for her at the party to give her a spanking (Lol).<br /><br />One criticism i do have is that there is a hole in the plot when John and Lily fall in love. I mean one minute he despises her and the next they are going out on a date then the next time they meet after that date they are in love.<br /><br />Another point i didn't like was on opening night. If i were Lily i would be furious with John but she isn't...it just doesn't make sense.<br /><br />But all in all i would have to give this film a 10 because it is just wonderful and almost perfect. | positive |
heres a fun fact, I was the baby in the movie, the one in the crib. :) I am 19 years old now. my parents took me to try out for the part, we lived in Texas at the time.I think I only made like 80 bucks for it, but i wasn't in it very long. My parents said i would cry when i was supposed to be happy and would be happy when i was supposed to cry. I was all mixed up. Strange and funny fact i suppose.. and no I am not a child actress. I am livin' in San Antonio, workin' at a walgreens. I graduated here in Texas but I lived in Maryland most my life. This Movie is a great movie, though, good concept. I have seen it several times in my short 19 years. | positive |
Believe me I wanted this series to work, but the early departure of Kevin Kilner dealt a near death blow after season one. Robert Leeshock just wasn't right for the part and Jane Heitmeyer did an admirable job as lead but the series just got too messy and confused at that point. I don't know what happened in Season Five, what a mess. Sometimes its time to drop the red cape and just stick the sword in the bull, if you know what I mean. The only consistent thread holding the series together were the amazing performances of Leni Parker and Anita LaSelva as the two Taelons in quiet idealogical conflict. If not for their talents and well-written dialogue they would have been two weird bald man-chicks in a B-movie series.<br /><br />If only this series could have ended at season 4 and picked up later by SyFy... | positive |
I loved this exiting republic serial! The story was one of the best I have ever seen! Even tough, the picture quality was not of the best, but OK. The fencing in this serial is also a bit bad, but not terrible. They only should have practised some more. As I said the story is GREAT! You're just sitting there and waiting to find out who Don Del Oro is! The theme music is excellent! It's the same guy who maid the music for Walt Disney's version of Zorro, who maid the Fightin Legion music. Costumes and buildings are very good. Zorro is really cool and so are the legioners! I highly recommend this serial. Buy it! <br /><br />I love that Reed Hadley plays Zorro! He is funny, smart and brave! Mark: 6. | positive |
Ron Howard directed this? The 1966 cartoon is charming, teaching a simple lesson to children using a simple plot. In this movie, Howard gives us a Whoville filled with greedy, manipulative, self-centered Whos. Jim Carrey is terrible, but I'm sure it's not his fault; I imagine the script called for the nastiest person imaginable, so Carrey channeled Tom Green and the result is movie magic. Much like Danny Devito's Penguin in Batman Returns, Carrey's Grinch is so thoroughly unlikeable that any degree of comedy that might be mined from his character simply evaporates. Where the 1966 cartoon featured a Grinch that we could all identify with, Carrey's Grinch is that angry, soulless old man that we've all seen at one time or another, sitting in a parked car muttering to himself or tripping toddlers at the supermarket with his cane. This Grinch is thoroughly bereft of any degree of humanity, humor, or insight whatsoever, and his redemption at the end of the movie rings false. The whole movie rings false: there is some stupid Christmas lighting competition, a failed attempt at explaining why the Grinch is such a jerk by digging into his childhood, and an indecipherable mystery as to why some of the Whos have that weird lip extension and some of them don't. Contrary to the 1966 cartoon, I would imagine children would find this movie tiresome, irritating, and filled with contradictory messages. Did we really need to see Slutty Smurf, aka Christine Baranski as Martha May Whovier? In addition, Ron Howard filled the cast with his untalented relatives. Throw in the requisite butt jokes, fart jokes, sex jokes, and other obligatory Carreyesque low-brow humor, and you have a movie that is about as far from the 1966 cartoon (or book that inspired it) as George W. Bush is from rational, lucid thought. Thumbs down on this big fat turkey. | negative |
Belonging to the subgenre of post-apocalyptic future films, it is a stylistic and very very intimate installment. The most noticed element of the film is its silence; no one speaks. I don't think Besson, despite what is evident in most of his later work, meant it as any kind of cool gimmick. I think what makes it so clever and so effective is the fact that with no other way of communicating, everyone has to read each other based on intuition and conveying of emotion, no matter how slight. Though I wasn't glued to the screen, upon reflection I see that it's a very touching and sensitive perspective on human nature. Its vehicle is the stylized sci-fi movie. Part of its reflection on the nature of the human world is that each of its humans is not necessarily played as a perfect human being: The hero, a lone drifter in the desolate new world, is taken in by an older recluse, who refuses to keep his part of an exchange of food between him and a husky, brutish character played by Jean Reno, and so Reno tries everything he can, predominantly using brute force, to get what he wants. So, the antagonist is right, though not a good person, and the protagonist and his sympathetic foil are both wrong, though they are both good people.<br /><br />It's shot in a clear and crisp black and white, edited and captured in a low-key yet spry and small-scale approach, and its actors are very real. How can they not be? They, like their characters are left with the bare necessities of communication. This is one of the few truly good films that Luc Besson has written. His earlier work is almost always better than the fluff he churns out now. | positive |
I rented this one by accident. I lifted the video up and looked at the back and thought "shameless Blair Witch rip-off". Then, in a moment of carelessness, I grabbed 'The Francisville Experiment' thinking it was something else. My horror upon arriving home and realizing my mistake was far more terrifying than anything this film had to offer. Boring Characters, bad acting, and a feeling of 'we saw the Blair Witch Project and could do the same' permeate the action to the point where watching on fast forward will lead you straight to the credits. I'm not one to fault film makers for being lazy or desperate, but after this yawn-fest I felt the need to warn everyone: don't waste your time, you have a life. | negative |
I liked this movie. I'm not a big horror movie buff so i couldn't comment on similarities between this and other movies of this genre, but i found this movie quite captivating. the story line, albeit a little obvious, had some genuinely scary/tense moments and the acting (particually of the lead female role) wasn't bad in anyway<br /><br />Overall i'm a little surprised at the low rating this movie has gotten. I watch a lot of movies (working in a video store tends to help) and this really isn't as bad as people seem to think. I do have some criticism though. The final call from the cop was terrible, almost overacted, the dead girl in the bathroom looked liked she was having a little sleep (probably from the amount of tequila she mentioned she drank) and the children's reaction to what was happening instilled in me the hope that they were ultimately killed <br /><br />hope this helps some people | positive |
This 1996 movie was the first adaptation of Jane Eyre that I ever watched and when I did so I was appalled by it. So much of the novel had been left out and I considered William Hurt to be terribly miscast as Rochester. Since then I have watched all the other noteworthy adaptations of the novel, the three short versions of '44, '70 and '97 and the three mini series of '73, '83 and 2006, and I have noticed that there are worse adaptations and worse Rochesters.<br /><br />This is without doubt the most exquisite Jane Eyre adaptation as far as cinematography is concerned. Director Franco Zerifferelli revels in beautiful long shots of snow falling from a winter sky, of lonely Rochester standing on a rock, and of Jane looking out of the window - but he is less good at telling a story and bringing characters to life. In addition, his script merely scratches the surface of the novel by leaving out many important scenes. As a consequence the film does not show the depth and complexity of the relationship between Jane and Rochester, and sadly it does also not include the humorous side of their intercourse. There are a number of short conversations between Rochester and Jane, each of them beautifully staged, but the couple of sentences they exchange do not suffice to show the audience that they are drawn to each other. We know that they are supposed to fall in love, but we never see it actually happen. The scene in which Rochester wants to find out Jane's reaction to his dilemma by putting his case in hypothetical form before her after the wounded Mason has left the house is completely missing, and the farewell scene, the most important scene - the climax - of the novel is reduced to four sentences. Zerifferelli does not make the mistake other scriptwriters have made in substituting their own poor writing for Brontë's superb lines, neither are crucial scenes completely changed and rewritten, but he makes the less offensive but in the end similarly great mistake of simply leaving many important scenes out. What remains is just a glimpse of the novel, which does no justice to Charlotte Brontë's masterpiece.<br /><br />The cast is a mixed bag: While Fiona Shaw is an excellent Mrs Reed, Anna Paquin's young Jane is more an ill-mannered, pout Lolita than a lonely little girl, longing for love. The ever-reliable Joan Plowright makes a very likable, but far too shrewd Mrs Fairfaix, and one cannot help feeling that Billie Whitelaw is supposed to play the village witch instead of plain-looking, hard-working Grace Poole. Charlotte Gainsbourgh as the grown-up heroine, however, is physically a perfect choice for playing Jane Eyre. Looking every bit like 18, thin and frail, with irregular, strong features, she comes closest to my inner vision of Jane than any other actress in that role. And during the first 15 minutes of her screen time I was enchanted by her performance. Gainsbourgh manages well to let the audience guess at the inner fire and the strong will which are hidden behind the stoic mask. But unfortunately the script never allows her to expand the more passionate and lively side of Jane's character any further. As a result of leaving out so many scenes and shortening so much of the dialogues, Gainsbourgh's portrayal of Jane must necessarily remain incomplete and therefore ultimately unsatisfactory. This is a pity, as with a better script Charlotte Gainsbourgh might have been as good a Jane as Zelah Clarke in the '83 version.<br /><br />But while it is still obvious that Gainsbourgh is trying to play Jane, there is no trace whatsoever of Rochester in the character that William Hurt portrays. Hurt, who has proved himself to be a fine actor in many good movies, must have been aware that he was physically and type-wise so miscast that he did not even attempt at playing the Rochester of the novel. His Rochester, besides being blond and blue-eyed, is a soft-spoken, well-mannered nobleman, shy and quiet, slightly queer and eccentric, but basically good-natured and mild. He is so far from being irascible, moody and grim that lines referring to these traits of his character sound absolutely ridiculous. Additionally, during many moments of the movie, Hurt's facial expression leaves one wondering if he is fighting against acute attacks of the sleeping sickness. Particularly in the proposal scene he grimaces like a patient rallying from a general anaesthetic and is hardly able to keep his eyes open. If you compare his Rochester to the strong-willed and charming protagonist of the novel, simply bursting with energy and temperament, it is no wonder that many viewers are disappointed in Hurt's performance. Still, he offends me less than the Rochesters in the '70, '97 and 2006 versions and I would in general rank this Jane Eyre higher than these three other ones. Hurt obviously had the wits to recognise that he could not be the Rochester of the novel and therefore did not try to do so, whereas George C. Scott, Ciaràn Hinds and Toby Stephens thought they could, but failed miserably, and I'd rather watch a character other than Rochester than a Rochester who is badly played. And I'd rather watch a Jane Eyre movie which leaves out many lines of the novel but does not invent new ones than a version which uses modernised dialogues which sound as if they could be uttered by a today's couple in a Starbucks café. Of course this Jane Eyre is a failure, but at least it is an inoffensive one, which is more than one can say of the '97 and 2006 adaptations. I would therefore not desist anyone from watching this adaptation: You will not find Jane Eyre, but at least you will find a beautifully made movie. | negative |
I went and saw this movie last night after being coaxed to by a few friends of mine. I'll admit that I was reluctant to see it because from what I knew of Ashton Kutcher he was only able to do comedy. I was wrong. Kutcher played the character of Jake Fischer very well, and Kevin Costner played Ben Randall with such professionalism. The sign of a good movie is that it can toy with our emotions. This one did exactly that. The entire theater (which was sold out) was overcome by laughter during the first half of the movie, and were moved to tears during the second half. While exiting the theater I not only saw many women in tears, but many full grown men as well, trying desperately not to let anyone see them crying. This movie was great, and I suggest that you go see it before you judge. | positive |
I heard about this series in 2001 which a friend of mine was recording off the television each week. I never bothered to watch though I became acquainted with the series through the magazine which I looked at every now and then in bookstores. I recently purchased series one on DVD and have become addicted to this fascinating and original series. The characters at first seem unlikeable but it is amazing how fast they grow and develop into a united force. As they begin to care for one another it becomes easy to care what happens to them (bearing in mind that this is only a TV series and they are fictional).<br /><br />However it isn't the PC world of Star Trek and so whilst every character shows a good trait they each have their own flaws and demons that they must deal with. Indivual story lines mixed in with an overall multiple story-arc make this one of the most complex and rewarding television experiences I have ever had the pleasure of viewing. I absolutely enjoy watching each of the characters interact with one another.<br /><br />This strange new world we are introduced to is brilliantly portrayed through the eyes of astronaut John Crichton and as he learns and adapts to being on the other side of the galaxy, strange alien creatures, different cultures, being hunted by a character that wants him dead and being treated as inferior by his comrades we can easily relate to what he must be feeling. As he becomes used to his surroundings so do the viewers and his compassionate, strong-willed and brave character is a joy to watch.<br /><br />I have watched only seven episodes of Farscape season one and look forward to continuing through seasons two-four and the mini-series. Maybe one day we can all enjoy a season five. Highly recommended viewing and well worth setting time aside to watch. Buy and enjoy! 10/10. | positive |
While i read all of the complaints about this movie before i saw it, i still had interest from the preview. I don't know if it was because i was expecting a bomb or what, but i really enjoyed the movie. The I was not very frightened at all until the second half of the movie, but even then it wasn't very bad at all. I think that most of the scenes and false alarms were realistic, if a little too coincidental, but it was necessary to move the story along. I think that the house and surrounding area is the perfect setting for this type of movie, it is beautiful and huge, but then the same qualities that are attractive become scary. I also think that the light arrangement worked extremely well because not only did they turn on upon entry, but there was no way to keep them on, so the house stayed dark outside of the small section Jill was in.<br /><br />Speaking of Jill, i thought her part was acted pretty well, at first it wasn't as believable, but after a few phone calls it was fine. In fact the scenes where she is frightened are acted perfectly. And, finally, someone got the fire poker right. I can't tell you how many times when i hear a noise at my house i grab the fire poker, and it was a nice touch for her to do the same, even though she idiotically forgets it when she needs it most.<br /><br />In regards to the plot holes, the movie is not perfect but almost every hole can be explained, and part of the mystery is how he got in..exactly, how long was he watching her? how did he get out to kill her friend? and when exactly did the gardener die? overall, i enjoyed it and i was surprised how quickly it went. It kept my attention, and i wanted to see how it ended, although the ending was very brief and left a bad taste in my mouth. My only complaint, other than the ending, was the lack of character development. They could have added ten minutes with her and her friends or something to make us feel bad for her situation more, to give us a taste of her personality and to give us foreshadowing to how she will handle the situation(for example, the scene where she debates whether to go back for the kids, it looks like some scene is missing at the beginning that talked about her only caring about herself or something). | positive |
Peter Yates film from the pen of Steve Tesich is a relatively low key "thriller" that doesn't really manage to get off the ground. Story concerns the mysterious murder of an influential Asian business man and the subsequent implication of a pathetic Vietnam veteran (James Woods) who, the police believe, may have taken revenge on his ex-employer. As the "Eyewitness", William Hurt never believes his friend is capable of such an act.<br /><br />Hurt is well below his usual strength, and one finds it hard to sympathise with him or an uninspired Sigourney Weaver. James Woods and Christopher Plummer do a little better in their support roles. Worth noting is the appearance of Morgan Freeman as Detective Black.<br /><br />In retrospect Steve Tesich's story is only an unlikely romance dressed up as a mystery flick. The plot is far too contrived.<br /><br />Friday, October 17, 1997 - Video | negative |
This movie has everything. Emotion, power, affection, Stephane Rideau's adorable naked beach dance... It exposes the need for real inner communion and outer communication in any relationship. Just because Cedric and Mathieu are a couple who happen to be gay doesn't mean there isn't quite useful insight for anybody in it. I would probably classify it as a gay movie, but one that can be appreciated and loved by heterosexual people as well as homosexual and bisexual people. Mathieu's incapacity to handle his emotions divulges the way our society doesn't encourage us to act any differently, and that is what engenders the discord between him and Cedric. This is definitely a must-see!!!! | positive |
This movie is just plain dumb. Don't bother watching it; believe me, you're better off.<br /><br />Long and short of the plot: a defense attorney represents a man who murdered his son and other children. In defending him, she comes across a wooden doll of Pinnochio. She takes the doll home. Pinnochio is possessed and begins to start killing people.<br /><br />This movie moves very slowly only to have such a weak ending. The plot is very bad and the Dennis Michael Tenney's musical score is pitiful. The story, written by Kevin S. Tenney, is just pointless and evokes NO horror or fear. This is a far cry from his work on Night of the Demons and Witchboard, which are decent outings but nothing to write home about. His directing is OK, but with such a bad story no one could have made this movie any good.<br /><br />In conclusion: 2 out of 10, perhaps the blandest, most boring movie I've seen all year. | negative |
This very loose retelling of Carmen begins on a high note with a smoldering, sexually-frank dance between Senaglese prisoner "Karmen" and her female prison warden, but the vibrant opening minutes never ignite into any coherent film. One minute Karmen is all sexual predator, the next she is dancing in protest to her unfair government, and then suddenly she is a smuggler on the high seas... Although the film deserves kudos for postulating the first carnivorously bisexual "Karmen," the broad strokes it paints are so vignette-like and unsupported by any narrative coherence that the film comes off as a schizophrenic, undisciplined melange of "Basic-Instinct" meets "Bound" meets an African version of a Bollywood musical. | negative |
Way, way back in the 1980s, long before NAFTA was drafted and corporations began to shed their national identities, the United States and Japan were at each other's throat in the world manufacturing race. Remember sayings like 'Union Yes!,' 'the Japanese are taking this country over,' and 'Americans are lazy?'<br /><br />As the Reagan era winded down and corporations edged towards a global marketplace, director Ron Howard made one of several trips into the comedy genre with his 1986 smash 'Gung Ho,' which drew over $36 million in U.S. box office receipts. While in many ways dated, Howard's tongue-in-cheek story of colliding cultures in the workplace still offers hard truth for industrial life today.<br /><br />'Gung Ho' focuses on Hunt Stevenson (Michael Keaton), the automakers union rep from Hadleyville, a small, depressed town in the foothills of Pennsylvania. Stevenson has been asked to visit the Assan Motor Company in Tokyo (similar to real-life Toyota), which is considering a U.S. operation at the town's empty plant. With hundreds of residents out of work and the town verging on collapse, Assan decides to move in and Stevenson is hired as a liaison between company officials and workers on the assembly line.<br /><br />The 112 minutes of 'Gung Ho' is a humorous look at these two sides, with their strengths and weaknesses equally considered: on one hand, an American workforce that values its traditions but is often caught in the frenzy of pride and trade unionism; on the other hand, Japanese workers who are extremely devoted to their job yet lacking in personal satisfaction and feelings of self-worth. In Stevenson, we find an American working class figure of average intelligence with the skills to chat people through misunderstandings. With the survival of his workers' jobs and most of Hadleyville on the line, Stevenson proves a likable guy who wants nothing more than a fair chance, although his cleverness will sink him into a great deal of trouble. Besides answering to the heads of Assan, we witness a delicate balancing act between Stevenson and his fellow union members, many of whom he grew up with. This includes Buster (George Wendt), Willie (John Turturro), and Paul (Clint Howard, Ron's brother).<br /><br />The Japanese cast is headed by Gedde Watanabe, also known for 'Sixteen Candles' and 'Volunteers.' Watanabe plays Kazihiro, the plant manager who is down on his luck and begins to feel a sympathy for American life. He is constantly shadowed by Saito (Sab Shimono), the nephew of Assan's CEO who is desperate to take his spot in the pecking order. While given a light touch, these characters fare very well in conveying ideas of the Japanese working culture.<br /><br />With Hunt Stevenson dominating the script, Michael Keaton has to give a solid performance for this film to work. 'Gung Ho' is indeed a slam-dunk success for Keaton, who also teamed with Ron Howard in 1994's 'The Paper.' He made this film during a string of lighter roles that included 'Mr. Mom,' 'Beetle Juice,' and 'The Dream Team' before venturing into 'Batman,' 'One Good Cop,' and 'My Life.' It's also hard not to like Gedde Watanabe's performance as the odd man out, who first wears Japanese ribbons of shame before teaming up with Stevenson to make the auto plant a cohesive unit.<br /><br />The supporting cast is top-notch, including Wendt, Turturro, Shimono, and Soh Yamamura as Assan CEO Sakamoto. Mimi Rogers supplies a romantic interest as Audrey, Hunt's girlfriend. Edwin Blum, Lowell Ganz, and Babaloo Mandel teamed up for Gung Ho's solid writing. The incidental music, which received a BMI Film Music Award, was composed by Thomas Newman. Gung Ho's soundtrack songs are wall-to-wall 80s, including 'Don't Get Me Wrong,' 'Tuff Enuff,' and 'Working Class Man.'<br /><br />The success of 'Gung Ho' actually led to a short-lived TV series on ABC. While more impressive as a social commentary twenty years ago, Ron Howard's film still has its comic value. It is available on DVD as part of the Paramount Widescreen Collection and is a tad short-changed. Audio options are provided in English 5.1 surround, English Dolby surround, and French 'dubbing,' but subtitles are in English only. There are no extras, not even the theatrical trailer. On the plus side, Paramount's digital transfer is quite good, with little grain after the opening credits and high quality sound. While a few extras would have been helpful - especially that 'Gung Ho' was a box office success - there's little to complain about the film presentation itself.<br /><br />*** out of 4 | positive |
I haven't been able to decide if this movie is so bad it's good, or, to quote Enid Coleslaw, "so bad it's gone past good and back to bad again." No matter, it forced me look much the same way a pile of weird coloured vomit might, and it offers up a number of scenes that you won't forget even if you want to. There's a sneering young Ray Liotta telling a pigtailed Pia that her creative writing trophy looks like a penis. A bit later, there's Ray again, molesting Pia, not with the appropriately shaped trophy but a garden hose. There's a firm chinned Pia telling her domineering Mom that she wants to go to bed with Ray's geezer father, Walter. There's the actress in the graveyard scene yowling the best line ever written by Pia or anyone else: "WWWWHHHYYYYYYY!" There's that garden hose again, as Walter waves it Pia's face and roars "Is this more to your liking!?" There's Pia and her date so turned on by closeups of each other masticating salad that they start tearing each other's clothes off. There's Pia showering but forgetting to remove her dress. Perhaps best of all, there's Pia's typewriter, but instead of keys there are the miniature talking heads of those who have tormented her the most (afterwards, I was afraid to open my laptop). And finally there's Pia at "The Awards" exposing Hollywood for the cesspool it is, spitting out the second best line ever, "I guess I'm not the only one who has ever had to **** her way to the top." I see I have already spent more time commenting on "The Lonely Lady" than I have on far better pictures, so I'll quit. Be forewarned, though, that once you start watching you probably won't be able to take your eyes off the screen until two hours of your life have vanished forever. | negative |
`Skenbart' is one of the funniest movies to not only to come from Peter Dalle but from the Swedish cinema industry itself. It is a movie made in black and white to get something of the atmosphere from the days before Christmas in December 1945, which it does very well. Almost the whole plot takes place on a train, non-stop to Berlin. On the train is a mix of homosexuals, nuns, deported refugees, murderers, alcoholics and the failure literature critic 'Gunnar' played by the, in Sweden, famous actor Gustav Hammarsten. The leading role 'Gunnar' is the type of person that, although his intentions are for the best, seems to drag everyone near him, in a extremely funny way, into disaster and to a living hell, especially for a from the Finnish war, homecoming, wounded soldier played by the extremely funny comedian Robert Gustafsson. On the train is also a doctor, who cheats on his wife, with his mistress. They have together planned to murder the doctors wife that is also travelling with the same train without any knowledge about her husbands intentions. Will the wife of the doctor elude the plans to murder her and will everyone else survive the unlucky fellow 'Gunnar'? | positive |
As everyone knows, nobody can play Scarlett O'Hara like Vivien Leigh, and nobody can play Rhett Butler like Clark Gable. All others pale in comparison, and Timothy Dalton and Joanne Whalley are no exceptions. One thing that I really couldn't get past was that Joanne has BROWN eyes. The green eyes were the most enhancing feature of Scarlett's good looks, and in this sequel she has been stripped of those.<br /><br />The movie, as well as the book, had several lulls in it. The new characters weren't all that memorable, and I found myself forgetting who was who. I felt as though her going to Ireland did absolutely nothing whatsoever. It could be that I'm only 11, but I saw no change in her attitude until the last say, 10 minutes when Rhett told her she had grown up. If Rhett hadn't told her that, I would have never guessed that there was any change in her attitude. She really loved Cat, her baby. She likes this child best because she had it with Rhett, her only loved husband. Still, if you've read Gone With The Wind, you would see that children make no difference in Scarlett's world. <br /><br />Quite frankly, it seemed to me like there was way too much going on without Rhett. All anybody cares about is whether or not Rhett and Scarlett get back together, and Scarlett took way too long to get to that. It is virtually nothing compared to Gone With The Wind, but then again what isn't? If you have read the novel, you will like that better than the movie.<br /><br />I would watch it, just because it is the sequel to Gone With The Wind, regardless of whether or not it's worthwhile. It may not satisfy you entirely, but it will get you some of the way there. | negative |
I really, really don't understand how that movie could get a rating bigger than 4 here on IMDb. It's simply a huge mess, and I have to admit that I actually liked AvP 1: Close to no story, okay, I can live with that, but at least they got to the point pretty much at once. AvP 2 does not. After the stupid premise has been presented there is well over half an hour of stupid and unfitting teenager clichés, dumb as hell dialog and close to nothing else, except for a few Alien scenes that feel like an excuse to have that first half of the movie and Predator scenes that make you ask yourself whether those guys making the film even watched any other Predator movie or just didn't care enough to be bothered.<br /><br />After that, that crap-fest finally gets to the point where the Predator starts attacking the Aliens, or at least pretends doing so. And boy, is that Predator stupid, blind and deaf. It's awful. How he even managed to earn that stuff he has is beyond me. He misses with almost every shot, only notices Aliens when they're right in his face or if it's absolutely necessary for the script, so that he can move where he has to be. He even gets caught on surprise by puny human teenagers and deputies all of the time. What's that guy supposed to be? After the first hour of that abomination I was more or less constantly shaking my head at every scene. Close to no scene in this movie passes by without unbelievably stupid dialogs, stupid Predator actions or stupid lack there-of or stupid actions from our "heroes".<br /><br />Then, that thing finally ended. To my surprise not only me and my friends didn't know whether to laugh or to cry, but everybody I overheard leaving the room was half-crying, half-laughing about those 1 1/2 hours they just wasted.<br /><br />Don't watch. Never. | negative |
Much underrated camp movie on the level of Cobra Woman, etc. Photographic stills resemble Rembrandt prints. Sometimes subtle dialog and hidden literate touches found throughout. | positive |
I was treated to a viewing of Cracker Bag last night before a preview screening of Disney's Holes. I don't know who decided to show it but I'm so very glad they did. Cracker Bag is an absolute gem, a snapshot of Australia in the early 80s as seen through a child's eye. The "conversations" between Eddie and her brother were hilarious and, as with the rest of the film, so true to life. Each shot brought a great sense of nostalgia as it reminded me of my own childhood (being the same age as the director probably helps a little) and the audio multiplied the feeling. I only hope I get to see Cracker Bag again some day. | positive |
I had already heard of Ali G in Madonna's music video "Music". I always think he's funny. (In fact, he really is.) Just last year I always thought of buying a VCD of "Ali G Indahouse". That's why some months later, I bought it cheap and I started watching it.<br /><br />But the movie surprised me. My older brother and I were expecting it to be a great laugh-out comedy. It turns out that "Indahouse" is just a stupid piece of garbage. It was really really bad. It also contains explicit sexuality content and very crude humor. It also didn't made me laugh, even just a big smile. We definitely hate that movie. Oh by the way, I have plans to sell it.<br /><br />Ali G was really different in his movie compared to his TV shows-- in such a negative way. Maybe he wasn't really well-focused and enough serious to make this flick. Just because there's some sex scenes in it doesn't mean it's freaking hilarious (because sometimes, too much isn't that laughable anymore). For the first time ever, I was disappointed at him. That really made me sad rather and happy.<br /><br />I gave this movie 1 over 10. Actually, I really want to give it a 0 rating. It's one of the worst movies I've seen in my entire life. I wouldn't recommend to anyone who wanna watch good comedies that aren't too explicit or horrible. | negative |
DOWN TO EARTH / (2001) * (out of four)<br /><br />By Blake French:<br /><br />"Down to Earth" is such a mislead and desperate comedy it makes sitting home on the couch watching a Chris Rock standup-comedy act on TV look like heaven. Speaking of heaven, the film is based on the 1978 movie "Heaven Can Wait." That was a good movie, and this is good-to demonstrate how a group of aspiring screenwriters can take decent material and turn it into garbage. Directors Chris and Paul Weitz miss nearly every target. From concept to storytelling, "Down to Earth" fails miserably; this is one incredibly bad production.<br /><br />Chris Rock is a lousy standup comedian, both in his role in this movie and in the real life. He plays Lance Barton, whose manager, (Frankie Faison) even feels sorry for him when he is booed off stage during amateur night at a local theatre. Soon after the script establishes his lack of talent, the character is killed by a speeding truck. Death, played by Eugene Levy, has made a mistake, taking Lance before his number was up. God's assistant (Chazz Palminteri) is very angry and decides to let Lance make up the remainder of his time on Earth, as long as he takes the only available body of a 60 year old white millionaire.<br /><br />The old man's name is Mr. Wellington, whose life has problems of its own. His wife (Jennifer Coolidge) is having an affair with his assistant (Greg Germann), who is robbing him of his money. But that's all right because Lance, inside Mr. Wellington, has fallen in love with a young black woman named Sontee (Regina King.) Meanwhile, there are plots to kill Wellington, Lance attempting to get a better body, and Sontee's confused feelings dealing with a hospital situation involving Mr. Wellington's finances.<br /><br />"Down to Earth" has some good ideas, but they are in a pointless and unconvincing love story filled with contrivances and recycled material. The biggest problem it runs into is how we perceive Lance as Mr. Wellington. Chris Rock is the actor with popularity and publicity, so he is not going to be absent from most of this movie; all of the characters see the new Lance as Mr. Wellington, but we see him as Chris Rock. This is convenient for the love story; we believe a young woman would fall for Lance, but in reality, he is actually an old, gray-haired geezer. That is not so convincing.<br /><br />The one-joke comic situation is supposed to be watching an old man doing funny things that are really done by a young black man. But what inspires laughter is when characters run into conflicts without their knowledge. Just look at "There's Something About Mary." In the funny scenes the characters are exposed to awkward experiences, and not at their will. Here, Lance knows he is in an old man's body, and does things old men would not normally do. If Lance did not know the body he was in then that may have had potential.<br /><br />Another problem with the concept: we never knew Mr. Wellington in the first place, so how can we compare Lance in his body when we do not know what he was like originally. To top everything off, Chris Rock needs to be the center of attention here, and makes the character too much like Rock. He recites simple standup routine jokes that are tedious and painful; his dialogue is so obvious, wooden and straightforward. I hated the film's sense of humor. There are so many unfunny jokes and horrible comic situations. It is like watching Chris Rock being Chris Rock, not a character in a movie.<br /><br />Let's emphasize the positives in "Down to Earth." Mark Addy does not do any worse here than he did in "The Flintstones in Viva Rock Vegas." Eugene Levy and Chazz Palmentari are well cast, but they are at the mercy of a scalped script. Those are all the good qualities I can mention at this time, and if you give me another week to recollect, it is not likely that I will come up with any more. | negative |
I am surprised people, after such lousy movies getting to be in the top 250 or just being in the 7.0's, I thought more people would get a kick out of "Throw Momma from the Train". This was a great comedy by two terrific comedic actors, Billy Crystal and Danny DeVito. Together they made a great duo of insanity and obsession. Billy is a man who just lost his million dollar story to his ex wife and repeatedly wishes her dead, Danny has an insane and senile old mother who just abuses him. When Billy gives some "misunderstood" advice to Danny, Danny offers a proposition to Billy, if he kills his ex wife, Billy has to kill his mother. This is a crazy and funny story that can always get a good laugh. Please, sit back and enjoy this movie, people! It's a good one!<br /><br />7/10 | positive |
The Love Letter (1999): Starring Kate Capshaw, Tom Everett Scott, Tom Selleck, Ellen De Generes, Gloria Stuart, Blythe Danner, Jessica Capshaw, Alice Drummond, Bill Buell, Erik Jensen, Margaret Ann Brady, Walter Covell, Patrick Donnelly, Lucas Hall, Christian Harmony, Christopher Nee, Breanne Smith, Marilyn Rockafellow, Sasha Spielberg, Jack Black.....Director Peter Chan, Screenplay Maria Maggenti.<br /><br />Based on the novel "The Love Letter" by Cathleen Schine, Director Peter Chan's film version, released in 1999, was not a big box-office draw, not even for a romantic movie with some comedy elements. While it was not as popular in theaters, it soon became a beloved film on cable television and on VHS/DVD. Set in a seaport town in the good old USA (I forget the exact location), this is the story of a mysterious, passionately written love letter who sparks emotions and confusion among the principal characters, each who think the letter is personally addressed to them. By the end of the film, we don't know who the lover or the beloved is but the power of the letter has altered the lives of nearly everyone in the small town. The cast is made up of wonderful actors who have fared well on TV and film, among them Kate Capshaw in the lead role of middle-aged beauty Helen, a bookstore owner, comedienne Ellen DeGeneres as her friend/employee Janet Hall, young hottie Tom Everett Scott as Johnny, the young 20 something guy who falls for the older Hellen and an older Tom Selleck as the firefighter George Matthias who must compete with Johnny for Helen's affections. There are cameo roles by veteran old Hollywood actress Gloria Stuart, who is best known to modern audiences as the elderly Rose in "Titanic" (1997) and a cameo by Kate Capshaw's own daughter (with husband Steven Spielberg) Jessica Capshaw. The love triangle is between a middle-aged woman, an older man and a young man, each of whom feel as passionately for Helen as the writer of the mysterious letter. The conflict lies in Helen's indecision. Will she choose the right person ? Which man has the most to offer her ? Johnny is in a relationship with a girl his age who loves him with a passion all her own, and is in fact, a kind of reminder of what Helen was like at her age. George is in the process of divorcing his wife and has lived a worldly and eventful life. A cultured intellectual, he takes Helen on an opera date, where the tragic death of Puccini's ultra-Italian heroine Tosca moves Helen to explosive tears. There are lots of beautiful vistas of the charming coastal town, rendered beautifully by cinematographer Tami Reiker. The score is a paradise of romantic and lovely songs - " I've Never Been In Love Before", "I'm In The Mood For Love" and "Only The Lonely". Ellen DeGeneres as Janet Hall, who is consistently late to her job at Helen's bookshop, who endlessly dates men without being able to find the right guy , is simply wonderful. She has not lost her comedic flair, even though at this point in her career she was not appearing much on TV or film because only about two years before her hit mid-90's TV show "Ellen" was cancelled because of her "coming out" as a lesbian and the new lesbian subject matter of the show. Here you even find comedian Jack Black, long before he made it big, in the bit part of a fisherman. This is a moving film about human emotions and making decisions that are significant, about the human need for a passionate consuming love and the general love of escapism brought not only through books, letters, and music, but through a genuinely loving and secure relationship. This is a great film with wonderful moments and an infectious romantic spirit. | positive |
... with a single act.<br /><br />Charlie Wilson, congressman, a real character. During the 90s, when the communism on USSR, the Wall of Berlin and the war on Afhganistan (with the Soviets) broke over. He did it, a single denial for money, and everything went down. He should be remembered, so here it is. His memorial.<br /><br />Back to the movie. Funny, dramatic, snob, politic or just boring. Anyways, it's a smart movie about politic life, about ruling the world and about, above all, a lesson to the world. A lesson to every politic out there, a critical point of view referring to countries who support wars with money, guns and words.<br /><br />Lesson Learned - World isn't a nice place to live in | positive |
I just finished watching one episode(S1-#5 A boy in a bush), so maybe my review is not very fair.<br /><br />But based on that episode, this is a very poor version of CSI, the acting is crap. The main character, Dr whatever her name is, is so fake it actually hurts. I wouldn't cast her to do an add for dog food!<br /><br />The other hurtful thing is David Boreanaz of the "Angel" fame, a good actor, does a great job, but wasted coz of the idiotic acting of that woman.<br /><br />Supporting cast is OK, but all is ruined due to this stupid acting of Emily Deschanel .<br /><br />Very disappointing version of CSI, very sorry to see it appear on the filmography of some of the potential talents involved in it.<br /><br />That woman is really sh#t, at least in that episode. But based on this one view, I will not even invest watching it even if it was shown on an elevator screen. | negative |
This is a truly terrible film.<br /><br />I'm only writing this so that some people somewhere are put off watching it. If I have stopped one person from wasting some of their precious life watching this film I shall die happy.<br /><br />Unutterably dull, although since it stars Al Pacino I was fooled into thinking that at any moment something interesting was going to happen. Then the credits rolled, and I realised I had been completely fooled into watching this unbelievable drivel.<br /><br />I cannot believe that this film has achieved as high a score as it has at IMDb (over 5 stars when I last saw the voting). Are you people voting ironically?<br /><br />Please, please, please do not watch this film! | negative |
Do-It-Yourself indie horror auteur Todd Sheets returns with another entertainingly atrocious nickel'n'dime shot-on-video clunker that's basically just a feeble excuse to sling around a lot of watery blood and gleaming guts as often as possible. An evil demonic scarecrow resurrects the dead as ravenous rot-faced zombies so they can feast on the living. A bunch of bickering college kids, a trio of dangerous escaped convicts led by the vicious Slade (Byron Nichodemus hamming it up to an outrageous degree), two equally savage sleazeball hoodlums, and a trio of hottie sisters all have to do their best to survive this harrowing ordeal. That's it for the needlessly muddled and convoluted plot, but fortunately what this hilariously horrendous hoot lacks in narrative coherence (plenty) it more than compensates for with a pleasing plethora of gloriously gross'n'graphic gore. Disgusting highlights include a woman having her fingers chopped off, a fatal gunshot to a young gal's groin, attempted necrophiliac rape, evisceration, and, of course, more repulsive entrail eating than you can shake a pile of moist intestines at. Moreover, we've also got rough, grainy cinematography that constantly alternates between washed-out color and grimy black and white, ineptly staged fight scenes, lousy acting from a uniformly pathetic no-name cast (Jerry Angell in particular cops the top crummy thespic dishonors for his laughably abysmal histrionics as slimy no-count psycho criminal Joe Bob), a grating head-banging thrash metal soundtrack, and a generic shivery'n'ominous synthesizer score. Let's not forget the ridiculous ending in which several of our survivors stumble across a few vials of flesh-eating bacteria to use on the shambling undead hordes. Sure, this flick is pure dreck, but it has a certain endearingly abominable quality to it that in turn makes it a great deal of so-awful-it's-awesome Grade Z fun for hardcore aficionados of bad fright fare. | positive |
First of all I thought it was naughty of them to say in the credits that the story and screenplay were by Preston Sturges. Sturges was one of the better Hollywood screenwriters until his talent faded and he retired. However, it wasn't the Preston Sturges, it was Preston Sturges, Jr. The story was essentially based on Robert Louis Stevenson's short story "The Bottle Imp". A good man comes into possession of an evil object that will grant him any wish but which will ultimately doom him to hell. That's fine. Nobody said screenwriters had to be original. The actors are generally pretty competent given the mediocre writing that they had to translate onto the screen. My biggest complaint comes with the ending. The hero thinks he has discovered a way out of his dilemma but tries to solve the problem in a somewhat different way in an attempt to save an innocent person. At first this seems to have worked but true to the code of the modern horror film, they feel they have to provide one last dollop of horror at the very end of the film. This is a stupid convention. The older horror films got along just fine with allowing the hero to win out at the end. There is nothing wrong with good triumphing over evil no matter what the current crop of film makers seems to think. You can give the audience a good healthy scare and still make them feel happy at the end. In fact, I think it's preferable. | negative |
Having seen CUBE, I've been a fan of Vincenzo Natali's work. Natali seems to have this inept ability to take a storyline, and hardly wring it our like a wet towel for all the storyline he can muster. Instead, he lets the stories themselves unfold in natural ways, so much in fact, that you may in fact believe there is this Cube were people try to escape, or in the case of NOTHING, a large empty expanse where there is... nothing! The advert had me hooked instantly. It seemed so simple! Take two characters who no one likes, and send them to a world where there is nothing. Natali does this so simply that you forget the logic that a place where there is nothing cannot exist. In fact, the world of nothing becomes something of an irony within the film. There's nothing there, but also 'something' there.<br /><br />It might be a good time to point out that the trailer is highly misleading. I was fortunate enough to actually understand that the film leaned to a more comedic side than the trailer otherwise told so. Therefore upon watching the film, i laughed every now and again, whereas someone who the advert mislead may find themselves utterly confused.<br /><br />If i may take a minute to give the film some praise, where the film excels on is the concept. It is a genius concept to have a world of nothing, and to put two characters there, NOT two brilliant minded characters, who will philosophise and work out their surroundings, but two idiots who have absolutely no clue as to where the hell they are! Another strong point is the film's cinematography, though at first this may not seem it! Where each wall, north, earth, south, west, up and down is just a white plane, a perception of depth becomes faulty. It is hard to determine where things are placed in the Mis-En-Scene. The cinematography has many moments where this actually happens, but for the most part, the camera is placed so that two characters, or an object and a character are placed in the foreground and background, allowing a sense of depth to be realised.<br /><br />However, this film does lack in certain areas. The film is relatively short, but even so, after a while the novelty of this world of nothing becomes rather dull, and you wish to find some form of resolution within the plot. We can also argue that the acting is once again, questionable. These two characters are in a sense, unlikeable, therefore we feel no sympathy at any point for these characters. However, on a flip side of that, the chemistry and friendship between the two characters seems real enough, but there is something lacking.<br /><br />Even so, i do rank this as a thoroughly enjoyable film! Do not let the trailer fool you into thinking this is another science-fiction horror film. It is much more of a comedy than that! It is indeed worth watching though, purely for the concept itself! | positive |
Though not a huge fan, I am a Three Stooges purist. I believe that their best work, by far, was with Curly as the third Stooge and their earliest films are generally their best. That's because after a while, they began remaking their films and the gags started to get stale. Here, in 1934, they were still rather fresh (in more ways than one) and funny.<br /><br />Here they boys play very improbably roles--respected doctors in a hospital! The three run amok acting silly, hitting each other and scaring the pants off anyone who expects to get better. The non-stop energy and freshness make this one a must-see for fans.<br /><br />By the way, although I liked this film, I STRONGLY recommend you try to find a much lesser known short from tiny Educational Pictures. NIFTY NURSES is much like MEN IN BLACK but manages to be funnier and is about the best hospital comedy of the era--better even than Laurel & Hardy's COUNTY HOSPITAL. | positive |
... So some people might argue that this can't possible be the worst movie ever made, and no it's not. I have seen movies with weaker plots, worse acting and so on.<br /><br />So why do I hate this movie über alles? Well, it's basically about a man, who gets kidnapped for many years, and when he comes out, he tries to find out who did it and why, to get revenge. The problem I have with this movie has nothing to do with gore or horror, but<br /><br />***MAJOR SPOILERS STOP READING IF YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW*** <br /><br />our main character basically gets tricked into having sex with his own daughter, and he wants to cut out his own tongue so his enemy won't tell her, because she didn't know. It is so humiliating as he crawls on his knees like a dog in total submission. And why did he deserve this? Because many years ago, he saw a brother and a sister have a tender moment - in the wrong way. He went on and told some people, and as a result she commits suicide. And viola, it's the brother who put our main character through all this just for that. I have wondered: Maybe I hate this movie so much because I think his punishment is way too harsh. Maybe because I feel this movie doesn't condemn incest, but somehow confuses it with love. Maybe it's because I expected something else.<br /><br />***END OF SPOILERS***<br /><br />Believe me, nobody deserves what happens to our main character in the end, and I'm very serious; you know how some movies just go under your skin and stay there? Well, I felt goddamn dirty after watching this movie, and I REALLY wish I'd never seen it. It stayed with me for days, and some might ask: well, isn't that the purpose of a good movie? The ability to affect us in such ways? Yes, it can be, but this movie not only made me sick, it made me feel violated. | negative |
"The next Karate Kid" is an outstanding movie full of adventure and new surprises. It has a wonderful plot and moral that tells a wonderful story. Hilary Swank does an incredible job of achieving the role of Julie. I have seen the actor who plays Mr. Miagee and this is one of his best performances in my opinion. The movie is funny and charming and I cannot stress enough about how interesting the movie is. I definantly gove this movie a 10 out of 10. I suggest the movie to anyone who likes a good movie. | positive |
this film sucks a big one. so many holes in the plot. if the devil is invincible, why does he require the protection of arnies bodyguards? I couldn't fathom why arnie didn't turn up for work for several days and then suddenly appears, takes their entire armoury and disappears again!! Nice work if you can get it. It's sad that the last 1/2 hour has to result in the standard arnie 'uzi 9mm' finale. Arnies interpretation of a depressed cop is to bow his head and sniff. i thought he had a bad cold for most of the film. Dreadfully scripted, Arnie is called 'buddy', 'dude' etc for 95% of the film and then suddenly we hear him being called by his real name of Jericho Cane (where do they get these names from??). The ending is so twee you'd better get the barf bag ready. Shame that Gladiator pulled off the same ending with 100% more class.<br /><br /> | negative |
It's possible to have a good time with this film while, at the same time, regretting all that it isn't. In the 1980s, a raffish U.S. congressman (Tom Hanks) engineers support for Afghan partisans resisting the Soviet Union.<br /><br />Hanks is in breezy, hail-fellow-well-met form as roguish, politically incorrect Charlie Wilson, first glimpsed sharing a hot tub with three deeply available looking women. If only the film had the same air of insouciance; but apart from Philip Seymour Hoffman's turn as a cynical CIA agent, it tries to be perceived as patriotic too. Aaron Sorkin's trademark staccato dialogue serves its purpose, but the story is no more plausible than one of Wilson's tall tales. And there's an oddly unspoken subtext: Wilson's Afghan pals later mutated into the Taliban and other anti-western groups, leaving the world worse off than it was when these events occurred. | positive |
If you are French native, then you find this movie extremely funny. It's good, just good! Can though imagine that subtitles or translations don't mean much in english. | positive |
I have decided to flush this show from my memory down the toilet of bad TV show into the obscurity of forgetful, disappointing, pointless, garbage TV show hell.<br /><br />The Skyler guy who is the host/star/creator of this show is boring, uninteresting, unbelievable, not particularly good looking and not at all funny, in short why is this guy on TV and especially why is he in a comedy show when he's not funny, pretending to be a professional con man when he definitely is nothing but an obvious pretender? Others have said it here already but this guy is a total fake and fraud, if you believe any of these cons I think you should seriously consider going to get your head checked because they're all fake, and the ones that might possibly be true are so pointless, like spending all day to con someone out of giving you an average meal at a restaurant? Seriously this guy needs to go away, glad this show got canned. | negative |
I was expecting to love this movie--film noir, serial killer, dark irony. I was baffled by many choices the characters made ("Hey, I know they're creepy looking, but let's hook up for a cross-country road trip anyway!"), found the pacing to be glacial, and the emphasis on moody lighting to take the place of original thought by the director and cinematographer.<br /><br />Thinking about it now, this would have been a much better movie if someone had just run the script through the common sense-o-meter (1992 model) before starting to film... | negative |
I saw this independent film when it was in Philadelphia and it was a pleasant surprise. I left the theater with a smile on my face. One of the things that made it so funny was that it was based on a true story -hilarious! It has some great character actors in it too. Mindy Sterling is in it and is very good. I loved her in Austin Powers. Howard Hesseman is also terrific. I remember him from Head of the Class. I am tired of all the dark edgy movies that keep getting made. This is fun and light, and I can watch it with my family and not be embarrassed. I keep checking to see when it will come out on DVD. I will definitely buy it. | positive |
Election marks the 2nd trial society theme movie directed by Johnnie To.<br /><br />To marvellously casted Simon Yan and Tony Leung Kar Fai as Lok and Big D, as the two trial members who were chosen as candidates for the position of chairman for Ho Sing society, a 100 year old trial society.<br /><br />While Lok is a man who keeps his cool at all times, Big D is not only impatient, but also thinks that he is on top of everything. Lok was chosen as the next chairman for 2 years. To have the total control of the gang, the newly elected chairman must be passed down with a Dragon Baton, which represents power and authority. Big D was extremely unhappy with the results that he was not chosen to be the next chairman after paying a handsome figure of bribes to the council members. He ordered his man to get the Baton before it falls onto the hands of Lok.<br /><br />While Big D is getting the Baton, Lok has other plans for him.<br /><br />This is one of the trial society theme movies where not much bloodshed is needed. Johnnie To puts the greed of the human beings in the movie, where bloodshed is commonly used in other trial society theme movies to show how the greed of human beings can caused the death or the downfall of one. However, no single bullet is used, hardly any gangfights are involved in Election. It's the battle of the wits that makes Election stands out of the rest.<br /><br />Apart from Maggie Shiu, the only actress in Election with less than 5 lines to talk in the whole movie, masculinity rules the whole movie. Louis Koo and Nick Cheung, who was seen in To's previous film, are casted as an undercover cop and a gangster who sold his life to the gang respectively. Together with some of the veteran actors making their appearance in the film and the excellent script, it makes the only HK movie to represent Cannes Fil Festival 2005.<br /><br />Election has hardly failed any critics who wants an different trial society theme movie. | positive |
Today's sci-fi thrillers are more like Rambo in outer-space with monster special effects (frequently ludicrous such as sounds of explosions in the vacuum of space). Though tame by today's standards, the special effects of "Forbidden Planet" were quite striking for their time. Even today, they still hold plausibility. Yet, the best part of the movie is perhaps the reason that radio thrillers still have appeal. Much of what was going on was left up to the imaginations of the audience. (What did the Krell creatures look like?) By having much of the framework of the story never divulged or only divulged in the end, the tension and suspense held throughout the movie. The ending was also very thought-provoking and satisfying. In my mind, this is still one of the best (if not the best) sci-fi films ever made. | positive |
Zachary Scott does what he does best, i.e., plays a worm, in "Danger Signal," a 1945 B movie also starring Faye Emerson, Mona Freeman, and Rosemary DeCamp. Scott plays a writer who kills women after he gets their money. On the lam from his last murder, he rents a room in the home owned by the Fenchurch family, Hilda (Emerson) and her mother (Mary Servoss). Scott throws himself at Emerson, and she's dazzled. Mid-romance, her younger sister Anne (Freeman) comes home from a medical treatment. When she mentions that she was Uncle Wade's favorite and he left her $25,000 (big bucks by 1945 standards), Scott loses interest in poor Hilda and makes a play for Anne. Anne looks like Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm until she starts sneaking around with Scott - overnight, she ages 10 years and becomes downright nasty to her sister. Finally getting the message that her tenant is no good, Hilda calls in a psychiatrist (Rosemary DeCamp) to psyche him out and advise her.<br /><br />Psychological dramas were all the rage during and after World War II, and Scott does an excellent job as a smooth sociopath. This was his forte - as a weak-willed sheriff in "Flamingo Road," he exhibited no real presence. As for two-timing, we saw him do that in "Mildred Pierce," where he proved himself particularly good at it. Emerson is a bookish stenographer with her hair pushed off her face and her big glasses, but after hours, she's lovely, and gives a strong performance. DeCamp was always an underrated actress - here, she sports a soft German accent and is delightful.<br /><br />This is a highly entertaining film though a very routine story. The acting truly elevates it. | positive |
Mitchell Leisen's fifth feature as director, and he shows his versatility by directing a musical, after his previous movies were heavy dramas. He also plays a cameo as the conductor.<br /><br />You can tell it is a pre code movie, and nothing like it was made in the US for quite a while afterwards (like 30+ years). Leisen shot the musical numbers so they were like what the audience would see - no widescreen shots or from above ala Busby Berkeley. What I do find funny or interesting is that you never actually see the audience.<br /><br />As others have mentioned the leads are fairly characterless, and Jack Oakie and Victor McLaghlan play their normal movie personas. Gertrude Michael however provides a bit of spark.<br /><br />The musical numbers are interesting and some good (the Rape of the Rhapsody in particular is amusing) but the drama unconvincing and faked - three murders is too many and have minimal emotional impact on the characters. This is where this movie could have been a lot better. | positive |
By far the most important requirement for any film following confidence tricksters is that they must, at least occasionally, be able to pull one over on us, as well as their dumb-witted marks, the cops, the mob and (ideally) each other. But this film NEVER pulls this off. Every scam can be seen coming a mile off (especially the biggen!) Neither are they very interesting, intricate or sophisticated. Perhaps Mammet hoped to compensate for this with snappy dialogue and complex psychological relationships. If so, he failed. The lines are alright, but they're delivered in such a stilted, unnatural, stylised way that I thought perhaps some clever point was being made about us all acting all the time... but it wasn't. As for the psychological complexity, the main character's a bit repressed and makes some ridiculously forced freudian slips about her father thinking she's a whore, but she gets over it. I really liked the street scenes though. Looked just like an Edward Hopper painting. | negative |
Although not a big Coen brothers fan, I am an admirer of their dark humor films like 'Fargo' and 'Miller's Crossing.' I have been much less impressed by their other comic mode, goofy-camp (or is that Camp Goofy?) Unfortunately, 'O Brother, Where Art Thou?' falls into the latter category and isn't even as good as 'The Big Lebowski' or 'The Hudsucker Proxy.'<br /><br />'O Brother' is basically an episodic series of in-jokes without much point, and not all that much humor or cleverness either. As most reviewers have noted, the film's plot is very loosely and, as far as I could tell, quite arbitrarily based on The Odyssey. Its main character, Ulysses Everett McGill (George Clooney), is an 'adventurer' like his Homeric namesake and has as his 'real' goal the return home to prevent the marriage of his wife Penny to a suitor. Of course, we don't discover that this is what the Clooney/Ulysses character really wants until long after we've stopped caring. And what does Homer have to do with "Cool Hand Luke" chain gangs, Ku Klux Klan meetings a la "Indiana Jones" cult gatherings, a disbarred lawyer's vocabulary, a talent for blue-grass country music singing, an association with Baby Face Nelson, a Clark Gable lookalike hairdo, and other random and sundry character traits and encounters? I leave that for others to discern.<br /><br />The allusion to Preston Sturges' 'Sullivan's Travels' in 'O Brother's' title is equally pointless. Yes, viewers familiar with the Sturges minor screwball comedy classic might find it mildly rewarding to recognize the title of the socially conscious Depression movie Sullivan abandons Hollywood and comedy hoping to make. And they might even be mildly amused by a couple of shot/scene riffs (e.g. hopping freight cars, and the chain gang shuffle into view a movie). But so what? The Coen brothers don't seem to have anything to add to the art-for-art's-sake versus moral high seriousness critical debate about the function of art. They obviously fall into the former school, but that doesn't seem to motivate the reference in the slightest. Is it an homage? If so, why make it? I like post-modern pop culture reference and textual play as much as the next person, but it's a lot nicer when it amounts to something at least tonally, if not thematically, consistent and not just an arbitrary concoction.<br /><br />This screenplay is simply a silly mess. The only consistent, and consistently pleasing, element is the folk/country music soundtrack. It doesn't have much to do with Homer or Preston Sturges, but, considering the rest of the film, that's probably a good thing. On the other hand, I'd recommend using the price of admission on the soundtrack CD. | negative |
In what is arguably the best outdoor adventure film of all time, four city guys confront nature's wrath, in a story of survival. The setting is backwoods Georgia, with its forests, mountains, and wild rivers.<br /><br />The director, John Boorman, chose to use local people, not actors, to portray secondary characters. These locals imbue the film with a depth of characterization unequaled in film history. No central casting "actors" could ever come close to these people's remarkable faces, voices, or actions. I don't recall a film wherein the secondary characters are so realistic and colorful. As much as anything else, it is this gritty realism that makes this film so amazing.<br /><br />Another strength is the film's theme. Nature, in the wild, can be violent. How appropriate that the setting should be the American South. Very few places in the U.S. are, or have been, as violent as redneck country. In a story about Darwinian survival of the fittest, the film conveys the idea that humans are part of nature, not separate from it.<br /><br />"Deliverance" is very much a product of its time when, unlike today, Americans expressed concern over a vanishing wilderness. The film's magnificent scenery, the sounds of birds, frogs, crickets, and the roar of the river rapids, combined with the absence of civilization, all convey an environmental message. And that is another strength of the film.<br /><br />At an entertainment level, the tension gradually escalates, as the plot proceeds. Not even half way into the film the tension becomes extreme, and then never lets up, not until the final credits roll. Very few films can sustain that level of intensity over such a long span of plot.<br /><br />Finally, the film's technical quality is topnotch. Direction and editing are flawless. Cinematography is excellent. Dialogue is interesting. And the acting is terrific. Burt Reynolds has never been better. Ned Beatty is perfectly cast and does a fine job. And Jon Voight should have been nominated for an Oscar. If there is a weak link in the film, it is the music, which strikes me as timid.<br /><br />Overall, "Deliverance" almost certainly will appeal to viewers who like outdoor adventure. Even for those who don't, the gritty characterizations, the acting, and the plot tension are reasons enough to watch this film, one of the finest in cinema history. | positive |
this is the first time I'm writing a comment on a movie on IMDb. but i had to write it for this one. its 3 hrs of unadulterated torture. from the starting u get the idea that the movie is gonna be bad. the acting is pathetic. I'm a big fan of Ajay devgan (loved him in bhagat singh) but he is at his worst in this movie. amitabh seems to have worked hard for this one, but somehow the fear is missing. prashant raj is a non actor. and the most irritating part of the movie is nisha kothari. i have no clue why the director took her in this movie. the background score is repetitive. somehow i felt that ramu tried to repeat a sarkar, the color theme, the background score, the camera angles, but it didn't work. PLEASE Don't WATCH IT | negative |
I originally saw this on its premiere in the UK. I was mesmerised by it, and it had me in tears all throughout its duration. I taped it off the TV for safekeeping, but over the years, it's worn out. And TV never seem to show it. Therefore it was a joy to find out that True Movies own the copyright and were showing it on their channels. This time, I taped it onto a DVD, so I can enjoy it again and again.<br /><br />Lucile Fray (played magnificently by Ann - Margret) discovers she has cancer, and that it is terminal. Her husband has arthritis, and, although he is loving, he is an alcoholic, and would be incapable of taking care of their children after she has gone. Therefore, she has to find new homes for each of her children before she dies.<br /><br />The acting is top notch, the music beautiful, and it has stood the test of time wonderfully (it still makes me cry!) If you ever get the chance, you would be silly to miss this. It is a wonderful film! A must see for everyone!!! | positive |
The movie begins a with mentally-challenged girl with bright yellow sneakers looking skyward on a Madrid street corner and being spellbound by a passing plane. The movie examines the life of five womenAdela, Leire, Maricarmen, Anita & Isabelwho have completely different lives and choices of shoes. Their shoes is the first superficial, yet affixed with some glancing meaning, clue we get at their fragile identities. In a theatrically embroidered and embellished way, a podiatrist tries to esoterically reveal the deepest secrets of a woman's souls by the sole of her feet. The premise is risky and slightly contrived, but the tone and depth of the movie takes a daring plunge for the good.<br /><br />What may have been light-hearted and superficial, quickly switches gear with the a superb dysfunctional couple scene that leaves the viewer riveted for minutes, seeing the love or lack thereof, the pain, the confusion, the hope, the needs and escape mechanisms develop through minutes different rooms of the house and down to the street and eventually below... What a scene (!) , but there will be others as effective to follow and strengthen the strong characterization and directing displayed in this slice of life affair.<br /><br />Moving along, a woman has lost the husband she loved and inherited his kids and his taxi, while another has completely lost her husband emotionally, sexually, intellectually, but not physically. A ghost, a pending divorce
reproach, regret & remorse. A new love? Can you love a mirage? Can you love the person in the mirror? Can you love someone you can't love? Or think you can't love? Can you love and live life even though it will always be somewhat hopeless? Yet isn't it exactly these hopes and dreams that keep us here grounded and in a spectrum of relative happiness? A lot of deep themes emerge and the final act brings people and ideas together to coalesce in an existential crisis with no clear cut solution, definitive decision or effective healing. Maybe a elusive thought, a fleeting feeling, but a lasting appreciation of life and of the artistry and intellect of the film. Live. Live again. Rewind the reel. Unveil the real, the important; the big stones (piedras) of life. The rest is just details. | positive |
I couldn't wait for the end. This is absolutely the worst film I have ever seen. If you thought that just about anyone could make a watchable movie, these folks prove that there is a minimum skill set required. This is a film with no redeeming features whatsoever. It scores a zero in every department. This is more than just 'amateur' as the audience is given no consideration or regard at all. There is no serious attempt to act or entertain. The storyline is aimless, pointless and senseless. The cast look very uncomfortable and completely lack direction. The technical aspects of the film are poor.<br /><br />As a DVD it makes a good drinks coaster. | negative |
Joseph L. Mankiewicz is not remembered by most today as one of the finest directors in Hollywood history, but this film proves that he is. Already a success by doing sophisticated American dramas such as A Letter to Three Wives and All About Eve as well as successfully adapting Shakespeare to life in Julius Caesar, Mankiewicz does a marvelous job of bringing this hit Broadway play to film and does it with style. Marlon Brando is perfect as Sky Masterson, even if he can't sing too well. He is the only actor who could pull it off perfectly wit his sheer coolness and clarity. Frank Sinatra is a wonderful singer, as expected, and does a good job of acting as Nathan Detroit. Jean Simmons is also very good as Sarah Brown and her scenes with Brando sizzle with great chemistry. All supporting actors do their part, especially Sheldon Leonard as Harry the Horse in a very funny bit. Still, Mankiewicz should be given most of the credit for bringing a fine musical in its own right to the screen in such a way that it feels authentic in many scenes but is still a story in its own world. All in all, Guys and Dolls is a great musical and works on many levels it normally should not have. | positive |
Battlestar Gallactica was so great because it had tight writing, a great look, excellent actors, and interesting stories... AND yeah, had hot men and women running around in and out of uniform.<br /><br />Caprica was just lazy. Lazy writing. Actors smoking up a storm to give them "character." Outdoor sequences that ruin the feeling of being somewhere else (yes, that is a Ford Focus sitting in the background). Lots and lots of teenage angst. LOTS of gyrating naked women (but in the background. Which I'm sure will be cut for the series) and a token view of some men in towels. None of the actors except Polly Walker took my attention at all. At an hour and a half, I was still wondering when it was going to be over.<br /><br />So what exactly is it that's supposed to bring me back? The science fiction? It's awfully light on that. The actors? Besides Polly Walker's fine turn, there isn't much interesting being done here. There aren't even any "hotties" in the cast, except for maybe Esai, although for the younger set he's pretty old, since he's over 25.<br /><br />I loved BSG. I was skeptical when I heard about Caprica, and unfortunately, I think I'm right. I predict a very short run for it as a series unless they really sharpen their pencils over at SciFi and get to work making this more than The OC on another planet. | negative |
On his birthday a small boys tells his mother he is not her son, and that he wants to go home to his real mother.<br /><br />In some ways Comedy De L'Innocence feels like it comes from a different time of movie-making, perhaps the 60's or 70's. Certainly it reminded me of Losey's Secret Ceremony (1968), and Richard Loncraine's Full Circle (1977), both of which deal with loss, grief and relationships between parents and 'lost' children (curiously both films star Mia Farrow).<br /><br />All three films are populated with unsympathetic characters who behave in strange and unexplained ways. All three films have a chilly feel, both emotionally and literally. All three films focus on mother-child relationships, and ultimately all three films pose the question - 'what is real, what is imagined?' <br /><br />Beautiful but flawed, it offers no easy answers and leaves much hanging, unexplained and strange. | negative |
Lucio Fulci was one of the most prolific Italian directors by the time of his death in 1996, yet his career had long since descended into a downward spiral of increasingly futile genre entries that could barely stand in the shadow of his earlier work. For much of the '70s into the mid-'80s, he cranked out such stylistically distinctive horrors as "City of the Living Dead," "The Beyond," and the brutal giallo "The New York Ripper," fondly remembered by fans like myself. And while "Cat in the Brain" falls in with the era of Fulci's decline as a filmmaker, it is a shocking, darkly hilarious headtrip that, while a clearly inferior work (the framing, effects, and acting are below par), proves an interesting, open-ended meditation on pop psychology and film's ability to desensitize. Make no mistake: "Cat in the Brain" is a total gorefest, and as disjointed as Fulci's previous films, but it deserves credit for trying to be something more. In a deliciously tongue-in-cheek touch, Fulci plays himself: a director in the midst of filming yet another violent horror flick who comes down with perverse/murderous hallucinations; after visiting a shrink who puts him under hypnosis, his dreams and reality begin to intersect, to the point where the viewer cannot discern the two. The recent DVD from Grindhouse Releasing mentions "Cat" as an heir apparent to the likes of "Eraserhead," and it does carry a similarly disquieting, awkwardly funny quality associated with the best surrealist art. | positive |
I have to admit when I went to see this movie, I didn't really have high expectations. But even with my low expectations I was totally and utterly disappointed...<br /><br />Basically Luke Wilson is a hot shot who tends to go out with slightly crazy girlfriends. There's slight mention of a girl stalking him but that's pretty much it for that character. Which i don't quite mind cause it would probably be just as underdeveloped as the rest of the movie.<br /><br />So while on a subway Rainn Wilson (who i actually liked before this movie) convinces him to talk to a "hot" girl, Uma Thurman. This is strange to say the least, as everyone can clearly see that Uma Thurman does not belong under the category of "hot".<br /><br />Rainn Wilson's performance is also far from "hot". Normally I'm all for his acting, but even he couldn't salvage this movie. His character was jumpy, unrealistic and rather annoying. You could never tell if the writers were trying to make him the comical token closet gay guy, or just desperate. It was almost painful.<br /><br />But anyway, someone steals her purse as she goes to leave the subway, and Luke Wilson being the charming savior he is runs after the robber. Now we all know that Uma Thurman is the superhero, or "G-Girl" as they like to call her in the movie. It still baffles me as to what the "G" stands for, but we'll leave that for the message boards to debate.<br /><br />The sex scenes I assume are supposed to be funny, but I find myself asking who has sex like that? They nearly throw the bed through the wall because of Uma Thurman's "passion" let's say. It makes my head hurt, but not in the "I'm thinking really hard to understand this" way.<br /><br />When Uma insults Anna Faris, calling her a "whore" I had no debate with that. Apart from the fact that she can't choose movies properly, she can't act and relies souly on the fact that she's blonde and typical.<br /><br />Overall I would've walked out of the theater if i hadn't paid $8.75 to see it. The characters are typical and have absolutely no chemistry, especially Uma Thurman. Someone should let her know that just because you move your head a lot doesn't mean you're acting.<br /><br />Also, the script and storyline could've used either a lot of work or a match and some lighter fluid. I actually started to feel embarrassed for the actors, and their dying careers. Overall, if you value your money, and your self respect do NOT waste your time with this pathetic attempt at a movie. | negative |
Ewe, The opening screams zero budget. The titles whooshing in look like my grandson was let loose with iMovie. The DVD box gives the impression that you'll be treated to the old days of '80s boobie movies. NOPE! Hardly any nudity from a flick that stars Traci Lords! This movie really did need the nudity too. Instead you get a lot of Lords perkies pointing through a shirt, however they seem to be activated by hot steam. That's odd, in my world the headlights go on in the COLD.<br /><br />The plot is pathetic, the blind guy is just is a joke, and not a funny one. His antics are so forced and predictable. He trips over stuff and you see him bracing for the fall. He needs to work on his physical comedy.<br /><br />Most of Frostbite's nudity comes from a hot tub scene that looks like it was shot months later and inserted in to get a distributor. And the nudity is not worth it.<br /><br />NamoiBucks; it's just a matter of time before Starbucks sues over that. Not even funny. As Billy arrives in town for the first time they come across Namoi Bucks, He comments "Wow they have these everywhere." This leads you to believe it's a parody on Starbucks, but surprise, behind the counter of this location is Namoi herself. Apparently she loves coffee so much that the owner of this huge chain decided to work in a tiny cold town.<br /><br />The only thing this movie has going for it is the Warren Miller snowboarding footage. Yep this is all Warren's stuff, so if you want to see great action, get a Warren miller flick. Leave Frostbite alone.<br /><br />There is nothing good about this movie. There is no reason to rent it or buy it, and if a friend offers to loan you a copy for free. Hit him and end the friendship. | negative |
While the original 1932 version, with Preston Foster, was good, there's no remake more worthy than this 1959 one, or more impossible to find anywhere, just as I strongly suspect Mickey Rooney to have had something to do with that. Never could a mere performance have ever been so masterfully brilliant, or a script more thought-provoking, as well as an improvement upon the original. Many years after the last of my several viewings of this film, in 1970, I read an article in which Mickey Rooney was recounting a visit he'd made to death row, and which had apparently very drastically eliminated whatever sense of personal identification he'd felt with people in similar circumstances. The article was about as short as the main character here, and didn't cover much, other than the extent to which his extreme disillusionment with the quality of the inmates themselves had been emphasized, even in language I would not care to explicitly quote here. . . . . One of my main problems with capital punishment is that, of course, it is not evenly, impartially applied, just as many innocent people are far-too-carelessly, thus unnecessarily sent to meet this particular fate. Another problem I have with it is that it is not applied swiftly enough, or, for that matter, even publicly enough! The bible makes a special point, in such cases, about one of the more important purposes of such, as a deterrent, being ineffectually obscured, minus, not only a public viewing, but also the direct participation of all! As for those who claim to prove, statistically, that such is not an effective deterrent? In addition to having a problem about the reliability of their data, I have little if any objectively disprovable doubt many are behind bars now due to the extent that such a deterrent is lacking. However, I do have a problem about the fact that Robert Duvall, in The Apostle, had been punished at all, for his particular "crime," or that the only hope of leniency for one such as he would have to be based on a "temporary insanity" defense, as though that would serve as the only acceptable excuse in his kind of case. . . . In addition to various other questions concerning the motives of Mickey Rooney for that particular visit he'd recounted, and about the answers to which I can only try to speculate, I suspect the main one had been of a decidedly religious nature. I don't know exactly when he'd become the professing Christian he now makes it a special point, whenever possible, to emphasize that he is; but, as anybody should be well-aware, this particular category of people tends to be the most vehemently out for blood, when it comes to extracting an eye for an eye. However, I have no particular bone of contention concerning that, per se, just as there's no doubt, scripturally speaking, that not all, and perhaps not even most, shall be spared the same ultimate fate, at the hands of the Lord Himself, as a result of His sacrifice on the cross. However, there is a problem, for me, about the spirit or attitude with which most professing Christians emphasize their enthusiasm for capital punishment; for, contrary to the Lord Himself, who would love to see everybody saved (Ezekiel 18:32) (II Peter 3:9), they seem to go vindictively out of their way to find reasons to condemn! . . . What most people, on either side of this superlatively ever-burning issue, cannot appear to sufficiently appreciate, is that the Lord is as dynamically and elusively soft in nature as He is hard. The two sides of His nature appear to be so inherently incompatible as to render Him mentally deranged, at least by any strictly human reckoning. Yet, regardless of how harrowingly ungraspable this miraculously dynamic blending of the water and oil in His nature surely is, there can be no doubt that anything short of it, or anything fanatically and characteristically on either one side or the other of this equation, falls inadequately and unacceptably short of the entire judicial truth. Indeed, I've seen the most blood-curdling thirst for the same come out, self-contradictorily enough, on far-too-many occasions, whenever the categorically anti-death penalty advocates are confronted, even in the most rationally well-balanced ways, with the fact that, although the Lord died for everybody, not all are thereby going to be saved. After-all, in order to receive absolution, one must, to repeat the same term, reach out and receive it, that is, repent (Luke 13:3-5). Could anything make more sense? . . . But, then, what about the Lord's command to forgive, even in the case of one's enemies, of those who despise and persecute you without a just cause or provocation? One of the far-too-prevailing difficulties with this kind of sentimentality, as popularly misinterpreted, is the way it obscuringly over-simplifies the real meaning of forgiveness. The act of forgiveness does not, in itself, mean the same thing as unconditionally excusing the one being forgiven. When one takes a clearly sober, rationally well-balanced view here, from the perspective of God's own attitude, all it actually amounts to is a fervent wish that the one forgiven will ultimately succeed at finding his way, seeing the light, and being granted mercy. This attitude is, of course, the very opposite of, say, that of Jonah, who actually resented it when God told him that his preaching to the people of Nineveh would result in their repentance. Jonah didn't want them to repent, but vindictively desired that they be destroyed. How self-righteously, cold-bloodedly like unto most professing Christians he was, save that even his reasons were undoubtedly better than most! I envy Jonah almost as much as he would me! However, minus the repentance of the one being forgiven, any forgiveness he may receive from a genuine Christian is not going to do him any good. In such a case, the only one to benefit is the real Christian himself! | positive |
Have you ever tried a kind of food that your friend made, and then said to yourself, "wow, that was not a good mix"? Well, that is how I felt after watching this film.<br /><br />Many viewers will be left highly uncomfortable with this weird mix of crime and very, very corny comedy. Its almost like watching Mr. Rogers play a ruthless gangster, very weird. Some things just don't mix and this film clearly proves that.<br /><br />There are some very good performances here, as Dean Stockwell, Mercedes Ruhle, and Alec Baldwin are all excellent, but that doesn't make up for the lack of balance and symmetry in the film.<br /><br />Jonathan Demme has done some excellent work in films such as Silence of the Lambs and Philadelphia, but seems to be out of his element with this one. | negative |
Val Kilmer... Love or loath him, sometimes he gets under the skin of a character and pulls out a performance that makes you go 'Hey! This guy is a GREAT actor!' He did in the leather pants of Jim in The Doors and he's done it again in the leather underpants of John.<br /><br />Revolving around the fall and fall of uber porn king John Holmes, Kilmer strutts to his knees as we unravel one of the biggest murder mysteries hollywood has never solved for over twenty years, with Holmes the key suspect to a brutal Manson-style slaughter.<br /><br />What Kilmer does so effortlessly is exhude the low-life of the celebrity, the do anything to anyone craving that overwhelms anyone who had it and then lost it. Go see him, you'll know what I mean. | positive |
This is an interesting treatment of a subject that is quite controversial, (just read the other comments on this film). Apparently, you either love it or hate it and it seems most people make that distinction based on whether they believe the tribulation and end times will happen as portrayed in the movie.<br /><br />Basically, the film - and its sequels - were made for about $1.30 each. The production values are right down there with "Plan 9 From Outer Space" and the acting is about on the same level as "Glen or Glenda", (my apologies to Ed Wood). Putting aside the religious message, the story is as scary as they come. Add in even the slightest thought that the story might actually be close to something that might happen in the future and it becomes even scarier.<br /><br />This movie, and its sequels, didn't try to bring in the reasons why the tribulation happened when it did. "Left Behind" and "The Omega Code" tried to get in everything "Thief" did and to explain all the politics and maneuvering in the Middle East leading up to it. The net effect was "Thief" did a much better job on the scary part of movie, instead of spreading itself too thin trying to explain what was happening in the Middle East at the same time. <br /><br />Forget the politics and watch this movie, and its sequels, for what they are - horror stories. That they may be horror stories told, indirectly, by God makes them just that much more frightening. If it makes you think about the subject, it has done its job - even if you never believe. | negative |
Alright, this film is the representation of several things. For starters, this film is about a disgruntled student who brings a gun to school and shoots roughly 9 students. One student survives and is in the hospital with extensive head injuries. The lead character is what several people who consider a 'loner/goth', despite the movie's stating of her not being so. She seems quite mysterious, but was also the only unharmed student in the victimized classroom. She's questioned, due to having a history of knowing the shooter and having a record of being on the phone with him the night before. Anyhow, she's a very brief and distant person who seems to despise society. Yet, due to some, at first unexplained events, she spent roughly a year out of school, failing the grade. She has the desire to graduate, and the principle practically cons her into the only possible way she can pass is to spend time with the survivor, the girl in the hospital.<br /><br />These two leads are nearly entirely opposite, and they are quite that on a social level. While Alisha is a quiet, inwardly disturbed, anti-social 'goth' girl who spends her time entirely alone (even though she seems to read quite often, somewhat of a closet/out of the closet bookworm), the other girl is a rich, popular 'bubbly' girl who seems always incredibly optimistic and trapped in her own fantasy world, ignoring the outside world and its realism to survive. I feel both of these roles to a marvelous job of representing MOST 'cliques' in the modern highschool, but more importantly shows how two entirely opposite girls who know nothing of each other eventually open to each other. While the injured girl learns a deep, meaningful truth on her once sheltered life and the outside world, Alisha learns that complete abandonment of society and locking everything inside is not always the best thing.<br /><br />Many people will look to the connection between these two girls and see one of two things. Either, a snobby, hateful girl who wants he rest of the world to suffer as she does, taking it out on an innocent girl, OR the story of a seemingly trapped, fantasized girl who meets an outcast to society and learns not only not to judge, but that she is actually, perhaps, one of the most intelligent people she's known. In other words, people may see this film as a focus on Alisha teaching the other girl a lesson about life, but it isn't about that.<br /><br />This film is about SEVERAL things. While it is about all I have stated, it is also representative of how people deal from a large, life-changing catastrophe. Truly, this movie is not very symbolic, but instead incredibly straight forward with its message, as long as you aren't afraid to open your mind, and your heart, to some emotions you may not be familiar with being portrayed so miraculously.<br /><br />Overall, this film is one of the best I've ever seen. The acting is brilliant, the storyline and representation is deep and meaningful, and the emotion flowing through-out this film will have anyone not only relating, but possibly crying. This film is by far heart-wrenching, and very impactful, and if I ever believed any film could alter a person's life... this would be the first that could have changed mine.<br /><br />I adored this movie, if you ever want a movie that's moving and impactful, while incredibly entertaining and REAL, watch this. | positive |
It's hard to believe a movie can be this bad, but you live and learn. What's more amazing is the fact that the people who put this thing together likely had college educations. Meanwhile, the fruit of their labor bares the appearance of something a group of five eighth graders may have come up with. On the bright side, (if there is one) the soundtrack has some nice moments, which is another reason to question how the rest of the film can be so hideously bad. | negative |
I remember watching the Disney version and watching it now makes me think it has somehow lost its magic touch. Plenty of other renditions, Ever After put aside, of Cinderella, have, in fact, lost their touch throughout the years. Then I found this production with a flawless performance by Kathleen Turner as the evil stepmother and was blown away by the phantasmagorical essence of this fantasy story that has cast me under its spell since childhood.<br /><br />We all know the story of Cinderella, a young girl who's father died and was dominated by her wicked stepmother and stepdaughters and longs to go to the ball for one last chance for freedom. But this plot line takes a different twist in the classic Fairy Tale by causing Cinderella (whose real name is Zizola, and is only called Cinderella by her family because of her slavery) to be trapped in a situation of her father (who still lives) slowly losing himself to a dominant wife who manipulates him into playing favorites with his wife and step-daughters against his own and tries to poison him. Thus, Zizola goes out to save her father by stopping her stepmother from finding another suitor at the ball by distracting the men who come her way. There, the bored Prince Valiant has a change of heart from his dull life and falls in love with the mysterious lady in the strange dress (forged by a water nymph named Mab) with rose petals for slippers. <br /><br />What drew me to this film most of all was it's original take on the old Fairy Tale that none can compare to. It does not weave a web of lies like most Cinderella stories, it does not ignore any reason as to why Cinderella would want to attend the ball and nor does it show a shallow side to the Prince as the Disney version did. Instead it shows more of Cinderella's selfless heart more than any other production and the artwork is simply stunning! The costumes are all beautifully made, especially Zizola's sapphire blue ballgown to match the Marcella Plunkett's fantastical beauty and soft, spirit-like voice. <br /><br />I would highly suggest this film for anyone who is interested in a dream-like sequence of the classic Fairy Tale with an interesting twist. My only problem is that the producers and director did not make a full collection of other Fairy Tales with this same element and the fact that the film is now out of print. | positive |
I discovered this late one night on Turner Classics. I kept saying to myself "I'll turn it off as soon as it stops being funny", but needless to say I watched the whole way through.<br /><br />I am a movie junkie but I had never even HEARD of this movie (or if I did in 1971, I forgot). It's worth watching just for the performance of Goldie Hawn as the tart-tongued ingénue. Her acting is a revelation in this movie. Yes, the script is sharp and excellent (when was the last time they made a Hollywood comedy with a smart script?) but her acting is extraordinary. I never realized how funny Goldie could be, and it makes her later appearances in roles such as Laugh-In and Private Benjamin a little sad. In her later career she is far too over-the-top compared to her minimalist, wickedly funny appearance here.<br /><br />It's a pleasure watching the young Matthau, the great Bergman and the stellar supporting cast, but it's Goldie Hawn that will make this movie worth watching again. | positive |
I just can't imagine any possible reasons why Madsen and Hopper wanted to be in this movie after reading the script. They got blackmailed maybe? Or are they that badly out of money? The main problem with the movie is that it's boring. The conversations between Madsen's and Hopper's character are pointless, just like the bored chatting between two buddies while drinking beer on a saturday night. You never feel for any of the characters (although Madsen's psycho killer is very likeable, comparing to the other characters). Hopper always was a good actor, and Madsen does a fine job as the serial killer, otherwise the acting is almost laughable. There are about three scenes in the whole movie where something is actually happening, each of them last about three minutes. Although the "talking and thinking about murder and the nature of murderers" scenes would have been interesting, if they were scenes in a book. The whole concept would've been interesting for a novel, but a movie just can't bare with a story with that much inner thinking and so little action. | negative |
This has got to be one of the worst movies ever made. Even for a biker movie, it's rock bottom. The minimal plot involves a gang of bikers taking over a small town (how original!) and the townspeople's attempts to fight them off. Why don't they call for outside help? Who knows? The fight scenes are obviously fake. Adam West and Tina Louise are in it but both have little to do and both look ashamed to be there (understandably) This movie belongs in the trash heap! | negative |
The Curse of Monkey Island has always been my favorite of the series. A vibrant visual look, an excellent soundtrack and brilliant voice-cast all create a memorable and humouristic adventure.<br /><br />Graphics wise the game is definitely not a let-down. Though some corners have been cut the over-all feel of the game is reminiscent of Disney Feature Length Animations. The gameplay is simple and even a novice will get the hang of it soon enough. The game also offers a little extra for the more experienced players with its Mega Monkey Mode.<br /><br />The voice-cast is one of my favorites. Dominic Armato's sympathetic voice makes Guybrush complete and Alexandra Boyd is simply charming as Elaine. Earl Boen makes for a wonderfully sinister yet over-the-top villain, LeChuck. Also the game's charm is added by memorable characters like Wally (Neil Ross), Murray (Denny Delk) and one of my personal favorites Haggis McMutton (Allan Young, voice of Scrooge McDuck). My hat also goes off to the late, great Kay Kuter and his memorable secondary-role as Griswold Goodsoup.<br /><br />Michael Land's tropical and wonderful soundtrack once more graces the Monkey Island adventure, comprising of some of the best tunes in the business. The game isn't perfect and some locales are not as well detailed as other, but I had no gripes with the simple ending of the game which I found very satisfying. | positive |
The time is the future and for many not aware of it, that day is now. In this final movie for legendary actor, Edward G. Robinson, "Solent Green" becomes a landmark classic. Many a film buff and environmentalist believe this is our eventual history. The movie is taken from the novel entitled, 'Make room, make room' but who's working title was changed to "Solent Green." The story concerns the Earth as it evolves into the future with the world's environmental problems becoming nothing short of Catastrophic. The planet's natural resources have been exhausted and basic food has been reduced to simple staples. They come in a variety of colors, such as Solent Yellow, Solent Red, and now 'Solent Green.' However there are those who know the 'real' ingredient in Solent Green and cringe at their own culpability and fear divine retribution. The first is a food executive named William R. Simonson (Joseph Cotton). Upon his death, a dedicated police detective called Robert Thorn (Charleston Heston) seeks the truth behind his apparent suicide. Although corruption goes all the way to the top, it begins with Simonsons' Bodyguard, Tad Fielding (Chuck Connors) and Security chief Donnovan (Roy Jenson) who target Thorn for a Waste Desposal Factory. Thorn's boss, Lt. Hatcher (Brock Peters) believes his suspicions but warns him of those 'Higher and Hot' who want the case closed, but Thorn will not risk his "Job" for an easy way out. What Thorn discovers marks him for death, but like the film, awaits a final warning. **** | positive |
My curiosity and patience to finally see this controversial film, which now has been released on DVD for the first time in the UK, has been more than rewarded. Peter Watkins has excelled himself in his audacity and technical skills. This pseudo-documentary is certainly ahead of its time and still frighteningly relevant and up to date.<br /><br />The film is inspired by the upheaval of the late sixties in the US, when the government has increased its legitimized use of violence and oppression, while the anti-war movement reacts increasingly violent and radical. In order to deal with both this, the overpopulation of prisons and to provide special training to riot police units, the government has introduced the so-called punishment parks. Convicted 'criminals', mostly activists, are given the 'choice' to either be locked up in prison for years and years, or spend three days in one of these parks, where they either gain their freedom their death or an even longer prison sentence. The situation in the parks is beyond their worst expectations, however. It reminded me of a sort of realistic version of Battle Royale (2000).<br /><br />The film's structure is extremely effective and recalls parallels with Cannibal Holocaust, which is made almost 10 years later. Both movies are constructed and filmed in such a way that the viewer is challenged in thinking and feeling he is actually watching a real documentary and therefore shocked, even though aware of the fact that: this is a film. Both confront us with the inherently violent nature of mankind, but where Cannibal Holocaust is devoid of any deeper meaning (above all, it is an exploitation movie in every sense of the word) and does not raise any critical questions about the state of the world, Punishment Park does just that.<br /><br />I have been profoundly impressed with Punishment Park and find it hard to believe how such a powerful and important film could have been rejected and marginalized for so long. Maybe that says enough about the truth of its content, about the way power structures in this world function. I do not agree with the critique that Watkins polarizes and stereotypes, because the movie depicts activists and the keepers of the legitimized power structures who are in reality as polarized as they are here. If they weren't, there would not be any conflict and therefore no change in our societies. In reality, confrontations between these two groups often take stereotypical forms, whether you place them between activists and establishment in Latin America, Russia or New York City. If these groups would not be polarized to these extremes, the activists would be part of the silent majorities that tacitly complain but at the same time reside in the injustices of the world.<br /><br />As Peter Watkins tells us in the introduction on the DVD, the actors in Punishment Park are for the most part amateurs. Most kids were real activists from LA, most policemen had been part of the national forces and even some of the members of the tribunals are part of the social and political establishment of the time. Not introducing both groups previous to the shooting of the scenes taking place in the improvised court room, adds to spontaneous and improvised feel. Parallels are drawn with issues of the time, such as the repression of Black Panther members (one of the black prisoners is said to resemble the convicted charismatic BPleader Bobby Seale) and the trial of the Chicago seven.<br /><br />I admire Watkins' obvious and sincere engagement with injustice and his concern with human rights and the increasingly repressive measures taken by governments (nowadays in the name of the War in Terror) to silence those that do not agree and refuse to be brainwashed. Punishment Park remains to be an extremely important movie that should be shown in schools and seen by everybody who shares these concerns. Maybe its marginalization can finally be made up for. | positive |
Creakiness and atmosphere this film has, but so unfortunately does the print I just viewed. Raymond Massey provides a laid back Sherlock Holmes, almost comically so in early scenes in his bathrobe, which he trades in for a laborer's garb to investigate the creepy mansion of Dr. Rylott (Lyn Harding). What wasn't clear to me was why Rylott would have wanted his stepdaughters dead. If as in the case of Helen (Angela Baddeley), he didn't want her to run off to get married, he would have accomplished the same thing by having her dispatched.<br /><br />Other curiosities abound as well. After setting an early wedding date with Helen, the fiancée is no longer heard from for the rest of the picture. The presence of a band of gypsies at the time of Violet Stoner's death provides merely a diversion, and what could have been an interesting murder tool, a poisonous snake, is diluted by the fact that it was not a cobra, the musical renderings of the Indian man servant notwithstanding.<br /><br />Athole Stewart competently portrays Holmes' aide Dr. Watson, though he takes some getting used to if Nigel Bruce is more your cup of tea. As Rylott, Lyn Harding is sufficiently menacing, a trait that would be put to good use as Holmes' nemesis Professor Moriarty in two later films - 1935's "The Triumph of Sherlock Holmes" and 1937's "Murder at the Baskervilles".<br /><br />With repeated choppiness and an unsteady camera, it's surprising that the story line isn't more disrupted than it is. It's integrity is generally maintained, even if one stretches a bit to fill in the gaps. I guess that would be my main complaint with the film, as mentally bridging some of the jump cuts in the picture proved to be a real pain in the asp. | negative |
I just wanted to leave a quick comment as its not listen on here ,but i have just seen this movie,the version I just rented was released in 2005 as far as I know and it was actually called "Don't go into the attic" I only realized it was the same movie as Devils Harvest upon searching for some of the actors who looked familiar in the movie. Anyways I'm in Ireland so maybe this has only been released over here and in the UK now,but thats what its called over here..........not really like it matters because I would not recommend this movie.The only words that spring to mind watching it are CHEESE CHEESE CHEESE!! My one mark out of ten is purely for the one little jumpy bit :o) | negative |
Okay. This Movie is a Pure Pleasure. It has the Ever so Violent Horror Mixed with a Little Suspense and a Lot of Black Comedy. The Dentist Really Starts to loose His Mind and It's Enjoyable to Watch him do so. This Movie is for Certain People, Though. Either you'll Completely Love it or You Will Totally Hate It. A Good Movie to Rent and Watch When you don't Got Anything else to do. Also Recommended: Psycho III | positive |
I just finished watching Following and I thought it was great. I rated it 8 out of 10. I plan on watching it again with the director's commentary and then again in chronological order.<br /><br />I rented this movie because of my fascination of Christopher Nolan's more recent movie Memento. Following has some similarities; this movie was probably the blueprint for Memento. Even the music in some parts is very similar.<br /><br />Shooting the movie in black and white gives it a mysterious feel. The story and dialogue is really good. The performance of the actors is believable.<br /><br />Christopher Nolan made this movie on a really low budget. I look forward to his next release Insomnia, a big budget movie with my favourite actor Al Pacino. | positive |
A somewhat typical bit of filmmaking from this era. Obviously, It was first conceived into this world for the stage, but nonetheless a very good film from beginning to end. Peter O'Toole and Susannah York get to do their stage performance act for the silver screen and both do it effectively. There is very little in the way of story and anyone not familiar with this type of off beat character study may be a little put off by it. All in all, though, A good film in which Peter O'Toole and Susannah York get to overact. | positive |
Yes!!!! Fassbinder and Ballhaus are at the top of their game, back in 1973! It's about the same subject, but in my opinion it's a much better movie than THE MATRIX (1999), at least it was 200 times cheaper! Very nice camera work by Michael Ballhaus and the wonderful "Albatross" by Fleetwood Mac at the end. Fassbinder is creating a very moody tone for the whole film. It's a shame this movie was never released on DVD. But now after 37 Years they finally came to the conclusion, that this TV-Movie, is not only one of the best Fassbinder films (altough there are quiet a lot best Fassbinder films), it's a brilliant example for a science-fiction movie, done without much money. Buy it!! Watch it!! | positive |
This movie is awful. If you're considering to see this movie... two words DO NOT. It's tasteless, the storyline is really lame, and the jokes are even worse. The acting is really pathetic. I can't believe that this movie was made. Rather watch American Pie, Going Greek or Road Trip if you're in the mood for a teen comedy. It's about two girls who head for Malibu on their Spring Break. As usual they didn't do much planning and called (i think her names Michelle)'s uncle to crash at his Malibu mansion. Uncle Bennie strictly forbids them of having any kind of party, and as you would of guessed, they go ahead and do it. Please, I urge you, do not see this movie. | negative |
I'm Italian and when I've recently looked again this film I astonished for its beauty: the first time I was 10 years old and I liked it, but today I can appreciate it with adult mind and feelings. Now I can understand it was a masterpiece of a special season of the Italian cinema (Pasolini etc.), by that time gone. <br /><br />The Hollywood epic films are good...for fun. Perhaps this 'Odyssey' had no English version because is not enough funny... not suitable for pop-corn and coke audience. However suitable for Homer pathos and existentialist reflections.<br /><br />In Italy was recently released a very good DVD version: INTEGRAL, with excellent colors. You can find it in some file sharing, but it's Italian only, and without subtitles. Too bad: also the dialogs and the voices of this film are remarkable. | positive |
This was the best documentary I've ever seen!! I just saw Lords of Dogtown and wanted to know more about Stacy Peralta, and was surprised and happy to find out this was one of his films as well. Great Job Stacy! I was kicking back at work last week, bored O*&^%less and this movie came on. Growing up in Orange County in the 80's I surfed up and down the local beaches and so did my dad when he was a teenager. I grew up at the beach, my parents took me every weekend, I body surfed, boogeyboarded then moved up from there. This movie just captivated me. It was way before my time but it was awesome to see what these guys went through..TRUE PIONEERS! This movie is a collectors item. | positive |
One of the most poetic narrative films ever made, WAGONMASTER is nonetheless a difficult film to immediately like. I love this movie, but I recommend seeing some of John Ford's other westerns before taking a look at this one. The first time I saw it I was 18 years old and I hadn't seen too many other westerns, and I hated it. I thought it was incredibly boring. I kept waiting for something to happen. It took several years for me to love this picture. First, I fell in love with westerns in general -- the traditions, characters, landscapes, ways of talking, etc -- and that made me realize when I saw WAGONMASTER again that a lot is happening in it after all.<br /><br />I also was simply a more experienced moviegoer at that point and had learned to appreciate visual storytelling, and to listen to what each image was telling me. WAGONMASTER is a very visual movie by one of the most visual of directors working near the peak of his career.<br /><br />The movie is a celebration of a way of life, and its subject matter is more emotional and interior than other Ford westerns. Actually, that's not really as accurate as saying that, rather, it has a lot less exterior action than the other westerns. (The other westerns have exterior action AND interior emotion.) It quite beautifully places its Mormon pioneers in the context of nature. There are many shots of animals and children -- not for any surface, narrative purpose, but for illustrating this idea. That is why the movie can be called a poem. It isn't about the surface story (which barely exists) nearly as much as it is about an emotional idea, and it gets this idea across through composition, editing, sound and music. In fact, one could argue that this is a purer form of filmmaking because the images directly express the emotional idea of the film, rather than having to first service a "story."<br /><br />Give this movie a chance, and allow it to exist on its own terms, not the terms of other westerns or other movies. | positive |
Every second of the film is gorgeous. And that's why it earns a 7, because the plot is not especially devious, and thinking back over the last 90 minutes I never really felt any excitement or investment in the characters. If anything, the luxurious graphics and framing have made certain scenes (the car chase, for instance) more pedestrian than they ought to be - not that they don't look lovely and have some very original design and occasionally novel camera angles - but they are missing the kinetic movement and close-up shots that are part of the language for any normal action/thriller. The first hour plods along, and the dialogue feels very edited and a bit stagey - people wait for each other to finish and don't always react in a natural cadence, which would be a problem of recording each individual's dialogue separately. On rare occasions the emotions in the voices don't quite match those on screen; something that should really have been avoided. The futuristic architecture is very attractive (lots of glass walls/ceilings/screens, lovely smoke/mirage/special effects) and nice-looking cars, but again - it's more an exercise in graphic design, having no real impact on the story. I'd argue that the whole point of using drawn animation (instead of actors/CGI) is to really push the limits of imagination and design; to do that which is too difficult/impractical in other mediums. Although the animation in Renaissance is certainly stunning and incredibly well-accomplished, I never felt like I was seeing something that hasn't been done before.<br /><br />Immortel, another French CGI film, also suffers from an imbalance of beauty over story & pace. To be fair, some marvellous and engaging French movies also have a languid pace, and lingering shots of the look in someone's eyes or the rain on Paris cobbles can evoke great emotion - but animators need to understand that while animation brings unique strengths, it also has weaknesses when compared to real-life technique. Perhaps it would break from the 'noir' rules that the film wants to stick to, but I think the film-makers also missed a glaring opportunity to explore their future society a bit more - the social strata, the fascistic grip of the corporations etc.<br /><br />I have no problem recommending Renaissance to anybody who enjoys stylistic design and/or animation ('Manga' fans in particular), but I wouldn't make my other film-loving friends sit through it. Take away the sumptuous visuals and it's a barely average film. | positive |
Well the film starts good, but after half an hour it becomes boring and stupid, when all the plot is about Karen's( that was the name of the girl right?) pregnancy.<br /><br />The end of the movie it's really corny and the characters really dumb.<br /><br />I don't know who is more stupid, if the girl because she came back with her old boyfriend or the boy for the way he was used for her.<br /><br />Anyway my conclusion is this: definitely not the best eighties comedy, just another movie like many others with nothing special, they could do it better but they ruined it, if only the plot had take another way but they keep that pregnancy stuff and they definitely ruined, so final conclusion: i don't like. | negative |
I think the weighted average for this film is too low. I give it a 7. Very entertaining, although over the top in a few places. My wife says it passes the Danielle Steele test. Superb performances throughout, particularly by Andie MacDowell. | positive |
Dumb excuse for a thriller with absolutely zero chemistry or reason in relationship between Lewis and Hurt (why is she dating a man old enough to be her father anyway?? The suspense is laughable. Lewis is very good, but a script is needed, and there isn't one. My score for this trash: 2 out of 10. | negative |
I knew this film was supposed to be so bad it was funny, so I went into it with that expectation. I just found it to be so bad it was murderously boring. The whiny theme song is funny for about 10 seconds, until you realize there is nothing clever about it except its intentionally irritating quality. Seeing things get splattered with tomatoes gets old in about 30 seconds. There is just nothing clever or funny about the film except for the premise. It could sustain a 3-4 minute comedy sketch maybe, but this is just not a feature film by any stretch of the imagination. | negative |
A blind person could have shot this movie better...seriously! The director is clearly a novice. He must be Dennis Hopper's coke dealer or something to convince him to be in this movie. I felt so embarrassed for Dennis.<br /><br />To John, the director...PLEASE retire from directing. Your contribution is not needed nor wanted. The medium of film is stronger without you. You are terrible at directing. Stick to bagging groceries or something.<br /><br />This movie should've bypassed "straight to video" and gone "striaght to the trashcan." I'm a dumber person for having seen this movie. DO NOT SEE THIS MOVIE IF YOU RESPECT YOURSELF AND RESPECT THE ARTFORM OF FILM! | negative |
From the get go, you won't be able to look away, and you won't want to. "The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya" (Suzumiya Haruhi no Yuutsu) is one of the most entertaining animes I've seen in a long time. If you can look away from the insane, and sometimes perverse, humor, it's easy to find a brilliantly constructed and masterfully executed work.<br /><br />Part of the brilliance comes from the fact that the episodes are not in chronological order, so you may not understand some of the things they talk about at first, but as the series progresses you'll find yourself saying "ah, so that's what they meant!" Even though this might confuse some people, after watching the show you'll be hard pressed to make a case against telling the story in this fashion.<br /><br />After all the focus is on the characters. The title character, Haruhi Suzumiya, is by far one of the most eccentric heroines of any anime ever. Her opening speech to her class, in which she declares she is "not interested in normal humans," and is searching for "espers, aliens and time travelers," is absolutely bizarre, but she's lovable that way.<br /><br />Then there's Kyon, the "normal" guy who is pulled into the madness surrounding Suzumiya-san. He's the narrator, and his quick wit always makes the scene that much more entertaining. He finds himself caught in the middle of various factions all trying to influence Haruhi Suzumiya, and the other three characters are representatives of these factions; ironically, they are the very beings Haruhi is searching for, and yet they cannot reveal themselves to her.<br /><br />The first is Yuki Nagato, a quiet girl who happens to be the only member of the school Literary club, and also a representative of the Integration Thought Entity; she is basically an alien, though the best description of her is a computer program in a human body. Her purely emotionless responses make her comically deadpan and always make you think there's more than meets the eye. Then there's Mikuru Asahina, the time traveler, who happens to be incredibly cute, a major ditz, and the subject of Suzumiya's plans to advertise her club, the SOS Brigade, to the world. The end result is that Suzumiya does things to her that border on sexual harassment, making her dress up in fetish uniforms. The final character is Koizumi Itsuki, the timid and perpetually optimistic philosopher who happens to be Haruhi's "esper," though he can only use his powers in certain conditions.<br /><br />The end result of all these characters is a comedy unlike any other, that is both crude and deep, and always brilliant. Don't believe me? Watch the first episode, their "student film." You'll see what I mean. | positive |
So, back when Herbie made his first appearance, I was perfectly happy watching Dean Jones mug away. I only wanted to be entertained for a few hours and eat overly buttered popcorn. Now, unfortunately, I have expectations of a riveting/delightful story whenever I watch a movie, if I'm not on some sort of medication. And this is another good movie for the medicated. There are no major laughs, no complex plot lines, no difficult twists. Herbie Fully Loaded is great for the fully loaded.<br /><br />This was the first time I had seen La Lohan on the screen since she swapped places with Jamie Lee Curtis (I thought she was excellent in that), and I can't say I was terribly impressed this time around. Aside from her constantly changing and distractingly unnatural hair color, she just didn't ring true as the kid next door who had spent a lifetime hanging around road racers. Her 'need for speed' wasn't portrayed consistently in the film - perhaps it was elsewhere - she looked older than her part, and seemed to always be looking for something (a party? designer togs? new place to spend money?) off set. I couldn't see any chemistry with Justin Long; that romance seemed obligatory at best. The only time Lindsay appeared engaged was when she was interacting with Matt Dillon, who I thought was appropriately over the top as Evil Bad Guy Trip Murphy.<br /><br />It was great to see Herbie again, and I loved the movie intro with material from the old movies. If Disney had popped out with some Car 53 jewelry, I might have worn some just to be loyal. His new feature (?) was a little inconsistent (does he channel the thoughts of his driver? Does he now skateboard?) but whatever. We all knew how it was going to end, but I do wish he had ended up with someone a little less dopey than Maggie. And my head still hurts from that lesson Maggie and we viewers had hammered home. <br /><br />What would have made the movie worthwhile? Have the old Herbie in a real story with a real plot - at the very least, Herbie's as good as Lassie - but clearly that's asking too much. Why is it that Disney always goes back to the same well as "Herbie Goes Bananas" and "the Computer That Wore Tennis Shoes" when it comes to innovation? <br /><br />I'm sure this was a great movie for kids and those with no expectations. For the rest of us....it's for when you have the 'flu and just can't take the suspense of Rear Window. | negative |
Do you know what farmers spray on fields ? That's right - Manure , so when the BBC decided to make a much hyped conspiracy thriller about GMOs and farming what we got was some of the smelliest manure the BBC has inflicted upon its audience <br /><br />!!!! SPOILERS !!!!<br /><br />FIELDS OF GOLD opens with a bunch of masked scientists in a lab where a female scientist ( According to the right on trendy BBC all scientists are women ) announces " A new strain of wheat that will save the third world from hunger " then the story switches to another equally bland scene . If you're going to make a thriller of any type shouldn't you open with a hook that grabs the audience ? DOCTOR WHO was brilliant at this as was THE X- FILES while 28 DAYS LATER opened with a hook that took place in a laboratory. I guess someone at the BBC didn't think this thriller needed a hook because the viewers had trailers stuffed down their throat for weeks in advance <br /><br />As the ( Not very exciting ) story continues a couple of journalists ( One's a drunken man with morals lower than Bill Clinton and Dubya Bush combined while the other is a female journalist full of virtue ) investigating patients at a county hospital who might be getting bumped off via " Mercy killings " . It's at this point things start getting confused as the female journalist is threatened by MI5 spooks and the first episode ends with the main MI5 spook getting murdered <br /><br />The second episode reveals that the patients at the county hospital have actually been dying due to being infected with a VRSA superbug . This is when things go totally hay wire . All throughout FIELDS OF GOLD the audience have been led to believe the intelligence services and the company shown in the opening sequence have been behind the deaths - But they're not . It turns out the bad guy is an organic farmer who has been manufacturing the VRSA superbug in his bedroom and the story ends via THE MATRIX camera work with the drunken male journalist setting fire to a field ridden with VRSA thereby spreading the superbug throughout the land <br /><br />I find it impossible to say a good word about FIELDS OF GOLD . At the time of its broadcast I was both a member of the Scottish Green Party and Greenpeace . I have since renounced my time in the environmental movement but even now I am somewhat offended by how environmentalists are portrayed here and to have the bad guy spreading a fatal genetically engineered virus as a warning to the dangers of genetically modified organisms is very silly. It's a bit like a CND member letting off a nuke in London to warn of the dangers of nuclear war . I was also slightly offended as to how the male characters were written as being bastards while all the females were highly intelligent and morally superior to men . There's also other problems with the script especially with regard to VRSA . If unlike the scriptwriters you take the time and trouble to research VRSA you'll find it's entirely different from what is seen here . Oh and if you set fire to diesel it doesn't explode like napalm . Perhaps the worst criticism of the script is that it resembles JEEPERS CREEPERS structure wise whereby the last ten minutes contradicts most of what has gone before . Where as JEEPERS CREEPERS only lasted about 90 minutes FIELDS OF GOLD lasted twice that length so is doubly irritating and illogical<br /><br />As a footnote environmentalism never makes a good theme for a thriller ( Anyone remember those Steven Segal movies ? ) and it's about time TV and film producers realized this | negative |
I would firstly say that somehow I remember seeing this movie in my early childhood, I couldn't read the subtitles and I thought Sonny Chiba was Sean Connery. But I did really like the concept. If you are not able to at least partially suspend your adult scepticism and embrace your inner seven your old you may want to avoid this movie. That said, having just watched the restored 137 minute version on DVD I have to say I enjoyed it, though not as much as when I was seven ( I remembered the ending ). <br /><br />There are aspects of the movie that are worthy of criticism , the first 15 minutes and final 15 minutes both have some really comic moments, my favourite being the contrast between scenes acted out in the final 10 minutes and the curious choice of backing music ( listen to the lyrics ). <br /><br />For an action film there is a great deal of focus on the personal stories of certain soldiers and the social dynamics of the squad as the strain of their time travel takes its toll. By the ending of the movie I had decided that this was a good thing, when seven I though the 'relationship' guff was a bad thing.<br /><br />For an action film there is also plenty of gratifying gory action, especially a couple of epic battle scenes between the platoon and hordes of Shogun era warriors. The makers of the movie have ensured that as many deaths as possible are bloody and, lets face it, humorous. I thought this was a splendid aspect of the movie when I was a kid, and I am not ashamed to say that I still do.<br /><br />I also like the fact that the modern day soldiers in general don't spend the movie walking on egg shells trying to avoid altering the space time continuum, they've got heavy calibre machine guns, mortars, rocket launchers, a tank and a helicopter and they're hell bent on making feudal Japan theirs. Which is what I'd like to think any vigorous IMDb user would do in their boots.<br /><br />In short the movies worth watching, it makes the viewer regret that there are not more movies made with a similar premise, and at the same time offers some hefty hints as to why a movie like G.I. Samurai is so unique. | positive |
Do you like stand up? Then stay away from this...<br /><br />During the early rounds, there are in fact good comics, but unless they got some cute qualities, they got a snowballs chance. Any controversial material and you are OUT! ...and I think I hurt as much as the discarded comedians, when I see who the crooked judges are letting in.<br /><br />1 out of my top 4 made it further than the preliminaries. Half+ of the finalists have given me 0 laughs. Several of them have lifted their material elsewhere, something the judges doesn't seem to have problems with.<br /><br />It is more entertaining than a lot of what else is on TV, but incredibly hard to watch without contemplating what it could have been.<br /><br />If the producers changed the name of the contest to "Last Clown Standing", all my criticism would loose validity. Maybe an idea? | negative |
This surrealistic, absurdist movie is the first film I have seen of cult Swedish Director Roy Andersson. He is a veteran filmmaker who has made his living filming commercials, directing only four feature films in the last forty years. This background shows: the film seems like a collection of fifty 2 minute arty commercials. There is no story interconnecting these vignettes, though some characters appear in more than one vignette (there is a theme throughout underneath them, though: the absurdity of modern life). Some of the film's mannerisms (having the actors appear in light white makeup) are more irritating than illuminating. Some of the skits amount to very little (a man unsure in which queue to stand?). Other skits are better, though. The best is the one about the rock chick dreaming that she goes on honeymoon with her rock guitarist bride on a house that turns on something akin to a train (you have to watch it to get it). A film worth seeing, even if comparisons made by some film critics with such great filmmakers as Keaton, Tati and Kaurismaki seems overwrought: Andersson lacks the vision of them and the lack of a story interconnecting the vignettes is fatal to this film's pretension of being a masterpiece. | positive |
Two things can happen when an ensemble cast is brought together. Either you are left walking out of the theater asking, "Why?' or you receive MANNA FROM HEAVEN, a delightful comedy from the Burton Sisters, whose mother not only provided inspiration but the screenplay itself. Ursula Burton, plays Theresa, a nun whose friend's and family had always believed she was touched by G-d. When money falls from the sky the clan use young Theresa's faith that the money was gift from the heavens to allow all their dreams to come true. Years pass and we find Theresa returned home to her native Buffalo. She comes to the realization that the gift needs to be repaid and calls together her friends and family, (Academy Award winners Shirley Jones, Louise Fletcher and Cloris Leachman) to return the debt before Easter Sunday. The money has long since been spent and all the characters find themselves in financial difficulties. Shirley Jones and Frank Gorshin, are a husband and wife con team that teach the all important lesson's in life, of how to dress for winter in Buffalo and my personal favorite, "they expect you to take the silverware," when visiting a restaurant. The audience can only hope that if Theresa does reach her goal that that someone won't run off with the money. The movie teaches us that it is not money, but ourselves that make our and other's dreams come true. Every action has an outcome not just for you, but the community around you. When looking into the mirror we see ourselves as we'd like to be, MANNA FROM HEAVEN, answers the question of how other's can see the image we'd most like to reflect. The Burtons have done a superb job directing the cast to break out of their shells and create new and inventive characters. In the day of multi-million dollar budgets, this low budget Indy proves it is not the cash in hand, but true talent that will draw the biggest laughs. Wendie Malick (The American President, Just Shoot Me) adds a special flavor to this already talented cast. | positive |
Cut tries to be like most post-Scream slashers tried to be, a spoof of the horror genre that tried to be clever by referencing other famous horror movies. Now, I am not bagging 'Scream,' as I think 'Scream' is a very good horror movie that does a great job of blending horror and comedy. Cut fails on most levels. It has its moments but overall it just does not work out, not even as a "so bad it's good" movie, just a below average one.<br /><br />The first five minutes or so are OK and set the story fairly well, apart from the fact that Kylie Minogue can't really act, and ironically she gets her tongue out, go figure. Go forward some time and a group of film students want to finish her film off, which is apparently cursed. And, as you have probably predicted, one by one the cast and crew are slowly picked off by a masked madman.<br /><br />Unoriginal plot, poor acting and a predictable ending are a few of the elements that follow. There is plenty of referencing in the film, everything from 'Scream' to 'The Texas Chain Saw Massacre.' This isn't smart either, it feels as though the director wanted to feel smart and cool by mentioning other famous horror flicks ala Scream. For a slasher there is minimal gore and no nudity, which is a huge negative when it comes to a slasher that has not got a whole lot going for it. Really, I should be supporting this movie because I'm Australian and we're not as good when it comes to horror (we do have our gems, though) but Cut is definitely not one of them.<br /><br />However, it did keep me watching for the 90 minutes or so, so that is something good at least. I would not recommend this to anyone apart from hardcore slasher fans, who may be able to appreciate what this film is trying to aim for, but if you are looking for a good movie, stay away.<br /><br />2/5 | negative |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.