review stringlengths 32 13.7k | sentiment stringclasses 2 values |
|---|---|
This show is so incredibly hilarious that I couldn't stop watching the marathon on Comedy Central tonight (despite the fact that I've seen all the episodes previously). I've always regarded Silverman as a huge talent and this is finally a vehicle for that talent to be enjoyed by a wide audience. I watch this show and I laugh a very large percentage of the time... I can't say that about many TV shows... can you? This show is finally something new and interesting and (most importantly) funny! This is a show I will never miss and it is one I will buy on DVD as soon as it comes out. You owe it to yourself to watch this show... I predict a long run for this series... And just to be clear, the people who are offended by this show just don't get it... perhaps they lack the intelligence to comprehend it... they should stop making fools of themselves by attacking something they don't understand. Anyone who uses the word "bigot" in reference to Silverman, or who claims that she only aims to "shock"... is way off the mark... She's exactly the opposite; just Google her and you'll quickly see that she's a huge proponent of civil rights, etc. If you don't know that she's ironically embracing all of these outrageous viewpoints, you don't get it. And if you don't get it, do the rest of us a favor and be quiet about it so we can all enjoy the hilarity... | positive |
Bill, Jeremy Theobald, is an inspiring writer who hasn't gotten anything published as of yet. Bill also has an odd and strange habit, he likes to follow people.<br /><br />Bill picks out some stranger in the streets diner or on the subway, metro, and follows them as if he were their shadow. Maybe Bill does this to help him in inspiring himself to write the great novel that he's been dreaming about or get an article of his get printed in a major magazine? Maybe it's because it fills Bill's lonely life with a purpose and even makes the person of his curiosity a face in the crowd with meaning and substance by his paying attention to him or her? Or maybe it gives Bill someone to look after and care about and be responsible for besides himself? Bill has a simple rule that he follows religiously when he follows someone : after you follow him or her to their home or place of work you stop. <br /><br />One day Bill follows Cobb, Alex Haw, home and instead of following his rule of stopping he still keeps following Cobb. Bill will soon realize how right he was with that rule he set for himself in following people and at the same time how wrong he was by breaking it. <br /><br />Amazingly good low-budget movie made by Christopher Noland in 1998 before he hit it big in Hollywood with his ground-breaking and original motion picture classic "Momento" some two years later that has already become a major cult movie. <br /><br />"Following" is actually a much better movie then "Momento" because it's a conventional and easy to follow story. Compared to "Momento's" which was at first confusing and then when you realize what the movie is telling you in it's backward storyline very complicated. Whats makes "Following" so much better is just by it being simple but at the same time brainy in it's affect on those who watch it. The movie is far more direct as well as devastating and you don't have to see it over and over to get just what it was trying to tell them like "Momento" did. "Following" is a story within a story within a story with one of the most surprising as well as simply manipulated ending, if you watch the movie again and notice the clues, that you'll ever see.<br /><br />Made with an unbelievably small budget of $6,000.00, thats less then what most Hollywood movies budgets out for coffee-breaks, with a no-name cast in black and white and just over one hour, 71 minutes, long. Hollywood as well as the motion picture industry outside of Hollywood can learn a lot from Chris Noland in how someone with nothing more then talent and imagination can achieve what millions of dollars in most cases can't; make an intelligent and at the same time penetrating film with next to nothing in money and no big name stars. | positive |
Saw this movie when it came out and then a couple more times years later. I'm watching it now 20 years later and it's still a very good story. Does it wreak of "lifetime movie network"? Yes, but alas lifetime was not even in existence back then so it needed somehwere to air.<br /><br />The cast was excellent. The story was a little schmaltzy; two women become close friends and unbeknownst to either one friend is having an affair with he other friends husband. She's invited over to the house for a dinner party which is how she discovers that her lover is the husband of her best friend. She is horrified and tries to break off the affair. Shortly afterwards he is tragically killed in a car accident which is devatating for both women. Of course the wife finds out by accident about this affair and wants Holly out of her life now, but their friendship is able to prevail because they need each other.<br /><br />I thought it was a very good story a great cast and perfomrances. I really enjoyed it. | positive |
I really enjoyed this film, it definitely keeps you on the edge of your seat. It was very well directed. I think it was important that they showed the other couple's life as well as Terry and Bobbys and show them as people with emotions. As this film needed to show Bobby as a cold and vindictive person.<br /><br />I agree with another review it was sick love, not true love. He didn't need to go to great lengths as murder to give his wife a baby. He should have been honest with her and told her that he was sterile and decide to adopt a baby together. Some reviews say that she was naive, I think she was when it came to the adoption, however best actors all round. Great movie to watch!! | positive |
Very violent and nicely filmed movie. Paulina is a bad sexy girl who will show that men can be raped too. This movie has lots of black humor. This guy will kill anybody just to forget he used to be a gangster. There will be sometimes when you wouldn't know whether to shiver or to smile and think "Am I laughing at someone who is killing people?" | positive |
It seems to me that Stephen King's "Bachman" pen-name was a way for him to put out some of the grimmer, rawer, more mean-spirited stuff that he wanted to write without 'contaminating' his 'brand name'. If you look back at the "Bachman Books" (Running Man, The Long Walk, Roadwork, Thinner) you notice they have a sealed-in feeling of airlessness and hopelessness about them that is distinct from mainstream King. I realize that we are talking about the guy whose first novel featured a humiliated, blood-covered, emotionally crippled teenage girl slaughtering everyone at her high school prom...but mainstream King always at have characters and plot elements that leaven the grimness of the proceedings a bit, and mostly have endings that offer at least a glimpse of hope and human feeling. Bachman books are just plain mean and always end badly. (BTW, "Pet Semetary" could have easily been a Bachman book if King hadn't revealed the alias by then. And "The Dark Half" seems to be at least partially about his "Bachman" persona.)<br /><br />"Thinner" was the last Bachman book, and man, with its themes of class warfare, revenge, and death by starvation, it is nasty. So it should be no surprise that the movie follows suit. <br /><br />What is a surprise is that the adaptation seems to be filmed at a "TV Movie Of the Week" level of talent instead of something worthy of a theatrical release. (These days, something like this would probably go directly to DVD or cable). The makeup work and the striking motif (starving to death in the midst of plenty, a metaphor for the overfed, undernourished American middle class if there ever was one) is all that keeps you watching this misfire. <br /><br />What went wrong? My first thought is that the director was going for the nasty Bachman vibe, but he also somehow sucked all the interest out of the movie with poor casting choices - the actors here (with the exception of Joe Monetegna) simply can't carry the movie. And then he squished the warmth and life out of the rest of the movie with awkward pacing and scene structure. Plus he couldn't leave the plot alone, and his changes don't really help. The script and dialog ought to work, but mostly the movie just lies there. Everything is muffled, dull, airless, and no fun to watch...with the vivid exception of the spectacle of the main character getting....thinner, and thinner, and thinner. <br /><br />As other have pointed out, "Thinner" is by no means the worst King movie ever made (or even the second worst). And it does have a dreadful, compelling fascination owing to the theme and the careful makeup work. But first time viewers should approach this one with lowered expectations. | negative |
I was wondering if there was a place or a link that someone can send me or post for me so i can watch this show . it seems to be a missing show i have been looking for years now its about oz and a girl who has to help save it . it was really good . but i found a good oz type thing on the web but i cant find it again or seem to remember a lot of it due to being years and was thinking that this one maybe it and from reading all this it sounds good and maybe the missing show that i really liked please someone help me thanks so much so please anyone that can help me or give me a link that would be so helpful again thank you so much....or if anyone has an oz based good videos please post as well. | negative |
I occasionally see some of this show because my wife watches it sometimes. I try to enjoy it for it's basic idea which is helping a needy family, but several factors get in the way for me. Every episode follows the same format where many parts seem totally scripted (which they are) and tears flow seemingly on cue. The attempt to manipulate the viewer with a mixture of emotional breakdowns and sad music is a real turn off for me. The fact that everyone who donates something to the house, be it Sears or whoever, has to plug themselves for being generous is also annoying. Probably the biggest problem I have with it all is that what must be huge amounts of money and a small army of workers are combined to build an amazingly over the top home for a single family. Now I know that this amount of money is nothing but a drop in the bucket for Disney/ABC but how much more could be done for more people with the amount they are putting on one house? Instead of focusing on one family and getting them all to cry during the episode why not help 10 families and show highlights? Isn't life difficult enough for the average person? Why do I need help finding things to feel sad about, why not show something truly inspiring without being manipulative? I know what is being done for these families is good, but they are also being used for ratings. You can't tell me they aren't being coached sometimes on the crying. I guess when I see these people moving into a home that most hard working people in the U.S. could not afford for their children it really bothers me. I can't help but think of what could really be done with a small portion of Disney's money. Instead of giving each member of the family a flat screen TV and or personal shower that tells you the water temperature and shoots out of the ceiling why not help more people afford food, clothes, education and medical insurance? I know so we can be entertained and have a good cry. In terms of money, I feel the same about Oprah. I don't think anyone can actually conceive the amount of money she possesses. Yes her recent reality show did good things, but when she gave $30,000 to each losing "contestant" I'm sitting here thinking...that's a years salary for many, many people...if they're lucky. Don't get me started on game shows. So I realize that Extreme Makeover Home Edition is "doing good", but forgive me if I see it as more self serving than giving of itself. Is there anyone out there that feels similar? | negative |
This could have been a very good film, a very interesting look at ancient tradition and oral history, but it should have been a short subject. As it is , it moves at a snail's pace; sure that's part of the life being portrayed, but this was unbearable. I fell asleep watching them make soup and that was a highlight. | negative |
"Sex and the City" has some great things going for it. The problem is that it's saddled with a number of negatives that really hurt the ultimate rating and review for its' six seasons.<br /><br />The good things about "SATC" is that a lot of the conversations ring true to life, the romance stories are interesting, and the characters are fun.<br /><br />The bad things is that few women act like complete whores. These four women have so many partners, even going lesbian in some episodes, that you have no choice but to roll your eyes at the utter absurdity. Men on the show are for the most part depicted as shallow, degenerates, liars, cheats, and buffoons. The foul language these women use is far in excess as to what a normal conversation entails. Why do the writers do these things? Clearly, to be over-the-top and to get your attention.<br /><br />Another thing that bothered me (without spoiling) is how some of the relationships ended. They simply didn't ring real to me or to others I discussed this with.<br /><br />But, even though I gave the show 2 stars, in the end, I'm glad I watched the show. I've actually watched every season multiple times. I do recommend the show to anyone that won't be offended by strong profanity and soft-core pornography. I could have done less with the offensive language and the nudity and sex acts but the romance was very good and the saga ends pretty well. | negative |
Ah, the 1970's. A time when it was in to be a swinger. To be honest, today is also a good time to be a swinger but it just felt more daring then.<br /><br />Joe Sarno offers up a pretty good soft-core film. In fact, just like today, some of the actors are famous hardcore actors. Unlike today, these people were good actors and these films had a plot and character development.<br /><br />It's pretty much what you would expect out of a swinger's movie. Two couples with open relationships re-ignite the wanderlust out of the MILF of one of the women who has come for a visit. Not much more to it.<br /><br />Of course, when the MILF is Jennifer Welles then it is a different story. Not too many 40-somethings look as delicious undressed as Ms. Welles. It's worth the price alone to see Ms. Welles look at herself in the mirror as if she's Aphrodite. She's no "Stifler's Mom". She's way sexier.<br /><br />I also digged Chris Jordan's Anna. Jordan looks and sounds so much like Elaine Joyce that I thought she might be her "separated at birth" twin or even Elaine herself. Anna is always eating but must have incredible metabolism.<br /><br />Unlike 1990's soft-core porn, 70's softie porn retained the hardcore film's realism (something that 2000's soft-core has brought back on occasion, instead of the 90's music and canned orgasms) and it is here in full force. It's not real but it feels real.<br /><br />For those who enjoyed the Quebec produced "Deux Femmes En Or", you'll enjoy this one. Another classic film only on Drive-In Classics, the best $2.50 CAN a month you can spend. | positive |
I saw this film yesterday. I must admit, it weren't my cup of tea. Although it's supposed to be a horror movie of its kind. But as I was watching this, I was thinking.. 'This movie isn't making any sense at all..' Where on earth did this guy in the dark coat came from? Where were the two guys were going when they left the girls behind? Where on earth did a shark came out from?<br /><br />All these elements in this film somehow didn't add up. I felt as if these filmmakers wasted so much time and money on a film that was so bound to be so crap.<br /><br />I've seen many good horror movies in my time, but this is one of the most worst horror flicks I've seen. At the end of the movie, I said to myself that I wouldn't watch it again.. So much pappy show in this film, I've decided to give it the thumbs down! Count me out on this one! 0 out of 10! | negative |
After seeing all the Jesse James, Quantrill, jayhawkers,etc films in the fifties, it is quite a thrill to see this film with a new perspective by director Ang Lee. The scene of the attack of Lawrence, Kansas is awesome. The romantic relationship between Jewel and Toby Mcguire turns out to be one of the best parts and Jonathan Rhys-Meyers is outstanding as the bad guy. All the time this film makes you feel the horror of war, and the desperate situation of the main characters who do not know if they are going to survive the next hours. Definitely worth seeing. | positive |
If you know anything about the Manhattan Project, you will find "Fat Man and Little Boy" at least an interesting depiction of the events surrounding that story. The film is in all ways a very realistic portrayal of these events, and in many ways it is almost too real (such as some scenes involving radiation poisoning). Paul Newman, as usual, is brilliant in his role and always manages to come off like a real person on the screen. The supporting cast, such as John Cusack, Laura Dern, Bonnie Bedelia, and Natasha Richardson, is fairly good as well. This film is not, however, one of the best examples of turning a true story into a movie. Great films are able to take a true story and use just enough artistic license to keep its audience engaged for the entire movie. This one, however, tends to drag a bit throughout, and some scenes (such as John Cusack and Natasha Richardson's love story) could have been eliminated entirely without causing the film to lose much. Nevertheless, there are enough interesting facts and tiny humorous bits to at least keep the audience interested enough to see the entire film. It does not always entertain, but as far as great depictions go, this is very accurate, fascinating, and will leave the audience with something to think about.<br /><br />*** out of **** | positive |
Has this ever happened to you? I go into my local video store and see a few new arrivals in the "film noir" section. I spy a copy of a new arrival of a film I have never seen called NAKED ALIBI. Its from one of those mail order video companies that offers (mostly) "dupey" looking copies of hard to find titles. The description on the box sounds good. The film has players I like (Sterling Hayden, Gloria Grahame, and Gene Barry). So I take it home and watch it. About ten minutes into this film I started having second thoughts. About half way through this film I started to dislike it. By the time the film ended, I not only disliked it, I despised it. The film opens with cops questioning Al Willis on suspicion of robbery. Other than being drunk, the police have nothing on him. When he pushes a cop and demands to be allowed to go home, the cops beat him up. Detective Conroy arrives, lets the cops finish the beating and then announces Willis is in the clear. Willis swears he will get revenge. Later one of the police officers is shot dead. With no evidence other that Willis is "sore" about the beating, Conroy make Willis his sole suspect, despite the fact that his boss names a pair of mobsters as suspects. Conroy arrests him, but for lack evidence Willis is released. The next day two more cops are killed by a bomb. This time Conroy goes to the Bakery that Willis owns and tries to beat a confession out of him. Conroy doesn't know it but a local newsman whose paper has been accusing Conroys department of police brutality snaps a picture of Conroy trying strangle Willis and Conroy is fired. But Conroy continues his pursuit and Willis flees to Mexico where Willis has a mistress. Conroy manages to convince his mistress (who Willis treats rather rough) to help him prove Willis is a killer. What this film lacks is a convincing script. The script looks as if only a rough draft was written and shooting began before a finished script was completed. Things happen, characters personalities change, plot twists occur for no real reason other than that script calls for it. Other than the fact that Willis likes to tip a glass now and than, there is nothing in the early part of the film to make us think that he is a crazy killer that cheats on his wife. He treats his wife, his kid and employees well. Early in the film, one gets the impression that its Conroy is the one whose is a loose cannon. He seems to casually approve of police brutality. Conroy, for no reason is convinced from the very start Willis has criminal past. He seems to operate on the motto of the old Communist Bulgarian secret police; "Everyone is guilty of something, we just have not found out about it yet." Later Conroy shows kindness to Al's mistress and young son, now we are supposed to like him. Sorry! The early impression I got of Conroy stuck with me too long. And he is also a dumb cop. Only after he is fired and goes to Mexico does he run a background check on Willis and discovers that a warrant is out for him issued in Maryland. Why didn't he think of this before? Because this film hadn't used up enough running time. The cast is good. Gene Barry does well considering how poorly conceived his role of Al Willis is. I'm big fan of 40's and 50's crime thrillers but not only did I not think this film was good, it left a bad taste in my mouth (something many modern films do, but older films rarely do). | negative |
I just sat through a very enjoyable fast paced 45 mins of ROLL.<br /><br />Roll is about a country boy, Mat (Toby Malone) who has dreams of becoming a Sports Star. Mat travels to the city and is to be picked up by his cousin George (Damien Robertson). Well, that was the plan anyway. George is involved with a gangster, Tiny (John Batchelor) and is making a delivery for him. Needless to say, Mat gets dragged into George's world. <br /><br />I thought it was great how Mat teaches George some morals and respect while George teaches Mat how to relax and enjoy life a little. Toby and Damien were well cast together and did an outstanding job.<br /><br />Every character in the movie complimented each other very well, the two cops were great. David Ngoombujarra brought some great comic relief to the movie. Tiny played a likable gangster that reminded me of one of my favourite characters 'Pando' from Two Hands.<br /><br />One of the other things that I liked about Roll was that it showcased the cities that I grew up and lived in for 20 years, Perth and Fremantle. It was good to see sights and landmarks that I grew up with, especially the old Ferris wheel.<br /><br />This Rocks 'n' Rolls | positive |
I saw bits and pieces of this on TV once, and when a friend recommended it, I began looking for it even though it seemed no place nearby had it. I finally got a hold of it in an antique store, and couldn't wait to watch it...Oh, that I had seen it a couple years earlier and could've really enjoyed it. I was surprised that this movie was only 80 or so minutes long, and I think this is what made the plot and story so lacking. The plot really does sound like a good one, both on the trailer and the movie comments: a teenager, Angus (Jesse Bradford) and his newfound stray lab Yellow are marooned on an island during a storm on a boat trip with his father (Bruce Davison). Together, they manage to survive the wilderness and wait to be found and rescued. Still, what is never mentioned is that everything is shortened and the events of the plot are very rushed. There is a possible love interest between Angus and Sara, but they're never shown together for more than a moment. Yellow is a mischievous dog the parents are reluctant to keep, but in a few days he seems to be appreciated enough to join a boat trip. The scene of the mother (Mimi Rogers) mentioning vaguely what death is like to the younger boy (Joel Palmer) doesn't go anywhere. In no time, we learn that 9 days have been spent on the island, then suddenly it's 14, then 19. Of all the animals a castaway could be exposed to in the wild, only 1 kind - a wolf - attacks them. Why couldn't something else have been a problem instead of having the same type of animal - maybe even the same one - strike twice? There are few views of how Angus prepares food, except when he discovers fruit and roots, and when he roasts a trapped rat. If he knows so much about survival skills, why weren't more scenes with it shown? The one thing that made me blank was why the dog didn't have much part alone. When he is rescued, and the dog is left behind on the island, there is no scene showing how he survives without a human's help. I wished I was more open to this when watching it, but I did enjoy some of this. The acting was good, and the score was enjoyable. Though, I found myself wondering why the father looked so much older than his family, and why he and the main search and rescue conductor share names. This is a good movie for kids, but though the protagonist is 14, nobody over 10 would be interested with this. | negative |
"Flashdance" meets "Meatballs III" or maybe it should just be called "Meatballs IV". This is my friend Wesley's all-time favorite movie, largely because he still has a thing about J.V. cheerleaders. As someone once said: "This is fine-more than fine-but as you get older you need to branch out. Whether you want to or not, society demands it".<br /><br />"Gimme An F" has cinema's greatest J.V. cheerleader Mary Ann (played by Beth Miller), who looks like a sweet-faced Alicia Silverstone from before her "Clueless" days. Wesley hates Miller's other film, the horrific "Teen Wolf Too" made three years later, where she plays a fickle southern belle much like Martha Smith's character in "Animal House". Personally I admire Miller's range as the two characters could not be more different and she is convincing as both.<br /><br />Anyway, Mary Ann is a naïve novice cheerleader from Moline (a member of "The Lucky Ducks" squad) who comes to Camp Beaverview for cheerleading instruction. She's befriended by Jenna (Karen Lee Kelly), the leader of the tough girl squad-appropriately named "The Demons". Jenna becomes protective of Mary Ann after her main rival takes an instant dislike to Mary Ann.<br /><br />Later Mary Ann gets a crush on Tommy Hamilton, the head instructor. Tommy is spending his summer wrestling with the dilemma of having to grow up and move on, which is a problem as his only skills are teaching cheerleading and performing elaborate dance routines in the shower, for the enjoyment of viewers who get off on that sort of thing. Phoebe (Daphne Ashbrook) is Tommy's long-suffering girlfriend, she has a well-adjusted attitude and an experienced perspective. She even tolerates Tommy's flirtation with Mary Ann-trusting that Tommy will not actually take advantage of young Mary Ann.<br /><br />While these four characters are solid and their relationships have a nice charm, the supporting cast is almost as weak as the material they have to work with. Which is a shame because had they brought some actual comic relief to the production it would have been a decent film. Jennifer Cooke plays Pam, a social climbing and terminally peppy instructor who is carrying on with camp's money-hungry owner Bucky. And there is another couple with a thing for the characters from "Mad Max". Since nothing is very funny you are left with only a cute semi-romance and some great dance routines.<br /><br />An attempt is made to create some suspense by slowly leading up a final competition but unless this is your first movie experience the outcome is never in doubt. And there is a back-story about some Japanese businessmen Bucky wants to get money from, but it goes nowhere dramatically or comically.<br /><br />Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child. | negative |
When I saw this "documentary", I was disappointed to see Serbian Propaganda in action once again. Even though Serbia and its nationalist politics is main reason of Yugoslavian breakup, it is not mentioned in this "documentary", which is made by Bogdanovich whose name tells us that he is Serbian and his movie that he is far from being objective. It is one in the set of lies pushed by Milosevic regime. Everyone else is guilty only Serbians were right and victims, even though most of the War Criminals tried in Hague are Serbs, even though Serbs are one who have committed genocide against Bosnians , and attacked Slovenia, Croatia,and Bosnia all independent nations recognized by the UN.Breakup of Yugoslavia was not avoidable because Serbians did not want to release the grip their nationalism has put on Federal Yugoslav government, so SLovenia, Croatia, Macedonia, and Bosnia were forced to become independent nations in order to protect their interests.If you are interested in an objective documentary about breakup of Yugoslavia, and fact led documentary this is not it . You should watch "Yugoslavia:Death of a Nation", Made by Discovery channel and BBC. | negative |
Since frame number 1 you know the good guy in the suit and necktie is doomed
He has no luck ("Sorte Nula"), or so he believes with that music on the car radio, and the dubious talk by his best friend and company associate who is taking him to parts unknown through a desert road. Alberto wished simply to be left alone, to take a flight abroad next day, with
well, someone we're left guessing. <br /><br />The film goes a long way that'll find short to a closing scene with the man hearing the same music on a cab to the airport. In between, a number of lucky people have found different ways out of the story, some dying, some being born, others falling into harrowing distress. This time he's really doomed
Or is he? The film is a sort of one-man show by director Fernando Fragata who only left the sound recording and the special effects to other, competent people. Those who typically reject Portuguese films due to sound problems and unclear speech recording, must go searching for other topics to criticize this time. The car crash (this isn't spoilers, the film is too clever for THAT) makes for a great scene, and apparently was done with cheap equipment. (US Studios take notice: you may spare a dollar or two by hiding competent Portuguese directors!) <br /><br />The rest was done by Fragata, from the script to the dialogue, from camera work to editing. If part of the dialogue were ad-libbed, then he again must be congratulated for the acting direction, and the casting with mostly inexperienced actors. A large number of non-speaking parts are credited, but most of those people were used for the music video clip and the making of, used extensively in the film's promotional trailer. The cast has a dozen actors and actresses, of whom ten relevant persons, and a huge number of relationships that are revealed step-by-step, in a thrilling, suspenseful way, reminiscent of the best genre authors. 'Alfred Hitchcock' (qv) and 'Claude Chabrol' (qv) do come to mind, by the cat-and-mouse play between the director and his public, and the nature of his characters.<br /><br />I recommend this thriller and comedy to Portuguese language speakers and, if the film gets to have a decent translation of its colloquial dialogue, to anyone abroad who enjoys those genres. | positive |
Not as bad as some are making it out to be, though obviously pathetic compared to the original. In my opinion Amitabh was great as the villain Babban Singh - try not to compare to Gabbar in the original as they were clearly not going for the same effect. Other than some mediocre action scenes however, the rest of the film is flawed. Character development was poor and the development of the story was hopeless, with many loopholes, and missing pieces of information which i wouldn't have known if i hadn't read the back of the DVD case. The worst part of the movie was the support roles from Nisha Kothari and especially this new dude called Prashant Raj. Nisha is just plain annoying from the time her lips first open. As for Prashant Raj - seriously who is this guy? where is he from and why on earth was he present in the film studio for anything other than to serve drinks?. His acting ability is zero and he has the same tone, dialog delivery and staunch expression in every scene, whether it be action, comedy, or even a scene when someone has just died. Ajay Devgan was average, at least his expressions changed which is more than i can say for his mistake of a companion. overall, RGV's Aag is worth watching for Amitabh's solid performance, and also a very sexy Urmilla Matondkar in a special appearance. | negative |
The United States was still fighting World War II (the movie was released in between VE day and VJ day). Any studio worth its salt was either making fighting movies where fearless American soldiers beat the enemy, or Americans in general were singing and dancing. Technicolor Musicals were what America thrived on in the depressing days when everything was rationed. Most musicals of the day were simply a bunch of musical numbers strung together with the best available plot slipped in to fill time til the next musical number! I get the feeling now that the people reviewing this movie were all born after 1970. Depressing how quickly we forget.<br /><br />This film could've been called "The Search for Jose Iturbi" but now everyone wonders why. Allow me to explain. From 1929--his arrival in America--until his death in 1980, Iturbi was one of the finest pianists to grace a concert stage. He agreed to do a few movies in 1942, but Hollywood had been after him for nearly a decade at that time. Not only an excellent pianist, but a successful conductor as well, Iturbi was very much a household word for more than 40 years. <br /><br />The scene where Iturbi and 17 other pianists play one of Liszt's Rhapsodies was planned early on--and hasn't anyone ever noticed the other pianists were all children? Joe Pasternak, who produced that movie & many other MGM musicals, credited Iturbi with interesting America's youth in classical music. Grayson's wanting an audition with Iturbi in the movie was not unlike real life at the time. Everyone wanted Iturbi back then. The joke among soldiers was that "GI" meant "Get Iturbi" (he did a lot of concerts at military bases).<br /><br />Gene Kelly was a great dancer and Frank Sinatra an excellent singer, but at the time this movie was made Sinatra was barely 30 and had only been under contract to Columbia Records for four years. Kelly was already well-known as a dancer, but Iturbi had by then been a world-wide sensation for 20+ years.<br /><br />And as to the lack of a plot, Americans didn't need plot. They were tired of war, they were sick with fear for their loved ones, and worried about the future. They needed happiness and hope and the assurance that things would work out fine in the end. They needed music and smiles and joy and romance. This movie and others like it delivered just what was needed.<br /><br />Enough lecturing. Mouse dancing aside, the best scene in the movie occurs between Sinatra and Iturbi with each of them "ignorantly" complimenting the other's music.<br /><br />If you have any interest in Jose Iturbi, the Spaniard who conquered more of America than De Soto, Cortez, and De Leon put together, please drop by my website, www.joseiturbi.com, where you can find a plot summary, excerpts from movie reviews "of the day" and pictures from this and certain other MGM musicals of the 1940's, as well as a biography and discography of Iturbi.<br /><br />Trout | positive |
I wish more movies were two hours long. On the other hand, I wish more American Civil War movies were MERELY two hours long. "Gone with the Wind", "Gettysburg" - that's about the length I've come to expect; although those two at least entertained for however many hours they lasted; and even "Gettysburg" lasted as long as it did because things HAPPENED in the course of it.<br /><br />By contrast Ang Lee's film is bloated and uneventful. It actually feels as if it takes much less than two hours. That wasn't a compliment. It's really no different to any other form of sensory deprivation: at the time it feels as though it will never end, afterwards it seems to have taken no time at all.<br /><br />The film gets off on the wrong foot, as Lee plays his interminable credits OVER the opening footage (bad mistake) in which we are introduced to some characters we take an instant dislike to and will later come to loathe. The central two are Jake, the son of German immigrants who are staunch supporters of Lincoln, and Jack, an equally staunch Southerner whose values Jake shares. (I had to re-read that sentence to make sure I hadn't written "Jack" instead of "Jake" at some point or vice versa.) The two go off to become "bushwhackers" - Southern militia who so strongly lust after revenge and violence that they can't even be bothered to join the official Southern army, which I presume they think is for sissies. I'm afraid Lee lost me right there. It's easy to feel for characters who make moral mistakes: if we have some independent reason to like them, or feel as if we know them in some way, then their moral flaws can make us care for them all the more. Not so here. We aren't properly introduced to Jake for at least an hour; when we are, it becomes clear he's a gormless pimple of a man, who isn't a confederate by choice so much as by habit - the kind of person who says and does what everyone around him says and does, whose psychology is purely immitative. The people he associates with are either just the same or positively evil in some uninteresting way. I found myself cheering whenever the Northern cavalry appeared on the screen. I thought: good - kill the rebels, end the damned war, let me go home.<br /><br />Aggravating this problem is the horrible, horrible dialogue. Everyone speaks in the same whining Southern accent. I've heard accents from all over the English-speaking world and this is the worst of them all. I don't care if Southerners really did talk like that, it's simply not fair to ask an audience to listen to it for two hours. And believe me, we do listen to it for the full two hours: Lee's picture is a talky one, largely because characters take so long to say what they mean in their ungrammatical, say-everything-three-times, folksy drawl. It would help if they talked faster, but not much. Can't these people find a more efficient language in which to communicate?<br /><br />In short: the film is little but a gallery of uniformly unattractive characters with no inner life, who talk in an offensively ugly mode of speech, who don't bathe often enough, to whom nothing of interest happens, despite their being involved in a war. Good points? Jewel was nice to look at, and so was the scenery. But I have complaints even here. The cinematography, nicely framed, looked as if someone had susbtituted colour film for black and white by mistake; and as for Jewel, we were teased with her body, but never actually allowed to gaze upon it, which I think is the least we were owed. | negative |
This documentary is at its best when it is simply showing the ayurvedic healers' offices and treatment preparation. There is no denying the grinding poverty in India and desperation of even their wealthier clients. However, as an argument for ayurvedic medicine in general, this film fails miserably. Although Indian clients mention having seen "aleopathic" doctors, those doctors are not interviewed, and we have to take the vague statements of their patients at face value-- "the doctor said there was no cure," "the doctor said it was cancer" etc. Well, "no cure" doesn't mean "no treatment," and what type of cancer exactly does the patient have? The film is at its most feeble when showing ayurvedic practice in America. There it is reduced, apparently, to the stunning suggestion that having a high powered Wall Street job can make your stomach hurt. | negative |
Cary Grant, Douglas Fairbanks Jr. and Victor McLaglen are three soldiers in 19th Century India who, with the help of a water boy (Sam Jaffe) rid the area of the murderous thuggee cult. The chemistry between the actors helps make this one of the most entertaining movies of all time. Sam Jaffe is exceptional as the outcast water boy who is mistreated by all and still wants to be accepted as a soldier in the company. Loosely based on Rudyard Kipling's poem. A must see by anyone who enjoys this type of movie. | positive |
D'Amato's hardcore/horror hybrid doesn't really live up to its extraordinary title and intriguing premise, wherein various vapid contemporary types are attacked by a monster on an Atoll previously used for nuclear experiments, but for the most part the film is so slow, the action so dreary and the cast so clearly repulsed to be having to have sex with each other that the film becomes a chore to watch.<br /><br />This is a pity, because the film sets up a promising idea. A group of scientists are taken to the Atoll by a naval officer in a small vessel. The scientists three women and two men are an intriguing cross section of sexual types, suffering to various degrees from nymphomania, co-dependency and frigidity; there's even an intriguing foray into the world of female sex tourism, where one of the women stops off at a brothel to get serviced by two hunky Caribbean studs for hire. The creature himself a mangled native Islander with a horribly scarred face and an unfeasibly long pizzle bears some affinities with the old Creature from the Black Lagoon and is the kind of nuclear nightmare that has hovered over postmodern man since the cold war commenced, despite those of us in the West having retreated into hedonism and relativistic science.<br /><br />Porno Holocaust certainly is a film which shows the post-sexual revolution Westerners coming across their mirror image in a nuclear monster, yet the torpidity with which it unfolds really lets down the fierceness of the idea. There is a promising interplay of action shots with POV shots, which suggest that the monster (who looks/stalks on as horror monsters from their POV position tend to do) is akin to the voyeur in the audience getting off on the sex between the "beautiful people." The sight of the monster forcing a gorgeous young woman to suck his over-sized member certainly throws the target audience's ugly fantasies in their face. But D'Amato has developed similar ideas better in other films, and Porno Holocaust is a potentially fierce idea let down by the execution (even D'Amato's usual cinematographic skills let him down with much dreary camera-work). | negative |
What the (beep) is going wrong with Disney the last years? Are there totally run out of good ideas? Where is the magic? Where are the good animators, the good songwriters, the good directors, the good... Okay, i know, Walt himself and the famous "nine old man" can't come back. But is this a reason to crank out countless of those cheap sequels and slowly but surely destroying the ideals of Walt Disney? I never rent or bought a Disney-sequel of what movie however. Because i had read much enough about its (absence of) quality. But "Atlantis: Milo's Return" was aired today on TV in Germany and so i watch it. It confirmed my doubts about sequels. It was absolutely boring. Flaw animation, primitive color-rotation, simple characters, some unsuccessful tries to simulate the famous Multiplane-Camera with CGI, mediocre music and a patchwork of different, simple stories. It looks absolutely not like Disney! Not like Disney i know! It looks like one of the countless, cheap and simple animation-series like "DragonballZ", "Beyblade" etc. that aired every day on TV for children.<br /><br />My first reaction after showing this crap, was to load "Bambi" in my DVD-Player, to see Disney's immortal magic, depth, spirit and charm again, to see Disney on its climax again, to see the awesome art of handmade animation again. "Bambi" was the first (and until today the only) movie that i give 10 out of 10 stars. But "Atlantis: Milo's Return"? No magic, no depth, no charm, no spirit... It deserved only 3 out of 10! | negative |
This is probably one of the worst movies I have ever seen! The plot revolves around a man named Luther who wears metal dentures, bites people on the neck, and walks around clucking like a chicken without the flapping of the arms. He also thinks he's a chicken.<br /><br />Sounds bizarre right? Well, to me, the more bizarre and weird the person is, the better. The more gore, the better and so on.<br /><br />The movie starts out with the board deciding if they want to release this maniac from their institution. They mention that he has created some dentures in prison that he used to bite people on the neck. He also clucks like a chicken and THINKS he's a chicken.<br /><br />If I had a patient like this, there is no way I would release him.<br /><br />First, Luther heads to the supermarket and attacks an old woman on a bench and walks away. Then, he sneaks in the back seat of a woman's car and she drives all the way to her home.<br /><br />While at the house, Luther ties up the woman to the bed. When the woman's daughter and her daughter's boyfriend come home, Luther hides.<br /><br />Later through the film, a cop comes to the front door and asks about the mother. You can clearly see the daughter is scared out of her mind and crying but the officer keeps asking if everything is okay. She replies that everything is fine. The officer finally gets in his car and leaves. If I saw a woman constantly crying and looking scared, I would want to at least get inside the house to investigate a little.<br /><br />The ending is stupid as well. While the woman in in the barn, she starts clucking and gets Luther excited so he starts walking around flapping his arms and clucking like a maniac. She finally shoots him and just sits there for a minute before finally clucking some more.<br /><br />Then the credits roll.<br /><br />This is one of the STUPIDEST movies I have ever seen! NOTHING happens at the woman's house! NOTHING!<br /><br />I sometimes like campy films but this one really bored me.<br /><br />I give this movie 1 star out of 10. Good idea, bad direction! | negative |
I just saw this movie tonight, opening night. It was great!! I'm a big fan of sports movies, and this was right up there as one of my favorites. Dennis Quaid was great. (Oh, by the way, Mr. Quaid, if you read this...my sister lives in Austin, where you live.....and she was supposed to buy you a drink once...well...she kinda stood you up...but she didn't mean to! :C) [not that anyone's going to believe that...]) ANYWAY, it's a great movie. Everyone who likes a good sports movie, should go out and see it! :C) | positive |
Just as a reminder to anyone just now reading the comments on this excellent BBC mini-series, published in 1981, it was not available on DVD until the last few years. Since then, it has become available, but initially only in the British format (for which I bought an 'international' DVD player, which you have to hack--illegally, I suspect, to see it), but the series is now available through amazon.com--3 discs-- for between $19-21, to be viewed on DVD in the US format, no hacking. There were 41 reviews, average 5 stars. This mini-series is one of the very best on Oppenheimer, or the Manhattan Project, or virtually anything produced by the BBC. | positive |
Very well done and spooky horror movie from poverty-row film company PRC who usually put out really cheesy films like DEVIL BAT or THE FLYING SERPENT. German expatriate director Wisbar does wonders with a small budget and his studio-bound swamp set. Gaunt and ghoulish Charles Middleton is effective as the Strangler. | positive |
Okay, here's what I think about Jack Frost. I looked at the morphing box for the VHS tape and I thought to myself, this looks interesting. I rent it and I take it home. Boy was I right, it is interesting. They put serial killer's spirits in dreams, in walking corpses and inside every day machines. But this has got to be the most unique place to put the spirit of a serial killer. Inside the body of a snowman. I liked all the friendly snowman images littering the landscape, the pot holder, the snow globe, etc. I like the actor who played Jack, he put some fun into a killer really not seen since FREDDY KRUGGER. That's right, I said it. FREDDY KRUGGER. It's that level of "cool". I wish some of the puppet effects were better, the mouth movements could have matched better. But I chalk that up to a small budget. The cast does a great job, there are some great one liners and scares to make any hardcore horror fan jump. All and all, a great story, good effects, great dialog and a great cast. I give JACK FROST...9 STARS | positive |
I was very pleased to go and see a "Milanese" film shot in Milan. Alessandro Alatri is a Roman director who has understood properly and fortunately printed in a film the Milanese philosophy.<br /><br />Film tells the story of a standard -in career- Milanese couple, starting from "the birth" to the death. The birth-wedding is so typical out of any scheme that becomes original and involves all the wedding guests in a flash back story of how the couple came to each other and felt in love. Life is hard in the "urbe" of Milan and after the sweeties old days became tougher and tougher, then finally the product: a child, who instead of strengthen further the couple relationship it weaken because "the selfish effect" typical of a nowadays "metropolis" personality. The advertising environment with all the "creative" under stress atmosphere helps to get well involved in the plot. We are losing the life values and this is well and deeply reflected in this nice and sharp movie from the Senza Pelle's director.<br /><br />The actors are well chosen, Stefania Rocca nice and well characterised, and a positive surprise, an unexpected good Fabio Volo, well known by the "trash" TV serie: Le Iene.<br /><br />Rating: 7/10 | positive |
Not since Caligula have I considered turning off the movie half-way through....but then with this one, I was only 15 minutes in when I considered. Unfortunately, I did make it all the way through. Make sure that you do not.<br /><br />It's not that Cradle of Fear is shocking or gory or scary or frightening or sexual. It's that it's not any of those things, yet it so desperately wants to be all of them. Instead, it's boring, trite, ordinary, predictable, and unexceptionally poorly executed (shot on video, high school special effects, no sense of even basic visual storytelling, dialog barely audible...not that it's worth hearing, though).<br /><br />This movie is proof for the argument that even the straight-to-video distributors need to draw a line in the sand somewhere. | negative |
Whoa boy.<br /><br />Ever wanted to watch a documentary about a megalomaniacal jerk ruining his own life and alienating everyone around him? Well they exist, in many forms. But have you ever wanted to watch said documentary about one who didn't ultimately succeed in doing anything despite everyone's praises about how much of an artistic "genius" he is? Well you could probably just grab a camera and find someone like that in any local scene (I know they're everywhere and I don't even follow the local scene), or you could save yourself the trouble by spending money watching this tripe.<br /><br />The premise is good and, honestly, it's not as if the filmmakers knew precisely where it was going considering that's one of the difficulties of doing a documentary. We are made to follow two bands, The Brian Jamestown Massacre, lead by Anton, and The Dandy Warhols, lead by Courtney. I've heard of The Dandy Warhols before watching this movie... not so the Brian Jamestown Massacre. Why? Well from this documentary's perspective, because The Brian Jamestown Massacre's intergroup dysfunction refused them the ability to really make it in the music industry. However, instead of this becoming an analysis of the two separate bands and how one was able to succeed, the focus becomes much more on Anton and his insanity.<br /><br />Because, see, Anton is a "genius." Because he plays rock music. He really "understands the evolution of music"... because he plays rock music with a lot of different instruments. His music is considered "post-modern retro but the future"... because it's rock music. He wants to bring out a "revolution"... through rock music. Okay so let's face it... twenty minutes in and this is one of the stupidest kids I'd care to watch a documentary about.<br /><br />The documentary itself doesn't really lend itself to showcasing any of Anton's talent, because in the nature of editing down 2000 hours of material into a quarter short of two hours we don't really have the time to focus on that. So instead we watch Anton, "the genius", the socio-maniacal loser, be a jerk for the two hours and are just told to understand that he made really great music. Whether he did or not I won't know, because its not like the documentary had enough time to prove it. What I do know is that then we're left with a story about some self-centered obnoxious twerp running around the country calling himself a God of music and doing nothing to back it up. Why even bother watching that? People like Anton don't deserve the attention they seek, the hope and admiration of all those different people, and especially a post-failure paean to lost potential. This movie plays like a two-hour rough-cut VH1 special for a reason: he goes on and on about the music, but it's all about the image and the attention. Look at the guy, look at how he dresses, look at how he acts, look at how he tries to create controversy because he can't afford marketing.<br /><br />Honestly the only interesting character in this film is Joel, and that's because of anyone in this documentary, Joel is the only person who seems to have any fun. Maybe it's because he's the tambourine man. The rest of them are all "rock stars"! They deserve our attention, and admiration, and interest, and engagements! They are out there to "save rock and roll." Do you remember when The White Stripes were supposed to "save rock and roll"? Yeah, that was because of Anton, and it's "selfish of them not to mention me (Anton) as an inspiration." What a load. People like Anton are best left forgotten. This documentary explains why mainstream music is so dull--because music execs have to deal with people like Anton for a living and ultimately can only really throw their support behind someone safe and passionless. Thanks a lot, Anton. Your antics ruined music for EVERYONE you touched, whatever the opinion to the contrary is. And if people "in the know" about Anton disagree and he really was a genius, it still shows how bad this documentary is that it cuts it down that way.<br /><br />--PolarisDiB | negative |
Renowned Czech actor Vlastimil Brodský, mostly known in North America for his leading role as Jacob in the original Est German/Czech production of Jacob the Liar (Jakob, der Lügner 1974) gives us a last brilliant performance as a 80 year old prankster who refuses to admit that he is about to die.<br /><br />Jirí Hubac's screenplay is exquisite. Funny, moving and well-developed. It explores well both the subject of advanced old age and the motivations of characters that are precariously strong and fragile, happy and unsettled.<br /><br />Frantisek (Vlastimil Brodský) and his best friend Eda (Stanislav Zindulka) are up to all types of shenanigans and are making sure to make the best out of their dying days. Meanwhile, Frantisek's wife is preparing for their death, saving up for funeral money and chastising Frantisek for his endless childishness and irresponsible attitude. Their son is about to take their apartment over and put them into a retirement home, but Frantisek doesn't want to hear any of that. He wants to enjoy life and make people around him laugh. He wants to help and love and give... but at what cost?<br /><br />Sure to captivate adults of all ages, this fine piece of film by talented director Vladimír Michálek is both touching and funny. It makes you think of how we live our lives and why we live our lives. It brings the simple story of a charming stubborn old man to the forefront and allow us to reflect and feel what life is all about.<br /><br />After an active career lasting more than 40 years, it is somewhat sombre to know that Vlastimil Brodsk died in April 2002, no longer in the grip of terminal cancer. It is however uplifting to think that he had the chance to be a part of such a moving script and to be the catalyst of this ode to joyful old age that has not even started to make the waves it is about to create in North American repertoire cinema.<br /><br />After the international success of Jan Hrebejk's "Divided We Fall (2000)", it is starting to be clear that Czech cinema has indeed something to offer to the world. This film at least is a must see. | positive |
This film screened last night at Austin's Paramount theater as part of the SXSW Film Festival. We were graced with the presence of director Mike Binder and stars Adam Sandler and Don Cheadle who took audience questions after the film. It is a remarkable and powerful film about what it is like to lose yourself and begin to find your way back. The performances are phenomenal and the story manages to be both tragic and funny in a way that is all too rare. (The trailer for the film tries a little too hard to emphasize the comedic aspects.)<br /><br />This is a breakout role for Adam Sandler. While he has begun to transition to more dramatic roles with Punch-Drunk Love and Spanglish, this role is a significant step forward for him as a dramatic actor. He deserves an Oscar nomination as he continues down to transition to more dramatic roles as Tom Hanks did and Jim Carrey is also doing. In this role, he seemed to be trying to channel Dustin Hoffman in Rain Man. Although playing an autistic man is certainly very different than Sandler's traumatized character, both characters for different reasons are trapped in their own worlds of child-like isolation and confusion.<br /><br />Don Cheadle's performance is less surprising, but just as good. After Hotel Rwanda and Crash, we've come to expect remarkable nuanced performances from Cheadle. He has the qualities of sincerity and honesty that comes through in this role. But he, too, is also broken and struggling if not in the such profound ways as Sandler's character. Cheadle is struggling with difficulties in both his marriage and in his professional life as a dentist. Together the characters played by Cheadle and Sandler struggle to heal each other in the way that true friends often do (in a way that reminds me of Matt Damon and Robin Williams in Good Will Hunting). They are both searching for that part of the themselves that they have lost and trying to find again.<br /><br />Reign over Me is one of the best major studio films to be released this year. The soundtrack, which is almost another character in the plot is wonderful. The filming in the streets of New York - a city that suffered a great tragedy and has also had to heal itself - is also quite beautiful. The supporting roles by Jada Pinkett Smith, Liv Tyler, Saffron Burrows (in a very odd role), Donald Sutherland, and Mike Binder himself are all quite good.<br /><br />Writer/Director Mike Binder has really delivered a story that so many will be able to connect with on numerous levels. This is a story about grief, family, healing, male friendship, mental health, and the meaning of love. Reign over Me does not disappoint. The film is almost hypnotic as it draws you into the lives of its characters. Hollywood would have a much better reputation if it made more character-driven charming films like Reign over Me. | positive |
Now I myself am a lover of the B movie genre but this piece of trash insults me to no end. First of all the movie is starring Lizzy McGuire's brother as the annoying little kid that goes looking for his lost 3 legged dog. Now please what kind of dumb ass mistakes a three-legged dog for a god damn mutated crocodile please I ask you? And heres another point for pondering, why do they show the Dinocroc on the back of the movie box being enormous and actually in the water? I believe if memory serves the thing spent about 2.6 minutes in the water and was just shy of 6 feet tall, that was a heart breaker. But redeeming qualities to this movie were that it was so bad that i almost died laughing because believe me the bad acting made me wish for death. But the fact remains that once again this thing is created by another military testing site to train super crocodiles for military combat or something like that from the source of all things evil E.V.I.L Corporation. And let's not forget the characters let's see we have jerk off #1 as the male lead and half way decent chick (who doesn't know how to act) as the female lead to that I say WOW! The only thing worse then the acting was the end of course the heroes spend about what seems like 2 hours talking and planning some long elaborate way of killing the dinocroc only to have it fail and kill it in an ordinary way that could have taken about 15 seconds to come up with. All in all this movie was beyond gay with its random opera music in the background and the fact that it was probably the gayest of all CGI monsters ever made along with the fact it of course was impervious to bullets and bombs (otherwise it wouldn't have been made for the military DUH!). By far the best scene was when Lizzy McGuire's brother runs into the shack and the dinocroc eats him causing his head to pop clean off with a popping noise i might add. I believe that you would be better off shooting yourself between the eyes then to watch Dinocroc. And as for the director I believe that we should get a bunch of people to hang him by a noose and all take turns kicking him in the crotch for wasting an hour and a half of our lives until he finally dies and then I can go on living. | negative |
Ossessione is in very bad state but is now undergoing a full restoration at Digital Film Lab in Copenhagen. The material used is a "Master positive" 2nd generation originally from the print Visconti managed to hide from the fascists. It has been scanned on the Spirit 4K (as 2K RGB data) then processed using DaVinci Revival restoration software. After this the rest is manual labor and we do not anticipate finishing before early spring. Sometime next year it should be available on DVD and hopefully also released on HD DVD. This film is beautiful and we hope the restoration effort will be enjoyed by many generations to come. | positive |
I attended a screening of 'The Cooler' at the Toronto Film Festival this year. While the other reviews I've read seem to be generally (and mystifyingly) positive, I must tell you without any kind of axe to grind that this film is unimaginably, unspeakably bad. The very brave and candid performances by William H. Macy and Maria Bello have been horribly misspent on what is probably the least polished, most clichéd script to have received the green light in years. I don't know how bad The Brown Bunny was, but I'm certain it couldn't have attained the Dante-style depths that this one did. As courageous as their performances were, perhaps the bravest thing these otherwise brilliant actors did was to entrust themselves to such a dreadful director and abysmal screenplay.<br /><br />He must pitch pretty well in the boardroom, because he should never been permitted to be within a hundred yards of a camera. The dialogue is so embarrassingly contrived and clumsy that I actually found myself blushing during the screening. I am mortified that the talents of Macy have been totally squandered in the hands of someone whose direction is as incompetent as his writing.<br /><br />Watching gifted actors like Alec Baldwin labor through Kramer's appalling script and ham-fisted direction was akin to watching a baby seal get clubbed to death - I felt angered, helpless, and sickened all at the same time. Although I am always glad that there are investors and industry-people willing to take risks on quirky scripts with interesting premises, this picture was a total, utter fiasco. Kramer couldn't have been crueler to these actors if he had himself taken a steel pipe to their knees. I hope for their sakes they can all avoid similar humiliations in the future. Macy wisely ducked out the side door and didn't even stick around for the screening. Regrettably, it seems that the bad luck of main character has rubbed off on the picture in the worst possible way. Anyone accustomed to quality independents will likely find it completely unbearable. | negative |
jeez, when i heard this movie was a NATIONAL LAMPOONS i thought it was going to be awesome, but i really got a say it was a rather disappointment. I have seen the most movies they've made, from Christmas vacation to van wilder, and this movie is the worst movie in their name,, really bad actors and a to much intense movie. this movie is probably good to watch if you are watching it with a crowd of worked up people and the ability to laugh at it, but if you are into good comedy's like i am, i do not suggest this movie, i would much rather watch van wilder a second or third time, than to watch this movie... you have been warned. | negative |
If you have seen the Sholay of 1975, Don't watch this movie. If you have NOT seen the Sholay of 1975, Go WATCH IT. But do not watch this movie. This movie has all the ingredients that could possibly have gone wrong with making a remake of Sholay. <br /><br />Amitabh 'Babban' Bachchan plays the role of a psycho villain to the best (Probably the only 40 mins of the reel that shouldn't be burnt). If you remove the rest of the movie and just watch amitabh play around with his character, it would still be worth a watch. But as Insp. Narsimha, Mohanlal doesn't do justice to his talent. Ajay Devgan(Heero) is extremely mundane and the only reason i think, they cast Prashant Raj in the role of Raj is because he has a striking resemblance to Amitabh of his young days. Sushmita Sen carries herself well, with grace and make-up. But the award for the "WORST performance and any role till date" must go to Nisha Kothari. She manages to degrade her acting to such levels that even high-school drama would would outshine her performance.<br /><br />If you have a mortal enemy, take him to this movie. :) | negative |
Silly comedy casts an embarrassed-seeming Ray Milland as a British officer in World War II Europe escaping German confines and taking up with a man-hungry gypsy woman, played by Marlene Dietrich. Slowly-paced, overlong, and miscast: the leads are far too old for this type of juvenile fodder, although Marlene shines in her solo moments. It took three scriptwriters to adapt Yolanda Foldes' book for the screen, but this material must have already seemed dated by 1947--it smacks of something Ernst Lubitsch might have turned out in 1939. The scenario is musty, and the stars have absolutely no chemistry together. ** from **** | negative |
Its not sophisticated, and nobody in the credits had a great career, but taken as a whole, because there are no famous personalities; the film seems more realistic than some high budget, well cast films.<br /><br />A film made for a few bucks, that is worthy of watching should give hope to all those would be film makers and wantabee actors.<br /><br />The problem with this film is it was made in the worst possible time. TV was taking over the revenues of the film industry, and this film could have easily been shown on TV. In 1950, all the fare on TV would qualify for a "G" rating. The film industry began to make more "adult" films that could not be shown on TV during the days when TV wouldn't dare show the sex and skin of today's commercials. | positive |
I saw this movie twice through a pentecostal church my family attended in Nanaimo BC in the 1970's. I was of the tender age of 6, my brother 4, then again when I was 8 my brother 6. This movie terrified my brother and I and shaped how we viewed the world with distrust. It wasn't just the movie, but it was also the philosophy that engulfs so many "christians" about the "mark of the beast"and the rapture. This movie, the church, and a volatile neglectful upbringing, lead to severe paranoia towards the future. For years, I lived under the delusional affects of the church and fear of being forgotten by Christ. I am now 40 years old. Went through years of counseling. I once explained to a psychiatrist this movie and the belief system of the church and family. I was pegged with a delusional disorder. I actually began to believe this, it was my brother who reminded me, that this cultic philosophy actually happened. I no longer fear the future, I have come to terms with the fear injected into it's members by the church. I have taken this experience to fulfill a purpose, I am nearing my licensure as a Psychologist specializing in childhood trauma. | negative |
This movie looked like it was shot with a video phone, it had very little plot and unnecessary nudity. The movie never really came together or made much sense and for a movie like this, of course, there were some unnecessary boob shots. The director was obviously trying to make the movie subjective and different, but it just never gave enough information on what was even really going on, even in the end i was left with a mixture of anger and confusion. Confusion from the lack of plot, and anger because i wanted my two dollars back from blockbuster and an 1.5 hours of my life back. They should have a payment program for people who accidentally rent this movie. | negative |
Just looking at the sets, staging and editing it is easy to tell this project lacked a proper budget. Maybe Bela Lugosi is meant to take your mind off of things like that. Young brides drop dead at the altar after saying "I do". Their corpses are stolen by a renowned horticulturist Dr. Lorenz(Lugosi)and a couple of his freakish minions as his aging wife(Elizabeth Russell)needs injections of the glandular fluids of the young virgins to remain forever young...forever beautiful. An eager local cub reporter(Luana Walters)realizes that each missing bride wore the same rare orchid to the altar; an orchid in which Dr. Lorenz would be most knowledgeable. A typical horror movie storm brews making a visit to the Lorenz estate a bit spooky; especially with a dwarf and a slobbering hunchback on the premises. Other players: Angelo Rossitto, Tristram Coffin, Minerva Urecal and Frank Moran. | negative |
I find Alan Jacobs review very accurate concerning the movie;however I had the opportunity to rent the DVD from blockbuster with a commentary from BYU's Curator, Motion Picture Archives James D'Arc. The then LDS Prophet Heber J. Grant approved of the movie understanding the deviations from historic content for dramatic expression and telescoping events. For example the movie showed Joseph Smith on trial. despite Brigham Young's great oratory in defense of Joseph Smith he was convicted anyway. Then Joseph was killed. Historically Joseph Smith was never convicted of anything. Brigham Young was in Boston when Joseph Smith was arrested for this particular trial. Joseph Smith and his brother Hyrum where both killed before the trial took place. | positive |
Anybody interested what black film making was like in the 70's watch this film. Some the dialog in this film is so funny IE the summary of my submission. Also watch out for the boom mic to show up in some of the scenes as well as some of the best karate action ever. Don't take this movie seriously or you will be disappointed, go into it with an open mind and step into the world of one the the baddest mutha in the world Dolemite!!! Editing wise its put together like it was sliced with a razor but once again this film is so much more than what you see in the movie it has influenced the black community in ways you cant understand!!! | positive |
The film begins with Vincent Price about to begin his performance as a magician. However, mid-way through the very successful show, the police come and shut him down. It seems that his old boss had cheated him out of the tricks Price had created--even those he made on his own time at home. As a result, Price justifiably kills the evil man. The problem is that while the viewer understood why Price killed and most probably thought this was a GOOD thing, because Price was a bit mad, he just couldn't stop at one (sort of like eating Lay's Potato Chips).<br /><br />The film was full of very creative and spectacular magic tricks (including a huge circular saw and a crematorium for the shows), great plot twists as well as exciting action. One thing you can't say about this film is that it is dull. While it's also far from subtle, it is fun throughout, though and well worth a look.<br /><br />Had I never seen Vincent Price's version of HOUSE OF WAX, I probably would have liked THE MAD MAGICIAN a lot more and scored it an 8 or 9. That's because while THE MAD MAGICIAN is a wonderful film, it's highly reminiscent of the film that preceded it (HOUSE OF WAX). The bottom line is that since HOUSE OF WAX was so successful, the formula was re-hashed in the follow-up film. Both were made in 3-D, both have a plot where Price has every justification to kill but he can't stop once he's committed the first and both are great fun to watch. The biggest differences, and there are few, are that HOUSE OF WAX was in color and was more of a horror film and THE MAD MAGICIAN was definitely more of a mystery.<br /><br />My advice is to see this film AND HOUSE OF WAX (the Price version only). They are both terrific 1950s horror films. | positive |
The film was shot at Movie Flats, just off route 395, near Lone Pine, California, north of the road to Whitney Portals. You can still find splashes of cement and iron joists plastered across the rocks where the sets were built. And you'll recognize the area from any Randolph Scott movie.<br /><br />I won't bother with the plot, since I'm sure it's covered elsewhere. The movie stars three athletes -- Fairbanks fils, who must have learned a good deal from his Dad -- Grant, an acrobat in his youth -- and MacLaughlin, a professional boxer from South Africa. Their physical skills are all on display.<br /><br />Not a moment of this movie is to be taken seriously. It's about Thugees, a sect in India, whence our English word "thug." I can't go through all the felicities of this movie but probably ought to point out that the director, George Stevens, was a polymath with a background in Laurel and Hardy movies -- see his choreography of the fight scenes -- and went on to the infinitely long dissolves of Shane and The Diary of Anne Frank. Dynasties rose and fell. Geological epochs came and went, while Liz Taylor and Monty Clift kissed in "A Place in the Sun." Here, in his comic mode, he excels.<br /><br />This is a story of male bonding and it would be easy -- too easy -- to read homoeroticism into it, as many people do with Howard Hawks. Or hatred of women. But it isn't that at all. Sometimes things portrayed on screen don't deserve too much in the way of heuristic attention. Men WILL form bonds by working together in a way that women do not. (Women share secrets.) Read Deborah Tannen, nobody's idea of an anti-feminist. Well, when you think about it, that's what evolution should have produced. For most of human history -- about nine tenths of it -- hominids have been hunters and gatherers, and the men tend to hunt and the women to gather. Hunting is more effective as a team enterprise. Men who were not very good at bonding were Darwinianed out, leaving men who have a lot of team spirit. And Grant, Fairbanks, and MacLaughlin have got it in spades.<br /><br />Sorry to ramble on about evolution but I'm an anthropologist and it is an occupational disease. Did I ever tell you about the horse in Vaitongi, Samoa, that slipped on the cement and fell in the bathtub with me? You've got to watch the hooves.<br /><br />Joan Fontaine is lovely, really. Only got to know her in her later years and wondered why she was in so many movies. I lived in Saratoga, California, where her sister, Olivia DeHavilland, grew up and went to a convent school. Pretty place.<br /><br />If you miss this adventurous lively farraginous chronicle of the British Empahh at its height, you should never forgive yourself. It's so famous that it's parodied in the Peter Sellers movie, "The Party." Yes -- the colonel's got to know. | positive |
Eddie Murphy's "Delirious" is completely and totally rude, crude, crass and lude. This is indeed the only way to describe this appalling, trashy piece of stand-up. Eddie Murphy goes for shock value rather than laughs to try and win his following over. He does manage to be funny occasionally, but mostly loses the plot with obscene language and distasteful sex jokes.<br /><br />Forget it! Unless you happen to enjoy Eddie's foul style. I don't think I will bother with "Eddie Murphy Raw". I much prefer Eddie in the confines of a movie script.<br /><br />Saturday, January 17, 1998 - Video | negative |
I saw Roger Moore huffing it on the scenes that required running or exercise. He was a James Bond who would be most comfortable sitting at a bar telling stories with his fellow British Knights. Nothing against the elderly in age-appropriate roles, but how realistic is it for a frail-looking 58 year old man to be fighting on the wings of planes, hanging off the side of a train, swimming in a swamp with crocodiles, etc.? Aside from the fact that OCTOPUSSY was incredibly silly, vapid, and moronic, the fact that a frail oldster engaged in many death-defying stunts just made it so much easier to laugh at James Bond. By 1983 Roger Moore was clearly looking his age, and he was long past the time when he looked like he could fight with younger men. I saw this movie in the Theater, and the howls of laughter were many and very often. Any credibility that James Bond had built up was gone after OCTOPUSSY.<br /><br />The only thing missing from OCTOPUSSY was Benny Hill and his supporting cast. Another low point was that the incredibly lame Louis Jordan was one half of the Axis of Evil. Jordan helped to make the whole concept even more laughable. And the Russian General was a total goof. OCTOPUSSY works better as a comedy spoof similar to SPIES LIKE US.<br /><br />Even the fight scene on the train was just a bad copy of the same train scenes done in many other films by better actors. Take EMPEROR OF THE NORTH (1972) where Lee Marvin & Ernest Borgnine fought all over the top & bottom of the train and made it look exciting and real.<br /><br />Roger Moore had a thin, frail body in 1983 and yet his stunt double was clearly a younger, taller, athletic & muscular man. Even the hair color did not match. This only made his fight scenes more comedic. The Moore stunts looked like those old low-budget Chop-Socky Kung-Fu movies, especially with the bad editing. The Director seemed to try to make the bad acting and bad stunts better by providing several views of the same stunt. This only accentuated the differences between Moore and his stunt double. The fact that the Train scenes with Moore were shot inside a studio could be noticed from the lighting when Moore was in the shot versus the exterior shots of the stunt double on a real train. Though many of the Bond Movies have to be the worst ever when it comes to editing their stunt-fights. You can usually clearly see that the Bond actor is not actually fighting. Overall OCTOPUSSY has to rank as one of the worst movies ever made, and easily the worst of the worst Bond movies. | negative |
As a fan of nearly any period drama, and at that a huge Jane Austen fan, I was horrified by this adaption. As a fan of the 1999 version of Mansfield Park, I was constantly comparing the two and this fell far short. It felt hugely rushed and very one-dimensional so that it became boring very quickly. There seemed to be no subtly to the relationships, particularly that of Fanny and Edmund, and little atmosphere despite being set in a beautiful location. Despite having looked forward to the Jane Austen season since Christmas I turned this off after an hour and went to bed. I will be interested to watch the adaptations of Persuasion and Northanger Abbey, of which I have no much-loved version, to see if they still manage to bore me in such a manner. | negative |
So I was energized during my Snakes on a Plane weekend, after the movie we craved some more. Why not Snakes on A Train? How bad could it possibly be, its snakes probably killing people on trains. The snakes were supposed to be rattlers. First off me and my buddies thought the snakes were harmless garden snakes and pet snakes with the same cheesy rattling sound clip. We actually sat through the entire thing completely ready to turn it off (we're too lazy to walk over and hit eject). Next thing we knew we don't know what the heck was going on but something amazingly funny happens at the end. It's one of those endings that you'll rewind a few times just to squeeze the laughs out, because you suffered for so long. <br /><br />Last 10 min a "8", rest of the movie a 2. | negative |
If people didn't know who Barbra Streisand was before this,...(is that POSSIBLE?)...they sure knew who she was after!<br /><br />This show went on to win 5 Emmys, & stands out as one the best things Streisand has ever done.<br /><br />It's made up of 3 acts....<br /><br />ACT I...Barbra singing standards from room to room, filled with musicians, including a segment where she is a little girl again,all ending with a splendid version of her signature song,(at the time)..."People".<br /><br />ACT II....A musical tour of Bergdoff-Goodman,while Barbra Sings poverty songs..it's better than it sounds...<br /><br />ACT III.....The best part, Just Barbra,musicians,& some great songs,like....."Happy Days Are Here Again",& a "Funny Girl" medley....<br /><br />all in all, a great part of television history,made by one of the greatest performers in the world! | positive |
I will begin by saying I am very pleased with this climax of the Bourne trilogy. Please, oh please don't ruin it by doing a sequel years from now or a prequel. Just leave it alone. Right..moving on.As talented and versatile as Matt Damon is...it seems as though he was just meant to play Jason Bourne.<br /><br />If you are a fan of the first two Bourne movies, you will not be disappointed by the third installment. It sticks to what works and adds a little more. I was very pleased to see how well all the information we obtain in 'Identity' and 'Supremacy' all mesh in 'Ultimatum' to finally paint the full picture of Jason Bourne's troubled past. The action sequences are fast paced and keeps you on the edge of your seat. The fights between Bourne and the assassins are always fun to watch. I have always been a fan of movies surrounding CIA agents and how the CIA gather their Intel and this movie is right up that street, making it even more exciting for me.<br /><br />If you choose to watch The Bourne Ultimatum without watching the previous 2 installments..you will still thoroughly enjoy the movie but I would still recommend you watch them first. This would allow you to fully understand the character Jason Bourne and become attached and be a part of his world. This allows you to appreciate and enjoy the movie even more. I'm not sure which is the better of the first 2 but I personally think 'Ultimatum' might, just MIGHT, have the edge when comparing the trilogy. | positive |
I last read a Nancy Drew book about 20 years ago, so much of my memory of the fictional character is probably faulty. From what I gathered, the books were introduced to me at an era when teenage sleuths were popular to children growing up at the time (for my case, the 80s and early 90s), with Hardy Boys, Famous Five, and of course, "Carolyn Keene"'s Nancy Drew amongst the more famous ones. I still remember those hardcover books with very dated cover illustrations, usually quite heavy (for a kid) to lug around, and the thickness of the book perhaps attributed to the fact that the words are printed in large fonts.<br /><br />Well, the character has been given some updates along the way, as I recall my sister's subsequent Nancy Drew books becoming less thick, of softcover, with updated and a more chic Nancy illustrated on the cover. I can't remember if those stories were the same as the old hardcover ones, but I guess these books, being ghostwritten, have their fair share of updating itself for the times.<br /><br />In this Warner Brothers release of Nancy Drew, the character no doubt gets its update to suit the times, but somehow the writers Andrew Fleming and Tiffany Paulsen maintained her 50s- ish small town sensibilities, thereby retaining some charm and flavour that erm, folks like me, would appreciate. Her fashion sense, her prim and properness, even some quirky little behaviour traits that makes her, well, Nancy Drew.<br /><br />Her family background remains more or less the same, living with her single parent father Carson Drew (Tate Donovan), who is moving his daughter and himself to the big city for a better job opportunity, and to wean his daughter off sleuthing in the town of River Heights. Mom is but a distant memory, and the housemaid makes a cameo. But what made Nancy Drew work, is the casting of Emma Roberts in the lead role. Niece of her famous aunt Julia, she too possess that sprightly demeanour, that unmistakable red hair and that megawatt smile. Her Nancy Drew, while in the beginning does seem to rub you the wrong way, actually will grow on you. And in almost what I thought could be a discarded scene from Pretty Woman, it had the characters walk into a classy shop with almost opposite reactions.<br /><br />While Dad Carson Drew tries hard to bring Nancy out of her sleuthing environment and to assimilate into normal teenage life, trust Nancy to find themselves living in a house whose owner, a Hollywood type has been, was found murdered under suspicious circumstances. Mystery solving is her comfort food when she finds herself an outcast of the local fraternity, and not before long we're whisked off along with her on her big screen adventure.<br /><br />There's nothing too Black Dahlia about the crime and mystery, and instead it's a pretty straightforward piece for Nancy to solve, in between befriending Corky (Josh Flitter) a chubby friend from school, and pacifying jealous boyfriend Ned (Max Thieriot), while hiding the truth of her extra curriculum activities from her dad. The story's laced with cheesy fun and an oldie sentimentality which charms, and together, it becomes somewhat scooby-doo like. With minimal violence and no big bag gunfights or explosions, this is seriously a genre which is labelled clearly with "chick flick" alert.<br /><br />I guess the movie will generate a new generation of fans, rekindle the memories of old ones, and probably, just probably, might spark a new fashion trend of sporting penny loafers. | positive |
I finally got to have a look at this experimental Lynch short after waiting for so long....and unfortunately, it wasn't worth it! Even for a die hard Lynch fan, I found this to be really tedious....<br /><br />nothing happens, there are long, long, long painful pauses where nothing happens, long, monotonous speeches where nothing is said and the whole thing finishes with the viewer not knowing, or caring, what the hell it was all about, what happened before and what happened afterward. <br /><br />There was a Mulholland Drive allusion - the blonde girl and the brunette girl were very Diane and Rita -esque, and a Lost Highway moment with allusions to some significant event that happened but cannot be talked about clearly. <br /><br />Unfortunately, It's all very uninteresting and very dull, nothing happens, it's very forgettable and I think i will delete it from my computer and forget I ever watched it. Sorry David! | negative |
Everybody who wants to be an editor should watch this movie! It shows you about every mistake not to do in editing a movie! My grandma could have done better than that! But that's not the only reason why this movie is really bad! (It's actually so bad that I'm not able to write a sentence without exclamation mark!) If the first episode of Les Visiteurs' was a quite good familial comedy with funny jokes and cult dialogues, this sequel is copying badly the receipe of the first one. The funny parts could be counted on one hand and maybe half of it. Clavier is over-acting his role even more than in the first part, Robin is trying to act like Lemercier (because she's replacing her) but that's grotesque'. Lemercier is Lemercier, Robin is Robin! Even if Muriel Robin can be funny by herself on stage, she is not in this movie because she's not acting as she used to act. I know that it should be hard to replace somebody who was good in a role (Lemercier obtained a César award for her role in the first movie) but she made a big mistake: instead of playing her role, she played Lemercier playing her role'! As for the story, it's just too much! Of course we knew at he end of the first movie that there would be a sequel but Poiré and Clavier should hae tried to write a more simple story like the first episode. The gags are repetitive, childish and déjà-vu. No, really, there's no more than 3 funny parts in this. The only good things might be the costumes and some special effects. So you have only 2 reasons to watch it: 1) if you want to learn how to edit awfully a movie, 2) if you want to waste your time or if you really need a brainless moment'! 2/10 | negative |
Rita Hayworth plays a Brooklyn nightclub dancer named Rusty who specializes in cheesecake chorus revues; she manages to get herself on the cover of a national fashion magazine, but her impending success as a solo (with romantic offers all around) has smitten boss Gene Kelly chomping at the bit. Terribly tired piece of Technicolor cotton candy, with unmemorable musical sketches (the two worst of which are irrelevant flashbacks to the 1890s, with Hayworth portraying her own grandmother). Kelly, as always, dances well but acts with false sincerity; when he's serious, he's insufferable, and the rest of the time he's flying on adrenaline. The script is a lead weight, not even giving supporting players Phil Silvers and Eve Arden any good lines. *1/2 from **** | negative |
I'm not much of an expert on acting or other movie details, but this movie just hit me deep. I don't think I'll ever forget it. One scene especially (I think that anybody who has seen the film will know of which one I am speaking) is imprinted on my brain.<br /><br />I also watched the similar movie Lilja 4-ever (as referred to by a previous commentator). It was also very moving, but not quite as straight to the point and brutal. If you are sensitive at all, either will bring tears to your eyes, but Anjos Do Sol (Angels of the Sun) may stay with you forever.<br /><br />This is very depressing subject matter, but I think, no, I HOPE that the film succeeds in bringing more attention to it.<br /><br />More people need to see this film!!!!!! | positive |
I thought it was going to be a lousy movie, honestly, I mean, Rupert Grint, RON, acting in a movie different from Harry Potter, was actually really difficult to picture it. But as the movie started, it showed that this guy does have talent, I mean, is the best actor of the HP trio, for reference, have you seen Emma Watson trying to act? Or what about Daniel's acting? Both lack experience even though they have acted in a million Harry Potter movies. Ben, his character is a very shy boy, incapable of showing his true feelings about everything, his despise about his over ruling mom and the resentful anger towards his father who is unable to step up and confront his unfaithful wife. Julie Walters was absolutely brilliant! Her interpretation of an old retired actress trying to live with the shadow of her past, while she tries to remember Shakespearian sonnets is absolutely wonderful! Also, it appears that many youth is wasted in religious nonsense acts. | positive |
This movie is not as good as all the movies of Christ I've ever seen. And I'm quite amazed that in this story Pilate wants to finish Jesus, when the Scriptures (as well the other movies) state differently. It lacks also a very important issue: The Resurrection.. None of the other movies skip this very important part: the faith of all of us Christians lies in this very event. As Paul says in one of his letters "If Christ did not rise from the dead, our faith is vain". A very impressive scene for me in this movie was seeing on the streets the remains of the palms that were used when Jesus entered Jerusalem. <br /><br />Finally, and in opposition to my Jewish co-commentator, Jesus WAS NOT a myth. And as a matter of fact, he was also a JEW. There are plenty of documents (relgious and secular) that prove the existence of this extraordinary man(or should I said, God become a man) that indeed changed mankind. I strongly advise him(given he is a historian) to read about Flavius Josephus, the most brilliant Jewish commentator of the 1st. Century. | negative |
As I work at a video store, I found it to be my solemn duty to talk about the worst movies I've ever seen, and warn my friends and co-workers of it. Amidst one day of particularly heated debate of what is the worst movie, my friend dared me to watch B.T.K. Killer, even stating that if I could watch the whole movie and still claim my previous choice was the worst movie ever, then he'd watch it. I lost. I believe that even I made better videos than this in high school, and those were hardly great feats of a young genius. This film not only lacked in what seemed to be production value (it looks like it was shot on a bad camcorder, although it is surprisingly clear), but also in acting (wooden, hollow, and pathetic don't scratch the surface), as well as just generally bad movie feeling. I can remember a scene where I heard glass smash, suddenly, I was reminded of some bad high school plays (I know that I reference high school too often here, but this film did seem very juvenile) both in terms of the set, which seemed far too fake, but also as if the people were reading their lines from the script, not entirely sure what was actually going on. My review doesn't do this film justice, because I can't describe how utterly horrid the time I spent watching this was. It's almost ironic that I do a pathetic job describing a pathetic excuse for a movie. | negative |
Well, I don't think the picture is as bad as most of the reviews make it out to be. . . but there's no denying that it's got problems.<br /><br />Mostly, the problems are in the script. There's a plot - but not much story, and certainly not one that anybody could call plausible; it trots out any number of self-consciously strange and/or stereotypical characters, lines, moments, what-have-you and, by the end, it just hasn't added up to much in this department.<br /><br />Sorry, but I couldn't care less about whatever "social ill" Farnsworth might be trying to address; there will always be a sector of the population willing to do just about anything to shred their brains, even if it requires running around corn fields trying to steal ammonia, or whatever it is those morons do. So, as a film, you won't find me calling "Iowa" "important." But, at a stylistic level, the picture is more than interesting and some of Farnsworth's choices in depicting a meth-head's wigged-out state are beautiful, hilarious, disturbing and - yes, I'm going to say it - inspired.<br /><br />The acting is uneven, but that just may be a casualty of the afore-praised stylistic reaching. Look, Rosanna Arquette is a fine actress - but she's not very good here, so a discriminating audience member does have to ask, "What happened?" It's weird that Diane Foster manages a simplicity and grace that so few of the other actors can come anywhere near. For example, I might seriously consider whatever explanation Farnsworth could provide for Michael T. Weiss's over-the-top turn as a probation officer, but I doubt I'd ever buy it; It Just Doesn't Work. <br /><br />Then again, it's the most alive and in the moment that I've seen John Savage appear in years. So go figure.<br /><br />This is the sort of work that tantalizes, but does not promise - and that's okay; neither Farnsworth nor anyone else is required to make movies. So, whether or not Farnsworth has another film in him remains to be seen, but if he does, it seems pretty likely that it won't be bland pap. In an age when people are planning their lives around the latest installment of "American Idol," perhaps we could allow, not scorn, Farnsworth's legitimate and undeniably flawed film. <br /><br />What is more, perhaps we could welcome, not berate, his energetic and sometimes blessedly idiosyncratic imagination. | negative |
It is nice to see Suraj Barjatya back at what he is best at.A story woven around a marriage.It feels nice to have a movie in which there is no single scene which you would avoid watching with your family. Though the story is simple and does not contain any new elements,you still like the movie,because of the presentation, performances,and actually the over all treatment. Hats Off to Suraj.. The movie is about the fact that engagement leads to love. The depiction of the changes in the way of thinking,behaving once you get engaged is excellent. Director has definitely given it much thought and actors have done it to perfection.Though the movie is slow,you don't mind it,because you kind of get so much involved with the story that you just wanna continue watching the joy of this newly engaged couple. As a typical RajShree stuff it has many sentimental scenes which are highly likely to make viewer burst into tears(specially ladies). But when you come out of the cinema hall you are very much satisfied and feel that the ticket was worth :-). | positive |
I agree with the last reviewer that this movie had terrible acting. Yes, there was a lot of gore and some nudity. But it was overshadowed by a slow-moving, meaningless plot and dumb ending. Where was this supposed to be filmed anyway: a Canadian Chinatown or Hong Kong? Hostel was a much better movie and I would recommend seeing that instead. A technical annoyance I had with the DVD is that if you shut off the Spanish subtitles, they return after a few scenes and then you have to go back to the main menu and turn them off again. Also, don't waste your time on the deleted scenes because there's no audio and it just looks like tourist footage. | negative |
This movie was horrible and the only reason it was even made was because the story appealed to the far-left. I consider my self a moderate, so I was able to see this film as the pile of garbage it was. While I'm not a Bush fan, your dislike for GW is not enough of a reason to see this movie.<br /><br />To start, the movie was shot on such low-grade film that it comes off as cheap, rather then artsy. Additionally, the characters are seriously lacking in depth. Chris Cooper's character was a poor parody of George Bush; better suited for Saturday Night Live then a Dramatic film. The rest of the characters are walking clichés and are poor facsimiles of other characters from much better movies.<br /><br />Avoid this movie at all costs! | negative |
At long last! One of Michael Jackson's most well known and beloved films comes to DVD! In Michael Jackson Moonwalker, (Michael Jackson) stars as Michael. A man with powers that are not of this world. Michael must save Sean (Sean Lennon), Katie (Kellie Parker), Zeke (Brandon Quintin Adams), and the rest of the worlds children from drug lord Frankie Lideo aka Mr. Big (Joe Pesci) who's mission in life is to get all of the worlds children hooked on drugs! A NOTE TO PEOPLE IN THE USA LOOKING FOR THIS FILM ON DVD: Make sure when buying this film on DVD you buy Warners Product #WK00817 as NTSC Region 3 which plays on North American NTSC Region 1 players. | positive |
Clara Bow (Hula Calhoun) is daughter of plantation owner Albert Gran (Bill Calhoun), who is mainly interested in playing cards and boozing with friends. She's interested in riding in the countryside until engineer Clive Brook (Anthony Haldane) shows up to build a dam. One of her father's friends Arlette Marchal (Mrs. Bane) then competes for his attentions. His wife Maude Truax (Margaret Haldane) shows up for the contrived finale.<br /><br />Lots of 'pre-code' elements like nude bathing.<br /><br />Wonderful location shooting in Hawaii. | positive |
This film is a refreshing change of pace from the mindless Hong Kong triad movies I have grown so tired of. There are no spectacular gun fights. No car chases. And practically minimal action to speak of. The audience is kept in suspense for the most part, though certain aspects of the so called "ploy" by Andy Lau are quite obvious.<br /><br />The film has been hailed as a departure from the genre of violent triad films, and as an "intelligent" crime film. To an extent, it is. But, to some extent, it still fails the "believability" test. One can hardly picture any triad member to be dumb enough to not see through the female disguise of Andy Lau in a second. It also seemed to have fallen for the "if someone was seriously ill, the said someone will be coughing up copious amounts of blood regularly" thing Chinese films seem to go for all the time.<br /><br />The subtle relationship between the two lead characters is a refreshing change.<br /><br />All in all an enjoyable film, even though the concept is not new and there are few surprises. > | positive |
"The Love Letter" is one of those movies that could have been really clever, but they wasted it. Focusing on a letter wreaking havoc in a small town, the movie has an all-star cast with nothing to do. Tom Selleck and Alice Drummond had so recently co-starred in the super-hilarious "In & Out" (also about an upset in a small town), in which they were both great, but here they look as though they're getting drug all over the place. I can't tell what the people behind the camera are trying to do here (if anything), but they sure didn't accomplish anything. How tragic, that a potential laugh riot got so sorrowfully wasted. | negative |
Except for acknowledging some nice cinematography, I can hardly say anything positive about this movie. The single real issue is the protagonist's dilemma whether to remain with his childhood friends in the world of misery or to leave them and take up his own life. Abundant "emotionally powerful" scenes do not go with this plot and, because of bad acting, they also fail to create the intended atmosphere. The director only manages to introduce Anthony's dilemma and eventually brings an easy solution. The characters do not seem to evolve, although it is difficult to speak of any characters... perhaps except for Sonny. Beside him, actors do not get to play much and when some of them have to, they come off as self-indulging amateurs. I wonder what ruined the movie more: the superficial script, throwing away all the potential of the plot, or the bad acting, disturbing any appeal that might be left. | negative |
My friends and I went into this movie not knowing what to expect, but hoping for the best. When we came out, we were only slightly more informed on what the plot of the movie actually was. Though not the worst movie I've ever seen, I definitely do not recommend spending your money to see it in theaters. Maybe have a friend rent it for you (it's not even worth the rental cost, either) if you really want to see it.<br /><br />When a movie is so convoluted that you have no idea what's going on until the last five minutes, there's really not much that can be said in its defense. The acting was decent, more than you'd expect to get from this movie, and some of the shots were good, but it was all bogged down by a lame plot and poor script.<br /><br />This movie was actually so bad that as soon as it got out, I went and purchased a ticket to see a good movie just to cleanse my mind. I recommend that all of you just skip the first step and go see a good movie instead. | negative |
Visually stunning and full of Eastern Philosophy, this amazing martial arts fantasy is brought to you by master director Tsui Hark, the man behind some of the best films Hong Kong cinema has produced. The special effects are beautiful and imaginative. The plot is a bit on the cerebral side, but is a refreshing change from films that treat their audience as if they were morons. If thinking is not your forte, however, this may not be your movie. Maybe you should go see the latest from the Hollywood studio's no brain club, but if you are looking for something more, he's where you will find it. | positive |
Exclusively for Coop's lovers, though Clint Eastwood very strong though unobtrusive presence is a great asset of this very good documentary film. It is a biography of Gary Cooper, based mainly on his filmography, but also on more private archives, which show him as a child, as a young man, as a family man, with some of his friends (Picasso, Hemingway, etc.), as an older man, finally as a sick and close-to-death man. After "the end", I did not have the feeling that I knew the man any much better. But I have spent a very good moment, re-viewing many of the best moments of his movies; and my respect for the very talented actor and great professional was increased tenfold. The film shows, most interestingly, how the career of Cooper can be paralleled with the evolution of USA society before and after WW2. Two of the great moments are the time when Cooper has to answer justice about communism in the movie world; and when James Stewart (a very great one, too) received an Award for Cooper one month before his death. I'm not a weeping pot, but... that was a close one! Watch it, if you can: it is so much worth while. ... If you love Cooper, that is. Or an older America... | positive |
"With all the misery in the world, how can we not get drunk?" Mia<br /><br />A lovely aerial view of a major city turns ominous with the approach of a fleet of airplane bombers; an irate hairdresser reacting to a perceived racial slur cuts a road through a businessman's bushy hair; a man dreams of being dragged to an electric chair after a failed magic trick and a teacher breaks down in front of her grade school class because her husband called her a hag. These and about fifty other vignettes that run the gamut from the outright depressing to the wildly humorous to the joyously uplifting populate Roy Andersson's You, the Living, his first feature since his critically acclaimed if commercially unsuccessful Songs From the Second Floor.<br /><br />You, the Living is filled with the same kind of imaginative set-pieces as Songs, replete with black humor, surreal situations, and strange looking characters. Though a bit overlong and less focused than his earlier work, what remains constant is Andersson's unmistakable style with its stationary camera, sterile-looking backgrounds, and precise attention to detail. If there is a theme that ties the sketches together, it is that our time on Earth is limited and "tomorrow's another day', so let's treat each other with kindness. Along the way, we are entertained by tuba and drum music from the Louisiana Brass Band, dinner guests at a banquet hall standing on their chairs singing a rousing song, and a house that turns into a moving train.<br /><br />The emotions range from the gloom of a daughter attempting to communicate with an Alzheimer's patient to a young woman's ecstatic dream about marrying a handsome guitar-player named Micke to the cheers of a crowd of onlookers. While there is no continuous narrative thread, the theme of greed and desperation appears in several sketches. The first of these threads features two corpulent individuals and their tiny dog sitting on a park bench, the woman bewailing the fact that no one understands or loves her, yet she blithely ignores the man's comforting and reassuring words.<br /><br />There is also a hefty admixture of irony. During what seems to be an executive luncheon, one man tells another on the phone that workers don't appreciate quality and how nice it is to appreciate money and the things that it can buy such as fine wine. When he is not looking, however, a man at an adjacent table calmly lifts his wallet from his jacket on the back of his chair. Though Andersson's cynicism is at times not very well hidden, You the Living has an underlying humanism that shows compassion for the human condition. It is a cautionary tale that looks at the mess we humans have gotten ourselves into but suggests there is still time to turn it around, if we heed the warning of the poet Goethe that opens the film, "Be pleased then, you the living, in your delightfully warmed bed, before Lethe's ice-cold wave will lick your escaping foot." | positive |
If you would have asked me 1 month ago how this movie was I probably would have left most of this out, but I am a fan and as any fan I visit the movies sites often well when Super Troopers came out I visited that site after the release on DVD and was hooked yea it's a difficult site to stay on, but the good ones normally are like good families they stick together. What a story this company/comedy troop has.BEGGING people to come and see there movies on street corners,universities, anywhere they can and all for free and after all that to develop a great fan base after a few years THEY CRAP ON IT And decide to close down there website that helped them and was created for the fans, but the worst thing about it....THEY DIDN'T TELL ANY OF THEM. They just decided that they are better than us they want new fans not the fans that helped them get where they are....you know the same fans they begged years ago. Still the smart crew they are they released the best movie with Super Troopers and got everyones attention and thank God for that because after that they have sucked with everything else. Good for you guys way to go mainstream, just remember when you realize your material isn't that good and you have no new fans left you are the ones who crapped the original ones away. FANS MAKE YOU WHO YOU ARE NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. Never burn your bridges | negative |
This, the direct-to-video death rattle of the Tremors series, features sixty inspired seconds (sawblade: you'll know it when you see it) and more tedium and filler than you can shake a stick at. Tremors 4 was obviously shot on a cripplingly low budget. That means they only had enough special effects mojo for three or four minutes of precious worm-on-human violence, tops. The lackluster, cliche-spouting cast and hackneyed writing ensure that the remaining hour and a half of the Tremors 4 experience feels at least fifteen thousand years long. Only hardcore Tremors fans will be able to sit through, much less enjoy this film. If you aren't among them- don't bother. | negative |
Wow. After seeing this film, you will know why America's youth continues to lack intelligence and any traits to contribute to the wellbeing of society, except for making themselves more inept to function.<br /><br />Jackass Number Two stars some of the most repremandable people imaginable, who at there core lack any sort of talent or brains to make anything of themselves (especially Bam Margera and Steve-O), and there only option for fame was to make a living entertaining those as stupid as them by harming there being. A guy drinking horse semen? Just flat disgusting. A man putting a fish hook through his cheek and acting as "bait" for sharks? This isn't humor, it's evidence for institutionalizing him.<br /><br />Overall, I walked out of the theater with no hope for mankind. | negative |
I saw this on cable. Someone had to lose their job for greenlighting this one for air. Just because a movie is made does not mean it has to be shown! Savage Instinct should be shown in ALL film classes. It is the perfect template for how to not make a movie. The editing alone is so jumbled you'll think it was assembled by a team of trained (poorly) monkeys, traveling across unpaved canyon road in the back of a jeep, blindfolded and drunk. The audio is often not legible. Acting? I can't call anything I saw here acting. Reciting? Hmmm. Can't call it that either. Failing? That works. All that being said...IT IS HILARIOUS! I cannot stress enough that there is not one redeemable factor in this "film" other than the hilarity derived from it's own incredible ineptness. Fun, in a strictly masochistic sort of way. Watch it...if you dare. | negative |
I watched this because of the description and cover art and yet again was deceived.I am getting sick of all these new stupid straight to DVD horror movies.Once in a blue moon 1 will be OK. It started out with a confusing scene and then jumped 30 years and showed a couple one night during a thunderstorm which was OK because I like storms and it set a nice mood.Then it turned into a cool road trip where they ended up at a diner encountering bizarre people.The rest got weird and then got confusing.I did watch it til the end but was even more confused when it ended so badly.I had higher hopes for this movie but it was more like a science fiction then horror and something that should have been made for TV. | negative |
First of all, Riget is wonderful. Good comedy and mystery thriller at the same time. Nice combination of strange 'dogma' style of telling the story together with good music and great actors. But unfortunately there's no 'the end'. As for me it's unacceptable. I was thinking... how it will be possible to continue the story without Helmer and Drusse? ...and I have some idea. I think Lars should make RIGET III a little bit different. I'm sure that 3rd part without Helmer wouldn't be the same. So here's my suggestion. Mayble little bit stupid, maybe not. I know that Lars likes to experiment. So why not to make small experiment with Riget3? I think the only solution here is to create puppet-driven animation (like for example "team America" by Trey Parker) or even computer 3d animation. I know it's not the same as real actors, but in principle I believe it could work... only this way it's possible to make actors alive again. For Riget fans this shouldn't be so big difference - if the animation will be done in good way average 'watcher' will consider it normal just after first few shots of the movie. The most important thing now is the story. It's completely understandable that it's not possible to create Riget 3 with the actors nowadays. So why not to play with animation? And... look for the possibilities that it gives to you! Even marketing one! Great director finishes his trilogy after 10 years using puppet animation. Just dreams?<br /><br />I hope to see Riget 3 someday... or even to see just the script. I'm curious how the story ends... and as I expect- everybody here do.<br /><br />greets, slaj<br /><br />ps: I'm not talking about the "kingdom hospital" by Stephen King ;-) | positive |
<br /><br />First of all, I reviewed this documentary because I had an interest in the subject it portrayed, the LA punks.<br /><br />I listened that music and I loved that music and I read a lot of the small zines that were made in the early 80's and that were not so easily achieved in Finland.<br /><br />So if you don't like this kind of music why you write here about it? I like this kind of music, it speaks my soul, thus I know punks from all over Europe & Americas, so why do you, who find this music "repugnant" care to comment at all?<br /><br /> | positive |
In one sense, I kind of liked this movie because of a 'mindless', positive atmosphere it sort of conveys. I had a problem with an aspect of the plot, but more about that later. First, the characters were a little goofy and one dimensional. The 'good people' had similar physical and character traits and the 'bad people' had similar physical and character traits ... hmmm. The basic storyline was OK (pretty simple and standard) - nothing too exciting or objectionable. The main attraction was, of course, the miniature dinosaurs - kind of a nice fantasy element to have. However, they had a very minimal presence in the movie.<br /><br />Outside of that, the movie kept a brisk pace and didn't get too bogged down in any one place. I liked this about the movie.<br /><br />The problem I had with the plot had to do with the the idea of "stealing". I think this movie may not have been thought out enough - something's wrong especially if this is a kid's movie. I'll keep the next sentence abstract to not be a spoiler (skip it if you're worried). The 'good guys' do some stealing and they don't have the same info the audience has - so it's just stealing and that's kind of a bad thing for a kid's movie.<br /><br />Overall, if you have kids, because of a questionable plot aspect I'd consider passing. However, this whole movie is pretty low key anyway so it may not matter. Pass this one if you have any other interesting choices. | negative |
When I was chairman of our college's coffeehouse, one of our jobs was to review groups and films for student activities. One of the best things to come along in 1972 was Groove Tube. The original premise was that it was being shown off-off Broadway in theaters where television monitors were being placed throughout the audience, so everyone had a great seat. The premise was that the skits would change on a regular basis-ala Saturday Night Live, keeping the thing fresh. They decided on making it into a film for general distribution.<br /><br />I believe the developers said it was the first time Chevy Chase was on film. Watching him run naked though the woods was a howl. Like many of the reviews before mine, it WAS Saturday Night Live before such a thing existed. I highly recommend this vid. I've told my 13 year old son about Koko the clown- He can't wait to get a copy! | positive |
I love this film...! I've seen it 1000 x on dvd and I cant say enough about it. It has it all, comedy, awesome action and incredible stunts/fx. Samuel Jackson steals the show here big time. I dont think there isnt a moment that he's in that he isnt funny! "Everyone knows that when you make an assumption, you make an ass out of you and umption"!! The f/x are great! The bridge/truck explosion is incredible, although the sound isnt all that great!When Samuel drives out of the truck, the sound is off a little I think and what he says is priceless!!! For those of you who own it on dvd, put the audio in french!!! It's halarious!!! Even emotional moments are great when the bad guy discovers that Sam's/Charlie's daughter is his, is great... This is a great film that no action fan can do without... I also reccomend Cutthroat Island... Aside from all the negative publicity, it kicks!!!! | positive |
It was 9:30 PM last night at my friend's camping trailer and we were so hyped to watch South Park (a new episode). The thing is, in my country, South Park airs at 10:30 PM and we decided to kill time by watching the show now airing, Father of the Pride. I'll start by saying that I have only watched to episodes. The first time I watched it, I found it unfunny and crude for nothing, so I thought ''Holy sh*t, I have a football game early tomorrow, so I have to stop watching stupid cartoons''. But yesterday, I tried to give Father of the Pride a second chance. I find that it's a complete rip-off of The Simpsons, only replacing yellow human characters by lions instead.<br /><br />The second thing is I wonder why it got it's TV-14 rating. I find The Simpsons a lot more vulgar, and the only real vulgarity in this show is a few homosexual (unfunny) jokes. The Simpsons is also a lot more violent (Halloween specials) and crude. I also heard that the creator of the series has also directed Shrek 2, well I've got news for him: Shrek 2 was way better and I think he stayed too much in the family thematic. However, I must admit that Father of the Pride did make me smile (even burst out laughing once) three or four times.<br /><br />All in all, I don't mind Father of the Pride. I don't hate it, but I don't like either. I've seen way better from ''The Simpsons''.<br /><br />3.5/10 | negative |
Thanks should be given to the Hong Kong VCD/DVD distributors that I only paid US$1.4 and I could have such a surprisingly delightful enjoyment.<br /><br />Adultery? How common in our modern days. Eva grabbed her two children and kidnapped Nick to chase after Luis and Charlotte to Italy. She wants her revenge done but at the end, she also commits the same crime of Luis: she had sex with Nick.<br /><br />In this small indie production, Vivian Naefe dealt with the teething problems in modern marriage with a light heart. How can one dare treat marriage seriously in this fast-food time where people are now of higher mobility in physical, mental and technology areas? Conjugal commitment asks for too high a price that most people would choose to succumb to circumstances. Nick once trusted Charlotte but he fell for Eva after that kidnap journey which forced him to experience much growth.<br /><br />Most viewers may feel happy about the ending because Eva and Nick come together, well, this should be the greatest retribution to the unfaithful act of their spouses. However, I want a sequel, I want to see how the four would develop after this exchange. Perhaps they may exchange back, how can one be so sure about the shaky love relationship.<br /><br />Good acting and good scenery. The two little child-actors should not be neglected especially the boy when he cries at the reception of the hotel in Venezia. And of course, how can we forget the "bella, bella" scenery of the city. | positive |
A really wonderful cast and very talented technical crew wasted their valuable career time, and our equally valuable leisure time, by bothering to support this utterly predictable and plainly formulaic piece of commercial junk. The movie is based upon a really good and very topical idea but both the producers and the director simply applied the standard Hollywood 'disaster movie' formula and thereby ruined any potential value from the production.<br /><br />An unusually high tide and very strong gale conditions combine to produce a record high storm surge that overwhelms London and floods most of the Thames Valley. The plot centers around a heroic scientist (Tom Courtenay) who alerts the authorities of the danger and ultimately saves the day, a glamorous female police chief who runs the entire show and an embattled Deputy Prime Minister (David Suchet) who tries to look important.<br /><br />But it's all so unreal that one feels like an extended tea break after just 30 minutes. The young glamorous female Police Commissioner demands complete authority over the army during a declared State of Emergency and gets it (as if!). The experienced General is just pushed aside like a complete moron who has to lick her boots because of her obviously superior capacity. The trouble is that our female supremo, whilst now responsible for millions of lives, spends most of her time worrying over the fate of her two daughters who have taken a trip to South West London and haven't telephoned to say they were alright. So our mighty woman sets her staff to look for them and decides that the sole priority for all the army and the rescue services must be South West London and not any other quarter of the city. Of course the Minister, the Army and the entire entourage accept her prioritization without question. One can only assume they all had property there. When her children are eventually found after endless reports and efforts by her staff she is told by our male hero, 'Thank God they're safe, that's the main thing'. Never mind about the millions of others or all the other responsibilities she was supposed to control; as long as her own kids were safe everything was alright. <br /><br />This film is just another excuse to push the same old female chauvinist sexist clap trap that women are the clever, mindful, caring and clearly able leaders whilst men are good for nothing except physical bravery, mindless strength and very specialist knowledge. And yet the one simple instruction that she could have given the populace; namely to go to the nearest tall building and calmly go up to the 4th floor or above and await instructions when the waters recede was never given by this female super hero - or indeed anyone else. The whole problem was so simple to solve and yet millions of people apparently didn't think of simply going upstairs! Pathetic rubbish. | negative |
There's really no way to beat around the bush in saying this, Lady Death: The Motion Picture just plain sucks. Aside from the fact that the main character is a well endowed blonde running around Hell in a leather bikini with occasional spurts of graphic violence, the movie seems to have been made with the mentality of a 1980's cartoon based on a line of action figures. The bad guy himself even talks like a Skeletor wannabe, has the obligatory inept henchman, and lives in a lair that looks to have been patterned after the domain of the villain from the old Saturday morning Blackstar cartoon. Just don't expect any humor other than the sometimes howlingly bad dialogue. At other times it feels like the kind of anime tale better suited to hentai, yet there is no sex, no tentacle rape (Thank goodness!) and very little sex appeal, this despite the physical appearance of the title character. There is simply no adult edge to this material, unless you count the half-naked heroine and bloody deaths. Essentially, what we have here is a feature length episode of She-Ra, Princess of Power, but with skimpier clothes and more gore. | negative |
A man discovers that his parents were part of a nuclear experiment in the 50's and that he now has the power to... burst into flames! <br /><br />I was really geared up for this film, what with being directed by the great Toby Hooper and staring wild card Brad Dourif. Unfortunately it didn't rise above the average individual-with-violent-powers movie. Spontaneous Combustion has an interesting premise behind it, unfortunately it never seems to live up to its potential and prolongs its plot too much. The special effects aren't bad though and help to carry the movie to the finale.<br /><br />The cast isn't bad, Dourif does steal the show.<br /><br />All around, no classic but it's not the worst of its kind either.<br /><br />** out of **** | negative |
I couldn't wait to get my hands on this one, when I read about Fred Astaire teaming up with George Burns & Gracie Allen in a movie with a script by P.G. Wodehouse and music by the Gershwins. It is definitely worth seeing, but lacks the cohesive quality of the Fred & Ginger movies.<br /><br />The story would probably be better to read in a Wodehouse book, where the humor comes across better. Some of the acting is downright painful to watch (notably the young boy and the damsel).<br /><br />But...! The funhouse dance is worth more than most movies. I never knew that Gracie Allen could dance, but boy does she in this movie. Have you ever tried to remain standing on one of those spinning discs in a funhouse? Imagine tapdancing on one in high heels! She keeps up wonderfully with Astaire and adds greatly to the overall quality of the picture.<br /><br />Several nice songs, particularly fun are Nice Work if you Can Get It and Stiff Upper Lip.<br /><br />Recommended for fans of Astaire, Burns & Allen. I had to go back and re-watch the funhouse dance as soon as the credits rolled. | positive |
i enjoyed this film immensely, due to pungent scenes (humorous as well as ironic, some even "tragical"), believable performances, witty dialogue and a heartfelt rendering of what it´s like or rather c a n be like to be hetero- and/or homosexual & on the lookout for fulfilment of your desires. i´m aware of the paradox here: homo- a n d hetereosexual.... this is something the film tackles on end, but never uses for caricature. if you´re as open-minded as the people seem to have been who made that film, in the end it won´t matter to you if those who lie in each others arms are of the same sex or not.<br /><br />"mr. smith" from the matrix gives an admirable turn as a gay houses-salesman with "strange" appetites here, but that´s not the only thing to marvel at. enjoy..... | positive |
Overall, this is a pretty bad film. But for $5 at PathMark, it wasn't a total waste.<br /><br />The whole scenario has to do with a guy who is with this lady infected with snakes, supposedly from a magic curse. The actors/actresses aren't names that are big (even though some look like from TV shows), so I won't do my usual Troy McClure thing.<br /><br />For awhile, the film holds your interest as the couple hop a train and travel to L.A. to see a shaman to undo the curse. There's a bit of other plots going on too; like two ladies smuggling drugs.<br /><br />But the last 20 minutes turn out to be a total let down. As violent and gory as the whole film is, the grand finale is just totally computer animated.<br /><br />I saw the unrated version which had tons of language, gore, blood, violence, everything! The bonus features were OK.<br /><br />Overall Grade: D- | negative |
First off - there's absolutely no flirting going on in this film - with Anthony or anyone else. These people don't flirt - they just do it. Your first test of endurance is to wade through more than 15 minutes of intense violence and sexual perversion. This wouldn't be so bad - hell, I like violence and perversion as much as the next reviewer, but without a context to put it in, it is repellent. So you make it through the torture and mayhem. Then we meet Donna and the movie turns into something all together different - not better - just different: a road picture without heart. There are lame attempts at comedy thanks to cameos - broadly written and broadly played by broads like Judy Tenuta and Mink Stole (and a few hookers and drag queens, too). They all deserve better. The photography is purposely disorienting, so if you get motion sickness (or really ANY kind of sickness) - this flick is not for you. Come to think of it, I'm not sure just who this flick IS for -except maybe gay and bi-sexual S&M fans who like poorly scripted, poorly shot indy films about themselves. | negative |
'Illuminata' has expanded the limits of John Turturro's mediocrity from second rate actor to third rate director, writer and producer. This film was dreadful. It is disjointed and flits from scene to scene with little flow or meaning relevant to the main story line.<br /><br />We are served with a smorgasbord of fragmented scenes, each a non sequitur to all the others. The only thread that seems to run through them is that they occur in the lives of the members of the same theatre repertory company. The few scenes that do matter to the plot are so convoluted that you frequently can't tell if the dialogue is from the story or the actors running their lines for the play within the story. <br /><br />If this story were a person it would be a schizophrenic with mulitple personality disorder. It couldn't decide if it was a drama, a romance, a comedy, a tragedy, a sex farce, or a parody of theatre. It came closest to being bearable as a sex farce.<br /><br /> Turturro was lifeless and impassive as Tuccio, supposedly a complex and passionate writer whose play gets its big chance when the currently running show needs to be cancelled due to the illness of the lead actor. Susan Sarandon gave a good performance as the aging actress trying to seduce Tuccio for a role. Unfortunately, she found it necessary to go topless which only goes to illustrate that the hardware of aging sex symbols is much better left to the imagination. Christoher Walkin gave a delightful performance as the uppity theatre critic who makes impassioned overtures to a member of the cast. Beverly D'Angelo and Ben Gazzara also had minor roles.<br /><br />I gave this film a 2. Other than Walken's vignette, there is really not much to recommend it except that the puppets used in the opening and closing credits were phenomenally lifelike and beautiful. Avoid this movie like the plague that it is.<br /><br /> | negative |
Well, the Sci-Fi channel keeps churning these turkeys out... and they seem to get worse every time. When normally good actors like John Rhys-Davies and Giancarlo Espositto come off as rank amateurs, you can imagine how abysmal the REST of the cast in this waste-of-your-time effort is. The only halfway decent thing is the rubber outfit of the creature(which is glimpsed in such quick flashes that you don't really have time to see how phony it really is). The dialogue...the plot...if this "movie"(and I use the term loosely) was food, Jack-In-The-Box would be a gourmet meal compared to this. Watch a re-run of "The Munsters" for the 372nd viewing- your time would be better spent(and a lot scarier as well)! | negative |
The debut that plucked from obscurity one of the brighter stars of contemporary noir is an assured, if limited, stab at the con game and obsession. Filmed for zero money, Nolan couldn't have chosen a better subject than the drab and seamy underside of London to ply his trade, given the lack of funds. This short (67 min) is at its best in playing with the audience's and protagonist's expectations about who is scamming whom, though the initial set-up does ring some alarm bells in the credibility dept. The muddy cinematography (he often used natural lighting due to budget) can be mostly chalked up to noir stylization, though the limitations do show at times.<br /><br />One can easily see Nolan's style developing in this fledgling effort; many of the same themes of blurred identity and expectation smashing recur in MEMENTO and INSOMNIA. Not a masterpiece but good and certainly worth a look for modern noir and Nolan fans. | positive |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.