review stringlengths 32 13.7k | sentiment stringclasses 2 values |
|---|---|
From the second the music swelled (second one of the movie) and it was movie-hack tripe, I knew I was in for a very long ride. Horrendously clichéd - (I laughed a lot and knew how the plot ended WELL before the ending) - they didn't use Louisbourg particularly well and the costuming and hair were kinda awful. (My particular favourite makeup moment is that the only way they age Depardieu as far as I could see was by putting a straight hair wig on him, instead of wavy). I could go on about the ridiculous unsuitability of the music for a long time -- the movie could be improved massively by an 18th century score. <br /><br />(ETA: AH, it's that horrible moviemusic guy Patrick Doyle who's responsible for the score - say no More! He should NOT be allowed near historical movies -- he should stick to 20th century settings.) <br /><br />The "visit to the notable people portion" was also hilarious particularly his little visit to Madame Pompadour who was not particularly convincingly played. <br /><br />I thought the only actor who appeared grounded in the century at hand was Michael Maloney as James Murray. He absolutely stole the show for all 30 seconds he was on screen. Tragically, he made you see what the movie could have been.<br /><br />The love scenes did have some heat - the two leads were stunning together.<br /><br />The most awful scene for historians is where they're at the big leavetaking dinner in Britain before Wolfe sails and he lifts his glass and says the first two lines of "How stands the glass around" aka "Why soldiers why" as if it's a toast. Absolutely excruciating failure at historicity, much better to leave it out. Thousands of people know the damn song and thousands more believe the rumour that Wolfe and company sang it (probably drunk, not all stuffy like this bunch). Daft. | negative |
Where's Michael Caine when you need him? I've seen most of the many seasons of MST3K, but this rare pre-1st season flick (episdoe K-20) is easily one of the worst movies ever made. Three "stars", Lee Majors, Chris Makepeace and Burgess Meredith, struggle through the worst batch of cinematography ever, delivering lines which must have been written by a secret Dick Cheney-style workgroup composed of Exxon and GM lawyers trying to cut funding for mass transit and energy efficiency research. Looks like it was filmed in almost total darkness, possibly on Super 8. Makes Logan's Run look like the cinematic Sistine Chapel crossed with Shakespeare. I can't imagine watching it without the commentary of Crow and Servo since it's unwatchable even with it. Clearly what's needed in Hollywood is some sort of 401K which prevents the need for actors to take on bad movies like this in order to pay for their health care. With its "rights to pollute and drive" theme, by the end, I'm half expecting to see a Charlton Heston cameo where he delivers his "cold dead hands" speech. Lee, I could have forgiven you for this in 1989, but 1981? | negative |
Who could possibly have wished for a sequel to Bert I. Gordon's legendary bad trash-film "Food of the Gods"? Nobody, of course, but director Damien Lee thought it was a good idea, anyway, and he put together a belated sequel that stands as one of the most redundant movies in horror history. "Gnaw" is a sequel in name only, as the setting moved to a typical late 80's location (a university campus) and also the cheap & cheesy gore effects perfectly illustrates the 80's. This script hangs together by clichés, awfully written dialogs and plot situations that are not so subtly stolen from other (and more successful) horror classics. Neil Hamilton is a goody two shoes scientist who performs growing-experiments on ordinary rodents in order to do a fellow scientist a favor. Due to some incredibly stupid animal rights activists, the huge and ravenous rats escape and devour pretty much everyone on campus. Following the good old tradition that Spielberg's "Jaws" started, there's an obnoxious Dean who refuses to admit the problem even though severely mutilated corpses are turning up everywhere. During a hysterically grotesque climax, the rats invade the opening ceremony of the campus' new sport complex! "Gnaw: Food of the Gods 2" is terribly bad and therefore a lot of fun to watch! The characters do and say unimaginably stupid stuff (like descending into the sewers unarmed while they KNOW it's infested with rats), the acting is atrocious and there's a genuinely bizarre sequence involving the hero having sex under the influence of growth-serum! I wonder what Freud's theory would be on that! There's a satisfying amount of gore and sleaze and it has to be said the music is surprisingly atmospheric. In case you just can't get enough of this junk, there are quite a lot of creature-features revolving on mutated rats, like the Italian schlock film "Rats: Night of Terror", the modest 70's cult film "Willard" and its lame sequel "Ben", the 2003 "Willard" remake starring Crispin Glover and the surprisingly good recent rat-movies by once-famous directors Tibor Ticaks ("Rats") and John Lafia ("The Rats"). Go nuts! | negative |
Anyone who has spent time working in a hospital or medical facility has got to appreciate this film. The plot is absolutely wild but entertaining from start to finish. The acting is superb. George C. Scott is the brilliant doctor but class A failure as husband, father. Diana Riggs, a sex symbol of the 1960s and 1970s (of The Avengers), saves him from himself. The surrounding cast is superb and the dialogue quite entertaining. I think I enjoyed the film more on viewing it the 4th., 5th. or 6th. time because I caught that much more of the richness of the dialogue and the interplay of the characters. Well worth seeing again and again. You just won't want to check in to a hospital in the near future. | positive |
This may not be a memorable classic, but it is a touching romance with an important theme that stresses the importance of literacy in modern society and the devastating career and life consequences for any unfortunate individual lacking this vital skill.<br /><br />The story revolves around Iris, a widow who becomes acquainted with a fellow employee at her factory job, an illiterate cafeteria worker named Stanley. Iris discovers that Stanley is unable to read, and after he loses his job, she gives him reading lessons at home in her kitchen. Of course, as you might predict, the two, although initially wary of involvement, develop feelings for each other...<br /><br />Jane Fonda competently plays Iris, a woman with problems of her own, coping with a job lacking prospects, two teenage children (one pregnant), an unemployed sister and her abusive husband. However, Robert DeNiro is of course brilliant in his endearing portrayal of the intelligent and resourceful, but illiterate, Stanley, bringing a dignity to the role that commands respect. They aren't your typical charming young yuppie couple, as generally depicted in on screen romances, but an ordinary working class, middle aged pair with pretty down to earth struggles.<br /><br />I won't give the ending away, but it's a lovely, heartwarming romance and a personal look into the troubling issue of adult illiteracy, albeit from the perspective of a fictional character. | positive |
This was really one of the most enjoyable specials that I have seen on TV. He is just an incredible performer. His personality shines through in each one of the songs that he does. I really wish this was available as an uncut DVD so I could watch it over and over without the -beeps- for explicit language. I have not had the chance to see him live, but that is something that I really want to do now. I can't forget his backup singers. They really added a lot of substance and humor to the show. With their campy style, and flamboyant dance moves, they really complement the true talent of Dan. I wish there were some more of the songs that are on his live CD, which is also incredible. It is refreshing to see someone like him perform. Just so incredibly personable and real, I really can't say enough good things about Dan and this show. Once again, I just wish this was available as an uncut DVD. | positive |
Left Behind is the kind of "we know what we know cause we know it" movie that Christians (and most any other naive person) needs to help them feel like what they "THINK" and "BELIEVE" (not "KNOW") is right. But, at the same time I feel bad for the little guys, because this is not a well made film. It does not help ANY message. I work at a video store, and I KNOW the ONLY reason people went to see this movie was because they were religious and they thought it was. ANYBODY on this earth who THINKS they know what will happen in the future is wrong, unless they think they know that they don't know. I've had about enough (but only after I've had too much) of these people walking around with their noses in the air thinking that a movies starring a semi-talented TV actor means something above me.<br /><br />Please, if you love yourself you'll stay away. I refuse to go into any detail about this movie (not because A-I didn't see it (because I did), B-it was too shocking for my atheist-self to handle (because it wasn't), or C-I really don't have anything to say bad about it (because I do). The Reason, (which is a word nobody who helped make this movie understands) is that I want this movie out of my head, I want that it was made out of my head, I want that I watched ALL OF IT WITH AN OPEN MIND out of my head, I want the message that Kirk so proudly and coachly gives at the end of the movie out of my head. I only want all the things that were in my head BEFORE viewing this movies there, anything directly connected with this movie that's floating in my head GET OUT! My peaceful rage is ending. I'm sorry that somebody in this world went to the theater to see this movie about what could happen in the future (but won't) when they could have given that Seven Dollars Plus to any number of Human, Animal, or Rain Forest charity. But if they did that then they wouldn't be able to "BELIEVE" in the fact that it's real, they might have to fact what is. LEFT BEHIND ZERO (out of ****) | negative |
The Detonator is set in Bucharest where some sort of ex CIA Government agent named Sonni Griffith (Wesley Snipes) has tracked down a arms dealer named Dimitru (Matthew Leitch), things go wrong though & Dimitru finds out that Sonni is working for the US Government. After a big shoot-out most of Dimitru's men have been killed by Sonni which the local Romanian police force are unhappy about, top man Flint (Michael Brandon) decides to send Sonni back to the US & at the same time protect a woman named Nadia Cominski (Silvia Colloca) who is also being sent back to the US. However it turns out that Nadia is wanted by Dimitru & his football club owning boss Jozef (Tim Dutton) who need her in order to complete a deal for a nerve gas bomb which they intend to set off in Washington killing millions of people...<br /><br />This American & Romanian co-production was directed by Po-Chih Leong & The Detonator confirms beyond any shadow of a doubt that Wesely Snipes has joined the washed up action film stars club who are relegated to making generic action films in Eastern European locations, yep Snipes has joined such luminaries as Jean-Claude Van Damme, Steven Seagal, Dolph Lundgren, Rutger Hauer & Chuck Norris. I give Snipes a bit of credit since he held on a little longer than the rest with the excellent Blade: Trinity (2004) still fresh in a lot of cinema goers minds (every film he has made since has gone straight-to-DVD) but it had to happen sooner or later, like a lot of the names I've mentioned Snipes has lived off the reputation of a few great films & if you look at his career he's been in more bad films that good ones. Like the recent films of JCVD & Seagal The Detonator is pretty awful. The script by Martin Wheeler is as predictable, boring & by-the-numbers as anything out there. The Detonator is the sort of film you expect to see on an obscure cable TV channel playing at 2 O'clock in the morning. The Detonator is chock full of clichés, Snipes is forced into a situation where he has to protect a woman & at first they dislike each other but by the end they are in love, his closest friend at the CIA turns out to be a traitor while the obnoxious by the book boss no-one likes actually turns out to be a pretty decent guy, Snipes character is allowed to run around Bucharest shooting, killing & blowing people up like it doesn't matter & he never gets arrested, the action is dull & forgettable, the bad guy own a football club so there are lots of annoying football terminology & there aren't even any funny one-liners.<br /><br />Director Leong doesn't do anything anything to liven things up, The Detonator looks cheap with a car chase in which the two cars never seem to get over the 30mph mark. OK the action scenes are relatively well staged but they are few & far between & utterly forgettable in a 'bad guy shoots at Snipes & misses, in return Snipes shoots at bad guy & kills him' sort of way. There's a half decent car crash & explosion but very little else. It seems some of The Detonator was shot in a Romanian football stadium, I think I'd rather have watched the game for 90 minutes rather than this film.<br /><br />With a supposed budget of about $15,000,000 The Detonator is reasonably well made but not that much really happens. Set & filmed in Bucharest in Romania. The acting isn't that great, Snipes just doesn't seem interested & feels like he is just there for the money which I don't blame him for at all.<br /><br />The Detonator is yet another poor clichéd action film starring a has been actor & set in Eastern Europe. Why do Sony keep making these things? Not recommend, there are much better action fare out there. | negative |
hello all Denver fans!<br /><br />i couldn't agree more with you guys! This show was so cool and cute, i i watched it as a kid in the late 80s. Among Denver are other favourite too, such as Care Bears and Rainbow Brite. I am 24 now, but it is still one of my favourite shows, and my favourite cartoon from the 80s. It brings back all the memories. The theme tune was great too, i get goosebumps whenever i hear it. It is sad that it lasted such a short time, but it has remained a firm favourite. Its great that i am not alone and that there are people out there who liked it too. This is one of the cartoon shows i shall keep for future generations. <br /><br />Viva Denver! :) | positive |
Samuel Fuller knows war, and is one of the only directors in American movie history who could accurately portray the horrific experiences of it in a form like the motion picture. His pessimism and idealism, if that sounds a little odd to mix together, work for him as a storyteller, and at the same time he's always out to tell the truth, however brutal (or put into melodramatic constructs) it can get. Verboten, however, deals with the post-war experience, as we only get in the opening scenes the big boom of WAR- in bold for a point. The opening shot is like one big exclamation point that seems to continue on into the rest of the scenes: a dead soldier on the ground, the camera pans up, we see another soldier shot down in war-torn terrain. Simple, direct language. Then Fuller punctuates the intensity with something interesting: the title song played over the opening credits as both irony and sincerity, and then Beethoven music over a shoot-out between Americans and the Nazis. Sgt David Brent (James Best) is shot, the battle goes on, and then it transitions to him being treated for his wounds.<br /><br />It might lead one to believe that this will be a somewhat conventional WW2 flick (somewhat in that one usually wouldn't find Beethoven and, later on to an extent, Wagner put into these images), but this isn't the case. Instead, Fuller makes this a 'Coming Home' kind of movie, though not at all in the sense that 'this soldier comes home injured and so on and so on'. Instead of really going home, Brent stays on in Germany, as he's fallen head over heels for the woman, Helga (Susan Cummings, pretty good at pulling off the German accent), and wants to work in a smaller capacity in the military so he can marry her. What he doesn't realize is that a) she wants him more for money so she can get food for herself and brother, however this gets complex emotionally at the point of revelation to the slightly naive but heartfelt Brent, and b) there's an underground Hitler youth sect called the Werewolves, who want to pick right up off where Hitler ended- starting small, despite argument within the group- by attacking the very government that's now embedded in Germany to give them, as Brent describes, a "blood transfusion." With this, plus footage from the Nuremburg trials, and (as narrated, I think, by Fuller himself) a quick, no-punches-pulled history of the Nazi war crimes piece by piece, we get a multi-faceted look at a society in the dire straits of an immediate post-war environment. While Rossellini handled it his own way with Germany Year Zero, Fuller tackles it with layers: first there's the love story, or what is the tragic downfall of a man who can't see anything past what he thinks should be reasonable, that it's his wife and a child on the way that he can't leave, until the revelation that he's (partly) been swindled. Baker and Cummings, along with Harold Daye as Helga's young, confused brother, perform at with the utmost detail to emotions; these aren't very easy B-movie parts, though they could've been that. Then another layer is the political one, the struggle of a society to come to grips with being conquered, and a mentality which is made sensationalized, to be sure, by Fuller, in respect to making the Nazi's a total no-gray-area thing: they're evil, particularly when they cancel out reason to meet their ends.<br /><br />And finally there's the layer of style, which is strangely absorbing. This is probably one of Fuller's 'talkiest' films, which isn't a bad thing considering it's one of his best written scripts, as the characters don't talk simply or in too many platitudes (with the exception of a small scene where two characters talk about the Hitler youth as juvenile delinquents, which is actually, according to Fuller's autobiography, probably another layer to consider in the subtext and the 50s period of movies). And Fuller shoots this almost in a real European style, when he's not going for fight scenes or battles, as the editing isn't always very fast, and sometimes a cut won't happen for a full minute, or longer. There's an odd tension that grows out of this, especially when there's something said by a character that gets another one wild-eyed or suspicious; Fuller could easily go for a big close-up, but there's a more sinister, cold quality to not moving away from two people in a conversation without a simple over-the-shoulder deal. But when it requires it, like the big brawl outside the American military office, or the Nuremburg footage spliced into Franz's memories of the Werewolves, Fuller can be as stunning stylist as ever.<br /><br />Very hard to find, but extremely worth it if you'r either a fan of the director's or of WW2 movies set in Germany- or even just a history-buff- Verboten! is an intellectual experience and a strong emotional one, with a cast that is better than expected from a B-movie, and an attitude towards the 'other' that is equally damning and thought provoking. | positive |
James Aaron, a chubby actor living in Chicago, is a man that loves to eat things that are no good for him. That is made clear early on, as Dick, a friendly store clerk, advises him to stay away from junk food. Aaron, an actor working at Chicago's Second City, is a loving man with not much luck in the love department. He still lives with his mother, a spunky lady who encourages him to go out and enjoy himself. James has another job in a sort of gross "Candid Camera" where people are set up for unusual situations, such as surprising a mechanic and telling him he is the father of a daughter he never knew about.<br /><br />On the day he meets his friend Larry he gets to know about the casting call for the remake of "Marty", his favorite film. Being a large man, he clearly identifies with the character in the movie. In many ways, James' own life parallels that of the Paddy Chayefsky's creation in the picture. He wants to try for the part because he knows he can do justice to the role.<br /><br />One day he meets Beth at a soda fountain. James takes a liking to the woman, who one day invites him to go shopping with her for intimate apparel. He ends up having sex with her, thinking they have a nice thing going, but Beth has a another surprise coming when she tells him the reason they went to bed was because she had never done it with a fat man. After being disappointed, James stumbles into an attractive elementary school teacher who seems to share his love for jazz. At the end, we watch James fulfilling his long dream of starring in a theatrical production of "Marty" in a nursing home.<br /><br />Jeff Garlin, who is an affable character man, shows a talent for the type of comedy associated with his friend Larry David. Although both men differ in acting styles, his take on James Aaron is right on the money. As a director, he has done it before, although this is an original concept that he should pursue. <br /><br />One of the assets of the film are the people involved in the project. Sarah Silverman makes an impression for her take of Beth. Bonnie Hunt underplays her role of the school teacher to good results. Mina Kolb, is seen as his mother, a role she has played in "Curb Your Enthusiasm" with excellent results. Director Paul Mazursky is at hand also in a minor role. Joey Slotnick, Tim Kazurinsky, Richard Kind, David Pasquesi, Larry Neumann Jr, Gina Gershon, and the rest of the cast make valuable contributions.<br /><br />Jeff Garlin is a talented man whose next effort will be welcomed by his fans. | positive |
The BBC and HBO teamed up to create "Dirty War", a 90 minute TV movie about a terrorist "dirty bomb" attack in London. The film gets down to business quickly as it packs both the terrorist and the government anti-terrorist efforts into the film leaving little room for human interest subplots. On the terrorist side we follow the bomb from the smuggling of radioactive materials to assembly to deployment to detonation. On the government side we see PR and training exercises, intelligence gathering and analysis, interdiction, post-detonation response, and follow up. The film also imparts a sense of how Al-Qa'ida type terrorist cells are organized, the radical Islamic terrorist mentality, and terrorist strategies. A sort of anatomy of a "dirty bomb" incident, "Dirty War" will answer many questions lurking in the minds of a public becoming ever more aware of this insidious threat. (B) | positive |
Ok I will sum up this movie... A bunch of skanky British women have some disease that basically is turning them into zombies. The whole movie consists of these women talking, smoking, and rarely going out for "meat" Or humans to eat. I swear I had to MAKE myself watch this movie... UGH | negative |
The only notable thing about this film is that it was Steve McQueen's first big starring role.<br /><br />McQueen's talent is undeveloped and raw but refreshingly honest in this campy little sci-fi horror piece. Steve shows himself as the anti-establishment, hot rod car loving actor who would become a polished icon of the film industry just five years hence.<br /><br />Later on, McQueen would say he hated this film and that "he was the blob". But everyone has to start somewhere and The Blob is cute, fresh and innocent. Would that we all had stayed that way.<br /><br />The plot is fast paced and although predictable, still an entertaining hour or so. And it's really fun to see Steve McQueen before he became The King of Kool (and Anita Corsaut before she became Andy Taylor's girlfriend). A close friend sent me the DVD a while back and it's a treasured addition to my Steve McQueen film collection. | positive |
This is the worst movie I have ever seen in my entire life. Unless you're into masochism, never see it. It was an insufferably long, pointless, eye-harming, depressing movie and will forever top my list of bad movies. Whoever wrote this movie is a sadist. I almost cried at the end, that's how bad it was. I'd like to give it zero stars, but since that's not an option, I give it one. | negative |
Les Visiteurs, the first movie about the medieval time travelers was actually funny. I like Jean Reno as an actor, but there was more. There were unexpected twists, funny situations and of course plain absurdness, that would remind you a little bit of Louis de Funes.<br /><br />Now this sequel has the same characters, the same actors in great part and the same time traveling. The plot changes a little, since the characters now are supposed to be experienced time travelers. So they jump up and down in history, without paying any attention to the fact that it keeps getting absurder as you advance in the movie. The duke, Jean Reno, tries to keep the whole thing together with his playing, but his character has been emptied, so there's not a lot he can do to save the film.<br /><br />Now the duke's slave/helper, he has really all the attention. The movie is merely about him and his being clumsy / annoying / stupid or whatever he was supposed to be. Fact is; this character tries to produce the laughter from the audience, but he does not succeed. It is as if someone was telling you a really very very bad joke, you already know, but he insists on telling that joke till the end, adding details, to make your suffering a little longer.<br /><br />If you liked Les Visiteurs, do not spoil the taste in your mouth with the sequel. If you didn't like Les Visiteurs, you would never consider seeing the sequel. If you liked this sequel... well, I suppose you still need to see a lot of movies. | negative |
A study of one of those universally familiar, physical and/or emotional states: isolation. I think the film also comments on cultural displacement too.<br /><br />The film presents the experiences of two Turkish men (cousins). One has money (and the comforts that come of having 'made-it' with a steady income); the other has none and goes in search of work. Neither are happy. Expect no celebration of life here - this is loneliness, warts and all.<br /><br />The film succeeds in offering a powerfully bleak traverse across the 'low lands' of the human condition. Brave film-making. Well-acted and well-shot in my view (outdoor shots by the harbour being my own favourites). A film that should inspire gratitude in anyone who is not a stranger to happiness and fulfilment in life (not to mention employment); everyone else will find a companion in this film. A film with all the warmth and pace of an ice-floe. Expect a bitter pill, not a 'happy pill.' | positive |
Why this movie has all but disappeared into obscurity is an absolute crime. "Conan" is perhaps the only Sword and Sorcery movie better. The brutal violence, cool character designs, and good pacing, make this one of the best fantasies around. It is certainly the greatest animated movie aimed at a more adult audience that I have ever seen. This is not similar to Bakshi's usual frenetic style. It's quite a departure for Bakshi, and in my opinion his best work. I hope that this film gets the recognition it deserves. | positive |
this particular title is very interesting. the whole movie was like watching a ninja RPG, which is really cool. three magical swords, three clans, a horrible demon, a political power, yotoden has it all. the animation is decent, but a little grainy, the story is top notch, and the fight scenes are real cool. one thing that really looks good in this movie are the monsters. they are pretty freaky. if you liked blood reign and ninja scroll, yotoden is the one to see. | positive |
It's really unfortunate that most people outside of Canada think that the only things that Canada produces are snow, mounties and hockey players. This film is the second superlative Canadian film I have seen within the past few weeks (the first was "The Red Violin"), far better than all but the best Hollywood efforts.<br /><br />Gustad Noble is anything but that; he is a middle-aged Parsi bank employee in Bombay in the 1970s. This film sensitively explores various things that happen to him concerning his family, his friends and his work, and their effect on him. At the same time, it is a fascinating, and, I would assume, accurate, portrayal of middle-class, urban life in India at the time.<br /><br />However, I was somewhat prepared for this, having read Rohinton Mistry's book a few years ago. The film, as might be expected, cannot capture all the complexities of the book, but, if you want to read a really good book, and see a really good film, read and see "Such a Long Journey". | positive |
We tend to forget that the master/slave context of the past centuries lead to more than well-tended estates, powered by large groups of enslaved people, and a lot of money for the white owners. It lead to a group of people caught in the middle - the offspring resulting from slave owners interferring with their female slaves.<br /><br />Some of these children just became more slaves, and others were free...but free and coloured, which back then meant anything but, relative to the lot of their sires.<br /><br />A class formed around these offspring - the gens de couleur libre or free people of colour - and that class was able, to a certain extent, to own property, raise themselves from downtrodden to educated, and to attain a comparative dignity. That is to say, they weren't slaves, but they were still exploited to a certain extent.<br /><br />Often, the women lived as mistresses to the white plantation masters and men of wealth, set up in their own houses, with allowances, schooling paid for for their children, and a kind of gentility, dependent on the respectability they chose to impose on their families. In essence, they were prostituting themselves to ensure their own prosperity, and relative independence from labour - an arrangement called plaçage.<br /><br />Feast of All Saints is a beautifully written story about the children of one such woman, the result of just such an arrangement with a local gentleman, and the people who touched on their lives, in both a negative and a positive way. The tale was an eye-opener for me, a New Zealander, with no real conception of the black/white lines, let alone that grey area in the middle where the gens de couleur libre trod gingerly.<br /><br />The characters are very three dimensional, and have been well-rendered in this adaption of the novel, by Anne Rice. The parts are well-cast, the costumes are wonderful, and the brutal way the lines are drawn out, with the blurred areas made all the more distinct by the conflicts the protagonists go through. The gens de couleur libre could not marry the whites, the slaves could not help themselves, and the whites, even the sympathetic ones, couldn't bear to face the economic reality of doing right by the people they depended on.<br /><br />I recommend this story, both the novel and the miniseries, to everyone, unreservedly. If you can't handle the truth you'll cringe and cower through some parts, as one injustice after another is meted out on those of colour, both by their white oppressors, and by their own people. Bear in mind though that this is nothing more than reality, and this tale is an absorbing way to learn about it.<br /><br />I know it may sound callous, but this miniseries both entertained me and enthralled me, despite the sour taste I found in my mouth at what went on, and I thoroughly enjoyed it. Watch it. If not read up on the period, because there's a lesson to be learned from it all. | positive |
This must have been an embarrassment to every member of the entirely African-American cast. Every derogatory, disparaging stereotype of the black American community is featured prominently. I won't reinforce the insults by listing them here, except to mention chickens, watermelons, and dice.<br /><br />One good song by Ethel Waters (and a couple of bad ones), and the fantastic singing and dancing talents of 8-year-old Sammy Davis bring the total up to something below 1 on the IMDb scale. | negative |
The biggest tragedy surrounding this thoroughly delightful movie is its lack of U.S. distribution. I was fortunate enough to see this film at the Boston International Festival of Women's Cinema, and highly recommend it to anyone who gets a chance to see it. Terrific performances, and thoughtful script and great direction from the talented and funny Rose Troche all combine to make this film a winner! | positive |
Jack Brooks' quirks are, at first, somewhat charming and lend to the deliberately campy feel of the beginning of this movie.<br /><br />I found myself getting angrier and angrier as I was duped into seeing this one through to the end, in hopes that the payoff would be worth the super-tedious wait.<br /><br />The climax can't begin to make up for all the setup time.<br /><br />Normally one might expect shallow characters from this genre. But the fact that the wait-time-before-action index is so high, should mean that the meantime would be devoted to some interesting character development.<br /><br />Not so.<br /><br />While not without its initial charms, this movie ultimately infuriates, and disappoints.<br /><br />Wish I could get all that setup time back, to reinvest it into something that pays off. | negative |
I recall years back, Michael Douglas wanted his wife, Catherine Zeta-Jones, to be in a romantic film because he felt his wife had all the goods. No doubt she does, but NOT in this film. A colossal waste of time, no story, no character development, no chemistry, nada. This was not the vehicle that we all hoped this film would be, boring and a HUGE disappointment. Didn't even watch the whole film, torture. Catherine Zeta-Jones was obviously trained in how to work a kitchen, move around, present a dish but this wasn't the food network, nothing learned here and once her counterpart appeared, supposedly a romantic interest brewing, where was the chemistry. The poor slob on the second floor of her building trying all the ploys to connect and no character development there. The loss of her sister was poorly played out as who knew there was a closeness. The sister's daughter just was plopped here and there with something that was supposed to draw you in, NOT. Just a waste of movie time. The promoters certainly did their job to put this lack-luster film on all the networks tempting you with all kinds of teasers. Sorry to say, don't spend a dime. | negative |
Hollywood has made a lot of strange movies over the years, but none stranger than this. WHY this movie got made I will never know, nor how Paramount could have thought it would sell any tickets in 1947. It is the strangest mix of genres I have seen in a long time, a movie that truly does not know whether it is trying to be a serious war drama or a Viennese operetta comedy.<br /><br />It tells the story of a British spy trying to get a poison gas formula out of Germany in the days just before WW II began. Ray Milland, a fine actor, is stuck playing the part like an escapee from Monty Python, all very exaggerated English prep-school dialogue. In Germany he meets a gypsy, Marlene Dietrich, who helps him to travel under cover as, of course, another gypsy. She plays her part like the typical Viennese operetta gypsy caricature, as do the other "gypsies" in the movie. But there are also Nazis, who are not funny at all. And then Milland finds he is starting to think like a gypsy, and that is not treated as a joke. Sometimes the music is for a light comedy, sometimes for a drama. Every time the Nazis show up, the film score plays Wagner, which is funny by itself.<br /><br />This movie could have been a comedy, or it could have taken the plight of the gypsies seriously and done a serious job of showing how the Nazis treated them. Both are hinted at in this movie, but neither pursued. What we are left with is a truly strange mish-mash of genres that must have embarrassed everyone (except the director) involved.<br /><br />Bizarre. | negative |
Sweet, entertaining tale of a young 17 1/2 year old boy, controlled by by an overbearing religious mother and withdrawn father, and how he finds himself through his work with a retired, eccentric and tragic actress. Very well acted, especially by Julie Walters. Rupert Grint plays the role of the teenage boy well, showing his talent will last longer than the Harry Potter series of films. Laura Linney plays his ruthlessly strict mother without a hint of redemption, so there's no room to like her at all. But the film is a very entertaining film, made well by the British in the style of the likes of Keeping Mum and Calendar Girls. | positive |
I don't understand all these bad reviews. I believe this movie was one of the best in the Puppet Master series. Being made on a low budget, one can comprehend why the special effects and acting were not spectacular, but they were not completely horrible.<br /><br />Greg Sestero brought a lot of charisma to the role of Andre Toulon. He has a lot of potential, and I hope to see more of him soon. And though the cinematography was not excellent, and there was minimal violence and gore, this film was a lot of fun. I am a big Puppet Master fan and have grown to expect blood and gore from the films of this series, but I can say that I was never bored through the entire course of watching Retro Puppet Master. So, if you ever get an opportunity to see this movie, don't automatically regard it as unworthy of your time. Give it a chance. You might like it. | positive |
To start this movie was sick. Here your wife is dying and you go strutting around town with this blond chic by your side. Then your wife dies and within 2 months you are together with this chic. Hank (James Brolin) is definitely moving fast throughout this movie. I called him Fast Hank. Fast Hank marries this beautiful lady and before you know it she is having sex with his best friends. The part that gets me is when she is "doing it" in the barn with Kevin and gets caught by another one of Hanks friends. Kevin gets up and leaves, she drops her robe and BAM!! Right into the arms of this other guy and they start "doing it" right then and there. I guess he is finishing up what Kevin started. HOW GROSS!!!! I am like this is lifetime movie??? Its a typical OLD MAN YOUNG WOMAN movie that says you can have my body if I get your money... | negative |
I have just watched this movie for the first time today, and just loved it...<br /><br />Yes it is simple in it's storyline, the sweetest love story,and how any female could not fall in love with Callum Blue beats me...<br /><br />The scenery in Italy was as you would expect, Beautiful, the baddies lost in the end,and for the two lovebirds to be reunited at the end, was wonderful, but that scene where a certain Italian was sweeping away the confetti after Eric and Wanda's Wedding, perfection!.<br /><br />Have a cup of tea and watch a fantastic movie, yes, better have a tissue ready and be enthralled, I know I was and hope to get it on DVD real soon. All the actors played their parts perfectly, this was a WW2 film you could believe in as it was so realistic, and without going over the top as in other films... | positive |
The 1970s are often regarded as a golden age of British television comedy, a period which saw numerous classic sitcoms as well as sketch shows such as "Monty Python's Flying Circus". The period was, however, emphatically not a golden age of British film comedy, and what worked well on television rarely transferred successfully to the big screen. The most triumphant exceptions to this rule were provided by the Pythons, but their best films ("Monty Python and the Holy Grail" and "Life of Brian") were very different in conception to their TV show.<br /><br />The main problem with adapting sitcoms for the cinema is that concepts devised to fit the BBC's 30 minute slots (25 minutes on ITV, which has to find room for commercials) do not always work as well when expanded into a feature film three or four times as long. Few people will remember the film versions of, say, "Up Pompeii!" or "Steptoe and Son" with the same affection as the television versions. In the case of many classic TV comedy shows ("Some Mothers Do 'Ave 'Em", "Yes, Minister", "Fawlty Towers", "The Goodies") no attempt was made to film them at all, for which we can be grateful. Characters such as Michael Crawford's Frank Spencer or John Cleese's Basil Fawlty can be hilarious in half-hour doses, but I doubt if they would remain as funny over two hours. One comedy programme (albeit a dramatisation of a comic novel rather than a sitcom in the normal sense) which might have worked in the cinema was "The Fall and Rise of Reginald Perrin", but any hopes of a film were dashed by the tragically early death of its star Leonard Rossiter.<br /><br />"Dad's Army" was one of the few television sitcoms of the period which was turned into a decent film. (About the only other one I can think of was "Porridge"). This was possibly because it had an unusually large number of well-developed characters and derived most of its humour from the interactions between them. The original sitcom ran between 1968 and 1977 and told of the misadventures of a Home Guard platoon in the small seaside town of Walmington-on-Sea. (The Home Guard, initially known as the Local Defence Volunteers, was an auxiliary militia during World War II made up, for the most part, of men too old to serve in the regular forces). The film version is a three-act drama. Act I deals with the formation of the platoon and the recruitment of its members. In Act II they cause havoc during an Army training exercise. In Act III they succeed in capturing a group of Nazi airmen whose plane has been shot down.<br /><br />The three key players in this drama are the platoon's commander, Captain George Mainwaring (Arthur Lowe), and his two subordinates Sergeant Arthur Wilson (John Le Mesurier) and Corporal Jack Jones (Clive Dunn). Mainwaring, who in civilian life is the local bank manager, is a fussy little man, peering at the world through a pair of thick spectacles. It is he who takes the initiative in forming the Home Guard unit and who appoints himself its commander. He is pompous, officious, with an exaggerated sense of his own importance and of his own powers of leadership, the sort of man who does not suffer fools gladly. (And in George Mainwaring's world-view the term "fool" covers most of the rest of the human race). He does, however, have his good qualities. He is motivated by a genuine patriotic idealism and is capable of great physical courage, shown in his encounter with the Germans.<br /><br />Wilson is Mainwaring's deputy at the bank. The two men are very different in character, something emphasised by a difference in appearance, Wilson being tall and thin whereas Mainwaring is short and stout. He comes across as being both more intelligent and better educated than his boss. (His accent suggests he may be a former public schoolboy). Nevertheless, he has ended up playing second fiddle both in civilian and military life, probably because he has the sort of passive personality which leads to pessimism and defeatism and an inability to take anything altogether seriously. Jones is an old soldier who now runs the local butcher's shop. (His promotion to Corporal is due mainly to his ability to bribe Mainwaring with black market sausages). His enthusiasm for his new role is matched only by his incompetence and ability to cause chaos. Although his catchphrase is "Don't panic!" he is prone to panicking at any given opportunity.<br /><br />Several other members of the platoon are featured. Private Fraser, the dour Scottish undertaker, is even more of a pessimist than Wilson. (Catchphrase: "We're doomed, man, DOOMED!"). Private Godfrey is a gentle old man whose main concern is the whereabouts of the nearest lavatory. Private Walker is a sharp Cockney spiv and Private Pike (another bank employee) a spoilt mummy's boy. (Pike's mother is Wilson's mistress, although Wilson tries to keep this liaison secret from the disapproving Mainwaring). Two significant outsiders are the mild-mannered Vicar and the ARP warden, Mainwaring's detested enemy and quite his equal in pompousness and officiousness.<br /><br />There are occasional bawdy doubles entendres ("Keep your hands off my privates"- Mainwaring is ostensibly referring to those soldiers who hold that rank), more so than in the television show which was surprisingly free of innuendo. (Its creators, David Croft and Jimmy Perry, would later go on to create comedy shows such as "Are You Being Served?" and "Hi-de-hi" which were notorious for suggestive humour). The film does, however, preserve much of the mixture of gentle wit, nostalgia and sharp characterisation which made the TV series so successful. 7/10 | positive |
Solino really moved me with its deeply drawn characters. While being a simple tale of rivalry between two brothers, it was not simply about hate or jealousy. What I liked most about the movie was how I could identify with the feelings Gigi was going through especially when he had to take his mother back to her home town in Italy and miss out on attending the festival film awards ceremony his film was entered into. To see this character who struggled so hard between his artistic dream and his innate sense of duty to his mother was so frustrating. Even at the end when he makes one more attempt to reach out to his father was so brave. And as in real life, most fathers can never get past their walls to reach out to their children. I could even identify with Giancarlo, the brother, who while being the more self assured and elder brother, had so many insecurities. A really beautiful film that made me laugh and cry. | positive |
Crazy Six is torture, it must be Albert Pyun´s worst film. Even Blast and Ticker are better! I can´t believe how boring this film is! How this even got greenlighted? I saw this movie about 3 years ago and the only thing I remember is how bad it was. This isn´t good bad movie, it is simply bad, bad, bad, bad, bad movie.<br /><br />1 out of 10 (½ out of *****) | negative |
I am not one of those people who just go online after I see a movie and decide to call it the worst movie ever made. If you doubt me, please look at my other reviews. However, for the first time ever, I have seen a movie so horrible that I wanted to write about how bad it was before it was even over.<br /><br />I LOVE bad movies. To me, Ed Wood is a genius, I thought Bloody Murder, Jeepers Creepers and most horrible horror movies were good. However, there is not a single good thing I can say about this film.<br /><br />The plot is basically non existent. If someone reading my review wastes their money to see it, they can discern for themselves what the plot might be, but I advise you that a nickel would be worth more than watching this movie.<br /><br />The special effects are bad.<br /><br />The acting is bad.<br /><br />The two leads are attractive, but that's all there is.<br /><br />I am not the type to spoil a movie for anyone, but I INVITE anyone to email me at foxbarking@yahoo.com to ask for my opinion on this movie before they waste a dime on it. I will tell you anything.<br /><br />I love bad movies, and I love horror and I love new inventive movies. I even love horror porn stuff like Hostel (Which some reviewers claimed this was like, but obviously they only thought so cause Roger Bart was in this and Hostel 2). But this may be the Number 1 most worthless and stupid and dumbass movie EVER made.<br /><br />And before you disregard this review, this is coming from someone who not only sat through the ENTIRE premiere of House of the Dead, but actually bought a copy of it. | negative |
The husband-and-wife team of Bennie Fields and Blossom Seeley were huge stars in vaudeville, yet they made very few films. As is the case for some other performers of their era (George M. Cohan, Fanny Brice, Gertrude Lawrence) the most accessible piece of film footage for Fields and Seeley is the biopic ABOUT them, in which they're portrayed by other actors: 'Somebody Loves Me', starring Betty Hutton and that inimitable song-and-dance man Ralph Meeker.<br /><br />In their heyday, Fields and Seeley were so hugely popular that another husband-and-wife vaudeville act -- Jesse Block and Eve Sully -- achieved nearly as much stardom performing an almost identical act, effectively becoming the "second-team" Fields and Seeley. Offstage, though, there was a major difference in the couples' living arrangements. Fields and Seeley lived in hotel suites, paying room-service rates for every meal they ate, and eventually running out of money. Block and Sully lived modestly and invested their earnings wisely, ending in comfortable retirement.<br /><br />The first 30 seconds of this Vitaphone short are occupied by two spats-wearing pianists. Apparently these two men had some slight name value of their own in 1930, although I've never heard of them. Finally, Fields and Seely rush in and start performing. They both have plenty of pep, and she's fairly attractive.<br /><br />I was annoyed that both performers keep making movements as if they're about to break into a dance, but they never quite do so until the third of the three songs they perform in this short. When they finally start hoofing, the results are not impressive.<br /><br />I was delighted to have this opportunity to see these two major performers doing their vaude act. Now that I've seen it, I understand why they never became stars in movie musicals. My rating for this one: just 4 out of 10, and I'll stick with Block and Sully. | negative |
I am a VERY big Jim Carrey fan. I laughed my ASS off during Liar Liar and Ace Ventura. I also like him in his serious movies, especially Truman Show. This one is a cross between his VERY funny side, and his serious side. He is of course VERY funny in this movie, but there are parts that are very serious, and he pulls it off with a lot of ease. he is truely a multi-function actor.<br /><br />As for the rest of the cast, I was happy with Jennifer Aniston's acting. I think she is more than just a couple of nice tits and great ass. Morgan Freeman makes a VERY cool God. As for Steven Carell, his limited scenes are VERY funny, especially in the anchor scene.<br /><br />Overall, I would have to rate this a 9. Good acting, funny script, and some very serious situations make this a very good film. | positive |
As a movie critic for several Dutch websites, I have to see lot's of movies, and not all very good ones. Some movies are so bad, you won't be surprised that they are released straight on video. With taboo, Iám surprised that it is released on video at all. This is really low budget bad quality bad written rubbish. <br /><br />A group of youngsters plays a game of taboo. They write down their most sickening wish or act, and later on people are murdered for their taboo's. The question is, should we believe what we see?<br /><br />The movie has a potential interesting plot-twist, and I won't give it away here. But what could have been interesting stays stupid, bad acted and without any reason.<br /><br />Some of the actors have played in bigger titles before, so why on earth did they sign up for this? If you see this anywhere, try to dodge it. There is no logic, no human sense of quality in this movie. | negative |
Well, AWFUL is just the first name. This movie is a cliché-ridden piece of junk. A high school comedy setup in a military training camp. I'm sorry I had to give this 1 star which it did not deserve.<br /><br />THIS MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS:<br /><br />Just about everything is totally forced, unconvincing and unrealistic. The HEPO (military police) will not come to get you if you don't make your appearance, especially not on your wedding day. The actors were pretty embarrassed during this scene, because the scene didn't work as it was so highly unlikely. You can sense it in their voices. Even if they were not such bad actors, they wouldn't have been able to save the scene. <br /><br />Next the guy has to exercise in his wedding suit. No, there was no time to get him an uniform first. Man, this is great cinematography! I will remember this scene for the rest of my life.<br /><br />There are also GIRLS in the camp--exciting--one of'em even a model, though not looking that great--and the baddest actress I've ever seen. I doubt in Hollywood they would let her say a single line in a B movie. <br /><br />Okay girls in the military! Now this is getting fun. The girls are even placed on the same floor, so we can sneak to their room at night! In reality they would be placed in a different building a quarter mile away, separated by two fences with barbed wire. <br /><br />There are tanks available we can use for a fun ride in our spare time, of which we have plenty. No, the tanks are not locked, and the ignition keys are inserted. No one will notice the engine sounds, especially not at night.<br /><br />There is a bunch of sex scenes and references and all are below the waste line. We need those so the sexually obsessed Germans will like the movie as well. Switzerland is too small a market for any feature film. Well done!<br /><br />One sex scene takes place in the kitchen. Surely, none of those facilities are ever locked. The military routines are as sloppy as they can get.<br /><br />In the end of the brainless flick, the mafia hit men are about the take revenge on the poor guy trying to shoot him! Because he deserted his fiancée! Sure I buy that, the Italians are that way--a jealous bunch (not). <br /><br />The bad guys attempt to do this in open daylight with two dozen eyewitnesses. Not at night in a dark alley. Again, military training grounds (where there is shooting with live ammo) are open to the public, anyone can freely drive or walk in there. There are no such things as guards or fences. <br /><br />The deed however is prevented by the good captain timely launching a rocket into the Italians' car. The explosion knocks the hit men and the enraged fiancée off their feet. No one in 40 feet distance is hurt when the car is blown to smithereens. It's a COMEDY, remember.<br /><br />Okay. It's a comedy, I got that, and I can live with that. No realism needed. Filmmakers can easily get way with this if it is hilariously, side splitting funny, or entertaining, interesting, challenging. Unfortunately it is none of those. It's just embarrassing. A rip-off from brainless American comedies. The latter are at least done professionally, with no amateur actors.<br /><br />It is pretty boring and predictable, a waste of time and energy, especially to those sitting through the entire movie as I unfortunately did. Yawn. | negative |
Tarzan and Jane are living happily in the jungle. Some men come looking for ivory and to take Jane back to civilization. But Jane loves Tarzan and refuses to leave. One of the men falls in love with Jane and is determined to take her back...even if that means killing Tarzan.<br /><br />This is a rarity--a sequel that's better than the original. "Tarzan, the Ape Man" of 1932 was good but had some dreadful special effects and sort of dragged. This one has MUCH better effects and is a lot more adult. There is tons of blatant racism (a black man is shot to death point blank--and no one really cares) but this was 1934. There's also plenty of blood, gore and violence (for a 1934 movie) and uncut prints have Jane doing a lengthy underwater swim totally nude! There's also obvious sexual content and Tarzan and Jane are wearing next to nothing and (it's implied) they sleep together and have sex--without being married. This wouldn't bother anyone today but in 1934 this was pretty extreme.<br /><br />That aside, the movie is well-directed, very fast-moving and full of adventure and excitement. Seeing Weissmuller in that skimpy lion cloth is certainly a treat for the eyes and Jane's outfit is pretty revealing too. I still think Maureen O'Sullivan is bad as Jane but Weismuller is perfect as Tarzan. Everybody else is OK.<br /><br />This is easily the best Weismuller--O'Hara Tarzan out there. WELL worth seeing but not for kids! | positive |
Fairly appalling enterprise suggests Welsh to be an infantile artist, helplessly drawn to the violent milieu he knows best, but unable to resist vacuous elaborations rooted in banal fantasy. The first story is a ham-fisted, meaningless trudge with a B-movie sci-fi premise. The second achieves some poignancy, but only via the outrage-inducing surplus of humiliation visited on its central character. The third and most risible seems to aspire to being a dislocated sequel to Child's Play. The direction is consistently clueless - all whirling sound and fury, a slave to the extreme unpleasantness of the environment; suffocating in an ill-chosen music score and in indifferently flashy acting. This is sheer stupidity masquerading as a guerilla sensibility - as arbitrary and hollow as the abstract images that link the three sections. | negative |
Although at one point I thought this was going to turn into The Graduate, I have to say that The Mother does an excellent job of explaining the sexual desires of an older woman.<br /><br />I'm so glad this is a British film because Hollywood never would have done it, and even if they had, they would have ruined it by not taking the time to develop the characters.<br /><br />The story is revealed slowly and realistically. The acting is superb, the characters are believably flawed, and the dialogue is sensitive. I tried many times to predict what was going to happen, and I was always wrong, so I was very intrigued by the story.<br /><br />I highly recommend this movie. And I must confess, I'll forever look at my mom in a different light! | positive |
Of all the episodes of all series, this one holds the closest to Roddenberry's original tenet. According to the book THE MAKING OF STAR TREK, in Roddenberry's writer's guide to his story writers, he states that any alien creature, no matter how hideously ugly, impossible to believe, benign or malicious, MUST hold some semblance of humanity that the TV viewing public can empathize with and/or relate to. Devil In The Dark's HORTA, which resembles nothing more or less than a large blob of cow dung, is a mother protecting her babies, those ball-shaped silicon nodules the miners keep finding throughout the mine passages and destroying, because they have no idea what they are! This is one of my absolute favorite episodes if only for that! | positive |
this is the first of a two part back-story to the conflict between the machines and mankind in the Matrix world and it delivers spectacularly by combining observations on man's fear of the unknown and of being usurped with politics, extensive religious and historical imagery, subverting expected portrayals of parties involved and an at least partially believable and thus terrifying vision of our near future. it isn't perfect and some plot points and images are at once obvious and contrived but it has the desired effect and impact and tells a visceral and cautionary tale.<br /><br />this first part sets the scene - human societies have developed advanced and capable robots, mostly humanoid, to serve people doing menial, unskilled jobs, labour, construction etc. and thus the populace has become lazy and derogatory towards them. one robot, however, rebels and kills his owner, stating at his subsequent trial that he simply did not want to die. he is destroyed but when the robot masses' destruction is ordered to protect humanity many robots rise up in protest, with many human sympathisers alongside them.<br /><br />the imagery here is exploitative, recounting race riots and abuse, Tiananmen square, the holocaust and an overly provocative scene of a robot in a human girl's guise getting harried, hammered in the head and then shot dead as it pleads 'i'm real'. it lays on the ground, clothes and skin torn and breasts hanging out. it's an obvious and obscene image designed to present human fear towards uncontrolled elements and aggression towards groups based on the actions of individuals.<br /><br />anyway, this first portion is much like a compressed version of the film I Robot, but it soon develops into a recognisable Matrix back-story as the surviving robot contingent is exiled and congregates in the middle east, in the cradle of civilisation as the narrator informs us. there, the machines regroup and begin to produce new AI and to manufacture mass technology and trade it with human nations. we see a commercial for a car that uses the circular energy hover engines that the ships the rebels in the movies use and we see sentinel type robots flying around Zero One, the name of their city. their goods and trade make their economy soar affecting other economies detrimentally and human governments and authorities establish a blockade in response. the machines send ambassadors in the form of Adam and Eve resemblances to a UN congress to negotiate a peaceful resolution to the blockade, but they are forcibly removed and the scene is set for war in the second part.<br /><br />the animation is by Studio 4°C who work on quite a few of the Animatrix and it's evocative and visually stimulating, rendering different scenes like imagery montages, CCTV footage and particular scenes of import distinctive and overall presenting the story perfectly. the plot may not be an original concept and it may draw on simplistic sheep mentalities and plot models and resort to provocative material for impact but after the tantalising mystery offered by the first film and Morpheus' vague brief info-dumps this is a nice exposition of the cataclysmic events that left the world ravaged and in the hands of the machines that serves as a warning and as a vehicle for many observations and comments on the human condition, the development of AI and the importance of harmony and co-operation and the devastating consequences of conflict and prejudice, themes expanded on in the movies. | positive |
I am very surprised to see the good ratings for this movie.<br /><br />I watched the film 9 years ago and I still remember how angry I felt to sit in the movie theatre and to look at this mess. I am a big fan of John Boorman's work. I really like his movies. So I went to "Beyond Rangoon" with big expectations. But I felt like watching a dumb, cheap Chuck Norris jungle movie with all action scenes cut out. Even the soundtrack was very annoying.<br /><br />I can't believe that John Boorman was the director because this movie was so badly done. I think the Burmese people deserve better films to illustrate their struggle. | negative |
This is probably one of the worst movies ever made. It's...terrible. But it's so good! It's probably best if you don't watch it expecting a gripping plot and something fantastically clever and entertaining, because you're going to be disappointed. However, if you want to watch it so you can see 50 million vases and Goro's fantastic hair/bad English, you're in for a real treat. The harder you think about the film, the worse it gets, unless you're having a competition to spot the most plot holes/screw ups, in which case you've got hours of entertainment ahead. I'd only really recommend this film for the bored or the die-hard Smap fans. And even then, the latter should be a bit careful, because Goro's Japanese fans were a bit upset about it, they thought he was selling himself out. (He wasn't really, not when Johnny Kitagawa (who was the executive producer) can do that for him). | positive |
You don't need to write a script for this trashed outrage! You just sit back and watch a pair of moonshine women and guests duke each other out before a riotous audience exposure at "The Jerry Show"! Violent and obnoxious, this cash-in on the real Jerry Springer program reveals everything that the over-rated hyped talk show doesn't show to you on the air - - unless you have a collection of uncensored videos made by the producers of "Cops". Even the outside world of Springerland reveals the most amateurish acting of the decade! This goes to show you that THE GONG SHOW MOVIE had a central character in a motion picture turkey. Change the channel! REJECTED<br /><br /> | negative |
This movie is the final straw. As two dedicated fans of the romantic comedy, this movie has finally made us realise that nothing good has come out of this genre since Love Actually. There was nothing good about the film whatsoever. It was an affront to love, death and everything in between. Including horses and beaches. There was absolutely no chemistry between the characters. This movie took the spark out of Nicholas Sparks. Diane Lane cannot act to save her life. She was unconvincing in her laugh, cry, and dance. And she needs a better haircut. There is no reason to watch this movie. Save yourself. The romantic comedy is officially dead. | negative |
I saw this movie because it had a giant person and was labeled as a monster movie. I do not understand why it is called a monster movie. The movie is a drama. I was expecting a lot of destruction, but what did I get? Most of the movie was relationship problems and people thinking that a woman was a loony because she saw a spaceship crash with a giant inside for an unexplained reason. The action started a few minutes toward the end. Since the woman was killed, isn't that murder? Couldn't they have done anything else besides murder her? If you watch this because you expect it to have action because it is labeled as a monster movie, don't watch it. It is not a monster movie. It is a drama. | negative |
Not your ordinary movie, but a good one. Billy Bob is very funny in this movie, the way he talks, what he says etc. I was kind of surprised when i saw it, cause i just thought it was a normal comedy, but it was more than that. It had a very good story, great characters and a good balance.<br /><br />Favorite part: Probably when Billy Bob is running around in his robe shooting at the rippers | positive |
... Oxford, Mississippi, at least. Okay, the Paris we get is Paris, Culver City apart from the Establishing library footage of the real McCoy but it IS Paris in spirit than which nothing, nowhere, is better. Okay, Kelly is no Astaire but then who is and Caron is no Hepburn, ditto but Alan Lerner is light years ahead of the vastly overrated Comden and Green who scripted Kelly's other 'big' 50s musical Singin' In The Rain (a curious replication of lyricists writing screenplays featuring songs by OTHER lyricists and just to balance things the Gershwin numbers are far superior to the Arthur Freed/Nacio Herb Brown numbers so Alan Lerner didn't have to feel too outclassed). The story needn't detain us any more than the anomalies -Kelly hasn't got change of a match and is a painter, i.e. bohemian, yet he is able to scare up a perfectly good suit at a few hours notice when Foch invites him to dinner at her hotel; in the well-documented Love Is Here To Stay sequence the lovers are strangely unmolested by passers-by, other lovers and the bridge in the background is totally free of both pedestrian and vehicular traffic - this is, after all, a feelgood musical so it stands or falls by the score and in this case it stands four square. As feel good musicals go it's definitely in the top 10. | positive |
Admittedly, the only reason I watched this film -- since it's been about a decade since it was released -- was because of Ian Holm; I was intrigued to see his portrayal of my second-favorite character in this play. At any rate, this film is as gritty as anything the Old Zeff has produced since "Jesus of Nazareth." But some of the best parts of the play have been left out. I understand the directing/editing choices, but I don't think that it really does justice to the play. Perhaps I'm too much a purist. I would have to direct people (who have read this far) toward Branagh's version, if it weren't that I despise his tendency toward over-dramatization. All the same, he plays a better Hamlet than Gibson. But then, weren't we all waiting for Gibson to prove himself as an actor? Now, all he's done is to prove that he wants to make films in extinct languages.<br /><br />...Perhaps the only Shakespearean-worthy acting here is Scofield as The Ghost. | negative |
Gene Hackman is a former Marine Corps colonel who musters a handful of private Vietnam vets to go back to Laos and rescue some Americans who have been listed as missing in action. Hackman suspects that, in actuality, the half-dozen or so MIAs are secretly being held in a remote camp by Laotians to be tormented and to provide more hard labor. Hackman is being paid by the wealthy Robert Stack, whose son, like Hackman's son, is thought to be among the MIAs. But the circumstances are such that Hackman can only manage to buy old and out-dated weapons, though he manages to pick up the help of a fervid anti-communist Loatian and his two daughters along the way.<br /><br />I don't think the movie was deliberately concocted to endorse the myth of the Vietnames still holding our MIAs for propaganda purposes. The myth was real enough. If anyone remembers, there were many bumper stickers in 1982 and 1983, BRING BACK THE MIAs. I think, instead, that the film was made partly in order to cash in on the myth. It was absurd on the face of it. Why would our former enemy refuse to return MIAs? Propaganda? Where is the propaganda value in something that's kept secret? To add the labor supply? They need a hundred extra laborers in Vietnam and Laos? The motives behind this movie -- with its triumphant music and high body count -- were scurrilous.<br /><br />But how about the movie itself? Stripped of its theme of rescuing mythical mistreated MIAs, it's a routine paramilitary actioner, no better and no worse than dozens of others that appeared in the 1980s. Gene Hackman's performance is the only one that manages to keep its head above water. He's just about always reliable.<br /><br />Of the others, this being a formulaic plot, derived from "The Dirty Dozen" among others, I kept trying to guess which of the gang would sacrifice themselves for the mission. Of the three anti-communist Asians, I figured one or more were dead meat. That's why Asian helpers appear in movies like this. (I was right two times out of three.) I also figured Patrick Swayzie as the rookie ex-officer, the youngest of the group, who'd never "earned the respect" of the others because he'd never seen combat, would also have to go in some heroic mode. Wrong. He becomes a hero, true, but survives intact. I thought there was a fifty-fifty chance that Hackman would have to go too, but he makes it out okay. The formula doesn't really stretch for originality either. Charles Bronson's claustrophobic POW escapee from "The Great Escape" is here in Fred Ward's ex tunnel rat, a claustrophobe who is forced to crawl through a drainage pipe with a snake inside it, so that he can do a recon on the Laotian POW camp.<br /><br />The title, "Uncommon Valor," is from a tribute that Admiral Nimitz made to the men on Iwo Jima -- "Uncommon valor was common that day." Nimitz was certainly right about that. Whether or not the men who fought in Vietnam were all equally valorous is remote from the point. Anyone who saw combat or even came near it, putting their lives on the line for the guys in the line next to them, were heroic enough. This movie, and the way it exploits our bitterness about the Vietnam war, doesn't really do them justice. | negative |
It's interesting to see what the director tried to do with this film. But the problem is that it's not very good. There was nothing really original in the film and while the plot was well presented, the main characters were all a bit to shallow and you didn't bother for any of them.<br /><br />Rather bland (and sometimes downright bad) photo leaves a bit to be desired but I guess you can't expect to much from people who are just doing a low budget film for the heck of it. It's unfair to review the film and compare it to other high-budget films. But alas, that is what one must do. On its own, it's not very good. And compared to others, it's still not very good. But it is not without its good points! I liked the plot. It was built up rather nicely and tied together well at the end. Sometimes in the really dark scenes, it managed to build up a creepy feeling as well.<br /><br />However in the end the film fails to impress. The characters are pretty much non-existent and we don't care for any of them. Any of them might die, but it's possible to pinpoint the final "survivor" from very early on. | negative |
This movie is bad. If you are thinking about watching it, there is only one decent scene in the movie, and it lasts about 5 seconds (Amanda Carraway's topless scene). The rest of the movie is horrible. I think high school plays probably have better acting. The plot makes no sense at all. The set was pretty lame, and it wasn't even good to make fun of. It was just dull and very very bad! I watched this on Starz so I thought it had to be at least decent. The mini description sounded like it'd be alright. The girlfriend kills herself for apparently no reason at the beginning of the movie, after you have to watch some horrible music video. The transitions between scenes are VERY abrupt and its like someone just put a ton of clips into a movie without even thinking about how to transition them. Just cuts from one scene to another, no smoothness. Kind of like my random switching from talking about how bad the movie is, to explaining why the plot sucks. The audio gets low at some points, where you can barely hear it, then gets loud with gay 'horror screams' thrown in at random points in the movie. It is the same sound every time. This is now officially the worst movie I have ever seen<br /><br />Acting: 0/10 Effects: 1/10 Storyline: 0/10 Music: 3/10<br /><br />Lame-meter : 1,000,000 / 10 | negative |
I don't know whether to recommend this movie to the fans of " Tetsuo " or not . Why " Tetsuo " ? Because you can easily label some things about this movie as a very obvious " Tetsuo " rip - off . The concept is similar , editing is equally frantic and fast - which is good because , aside from making the movie more dynamic , it obscures some flaws caused by low budget and other factors .<br /><br />There is lot more gore , less eroticism and , in the case of " Meatball machine " , the transformation of human being into a creature that's partially a machine( sounds familiar ? ) called " Necroborg " ( very original ) is caused by slimy little aliens .<br /><br />These slimy little scums from outer space actually use human beings as vessels for their gladiator games that they play with each other . They infest the body , somehow manage to put an insane amount of mechanical parts in it pulling them seemingly out of nowhere and turn it into a killing machine that targets other Necroborgs . Their aim is to defeat another alien who is in another Necroborg , rip it out of the corpse and eat it .<br /><br />All in all , the plot sounds somewhat silly and I didn't expect much , but at the end I actually enjoyed this film .<br /><br />As I said before , this is a low budget flick , but it's still relatively decent . Don't expect much from actors , they're mostly not very good , but it can be tolerated . I liked the atmosphere and gore , certain bizarre situations and the way the movie is directed and edited . Although the story is not too original , it possesses certain charm - to me at least .<br /><br />7 out of 10 . | positive |
One of the worst movies I've ever seen. When I was trying to watch this I had flu and i was pretty open minded for any brainless entertainment. Unfortunately this was too much. How, so many totally ungifted actors can be in one movie? This movie makes porn look like European art-movie. Cast just speaks out their lines without any emotions; special thanks to Charlie Snows (Baldwin) soon-to-be-ex-wife who talks about her divorce like the rest of us talk about the weather. Just horrible (and funny).<br /><br />With lots of booze and friends this might just make it as a background entertainment and few laughs, just like Ed Wood-movies. The plot is a joke and soundtrack straight from some cheeky soap-opera.<br /><br />Hopefully nobody paid to see this movie.<br /><br /> | negative |
Antwone Fisher's story of childhood neglect and abuse is an inspiration to all among us who witnessed or even experienced the plight of foster children. Abandoned by a troubled mother, Antwone has never met his father. Growing up with "church going" abusers who use the "n-word" not only to intimidate and hurt but also as a term of endearment, as a young man witnessing how his best friend is killed in a hold-up, enduring racial slurs and being teased while serving in the Navy, Antwone's anger is slowly turned into positive power when counseled by a Navy psychiatrist, and a love enters his life.<br /><br />The scene where Antwone meets his birth mother is one of the most powerful moments in the film. Stunned by the unexpected confrontation, the woman listens in silence to hear the young man tell her how he has lived a life without crime, addictions to drugs, fathering children left and right, all despite his utterly adverse circumstances.<br /><br />If that scene wasn't powerful enough, the very next one drives it home (and opens the flood gates): A reception to welcome home Antwone; dozens of smiling faces and open arms announcing that HE is part of this great family.<br /><br />One of the messages delivered by this wonderful film is that there are many well-meaning and sincere people working to help orphans and unwanted children. Even if some of the homes and administrators don't seem to care and appear self-serving, many do give it their all. The character who found Antwone's "file" once he disclosed the circumstances of his birth is one of those "bright lights" in the darkness of the system.<br /><br />The DVD includes a French Language track, various subtitle choices, as well as additional features and information about foster parenting.<br /><br />As a Clevelander I appreciated the location footage. No matter where you are from, you will be deeply moved by this autobiographical gem. | positive |
Negative numbers are not available to convey how bad this movie is! Wooden acting coupled with a story line that has been rehashed dozens of times. Everyone in this movie should attend Overactors Anonymous. You would think an original story could evolve from the general concept. Young men at a prep school are tying to come to grips with the Pearl Harbor bombing. It does raise interesting questions, but the manner in which they are conveyed make it more of a joke. The typical characters were present including the zealous jock and nerd (glasses included). I could not have been more uninterested in the wooden dialog and cliché characters. Upon the completion of the movie, I had to throw the DVD in the trash. Stay far away from this dud! You won't get the 90 minutes of your life back! | negative |
"Congo" is based on the best-selling novel by Michael Crichton, which I thought lacked Crichton's usual charm, smart characters and punch. Well, sorry to say, but the same goes for the film.<br /><br />Here's the plot:<br /><br />Greed is bad, this simple morality tale cautions. A megalomaniacal C.E.O. (Joe Don Baker) sends his son into the dangerous African Congo on a quest for a source of diamonds large enough and pure enough to function as powerful laser communications transmitter (or is it laser weapons?). When contact is lost with his son and the team, his daughter-in-law (Laura Linney), a former CIA operative and computer-freak, is sent after them. On her quest, she is accompanied by gee-whiz gadgetry and a few eccentric characters (including a mercenary (Ernie Hudson), a researcher with a talking gorilla (Dylan Walsh), and a a nutty Indiana-Jones-type looking for King Solomon's Mines (Tim Curry). After some narrow escapes from surface-to-air missiles and some African wildlife, they all discover that often what we most want turns out to be the source of our downfall.<br /><br /> The actors in this movie were not talented. Dylan Walsh acts like a pathetic crybaby, especially at the end; Ernie Hudson is unconvincing (is it no wonder he went on to star in TV films?) and Laura Linney is nothing special. I think I can safely say the only talented actors in this film had very small roles: Joe Don Baker and Tim Curry, an always enjoyable actor (although sometimes scarred for life by constantly being reminded of his "Rocky Horror Picture" days).<br /><br /> This movie also had some other problems, including awful direction style, cheesy dialogue and a just-plain-boring plot, which was completely hashed when compared to Crichton's novel.<br /><br /> Not even Stan Winston's creature effects could save this movie from being a disaster. I am deeply disappointed in this movie; there was not even a campy quality to redeem itself with. It was just plain awful, cheesy, boring and ridiculous, and proves to be one of the worst Crichton book-to-film productions.<br /><br />2/5 stars -<br /><br />John Ulmer | negative |
"Showtime" is a funny film starring funnymen Robert DeNiro (Meet the Parents,A Bronx Tale) and Eddie Murphy (Shrek, Dr. Dolittle). The story is this: In the beginning of the movie detective Mitch (Robert DeNiro) and another detective go into a tv store trying to bust some criminals. When the cops arrive, Tray(Eddie Murphy)a cop, tries to arrest Mitch not knowing he's a cop. During this scene loads of funny things happen which catch the eye of tv producer Chase Ritz. She is so excited about their adventures together, she decides to make a tv show called "Showtime" starring Tray (the cop) and Mitch (the detective). But that's just the funny part. The rest is strictly suspense and action. There is a foreign man who is selling and making extremely dangerous guns. While playing LAPD on the show and doing it in real life, DeNiro and Murphy have quite an adventure in this story. On a scale of 1-10, I give it a seven or 8. | positive |
I got seriously ripped off with this purchase. The other posters pretty well cover the failings of this poor poor film. My DVD that I purchased actually had the 1978 Piranha poster art on the cover with the credits for that film on the front 'Directed by Joe Dante', etc. I was really disappointed to find the wrong film on the disc. I am actually a fan of lots of bad movies. There is always something funny or at least amusing on most of them somewhere. NOt this film! I am actually going to spend the three dollars in gas money to return this two dollar DVD just for the principle of the thing. Blatant false packaging here. Easily the worst movie of all time. No redeeming factors at all. BORING!!!Not even worth checking out just to see how bad it is. Seriously. | negative |
End of the World is an uneventful movie, which is odd since it is supposed to be about the total destruction of the earth. The main character is some kind of scientist, I'm not exactly sure what kind. He has two jobs at a government(?) facility guarded by four security men. His first job is monitoring transmissions to and from space (although this actually seems more like a hobby he does when not working on job #2). Job #2 requires him to put on a protective suit and go into a dark room...at least that's the best I can figure. Apparently the "plant" is not exactly top-secret, as the scientist brings his wife there. She hangs out (they're on their way to a dinner) while he discovers a message from space: Major Earth Disruption, repeated over and over. He says something about it being the first message from space he's ever been able to decipher; his wife tells him they're going to be late for the dinner party. So they leave and go to the party (!?!). Moments later he finds out that China has suffered a major earthquake. From there, the movie goes... nowhere! Yes, Christopher Lee is in it, but that really doesn't help much. Besides, Lee gives a lackluster performance along the lines of his appearance in Howling II. This movie is boring, but it has enough stupid elements that you might want to suffer through it once if you like Christopher Lee or Z-grade sci-fi. Plus, there's lots of stock footage of the earth being destroyed. | negative |
I've always been a big Cybill Shepperd fan, ever since I saw her series a few years ago!! This film certainly shows her in her best light yet!! The film was so wonderfully cast and played!! Every now and again she drops little amusing lines, just to make this film one of the best I've ever seen!! Everybody really out does themselves!! Especially Robert Downey Jr and Cybill Shepperd, they really made the film come true!! Also I loved the little bit where Mavis loses her wig and she nearly dies when she falls to the floor!! This is film at its best!! | positive |
Wow. So my boyfriend and I went to the movie store to rent a film. I like dumb horror movies, so I browsed the variety of terrible films they had to offer while he went off in search of Michael Moore's 'Sicko'. So then I found the worst of all of them (as I would soon find out). It looked good on the cover and the description on the back seemed decent enough. The fact that there was an IMDb quote on it as a review was proof that it would be bad in a good way. So the next night, we put it in the DVD player and from the first five minutes, we were so incredibly confused.<br /><br />The movie is utterly incoherent, with badly placed time-jumps from past to future that leave you asking a major 'WTF?' The plot has no sort of coherent story -- other than the vague allusion to a local myth about a murder, but this only actually comes into play in the movie in the last twenty minutes of it. So pretty much for the first hour you have this: random, confusing time jumps; incoherent plot; parents who don't age; bad acting; bad dialogue; a boy who magically changes hair colour; and a host of obnoxious characters for you to get bored with!<br /><br />The movie moves so slow that it's a chore to actually sit there and watch. I'd rather be scrubbing the toilets, honestly. Don't bother with it. | negative |
This film is not one of those films so bad you get annoyed and mad because it seems to be so up its own arse and yet it completely not funny. It's just that there is nothing of interest in this film. There are no real jokes that make you amused, you just watch for 80 minutes, then turn it off. I bought this on very budget DVD and I'm glad because it's not worth much. This isn't even one of those films that's so bad you can watch it with friends when getting drunk/high and have a good giggle. I didn't hate it like I hate some films, but it is rather boring, and not worth investing any time in.<br /><br />The only people who voted 10 on the votes for this film must have been connected to it somehow because I cannot imagine anyone actually liking this film other than small children passing time | negative |
I can't really say what I think about this movie, its against the guidelines, I've watched many many films, and this has got to be the worst one yet, Extremely low budget, I'm guessing all the money went into the slaughter house scenes, cause I could of did a better job with a b&w 8mm camera and a crew of monkeys. It was so bad I registered just to leave a comment, cause I had to tell someone, movie rental place wasn't enough. But this is my 2 cents worth, I suggest borrowing it from some poor sap who rented it and watch it yourself. Cause i sure wouldn't waste the money on it myself again. Now i leave you with this comment. I hope your not made at the rental place when they wont refund you your money .. =) | negative |
Let me start by saying I don't recall laughing once during this comedy. From the opening scene, our protagonist Solo (Giovanni Ribisi) shows himself to be a self-absorbed, feeble, and neurotic loser completely unable to cope with the smallest responsibilities such as balancing a checkbook, keeping his word, or forming a coherent thought. I guess we're supposed to be drawn to his fragile vulnerability and cheer him on through the process of clawing his way out of a deep depression. I guess we're supposed to sympathize as he stumbles through a series of misadventures seemingly triggered by his purchase of a dog, but in reality brought on by his own contemptible nature. I didn't get the slightest hint at any point that Solo ever possessed any redeeming character, which became disturbingly apparent when he failed to feed his dog for a few days. No spark of humanity or glimmer of conscience gave me hope that he would ever realize his life is so utterly miserable because he's a self- absorbed, self-pitying lowlife. I didn't develop any connection with this character. He didn't seem to care, and so neither did I. I actually wanted him to get his kneecaps busted at one point.<br /><br />The dog was not a character in the film. It was simply a prop to be used, neglected, scorned, abused, coveted and disposed of on a whim. So be warned. Even though "dog" is in the title, this film is not a romantic comedy for dog lovers.<br /><br />Scott Caan's role is amusing and believable as the oversexed best friend/cad. Don Cheadle is sincere and magnetic - I always want to see more of him on screen. Mena Suvari was delightfully repellent. Lynn Collins role of a "stripper with a heart" was well acted, but the character was simultaneously absurd and clichéd, not to mention there was zero chemistry between her and Ribisi.<br /><br />Romantic? Hardly. Comedy? If you say so. | negative |
I have seen previous movies from Cédric Klapisch, and therefore expected a quality movie with psychological depth. Having been an Erasmus student myself and having visited several friends studying abroad, I know very well what it means to spend some time abroad and mix with different cultures at the same time. Yes, it is great fun! Because of that I thought I should not miss this movie. Unfortunately I was disappointed to find that L'Auberge Espagnol fails to satisfy in many ways: the characters are stereotyped, the events are trite and the story is shallow. Although there are quite a few familiar situations, they are irritatingly cliché and do not go beyond the trivial events. This made the movie uninteresting to watch, and gave me a strong "been-there-done-that-don't-you-have-anything-to-add?" feeling. Apart from that, the movie lacks a firm story. It sometimes looks more like a documentary or 'real-life' show than a seriously made movie.<br /><br />However, I can imagine that if you haven't studied or travelled abroad, this might be fun to watch. | negative |
Universal Soldier: The Return is not the worst movie ever made. No, that honor would have to go to a film that attempted to make some sort of statement or accomplish some artistic feat but failed in a pathetic or offensive manner. However, perhaps no movie I have ever seen has tried for so little and succeeded so completely as did Universal Soldier: The Return. <br /><br />This film is a sci-fi/action travesty that has virtually nothing to recommend it. The acting is as bad as any movie I've ever seen. The plot is terrible and predictable. The special effects are pathetic. In short, anyone even remotely connected to this film should be ashamed of themselves. US: The Return makes previous Van Damme fare seem like groundbreaking cinematic masterpieces. Some movies are so bad, they're good. Believe me when I tell you that this is not one of them. I'm really not sure what else to say here. I doubt many people were considering seeing this movie if they hadn't already, but just in case: don't. | negative |
I saw Dick Tracy when I was very young. I didn't know who any of the actors were, and I didn't know the movie would turn out different than the way it was previewed. I sure loved it though.<br /><br />Warren Beatty stars as the crime-fighting 1930's detective Dick Tracy who goes after the biggest mob bosses in the city. This time, Big Boy Caprice (Al Pacino) has killed a very powerful man and is out to take over the city with his singer girlfriend Breathless Mahoney (Madonna) who has her eye on Tracy. It becomes even worse because a new criminal is invading and the worst part is: this criminal has no face. He or she is very unknown. Plus, the famous villians are back from the comic book collection.<br /><br />I thought that this movie was very colorful and creative. It was entertaining and fun to watch especially as a child. Warren Beaty was just like James Bond of the 1930's the way he played Dick Tracy.<br /><br />An ensemble cast of the film includes: Charlie Korsmo, Glenn Headly, William Forsythe, Dustin Hoffman, James Caan, Ed O' Ross, Tommy Lee Jones, Mandy Patinkin, Charles Durning. Plus More!<br /><br />Dick Tracy is a movie for all ages and is a fun movie for a family to enjoy. Take my word for it. | positive |
I was disappointed with the third film in the "Death Wish" series and wouldn't recommend this unless you are really into Bronson. He is his usual self in this one, maybe a bit lighter hearted than in the others; the rest of the cast is good if your watching a movie of the week on T.V. - the whole film has the production value of a bad episode of the A-Team and I like the escapism fun of a show like the A-Team but not on the big screen, even if it is an action movie that doesn't claim to be anything to sophisticated. The film takes a while to get going and then when it finally does, it gets out of control to the point of ridiculousness. The plot is something out of an episode of "Highway to Heaven" and Bronson seems like a fish out of water with the majority senior citizen cast and the gun play is so out of control you don't even get any satisfaction from Bronson's revenge against the bad guys. Skip this and go on to the 4th installment which I highly recommend. | negative |
Everyone is surely familiar with this most famous of stories a heartless businessman is visited by the ghost of his dead partner on Christmas Eve and warned that if he continues in his uncaring ways then he will be doomed to an afterlife in chains. So that he can avoid his partner's fate he is visited by three spirits who show him visions of Christmases past, present and yet to come, so that he will hopefully see the error of his ways before it is too late. A rather morbid tale one might think, but it is classic Charles Dickens, and also one of the most famous and popular Christmas stories of all time.<br /><br />To me this is the definitive version of Dickens' timeless story; it's the one I always remember watching in school, and I remember being absolutely terrified by it! The ghost of Jacob Marley, the final scene with the ghost of Christmas present under the bridge, and the ghost of Christmas yet-to-come especially I found very frightening. How on earth did the film gain the 'U' certificate? (For non-UK readers 'U' is the lowest classification, it means family friendly and children welcome, nothing to scare them etc... This is certainly not the case though, as some smaller children will undoubtedly find the final segment positively terrifying with the grim reaper-like spectre of Christmas future.<br /><br />Be that as it may, from the many versions of this classic story I have seen adapted for film, this is possibly the most faithful to the book. Most notably included is a segment rarely seen in film adaptations of the original text - that of the ghost of Christmas present showing Scrooge the two children hidden under his robe (you'd never get away with a scene like that nowadays!). The two children represent Ignorance and Need (although changed to Want in this film).<br /><br />Criticisms for me however become apparent having watched it again with more objective and trained eyes, the main one of which being that George C. Scott's portrayal of Scrooge seems simply not cold enough. He laughs too much. I don't want to use the word jolly because of course Ebeneezer is anything but, but he does seem to be merely a grumpy old man, rather than the positively unkind, cold and uncaring man that he is in the book and other films. Patrick Stewart portrayed him excellently in one of the most recent versions filmed, and Michael Caine, despite acting alongside the Muppets, was positively cold. Further, the development of the character over the course of the film as he learns more about the error of his ways and grows towards redemption is unconvincing and appears inconsistent. He appears to have changed little by the time he reaches the third spirit's final lesson.<br /><br />But ignoring this one (albeit major) quibble, it is still a spellbinding and ultimately heart-warming Christmas tale, as all Christmas films should be. London of course looks like the perfect picturesque quaint snow-covered English town that many Americans probably imagine it still is (the truth is that even then that London was grey and grimy and any snow would never have been so white!) And everyone is so impeccably dressed too, even the poor people look rather dapper. But of course it's a Christmas film, so why shouldn't everything look nice? Perfect holiday season viewing; coupled with copies of It's a Wonderful Life, Miracle on 34th Street and The Snowman and you've got everything you need. | positive |
This is a film that belongs firmly to the 50's. Very surprising that American Film Institute has chosen this one for one for the best 100 American movies of all-time. I have seen practically all of the movies on that list, and this one is by far the most disappointing one of those. Musical numbers (and there many, many of them) are VERY overlong and boring, and have absolute no connection with the story. The end of the movie has horribly over-long ballet sequency, which naturally has no real relation to the story of the movie. It must be admitted, that it is very well made, the music is OK, and the dancing done with the highest professional standard - but there is no real reason why the sequence is included in the movie.<br /><br />The main character of the movie is extremely childlish and unlikeable and behaves in unpolite way. His mental age is about 14. If you want to see a good musical made on the "golden age" of musicals, go and see "Singing in the Rain". | negative |
This movie lost me with the crossbow RPG (rocket-propelled grenade). It was like someone cut and pasted a scene from Robocop. I half expected Beowulf to say exclaim, "I LIKE IT!"<br /><br />I watched this because I like Chris Bruno from "The Dead Zone" TV show and he did his part. He chose a strange accent, but at least he kept it consistent for the whole movie -- unlike any of his costars. They kept slipping into all kinds of speech from old English to modern English, sometimes in the same sentence.<br /><br />There are already many comments on how this movie is different from the source material. However, even on its own, this movie's plot is not good. It's just boring, which even the low budget doesn't excuse. Having a low budget means that you need to at least have a good story, dialog and decent acting. Those things don't cost much. Instead, they spent their money on half-assed CGI and some decent costumes and sets.<br /><br />Life is too short to watch this movie. | negative |
I guess I only have myself to blame for the gigantic disillusion that is "Entrails of a Virgin". You already know not to expect a cinematic masterpiece when you see a juicy and proudly promoted title like this and the first impression only gets extra confirmed when noticing the film is a mid-80's production from Japan. Now, there are quite a lot of demented and sick filmmakers active in Japan, but Kazuo Komizu surpasses them all with his thoroughly depraved and sickening trilogy revolving on nothing but aggressive sex and the sadistic abuse of young girls. Not even attempting to tell a story, "Entrails of a Virgin" simply presents a hodgepodge of UN-arousing semi-pornographic sex and truly poor gore-effects that wouldn't even please the most undemanding fan of cheesy 80's horror. Images of a bunch of photographers and their fashion models are inexplicably intercut with scenes of a filthy pervert having crude sex with a seemly under-aged girl. He dumps her not even a minute after climaxing (typical) and she begs him to stay, even if she has to share him with other women. I don't get it. Is this supposed to represent a general male fantasy? Because it's really clichéd and wrongful. Anyways, back to the bunch of horny photographers and docile models. Surprised by upcoming fog on their way home, the group entrenches themselves in an abandoned country house where they have more appalling sex and eventually fall victim to a ridiculous sex-demon who kills them all. The acting performances are amateurish, the dialogs inane and primitive and Komizu's direction is weak and uninspired. I can tolerate all that, including the woman-unfriendly portrayal of sex, but I came too close to turning the film off during the indescribably mean-spirited wrestling sequence. One of the males brutally hits, kicks and throws around one of the girls and calls her a filthy whore until she literally pees her panties and cries with agony. This sequence is, in my humble opinion, the absolute low-point of Asian exploitation cinema. One to avoid and maybe even boycott. | negative |
Pity the Monkees. People always accused them of being manufactured (which they were) or being nothing more than a American knock-off of the Beatles (Again, which they were) but to the kids of the time they were real, they were important, they were legitimate. Discussions about who were better The Monkees or The Beatles were common on school yards but the critics, well they never quite bought into it. Despite recording some very catchy, classic pop tunes, the Monkess did not receive much respect for their albums. Sadly a similar fate was met by their one movie vehicle despite the fact that it stands as the best band film ever. Beatle fans may argue that "Hard Days Night" was better and I am sure that many of the kids think "8 Mile" was superior but none of these films were as daring and inventive as "Head" and that is probably why it failed.<br /><br />If Head had told a direct A to B type story perhaps it would have appealed to the bands young fans but by pushing the envelope and using the movie opportunity to mock their own image they really sabotaged the film with their fans. Could you imagine Eminem turning to the camera and actually talking about how sad it is that he is the best selling guy in a genre in which only 5% (and I am being generous) of the acts are white. If you can picture that than you have an idea how daring it was for the Monkess to sing "Hey, Hey we are the Monkees. You know we like to please. A manufactured image, with no philosophy". When you have a film in which Frank Zappa tells Davy that he should focus less on the dancing, and more on the music its clear that there is a lot more going on then you expected.<br /><br />The story, what there is, concerns the boys trying to flee their manager, who at one point forces them to play dandruff in a commercial, but every time they run away they end up inside a box. I don't think you need to be Fellini to figure out the symbolism of that bit. Some neat little comedy bits follow with Davy as a boxer who has to give up playing the violin to take a dive in the big match and Peter refusing to throw away a ice cream cone he does not want because there are starving children so its wrong to waste food but the real selling point to this film is the music and its some of the best the band ever recorded. Even if you are put off by the story, you can sit back and enjoy some terrific music.<br /><br />Any film that begins and ends with Mickey attempting suicide by jumping off a bridge (at the end the band follows him) is never going to be a mainstream classic but if you are a fan of either the band or experimental cinema of the era than you will enjoy this film. | positive |
I don't know how people can watch this - the only people who enjoy watching this are those who have no feelings and emotions and enjoy watching people die, houses burn down, car crashes, babies die, and cast members being killed off every week. Its the most absurd thing on television and i still don't know how it pulls in the ratings. Its so depressing. I can imagine the writers sitting down and saying - 'so who shall we kill of next week then' or 'whose house shall we torch in a months time?'<br /><br />Its the most depressing, absurd and most stupid thing on TV at the moment, and i cant understand peoples motives for watching this depressing pile of crap anymore | negative |
The Running Man is one of those films that if overwatched, would become boring and depressing even.<br /><br />My advice is to watch it maybe once or twice a year with a couple of mates and a few drinks.<br /><br />In todays climate of TV Media domination and the capitalist mode in society it really does work as a revisionist social commentary, post 1980s-boom. Forget that though! There are other brilliant and better reasons to watch this film.<br /><br />Schwarzenegger is on top form as Ben "The Butcher of Bakersfield" Richards, and the inclusion of Bond-belting one liners was completely inspired-thety are truly leg-end-dary (with his rant to Killian over a camera the main highlight).<br /><br />The design of the stalkers is authentically American, and mirrors the characterizations seen in the PC 'Gladiators' TV show, and the WWE as well. Buzz-saw's grisly end will chill any viewer to the core (as a foot note, why does his death stand out as particularly disturbing in what is ostensibly an upbeat actioner with a bitter sense of humour?)<br /><br />Jesse Venturer and Sven Ole Thorssen are great as backing muscle (and are Arnies buds in real life), and its even got Mick Fleetwood in it too! What more could you ask for?<br /><br />I highly recommend the Running Man if you're looking for a great piece of entertaining action, with a glossty finish and some great characters. Just don't expect an education from it (at least on surface value).<br /><br />Quality, I bloody love it actually. You will too unless you're a thesp. 7/10 | positive |
Paul Verhoeven has one of the strangest oeuvres of any major director: he started off making art-house films in his native Netherlands before moving to Hollywood where he began making subversive genre pieces which are often seen as mere entertainments by the mainstream crowd. 1983's The Fourth Man was the last film he made before moving to the U.S. and it seems to have been a transitional film for him.<br /><br />From the beginning of The Fourth Man it's clear that the film will be seen from the perspective of the famous albeit impoverished author Gerard. In a seeming homage to Carol Reed's similarly titled 1949 film The Third Man the film begins with an author making a trip to speak to a crowd of literature enthusiasts. The similarities end there, however, as Gerard runs into no major complications before arriving at the auditorium and the speech itself goes fairly smoothly. In spite of the relative ease with which he completes this function we know that the author is somewhat troubled as he has realistic fantasies about murdering his roommate before leaving his house and he also has a surreal fantasy involving a hotel he sees advertised and a detached eyeball growing out of a door's peephole. That he sometimes has trouble keeping his fantasies separate from reality is made all the more clear when an anecdote he tells is exposed as untrue and he admits that he "lie{s} the truth until {he} no longer knows whether something did or didn't happen." <br /><br />The Fourth Man is full of surreal fantasies and dreams which are made all the more disturbing because it's very easy to see how they relate to events which we have seen occur and because they sometimes foreshadow events which haven't occurred yet. Between the effectiveness of the unreal sequences and Verhoeven's careful editing style this ends up being the most atmospheric film this side of Don't Look Now and like that film this one is full of ambiguity. Unlike that film The Fourth Man is also perversely funny as Gerard's deeply held Catholic beliefs seep into every aspect of his life including sexuality. He naturally associates a female hair stylist he knows intimately with the Biblical Delilah though he fears she'll remove an even more important symbol of masculinity with her scissors. In an erotic fantasy sequence that would make Luis Buñuel blush he substitutes a man he's attracted to for a life size statue of Christ on the cross.<br /><br />The Fourth Man is a horror film which manages to bring the viewer into the mind of the protagonist while still maintaining a certain ambiguity: it certainly seems as if Gerard is in danger but it may just be more of his "lying the truth." The film is also full of both subtle and not so subtle visual symbolism which helps make it a unique and satisfying cinematic experience. | positive |
If you're as huge of a fan of an author as I am of Jim Thompson, it can be pretty dodgy when their works are converted to film. This is not the case with Scott Foley's rendition of AFTER DARK MY SWEET. A suspenseful, sexually charged noir classic that closely follows and does great justice to the original text. Jason Patrick and Rachel Ward give possibly the best performances of their careers. And the always phenomenal Bruce Dern might have even toped him self with this one. Like Thompson's book this movie creates a dark and surreal world where passion overcomes logic and the double cross is never far at hand. A must see for all fans of great noir film. ****!!! | positive |
I have Never forgot this movie. All these years and it has remained in my life. I have looked for this movie on so many sites and stores. If anyone ever reads this and has a copy I will pay you for a copy of it or please let me know where I could find one. This is a movie that should be a Classic Romance known as well as my other favorite, Somewhere in Time. It was truly brilliant. If the right actors would remake this film and give it the Patience it needs, to be the Right acting, It could be a block buster.A Love story as powerful as this should be around for all lovers to see. I remember how sad I was at the ending and it really came as a shock. I believe with all my heart that Johnny really loved the woman and she him. This was one terrific movie and it is a shame that it is not available for us to purchase. Please contact me at shawe49@aol.com - I want to give my thanks to a wonderful lady that responded to my message almost a year later. She had a copy of the movie and was so kind to send it to me. She is a great fan of this movie as I am. With her help, there have been 3 happy ladies to receive these DVDs'. She is waiting for the book that it is based on. I am checking with my local library for it, titled 'Mrs Maitlands Affair, by Margarett Lynn. I am sure it is great also. Many thanks to Julie for her graciousness and friendship. I am your friend always,/ Sharon | positive |
This movie should be nominated for a new genre: Complete Mess! Except for a few chuckles and one or two scenes of gore, this movie is a complete waste of time. Calling it "Campy" doesn't even cut it. "Campy" implies fun which this movie was not. You spend the first half of the movie thinking "Its got to get better, right?". In fairness, it does, at the very end when its finally explained who the "brother/sister" team are and what they want but by then, you hardly care anymore because you've spend the entire second half of the movie wondering exactly what did Mr. Onorati & Ms. Pacula do to tick someone off THIS badly to be stuck in such a horrible movie.<br /><br /> | negative |
Geniuses William Cameron Menzies and Herbert George Wells craft this extraordinary anticipation film, with ambition and scope hard to find today. They predict World War II and the way Great Britain was attacked, and also the fact that the war would be followed by a space race. They change the timing; in the film the war and the space exploration are much longer, but there are so many qualitatively correct things that it's amazing. We even see an helicopter (the film is older than them).<br /><br />Unforgettable giant planes and a futuristic meritocracy of scientists that seem Romans with bubble-helmets: if you can see through those funny costumes you may appreciate the state of the art architecture by masters from the 30s, Well's vision of a rationalistic society, interesting reflections on the nature of power, and John Cabal as archetype of the adventurous and inventive human being, the one that chooses to shape reality and not to be shaped by it.<br /><br />9 1/2 out of 10. Inspiring like that final monologue by John Cabal. | positive |
Reading the other comments here at the IMDB, I had very high expectations before seeing 'Angels of the universe'. I wasn't disappointed, and giving the movie an 8, I would say that I can justify that grade.<br /><br />The movie has some incredible acting, especially by the main-person, Pall. The supporting actors are also doing a very good job like the patients in the mental institution, the parents and the siblings of Pall. The music is also worth mentioning, supporting the movie throughout, giving depth and feeling.<br /><br />Although the movie is very scandinavian, it doesn't leave out some humour and has a sort of objective authorship about Pall's life. Still, if you want to see a cheesy comedy or something light-weight, this is not for you. It is a story about people with mental problems, about the way they are being dealt with in society - but most of all, a story about Pall.<br /><br />I recommend this movie to all movie connoisseurs. It is one of the best movies that has ever come out of Iceland, if not out of Scandinavia. | positive |
This movie could very well have been a propaganda movie for the North americian falangist party - or some similar group... The strong man (Kersey) places himself above the law (but not outside the law) and liberates upstanding citizens by killing worthless trash. The only thing that made me think it wasn't made by the KKK was the fact that a jew starred as a good guy... Try watching it again while thinking of it as a propaganda movie for an extreme right wing group - and you'll see what I mean...<br /><br />It's a tragedy that Jimmy Page actually made music for this movie... :( | negative |
While this movie is not the most entertaining in the world, I think it is better than most over all. I mean it had it's little laughs and just all around a good feeling. It's not too often we get to see two old geezers just having fun with their age and honestly having a good time with the jokes. Walter and Jack had such a great chemistry together as friends/brother in-laws. Just watching them romancing these women was fun and you rooted for them all the way because wither we have to admit it or not, for their age, they still had game! :D I loved just the whole plot of being able to move on and having fun no matter how old you are. I'd recommend this movie for a nice laugh if you want one.<br /><br />7/10 | positive |
I saw "Brother's Shadow" at the Tribeca Film Festival and found myself still thinking about it two days later. The story of a prodigal son (Scott Cohen) returning to his family's custom furniture business after a stint in jail, it offers all the necessary qualities of a solid drama--memorable characters; sharp, observant dialog; sensitive use of the camera by a filmmaker who thinks visually.<br /><br />But more than that, it presents something that is all too rare at the multiplex these days: the uncompromising vision of a mature sensibility. The talent of director-screenwriter Todd S. Yellin seems to emerge full-blown, but we get the sense he (like his protagonist) has paid his dues. He knows how real people struggle in this world, and he knows how we yearn to see--or at least, to experience vicariously--success. Yet Yellin respects his audience too much to blow happy smoke up our rear ends. In the end, we see that Jake's triumph doesn't lie in commissions, or even in the esteem of his family, but in "the work" he couldn't abandon if he tried.<br /><br />It's an essential theme in a world (and especially a movie industry) that can't rise above "the bottom line". This film deserves a wide audience. | positive |
Saw this film in August at the 27th Annual National Association of Black Journalists Convention in Milwaukee, WI, it's first public screening. THE FILM IS GREAT!!! Derek Luke is wonderful as Antwone Fisher. This young actor has a very bright future. The real Antwone Fisher did a great job writing the film and Denzel's direction is right on the money. See it opening weekend. You won't be disappointed. | positive |
When I was a kid I watched this many times over, and I remember whistling the "Happy Cat" song quite often. All the songs are great, and actually memorable, unlike many children's musicals, where the songs are just stuck in for no real reason. The scenes and costumes are lavish, and the acting is very well-done, which isn't surprising, considering the cast. Christopher Walken is very catlike, and doesn't need stupid make-up, or a cat costume for the viewer to believe he's a cat transformed to a human. And Jason Connery's so cute, as the shy and awkward miller's son, Corin, who falls in love with beautiful and the bold Princess Vera. This is a really fun, enjoyable, feature-length movie, where unlike most fairytales, the characters are given personalities. Some of my favourite parts are when Puss makes Corin pretend he's drowning; at the ball when everybody starts dancing a country dance, as it's "all the rage abroad"; when Walken is in the kitchen, dancing on the table (he's a pretty good dancer, too!); and when Vera tells Corin all the things she used to do when she was young, like pretending she was a miller's daughter. I'd recommend this film to children and parents alike, who love magic and fairytales. And it actually IS a movie you can watch together, as it won't drive adults up the wall. | positive |
I was completely mislead by the comments on this film, mainly by someone saying they saw it at a film festival and loved every minute of it. Expecting this to be a nice run of the mill American pie style film, I was deeply disappointed.<br /><br />Firstly the camera work is awful, I don't think the director knows that cameras can move around scenes rather than stay still and having the actors move close up and far away of their own accord.<br /><br />Secondly the scenery! My god I've seen more furnishings in a bird's nest. The club was totally unconvincing with around 3 extras dancing in the back ground at any one time. The flats were bare and lacked personality.<br /><br />Thirdly the actors. Wow. The director obviously went for the typical "Reaper" character set up, a wimpy main character with a gruff "I don't give a f**k" character that takes pot shots at the main. Everything the main character said and did was a chore, so much so it made me wince.<br /><br />Overall the plot, the supposedly big revenge theme, lasted for about 30 seconds and lacked any real motivation. The characters acted irrationally and didn't seem to have any real relationship with anyone else. No character had any depth to them, they may as well have been cardboard cut outs walking past the static camera.<br /><br />A truly horrible piece, worse than a first year students 2 minute short for youtube. Advice to the director? Change your name and deny any association with the film that will probably sell one copy at a yard sale in Ohio. | negative |
After the wife of a plastic surgeon dies, he gets his hunchbacked assistant to help him bring her back to life with various parts of other nubile, young, girls. This film wants to be a Hersel Gordon Lewis-type romp, but fails miserably. The acting is beyond bad, the gore effects atrocious (no, not in the good way), the plot almost none-existent and no fun to be had. Skip it. You want to know how incompetent it is? At one point you can actually see a movie slateboard quite obviously.<br /><br />Eye Candy: Candy Furr gets topless and again in a flashback <br /><br />My Grade: F<br /><br />DVD Extras: Commentary with Jeffrey Hogue and Cynthia Soroka, A second feature "How to make a Doll"; Alternate Title sequence with Hershel Gordon Lewis intro; 2 shorts ("Quest of the Perfect Woman" and "Maniac Hospital"); Cover art gallery with music by the Dead Elvi; Trailers for "Dr. Black Mr. Hyde", "Boots and the Preacher"; "The Doctor and the Playgirls", "the Gruesome Twosome"; "Wizard of Gore"; "Awful Dr Orlof"; "Wacky world of Doctor Morgus"; "Proffessor Lust", "Monstrosity"; "Fanny Hill meets Dr. Erotico"; and "I, Marquis DeSade" <br /><br />Easter Eggs: Theatrical Trailer; a scene from "Just for the Hell of It"; and a trailer for "Axe" | negative |
In theory, 'Director's Commentary' should have worked. The talented Rob Bryden plays Peter DeLane, a former television director recounting his experiences behind the camera. Amongst the programmes he is alleged to have worked on are 'Bonanza', 'Flambards', 'The Duchess Of Duke Street', and 'The Bounder'. His commentaries are not the least bit informative, due to his habit of wandering off the point.<br /><br />But in practice, it failed dismally. It is a one-joke show, and the joke is not particularly funny. The scripts are completely lacking in wit, and Bryden fails to convince as an old man. Whenever stuck for anything amusing to say, which is like every five seconds, he issues a hissing laugh. Rather than being amused by DeLane, you want to shoot him. If senile old men strike you as hilarious, then this is for you.<br /><br />It didn't help that the shows mocked were, with the exceptions of 'Mr & Mrs' and 'Crossroads', rather good. For the joke to work, they needed to be really dreadful such as 'Charlie's Angels', 'O.T.T.', 'Telly Addicts', 'Neighbours', and 'New Faces'.<br /><br />The show tanked big time, so thankfully we are spared the horror of future editions. Wouldn't it be deliciously ironic if 'Director's Commentary' were someday itself the subject of a spoof? | negative |
I give this marriage 3 years and thats stretching it. Adrianne Curry is fouled mouth, spoiled, controlling, loud, and her bi sexual past makes me laugh. She tells Chris he has an image to protect and must avoid strip clubs. He married her. Chris has low self esteem and from a different time warp. I have nothing against Adrianne Curry but this combination is not gonna have a happy ever after ending. Her mother said he was an old rooster and thinks this is his last attempt to recapture his youth. Here 2 very good people who are gonna end up in a nasty divorce. I don't think his old " Brady Family" is gonna fit into his new life. I see them being shut out. Chris said his friends were more important than his family. The supported him and was there for him. | negative |
I recently found this movie on VHS after looking for it for a number of years, I was not disappointed. It gets better every time I see it. Peter Ustinov stars and co-wrote the original screenplay (nominated for an Academy Award). Other stars you've heard of include Karl Malden, Bob Newhart and Cesar Romero. Ustinov plays an accountant/embezzler, just released from England's infamous Wormwood Scrubs prison (he had embezzled from the Conservative Party headquarters, selected because he is a Liberal). He immediately begins a search for a new employer from whom he can embezzle, and discovers that computers are the wave of the future. He social-engineers his way into a London men's club and learns the identity of the best computer experts in town, he steals the identity of one Caesar Smith, who has just left town for South America to pursue his hobby of collecting moths in the wild. He talks his way into Ta-Can-Co, an American conglomerate headed by Carlton Klemper (Karl Malden). Klemper hires Smith and shows him around the computer center, especially its security feature consisting of a flashing blue light. Ustinov asks the computer how to defeat its security and the computer obligingly tells, him, "Disconnect blue light." Using hacking techniques from 30 years in the future, Ustinov breaks into the system and programs the computer to generate checks written to various bogus companies. The scheme starts to unravel when Klemper's assistant Willard G. Gnatpole (Bob Newhart) notices the amount of business Ta-Can-Co appears to be transacting with Ustinov's scam companies. With the help of his secretary Patty Terwilliger (Maggie Smith), Ustinov manages to avoid prosecution and lives happily ever after. To tell you how would spoil this very funny, romantic, intelligent, and ahead-of-its-time picture. | positive |
I bought this game on eBay having heard that it was a similar game to Elite. The gameplay is indeed very similar, and is very addictive. Once I'd played it a couple of times, I immediately went back on eBay and bought copies for all my kids so they could join in the fun too.... I have played this game right through and the storyline makes it feel as if you are actually in a movie, it's brilliant. If you have trouble feeling free to explore because of the restrictive nature of the storyline in the single-player game, simply set up a Freelancer server on your own PC (easy to do and the software is included) and play to your heart's content. There are still a huge number of Freelancer servers on the Internet, so multiplayer is no problem and is not all that threatening, because you don't often meant other players unless you want to. So go get a copy of this game, learn it by playing the single-player campaign, then set up an online presence and enjoy yourself. The depth of this game is staggering, with huge systems to explore and wrecks to find, as well as all sorts of other things to discover - hidden planets, wormholes, secret bases, the list is nearly endless. Fantastic game and especially as you can get it for a couple of quid on eBay. Get one with the full written manual if you can (blue box, not Xplosiv red box), it's loads better! | positive |
Tom & Jerry are visiting Africa and disguise themselves in an "Amos-n-Andy" fashion. They even act and talk differently, with the standard degrading usage of extremely poor grammar associated with the stereotypical image of blacks portrayed in many cartoons of the era. Aside from the offensive images, this cartoon just isn't very good. Why were they going to Africa in the first place? Apparently just to provide the audience with another Amos-n-Andy and the additionally overused cannibalistic portrayal of native Africans. The only reason this got a 2 instead of a 1 was there is a decent few seconds involving an octopus.<br /><br />Worth one view, which will still leave you shaking your head wondering how ignorance could prevail...<br /><br />(Note. I consider some cartoons containing such racially stereotypical images very good. It all depends on if there is good content surrounding the cartoon, or if the only reason for the existence of the cartoon is to make fun of those incorrectly portrayed. In other words, if you get rid of "Mammy," shuffling feet, the poor grammar, and black-face with giant lips images is there anything left? In the case of "Plane Dumb" there is not.) | negative |
I must admit I did enjoy the earlier episodes, but probably because I was younger and stupid at the time. I was sorta excited about the return of family guy until I saw the "new" crap they were putting out. No surprise, it was exactly like the old crap. All the lame jokes were there including the flash backs, except this time they added a joke about a old creepy pedophile who seems to be in EVERY SINGLE EPISODE. this is just one of the annoying gags family guy lives off of, and for some reason people keep watching. its no longer funny, its just annoying. let it die.<br /><br />maybe family guy was funny at a point in time, and the cheap laughs and gags were original and fresh, but now its just not funny anymore. if you actually do find family guy funny than you must be retarded or borderline retarded. | negative |
I liked Half-Life. I am still it's fan. It was frightening, intelligent and challenging. I don't tell any news it is one the best FPS ever made. Maybe I'm too hardcore Half-Life fan but the so called Half-Life 2 is not Half-Life 2.<br /><br />And I have a question: is THIS the next chapter of Half-Life? Maybe the creators -Valve- thinks so but I don't. Where are the intelligent enemies? Where is the frightening atmosphere? Nowhere. I believe they wanted to make a bit different Half-Life (instead of another research station story), but they didn't just made a very different one, they made something that has to do with Half-Life like for example Quake does to Doom. The entire game so unsightly and unreal that it's almost forlorn.<br /><br />Though the physics are truly great and there were a few good level to play, the idea to make a revolutionary physic-driven gameplay has utterly failed. When you get the Gravity-gun, that can move objects, you can expect with rights to use it as a weapon- that would turn the schematic FPS gameplay upside down. The truth is, you can't use Gravity-gun as a real weapon. Why? Because the best you can do is throwing boxes and barrels that don't do much damage. If you want to keep an object in front of you to protect it can fall from about 3 shots. If you want to throw an exploding barrel to your enemy it can explode in your own "hand". The gravity-gun doesn't work as a weapon. The best usage is solving some physic-puzzles. I ask Valve: Why? The truth is you must use your boring, schematic FPS weapons to the end(except for last level) Weapons are not that made original Half-life a classic. If Gravity-gun would be always like at the last level -a real weapon- I'd admire what Valve did. But not this. This is disappointing.<br /><br />So if you want Half-Life then you are searching at the wrong place. Maybe you will enjoy it but I repeat: it is everything but not Half-Life and even not a faithful continuation of that. This is the greatest disappointment of all time. Valve have shown they can make awful games too. They have managed that. | negative |
LACKAWANNA BLUES is an entertaining, engrossing, emotionally-charged HBO-TV movie based on the childhood memories of actor Ruben Santiago-Hudson (who also appears in a small role). This joyous motion picture experience is centered around Santiago-Hudson's childhood guardian, Rachel "Nanny" Crosby, a strong, big-hearted black woman who ran a boarding house in upstate New York during the 1950's. Nanny was a one-woman social service organization whose boarding house was filled with drunks, derelicts, cripples, drug addicts, misfits, and everyone else in town who needed a hand-up instead of a hand-out. The crux of the story revolves around Nanny's relationship with young Ruben (beautifully played by Marcus Franklin),a boy whose divorced parents were unable to raise the boy properly so Nanny took him in. S. Epatha Merkeson, who has been wasted for years in the thankless role of Lieutenant Van Buren on NBC's LAW & ORDER, turns in a powerhouse performance as Nanny, the neighborhood mother-figure whose boarding house became a symbol for the downtrodden black folks in her town. Merkeson is nothing short of magnificent, in a performance that earned her a Golden Globe and an Emmy Award. Merkeson is backed by an impressive all-star cast that includes Terrance Howard (brilliant and heartbreaking as Nanny's husband), Louis Gossett Jr., Rosie Perez, Jimmy Smits, Delroy Lindo, Macy Gray, Michael K. Williams, Jeffrey Wright, Henry Simmons, Patricia Wettig, Ernie Hudson, Mos Def, and Hill Harper as the adult Ruben. Colorful and exciting, beautifully photographed and exquisitely scored, this is one of a kind motion picture experience that works on all levels, but if for no other reason, is worth seeing for the electrifying starring performance by S. Epatha Merkeson, who is given the role of a lifetime and makes the most of it. | positive |
The positives: It's shot pretty well. Has some interesting peripheral characters. Likable main character (albeit weak).<br /><br />The bad: Plot/story. Editing. Characters wasted. Jessica Alba.<br /><br />I'm a fan of sappy movies, but this movie is cringe-inducingly bad. I don't understand how anyone can hand over $12M to this Guy Jenkin. And before I go any further, I just want to say that I don't dislike Jessica Alba--I really wanted to like her in this film. However, Jessica Alba in her fake accent and her model poses made me miserable. She has absolutely no screen presence in this movie, and she ruins every scene she's in. Needless to say, the romance does not come off as believable(not even a tiny bit).<br /><br />All I saw throughout was the actors flapping their wings, trying to get this thing off the ground with what little they were given--but sadly, all this movie does is sink. There is no emotional connection, no emotional conflict, and nothing is gained. It's a pretty empty movie. | negative |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.