review stringlengths 32 13.7k | sentiment stringclasses 2 values |
|---|---|
Tenshu is imprisoned and sentenced to death. When he survives electrocution the government officials give him a choice to either be electrocute at a greater degree or agree to some experiments. He chooses the experimentation and is placed in a large metallic cell with a bad ass criminal who also survived the electrocution. They can have whatever the want in the room (within reason), but they can't leave. after a few days there meals are cut down to one per day and the room temp is set up too 100. After some more alarms are sounded at intervals so they can't sleep. One day a 'witch' come into their cell (albeit a glassed off portion) What happens next I'll let you find out. I may be in the minority here but I liked the build up, it was intriguing to me. Now if the payoff was half as good as the build up was I would have rated this so much higher.<br /><br />My Grade: C+ <br /><br />Media Blaster's 2 DVD set Extras: Disc 1) Director's Cut; Trailers for "Versus", "Aragami", "Attack the Gas Station", and "Deadly Outlaw Rekka" Disc 2) Theatrical Cut; Commentary with Hideo Sakaki, Ryuhei Kitamura, Sakaguchi Takuand Tsutomu Takahashi; Cast and crew interview; Making of; Original Trailer; and Promo Teasers | positive |
this was a real guilt pleasure ... i saw the trailer and all the advertising, so i figured 'why not check out this vh1 movie?' and, as they used to say on t.v., 'i can't believe i watched the whole thing!' quinn and harris were believable beatle boys, and, although the accents were sort of over-the-top and difficult to decipher at times, i found the dialogue believable as well. the film touched upon the tenuous relationship of len/mc and showed how, deep down, they were simply two guys who grew up close together and shared a passion for music - coming at it, though, with different sets of issues and personal needs. you find yourself wishing they'd hopped in the cab to snl for an impromptu reunion that would have knocked the world's socks off, but you also gain a greater appreciation for why they didn't | positive |
My boyfriend and I went to watch The Guardian.At first I didn't want to watch it, but I loved the movie- It was definitely the best movie I have seen in sometime.They portrayed the USCG very well, it really showed me what they do and I think they should really be appreciated more.Not only did it teach but it was a really good movie. The movie shows what the really do and how hard the job is.I think being a USCG would be challenging and very scary. It was a great movie all around. I would suggest this movie for anyone to see.The ending broke my heart but I know why he did it. The storyline was great I give it 2 thumbs up. I cried it was very emotional, I would give it a 20 if I could! | positive |
This entry is certainly interesting for series fans (like myself), but yet it is mostly incomprehensible. The plot is confusing, as is the sequel continuity. Some striking effects, to be sure, but we never find out what it all really means.<br /><br />Try to see the "NC-17" workprint version which contains the gore that was cut to be re-rated "R". | negative |
STAR RATING: ***** The Works **** Just Misses the Mark *** That Little Bit In Between ** Lagging Behind * The Pits <br /><br />In this debut effort for Nick Park's beloved man and dog, they are forced to fly to the moon when good old Wallace runs out of cheese.<br /><br />As well as being the shortest feature at just 22 minutes, this W/G adventure is also the earliest and it kinda shows. The plasticine animation is a little creaky and funny here, sort of reminiscent of the Mork animation about the little man in the box.<br /><br />Admirable though the craftsmanship behind it is, I've never actually been hugely into Wallace & Gromit (maybe a bit too clean and traditional for someone of my generation.) The only one I've really enjoyed is The Wrong Trousers (and that was more from when I was younger and less aware of, shall we say, the seedier pleasures of life.) I was driven to actively seek out this early effort due to the resurgence in popularity as a result of the hugely successful recent film adaptation.<br /><br />As technically impressive as the first two (all things considered!) this one lacks the emotional angle it's successors were to possess. That being said, it's fairly good fun as a first try and certainly set the standard for greater things to come. Two stars, but a good two stars. ** | negative |
Larry Bishop is 60-years old, dirty and not good-looking YET in this movie he's like a drug towards the women in their twenty's.<br /><br />A lot of movies have been claimed to be sexist but if any movie deserves that title it's this one.<br /><br />I can't even count how many boobs there were shown in this movie, probably more then hours Larry Bishop spend writing the script.<br /><br />The script is ridiculous, Bishop and his gang argue, bike, party, have sex, kill people and the next day they argue, bike, party, have sex, kill people and the third day, well you get the idea.<br /><br />I like ERIC BALFOUR and considering what he had to work with, he did pretty good as Comanche.<br /><br />Unfortunately this movie is about Larry Bishop's character Pistolero who is so one-dimensional it's not even funny.<br /><br />He's also a horrible actor, and apparently he never intended to do the lead himself but everybody he asked said no so what was he to do? Once he realized he was gonna do the lead himself, he probably did a re-write of the script so that he could touch up more ladies.<br /><br />Although visually it's kind of good-looking, at least the biker-scenes and Eric Balfour isn't half-bad this movie is just a big mess.<br /><br />I hope to never see Larry Bishop in front of the camera again. | negative |
When I first heard that Hal Hartley was doing a sequel to Henry Fool, I was excited (it's been a personal favorite for years now), and then wary when I heard it had something to do with terrorism. Having just seen it though, I was surprised to find that it worked, while still being an entirely different sort of movie than Henry Fool. The writing and direction were both dead on and the acting was superb...especial kudos go to Hartley for reassembling virtually the whole cast, right down to Henry's son, who was only four in the original. Like I said though, this movie is quite different from the first, but it works: I reconciled myself with the change in tone and subject matter to the fact that 10 years have passed and the characters would have found themselves in very different situations since the first film ended. In this case, an unexpected adventure ensues...and that's about all I'll give away...not to mention the fact that I'll need to see it again to really understand what's going on and who's double crossing who. While it was certainly one of the better movies I've seen in some time, it suffers like many sequels with its ending, as it appears that Hartley is planning a third now and the film leaves you hanging. I'll be sure to buy my tickets for part 3 ('Henry Grim'?) in 2017. | positive |
One reason Pixar has endured so well, and been so successful, is that while their films remain technical marvels and visual mosaics, they have a story to match their style. And often very moving style at that: affecting, charming and cross-generational. That a lot Anime (speaking in broad terms) and a great many other animations fail to match their technical virtuosity with real substance is, I think (and I might be wrong) partly because either the makers aren't bothered with character and plot and focus far too much on sound and image, or the sheer effort that goes into making some animations is so enormous, so enervating that they don't have the energy to create a really engaging story.<br /><br />That same cannot be said of Renaissance. There are flaws in its plot, but I'll get to that later. Those same flaws, however, are not reflected in the visuals - Renaissance is nowt short of stunning. The ultra-high contrast images (sometimes so high-contrast that is nothing but one face or one beam of light visible) and incredible detail are always impressive, always a joy to behold. The futuristic Paris on display is the grim offspring of Blade Runner and Brave New World; dark, murky, quite affluent and even clean, but shrouded in intrigue, corporate malfeasance, obsessed with beauty (capital of the catwalk, after all) and disguising the squalor and neglect of its labyrinthine passages with a veneer of monumental, sophisticated architecture.<br /><br />It's a compelling environment, not entirely original, but great all the same. The film's much-touted 'motion-capture' technology and incredible attention to human and design minutiae result in images a black-and-white photographer would die for. Not that the detail prevents entertainment, because Christian Volckman crafts some superb action sequences: a hell-for-leather care chase, a couple of gruesome(ly imaginative) murders, several tussles in the dark and a nasty dust-up in a gloomy apartment. The locations are great, too (I want to visit the nightclub). While the central character of Karas is your regular off-the-shelf maverick cop, the other two female characters (who are sisters) are the real motors of the movie. Coming from war-torn Eastern Europe, products of a war, diaspora and a family spat, they're a compelling metaphor for Europe as a whole.<br /><br />The film is tremendously atmospheric, its dizzying, swooping faux-camera moves and adult tone making for a very engaging experience. However, the plot... It never becomes more interesting than the initial hook, in which indefatigable plod Karas must find Ilona Tasuiev, a drop-dead gorgeous and pioneering scientist, after she's snatched from the street. The sinister corporation Avalon (is ANY corporation ever not sinister?), which she was working for on 'classified', projects are hell-bent on her retrieval, and soon Karas is up to his neck in official reprimands, dead bodies, cigarette-smoke and narrowly-missed bullets, and falling in love with Ilona's sister Bislane (very sympathetically voiced by Catherine McCormack), as he plumbs the depths of the city's sordid underbelly (and his own past).<br /><br />Text-book noir, in other words, but while I enjoyed the film a lot more than Sin City (to which it bears a passing visual resemblance), the plot and resolution are dull, the theme of immortality being raised but never examined, and the shenanigans of high-rolling Avalon CEO Paul Dellenbach are also dull , undercutting a lot of the dramatic tension. The basic ideas are familiar sci-fi genre materials, and there's a nagging sense that the visuals and atmosphere are disguising the mundane material.<br /><br />However, the film as a whole is lucid and perfectly coherent, even if some of the scenarios the characters get into occasionally feel like excuses for displays of technical wizardry. But it's the projection of life in Paris circa 2054, the vision of community and creation of another city from the ground up that makes this film something to behold. I may be taking it too seriously, and if that's the case I can at least say that it's superbly made, extremely entertaining (and pretty mature, too), and with an ambiance like no other. | positive |
**Warning! Spoilers Ahead!**<br /><br />This short is part one of two that expound upon the brief portion of "The Matrix" in which Morpheus explains how the matrix came to be. Because we already know the story, the plot itself is no surprise; and the short isn't so much entertaining as informative. But that's how it is presented, as a file in the historical archives. The visuals are better than average, and the generally cold colors aid the purpose of the short.<br /><br />A couple problems. The violence of the tale is a little gratuitous and, combined with the occasional dose of political correctness (UN scenes), detracts from the straight narrative of the short. Plus it needs to be seen with part two to be complete.<br /><br />The Animatrix concept is brilliant, and despite a few issues, this short still fulfills its purpose. It would not have fit in the original movie in style, content, or flow. This is the perfect method to reveal the history.<br /><br />Bottom Line: Good information. Could have been told a little better, but still a solid 7 of 10. | positive |
Hollywood, the home of hype, glamor and the search for profits, is scarcely ruled by spiritual values, and so it comes as no surprise that its attempts at investigations of the spiritual life are thin and often silly (better to go farther afield--to the films of Bresson, Dreyer, Rossellini and Bergman, for probing depictions of the spirituality). "Strange Cargo" is no exception. This odd hybrid of adventure film, love story and religious parable trivializes the very insights it tries to communicate. That a figure of providence and salvation would work to match Verne (Clark Gable at his most cockily mannered and self-regarding) and Julie (Joan Crawford, snarling and spitting out every other word in an attempt to be the Queen of Tough Dames) seems ludicrous at best. Is this the Patron Saint of the Star System at work, matching warring egos before sending them off to further penal servitude on the M-G-M lot? BUT. . .there are good supporting performances here, and visually arresting moments: the shadowy prison barracks; the escaping boat by moonlight, or against a painterly cloudscape; Julie walking along the seafront as the wind whips up; Julie and Monsieur Pig (Peter Lorre) bargaining for Verne's freedom as the storm builds; an unusually ennobling gay prison romance between two convicts. . .Above all, there is Paul Lukas's dignified and detached performance as Hessler, a murderer who can appreciate Cambreau's virtues, yet turns his back on him. In the film's most arresting moment, Hessler, having left Cambreau, stands outside the cabin. We hear the wind through the jungle, see the shadows on his face, which conveys a moment of fear and self-doubt. Then he exits into the night. In this moment, Hessler achieves an ambiguity, depth and existential strength that none of the other characters manage to achieve. is the film's secret that its deepest sympathies are allied with Hessler? | negative |
Eisenstein's first sound film retells the battle of the ice of 1242, when the Russians under Alexander Nevsky defeated the Livonian knights, eager to bring Russia under Roman Catholicism. Made in 1938, Nevsky can be seen as a piece of propaganda: the Germanic knights, with their sinister (and somewhat goofy) helmets are obvious stand-ins for the Nazis. The butchery by the knights when they enter a Russian town seems a prophetic warning of the massacres of World War II. The film ends with a warning: those who came to Russia with the sword will die by the sword. Made in delicate black and white (somewhat reminiscent of a daguerreotype), it also marked Eisenstein's return to official favor. By the late 1920s, Stalin wanted Soviet filmmakers to stop experimentation and made movies that would be more populist and palatable to the Russian public. That stopped Eisenstein's career in Russia for a decade, and in Nevsky he came back with his more accessible film. Nevsky's strong point is in its second half, which features the battle itself, and it is justly seen as a milestone in movie history: never before (and probably never after) a battle would be so vivid in the screen. Another strong point is Prokofiev's beautiful, haunting soundtrack (using a composer to score a movie was completely unusual at the time). One of its weaker points: the comic relief (in the form of two simpleton Russian warriors trying to woo a beautiful Russian peasant) is really jarring. | positive |
i got a copy from the writer of this movie on soulseek. I have to say it is pathetic and just plain painful to watch the two cops act, but i watched the movie as a joke and since it is a homage to august's underground which i happened to have seen it is in my book as an awesome movie. Its quality and everything about it is pretty bad but its entertaining and something to talk about amongst your friends. Reminds me of troma but good stuff. I recommend seeing this under two conditions, if you are bored and need a good laugh, or high, otherwise just let it be. Recommended download for sure. o and the killings are pretty funny. like when the zombie rips the Satan worshipers dick off and stabs someone in the head with it. | negative |
When someone refers to the independent cinema realm in the United States it's often inferred that it means the filmmaker or people behind the project had much more creative freedom and did what they wanted. This, today, is not really always the case unless someone is a solid "auteur" and creative freedom still comes with the caveat that one has to find distribution with one of the independent divisions of major studios or by getting picked up somehow for some kind of low-level deal at a worthwhile film festival. But Putney Swope, Robert Downey Sr's film about a tough-as-nails African-American accidentally promoted to head advertising guru at a production company, *is* independent cinema, the kind of work that went right along with the likes or Romero's Night of the Living Dead and Cassavetes Faces at the same time of getting no real typical studio distribution but causing waves, kicking ass and taking names in the cinema world. For all its moments that are rough and crude, it's unforgettable.<br /><br />It's also a film that is funny, very and excruciatingly funny. Sometimes the sense of humor is just so ridiculous it's nearly impossible not to laugh, from the mere appearance of the President Mimeo with his wife to lines of dialog from the advertisements Swope's team puts together like "I can't eat an air conditioner" in a real "soul" voice. It is as smart as the audience it is aiming at, which is anyone with two brain cells to put together who can see that this work isn't offensive or *too* shocking because it's meant to rattle the cage, and it does this pretty well in the first five minutes. Once that's past Downey Sr goes on his blitz of sorts as far as being a filmmaker with nothing to lose: his protagonist is part Fidel Castro, part Isaac Hayes circa 1972 (and yes it's 1969 in the film) and part hard-assed ad exec with a firing streak to make Mr. Spacely on the Jetsons look kind. And don't forget those side characters, dear God.<br /><br />There's so many memorable lines and moments that it's hard to keep track. From maybe the most hilarious botched assassination attempt in any movie to the one ad for "Face-Off" skin cream that includes lines that would give South Park a run for its dirty-mouth money, to just little asides with the one guy from Jack Hill's movies playing the Muslim who keeps giving lip to Swope and that one boy with the the nun who curses up a storm and impresses Swope in a swift stroke. It's a pretty direct message about media and advertising, but there's also a lot of powerful moments where it just hits the nail on the head about racism in America, sometimes without having to do more than a gesture and sometimes with doing something HUGE like having black panther types going this way and that around Swope's advertising regime. And for a low-budget production (I mean super low, hence the comparison to Night of the Living Dead and Faces) Downey got some really good actors, all non-union, and it's hard to imagine that some of them might have had their first time on camera here.<br /><br />It should be mentioned that Downey's style doesn't make it perfect: it is crude and sometimes too crazy and dated for its own good, and I'm sure I didn't get some of the underlying humor of a couple of the ads since I'm from a full generation after these ads were aired (albeit the "Miss Redneck Jersey" was definitely not lost on me). In general though this is one of the finest of its time period, a satire that stings and a feature with a predominantly black cast that is all too knowing of what comes from an excess of power, regardless of skin color. It is, as someone might say, "good s***." | positive |
Best thing I can say about this porno-horror film is: boobies boobies boobies !<br /><br />Beyond that, this film is made by some Hindu/Indian guy with some background in porn films or such .<br /><br />Plot: Talk-Show host and girlfriend are stalked by a psychopath who is angry over the plight of the homeless and takes it out on, you guessed it, beautiful real-estate agent ladies ! (films like these are why the slasher films of the 80's got a rep for misogyny)<br /><br />This film is not really a Slasher, but has the same sort of implausibilities and stereotypes: the dumb-ass cops, the villain is an old white male, and the women are busty babes . <br /><br />If you like porno-horror, this is your movie, otherwise stay away . (Adrienne fans will get to see her sagging breasts for a second or two) | negative |
I'm not sure what the appeal of this movie is, but I couldn't find it. It's a really long, barely credible, hardly lucid conversation between three guys on one set. <br /><br />It doesn't move anywhere, the characters are just totally bizarre, the underlying plot equally so. It's lost on me, definitely a walk out movie.<br /><br />The one thing that keeps you from walking out is the ever unrealized possibility that it might have some kind of point or meaningful climax, and the fact that, all irritation aside at the banal personalities, they're acted quite reasonably. But you have to brace yourself for endless dialog, wishing on many an occasion that Teach would just shut the %*&* up for a moment. | negative |
Now don't get me wrong. If you need an insightful summary of everything that been wrong with the history of human civilization as well as a flawless path to brighter future for mankind, who better to turn to than a comedian and practitioner of pop culture? If you need a healthy dose of all the solid, sound reasons why religion has outlived it's usefulness then turn to Sagan or Dawkins, not BILL MAHER for God's(?) sake! That's a good point in and of itself. Maher dismisses our religious past as a neurological disorder conveniently ignoring how his entire society, art and science is rooted in it.<br /><br />In this film, he relies heavily on his keenly-honed skill set of irony and cynicism to make his point while attempting to appear erudite and wise. Unfortunately, his intellect isn't up to the task.<br /><br />Maher makes us laugh but is clearly not the brightest bulb in the box. As an example, he responds to an interviewee's (and I use the term loosely as they were clearly all "ambushees") assertion that the existence of Jesus is historical fact with a deadpan "No, it's not" followed by a long stare meant to convey contempt at the subject's naivety (a device nauseatingly overused in this film). The problem is that the person was correct and Maher dead wrong in his assertion that Jesus is mentioned only in what he considers to be the historically- suspect gospels. I guess Mr. Maher has never read the contemporary historian Josephus.<br /><br />But the masses will flock to this pseudo-documentary as they do the fictional works of other intellectual giants like Michael Moore, and they will loudly bray and guffaw (they certainly did at my showing).<br /><br />It's doubly telling, however, that the loudest and most mule-like braying occurred during the approximately 70% of the running time that the film devoted to it's anti-Christian tirade while the audience was wholly mute during the token 10% devoted to criticizing the self-described Religion of Peace. Hmmm. Either criticism of Islam is off-limits to the hip and liberal target audience or they were just afraid to laugh. Very telling, either way.. | negative |
This is the second movie I saw for Horrorfest this past weekend, The Gravedancers being the first. Gravedancers was better. I can only guess from watching this that the production must have been quite limited. I will admit the story started out interesting but really fizzled for me in the end. We weren't really given time to sympathize or understand any of the characters which only made each of their erratic characteristics even more annoying. I have to mention that there was also a bit of mis-casting with a 12-year-old boy acting as Sheriff. The only reason I sat through the whole film was to find out what the big secret was, which turned out to not be all that interesting. Some more background about the family would have helped but they didn't really seem like a family at all to begin with.<br /><br />To me, this film is so amateur that I couldn't even see putting it on DVD. The four rating is for the initial potential the story might have had. This was one to skip for horrorfest. | negative |
'Anita and Me' is a drama about growing up in multi-ethnic Britain, rather like 'Bend it Like Beckham', or more closely, 'East is East', with which it shares a 1970s setting. The tone is resolutely chirpy (in spite of the dour Black Country accents), but the film lacks 'East is East's vigour and the result seems rather thin and trite. Moreover, the portrayal of the film's central relationship, between an Asian girl and her white friend, is insufficiently deep to justify the way that the movie is structured around it. I have also grown tired of films where the hero years to be a writer, this is naturally often something that real writers have experienced, but hardly a fresh element in a fictional story. 'East is East' was fun and sharp; 'Anita and Me' seems obvious and dull in comparison. | negative |
Last year's remake of 'The Hills Have Eyes' was one of the better attempts to update the vaguely exploitational horror flicks of the 1970s for a new audience. Alexandre Aja allowed for an admirable degree of character development and when the violence started it was mean and savage and all carried out in a landscape of impeccable photography and production design. I was one of the few people who actually thought that it was better than the original and looked forward to a second visit to the particularly dark and cruel world of the savage desert mutants.<br /><br />'The Hills have Eyes 2', released just a year after the original, seems a rushed and ill-conceived attempt to cash in on the franchise with little thought to quality. Jonathan Craven's screenplay could have been written in a weekend, and given the speed with which this movie made it into cinemas, probably was. It falls back on every hackneyed genre cliché in the book while offering absolutely nothing new to the desert mutant mythology. I always let out a groan of disappointment when a sequel replaces civilian characters with the military. Soldiers are always so lazily written and never fail to thoroughly bore with crude caricatures of strutting macho bullshit. In my mind, 'Aliens' was the only movie to successfully make such a transition, due to James Cameron's talent, not simply for directing the best action sequences around, but never forgetting that an audience has to care about the people being butchered. He was also ably assisted by some genuinely talented actors. With 'The Hills have Eyes 2', it's clear that video director Martin Weisz is no James Cameron, and the cast of television bit-parters haven't the talent or even the inclination to turn their cardboard cutout characters into anything approaching living, breathing human beings.<br /><br />Needless to say, every character is a broad and generic cliché. They act in dumb and illogical ways, making dumb and illogical decisions that lead them to predictably dumb and illogical deaths. The latter half of the movie becomes just another tedious chased-through-dark-corridors scenario. 'The Descent' (on which Sam McCurdy, coincidentally, also worked as cinematography) proved that even this most derivative of sequences can still be carried out with genuine originality and suspense, but we see no such innovation here.<br /><br />'The Hills Have Eyes 2' is just a very lazy movie, devoid of any suspense, tension, or surprise, with not a single individual involved remotely interested in producing anything of quality. It's a tame and tired excuse for a sequel and deserves to spend the rest of its life in a Blockbuster's bargain bin. | negative |
I saw this show about 3-4 years ago. It was dam Funny! When i first time i saw it was playing on ETV(Estonian Television) And i started to like it. Too bad that that show is on bad time for me. Hyde is like a cool guy who likes to sing Frank Sinatra! And he comes on stupid ideas. He got these glasses which h are brown. I like it . And there's FeZ. The group Pervert. We all know what he does when his alone..... He wants to get laid badly. He even had it with his boss in one episode.His from India. And there is Michael , The stupidest guy on whole group , probably stupidest in town and his a cop! He is so stupid that i remember follows: Hyde says: Did u called cops ? - No Michael comes in and says. Does anyone know how to turn off siren? He is a town playboy. Then comes Jackie , who is former girlfriend of Michael and then she's Hyde's girlfriend. Then is Eric Who's son of grumpy war veteran and son of Kitty the housewife. His one big pussy. But he loves Donna , his girlfriend with who they plan for they're marriage. Donna is one hot girl. Hmm what i forget? ah Hyde lives in a basement . | positive |
What happens when someone has so much social anxiety that they cease to function? How alone can one man get? When the mundane crap we have to do in order to be part of society gets to be too much, what happens? Frownland explores these questions. Definitely a startling original debut from Bronstein. The tone is strange and claustrophobic as we get inside the mind of a guy named Keith that is so messed up he can hardly form a proper sentence. We follow him around as he tries to make contact with people and function day to day. Most of us have known people like this- people that say "sorry" too much or "i appreciate it" when there's nothing to appreciate. So we know there are people out there like this but why would someone want to make a movie about them? Well, because its interesting and Bronstein and the lead actor, Dore Mann, do an excellent job. This film is about as un-commercial as a film can get. A few friends filmed it over the course of a few years as they saved money. It was shot on 16mm and the scratched film look is beautifully low budget. With no distributer, this may be a tough one to find, I think it's been screening randomly for the past year or so. Hopefully it'll be on DVD at some point. I saw it at the Silent Movie Theater here in LA. There were 10 people in the audience, among them Crispin Glover, if that tells you anything about how weird this movie is. Highly recommended. | positive |
This typical Mamet film delivers a quiet, evenly paced insight into what makes a confidence man (Joe Mantegna) good. Explored as a psychological study by a noted psychologist (Lindsay Crouse), it slowly pulls her into his world with the usual nasty consequences. The cast includes a number of the players found is several of Mamet's films (Steven Goldstein, Jack Wallace, Ricky Jay, Andy Potok, Allen Soule, William H. Macy), and they do their usual good job. I loved Lindsay Crouse in this film, and have often wondered why she didn't become a more noted player than she has become. Perhaps I'm not looking in the right places!<br /><br />The movie proceeds at a slow pace, with flat dialog, yet it maintains a level of tension throughout which logically leads to the bang-up ending. You'd expect a real let down at the ending, but I found it uplifting and satisfying. I love this movie! | positive |
This movie is so dull I spent half of it on IMDb while it was open in another tab on Netflix trying to find out if anyone thought it was one of the more boring, ponderous, gimmicky films they've ever seen. A warning: I actually could not finish it, so these are my impressions up to minute 54.<br /><br />Keira Knightly gets loads of screen time. As others have mentioned, her mother penned the script (perhaps during some sort of drug-induced stupor wherein utter inanities and emotionless statements about emotions sounded like interesting dialogue) and it seems that the film is a showcase for Knightly. Oops! Although I agree she is lovely (with her teeth unexposed...her barred teeth cause me anxiety and fear) I found her reactions forced and poorly timed. As in, William or Dylan does something cute...pause...HAHAHA from K with dimples and a playful arm jab. Like a minute too late. What? And she cannot match Cillian Murphy's intensity. He somehow manages to really look at her and look as though he is fascinated by her and falling in love with her whereas she seems totally disconnected, almost like she is interacting with a mirror. That must be torture, acting opposite someone who isn't delivering the same level of energy as you. Know what else is torture? This movie.<br /><br />Knightly does look stunning during her cyclical "I've got 1940s pin curls and a hot dress. Watch me sing!" shots, but what's the point? Is she an altar or an actress? When she talks it's bizarre, "Ooow, Mehster Deelan. Whur eer ya going?" This makes me confused because the accent is so mixed up and unauthentic, yet so thick at times I have no idea what she's saying (or maybe fell asleep). If no one knows who Vera was or cares, or few do, was it so important to give her this supposed Welsh accent? It distracts from all the rest of the action (just kidding there).<br /><br />This movie seems like someone dreamed a movie, maybe after reading a little Dylan Thomas before bed. But instead of adapting to the waking world was like, "Man, that dream was so interesting" and tried to replicate it. Then someone else cautioned, "Your script needs work. Nothing that happens furthers a story or creates necessity" and the writer is all, "But that's the way I dreamed it!" It's like the rambling fantasy of a child, one of those wild and meandering yarns they spin to get your attention. And THEN William went to a war and then Vera had a baby and then some blond chick drank too much and there were so many airplanes and pin curls and everyone had ruby red lips and...<br /><br />As for the Dylan Thomas character (so bland that's all I can call him), why didn't he have any lines in this goofy biopic? All he does is drink beer and smoke cigarettes and roll around with Sienna Miller, who is so wild and artistic she'll do a cartwheel in public! Get outta here, you crazy poets! (I realize she is not a poet, but she and Thomas are like this one nauseating unit of crazy guys havin crazy times, like a lukewarm Sailor and Lula from Wild at Heart.) Someone asks in the message board if they should buy this film. I say do it. Leave it on your shelf and only utilize it as a weapon to narcotize children, the elderly, or lingering house guests.<br /><br />P.S. to Murphy's character...when someone asks if you were "in the sh**" you can say yes, because your war scenes appear to have been shot at a landfill. | negative |
I saw this movie while it was under limited release, mainly for the novelty of seeing Pierce Brosnan with a moustache, but it turned out to be one of the funniest movies I have seen all year. It starts out almost as a thriller, but steadily progresses into a hilarious piece of work full of one-liners and great comedic energy between Pierce Brosnan and Greg Kinnear. Also, while I say this movie is a comedy, it doesn't forget it has a heart at times and can be very touching when it needs to be. When I went into the theater I didn't know what to expect much more than a moustache, but what I got was one of the best movies I have seen in a long time. Leaving the theater I felt very fulfilled from the film and plan to see it again in wide release. I recommend it to anyone who appreciates a good comedy with a well-written script and a big moustache. | positive |
Personally, I enjoyed Cut thouroughly. It was the first time I've seen a theatrically release Australian slasher flick. A genre normally restricted to the mainstream hollywood films.<br /><br />With all the usual cooky comedies and dramas coming out of Australia I loved being able to see a homegrown horror movie that wasn't a rip off of anything. I didn't even think it was really a spoof of other movies. It was a supernaturally theme horror like Nightmare on Elm Street, not Scream or I know What You Did Last Summer and therefore there was more of a suspension of disbelief. I think it's about time Australian films tried to get more into the mainstream genres.<br /><br />Cut was original, scary enough and ultimately just a bit of fun. I'd give it seven out of ten and wouldn't treat it as anything serious. It did what I expected it to do, entertain and scare me enough times to be satisfying. I enjoyed it. | positive |
This movie truly captures the feeling of freedom.......and what the freedom of your own integrity is worth....in the most delightful, light-hearted way. Not a serious, but hilarious adventure.<br /><br />The story mirrors life. We don't always get what we want right away but we find out we get what we need to to understand why we didn't get what we wanted....which results in us getting more than we thought we would get! You will get this once you see the movie. <br /><br />And this movie is truly about finding love and knowing one has found it and that it totally changed one's life.<br /><br />It is one of my all time favorites......not easy to find but worth the hunt.........I guarantee you will watch it more than once! | positive |
OK, so maybe it's because I'm from the North East of Scotland and I talk just like the guys in this film, but I found this great fun. Cheap fun to be sure, but plenty of effort has gone into making the film look great and the actors certainly give it all. I was actually quite effected when they died. In particulare when the Captain finally fell. The script? Well it;s a game of 2 halfs. The opening half of the film is well written and sharp. The last half hour is not so great, with many questions left unanswered. This will doubtless annoy others as it annoyed me. But nevertheless, good fun and a very smart first feature from Sturton. | positive |
Really started the 80s trend of disgusting violence masquerading as a "horror film". I was the target audience for this repellent piece of trash and I was disgusted then as now.<br /><br />Oh, where do we start. Let's see, the setup: You can bring people back to live IF they died a violent death. So that laughably weak premise is the excuse to butcher people in horrible ways, because, well, that's needed to bring them back to life! This might have worked if played over the top for black laughs a la Re-Animator or something. But no, it's played straight. There is a whole terrified family in a wagon that gets hunted down, one of the few scenes at least where their demise is off screen. However, just about everything else is on screen. There is actually a scene where a young girl walking along is beaten and killed by zombie townspeople, who are all filming it and grinning with several cameras. Then, there is a closeup of her face as the filmmakers lovingly--and time consumingly--reveal in time-lapse photography her beaten face being carved down to a skull and rebuilt to look "normal" again. This done, of course, by a slumming Jack Albertson as the mortician behind it all. He likes to drive around in a ambulance/hearse playing old Tommy Dorcey tunes, I guess that is supposed to be cute.<br /><br />In the end, of course, even the Sheriff is undead and the doctor offers kindly to fix his rotting hands. Not clear why the Sheriff is not out with the other townspeople killing children with glee and slicing their faces off, sticking needles in burn-victims eyes, etc.<br /><br />I wonder, really wonder, what people see in a geek show like this to give it any kind of rating at all. It's not scary, the twists are laughable, and overall it's kind of sick. It's not even well enough done to "see it on a dare" or enjoy on a level you might watch a bad HG Lewis film. It's just God-awful trash, made for people who get off on this type of pointless gore, and made by people slumming for a paycheck.<br /><br />Sad that Albertson was even involved. | negative |
'Grey Gardens'(1975) is the Maysles' brothers bizarre documentary of Jackie Bouvier Kennedy Onassis'eccentric aunt and first cousin who live like pigs in a run down 28 room mansion on East Hampton, Long Island.'Big Edie' Bouvier Beale,78,witty and dry and her daughter, 'Little Edie' Beale,56,(emotionally about 13) a still beautiful woman who once had a promising future,live in isolation from the rest of the world except for their many cats and raccoons in the attic. They amuse themselves by bickering all day, listening to the radio or singing to each other(They dont even own a television) Their fall from society is amazing to learn of and the viewer is drawn to these two very special, although obviously, dysfunctional people.One of the better documentaries ever made and still a cult classic today. | positive |
This is some of the worst acting I have ever seen. I love Almereyda's Nadja, but this is just absolute dreck. Aside from a few moments of interesting cinematography and music this film is just nonstop bad acting and dumb material. Jared Harris is particularly bad, but no one in this is remotely good. The plot is a joke, but not the haha kind. I don't even know if you can forgive movies that are this bad. Please erase the last hour and a half of my life. How did this director make Nadja and Another Girl Another Planet? | negative |
Oh man, this s-u-c-k-e-d sucked.... I couldn't even get any camp value out of this......and I sat through the whole thing on Showtime.... Don't bother waiting around for the 'naked' scenes either.....it's too late and only plastic Jenna Jameson is involved.. Shows how much discretionary cash must be laying around Hollywood just to get your name on the closing credits.. I guess Showtime had to throw something in at 1am... Next time I think I'd even rather be watching ESPN loop around every 30 minutes... | negative |
This film was shot on location in Gerard Gardens in Liverpool, and was the UK's answer to films such as 'Blackboard Jungle'. The film stands the test of time quite well, with all the moral stories still (or even more) relevant today. The film feature some fine performance from some notable British actors such as David McCallum, Stanley Baker, Peter Cushing and Anne Heywood. Baker plays a Liverpool cop assigned to juvenile liaison duties, with the premise that if you catch the kids at an early age, they will end up being responsible adults.<br /><br />Notable cameos in the film include Freddie Starr (Fred Fowell) and Melvyn Hayes (Gloria). Tsai Chin and Michael Chow play brother and sister (they are real life brother and sister) who are caught up in an arsonists web. Tsai Chin is still acting and can be seen in the latest Nicole Kidman film 'The Interpretor'.<br /><br />Violent Playground features a gun siege in a school, so is unlikely to be shown on TV following similar events in Scotland / Russia.<br /><br />I lived in Gerard Gardens where the film was shot (though was not born at the time), and have fond memories of the area. I have recently completed a documentary on Gerard Gardens which includes extracts from 'Violent Playground', and a small UK film 'Coast to Coast' which stars Lenny Henry and Pete Postlewaite. The tenements were demolished in 1987 and the films go some way in keeping the memory alive.<br /><br />There were some complaints from the residents when the film was released, as the film portrayed the area in a bad light. Time has helped heal those wounds.<br /><br />A little gem of a film, I would recommend you seek this out | positive |
I rarely even bother to watch comedic movies or television these days. They're insipid, vulgar, and, most importantly, not funny. This one could be seen as a refreshing blast from the past. It's worth watching, and I don't believe it would be dated in any significant way. Classic humor is classic humor, and good writing is good writing regardless of the era in which created.<br /><br />I would love to see this film again; it came to mind after having seen the somewhat similar "Summer School" on television recently. Like that slightly newer film, "Meatballs" is funny without being cruel, overly sexual or indulging in bathroom humor. The key, of course, is how the adult character makes such a difference in the life of the teen character -- maybe even a virtually life-saving change -- and how they both grow up in the space of a summer. | positive |
I watched this on cable because I was a big Leelee fan. Big mistake. What a horrible film. You don't care one bit for any of the characters in the movie. Chris Klein plays a guy who is a complete jerk in the film, and steals away Josh Hartnett's longtime girlfriend. If the writer knew what they were doing, this film would have followed the proven formula, and made Hartnett an ass, and Leelee as the girlfriend trapped in a bad relationship, from which she's saved by Klein. But Hartnett is a really cool guy, who shows a lot of emotion and love for Leelee. <br /><br />You then hate leelee, because she cheats on Hartnett with Klein, who is a jerk to everyone in the town that's trying to help him and really stuck up. <br /><br />It's also really campy, and the characters do everything but run around the kitchen dancing and lip synching, and using hairbrushes and spoons and fake microphones (although they come very close). <br /><br />What a horrible horrible movie. You don't even care what happens in the end because the director never lets you care about the characters. | negative |
Now look, I won't lie to you, but I only got this movie for $3.99 from a friend because it had Danni Filth, the lead singer of the ever popular death metal band "Cradle Of Filth" in it. I expected of course violence and gore at its finest, as that is what Mr Filth can be portrayed as, amongst a plot line.<br /><br />But dear god, I was oh so wrong. This movie seriously bites, big time. Being a low budget film (haha, wait, make that ZERO BUDGET), this obviously lacks the beautiful Howard Stern orchestra musical scores and the Spielberg special effects. Nope, it's all one camera, bad angles, and bad blood scenes.<br /><br />Take for example when our star and violent fiend, Mr Filth, violently kills a mugger. A grab at the throat, and blood spits out, but oh my, it looks like there's a juice packet filled with fake blood in the man's shirt.<br /><br />To you Cradle Of Filth fans: You'll hear two songs throughout the movie, but with the camera angles and shoddy filming, they drag the overall pleasure of the song DOWN.<br /><br />My final comment: Steer well away from it. It's blood, gore, breasts, and hey, even a shoddy story to go with it. So if you like appalling violence, near no voices (yes, there's hardly any words in this movie), then by all means, buy it. But if shoddy movies isn't your thing, then avoid it. Don't waste your money. | negative |
EXTREMITIES is the disturbing, yet riveting screen version of a play by William Mastriosimone (who adapted his own play for the screen) about a woman who is attacked in her car one night by a would-be rapist on her way home and is terrified when she realizes the man got her purse and knows where she lives. After her roommates leave for work the next day, the guy shows up at her home and attempts to rape her. The story takes a surprising twist when, at one point, the woman turns the tables on the man and is able to overpower him; but when she realizes there is no way that attempted rape can be proved and if the man is arrested, he will just get off, she decides to keep him prisoner in the house until she can get a confession out of him. Far-fetched? Maybe. Disturbing? Definitely, but there's a wonderfully claustrophobic feel about this film, especially the middle with just the woman and her attacker, that you can't help but feel completely a part of what's going on. I did not see the play on Broadway, but I would imagine a piece like this works better onstage, but that doesn't make this film any less riveting an experience. Farrah Fawcett, one of the last actresses to do the role on Broadway, was awarded the role of Marjorie in the film version and delivers a taut and deeply moving performance as the victim who refuses to be a victim. Many critics found Fawcett's performance to be one-note, but for me, Marjorie is a woman completely numbed by what she has been through and the performance works for me. James Russo, in the performance of his career, is slimy and menacing as the would-be rapist who finds Marjorie to be much more of a challenge than he assumed. Alfre Woodard and Diana Scarwid co-star as Marjorie's roommates, who come home after Marjorie has overpowered the guy and has him tied up and stuffed in their fireplace upon their arrival. And it's the arrival of the roommates that take the story to an unexpected level because they didn't see what we saw Marjorie go through and therefore, think she should call the police and let them handle the guy. Not for the faint of heart, but if you can stand it, a gripping film experience anchored by a lead performance that will surprise you. | positive |
I had heard that this film was stylish and intriguing, but I just found it annoying. It's been a while since I've seen it (and hopefully I won't find out all my memories are wrong and I'm unjustly condemning this movie), but my memory is that the filmmakers tried to portray Leopold and Loeb as victimized by an anti-gay society, and that this somehow caused their horrible crime. I totally disagree with this point of view, and think it's unfair both to homosexuals and to Bobby Franks, the real victim of the story. I can't imagine why anyone would want to claim those two as martyrs. I also thought L&L were portrayed as a bit more sophisticated than they actually were--after all, they were teenagers who lived at home. The film places them in a kind of fantasy world that seems like it should be scored by Morrissey.<br /><br />I just read an interview with one of the filmmakers that implied the film's anachronisms, such as the push-button phones that characters used, were meant "to add Brechtian distance". They certainly do that, but I happened to find it highly irksome.<br /><br />Apparently a number of people found this movie interesting, but I would have preferred a less "stylish" and more realistic examination of the part homosexuality may have played in the Leopold & Loeb case. | negative |
Andreas arrives in a strange, inhuman place, where everything seems perfect. He's given a good work, everyone is kind to him and to everyone, and he really doesn't trouble too much even in finding a beautiful girlfriend. But in this no-named city Andreas finds soon that a perfect commercials-type world is really not a paradise. Really one of the better movies i've seen this year. The attractive plot is perfectly supported by a smart direction where every single component (cool desaturated photography; cold symmetrical design; unemotional acting; slow, highly controlled camera movements) helps in building an unique weird atmosphere that will keep the audience suspended until the end. A sarcastic, ironic, bitter comedy that made me laugh ant think, as only best films are able to do. Nothing new, probably, in the analysis of the modern de-humanizer civilization, but really a smart work with great surprising ideas that will hardly be forgotten from whom had the luck to see it. Simply beautiful the amazing scene in the metro underground. | positive |
and it doesn't help rohmer's case that a few years later Syberberg came along and made a staggeringly great piece of work on the same subject (with a little help from Wagner).<br /><br />maybe this movie didn't look so paltry when it came out, without the syberberg film to compare it to, which was probably shot on an even smaller sound stage with fewer resources. I actually can't recall at the moment whether there are horses in the syberberg film. all I know is, the German version is pure magic, while this one looks like some college production documented on film for archival purposes.<br /><br />the music... la musique... isn't even credited here on IMDb... but someone based it on 'airs from the 12th-14th centuries" or something... well it isn't a great help to the film. it comes off as inauthentic and cheesy, comme le frommage mon cher!!!<br /><br />rohmer is one of those french auteurs who likes his leading men generally quite unattractive, too, and that doesn't help matters. syberberg's Parsifal was adorable, and can be seen on German television today selling some kind of special bicycle he invented. .. .<br /><br />I shudder to think what watching the syberberg on video is like. I remember that the last time I saw the film in a theater, the print was so bad that the experience was a whopping 5 hour travesty. But even then it would have to surpass what this version has to offer, I'm afraid.<br /><br />points for earnestness, for chutzpah, but... this film simply needed beau-coup more bucks. it doesn't look like a medieval manuscript it looks CHEAPO! BON MARCHE!! oh and yeah, it just ends very arbitrarily with Parsifal going to church and this cheesy passion play being interjected... blah! | negative |
Before this little black-and-whiter, the touchy topic of criminal rape never made it onto the American screen.There were lots of these topics that Hollywood and the Production Code kept hidden until the rebellious 1960's. So it's not surprising that it would take a little independent company like Ida Lupino's Filmmakers to raise the subject. The result is well-meaning but somewhat compromised, which is not surprising since director Lupino had to work with Code demands to get the movie released.<br /><br />Interestingly, Ann Walton's (Mala Powers) main problem following the assault is not how others might see her, but how she sees herself. And it's a heavy load she's carrying. Will she ever be able to relate to men again? Will they look at her as "spoiled goods" (after all, this is 1950)? Small wonder she runs away rather than face these anxieties at home and at work, even though family and friends are generally supportive. Overall, this first part is earnest and well-done. The chase is hyped to inject some action into the plot, but then this is a movie-- notice how the incurious neighbor fails to respond to the honking horn near chase's end. Had those been screams of alarm from Powers instead, the neighbor's lack of response would have raised an interesting albeit complicating issue.<br /><br />The second half is pretty much given over to the Production Code in the sentimentalized person of Rev. Ferguson (Tod Andrews). It's he (to quote a phrase) who "gives her courage to face life again". There's some effort at humanizing him-- is it Ann or her dilemma that he's most interested in. Still, his gentle and understanding presence comes across as a little too miraculous and a little too Hollywood. Fortunately, the ending avoids the usual Hollywood cop-out by emphasizing only the hope of a happy resolution for Ann rather than its certainty. <br /><br />Give Lupino a ton of credit for dealing with the topic in the first place. Given the overall results, I expect she dealt as honestly with the topic as she was allowed to. I also expect today's audiences find the treatment mildly interesting mainly because of Powers' excellent performance that brings out the purely human drama. However, the film works best now as a document of its time, and what the cultural watchdogs of that day thought was appropriate for adult viewing. | positive |
Red Rock West is one of those rare films that keeps you guessing the entire time as to what will happen next. Nicolas Cage is mistaken for a contract killer as he enters a small town trying to find work. Dennis Hopper is the bad guy and no one plays them better. Look for a brief appearance by country singing star Dwight Yoakam. This is a serious drama most of the time but there are some lighter moments. What matters is that you will enjoy this low budget but high quality effort! | positive |
Just Before Dawn really surprised me when I saw it by being far less of a gruesome horror adventure than I expected. Instead the director Jeff Lieberman conjures up a wonderfully evocative and disquieting atmosphere for great stretches of the movie, building the suspense constantly until I was really unsure about what was going to happen but wound up tight as a spring waiting for it. The lack of action in many parts gave it a very Deliverance mixed with The Texas Chainsaw Massacre kinda ambiance, and when the action really kicks in, its truly shocking and dramatic, without ever even really needing to be gory. The characters are about par for this kind of movie, though more sympathetic than some, and the bad guy memorably freaky. The photography and suspense are the real winners in this movie and they keep it from ever being dull (as has been suggested). I firmly recommend this one to serious horror fans. Don't expect gore, do expect a creepy backwoods tale with several awesome moments and a great dreamlike ambiance. | positive |
OK, I overrated it just a bit to offset at least one of those grumpy reviews. But I did enjoy it. I didn't laugh out loud, but it held my interest and pulled me along without dropping me at any point. The story built. Yeah, you knew it would have an happy ending--this genre always does. Meantime, it was quirky with sight gags you could miss, so pay attention when you watch. Stiller and Black delivered expertly yet again. Good team. They should work together more. Don't know that it will be a cult classic, but it was certainly a fun ride. Not as good as WHAT ABOUT BOB, or DIRTY ROTTEN SCOUNDRELS but what is? It is still worth going out of your way a little to get and watch this movie. | positive |
In the ever growing film genre of comic book adaptations, Blade is by far one of the best realised, and most faithful (overall) to the source material.... given that the character has almost 30 years of history in the comics since his debut as a back up figure in Marvel's Tomb of Dracula, the writer took almost ALL of the characters and plot elements from the comic's history. While changes were inevitably made, the finer points of the film steamroll right over any criticisms. Don't let any of you friends tell you different: Blade is one fine film. If it feels too "comic booky" for you Stanley Kubrick snobs out there, it's because it's supposed to. Deal with it, but don't dis it for it. | positive |
I really enjoyed the reunion a lot! I would have rated it a 10 if they had had "Hassie" and "Little Luke". There wasn't even a mention of where they are today or why they didn't participate in the reunion. They were very popular characters and I think it was a mistake not to give an explanation about their lack of appearance.<br /><br />Anyway, I was glad that TNN ran the series again! I had been looking for episodes for years and what a joy to be able to tape the whole series (I may have missed a few episodes). Jenny Hanahan | positive |
As a big Dostoyevsky fan, I had always been disappointed with Hollywood's halfhearted attempts to get into the Russian romantic aesthetic -- case in point, Yul Brynner as Dmitri Karamazov. I had thought the whole problem was a poor casting decisions, but then I saw Yul as Major Surov and changed my mind. When given an intelligent script to work with, he suddenly came alive and was as noble, sexy, and conflicted as you could ever want a Neurotic Russian Officer to be! So he was a better Dmitri as Major Surov than he was as Dmitri. But that's because writer Tabori actually gave Yul, as the Conflicted Russian Officer, the kind of Conflicted Russian Officer lines that are worthy of real literature, and that have real meaning and pathos in them. For example, a propos of folk music, he says musingly, "You hear a man crying in the dark. And if you listen carefully enough, you know what he cries for. You look surprised, Lady Ashmore. Despite what you may have heard, tractors and Marxism aren't the only things the Russian cares for. There is always time for music."<br /><br />Brilliant!! | positive |
By the end of the first hour my jaw was nestled comfortably between my feet. The movie never, and I do mean never, lets up in action. It may be mild action but it's action. Once again every member of the cast fits perfectly. The explosions were realistic, the chase scenes were feasible, and the fighting was incredible. Matt Damon will forever be Jason Bourne.<br /><br />All I really have to say is that every Bourne movie gets better and this is no exception. The action, the stakes, the plot. How they do it I will never know. I applaud the man who wrote the screen plays to every one of these movies. Because if he hadn't done such a great job with the first movie, we wouldn't have this one to talk about.<br /><br />So don't go see it in theaters, go experience it in theaters if it's still out where you live, but if not December 11th Bourne comes home to you! | positive |
It's worth boning up on the Hindu pantheon before watching this film. Three main female deities -- wise Sita, nurturing Lakshmi and Kali the Transformer -- as well as three main male deities -- grave Rama, playful Krishna and Shiva the Ender -- are all alluded to. Knowing the folklore as surely every Indian member of an audience does lends a richness to the telling of the present-day story. In fact, one folktale is enacted first on stage, as part of a lesson in spirituality, and then in the movie's "real life." "Fire" speaks out against the misogyny and homophobia in the society to which its producers are native, and it does so with a beauty that weaves the message into multiple levels of the viewer's awareness, making it a deeply satisfying presentation. This is the finest film i've seen in the past ten years; very highly recommended! | positive |
Prix de Beauté was made on the cusp of the changeover from silence to sound, which came a little later in Europe than in Hollywood. Originally conceived as a silent, it was released with a dubbed soundtrack in France, with a French actress speaking Louise Brooks' lines, but was released as a silent in Italy and other parts of Europe. I was lucky enough to see the Cineteca di Bologna's flawless new restoration of an Italian silent print at the Tribeca Film Festival. I haven't seen the talkie version yet, but I think it's safe to assume the silent version is much more satisfying, since by all reports the dubbing is poorly done (Louise Brooks is clearly speaking English, so there's no way her lips could be matched.) Also, the film is made entirely in the silent style, with few titles and little need for dialogue. Prix de Beauté tells its story visually, with exciting, imaginative camera-work. The opening is instantly kinetic, with rapidly-cut scenes of urban life and swimmers splashing at a public beach. Throughout the film there is an emphasis on visual detail, on clothing, machinery, decoration, and symbolic images such as a caged bird, a heap of torn photographs, a diamond bracelet. This is silent film technique at its pinnacle.<br /><br />Louise Brooks, of course, is responsible for saving the film from obscurity. Seeing this makes it only more heartbreaking to reflect that this was her last starring role. Lustrously beautiful, she dominates the film with her charisma and also gives a perfectly natural yet highly charged performance. Her role here, more than in the Pabst films for which she's best known, is a woman we can fully understand and sympathize with. She plays Lucienne Garnier, a typist with a possessive fiancé, who yearns to get more out of life and secretly enters a beauty contest, with immediate success. She is then torn between the excitement of her glamorous new life and her love for the man who insists she give it all up or lose him. All of the characters are drawn with nuance. The fiancé inspires pity and is not merely a brute: he loves Lucienne, but is a limited man who can't cope with her having a life apart from him or attracting the attentions of other men. Even the "other man" in the story is not the simple slimeball we first take him for, though his intentions may be just as possessive as the fiancé's.<br /><br />*************************WARNING: SPOILERS BELOW***************** <br /><br />The film has many fine set pieces, including Lucienne's triumph in the "Miss Europe" contest, shown through the comic reactions of assorted audience members, who wind up pelting the heroine with flowers; her misery as a housewife, peeling potatoes while the pendulum of the cuckoo clock marks time behind her; a nightmarish trip to a fun-fair (in the silent version, this occurs late in the film, after her marriage) at which Lucienne, crushed among the low-lifes and depressed by her husband's macho antics, decides that she can't go on with her present existence; and especially the final scene in the projection room where she views her talkie screen test. Louise Brooks may never have looked more beautiful than she does here, with the projector's beam flickering on her alabaster profile, her shoulders swathed in white fur, her face incandescent under the black helmet of hair as she watches herself singing on screen. The double shot of her exquisite corpse and her still-living image on the screen is particularly poignant: Louise Brooks' image, like Lucienne's, remains immortal despite her frustratingly aborted film career. | positive |
In the film Kongwon-do ui him it features a relatively intimate look into the meaningfulness (as well as general meaninglessness) into the lives of various Koreans; empty people seeking ways to fill themselves, enjoying the escapism of nature. From the beginning to the end of the film we observe the fallibility of the various characters; we learn of their shortcomings and their desires, the overall complexity captured within human life (and yet the overal simplicity of humanity). Although the film is slow-moving, it can be very contemplative. It does not force any ideas, but allows the ideas to come about themselves, it allows the concepts to reveal themselves.<br /><br />The film ends as well and as suddenly as it begins, and one truly understands the meaning of aloneness, that love is often an act of selfishness, and the many mistakes that we make. It is a look into everyday life, very well and beautifully done.<br /><br />If you are looking for action or for intense drama, this is not the film for you. However, if you enjoy honest, original, and meaningful films that are not forced and without glitz, this is a great film to watch. | positive |
Okay, during this past thanksgiving break, whilst having the whole family together everybody decided to go see a movie, and since Fred clause was voted majority, thats what we went and say. <br /><br />To start off the movie had so many plot holes it was pathetic. Simple explanations of why a certain event was happening was void. example; who the heck is trying to 'shut down' Santa clause? Is it some sort of corporation? A little explanation would of been lovely. <br /><br />Second: The movie tossed you flimsy characters that evoked no sympathy from you about their feelings or actions. example: the little elf named Willie and the only tall girl in the elf village. they see each other twice and then they are a couple and i could of cared less because this movie didn't make me care. <br /><br />Third: I suppose this was suppose to be a family film? Its rating was low at just PG. For a family film there were several articles of suggestive conversation. It didn't bother me, but if i were a parent i could see a problem. <br /><br />Through the whole movie Paul Giamatti looked extremely bored with his role, but honestly he was the only one worth watching in the movie. Vaughn had a few funny moments but played the same character he has for the last two movies. mouthy frat boy. (nothing against Vaughn, he's been good in other movies)<br /><br />so this movie gets a 3 out of 10 stars from me, just because somebody had to put in the effort to produce, film and release this flick. <br /><br />In my opinion i would definitely pass on this flick, or if you HAVE to see it save it for a rainy day rental. | negative |
I rarely make these comments but I felt compelled to spare others the pain I endured in watching this movie. It's so stupid and implausible both in the overall story and in the details that you simply can't suspend disbelief. The problem starts early, when you see a government researcher tooling around in a new Porsche and dining with his team in a restaraunt that looks like a castle, overlooking the Capitol Building in Washington, D.C. That kind of life on a government salary? Hah! It only gets worse. Toward the end, when the bad guy starts killing off the good guys, the latter group act so stupidly that you want them to die, in order to cleanse the gene pool. The special effects are pretty good - any producer's money can buy that - and the lead actors have been great in other films, but the screenplay and direction here are moronic. Many people have wondered whether there was some deliberate intelligence behind Paul Verhoeven's previous, facially stupid movies (Showgirls, Starship Troopers), but this movie should stop the wondering. He's just plain bad. | negative |
I've just seen The Saint Strikes Back for the first time and found it quite good. This was George Sanders's first appearance as the Saint, where he replaces Louis Hayward.<br /><br />In this one, the Saint is sent to San Francisco to investigate a shooting at a night club. With the help of his acquaintance Inspector Fernack who has come down from New York, they help a daughter of a crime boss.<br /><br />Joining Sanders in the cast are Wendy Barrie and Jonathan Hale.<br /><br />Not a bad Saint movie. Worth seeing.<br /><br />Rating: 3 stars out of 5. | positive |
"Snowball Express" from the Disney Studios isn't quite as dated as some of their output from this era. There are no hippies or hot-rodders, just dull-as-dishwater Dean Jones inheriting a ramshackle hotel/ski-resort from a deceased relative. When Jones and family pull into a sleepy Colorado town, the folks who give them directions--looking like extras from "Deliverance"--are curiously vague about the hotel (we expect it to look like a one-room shanty), but actually the accommodations are very nice. Jones' teenage daughter has a sour look on her face throughout (which doesn't prevent one of the local yahoos from leering at her), and of course clumsy pop Dean Jones is a regular stumblebum on the slopes, leading to a lot of pratfalls in the slush. Perhaps this square scenario might've benefited from some magical whimsy, for this script is a frozen stiff. * from **** | negative |
Absolutely the best thing I have ever seen on TV. It was both entertaining and informative. The reason I found this site is an attempt to find out how I can again see it.<br /><br />In the light of present understanding of history we have to sympathize with Gen. Leslie Groves who was responsible for the nuts and bolts of running the Manhattan Project. Most certainly he was not as paranoid about security as most have thought in the past. <br /><br />The casting for the real life people portrayed was outstanding. It was the first time that I noticed Sam Waterston as an actor. Except for height he looked very much like Robert Oppenheimer.<br /><br />The early scene in which Oppenheimer is leading a class of graduate students was especially intriguing to me. | positive |
Wow, what an overrated movie this turned out to be! It was supposed to be "an extremely suspenseful tale of a crazed killer holding a woman hostage and in terror in her home." Well, I doubt it terrorized audiences in the early '50s and I know it would put today's audiences asleep.<br /><br />"Sends shivers down the spine," proclaims the New York Times. No, the only shivers I get is that anyone is left on the planet who believes anything the N.Y. Times prints about anything.<br /><br />Well, it was about a deranged man who held a woman hostage for a short time in her house but the man. "Howard Wilton" (Robert Ryan) was actually harmless and friendly. In fact, this was one of the nicest roles Ryan ever played! Yes, "Wilton" was nuts but he never harmed the woman and only wanted a friend to trust.<br /><br />The film even turned boring after awhile with very little going on except a lot of yakking. <br /><br />Beware, my reader.....this sucks. | negative |
Those who know who know the Kelly "legend" & are hoping that this film would be an accurate depiction of his life may be disappointed with the creative license taken with this film (eg. Naomi Watt's character never existed in reality), but if you look at it purely as a piece of entertainment, it holds up pretty well. Ledgers performance in the title role is quite solid, taking the mantle of cinema's best Ned (not hard considering the previous Ned's include Yahoo Serious, Mick Jagger & former Carlton champion (Australian Rules Football) Bob Chitty, a great footballer but a poor actor. Some location shooting film in the area I live, Bacchus Marsh outside Melbourne as well as Clunes & Ballarat. | positive |
***SPOILERS*** Even though the movie "They Made Me A Criminal" is nowhere as good as the later John Garfield anti-hero classics like "Body & Soul" in 1947 "Force of Evil" in 1948 and his last and very underrated "He Ran All The Way" in 1951 it's the film that defined his career from that point onward until his untimely death on May 21, 1952 at the young age of 39. <br /><br />Garfiled plays the part of light Weight Champion Johnnie Bradfield and later the fugitive from the law Jack Dorney who's innocent of the murder that he's charged with, even though he's been declared officially dead. Jonnie's manager Doc Ward, Robert "Doc" Gleckler, who during a drunken victory party killed reporter Charles McGee,John Ridgely, who was going to expose to the public his fighter Johnnie Bradfield lies about him being a one women guy as well as non drinking momma's boy. Doc Gleckler smashed a bottle over McGee's head killing him as Jonnie was almost dead drunk with a number of women partying in his hotel suite. <br /><br />Doc was later killed in a car crash with Johnnie's girlfriend Goldie, Ann Sheridan, but Doc burned to a crisp and with Johnnie's watch on him was mistaken for Johnnie. Told to stay dead and buried by his lawyer Malvin ,Robert Strange, who took $9,750.00 of the $10,000.00 of Johnnie's money that he had for this great piece of advice. Malvin told Johnnie to take on a new identity and call himself from now on Jack Dorney and get the hell out of the state of New York; talking about sleazy shysters. Johnnie now Jack Dorney travels the rails from New York down to Arizona ending up at the Rancho Rafferty Date Farm where most of the film takes place.<br /><br />If it wasn't for John Garfield in the lead role as both Jonnie Bradfield & Jack Dorney the movie would have long been lost and forgotten. Garfield who was only 26 at the time brought the best out of everyone in the movie. Even the transported Dead End Kids, I guess we can call them The Arizona Kids here, acting were notches above what you would have expected from them and they came across as real and sensitive persons not a bunch of slap stick clowns like in almost all of their movies. All that due to being on the same stage, or filming location, with John Garfield. <br /><br />"They Made Me a Criminal" is a good story that has the undercover champ acting like anything but not to draw any attention on himself and end up not only behind bars but in the electric chair. In the end Jack showed just what kind of man he is by not fighting the big fight and against all the odds dramatically winning at the last moment but by going four brutal rounds to get the money for his new found family at the date farm including his girl Peggy, Gloria Dickson, to open up a gas station with it. <br /><br />Giving the European champ Gaspar Rutchek, Frank Riggi, the fight of his life and getting $2,000.00, thats $500.00 a round, for doing it Jack showed everyone who looked up to him like the "Arizona Kids" that sometimes taking a punch is far braver and more courageous then throwing one.The fact that Jack could have easily clobbered Rutched but didn't in order not to expose himself to the police, as on the loose killer Johnnie Bradfield. But instead went as far as he could taking everything that Rutchek could throw at him to help out his friends showed more then all the fights that he won in the boxing ring put together. <br /><br />I for one didn't find the ending of the movie contrived at all but fitting right in with the story. The cop Morty Phelam, Claude Rains, who came to Arizona from New York to arrest Jack had to live with for years the fact that he once sent an innocent man to the electric chair. We were told all this right at the start of the movie. Why knowing that Jack/Johnnie was innocent of the murder that he's charged with and not knowing for sure if he'll be found innocent of it in a court of law would he want to make the same terrible mistake again? I can easily see this happening in real life why not then in the movies. | positive |
<br /><br />A few years ago I bought a movie called The Cellar. I had heard that it was supposed to be a great movie, but it turned out that it was a flop and a B-Movie.<br /><br />The story is good, but there are no good effects in the movie. (Maybe they didn't have enough money for that on the budget???).<br /><br />If you choose to watch this movie be sure to watch it three times. The first, only and last time!!! | negative |
This film recreates Lindbergh's historic flight across the Atlantic while touching on episodes in his aviation career through flashbacks. Stewart was about 20 years too old to be playing the young flier, but his fine performance, particularly in the solo flight sequences, makes this a minor quibble. Waxman's rousing score is a big plus. Despite the long running time, Wilder manages to make it quite exciting and is able to sustain the drama even though the outcome is known. What a year 1957 was for Wilder: besides this, he also wrote and directed "Love in the Afternoon" and "Witness for the Prosecution." And his next two were "Some Like it Hot" and "The Apartment." What a run! | positive |
I'm glad that I saw this film after Mr.Sandler became famous.<br /><br />It is bad....bad,bad,bad. There is no plot. It's like watching a painfully dull home movie.<br /><br />I really enjoy his other films......but if you're a fan like me....stay away from this one. It may change your thoughts on Adam. You may never recover from the horror that is this film....I've had a better time watching old folks play scrabble in a home....... | negative |
Most of this film was okay, for a sequel of a sequel of a sequel...<br /><br />I was impressed by the amount of suspense there was; I HAD actually expecting that to be chucked out the window in favor of gore, gore, gore. It wasn't, but there's some pretty ridiculous deaths.<br /><br />The thing that I disliked, however, was all of the plot complications. Those could have been okay, if the scriptwriters had taken the time to explain all of them through. But what was the purpose of the secret society in the mental institution, specifically? Why were they protected from Michael's damage until a certain point? What exactly were they going to do with the baby? How did Jaime Lloyd get pregnant, for that matter? Why lock her up for 20 years for her to get pregnant, too? Why did Michael kill all his co-conspirators in the end? Why were there fetuses in the lab? The actors seemed to have "figured it all out" once they saw the fetuses.. But it was never explained to the audience.<br /><br />If you're just going to watch this film to see people get snuffed, then this'll be okay for you.. However, if you can't stand a plot being thrown at you which remains unresolved by the time the credits roll, you should go watch something else. | negative |
Sean Astin pulls off another amazing performance in "Toy Soldiers". He plays the highly intelligent prankster, Billy Tepper along with Wil Wheaton and Keith Coogan who play his best friends, Joey Trotta and Jonathan "Snuffy" Bradberry. During a regular day at Saint Anselm's school for boys, a group of dangerous terrorists take all the boys and teachers as hostages and threatens to blow up the school if the leader, Luis Cali (Andrew Divoff's), father isn't released from the American prison, but these aren't just ordinary boys that are taken hostage, most of these kids are the sons of very powerful people in America and half of them were expelled from other schools before they came to Saint Anselm's. They're mouths and actions just may get them killed. When the government is desperately trying to figure out a way to help, Billy, Joey, Snuffy and some more boys decide to take matters into their own hands. | positive |
No Holds Barred is a movie that should in no way ever be taken seriously. It sucks hardcore as a serious movie. Look at it more in the way that you should Plan 9 From Outer Space. They are one in the same in that they are both so bad they are funny. The funny moments in No Holds Barred are usually the ones that aren't supposed to be. When Rip (played by Hulk Hogan as only he can play them) grabs the limo driver out of the front after his first meeting with Brell (Kurt Fuller) hilarity ensues and it is one part of the movie that every person should see. It might be the funniest scene ever, I swear.<br /><br />Anyway, how someone thought this movie would make money I'll never know and that person should probably be beaten into submission. I hope they at least got fired. This movie earns a 1 out of 5 on my scale and that one is just for the unintentionally funny parts. | negative |
Ecstasy (1933) (USA 1940) Starring Hedy Lamarr (as Hedy Kiesler)<br /><br />The world's first glimpse of a 19 year-old Hedy Lamarr occurs in the early moments of this 1930's treasure as she sweeps across the screen in an angelic wedding gown. This was to be the start of a legendary career. This was our glorious introduction to the most beautiful woman ever to grace the silver screen.<br /><br />It is Eva's (Lamarr) wedding night and her older husband seems uninterested in her romantic advances. She retreats to the lonely bed and, in a beautiful scene, she fiddles with her wedding ring as the realization of her marital mistake overcomes her. The husband seems more interested in neatness and order than he does in love. Gustav Machaty uses gorgeous camera angles and pristine shot framing to capture Lamarr's considerable talent and beauty. With no words spoken in the early part of the film, she is able to grasp our sympathy, our hearts and our support. It is that combination that prepared the 1930's audiences for what they were about to see as the film unfolded. 'Ecstasy' was considered shocking for its time... Some thought it to be scandalous.<br /><br />She returns home to her father's estate and files for divorce. The next day, she wakes with a complete sense of freedom and happiness. She just has to go outside and feel the freedom of the countryside and fresh air. Eva goes for a horseback ride and happens across a beautiful lake. And in one of the most famous scenes in film history, Hedy Lamarr became the first person to ever appear nude in a major film. Her frolic in the woods and her skinny-dipping adventure in the lake were legendarily scandalous. But the audiences couldn't stay away. As with many of today's movies, the controversy made it a must-see film.<br /><br />Eva's mischievous adventure introduces her to a handsome young man who helps her find her horse, who had run off with her clothes. After an awkward meeting, they eventually fall for each other. Their first romantic rendezvous was almost as controversial as the nude scene, with its blatant waves of eroticism. However, Machaty does beautiful work in these romantic moments. Machaty creates one delightful moment, when Eva literally seems to sink into her new lover, using a gorgeous early camera trick.<br /><br />It cannot be overstated how brave this performance was on Lamarr's part. Many might have presumed it was career suicide. Instead, it gained her worldwide fame and caught the eye Louis B Mayer, who signed her to a contract with MGM. There are some truly erotic moments in this film, even by today's raunchy standards. It is impossible to imagine how they were received in the 1930's. Again, Machaty was very clever with his imagery, leaving a lot to the imagination. But we all understand very well what we are seeing and it is supremely well done.<br /><br />The meeting of Eva's former husband and her current lover is perhaps inevitable. However, the consequences of that meeting are not. The film takes a few unexpected turns in its final act and it all makes for a great story and a lovely debut on the grand stage of movie stardom for Hedy Lamarr.<br /><br />I highly recommend this once controversial, now tame film and urge you to seek it out in its restored form on DVD. It is easily worthwhile, if only for the pleasure of seeing Hedy Lamarr. But the story is compelling too and the direction is ahead of its time. 'Ecstasy' is a memorable early treasure.<br /><br />www.tccandler.com - TC Candler's Movie Reviews!!! | positive |
As Jack Nicholson's directorial debut, Drive, He Said displays at the least that he is a gifted director of actors. Even when the story might seem to lose its way to the audience (and to a modern audience - if they can find it, which pops up now and again on eBay - it might seem more free formed than they think), the film contains vivid, interesting characterizations. The film tells of two college kids: the protagonist is Hector (William Tepper, in what borders on a break-out performance), a star of the Leopards, the college basketball team he plays on. While he has to deal with a coach (Bruce Dern) who puts on the pressure to stay focused, and a on and off girlfriend (Karen Black) with her own emotional problems, there's Gabriel (Michael Margotta), the other kid. Gabriel, it seems, is just a little more than freaked out by the possibility to be drafted, and so in his own radical mind-state he does what he can to keep out. But as Hector tries to find the balance between his oncoming fame and those he loves, Gabriel is going over the threshold of sanity.<br /><br />Nicholson, on the technical side of things, displays a fascinating editing style that keeps things on edge during the basketball scenes, and implements darkness in many other scenes with a documentary-feel throughout. And from Tepper, Black, and even Robert Towne (writer of Chinatown, Last Detail, and Mission: Impossible among others, who rarely acts) he garners some credible acting work. Though in Tepper there is a tendency to downplay his emotions. In some scenes, for example, when he could act brilliantly sarcastic, he doesn't play it for what it's worth. From Margotta, on the other hand, there is a vibrant, twisted force in his performance, and as he descends it's frightening, but perhaps understandable from the times (and what a climax). Dern steals most of his scenes, by the way, in a performance that should have garnered him an Oscar nomination. Every line of his dialog is appropriate, true, and it's never hammed up like in recent coach movie performances. <br /><br />But what drags down the film is that elements involving the characters aren't explained to the degree one might wish more. The film was based on a novel by Jeremy Larner, who co-wrote the script with Nicholson, and I was expecting that the film to be longer than it was. It's a slim volume with a lot of information, about the times, about the sport, about the underlying feelings that were with those of the younger generation. Nicholson presents us with these characters and situations, and rarely are they shown to what's motivating them (the anti-war protesters not included, their part's understandable enough). Gabriel is perturbed by what's going on in Vietnam, but what else is there? Hector, too, is a guy who has apprehensions about being drafted for the NBA, and he still loves to play, but what's holding him back? This whole atmosphere is intriguing, how the late 60's college/basketball experience was, but that intriguing quality, which does lead to some unconventionality, is kept at a point where it can't go too further. Overall, the effect of the film as a whole is bittersweet, and somewhat memorable for its good points, and not for it's low ones. And, for sure, you can tell who's behind the lens every step of the way. B+ | positive |
I like the show, but come-on writers, get some action in it! Quit dragging it on and on. You have a great concept and it could be a whole lot more. Miles (Jenkins) is great and performs as a kid that age should act in the situation he finds himself in. Hey, get creative with the creatures, they may have telepathic capabilities or other out-worldly powers. The kid actors in the series are very good and convincing. The parents of Miles do appear to be a little too out-of-sense as to what is going on, but develop this, come on! you have a great seed here and there can be a whole new twist to next season with a lot of new characters and creatures and all kinds of neat sci-fi stuff. If they could make a series on a witch, then you should be able to make one on these creatures and kids. | positive |
The premise of the film was very promising - sort of a gay Napoleon Dynamite type of film. And to be fair, there were some funny moments and funny lines but it really wasn't very good overall. The script and dialog felt like a local sketch production, full of clichés and scenes that were predictable.<br /><br />However, there was enough that was amusing, that I stuck around to see how it finished, since there were hints that something special happens at the end. But it seems that either the film ran out of money or the writer ran out of ideas because the ending is extremely abrupt, almost skipping directly from what looked to be the key conflict in the film to the final credits.<br /><br />Overall, it was very disappointing but not completely unwatchable... | negative |
I was all ready to pan this episode, seeing that this 'Master' really doesn't have any horror films under his belt.. but this is easily the best episode of the season.<br /><br />The acting was good!! I don't know how he wrangled it, but we've got some real talent in this episode! And while you could see things coming from a mile away plot wise, at least it was entertaining and managed to keep me engaged for the full 56 mins, something that has been lacking up to this point in the series.<br /><br />I especially liked the bit at the end, not a twist per say, but just a funny little bit where he becomes, as ever, the hen-pecked hubby.<br /><br />Really good effort. Like I've said in other reviews- these are not true masters doing a lot of these episodes.. but they may someday end up being masters in the future. | positive |
I totally agree that "Nothing" is a fantastic film! I've not laughed so much when watching a film for ages! and David Hewlett and Andrew Miller are fantastic in this! they really work well together! This film may not appeal to some people (I can't really say why without spoiling it!) but each to their own! I loved it and highly recommend it!<br /><br />The directing is great and some of the shots are very clever. It looks as though they may have had a lot of fun when filming it!<br /><br />Although there are really only main 2 characters in the film and not an awful lot of props the actors manage to pull it off and make the film enjoyable to watch. | positive |
My wife and I watched this abortion from its beginning. I hated it immediately but my wife became hooked on it for a couple of years.For me it just got worse and worse and the characters were all without question dreary and depressing without any redeeming features. My wife then grew tired of it and we stopped watching altogether. Occasionally I catch a clip of it or pass through it when channel surfing.There is always someone yelling at someone else or doing something dreadful. There never seems to be any lighter moments or happiness of any kind. That was always my main gripe with it when we first watched it- no humour. The writers seem to have no idea about drama - they seem to think conflict IS drama, and of course that is only one element of it. Light and shade is sorely needed and actors who can bring something to it. I am sure the actors in Eastenders are competent but they have nothing to work with. It must be the most depressing acting job in showbiz. I fail to understand why the British public watch it and love it. What on earth does it say about our psyche? I have heard it said that it is "just like real life"-its nothing like my life or anyone's life I know, otherwise we would be flinging ourselves from high buildings or under public transport. The themes it tackles are far from family viewing but still are shown pre-watershed. I love series like Breaking Bad or The Wire but I would not expect to see them at 7.30 or 8.00 in the evening. The programme is trash writ large and should be avoided at all cost. | negative |
I saw this movie so long ago, but it remains in my memory as the saddest movie ever. I cried non stop. My mother will not ever watch this movie again because its almost painful to watch. Anyway, apart from that the story isn't exactly complex...Ann Margaret is dying and has to give away her 10(?) children. As if that isn't bad enough, it is during the depression and she has to break up the close siblings one by one. I guess this was very sad to me because I too am from a very large close knit family and could identify with each child's pain of leaving their mother and siblings.<br /><br />Maybe I am a masochist but I would like to see this movie again because it was well done and the end, surprisingly, is slightly happy (so at least we could smile and sob simultaneously). It should come on TV sometime so I can see it again. | positive |
Six stars for Paul Newman's portrayal of General Groves, negative four for the inclusion of a highly fictionalized event where the truth is well documented. Michael Merriman did not really exist. His character--or at least his fate--is based loosely on that of Louis Slotin, a Canadian physicist who did not come to Los Alamos until after the war. He conducted his lethal "tail of the dragon" experiment in May 1946. This is a critical point. The effects of hard radiation on the human body were not known until they were observed in the victims of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki blasts. Had anyone died of radiation poisoning at Los Alamos before the Trinity test, it's very possible that the scientists would have abruptly stopped their work, and history would have been changed. Whether for the better or the worse we can only speculate. Someone should ask the producers and the director whether they added Merriman's character for dramatic effect or to deliver an anti-nuclear message. For a more even-handed and accurate treatment of events at Los Alamos during the Manhattan Project, see the TV movie, "Day One," or better yet, read the Peter Wyden book on which it is based. | negative |
I would have given this movie a 1, but I laughed so hard, so many times, that I had to give it a little credit, in the off off off off chance the film was Supposed to be funny. A movie so bad you'll think chimps wrote it. You'll wish chimps had written it. Dialogue so canned that only it and the cockroaches will survive the coming nuclear holocaust. The movie Exaggerates its awfulness by intersplicing scenes from the Original Carrie (a really good film) into scenes from this one. Like intersplicing scenes from Taxi Driver into Baby Geniuses. Do not rent it alone, as you will NOT enjoy the experience. You will need someone next to you to confirm the badness of what you are viewing. Worst actress of the Millenium goes to poor poor Amy Irving as the stone-faced, monotone, disastrously wooden school counselor. Worst movie of the year so far (see also _Arlington Road_). --FRINK-3 | negative |
I have fond memories of watching this when it came out. It's one of those films that you know is rubbish, even when you're a kid, but at that age you overlook the ludicrous acting, special effects and plot (so there's a race of big-busted nymphets living underground, huh?) and just enjoy the campy monsters for all they're worth. | positive |
It's been quite some time since I've watched this LOTR. I am currently hunting for a copy to purchase. Bakshi's work is quite true to the original work. The visuals are engrosing and sometimes haunting.<br /><br />Drawbacks? Occasionally, the movie is confusing or muddled. There are one or two times where the storyline slows to a crawl. But, overall -- buy this movie. It's great for kids, adults and collectors. | positive |
In France, it's considered polite from French critics to genuflect to the apparently cohesive chain of films Brian De Palma left behind him. However, a good proportion of his films are marred by bombastic effects "Carrie" (1976), "the Fury" (1978) "Scarface" (1983) without mentioning his borrowings from Hitchcock. Here, in "Dressed to Kill", it's impossible not to think of "Vertigo" (1958) for the long sequence in the museum while the key moment in the lift makes inevitably think of the shower anthology sequence in "Psycho" (1960). About our involved film, I don't want to revive the old debate: does De Palma rip off Hitchcock? Instead, i would tend to be generous and to classify "Dressed to Kill" in the category of De Palma's winners alongside "Sisters" (1973) and "Obssession" (1976). With however some reservations and they're the ones I previously enumerated which fuel the bickering between De Palma's rabid fans and his detractors.<br /><br />If there's one sure thing in "Dressed to Kill" which can generate general agreement among film-lovers, it's De Palma's virtuosity in directing. He wields his camera just like a filmmaker expert is supposed to do. His sophisticated camera work brilliantly fuels the suspense which entails a rise of the tension and a discomforting aura. The audience is easily glued in front of the screen. This is helped by the use of several long silent sequences during which everything depends on looks and gestures. By the way, in "Psycho", there were also long silent, suspenseful parts...<br /><br />But the main drawback in De Palma's 1980 vintage is that the quality of the plot can't be found wanting and appears to be a rehash of many formulaic, corny ingredients pertaining to an incalculable number of murder stories. The prostitute is the sole witness of the crime. Then, she's suspected by the police and has to act on her own (with a little help from the victim's son from the scene in the subway onwards)) to track down the murderer and to prove her innocence. Apart from the fact that De Palma uses a type of character who for once isn't demeaned at all, it's a menu which smells the reheated. And the filmmaker ends his film on a sequence that echoes to the opening one. Yes, it's superbly filmed but when one discovers its real function, one figures: "it's almost gratuitous filler". Perhaps De Palma wanted to stretch his film beyond one hour and a half when at this time the viewer knows (and even before) who the killer is.<br /><br />The two central mainsprings in De Palma's set of themes articulate hinges on manipulation and voyeurism. The latter theme is well present in "Dressed to Kill" from the first scene onwards which makes the film almost look like a soft porn movie. And the filmmaker isn't afraid to film his main actress and wife Nancy Allen in her underwear. I find his approach about this theme rather doubtful. But maybe the first sequence was conceived to be a mirror of the viewer and De Palma wanted to stir his peeping tom side.<br /><br />I don't want to demean at all De Palma's work. His prestigious work in directing which entails a communicative treat to film redeems the global weakness of the story and its doubtful aspects. Twenty six years after, the controversy he aroused amid movie-goers isn't ready to subside. | positive |
My, my, my: Peter Cushing and Donald Pleasance must have been desperate for work to have lent their talents to this turkey. A horribly muddled story about satanism in modern day Greece, Land Of The Minotaur (aka The Devil's Men) is a misfire on more-or-less every level imaginable. It has precious few scares (always a slight flaw for a "horror" movie, don't you think?); weak performances; countless scenes where characters foolishly wander off alone or turn down the opportunity to remain in the safety of a group; and some rather irritating editing techniques which add nothing whatsoever to the proceedings. I got prematurely excited at the prospect of Cushing and Pleasance working together 17 years after The Flesh And The Fiends - but this film isn't worth getting remotely excited about; it's a huge let-down and rather an embarrassment for its much worthier leads.<br /><br />In a remote region of Greece, outsiders such as tourists and archaeologists keep going missing, and local priest Father Roche (Donald Pleasance) suspects that something sinister is afoot. He writes to his friend, New York private eye Milo Kaye (Costas Skouras), asking him to fly out to Greece to help him get to the bottom of the mystery. In the meantime, three more visitors - Beth (Vanna Reville), Ian (Nikos Verlekis) and Tom (Robert Behling), who are all personal friends of Father Roche - go missing while snooping around nearby Greek ruins. Milo eventually arrives in Greece, but is initially dubious about Father Roche's beliefs that the missing people have been snatched for satanic sacrifices. Milo and Father Roche are also joined by Laurie (Luan Peters), the girlfriend of missing man Tom. Together, they uncover the activities of a Minoan devil-worshipping cult headed by creepy Carpathian exile Baron Corofax (Peter Cushing). These crazed cultists have been busily sacrificing their victims to a statue of the minotaur. Furthermore, they seemingly cannot be killed by normal means, so Father Roche has to use a variety of religious artifacts in his fight against them.<br /><br />Land Of The Minotaur should have been much better than it actually is. The plot is so wacky and improbable that it has all the hallmarks of an enjoyably goofy cult/camp favourite. But the handling is just awful. Director Costas Carayiannis has no idea how to link the narrative together cohesively, so the whole thing progresses like it was being made up on a day-to-day basis. He also has no idea how to coax convincing performances from his cast, so they are left to embarrass themselves in either dreadfully hammy (Pleasance, Cushing) or dreadfully amateurish (Skouras, Peters) performances. What's worse is that the narrative makes no sense. Why would Father Roche seek help from a private eye who is utterly flippant about his beliefs? How does Roche know that the sacrifices only occur during a full moon? How can the minotaur statue speak? Why is one one of the sacrificial victims instructed during a vision to stab Father Roche, only to herself be stabbed a few scenes later before getting a chance to carry it out? And - most baffling of all - why does Father Roche drag Milo halfway around the world to help him when all he needs is a crucifix and and some holy water to dispose of the bad guys? These questions - and more - will pop into your mind during Land Of The Minotaur.... but, alas, there are no answers to be had. Frustrating, dumb and disappointing! | negative |
Despite having 6 different directors, this fantasy hangs together remarkably well.<br /><br />It was filmed in England (nowhere near Morocco) in studios and on a few beaches. At the outbreak of war, everything was moved to America and some scenes were filmed in the Grand Canyon.<br /><br />Notable for having one of the corniest lyrics in a song - "I want to be a bandit, can't you understand it". It remains a favourite of many people. | positive |
HOLLOW MAN is one of the better horror films of the past decade. The sub-plot is original and the main plot is even better. The special effects are brilliant and possibly the best I have ever seen in a horror film. Kevin Bacon proves again that he can handle any role that comes his way.<br /><br />Claude Rains shocked the world with THE INVISIBLE MAN in 1933, well now, Kevin Bacon has shocked *us* with HOLLOW MAN. One of the most thrilling horror films ever. The action is intense and the chills are true. You may actually find yourself jumping if you are watching it in the dark on a stormy night. The supporting cast includes Elizabeth Shue, Josh Brolin, Kim Dickens, Joey Slotnick, Greg Grunberg, and Mary Randle. All of whom do an exceptional job. <br /><br />---SPOILERS---<br /><br />Dr. Sebastian Caine (Kevin Bacon) and his team have discovered the secret to making someone invisible. After animal testings, they move on to human testing. But someone has to be the subject. Volenteering, Caine is turned invisible. But when his team is unable to bring back into visibility, Caine is driven mad by his condition as he seeks his revenge...*end spoilers*<br /><br />The film has created memorable shock sequences and is destined to become a classic well into the next century. Becoming the basis for a spoof joke in SCARY MOVIE 2, this film grabs you by the throat and never lets go. The first 45 minutes or so are slow, developing the characters and showing how their experiments work. The second half is exciting and appealing to most action and horror fans. Think of DEEP BLUE SEA. Then change the sharks into an crazy invisible man. And then change the water into fire and explosions. A rehashing of a killer shark movie. Interesting... HOLLOW MAN gets 5/5. | positive |
does anybody know why this movie is called the couch trip? i was just watching it and am still not sure why this title was picked the movie was very funny and its probably my favorite Dan Aykroyd performance it even beats out his Ghostbusters performance i had never heard of the movie before i seen it in a sears store i read the back and thought it sounded good so i bought and when i finally got a chance to watch it, i thought it was better than what i had originally expected. this movie rates as good as animal house and national lampoon's vacation in my mind i wish comedies that have come out lately were written as well as this one was nothing sad happens in it and the bad stuff that does happen are also funny parts if anyone else feels this way and would like to read a comedy script for a movie that doesn't have a sad situation in it email me at killer2511@hotmail.com | positive |
The first look on the cover of this picture, it looks like a good rock n roll movie. But don't let the cover fool you, or the fact that Alice Cooper and Blondie is in it. The storyline is just horrible, and so is the acting. Plain and simple: BAD<br /><br />It's not a movie about a roadie, its just a thin love story, so awful that you see right through it. The only good thing about this movie, is the soundtrack.Some good songs, and that is why I give 2 out of 10. If it wasn't for the music, it would of been 0 out of 10. Meat Loaf is a horrible actor(at least he was in 1980), and the girl who plays the groupie isn't even good looking! This movie was a huge disappointment for me, because it makes a lot of good promises. | negative |
I went to see this film because it was recommended to my wife and she wanted to go.<br /><br />We were both trying to look at our watches well before the film ended, in order to see how much more we had to endure. Two hours and six minutes long, it is. It's divided roughly equally between battle scenes (about a dozen of them, all more or less interchangeable), and plot development.<br /><br />One would have thought that with the subject being the son of a minor tribal chief who conquers half the world, plotting would have been relatively easy. There's a fair bit of raw material there from which to make a pretty good story. However the writers fluffed it completely. We get no real history. We get instead a Hollywood version of history.<br /><br />What sustains young Temudjin through his long -- almost endless, actually, or so they seem to the viewer -- tribulations? Why, the love of a good woman, of course.<br /><br />How does he get out of prison? Well, an old monk, who recognizes his innate goodness and greatness, sets out across the continent to take to this good woman a talisman that symbolises Temudjin's love for her, dropping dead just close enough to her for her to find him as he lies there, talisman in his hand. And of course she then goes and, having (inexplicably) become rich and powerful, rescues him.<br /><br />How does he escape from the shackles? Well, he goes off to the shrine of the great wolf-god Tengri (or some such name) and Tengri sets him free by magic. Yeah, right.<br /><br />Why does he want to become ruler of the Mongols? The wolf-god again, apparently. Off goes Temudjin to ask for guidance, and -- surprise! surprise! -- he gets it. "Laws," he says to himself. "What the Mongols need are laws. Good, simple ones." Golly, it was impressive.<br /><br />And then finally, how does he win the decisive battle against his rival's more powerful forces? Better tactics, certainly, but also through the aid of the good old wolf-god again, who sends a storm at the height of the battle. All the troops cower as the thunder rolls and the lightning flashes (Mongols are scared of thunder, you see) -- but not our Temudjin. The troops, completely wowed by his bravery, acclaim him king! <br /><br />I don't know what induces people to keep producing this kind of garbage. The funny thing is it's interspersed with all sorts of gritty realism: lots of slurping of milk, dirt and violence. It's as if the producers of this movie wanted to get the trivial things right so that viewers wouldn't notice how infantile some of the big stuff is.<br /><br />There's heaps of violence in graphic close-up: slashings, impalings, spouts of blood, sprays of blood, clouds of blood -- the blood guys had a great time, actually. Despite the realism, it's impossible to take seriously.<br /><br />I must mention the ludicrous CGI final battle scene. How anyone can think these things look realistic is beyond me. They don't. Oh, and it's all shot in the standard Hollywood style -- breathtaking panoramas for the spectacular scenery, and the super-close-up Stedicam stuff for the battle scenes. And the standard Dolby super-sound-effects of whumps and thumps and the constant low-frequency hum to sustain tension.<br /><br />Tedious.<br /><br />Avoid. | negative |
*some spoilers*<br /><br />I was pleasantly surprised to find the harsh criticisms (acting, dated dialogue, unclear storyline) unfounded. Belafonte is great as a Brandoesque, menacing, swearing spirit who must earn his wings but is realistically ill-equipped from his past life to do so. He learns too late how empty his hustling, materialistic life was without love. Mostel is likewise great as an anguished man with his dying wife Fanny. In spite of his prayers for a miracle, his bitterness prevents him from accepting (or believing) in one. The two social worlds the characters represent alternately collide and complement the other, the result being hilarious and touchingly sad.<br /><br />The perplexing ending is actually quite consistent with the rest of the film. After looking everywhere for Belafonte, Mostel looks up to see a falling feather, and he frantically reaches for it as if he's finally willing to believe in angels and miracles. But Belafonte wasn't allowed to finish his miracle (either to restore Fanny's health or Mostel's faith), so he never got his wings. The feather floats tauntingly out of Mostel's grasp, a metaphor for both men's live: it's too late and you don't get a second chance. Like "It's a Wonderful life," this movie is magical, wonderful, funny, but terribly tragic. | positive |
This was the first of Panahi's films that I have seen, I saw it at Melbourne film festival. I was totally absorbed by the different characters that he creates and how differently they react and behave compared to Aussie kids and yet on other levels how similarly. I think perhaps if more people could see movies like this, they could see people as individuals and avoid racism that can often be fueled by the fear of the unknown. There are the obvious large political differences between Oz culture and Iranian culture, but I found the more subtle differences between the characters, that this film fleshes out so successfully on screen, extremely fascinating. There are idiosyncrasies in the characters that seem to me, so unique. I found it made the characters compelling viewing. | positive |
German nut case Jörg Buttgereit apparently has fans - but I don't know why, and I'm Definitely not one of them! The only Buttgereit film I'd seen previously was Nekromantik and I hated every minute of it, but - shockingly - this film is worse! Der Todesking is pointless in the same way as Nekromantik, but it's a worse film because it's boring in a way that few movies have ever managed (it's not far off The Blair Witch Project, seriously). Some people say that this film is 'sick' and 'shocking', but it really isn't. The director may have been making a point about death, but only he knows what it is. How anyone could watch this film and be anything other than bored with it is completely beyond me. The film revolves around the theme of suicide, and follows the deaths of seven different people over the course of a week. Yes, that means we have a pointless and boring episode for Monday, a pointless and boring episode for Tuesday, a pointless and boring episode for Wednesday etc etc. This film manages to be even more boring than my average week! <br /><br />Der Todesking is apparently an 'art' film, although this would appear to be a reference to the way that not very much makes sense rather than a reference to the film bearing any resemblance to 'art'. Each segment of the film is meant to tell a separate story - but it doesn't! We just get a quick little sketch on suicide, and it only makes you wonder what the point is. The film feels like it should be deep, but there's a great big void where the intelligence should be and nothing there to fill it. Buttgereit uses a few evocative images; but I'm unlikely to remember any of them for more than a week or so because this film just isn't that memorable. There's a shot involving a decomposing man's body that features fairly often, but that gets old pretty quick and all you're left with is the rest of the film, which is unfortunate. If I were to struggle for good things to say about this crap, all I can think of is this; the title sounds cool. As I mentioned, Nekromantik is the only other film I've seen from this amateur director; I have copies of Schramm and Nekromantik 2, and now I'm really in no rush to watch either. Der Todesking is a dull film with no point and anyone that calls it 'art' is very much mistaken. Give it a miss. | negative |
Before I sat down and watched this film on HBO, I wasn't expecting nothing but a few laughs here and there and all together a stupid and common plot. Well, that's exactly what I got out of it, except that I was somewhat satisfied at the end of the movie. I wasn't expecting it to be, I thought it was just going to be another hour and a half that I had on my hands to waste. Well, it was, but still it was somewhat worth it. The whole plot was very stupid, cheap acting, and some of the lines were very very dumb. Otherwise than that, it still had it's funny moments, even though not many.<br /><br />All in all, if you're going to rent this, don't. Watch it on television. I gave it a 4, I was generous because it made me laugh, but yet it was still pretty stupid. | negative |
I had suspicions the movie was going to be bad. I'm a Duke's fan from way back. Have three years of the TV series on DVD. Well I was right. Took the family to see it. I really wanted to see the General jump again and some of the chase jump scenes were good. But to sum it up, the movie was a dumbed down tarted up version of the TV show.<br /><br />Jessica Simpson was pathetic. While I can honestly say that the original Daisy's outfits were just as revealing, Jessica Simpson's interpretation of Daisy was simply awful. Sorrel Booke and Denver Pyle must be rolling in their graves as well.<br /><br />Don't waste your money. If you are an old tried and true Dukes fan like me and my three kids are you will be very disappointed. | negative |
This movie is based on the game series: Final Fantasy. This one particularly is about FF7 or Final Fantasy VII. I loved the game, and I was very happy to see it be transformed into a movie, I loved the CG, that was awesome. Lot's of great fight scenes, action, and characters to make the movie memorable. If your a die-hard fan of the game you will love this movie. Personally, I'm not a die-hard fan of the games, but I am starting to become one.<br /><br />My favourite character out of Final Fantasy VII besides Cloud, would have to be Cid. I love Cid, I think he's cute. I was amazed how real the CG images were, it was amazing, it's the game in 3D. I had a great time watching the movie, and by the way, I love the aeons to, especially Bahamut, he's great! Overall I gave this movie a 9, because yes, I loved it. I thought it was a really really good movie, and yes it's on my list of movies to get. The characters were amazing, loved the CG, story was wonderful, with lot's of action and fight scenes. All-in-all, it's the best movie I've seen yet, based on a video game. | positive |
"Horrible People" ought to be the subtitle of this horrible film. If you want to see ordinary people doing ordinary things, then look out of your window at real life. But if you want to see unpleasant people doing dull things, you'll have to watch this horrible film by Mike Leigh. The characters talk at length, but never actually manage to communicate with each other. Why not? Presumably because Leigh things that all of us are as ineffective and pathetic as his actors, and he wants to film real life. But we're not, and he failed. | negative |
the IMDb guidelines state that you have to declare if your comments contain 'spoilers'. <br /><br />well, this whole film is something of a spoiler... a cautionary tale that glorifies what it cautions against, a tale of lost youth that doesn't know where it itself is going.<br /><br />i just saw this at the tribeca film festival. this film wasn't just bad, it was really bad.<br /><br />the acting is inconsistent, the characters are the mostly cliché offerings with little depth, and farnsworth's acting was very bad in particular.<br /><br />from the patronizing accents to the pointless plot line to the out of place 'graphic' elements to the repetitious dialog and scenarios... it sucked the big one. <br /><br />i think he was looking for sort of a more edgy, updated 'drugstore cowboy' with a touch of 'natural born killers' but it is no where as sensitive to the characters as the former and no where as shocking (outside of some frat-level gore) as the ladder. <br /><br />more than anything, someone needed to really A) edit the screenplay <br /><br />(there are some things in there to build on and clearly <br /><br />deals with a worthy subject... if ham-handed in it's attempt.) B) edit the film. if it was cut down to a core, it might be passable. <br /><br />i would go lower than 1 if i could... like maybe zero kelvin. | negative |
Not long enough to be feature length and not abrupt enough to a short, this thing exists for one reason, to have a lesbian three-way. There are worse reasons to exist. One sad thing is that this could have made a decent feature length movie. Misty fits snuggly into her outfit and is a very cocky girl and when people are so infatuated with a game character, like Lara Croft, that they make nude calenders of her, you know that a soft-core flick is set to explode. Unfortunately, this is pretty pathetic. Especially the painfully fake sex scene between Darian and Misty, where you can see her hand is fingering air. Watch this if you just can't get enough of Misty or Ruby, who makes a nice blonde and has zee verst jerman akcent ever. | negative |
STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning <br /><br />Marshall Lawson (Steven Seagal) is assigned to France on a reconaissance mission along with three new young strike-team recruits after disobeying a direct order from above. However the night before they're due to strike, they are all found grusomely slaughtered by a killer with seemingly inhuman strength. With the French police dallying around with their own investigation, he goes in search of those responsible himself, only to uncover a corrupt faction of the military dealing in a deadly new drug that alters a person's DNA and gives them terrifying new strength.<br /><br />Bad cover. Bad title. Bad post-production tampering. And bad trailer. Pretty bad film. But, I've got to say, I don't think Attack Force is quite his worst. I know this will make me unpopular with most of the other reviewers here (perhaps not Steveday!) but I think a lot of the criticism has stemmed from all the bad news that went before the film rather than the actual quality of it itself.<br /><br />I must say there was nowhere near as much dubbing or ropey editing as I'd been lead to believe. The dubbing there was (which made him sound like Martin Sheen with a groin problem!) was pretty awful and quite frequent but not in use for as large a segment of the film as I'd thought. The plot flowed pretty smoothly as well considering all the messing about with the original finished film called Harvester that went on. Also as another reviewer noted, the film has a nice Gothic look to it, a new touch for a Seagal film.<br /><br />The absolute killer low point, though, was the complete and total lack of any exciting action, with only a few poorly filmed fight scenes for any fun.<br /><br />I have to be honest, though, I would rather watch this again than Flight of Fury, Today You Die or Out for a Kill. ** | negative |
I took my 4 year old twins to see this movie today and I would NOT recommend it for children their age. <br /><br />This movie had many fighting scenes throughout it, which I found too violent and my children found scary. <br /><br />The subject matter was way over my kids heads and the death scene was too scary for a cartoon geared towards children.<br /><br />I was disappointed because we were all looking forward to seeing this, but it just did not cut it. If you have children under 7 years old, I would not recommend this movie.<br /><br />Also, the utter thing made me crazy during the entire movie. | negative |
Patricia Hunter: Oh, professor, do you also make a habit of collecting coffins? Dr. Lorenz: Why, yes, in a manner of speaking. I find a coffin much more comfortable than a bed. <br /><br />Interesting Bela Lugosi (Glen or Glenda, Dracula) vehicle where he plays the mad scientist. I was especially creeped out when he appeared in the bedrooms of his guests when they were sleeping.<br /><br />Luana Walters (Girls in Prison) was really appealing as a sensual reporter, Patricia Hunter< who was to be a victim, but woman-power trumps evil scientist every time.<br /><br />2'11" Angelo Rossitto and creepy Frank Moran , who liked to stoke the women's hair added to the film.<br /><br />Interesting look at a 40s horror film. | negative |
For real film people, this film is a must, since it works as a perfect little allegory for the movies themselves. Janos Rukh/Boris Karloff's science has to do with capturing and projecting light from cosmic phenomena. This light can do harm, or it can be harnessed to do good. On the one hand it blinds his mother, on the other it is used to cure blindness ("I can see!" shouts a young girl on whose eyes this light is projected). When Rukh/Karloff is himself poisoned by the uncanny power of this light, we see him actually emitting a ghostly glow on his hands and face like a badly developed negative, drawing attention to the fact that the man we are watching is a projection, an entity viewed on film (only visible, as in a movie theater, when the lights are out).<br /><br />There is a wonderful passage near the beginning where Karloff/Rukh explains his research as being informed by the fact that everything that happens is captured in light which rolls through space for millions of years, as the light from Andromeda was emitted from that Galaxy at a time when the earth was still molten rock. <br /><br />There are passages in the film when this new science is juxtaposed to older cultural vehicles: that of the writer, in the persona of Beulah Bondi/Arabella Stevens; and religion, emblemized in the sculptural figures on the local cathedral Karloff blasts with his projector/ray gun. <br /><br />One has to wonder here if this film was meant to glance at what was going on in Germany at the time, and particularly at Riefenstall's use of film the year before to promote a regime that certainly would go on to do a lot of harm:Triumph of the Will. <br /><br />Happily in the end, Mother (Violet Kemble Cooper) intervenes, reminding Janos Rukh of the first rule of science. <br /><br />If only more movies made you want to stand up in the theater and shout: "I can see!" | positive |
It's strange, while the film features full X-rated sex scenes and violent murders, it never feels as shocking as it ought to.<br /><br />A group of scientists go to an island in the Caribbean to investigate a radioactive incident. Upon their arrival, a mutated islander goes about the happy business of murdering the men and having his way with the women. Doesn't it always seem to work out that way.<br /><br />Among the sored acts we find a some lesbian encounters, a three-way with male prostitutes, assorted heterosexual couplings and the rape of an already dead body. Even though it's all fully explicit, it fails to ever shock or stir as it is meant to. As soon as the sex goes fully pornographic it just loses it's edge; the suspension of disbelief is broken and we realize we are just watching people having sex.<br /><br />There is some blood and gore with the murders, but given that this is a D'amato flick it's really tame. For a much more rounded experience watch the similar 'Erotic Nights of the Living Dead'.<br /><br />2/10 | negative |
Yes!! They finally got it down to perfection. What a great idea, a refreshing exploitation epic for Generation-X, whether they know it or not. After disasters like Sgt. Kabukiman NYPD, and getting screwed by Blockbuster, our hero, Lloyd Kaufman just decided to go for it, stop catering to distributors, and let Troma be all the Troma it can be. Lloyd would make this one the most unapologetic, outlandish and downright hilarious Troma movie yet. This time, Lloyd takes Shakespeare's love story, turns it inside out, Tromatizes it, and adds that long, lost, entertainment value it was always lacking. Entertainment value, such as Lemmy Kilmister (the narrator), Debbie Rochon (the cook), Joe Fleishaker (the fat guy), and of course, brutal mutilations and toilet humor. Tromeo And Juliet is the definitive edition of a rather lackluster story, and the crown jewel of the Troma universe.<br /><br />Years ago, in Tromaville, N.J. business partners, Monty Que and Cap Capulet start a film company called Silky Films, which would produce supposedly tasteful, soft core films. Monty considers Cap his friend, but Cap is out to screw the poor sucker out of his share of the company. On paper, and in books, it appears that Monty gave away his life's work for free. Fast forward to mid-90's Manhattan, we have two families who are extremely displeased with one another, it's to the point that they're just looking for a reason to take a limb, or preferably, a life. Monty has a son, Tromeo, nephew, Benny, they, with their friend, Murray Martini, who's just a little too excited about all the carnage, wage war on the incestuous Capulets, except Monty, he's too drunk to care. Like in the original, there is a confusing situation, leading to Tromeo falling for Cap's daughter, who he has never met, or never even knew about. Unfortunately, Cap is a sadistic pervert, who, not unlike Tromeo's dad, has a thing for the bottle, and this would of course, lead to daddy's little chenshaw melon being physically, and emotionally abused, and molested, and kept in a Plexiglas cage, off and on, depending on how foul of a mood Cap is in. Cap is also forcing his vegetarian daughter to marry London Arbuckle, a billionaire butcher, who, would make just about anyone uneasy, with or without the raisin loaf. With all these inconveniences, the young lovers feel that eloping would be the best decision, but how will this effect the big feud? It might, or might not, go a little something like the original, but figuring out how this one ends up is just simply not going to happen, you'll never see it coming.<br /><br />"The one with Leo" is downright sleep-inducing compared to Tromeo & Juliet, but if watered-down, over-directed, big-budget, Hollywood, Garbage is what you've been programmed to go for, then by all means, go for it, but if you're in the mood for something a little more colorful, something that really packs a punch, and doesn't follow the "normal" movie pattern, and if you happen to have a rather abnormal sense of humor, then you just might not hate this movie. Tromeo And Juliet gives the finger to all that is mainstream. Full-blast exploitation with as much mean-spirited humor as anything from a young John Waters. Along with some badass acting, Tromeo And Juliet flaunts a thunderous score which includes the legendary Motorhead, and not to mention, much input from James Gunn, that really brought this one together. For more awesomeness from James Gunn, check out Lollilove, and for more excellence from Lloyd Kaufman, check out his next vision, Terror Firmer. Tromeo And Juliet is jaw-droppingly priceless Exploitation for the 90's brought to us by the one, and only, king of the B-movies. Thank's, Lloyd. 10/10 | positive |
I only saw this recently but had been aware of it for a number of years and have always been intrigued by its title. It now belongs to me as one of my very favourite films. It is hard to describe the incredible subject matter the Maysles discovered but everything in it works wonderfully. It has so many memorable images and moments where you feel you are encroaching on a very private world. I fell in love with this film and with the characters in it. It is as though the filmmakers have cast a spell of the audience and drawn us into the strange world of the eccentric Beales, a true aristocratic family. It has a tangible atmosphere and I found myself wishing I could be there away from it all, cooking my corn on the cob at my bedside table. It has an air of sadness that permeates throughout. A fall from greatness for this once esteemed family. The money had gone but their airs and graces remained, as well as their beauty. It drew me in from the first frame and long after the film finished I found myself wondering about their fate. Wondering that if I took a walk along East Hampton beach I might still hear Old Edie's voice in the night and see the silhouette of Little Edie dancing in the window behind the thick hanging creeper. Unforgettable. | positive |
This is the final episode we deserved. At the end of the last season, things were left in a 'life goes on' mood, which was hardly the wrap-up that this realistic series deserved. While not a happy show, this series was always one that made you think (a rare thing on television), and this is no exception. 'Is death justified by reasoning?' 'Are morals reflective of society, or is society shaped by the morals that are selected by the few in power?' 'What is a just death, and can it exist?' All of these questions, and more, are posed by the writers of this show every week, and this is their final thesis. Fine acting, great writing, wonderful camera-work, brilliant editing, clean direction. If you have seen the series and you missed this when it first ran, then get a hold on a copy somehow. If you never watched the series when it ran, then this will stand up on its own, but it may be heavy going trying to keep up with who all the characters are and what they are alluding to in their varied pasts. For those of us who were avid viewers of the series in the last two seasons, this is very satisfying viewing. | positive |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.