review stringlengths 32 13.7k | sentiment stringclasses 2 values |
|---|---|
Did I waste my time. This is very pretentious film. In the beginning you will think there's something going on but by the time some 30 minutes go by you realize nothing is happening. I waited for another 20 minutes and by then i was so frustrated that I started reading reviews on IMDb and realized that the director has wasted precious time of so many people. <br /><br />Unbelievably boring pointless film. Stay away. So many good soundtracks. I will give one point for the police inspector joke because that worked for me. I laughed for a long time but otherwise a very bad film. Stay away.1 on 10. | negative |
Most of us kids growing up in the 40's or 50's were western buffs but this was one that had escaped me until seeing on the Movies for Men Channel today. I loved the film's story, cinematography as well as the superb casting of Ben Johnson and Harry Carey Jr. in the lead roles along with the ever dependable Ward Bond. Apparently this movie was the inspiration for the later television series 'Wagon Train' which featured Bond once again as the boss of the wagon trains heading west. Johnson steals the film with his horse riding skills and it's nice to see an actor doing his own stunts like Ben does in this movie. Other notables include the lovely Joanne Dru as Denver and an early non speaking role for James Arness who later became famous for his Marshal Matt Dillon role in 'Gunsmoke.' If you like films of this genre you can't fail to like this one. | positive |
The problem with this movie is that it isn't funny, it isn't scary, it isn't dramatic, it isn't intriguing, it isn't stimulating, it isn't, it isn't exciting, it isn't even the slightest bit interesting. I saw this film recently on tape and I was glad I didn't spent any money to rent it. It's basically a poor attempt at film-making. I won't even bother to tell you the story. Story? What story? | negative |
I saw this movie a few days ago... what the hell was that?<br /><br />I like movies with Brian O'Halloran, they are funny and enjoyable. When I saw a name of this title and genre I thought great, this one could be really good... some parody for slashers or another gore movies... but.. then i read a preview and thought right it could be good anyway... but it wasn't...<br /><br />my opinion: if like movies they look little bit like documentary, with little bit of comedy try some Moore's movies or Alien autopsy, they are really about something. this one was empty. <br /><br />and put A comedy to title... no comment... really bad joke | negative |
One can only sit in utter amazement at this mess of a film and be amused at some of the raves people have bestowed upon it. The biggest problem seems to be the director's inability to make up his mind as to whether it's black comedy, farce or a combination of both. It meanders all over the place in search of direction and has some utterly embarrassing performances that might be better suited to bad sitcom. What a shame to see the talented Dianne Wiest's comic talents squandered and the ever annoying Jane Birkin is so over the top she's more bothersome than usual.<br /><br />Perhaps a lot of the positive criticism is due to the "quirky French" nature of the film - therefore, it's labeled "smart" or "genius." It's neither. Instead it's bad tripe that leaves a rather rancid after-taste. Merchant-Ivory should stick to the serious stuff as they certainly have no comprehension of comedy. | negative |
This movie was boring. Very much like Underworld, only even less interesting. It's not much of a werewolf movie and no where near a horror film. The lead couple were boring. I totally didn't care about Vivian and Aiden. And there was so little character development that I didn't care about any character in the film. The plot was paper thin. The transformations were basically nil. I did like the wolves themselves, might as well have have done a wolf documentary, I would have liked that better. I wouldn't recommend this movie. I didn't find it fun or interesting. It just drags and everyone in it is a boring drag. This movie could win an award for how not to make a werewolf film. | negative |
When I read the synopsis - 3 people lost in the wild battling against a huge crocodile - I wasn't exactly drawn in. It sounded like the typical yawn-movie horror formula of a bunch of people stalked by a monster - except in this case there are only three of them, so we wouldn't even get the macabre 'joy' of watching them get picked off one by one.<br /><br />However, I watched it (couldn't sleep; nothing else to do) and it turned out to be much better than expected. The acting is great, the atmosphere tense and you really get that rare sense of a low budget winner.<br /><br />Horror as it should be done. First-rate film-making. It's not perfect but it's well worth seeing. I give it a 7. | positive |
Brutal, emotionless Michael Myers stabs his sister to death at age six on Halloween night in 1963; on October 30, 1978, he escapes from a mental institution and institutes a new reign of terror in his hometown of Haddonfield, Illinois. He is pursued the whole time by a psychiatrist (Donald Pleasence) who knows just how evil this young man is.<br /><br />It opens with a bang, and sets up a genuinely suspenseful and atmospheric chiller that is actually superior to the many slasher pictures it helped to inspire. It's subtle compared to the nasty bloodbaths many of those subsequent movies were; subtle, and scary. It retains the ability to make me jump even after repeated viewings. How many movies are there, really, that can continue to be frightening even after one has seen them before? Not very many.<br /><br />Pleasence is great in what was probably the definitive role of his career; Jamie Lee Curtis, in her motion picture debut, became a bona fide scream queen after acting in "Halloween" as well as a few subsequent slasher pictures, and she is an intended victim worth rooting for.<br /><br />Co-writer / director John Carpenter knows what works in this movie, making excellent use of shadows and dark skies; notice how most of the movie is set after nightfall. With this picture, he and his former collaborator Debra Hill created a franchise that has spawned seven sequels, many imitators, and an upcoming "re-imagining".<br /><br />It's very quotable - who could ever forget Dr. Loomis' (Pleasence) speech in which he describes Michael Myers to the sheriff (Charles Cyphers, a reliable repertory player in several of Carpenter's earlier works)?<br /><br />It's fantastic, and worth seeking out. This is my favorite John Carpenter movie of all time.<br /><br />It's not totally infallible - there are script holes, after all - but overall it makes a solid impact.<br /><br />9/10 | positive |
A couple of clarifying comments are in order. Herschell Gordon Lewis contributed a brief introduction to the video release of DOCTOR GORE (aka THE BODY SHOP), wherein he touched upon his collaborative efforts with J.G. "Pat" Patterson, director and star of DOCTOR GORE. Patterson concocted the "gore effects" for THE GRUESOME TWOSOME and a few other Lewis movies in the late 60s. Lewis remarks that whereas 2,000 MANIACS was a "five gallon" film (referring to the amount of stage blood required), the Lewis-Patterson productions were "fifteen gallon" pictures. Lewis does not describe DOCTOR GORE as a "fifteen gallon" film -- he's only talking about the films he & Patterson made together. Lewis has confessed (elsewhere) that his introduction to DOCTOR GORE was improvised before he'd even seen Patterson's film! So take it with a grain of salt. <br /><br />This may be an "unfinished" film, but like some unfinished novels it does have an "ending." It's just missing some connective tissue. <br /><br />Patterson has definite stage presence & a dry sense of humor, helping to make this simplistic show somewhat more watchable than it should be. There's an extremely bare-bones plot -- even BLOOD FEAST is more complex -- and a gratingly repetitive musical score by William Girdler. A bit of nudity & lots of skin. The entire middle section of the film involves the construction of a "perfect woman;" this is concentrated gore for the bloodthirsty, and laughable. <br /><br />Patterson the director is in way over his head, but he tries hard to tell his story creatively, if it's possible to use Frankenstein clichés creatively. But the best reason to see this film (on Something Weird's DVD, if possible) is that it features a perfect Nashville weeper, Bill Hicks' "A Heart Dies Every Minute." Ain't it the truth! | negative |
Komodo vs. Cobra is not going to set the world on fire. It's not a hallmark of cinema history. What it is is a group of underfunded filmmakers trying to make another movie, make another paycheck, and continue to support themselves and their families. As such I give these efforts a lot of slack. I mean, come on, it has to be hard to be a Russian special effects technician. Not a lot of big budget films getting made there. BUT-- they are a dedicated bunch and more than willing to throw their all into whatever lame American monster flick needs affordable SFX. And I get a kick out of looking for the same locations appear time and again in these flicks. If for some reason you find yourself watching this again, look at the sequence where Pare and company are walking through a "jungle." Look at their feet and you'll see paved walkways. And if you happen to still have a copy of "AI Assault" (shown a week or two earlier also on SciFi), you'll see the folks in there tramping through the same ersatz jungle. Come to think of it, I think the helicopters land in the same clearing in both flicks. I can admire the thriftiness of these films. Every dollar really does show up on the screen! Too bad there just aren't enough dollars...... | negative |
I wanted to dog this movie, but somehow I can't find it in myself to do that.<br /><br />Exhibiting a duality of fighting styles, it's Li vs. Li in a somewhat decent battle for supremacy.<br /><br />This is one of those movies where the story carries the performances. Li's acting is extremely amateurish, hesitant, and stiff for most of this movie...right up to the very end. At first I tricked myself into believing he was just doing that for one of his two characters. You know, to show a difference in personalities. But it appeared to be inexperience or a lack of talent. It did get a bit better, more relaxed, toward the end. But that wasn't enough to save his performance. Jet Li's acting does improve as his career moves forward. I don't hate his acting. I just hated him in this.<br /><br />I also have to say that the effects were very "B" class effects. What effects there are.<br /><br />The story itself had great potential. It was uniquely creative, daring, and fresh. Unfortunately, either the budget was not ample enough to accommodate better lighting, effects, film quality, and some acting lessons, or the director just did not care enough to bother with these little details. He also did not bother with the SCIENCE in the science-fiction. A fact which was a great detractor to this film.<br /><br />The fight sequences were a bit one sided, as he seemed to give more to one character and little to the other. But all in all the story line made for a very enjoyable attempt.<br /><br />As enjoyable as this was, I couldn't help but think, all the way through, that this was just one of those movies that you can't help but watch it for what it SHOULD'VE been, rather than what it is.<br /><br />It rates a 6.0/10 on the "B" scale.<br /><br />That's a 4.2/10 (on the "A" scale) for having a good plot, from...<br /><br />the Fiend :. | negative |
Okay, my title is kinda lame, and almost sells this flick short. I remember watching Siskel & Ebert in '94 talking about this movie, and then playing a clip or two. Not being a rap-conscious guy (although I could identify Snoop Dogg, Vanilla Ice, and MC Hammer music), I wasn't much interested when they started talking about the film. But then, S&E showed the scene where the band explains how they picked their name (using some "shady" logic and a bunch of "made up" facts), and then another scene where the band, and their rival band, both visit a school to promote getting involved (and, of course, NWH comes up with some "info" about how the rival band leader is a loser because he got good grades in school and was on the yearbook committee). So I filed it away that I should see this movie.<br /><br />A couple of years later, this thing shows up on HBO and I recorded it, only to laugh my butt off for hours. Yes, it has a "Spinal Tap" kind of rhythm to it...even the documentarist takes essentially the same "tone" in setting up the clips, and the band follows a similar path (what I now call the "Behind the Music" phenomenon - smalltime band has good chemistry, gets famous, too much money too fast, squabbling, drugs, some type of death, band breaks up, then reconciles, finishing with a hope for more albums in the future, and fade to black). The one thing that is true is that in Spinal Tap, you catch the band perhaps with a little more success in their past. But Tap drags at some points, and in my mind is reduced to laughs that are set up by specific scenes. Oh, this is his rant about the backstage food, this is spot where he wants the amp to go to "ELEVEN", this is the spot where the guy makes the pint-sized stonehenge, etc...<br /><br />Contrasting to FoaBH, which seems to have more "unexpected" humor. You can see some of it coming, but there isn't a big setup for every joke. Sometimes, the jokes just kinda flow. Cundieff and the other actors in the band had a real chemistry that worked. Also, the direct references to Vanilla Ice, Hammer, and a bunch of other caricature-type rappers really worked well. This strikes me as a film you watch once to get the main story and laughs, and then go back and watch to catch the subtle jokes. And the songs. Is "My Peanuts" better than "Big Bottom" (from Spinal Tap)? I don't know - but they're both damn funny. Tone Def's awful video during his "awakening" phase is so bizarre, yet so funny.<br /><br />I could go on awhile, but save your time and don't waste it on CB4. I watched the first half hour, and got bored. You don't get bored on FoaBH. There are slightly less funny moments, but you can never tell when something good is about to happen. Perhaps my favorite scene is when Ice Cold and Tastey Taste (name ripoffs if I've ever heard any) discover they've been sharing the same girl....at one point, you've got those two pointing guns at each other, and the next thing you know, the manager, the photographer, the girl, and I think even Tone Def are in the room pointing guns at each other, switching targets back and forth. And, of course, someone does get shot.<br /><br />I did find it odd that NWH's managers suffered similar fates to Spinal Tap's drummers (although none spontaneously combusted, I don't think). There were enough similarities that I cannot ignore the likelihood that Cundieff saw "Spinal Tap" prior to writing this film, although this is clearly much more the Spinal Tap of hip-hop. While some similarities exist, the humor is different, and the movie seems more like a real documentary (maybe because we don't recognize a single actor in this thing, even the guy who played "Lamar" from "Revenge of the Nerds"). All in all, this movie has, in my opinion, "street cred". Kinda like NWH. | positive |
Lame is really the best way to describe this movie. It has a real poor script, uninteresting dialog and characters and it's lacking in basically everything else as well. <br /><br />There are too many characters and problem is that you don't care about any of them. What the movie is lacking is one good and clear main character. Instead now the movie has a bit of everything, it has a bit of an hero, it has a bit of a love interest and it has a bit of villain. I wish it only had a bit less Ghoulies though, fore they are just mostly very annoying in this movie.<br /><br />Ghoulies are supposed to be devilish creatures, who murder for pleasure. In this movie however all they want to do is drink beer and watch naked college girls. Besides, someone had the 'brilliant' idea to let the Ghoulies be able to talk this time. This works out really poorly and annoying. The Ghoulie-puppets had been definitely upgraded for this movie and they are more detailed looking and are able to do more, however at the same time they are way more fake looking than the ones from the previous Ghoulies movies.<br /><br />It's obvious that the aim for this movie was more comedy than horror this time. The movie is like a lame '80's high-school comedy (even though this movie got released in 1991). It's humor is really the worst and most lame thing about the entire movie. It's so incredibly annoying and simply not funny at all.<br /><br />The story is not going anywhere with its story and the movie is just basically one big mess, that never seems to end. The Ghoulies plot line seems basically to have nothing to do at all with the other plot lines of the movie, involving the human characters. The movie is not at all about the Ghoulies terrorizing a college, with the humans trying to hunt them down and stop their rampage. No big surprise that this is Brent Olson's only written movie as of yet. He simply has no talent for it and I think that he has discovered this as well and has gone back to college himself instead.<br /><br />Even when compared to the previous Ghoulies movies; this movie is just simply terrible!<br /><br />2/10 | negative |
Probably the biggest thing about Wild Rebels that hurts it the most is the hero. He's got LOSER written all over him, but that doesn't stop him from "getting the girl." Probably one of the world's worst race drivers imaginable, he decides to stop racing after he crashes his car. Well, his new job is racing still, as a bunch of biker types pick him to drive their getaway car as they commit crimes. There's nothing really to endear you to Rod, even the situation he's thrown into is pretty stupid. In the end, at the lighthouse scene, you'll wish that Rod gets killed with all the bikers. Get this: He's shot twice, once in the arm and once in the leg, and still manages to crawl up the stairs a little. If only Jeeter had better aim...<br /><br />Avoid this one unless you're watching the MST3K version. | negative |
I figured that it's about time I let this one out. Pokémon fans are suffering in America these days. Why? Because we rely on Kids WB and 4Kids Entertainment to provide us with our beloved series and movies. As far as the series goes, they do a pretty good job in bringing the fun and magic of the Japanese versions to television. So what is their problem when it comes to the movies? Honestly now, I have seen all three Pokémon movies in Japanese and I will definitely be seeing the fourth one. They are excellent movies. They are all enjoyable and fun to watch. And, after seeing Pokémon 2000 in theaters, I can't help but wonder how these American producers read the Japanese scripts. The way it appears, it seems that they read and see something that says `Insert empty moral here' in big bold faced letters. It definitely appears that way as they used the same wonderful dubbing methods they used on MSB (extreme sarcasm there) and created this crap.<br /><br />*possible spoilers from here on*<br /><br />Well, I guess I should first talk about Pikachu's Rescue Adventure. My first gripe with this came with no narration. I guess they got enough bad comments on the Pokédex narration that plagued Pikachu's Vacation, and, instead of going with a caring, gentle woman's voice as appeared in Pikachu no Natsu Yasumi and Pikachu Tankentai, they just cut the narration all together. This wouldn't have been a problem, except for one thing. Did anyone really understand why the Exeggcute didn't let Togepi go until the end? Possibly the fans, but I'm sure not the parents. Then, there's the theme song. I couldn't help but roll my eyes at this one. The Japanese theme song was `Tankentai wo Tsukurou' and was sung by Japanese children. It was fun and enjoyable. This one: nauseating. Now, one of my favorite parts of the short was the dancing Kireihana. Nice music, fun to watch. That's changed with the Bellossom. The music sucked for one, but on top of that, they had all the Pokémon talk during the music, which turned out to be jumpy, annoying, and just unnecessary. Oh, and then there's the Poliwhirl who thinks he's a Poliwrath. You'd think that guys that work with these characters constantly would at least learn what they are. Basically, not much could save this little ill fated dub, which is very unfortunate considering its potential. But, I haven't touched on the worst of it yet.<br /><br />You'd think that the warning signs would've been apparent to me when I received my issue of Nintendo Power. For some unfathomable reason, I had been placing some faith in 4Kids and the WB. My thoughts were `well, they screwed up on the first movie, but the second is different as far as the theme goes, so they should do well.' That in mind, I just didn't pay attention to the warning signs I encountered in the theaters when the trailers said, `You will believe that one person can make all the difference.' With the way they said that at every turn, I was hoping that this would not turn into a moral fest like MSB did at the end of the English version. Then comes Nintendo Power, in which I see all my fears realized in the words `the main feature 'The Power of One.' At that point, I became a bit more uneasy. `The Power of One?!' Not a good sign. However, I still kept some of my false faith. Big mistake.<br /><br />Sitting in the theater, I was literally getting stomach cramps watching another movie which I loved in Japanese being turned into complete and utter junk. I hear comments that say it was better because the moral was more subtle. I can see a point in that since they didn't pander this thing, repeating it over and over like in MSB. However, it did more damage than anything else in this movie. First of all, the legend that was read throughout was changed a bit to read `the world turns to Ash.' Ah hah. So, Ash is the chosen one? Whatever. In the Japanese version, the inhabitants of Arshia needed a Pokémon trainer to carry out their traditional ceremony. This time, he's the chosen one. A greater way that this did damage was to Lugia. Lugia was one of the coolest characters in a Pokémon movie.... when the movie was ABOUT Lugia. In this one, Lugia is forced to take a back seat to Ash. In the scene where they're flying back to the main island, Lugia and Ash are discussing the conditions of Lugia's existence, not that Ash is going to make all the difference. Overall in this category, Ash wasn't really the `one person' that would make the difference, since he was helped by many along the way.<br /><br />A lot of the other stuff is kind of nit picking. Furura's flute song wasn't nearly as sweet and enjoyable as the Japanese one. Jirarudan's speech to them saying his collection `started with a Mew card?' Ugh. Even worse, Misty's outrage originally concerned the way Moltres and Zapdos were being held. `Why didn't you put them in Pokéballs when you caught them? This is like caging them to be displayed.' Much different from whining about him thinking Pokémon are things to be collected like stamps. If there were any real redeeming values in this, they came from Team Rocket. Some pretty funny lines. Not really to make me laugh out loud, but more to make me giggle and slightly ease the pains in my stomach. Well, that was officially the last American Pokémon movie I'm going to see. I've imported the third one and find it very enjoyable. I would rather not see another Japanese movie be ruined in the same fashion as the first two. I'll be importing the fourth one as well. Forget you, Kids WB and 4Kids. You have forsaken me for the last time. | negative |
Bounty killer George Hilton, smooth Mexican bandit Gilbert Roland (who's great), and bank representative Edd Byrnes each try to outwit one-another while searching for a large amount of gold from one of Roland's train robberies that was hidden by a treacherous member of his gang.<br /><br />Though not the greatest that the genre has to offer, It's still breezy enough with a lot of light-hearted, action-filled fun and a satisfying finale.<br /><br />Any Gun Can Play is mainly remembered for it's opening gag where George Hilton easily guns down three outlaws resembling Clint Eastwood, Lee Van Cleef, and Django.<br /><br />The next year, Hilton and Roland were reunited alongside Van Heflin and Klaus Kinski in the highly recommended The Ruthless Four. | positive |
Was lucky enough to be an extra in this great film and loved every minute of the filming. Went to the premier in London and had a great chat to Phil, Peter, Martin, and Jon as did my wife.Fantastic after party too. Then a few weeks later had trip to the cinema with members of our bike club. What a brilliant film, it deserves to be up there with all the great biker films. Now we have the DVD Sue my wife can't get enough of it neither can the kids. Get a bit of stick from the club who seem to think I'm a film star now oh well one can only dream. I think they are just jealous. The only downside of the first part of the filming was the weather, rain, rain and more rain but hey we was in Wales. Hopefully there will be a follow up so keep me posted Jon. Danny Beck | positive |
The movie actually has a fairly good story, but gets bogged down in several key places. It's almost as if the director threw the movie together without taking the time to make some essential cuts in the film. Dennis Quaid does a fairly decent job in his role... but something is clearly missing from several key scenes.<br /><br />This 2.5 hour movie could have been reduced to about a 2 hour movie. And probably would have been a much better film had it not had the feel as if it was thrown together.<br /><br /> | positive |
If ever anyone queries whether cinema is an art form, you can do worse than pointing them at this movie.<br /><br />Quite simply it is the perfect combination of story, script, actors and cinematography ever committed to celluloid.<br /><br />The story of a doomed bomber pilot who is missed by his heavenly conductor in the English fog during the second world war, and his subsequent brushes with the celestial authorities (or is it in his head) is played with panache by David Niven and Kim Hunter and is incredibly touching - especially in the opening scenes when the doomed pilot (Niven) describes his plight to the ground radio operator (Hunter).<br /><br />The sense of otherworldliness is heightened by Jack Cardiff's photography and the incredible production designs.<br /><br />The supreme touches extend to the heaven shots appearing in black and white and earthbound scenes presented in Technicolour - this is even mentioned by the celestial conductor (a fantastic Marius Goring).<br /><br />Not only a highpoint in British cinema, but a highpoint in cinema, period. | positive |
The movie is about two stories: one is a political murder of a call-girl, the other an upper-class political party. The crossing point is the public relation character played by Al Paccino, as he is the witness of the crime and the instigator of the evening.<br /><br />If the script is terrible without any decent dialogs and the directing void of any sense of drama, the performance of Al is memorable: how many fellows can be as much convincing as a powerful and feared man (as "The Godfather") as here as a little servant (see also "Donnie Brasco").<br /><br />Actually, the big young lion has become a tired old one. This passing of ages is very moving, because it makes the audience ponders about getting old too.<br /><br />But his slowness is only a make-up because he can get back his energy in Church scene.<br /><br />Maybe it is a good thing that the movie is so awful because it put the starlight on Al's talent! | negative |
If you really enjoyed the 2002 Resident Evil movie, then you should just see it instead of waisting 2 hours you'll never get back. I can not believe that no one has commented that this movie is just a cheap knock off of RE. First, a "special" commando force is the unique defense for a facility with a computer matrix that has an AI and holographic projection. And this "Hive" rip-off has a series of traps that inevitably kill off one member of the squad at a time. There's even a chess reference in the code names, which was in the dialog of RE. Despite the fact that there are no zombies, the "Rook", the movie's nemesis, is some sort of bio-creature, very pail in color suggesting necrotic tissue, with a lot of cyborg components just like a super mutant of RE. So, a wag-of-the-finger to Mr. Richard Taylor for claiming any credit for this story.<br /><br />They are not the same movie obviously, but the writer got the idea watching Resident Evil I think. | negative |
This documentary was interesting, but it was also long (so long it lasts a total of 225 minutes), like Ben-Hur long. But if your into that, this is for you. But only if you have a passion for movies, like I do. Being that Martin Scorsese is my favorite director (live and maybe even ever), this is quite fascinating, especially if you know the style of Scorsese's works. Because then you can understand where he got his inspiration for many of his films. Not the best documentary film ever made, but it is a leap for Scorsese, which is always good to watch. A | positive |
Okay, truthfully, I saw the previews for this movie and thought to myself, what are the producers thinking? Hutton, Jolie, and DUCHOVNY? How could the monotoned actor possibly compete with Jolie's natural power on the screen? But surprisingly, the two had the kind of chemistry that showed intense caring without a kiss. Even David's humor matched up to Jolie's spark and fire. As for Hutton, he played the psycho very well, contrasting with David's calm delivery of life threatening situations. Overall, I was very impressed with the writing and character development. I gave it 8 stars. | positive |
Nicolas Mallet is a failure. A teller in a bank, everyone walks all over him. Then his friend, a writer who's books no one likes, has a plan to change his life. Our hero tells his boss he is quitting. He intends to spend the rest of his life making a great deal of money and sleeping with a great many women. And he manages to do just that.<br /><br />If it were not for the amount of death (murder/suicide/natural causes) in the film, this would be a farce. There are numerous jabs at marriage, politics, journalism and...life.<br /><br />Jean-Louis Trintignant is a likable amoral rogue. Romy Schneider is at her most appealing. Definitely worth a look. | positive |
you know, i always fancy disturbing or strange movies, especially when they get shown at the fantasy film festival in hamburg, germany. but subconscious cruelty was probably the worst film i saw this year. will this comment contain any spoilers?<br /><br />no, because i just did not understand this movie. but well, what can you expect from a flick that was introduced to a festival crowd "we (the guys from the festival) know that not all of you will watch this one until the very end"...<br /><br />i like splatter movies and i also like movies with a strong graphical language. but this? there are a lot of bloody scenes in this one, but why? what is the director trying to tell us? is he saying that we lost all morality and all religious feelings? or is he saying that incest will always end in a disaster? who knows - i do not.<br /><br />if you want to watch a movie that keeps you thinking for quite some time - watch it. but don´t expect to think "wow, i got the message" - i did not get it... | negative |
I haven't seen a lot of episodes of "Family Guy" and it's a pretty safe bet that I won't be seeing too many in the future. Some people say to compare this show to "The Simpsons" is unfair. I absolutely think this show wouldn't exist if "The Simpsons" hadn't come first and I absolutely think it wants so very much to be "The Simpsons". I don't understand what's so funny about this show. In the episodes that I've watched, I've understood where they've WANTED me to laugh, I understand that someone thinks a joke was just told but the joke isn't funny. I find the whole show to be lazy: the title, the "jokes", there is a complete lack of inspiration throughout.<br /><br />The best shows on television (cartoon or not) are created like this: a script is written, it goes through several rewrites, stuff that doesn't work is taken out, inspiration is sparked, good stuff is added, there are more rewrites and then it is filmed.<br /><br />I picture a "Family Guy" episode to be created like this: a script is written and it's filmed. | negative |
I'll keep this short as a movie like this doesn't deserve a full review.<br /><br />Given the setting, this movie could have been something really special. It could have been another "28 days later" or even a "Blair Witch Project"<br /><br />The first 20 or so minutes of the movie I was really excited, directer did a decent job with cinematography and suspense, although I don't think He managed to capture true eeriness of an empty London Underground.<br /><br />Characters were a big let down. Our "heroine" in this movie is a worthless piece of crap, and you really don't care if she dies or not. As many people have said before, I was rooting for the homeless people and the black guy, who managed to give me a chuckle or two(whether intentional of the writers or not).<br /><br />The main villain, is kept in the dark for the first half of the movie, but when he is revealed I was really disappointed. I won't spoil it but lets just say my 10 year old sister could probably beat him in a wrestling match.<br /><br />All in all this is just another mediocre horror film which falls into the trap of following a simple Hollywood formula. This film had a lot of potential but really failed to hit the mark.<br /><br />Just to highlight how lame this movie was, the characters in this movie had at least FIVE TIMES to finish off and kill the main villain. INSTEAD THEY RUN AWAY. | negative |
This was another obscure Christmas-related title, a low-budget Mexican production from exploitation film-maker Cardona (NIGHT OF THE BLOODY APES [1969], TINTORERA! [1977]), which like many a genre effort from this country was acquired for release in the U.S. by K. Gordon Murray. Judging by those two efforts already mentioned, Cardona was no visionary and, this one having already received its share of flak over here, is certainly no better! The film, in fact, is quite redolent of the weirdness which characterized Mexican horror outings from the era, but given an added dimension by virtue of the garish color (which, in view of the prominence of reds apart from St. Nick himself, the Devil plays a major role in the proceedings throughout, was essential). Anyway, in a nutshell, the plot involves Satan's efforts to stall Santa Claus' Christmas Eve rendezvous with the Earth's children; there is, however, plenty more wackiness along the way: to begin with, our portly, white-bearded and chronically merry man-in-red lives in a celestial palace who, apart from accompanying toy-maker kids from all over the world on his piano as they sing (laboriously for the whole first reel!) in their native tongue, visits Merlin the famed magician at King Arthur's court, here bafflingly but amusingly prone to child-like hopping and mumbling gibberish! once every year to acquire potions which would bring somnolence to the young and render himself invisible (by the way, the Wizard's anachronistic presence here is no less unlikely than his being a cohort of Dr. Frankenstein in SON OF Dracula [1974]!!); incidentally, by this time, he always seems to have gained some excess weight
so Santa has to work out in order to be able to fit into each proverbial chimney! The Devil's antics (enthusiastically rubbing his hands together at every turn and generally hamming it up) to hold up St. Nick's delivery program, then, is perfectly puerile: indeed, their tit-for-tat shenanigans resemble an old Laurel & Hardy routine more than anything! To pad out the running-time, we focus on three sets of children: one, the lonely son of a rich couple who wants nothing more for Christmas than their company (projected as a wish-fulfillment fantasy where the boy finds his parents wrapped in extra-large packages!), a girl from a poor family who yearns to own a doll of her own (the horned one first tempts her to steal one, then invades the little one's dreams to no avail) and a trio of brats who, egged on once again by Satan, think of nothing but causing mischief and eventually fall out amongst themselves. There is definitely imagination at work here, but it is applied with little rhyme or reason, while the overall juvenile approach keeps entertainment (unless one counts the film as a guilty pleasure) well at bay! | negative |
When i heard about this movie it was supposed to be the funniest thing i've ever seen, Yes it was funny. I mean i liked it all until the end where...........Oh no i can't tell u should it for yourself. It is funny except. The vulgar language. That's why i say if u like movies that r funny in sexual ways watch it , but if not don't waist ur money on renting it or buying it. | positive |
As I post this comment, IMDb currently rates Alfred Hitchcock's subpar Saboteur a 7.3/10. Personally, I rated it less than half that. Honestly, I can't tell how a movie this bad could've come from what is probably the most consistently good director I know of. I've seen about 10 other Hitch movies from the 30's-60's. Vertigo is thus far my hands down favorite while Saboteur is easily the worst. It's hard to believe that 7 years earlier Hitch used the very same formula in The 39 Steps far more competently. My recommendation would be to see that instead and avoid this like the plague. It's the only Hitchcock movie that I turned off before before the end and have no desire to go back and see the rest. If you must watch it, then rent or borrow. Don't make the mistake I did and buy the DVD on good faith earned through Notorious, Rebecca, Vertigo, Rear Window, etc. Even a master screws up sometimes, I guess.<br /><br />EDIT: Maybe I was a bit harder on this film than I should've been. It's certainly nowhere near Ed Wood or Manos or anything like that, but there's three reasons I feel I must rate it so low:<br /><br />1) The name "Hitchcock" brings with it certain expectations of quality. This film delivers on a few of them, but they're way overshadowed by the darn near non-sensical plotting.<br /><br />2) I want to compensate a bit for all the 8+ ratings this film is getting. Hitchcock is like the John Coltrane of directors. True fans will find reasons to consider anything by him a work of art, but the high rating on IMDb gives more casual movie enthusiasts like myself the impression that this movie is far better than it actually is. <br /><br />3) I spent $18 on this. Maybe if it'd cost me $5 or even $10 I'd probably be a bit less bitter. ;) | negative |
A movie about Vixen (Erica Gavin) who has a Mountie husband who she loves...but she loves sex too! In the course of the movie she gets multiple men in bed--including her husband AND brother! Also there's a (tame) lesbian sequence.<br /><br />This film put Russ Meyer on the map and was (I believe) the first critically acclaimed X rated film ever. It was a big hit when it came out. Unfortunately, it doesn't date well.<br /><br />It is well-directed and Erica Gavin is just great (whatever happened to her), and it was VERY colorful...but by today's standards it's extremely tame. I'm surprised it has an NC-17 rating now--there's no hardcore sex and it only has topless females and no male nudity at all. Also it's (sadly) pretty dull and the addition of politics at the end was confusing (and pretty silly). It is worth catching though to see what was considered very shocking in 1968. Purportedly I saw the cut version (which has an R rating) but I've heard only a few seconds here and there are missing. <br /><br />Meyer's next film "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls" is much better and dates VERY well. Catch that instead. | negative |
One True Thing may have seemed like a horror movie to the yuppies of the 80's, but it doesn't ring true today... unless you happen to be part of a pampered, upper-middle class family which is so insulated from the world that it has never tasted suffering.<br /><br />Avoid this shallow flop. | negative |
I can only agree with taximeter that this is a fantastic film and should be seen by a wide audience. The imagination on display, the visual interpretation of the script, the humor is constantly surprising. The two leads are great and really carry the film. My advice would be to not even watch a trailer, just rent the film and watch without expectations. I rented from blockbuster, so it is readily available in brisbane, not everyone will enjoy it but i think most people will have an opinion and that's always good, unless it's just 'that was stupid'. I loved this film, you just don't get to see gem's like this every day. This should become a cult favorite. Give it a try, you may just feel the same way about it as i do. | positive |
The scintillating Elizabeth Taylor stars in this lesser-known classic as a young girl from London who falls in love with a tea plantation owner from British Ceylon (current day Sri Lanka). Upon arrival she instantly feels out of place and is forced to adapt to the new culture as well as be in constant awareness of the angry elephant herd. William Dieterle, who also directed The Life Of Emile Zola and Portrait Of Jennie , does a masterful job of bringing a somewhat dark, and almost eerie, undertone to this romance and the setting is one of the most beautiful I've seen with the black and white themed mansion and the gorgeous island scenery. | positive |
There could be some SPOILERS AHEAD but I doubt it. I have no idea how the screenplay for this one made it past the shredder. It's horrible. Completely unwatchable. I hung in there for 45 minutes (about half the running time) and just couldn't stand it anymore. I was an Elijah Wood fan in the '90s (see "The War") and I learned to enjoy Mandy Moore's shifts from bubbly to serious this year (see "Chasing Liberty" which is surprisingly entertaining). I've seen bits of "Run Lola Run." So with three leads I liked this should have been fine. It wasn't. Nobody turned in a good performance. Wood's Jones was flat. For an aspiring writer he had next to no imagination (his violent fantasies looked like they were ripped off from "A Christmas Story" and his lustful ones were--huh, a cross between boring and alarming). Potente is absolutely unlikable from the first second and I'd only know that she was supposed to be "THE girl" by reading the box. Speaking of the synopsis--whoever they employed for that job made the film sound funny, quirky, romantic, and quite enjoyable. Whoever that person was, he or she should have been employed to rewrite this script. By the halfway point, I didn't care about ANY of the characters anymore. Moore's Lisa is an aspiring actress who's bubbly and a little conniving (for no apparent reason at all) but her ludicrous period play (which is supposed to be funny in presentation) is on a par with the rest of the script. There is supposedly a happy, romantic comedy ending to this turkey--given the character material they had to work with, I just can't envision it. Save your money. Warn your friends. DON'T watch this movie. | negative |
I saw "Sweeney Todd" on Broadway in 1980. It starred George Hearn and featured most of the other cast principals who appeared in the national touring company production, which was videotaped for TV in Los Angeles in 1982. Last night I watched the new DVD release of the Los Angeles production, although I have owned the videotape for many years. The production and the performances could have hardly been better but the original tape's age showed because both the audio and video quality are below modern standards, even on a newly pressed DVD. Nevertheless I still give it 10 out of 10 because of the greatness of the work and George Hearns's and Angella Lansbury's startlingly wonderful performances. Even today, my most memorable recollection from a live musical theater performance has to be Hearn's rendition of "These are My Friends." "You'll drip rubies," brrr. | positive |
Emilio Estevez actually directed a good movie--who woulda thought? I sat through two previous films Estevez directed--"Wisdom" (with then girlfriend Demi Moore) and "Men at Work" (with brother Charlie Sheen). They are lousy films---badly acted, directed, stupid and offensive. Estevez is a good actor but lousy as a director. I turned this on in pure curiousity--it has a great cast and I had nothing else to do. Damned if it didn't pull me in.<br /><br />It concerns Estevez coming home from Vietnam permanently scarred by what happened over there. His parents (Kathy Bates, Martin Sheen) and sister (Kimberly Williams) try to reach him but can't. Something in Vietnam has affected him deeply...and he's about to explode...<br /><br />A bit overlong but still very good. A lot of the material is familar but the cast is so good that they make it seem new. Estevez is good, Sheen is terrific (and Estevezs' real life father), Williams is touching and Bates is just extraordinary--trying to hold the family together. It all leads up to a powerful ending which REALLY surprised me.<br /><br />Well worth catching.<br /><br /> | positive |
I've found the movie offensive for Americans which lost somebody in the towers, for American people in general. Pretending to be an homage to horrible facts happened last years, each director takes the opportunity to polemize with old facts (which have none to do with a terrorist attack), or criticize American's political behaviour, or compare different political situation as they have in own country having this nothing to do or to share with the atrocity of September 11. Shame on them. | negative |
1st watched 8/26/2001 - 8 out of 10 (Dir-John Cassavetes): Well-done early independent film by Cassavetes introduced a style that was much different than what Hollywood shows it's audience. This movie also introduced some very taboo subjects, especially the actual racism that probably was prevalent all over the country but was not displayed by the mostly white controlled filmmakers of the time. About the only black actors that had much respect at this time were the ones that acted and displayed personality like whites(aka. Sidney Poitier). Besides this, the idea of ending a film without truly concluding the relationships that began leaves many moviegoers dumbfounded but actually makes the viewers realize that life is like this(it goes on...). I prefer this kind of an ending because it makes you think more about the characters and what may happen next and the conclusions are not just laid out for you. The movie follows the lives of people(particulary a couple of people who have a brief relationship and happen to be opposite skin colors) then we watch what happens when the white man realizes what he's done. This is done very well and makes the movie very special. The acting is supposedly done improvisationally which makes the movie even more amazing. I guess you can say I liked this movie, if you can't tell. If you can find it check out this classic early independent film. | positive |
What happens when the average joe finds out he has supernatural powers? The premise may sound familiar. The Watchmen? Unbreakable? However, the Russian sci-fi action flick, The Sword Bearer, is far from the standard stock.<br /><br />The story revolves around a man named Sasha who as a boy was shunned from society, his peers and family due to a supernatural power that he possess. When he wishes or his anger allows, a sword extends from his arm piercing his own skin. Very wolverinish? Maybe... but that's not the interesting part of this film. Shunned all his life and driven by anger (and a temper he does have) our "hero" returns to his home town to turn his life around or find a reason to. The only thing he encounters here is trouble when an encounter with an old flame's new boyfriend leaves him bloodied on the ground. This is where the vengeance and anger comes into play. This is a man you do not want to cross and from this point the mafia and the police are on his tail. He meets a girl and falls in love instantly as does she and this is really what the movie is about.<br /><br />The film is highly impressionistic with bold colors and noir overtones spliced with short yet extreme action sequences. This is art house at it's core, beautifully filmed with such attention to details in every scene over gruesome sci-fi action. It's this odd mash that interests me so much in this film. The directors approach for this genre is refreshing focusing on the emotional journey of Sasha and not a straight action film. Don't worry though, the action is there and plenty of it. However, much of these sequences show only implied violence with pictures of the horrific aftermath. This is not to say that action is not shown. These scenes are here and are fantastic (especially the ending where we see Sasha's full powers unleashed in desperation). The director chooses to imply the violence of many scenes to keep the focus on the character's emotional struggle at hand. This is a tragic love story and a refreshing entry into the genre. | positive |
Like his earlier film, "In a Glass Cage", Agustí Villaronga achieves an intense and highly poetic canvas that is even more refined visually than its predecessor. This is one of the most visually accomplished and haunting pictures one could ever see. The heightened drama, intensity and undertone of violence threatens on the the melodramatic or farcical, yet never steps into it. In that way, it pulls off an almost impossible feat: to be so over-the-top and yet so painfully restrained, to be so charged and yet so understated, and even the explosives finales are virtuosic feasts of the eye. Unabashed, gorgeous, and highly tense... this film is simply superb! | positive |
Two films are useful for scaring people to God, this and 'Event Horizon'. One has a significant and poignant message, the other is as one-dimensional as a religious movie can get. Too bad Paul Anderson went on to the accursed Resident Evil movies, he really had something going.<br /><br />Thief in the Night is hampered by many obvious independent film attributes (acting, storytelling, dialog, and persuasion) and it's obvious what the film's intentions are from the start. The Christian film industry hasn't learned from the failures of this, so we are stuck with The Omega Code, Left Behind, and the other Tribulation movies. Their underlying element is that they are so concerned with selling their message: "Get saved, folks!" that everything else becomes second to whacking the audience over the head with a Bible.<br /><br />Overall, I can't believe I'm even writing this much about a movie this ineffective. Skip it entirely and go back to Sam Neil gouging out his eyeballs. 1 out of 5. | negative |
I went into this movie with high hopes. Normally, I'm not too picky about my movies and creature movies are *always* fun to watch, or so I thought. I'll list the good parts of this movie: -The creature effects. All of the creatures were well-done, their movements were realistic, and they fit into the other imagery well. To be honest, the creature effects were the ONLY reason I gave this movie a 2 rather than a 1. Now, the bad things: -The acting. Good Lord, I've seen bad acting, but this movie takes the cake. Not a single one of the characters is even *close* to believable. It's like the director sent out a casting call and picked all the worst try-outs from it. I tried very hard not to giggle too loud, cause I didn't wanna upset anyone else in the theatre, but the acting really was THAT BAD. -The storyline: The entire story is full of plot holes from beginning to finish. You can pick at least 5 plot holes out of any given 30 minutes of film. The plot holes, of course, are complimentary with the cheese. This is probably one of the most clichéd, not thought-out, and outright dumbest stories I've ever seen put on screen since I had the grave misfortune of sitting up one night and watching Parasite on the SciFi channel. -The dialogue: This is a world where everyone says the cheesiest and most clichéd thing they possibly can, at every chance they possibly can. In this world, it seems like every line has been spoken before in at least 30 other low-budget creature movies. It is the world of cheese and cliché. -The special effects. While the creature effects were downright awesome, the special effects fail miserably. Yes, they are better than those seen in other movies, but a lot of it is in the presentation. And this movie has no presentation whatsoever. It looks kinda like the special effects used on the Power Rangers TV show, to be honest. To sum up: Dragon Wars is worth neither your time nor your money. The concept is good, but it is trapped in the bad directing, acting, dialogue, and cheesiness of the film. Wait til the next big monster movie comes out. It's gotta be better than this, cause Dragon Wars is absolutely horrible. | negative |
William Powell is a doctor dealing with a murder and an ex-wife in "The Ex-Mrs. Bradford," also starring Jean Arthur, Eric Blore, and James Gleason. It seems that Powell had chemistry going with just about any woman with whom he was teamed. Though he and Myrna Loy were the perfect screen couple, the actor made a couple of other "Thin Man" type movies, one with Ginger Rogers and this one with Arthur, both to very good effect.<br /><br />Somehow one never gets tired of seeing Powell as a witty, debonair professional and "The Ex-Mrs. Bradford" is no exception. The ex-Mrs. B has Mr. B served with a subpoena for back alimony and then moves back in to help him solve a mystery that she's dragged him into. And this isn't the first time she's done that! It almost seems as though there was a "Bradford" film before this one or that this was intended to be the first of a series of films - Mr. B complains that his mystery-writer ex is constantly bringing him into cases. This time, a jockey riding the favorite horse in a raise mysteriously falls off the horse and dies right before the finish line.<br /><br />The solution of the case is kind of outlandish but it's beside the point. The point is the banter between the couple and the interference of the ex-Mrs. B. Jean Arthur is quite glamorous in her role and very funny. However, with an actress who comes off as brainy as Arthur does, the humor seems intentional rather than featherbrained. I suspect the writer had something else in mind - say, the wacky side of Carole Lombard. When Arthur hears that the police have arrived, she says, "Ah, it's probably about my alimony. I've been waiting for the police to take a hand in it," it's more of a rib to Powell rather than a serious statement. It still works well, and it shows how a good actress can make a part her own.<br /><br />Definitely worth watching, as William Powell and Jean Arthur always were. | positive |
The longer this film went on-and it seemed to tediously go on for ever- the more annoyed I became, as quite frankly, what a waste of time sitting through this total nonsense. How on earth do people get to make films like this,or indeed receive finance for such rubbish? Don't be fooled by the relatively high ratings on IMDb as it just proves you can fool some of the people all the time. And in this picture the main players have an obsession with guns, so it is not difficult to work out the way this movie will ultimately unfold. America can never understand that the rest of the world finds it bizarre how society in the USA has such an obscene and fatal 'gun culture'. <br /><br />Anyhow:<br /><br />The lead actor portrays a loser who escapes into a fantasy world of being a cowboy in an Urban sprawl.He comes across a family with two spoiled brat children, a teenage girl and boy; taken care of by a strict single parent father who can barely cope. The cowboy is seduced by the teenage girl or vice-versa, and the impressionable boy is seemingly taken in by the lunacy of the loser.<br /><br />The cowboy spends the whole time in a state of unreality and depression.A total loser who prefers to go to the beach then work for living, and then commits a burglary on his family as he is too lazy to make money legally.<br /><br />Ask yourself:<br /><br />Who wants to watch either a sad failed loser in a fantasy world holding a death wish, or indeed view a poor family who are in effect not much better than white trash?!<br /><br />This film is pointless drivel.<br /><br />It only saves itself from getting the lowest mark possible by some half listen able music:<br /><br />2/10. | negative |
I saw this the week it opened four years ago and I really did not know what to expect being unfamiliar with Sorrentino's work at the time. He has created a very intriguing and ultimately moving account of an odd character, one for whom the phrase 'life is for living' no longer applies. It outwitted me at every turn and I was constantly surprised by the story. I enjoyed the pacing very much and the way I was gradually given the pieces to work out what was happening. Tony Servillo is superb, as is Magnani. It opens with a brilliantly stylish wide shot and concludes with a very moving image that takes the movie into sublime territory. I thought long afterwards about the main character and the position he was in and his final fate and I didn't shake it for weeks. I recently bought the film and that final scene where he thinks about his friend gets me every time. I still have yet to talk to anyone who has seen this. It's a shame that it did not reach a wider audience as if this is the direction of Italian cinema it can only be a good thing. | positive |
This movie is not only the funniest film ever created, it's the greatest. My hats off to Mr. and Mrs. Zodsworth and the rest of the wacky, wacky cast. Good morning Satan, Want a donut? See it post haste! GO SEE IT NOW! | positive |
No serious spoilers, but some very minor ones.<br /><br />"Acacia", a Korean contribution to the ever popular Asian horror wave, concerns a husband and wife who decide that they're getting on a bit and decide to adopt a child. The child, who has an usual obsession with the dead tree in the family's garden, eventually disappears when the couple eventually have a child of their own and the aforementioned tree seems to hold a grudge against the family itself.<br /><br />And that's about it. The film moves at a snails pace, clocking in at over 100 minutes with 80 minute material. It is essentially a thin family drama with a creepy tree, and there is very little in the way of scares, just shots of the tree with weird mumbling noises playing over the top. However, the idea of the tree being the child's mother is a pretty original one, but it isn't exactly exploited to its full potential. This sort of separates "Acacia" from much of the new wave it belongs to: films like Ju-On and Ring tend to do the opposite, and milk bland ideas until they are red in the face.<br /><br />The film does begin to get going towards the end; however the realisation of the child's fate and the parent's actions not only dampen the earlier curiosity of the story, but are revealed with such machine gun editing that it's difficult to take in all at once. The final sequence is undoubtedly creepy, however it feels like too little too late.<br /><br />Overall, the film does not feel too much like a Ring cash in, however with the "film renaissance" that Korea is currently going through, I couldn't help but feel this film could have been so much more. | negative |
It's a really cheesy parody of Tomb Raider and some Indiana Jones, the humor's cheesy, and so is the acting. But after all it is a soft core movie, which is expected and doesn't matter because what you really want is the sex. Which gets me to the biggest problem of all, there barely is any of it. Which makes you feel like you're watching TV at 3 am and the independent movies are playing and the one that is on was made by some college kid that's going nowhere in that industry. You're left a very long time waiting for an actual sex scene, a lot of times you are thinking something is going to happen, then just left hanging. The one(maybe two, or one with two parts)that actually goes somewhere is very pleasing though. I personally can't recommend this unless you found it in a clear out bin for a dollar or two. If you lucking for a good movie with a plot and good acting, you don't want this. If you looking for a good soft core lesbian film, you don't want this either. | negative |
Okay, if you've seen The Ring, you've basically seen The Grudge. It's trying to be scary by just having freaky camera work and loud sounds, but it fails miserably. The plot, if you can call it that, is weak and rather full of holes, for instance, how would the care center have known that Yoko didn't show up for work when the people who lived in the house were not there? And it's not really clear what Bill Pullman's character had to do with anything. He just kind of came out of nowhere to advance the plot. It didn't make a lot of sense what happened to the original family. Who was hanging in the room, the little boy or the dad? And was Yoko alive or dead when the care center guy found her? There were too many unanswered questions and I was too bored to think about it more. | negative |
This is quite possibly the worst documentary I have ever seen. It looked so amateurish. Chris Hegedus was one of the Directors of The War Room which was a great movie (albeit a little one sided), but it looked beautiful. Startup.com looked like it was shot in some guy's basement. The quality was so pitiful that I couldn't stand watching it. I saw about 30 minutes or so and I had to take it back to Blockbuster and get something else. I can't understand how something so amateurish some from someone like Chris Hegedus. How the hell did this win any awards to begin with??? The War Room definitely deserved an award, as did another great documentary called Ameragosa (both won awards). This documentary looked like it was done by Uncle Joe who also does weddings on the weekends. Shaky, dimly lit, unflattering lighting, bad sound, a 10 year old could make a better film than that guy did. | negative |
Lost is one of a kind...its so enchanting and full of suspense, thrill and emotions all at the same time.I have never seen any TV series like this before. It is full of jungle thrills and has a good screenplay. The actors have emoted life on an island in such a natural way that I feel lost in the island myself while watching it.It is an excellent piece of work narrated in a very intelligent form.The series is like a movie depicting the life of the survivors lost on a deserted island.I am tempted to watch one episode after the other and I highly recommend this series for all the TV show lovers.Watch it to see the magic of being lost in nowhere. | positive |
Elvira Mistress of the Dark is just that, a campy concoction of fun, sex appeal, horror and comedy all poured into a low cut black gown and toped with a sky high black bouffant hair-do. This movie is sure to delight any fan of Elvira's. It takes you upclose and personal with Elvira and probes deep into her...um past revealing her enormous... ancestry.<br /><br />The movie takes you on a ride with Elvira as she goes from TV Horror Hostess with the Mostess to her home town of Fallwell Mass to claim her inheritance from a deceased Great Aunt. Where she encounters a stuffy town, a studly cinema owner, a creepy Great Uncle who seems to be after her for more than her good looks. A slew of high school kids that immediately love her, and a town board who are will do anything to get her out of town, even if it means burning her at the stake! Watch Elvira woo the kids, stalk the stud, avoid her creepy Great Uncle and thumb her nose at the stuffy uptight 'preservatives' who have no kind words for her, in Elvira Mistress of the Dark!<br /><br />As Elvira would say "I guarantee it'll be a scream! (screams in background) Whoa! Good thing I didn't say it'd be a gas!" | positive |
The only good part of this movie was the ending. You know the part of the movie where the lights come on and you leave to go home. No no that may be a little harsh - the dancing in the film was sensational but unfortunately that is where the plot ended. As long as the cast was dancing and not talking the movie went along well. As for Chayanne's debut - not too bad but hopefully his next film will have a little more depth. As for going to see the movie wait for the rental or TV. Do not make the same mistake I did and pay 8.50 | negative |
I saw this on DVD ( It`s known as CORRUPT in this format ) and the blurb on the casing really hyped up how Harvey Keitel`s character Frank is so much like the one he played BAD LIEUTENANT in " This gritty and powerful police thriller " . What the casing didn`t mention was that this is an old Italian movie . How old is it Theo ? Well when a character plays music he doesn`t put on the CD player , he pulls out a big plastic pancake thing , puts it on a sort of revolving hob where a sort of mechanical arm touches the pancake thingy causing music to be heard . You see my point about this being an old film ? The DVD case gave no clue this was a movie made 20 years ago . It`s also a film with poor production values like so many other Italian films masquerading as American ones . With the exception of Keitel the cast are awful though Johnny Rotten`s performance is bizarre rather than terrible , the cinematography is static with the picture and sound quality giving the impression that I was watching a fourth generation pirate copy ( I don`t know if it`s down to a dodgy DVD or if it`s a very bad film print ) and worst of all is Ennio Morricone`s score . It`s impossible to belive the man who did the irritating intrusive incidental music for CORRUPT is the same one who did the music for those Clint Eastwood westerns.<br /><br />All of this is a pity because CORRUPT does have its moments . It`s by no means the greatest psycho thriller ever devised but it did hold my interest and as always Keitel puts in a good performance as a violent nutcase cop . Just a pity the rest of the movie didn`t match up to his high standards | negative |
This film isn't a little bad. It's not even kind of bad. It's horrid. You know you're in trouble when Charo shows up in a film. She must have had the week off from "Love Boat." George Kennedy, at least he's a gamer - he's in there trying. Actually, he's all right. And it's good to see Martha Raye. Jimmie Walker's okay. There's slightly better acting than in Airport '75 but what film doesn't have better acting than Airport '75? One thing I liked about this film is that it had more going on than a lot of other disaster films plot-wise. At least they made an attempt at subplots. What really hurts this film is the special effects - ugh! Not too special if you ask me. This is the kind of film that at 2am is truly, truly funny if you've been up having fun with your buddies and you're looking for something to laugh at. | negative |
When The Matrix appeared in 1999 and questioned existence and identity, it was expected that a lot of movies would use it as inspiration. That didn't really happen, surprisingly, and it took till 2002 for a movie of similar theme to appear. But to say Cypher is a clone would be to its discredit.<br /><br />The story is of a Morgan Sullivan, who applies for a job with a high-flying techno-company called Digicorp. His job is to be a spy and gain information about a rival company, while under an assumed and false identity. His home-life is perfectly normal but he has to lie to his wife about what he's actually doing. However, things start to take conspirital turns and before he knows what's going on, he starts to question who he actually is. This is not helped by a strange woman who turns up...<br /><br />Twists and turns at every direction keep you absolutely fascinated, and at no point does anything ever seem contrived or unbelievable.<br /><br />It's an enthralling journey through a not-too-distant future, and with good acting all round will keep you on the edge of your seat.<br /><br />Highly recommended. | positive |
Hi everyone my names Larissa I'm 13 years old when i was about 4 years old i watch curly sue and it knocked my socks of i have been watching that movie for a long time in fact about 30 minutes ago i just got done watching it. Alisan porter is a really good actor and i Love that movie Its so funny when she is dealing the cards. Every time i watch that movie at the end of it i cry its so said i know I'm only 13 years old but its such a touching story its really weird thats Alisan is 25 years old now. Every time i watch a movie someone is always young and the movie comes out like a year after they make it and when u watch it and find out how old the person in the movie really is u wounder how they can go from one age to the next. Like Harry Potter. That movie was also great but still Daniel was about 12 years old in the first movie and i was about 11. SO how could he go from 12 to 16 in about 4 years and I'm only 13. I'm not sure if he is 16 right now i think he is almost 18 but thats kind of weird when u look at one movie and on the next there about 4 years old then u when they were only 1 in the last.I'm not sure i have a big imagination and i like to revile it.I am kind of a computer person but i like to do a lot of kids things also. I am very smart like curly sue in the movie but one thing i don't like in the movie is when that guy calls the foster home and makes curly sue get taken away i would kill that guy if he really had done it in real life. Well I'm going to stop writing i know a write a lot sometimes but kids do have a lot in there head that need to get out and if they don't kids will never get to learn.<br /><br />Larissa | positive |
No, it's not Citizen Kane. But would you expect it to be with a name like "Meatballs"? It's the best damn summer camp movie of all the summer camp movies. Does anyone quote "Little Darlings" line by line? Or "Whitewater Summer"?<br /><br />This is just one of those movies that got into my brain when I was in junior high, and stayed with me all these years. Every time I feel geeky, I mumble "Spaz. Spaz. Spaz. Spaz." Or when we're hiking in the brush in the forest, I tell my husband, "I'm Wudy da Wabbit." (He doesn't get it). "It just doesn't matter. It just doesn't matter." I mean, this stuff is classic!<br /><br />Disappointed with the DVD, though. Wish there were special features, maybe a commentary or a making-of. But the movie itself is a perfect snapshot of life as an adolescent in the late '70s. Maybe not MY life... You can't help but want to run around out in the woods in shorty shorts and knee-high socks and feathered hair every time you see this movie. | positive |
For all that has been said about the subject matter, and the controversy that surrounded it, please do not overlook what I feel to be the most important part of the film: the salient struggles of everyone to keep their pride through their trials. Whether dealing with self-imposed male braggadocio, a sexual reawakening, or even life itself, everybody is human. | positive |
Rating: 7 out of 10. Directed by Barbet Schroeder. If you like Hitchcock's `Rope', then you will like this movie. `Murder by Numbers' stars Sandra Bullock as psychologically troubled yet brilliant police detective Cassie Mayweather. Her partner is Sam Kennedy, a non-discriminatory detective played by Ben Chaplin. <br /><br />The teenage killers are high school students Richard Haywood (Ryan Gosling) and Justin Pendleton (Michael Pitt). These young psychotics are out to prove their superiority by committing the perfect murder and getting away with it, but the nearness of capture is exciting and thrilling to at least one of the killers.<br /><br />The supporting characters include a police chief, an assistant district attorney, and the high school janitor that the killers pin the murder on. The movie reminds me of various `Hitchcock' movies crossed with the TV show `Law and Order'. We see a fair bit of police work and it is really interesting to see which clues the detectives follow and which ones they don't.<br /><br />The other plot in the movie relates to Cassie Mayweather's past and incarcerated ex-husband. Most viewers found this aspect of the movie unnecessary and slow moving, but I found this to the most intriguing part of the story.<br /><br />`Murder by Numbers' is a nicely crafted movie if you are looking for safe, or should I say dangerous, murder mystery. For more thrills and suspense, try `Se7en' or Hitchcock's `Dial M for Murder'. | positive |
Why did they unleash this movie upon us? It seems as though they set out to make this movie a total slap in theface to Anne Rice and every self respecting Vampire Chronicles fan. It ignores the ground work laid down by Interview with the Vampire,mutilates the plot of the novel and has Stuart Townsend stumbling around drunk.<br /><br />Stuart is NOT our Lestat! Our brat prince, our adventurous rebel with the damndest sense of humor. Stuart IS a second rate, boring rip off of Dracula in black leather. He DID NOT read the books or know the character...is he illiterate? Tom Cruise is dyslexic and still he made a point to read the books and know and love Lestat.<br /><br />Don't kid yourselves, it is not a "Stand Alone" vampire flick it's trash plain and simple. | negative |
President Harry S. Truman once said that the only thing new in the world is the history you don't know.<br /><br />Seven years before Richard Rhodes' superb Pulitzer Prize-winning "The Making of the Atomic Bomb", the BBC produced a seven-part miniseries, "Oppenheimer", that was a character study of the people who designed and built the weapon that ushered in the Atomic Age, permanently joining science and technology to the state (and, in particular, the military), not merely making history, but changing the world forever.<br /><br />The production is impeccable, the casting nothing short of miraculous; not only the main characters, but even secondary characters bear uncanny resemblances to the persons portrayed. In particular are Sam Waterston in the title role of American physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer, scientific director of the Manhattan Project, who was based at the Los Alamos, NM, laboratory (the site for which he personally chose); Manning Redwood as General Leslie R. Groves, who oversaw the entire Manhattan Engineering District (the project's formal name); David Suchet as physicist, and ultimate nemesis of Oppenheimer, Edward Teller (who, nearly forty years later, whispered into Ronald Reagan's ear and brought us the Strategic Defense Initiative - "Star Wars") and Jana Sheldon as Kitty Oppenheimer. The attention to detail is uniformly excellent throughout.<br /><br />Part thriller, part love story - and ultimately a tragedy, this series faithfully recreates a chapter in world history - and that of science - that we dare not forget. Highest recommendation.<br /><br />(NOTE: Viewers who enjoy this series will also enjoy Jacob Bronowski's 13-part series "The Ascent of Man" and the BBC film of Michael Frayn's play "Copenhagen".) | positive |
Dean Koontz's book "Watchers" is one of the finest books I have read. Sadly, the movie is a sad caricature of the book. The disillusioned middle-aged hero and the lonely spinster with whom he finds a meaning to his life are converted in the movie into a couple of silly teenagers, the stoic security agent and the conscientious sheriff are combined into a farcical villain - you get the picture? The moviemakers have taken a moving tale of love, horror and adventure and converted it into a Z-Grade horror flick aimed - very poorly - at the teen market.<br /><br />Buy the book and enjoy many hours of reading - it will be far, far more rewarding than watching the movie.<br /><br /> | negative |
There is such rubbish on the cable movie channels that I hit a gem with this one. From beginning to end it had me gripped and deserves top marks.<br /><br />Father of two sons hears messages from "God" to kill people who he is told are 'demons'.<br /><br />When the opening credits showed the director as one of the cast that can often be a warning of a bad film; exceptionally it is the reverse here as the drama is non-stop from beginning to end.<br /><br />And there is not one moment in the movie when one is not fully enthralled as there are no unnecessary or needless sub-plots, and the script is first class. <br /><br />All the actors give wholly convincing performances especially the lead child actor who is exceptional. <br /><br />This film is at least as good as the likes of 'Silence of the Lambs'. | positive |
I'm a fan of the series and have read all 7 books. I wanted to see this just to see how it was done. All i can say, is that the only people who should watch this are ones who have already read the series and are curious about it. Its pretty bad, and will turn you off reading them. Not to be mean, but Lucy is so ugly it detracts from the movie. Was she the directors daughter? Seriously, I'm sure the beavers in the movie were jealous of her teeth. She had an overbite that would put any beaver to shame. The movie just loses so much in translation. CS books don't translate as easily as the Tolkein LOTR books, or even Harry Potter.<br /><br />One thing they did right! Aslan! very well done. Although the other human actors with painted faces ( beavers, wolf) look silly, Aslan was really well done since it was not just a human actor walking around. ( i guess its like that old horse custume? 2 people inside? ) Also, i would be curious what kids think of this movie. Maybe they would enjoy it? But as for adults, safe bet they wont, even if a CS fan. | negative |
I cannot for the life of me explain what the popularity of the children's television show, power rangers is all about.<br /><br />I never understood why unsuspecting children liked this show in the first place, since the characters seem so idiotic and not worth caring about whatsoever.<br /><br />The costumes look completely atrocious, like multi colored spandex that people wear to go to the gym.<br /><br />What exactly is the purpose of this show anyways, but for kids to learn how to fight to solve their problems? What is up with the awful hair cuts, and clothing on this show anyway? Not to mention this show is still playing on cable television, just to make money to teach kids how to fight each other when they disagree on a certain problem.<br /><br />There's far better entertainment for today's children, hopefully they aren't as gullible as kids of the 1990s who watched this show.<br /><br />Oh, and what is up with the homo erotic tension between the red and green rangers anyway? | negative |
Being an otaku since the days of Robotech, I can still say that Gunbuster is one of my favorite animes of all time. Considering when it was made, the animation is of superior quality. There are no loops and sequences in which the art decreases in quality. Although the final episode is in black and white, it does not detract from the enjoyment of watching the film. Although it has been described as being "sappy," it should be kept in mind that females do not react in the same way that males do. Since the main character is a female, it should be obvious that she does not necessarily need to resort to "macho-man" tactics in order to gain the respect of her peers. The seiryuu for Noriko, incidentally, also plays Akane in Ranma 1/2. Noriko is as 3-dimensional a cartoon can get; her personality captures the essence of a spirited girl who seems at first to be completely helpless but in the end succeeds through the strength of her will. The only complaint I have is that the mecha looked somewhat like teddy bears. Even the Gunbuster utilizes a rather dubious "Homing Laser" and "Buster Shield" (which is nothing more than having the machine wrap a giant velvety cloak around itself in true Dracula style) technique. I doubt that scene was meant to be funny, but it cracked me up. Yet all in all, I would rank Gunbuster in the top 20 anime of all time. | positive |
(SPOILERS IN FIRST PARAGRAPH) This movie's anti-German sentiment seems painfully dated now, but it's a brilliant example of great war-time propaganda. It was made back when Cecil B. DeMille was still a great director. (Ignore all his later Best Picture Academy Awards; he never made a very good sound film.) This movie lacks the comedy of most of Pickford's other films, and really it was DeMille's movie, not Pickford's. The vilification of the Germans can be compared to the way "The Patriot" of 2000 did the same to the British. The only good German in the film was a reluctant villain who had the ironic name of Austreheim. They even had Pickford take an ill-fated trip on a luxury ship that gets torpedoed by a German submarine. So what'll get the Americans more stirred up to war? The sinking of the Lusitania, or watching America's favorite Canadian import sinking in it? All throughout the film DeMille runs his protagonist from one kind of horrible calamity to another, barely escaping death, hypothermia, depravity, rape, execution, and explosions that go off in just the right place to keep her unharmed. The way she is saved from a firing squad is no more believable than the way the humans in "Jurassic Park" were ultimately rescued from the velociraptors. If I was any more gullible to such propaganda I would punish myself for having a part-German ancestry. <br /><br />Was it a good film? Aside from a humorous running gag about Americans abroad thinking they're untouchable that was apparently a joke even back then you might not be entertained. You'll find it more than a little melodramatic, and obviously one-sided, but the first thing that came to my mind after watching it is that it was years before Potemkin's false portrayal of a massacre revolutionized the language of cinema as well as a movie's potential for propaganda. It made me wonder: what became of Cecil B. DeMille? Somewhere between the advent of sound and "The Greatest Show on Earth" he seemed to lose his ambition. Ben Hur looked expensive, but not ambitious. In a sentence, this movie is for 1) Film historians, 2) Silent Film Buffs, 3) Mary Pickford fans, or 4) DeMille fans, if such a person exists. | positive |
I was one of the lucky people to be invited to view this film in New York. It is a compelling story of how a group of extremely tight friends dealt with the tragedy of September 11th. This film made me laugh and cry and showed me how the human spirit, through love and friendship can endure and create wonderful things out of one of our darkest days. The film makers truly captured the emotions of the individuals involved. It was amazing to see how the same story was told through the eyes of so many different people. I walked out of the theater that day wanting to call all my friends just to say hello. I would recommend everyone see this documentary. I would rate this movie with an A++++++++++. See it if you get a chance. | positive |
Diego Armando Maradona had been sixteen years of age in 1978 when Argentina won the World Cup at home. He was already the biggest star, and the greatest player in a country obsessed with football. Everybody had begged Cesar Luis Menotti to play the boy genius, but the manager thought that he was not yet ready.<br /><br />History records that Argentina won the 1978 World Cup fairly convincingly - they hadn't really needed Maradona. The same was not true in 1982. Spain was a catalogue of disaster for Argentina. Menotti - still chain smoking - played Diego this time, but the occasion was too much for such a temperamental boy. Maradona had signed for Barcelona on June 4 1982 for around $7 million - nine days later he played his first game at the Camp Nou and Belgium beat Argentina one-nil. It was not an auspicious debut, and even though he scored twice against Hungary in the next match, Maradona will remember the mundial as the site of his nadir - a crude, petulant foul on Brazil's Batista in the Second Round that abruptly ended his tournament and Argentina's reign as world champions.<br /><br />But now that was all behind him. Maradona had muddled his way through some crazy times at Barca, and left in 1984 to join Napoli. It was as if he was finally home. The Neapolitan tifosi had done everything to entice Maradona to poor, underachieving Napoli. Gifts from old women and pocket money from young boys nestled uncomfortably with the Camorra's millions as part of the transfer fee, and the city was determined to make him feel at home. So, for the time being at least, Maradona was El Rey - he brought his Argentine side to Mexico as one of the favourites, and with a new manager - Carlos Bilardo replacing Menotti.<br /><br />Maradona is the hero of this story, a one-man World Cup winning machine. In 1982, hundreds of young men had died in a pointless battle for the Falkland Isles; now the British press yearned for a rematch (with the same result) in Mexico City. Maradona was still regarded with distinction in England, remembered more for a superb performance in Britain during a 1980 tour than for Spain. But he was still an Argie: the enemy.<br /><br />England actually started well, and Lineker could have scored after only twelve minutes. A key event happened on 8 minutes. Fenwick, the big and limited English defender, was booked - he was now terrified of making any challenges around the penalty area.<br /><br />After a tense first 45 minutes, the second half started with a bang. Maradona danced forward after 50 minutes, but could find no way through. Similarly Valdano's attempt hit only white shirts. Then the moment of infamy that serves as Diego's epitaph. Hodge bizarrely hooked the ball back into his own penalty area, Shilton hurriedly jumped to claim - but there was Maradona, somehow rising above the English goalkeeper to thrust the ball into the net. How had he done it? Simple: handball.<br /><br />The most famous foul in football history passed in near slow motion. Every spectator waited for Mr Al-Sharif of Syria to blow for the foul (he didn't). Shilton looked and appealed to the linesman - he ran back to the centre circle. Unless he assassinates the Pope, or becomes the first man to step foot on Mars, when the great man dies this moment will be shown first - in long, lingering, slow motion, followed by the look of glee on his face. The next image will be his next gift to the world - the World Cup's finest goal.<br /><br />Burruchaga stroked the ball to Maradona who was ambling around on the right hand side of his own half. He span, and accelerated away from Beardsley and Reid. This was the real Diego - he burst through Butcher and attacked Fenwick. Fenwick now had the opportunity to stop the attack. Normally, he would have aimed his boot somewhere near Maradona's thigh - sure he would have picked up a red card, but who cares? Then Fenwick had a brainwave - he hesitated, and decided to run at Maradona waving his arms - perhaps he was trying to put him off? Diego shot into the box as Fenwick fell over. Butcher had been running alongside the genius as if he was offering encouragement. Shilton charged out in panic, and Maradona twisted around him and prepared to score. Now Butcher remembered his role and tried to cripple the Argentinean - instead he gave extra impetus to the shot, which smashed into the goal. England were coming home.<br /><br />During this magical Mexican summer, the world had found a successor for Pele. In fact the greatest ever footballer had been surpassed - Pele had been superb in 1958 and 1970, but had had great players all around him. Maradona did not. 1986 was his World Cup. | positive |
My mom brought me this movie on a DVD. A guy in a rental recommended it. But in fact, this might be the worst movie I've ever seen. You know, I didn't expect much from this film, but it didn't have a good story, it wasn't even funny and it was senseless. I was looking forward to see Christine Lakin in this movie because I loved Step by step. Even she was a huge disappointment. The story was completely unreal. One of the party guys is dead (he wasn't dead in fact, he woke up later), the house looks like there exploded a bomb and there are 2 guys who have 3 hours to handle everything. But then there comes a homosexual, policeman... There is a total mess till the end and the guys managed to tide up and everything in like 15 minutes??? Come on, just be realistic at least. Waste of money. Really... | negative |
Okay, the film festival crowd probably loved it. But your average, popcorn munching movie goer who has scraped to-gether the ten or fifteen bucks it costs to see a movie these days will probably wonder why he or she made this choice. If it's stamped "Copolla" it's automatically great stuff, right? Wrong! It's a neat spoof of filmdom's pretensions. But it's terribly "in." I worry when film makers are more concerned about entertaining themselves rather than the public. It's interesting as a cinematic curio and it does have a chuckle or two in it. But once it's run its course in the movies and on TV, the dust will grow thick on the film cans and tape boxes holding it. Hardly either epochal or an epic! | negative |
I know this movie is a low-budget horror movie intended for those in favor of shocks and "inexpensive" gore, but even considering that, this movie is just too dull, filled with an incoherent plot, along with awful music, and obvious signs that this movie was never finished.<br /><br />Without giving any spoilers, I'll just say that by the final reel, things are wrapped up with no explantion at all, either by film or narration. The girl Anitra is real attractive, but yet that is not a good enough reason to enjoy this movie.<br /><br />If you are a fan of those gore movies from the 60's and 70's, then you should watch it, but be warned that it does not even reach to the usual plateau of these kinds of movies. | negative |
Cam Archer's lyrical Bobbycrush boldly captures the disorienting kaleidoscope that is adolescent desire with a lush rendering (beautifully photographed by Aaron Platt) that is more vibe than narrative. Caught somewhere between documentary and dream, Bobbycrush recalls the inventiveness of early Todd Haynes and the vivid hyperrealism of Gus van Sant. With grit, glamour and heartbreak, it's kinda like the movie equivalent of Sonic Youth playing bubblegum pop. | positive |
Being an independent filmmaker and a huge fan of Edward D. Wood Jr. I purchased this documentary believing that this would finally set the record straight on how gifted and brilliant Ed Wood actually was. <br /><br />What I got was a disappointing self-centered, conflictive, contradictory compilation of bitter self-aggrandizing has-beens. <br /><br />Where people DO remember Ed Wood Jr., do people actually remember the second cousin of the guy with the duct tape who knew someone who was in Plan Nine From Outer Space? <br /><br />It appears as though, the very minute there is a renewed interest in Ed Wood, these people come out of the "Wood"work! Only to take mean spirited swipes at someone who actually gave them a chance when no-one else would! After 50 years I would suggest that many of these people should let go of the fact that they didn't get the $75 they were promised!<br /><br />Ed Wood was a brilliant creative filmmaker who knew how to entertain. In-fact that was ALL he lived for. You may giggle when you see Ed's films, but somehow you are aware that you are laughing WITH him, and not AT him. <br /><br />But, I digress... Back to the film at hand. If you are expecting a film ABOUT Edward D. Wood Jr., you won't get it here. If you want a film about cranky bitter old actors, this is the film for you! | negative |
I love this movie... it can make me laugh! =^_^= Which is kinda hard to do. This movie is one of the best cartoon adaptations ever. It doesn't warp the characters like other movies out there. Everyone is in character and has a role to play!<br /><br />The movie focuses around Buster and Babs going down river after a flood (courtesy of Buster), to Plucky going on a trip with Hamton (hilarious stuff), Elmyra running around torturing animals (as usual), Fifi following her crush around for an autograph, and Shirley and Fowlmouth going to the movies.<br /><br />In my own personal opinion, I didn't like the Buster and Babs segments that much, although they had some notable dialogue and jokes. I have got to say the Plucky and Hampton 'Vacation' parts were the best! Hamton's family is HILARIOUS! I especially like Uncle Stinky. Fifi in the hotel was also hilarious. I love the actor cameos during this scene. :D<br /><br />Probably the most famous part in this movie, again IMHO, is when Fowlmouth and Shirley are in the movie theater... LOL! You've got to see it to appreciate it! And when Hamton and Plucky go through the tunnel to make a wish... :)<br /><br />Although this movie moved slowly during the Buster/Babs parts, the rest is pure gold! I rate this movie 8/10. Show this to your kids one day... or even adults yourselves - WATCH THIS MOVIE! You won't regret it. | positive |
This has one of the more unusual plots I've seen in a horror film, but it's based on good, solid Universal Studios fare: Lots of monsters, pretty heroine, torch-bearing villagers. But my favorite part is Larry Talbot (The Wolf Man) searching for the cure for his lycanthropy. After dying in the original "Wolf Man," he is resurrected and wanders through "Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man" and "House of Frankenstein" searching for a way to end his affliction. I think first-time viewers will find his search in this particular movie very interesting.<br /><br /> | positive |
Anyone who doesn't laugh all through this movie has been embalmed. I have watched it at least twenty times and I still get tears in my eyes at many of the scenes. Sally Field is absolutely perfect as Celest Talbert, a fading soap star whose supporting cast is trying to get her replaced in hopes that their own star will rise. Fields, at 45, still has that wonderful and beautiful pixie quality and a perfect figure that belies her having had three children. I'm biased, I'm in love with her.<br /><br />The cast of "Soapdish" is filled with stars who perform their roles to perfection. Kevin Kline is flawless, as are Robert Downey Jr., an ingénue Elizabeth Shue, Whoopi Goldberg, Teri Hatcher in one of her early roles, Carrie Fisher as the oversexed casting director who auditions an actor for a small part as a waiter without his shirt on. Kathy Najimy is wonderful as the hapless costume designer, and best of all, Cathy Moriarty as Nurse Nan who leads the plot to get Fields character removed from the show is hilarious.<br /><br />This movie should have won Oscars for best comedy, best leading lady in a comedy, best leading man in a comedy and myriad other bests, including writing, directing and supporting actors and actresses. Get the DVD so you can watch it over and over for the next twenty five years. You will still be laughing at it when the disc wears out. | positive |
What-ho! This one is jolly good. I say jolly good, ol' chap. Or should I say "ol' bean"? My mastery of British terminology is a little dusty. Anyway, my biker boots and I walked into this screening with no prior viewing experience of Wallace and Gromit. I'm happy to say that my boots and I walked out pleased to have made their acquaintance.<br /><br />While not as adult-accessible as Toy Story, W & G still manages to be clever enough to provide the grown ups with a little humor that will most definitely soar over the heads of the young 'uns who are too busy guffawing at the Were-rabbit's belches to have any clue that something is amiss. I highly suggest that you pay close attention any time you see books or words on the screen because there are quick glimpses of puns that you'll miss if you aren't paying attention. My favorite is a book of monsters that refers to the Loch Ness Monster as "tourist trappus." If you've ever been known to say, "I can really relate to Kevin Federline," or if you're just illiterate then not only will you miss out on these jokes, but you probably should be spending your time learning to read instead of going to movies. Consider this a public service announcement.<br /><br />The most impressive aspect about W & G is its clay animation. Thanks to the tedious process, it took FIVE YEARS to finish the film! According to the press notes, there were some days when the optimum goal was to merely accomplish 10 seconds of completed film. Folks, I sometimes have trouble finding the motivation to finish responding to a handful of emails or adding captions to pictures for my reviews (a point that is proved by a lack of pictures in this review); so I can't even imagine having the required patience for that.<br /><br />I really like the rough, hands-on quality of the claymation figures. The fact that you can see fingerprints in the clay is a nice, personal touch. How can you not be impressed with clay characters that show more expression and emotion than Paul Walker and Keanu Reeves combined? The Curse of the Were-rabbit is, as director Nick Park calls it, the world's first vegetarian horror movie that should entertain both kids and adults alike. Relying on (and as a male who prides himself in his shaggy-haired, cool-bearded masculinity I hesitate to use this word) cute and (oh man, I probably shouldn't use this word either) lovable characters rather than outdated M.C. Hammer references, W & G is proof that DreamWorks can create entertaining animation when it chooses cleverness over the cheap joke. | positive |
I've seen this movie more than once. It isn't the greatest scifi flick I've every seen, but it is not a bad movie. The acting is good and the characters are more "real" than most in low budget sci fi. (At least it isn't full of dumb bimbos like so many other low budget scifi.) I especially like Elizabeth Pena. She is a good actress and she does worried single mother as well as any and better than some.<br /><br />Don't let the nay sayers run you off. See it for yourself and judge it for yourself. | positive |
Wow, another Kevin Costner hero movie. Postman, Tin Cup, Waterworld, Bodyguard, Wyatt Earp, Robin Hood, even that baseball movie. Seems like he makes movies specifically to be the center of attention. The characters are almost always the same ... the heroics, the flaws, the greatness, the fall, the redemption. Yup, within the 1st 5 minutes of the movie, we're all supposed to be in awe of his character, and it builds up more and more from there.<br /><br />And this time the story ... story? ... is just a collage of different movies. You don't need a spoiler; you've seen this movie several times, though it had different titles. You'll know what will happen way before it happens. This is like mixing An Officer and a Gentleman with Backdraft, but both are easily better movies. Watch Backdraft to see how this kind of movie should be made ... and also to see how an good but slightly underrated actor, Russell, plays the hero. | negative |
I can't believe I watched this expecting more. It starts out OK. This movie pushes the limits of reality way to far!! At least the first one was somewhat realistic. It rips off the first movie and even mentions the Joshua Project. Anyone who knows anything about computers will hate this movie. It does have one good message in it though, WATCH OUT FOR BIG BROTHER!!! The movie just makes it seem like Big Brother is way bigger than he actually is in reality. That was very aggravating. Even the make-up on the actors was completely bad. Some of the acting is pretty good. Some of the acting is really bad though. The script was OK at some points and completely messed up at other parts. This movie plays on convenience about every five minutes. Like I said, I can't believe I watched it expecting more. I think I am gonna pop in the original to get back to earth...Q | negative |
I have wracked my brain for another film that reminds me of this one. I really can't come up with one. I think it's because most of the films that take on this topic (war, peace, violence) are in a fixed documentary style.There are some terrific ones out there, all of them better known than USA T.M., I'm sure, but they are intended to be informational and to bring your emotional response to the surface through intellectual means. This DVD, in some ways may seem more intellectual but it really isn't. It is philosophical, maybe, but it bypasses the information mode and goes directly to the same place that a piece of music does. It makes you feel but sometimes you don't even know why. You are just taken somewhere on a wave of feeling. When you watch it, notice how well it is put together. It may not be for everyone but it is for everyone who look for a rare cinematic creation that respects you. | positive |
There is a LOT of repetitive dialogue in this movie about "cold spots" (signaling the presence of a ghost), and characters praying to surround themselves with white light to protect themselves. To recreate the feeling of the movie, I shall repeatedly make references to cold spots throughout this review. I'e seen worse movies than the St. Francisville Experiment, but this may be the most *forgettable* one of all ("it's getting cold!") Basically some 20-somethings spend the night at a haunted house. This is filmed as a supposedly true documentary. It's obviously not real, but the house does contain some cold spots. SPOILERS- (as if you won't be able to predict most of the plot!). Not much happens in this film. We have the time-honored horror cliche of a cat jumping out of hiding near the beginning, as a "practice" scare to warm up the audience. The people wander around with flashlights, occasionally taking a moment to remind the house that they come in peace- that they mean no harm to the spirits (or cold spots) within. Now and then a door will swing shut and startle somebody. Of course , the ouija board makes an appearance. They chat with a ghost named "Charles". A girl eats a sandwich with a cockroach in it. More cold spots. Another door swings shut and some guy goes off about the scuff sound of the door. Scuff, scuff, he says. Oh my god, somebody says. "Surround yourself with white light." I admit there is a good scene in the attic (where a chair is knocked over by a ghost) that really caught me off guard. But aside from some funny bad dialogue, the chair scene (the actual split-second when it is knocked over, nothing immediately before or after that moment) is the only good thing in this movie. However there are still some cold spots in here. Eventually, the movie ends. Nobody dies. No more details necessary. I wasn't a big fan of Blair Witch Project, but it looks like a masterpiece next to the St. Francisville Experiment. You may find yourself not debating whether or not this is a real documentary, but whether or not it was intended to be funny. I still don't know. But whatever it was intended to be, it failed. | negative |
I was worried that my daughter might get the wrong idea. I think the "Dark-Heart" character is a little on the rough side and I don't like the way he shape-shifts into a "mean" frog, fox, boy
I was wrong, This movie was made for my kid, not for me. She "gets it" when it went over (under?) my head. Of course I don't "get it". This isn't one of the NEW kids movies that adults will ALSO enjoy. This is straight for the young ones, and the crew knew what they were doing. There isn't any political junk ether. There's no magic key that will save the world from ourselves, nobody has the right to access excess, and everyone isn't happy all the time. And as a side benefit, nobody DIES! russwill. | positive |
I find it terribly ironic that "left wing" Hollywood continues to hedge its bets, making these awful lukewarm movies that neither condemn the war on terror nor embrace it.<br /><br />If you're a Sixties survivor and a committed pacifist, and you're hoping for an all-out condemnation of war like BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY or ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT, this movie will really feel like a rip off. None of these soldiers actually question this war, or any war, or the idea of war. They just gripe about having to do another tour.<br /><br />On the other hand, if you're a patriotic American who wants to see a story of courage and honor, this movie will really feel like a rip off. None of these soldiers loves America, or even loves the service. The way they pout and sulk makes them come across more like suburban teenagers than blue collar tough guys. It's not WE WERE SOLDIERS, and it's not SANDS OF IWO JIMA. It's not even mindless action, and the war scenes are less RAMBO and more BUFFY.<br /><br />Ryan Philippe so completely cannot carry this kind of movie. Though he's devastatingly sexy, in a rough trade, men's room, bisexual sort of way, it's hard to picture him as a slow-talking' Texas boy who wants to stand up and be counted. This is no Sgt. Croft in Mailer's THE NAKED AND THE DEAD. He's more like Joel in Truman Capote's OTHER VOICES, OTHER ROOMS. He can't sell you on the idea that he's been in combat and done his bit, OR that he wants his woman and wants her right now. He fizzles on the battlefield and in the bedroom scenes, looking as if he would much prefer to bend over and take a good stiff attack from the rear. | negative |
Honestly, when I saw this movie years ago I immediately wanted to turn it off. As I sat there for the next 10 minutes or so, I realized that the actor playing Navin stole the show. His facial expressions and comedic demeanor makes me shake my head as to WHY he hasn't been in more comedies. He has this "Marty Feldman" thing going for him but MUCH, MUCH more talent...taking nothing away from Marty. The movie really shocked me by how close it was to the original Jerk, but then again, it was SO MUCH MORE. I really think that if this movie was released first, and I saw the Steve Martin movie 2nd, I'd think the 2nd was a cheap rip-off. I know it sounds like a BOLD statement, but it's true. I actually like Steve Martin a great deal, but his performance is 2nd to the actor in The Jerk Too. I wish I could get a copy of it for my collection. I urge you to see it if you can find it. | positive |
I've never seen a Bollywood film before but I caught the first ten minutes of this, laughed myself silly and hit the R button on Sky+. I'm glad I did!! I hope I don't insult anybody (because basically, the BF and I loved it!) but we couldn't take it half as seriously as the actors did - especially the obsessed one (who, I understand, is a huge Bollywood star because we've seen him on the cover of lots of dvds since and i even saw a doll of him today in Hamleys!! The BF keeps on about this bloke - I am beginning to think HE'S obsessed! He keeps saying that it's strange for the traditionally good looking one to be the anti-hero of a film! But then we do like films that aren't your stock predictable Hollywood fare).<br /><br />It was completely over the top but really good fun. If all Bollywood films are like this then we're watching more. I have had that bloomin' song in my head all week and I can't speak a word of Hindi! PS any recommendations would be appreciated! | positive |
So I flipped on the digital subscriber channels one night a couple of years ago and thought I'd pass a half hour watching "Girlfight" while waiting for "Hart's War" to start. With a title like that I figured it was some exploitation 'B' flic about inner city girl gangs.<br /><br />Much to my surprise it wasn't about that at all. Instead it is a well acted, well scripted story about a young woman who almost accidentally gets into female boxing. She is responsible for taking her younger brother to his practice sessions and get interested while observing his bouts. As he doesn't really want to be a boxer (only following through on their father's wishes) she convinces his coach to take her on in his stead. <br /><br />The story unfolds in an intelligent and believable way as she goes through various trials on her quest. For starters, her brother's coach doesn't want to take on a female boxer. After grudgingly doing so there is the problem of lining up matches for her. Then the confrontation with her father when he finds out what is going on. Yes, a love interest develops but it serves to enhance the plot, coming across more of an interesting inter-human reaction with its own fight related consequences.<br /><br />All in all this is a great little sleeper movie that few seem to have heard of. Some time later when I saw the much advertised and acclaimed "Million Dollar Baby" I thought "wait a minute, this seems kind of familiar". Needless to say, I didn't watch "Hart's War" that night. | positive |
I agree with the Aussie's comments for the most part. However, there id seem to be a fairly decent plot, if unoriginal. Christina (Kelli McCarty) inherits a rural property that she intends to open a mountain lodge. She gets reacquainted with Chip (Bobby Johnston) whom she had known when she was growing up in there. The plot thickens when James (Paul Logan) arrives with his new stripper friend, Shene (Devinn Lane) because Christina had been James' stripper friend in years gone by, and the implication is that James had done her wrong somehow. To add interest to the movie Sophia Linn (Monique Parent) a romance novelist shows up as a guest at the lodge, as do Eric (Sebastien Guy) and Linda (Flower), pair of lawyers from the city. James sicks the local building codes inspector on Christina's business as one of his dirty tricks to shut her down. So the question is, "How far will James go to sabotage the lodge and will he succeed?"<br /><br />Watch for Devinn Lane here and in "Beauty Betrayed." She seems to be making a transition from the hard core business to the "R" world. Another notable is Samantha McConnell, playing the role of "Bait," clearly the most outrageous character name in the movies! | positive |
OK, first, to all the haters: Get a life! I don't see why you even bother to post on these boards, when obviously you know nothing about cinema, robots, or people. <br /><br />This movie has an important lessons for all of us to learn about gender, stereotypes, relationships, and DESTINY. Really, we are all robots, programmed to respond certain ways to certain stimuli without thinking. How many times have we seen a sunset and made some trite comment without even thinking about it? I say, THANK YOU Aqua (brilliantly played by Bernadette Peters) for making me stop and think about the awesome power of mother nature. <br /><br />It's only when Val and Aqua begin to reject their programming that they begin to understand their true desire--to find love, and to flee the factory in search of a creative life. This movie should be mandatory viewing in prisons--just think of the dreams and hopes it could inspire in the inmates. maybe even they could overcome their "bad" programming and join the rest of us in a crime-free world.<br /><br />We can all learn a lot from these robots. I am a better person for Heartbeeps. | positive |
Being in the suburbs of New York when the Z-Boys were creating history in Dogtown, I was only exposed to a glimpse of what was going on. I had a P-O-S Black Knight skateboard with clay wheels. It is long gone, and on the ash heap of my personal life. But I never forgot. It's like watching long-lost brothers and friends, and it hits me right where I live. I cannot watch this film enough. Every time I view it, some other aspect rises to the top, some other viewpoint come into sharp focus. The vintage footage, the incredible stills, the current personalities intermeshed with the vivid shadows of the brightly lit past, the heartfelt and not over-done narrative, all beautifully edited together in such a way as to make a landmark documentary of a genuine slice of American history. In the words of Glen Friedman - "It was F-ing unbelievable." | positive |
Tyrannosaurus Azteca is set during the sixteenth century where famous Spanish explorer Hernando Cortes (Ian Ziering) has landed in Mexico with six of his best men including Lieutenant Rios (Marco Sanchez), they intend to claim the land in the name of the Spanish & maybe steal some gold too if the opportunity arises. Within minutes they have their first sight of local Aztec savages, within minutes after that Cortes & his men are captured & held prisoner. If that wasn't bad enough it turns out that a couple of Tyrannosaurus Rex live there & like to eat the locals, in an effort to win their lives the Spanish offer to help the locals get rid of their monster problem but with various hidden agendas & ulterior motives it's not just the dinosaurs they have to watch out for...<br /><br />Directed by Brian Trenchard-Smith (who, coincidently, made one of my all time favourite exploitations films Turkey Shoot (1982) which I throughly recommend to one & all) & also more commonly known under the spoof sounding title of Aztec Rex (the title was changed by the Sci-Fi Channel when they aired it maybe as the original title Tyrannosaurus Azteca sounds like it might be a foreign film) this is yet another idiotic & cheap looking Sci-Fi Channel 'Creature Feature' & that's all you need to know really. Based on & around the real Spanish Conquistador Cortes during his expedition to Mexico the film definitely doesn't strive for historic accuracy although I will admit that the story tries to do something slightly different here but ultimately Tyrannosaurus Azteca is still just a 'Creature Feature' with a bunch of people running from some poor CGI computer graphic of a monster despite it's period setting. Not too sure what else I can say, despite being set centuries ago the usual clichés are here, the character's are the usual cardboard cutouts, make stupid decisions & the selfish one, the heroic one, the backstabbing one, the faceless victim who exists just to get eaten & the pretty woman are all here & easy to spot. The film is predictable, silly, dull & doesn't really entertain on any level although it does move along at a decent pace & there's one or two half decent moments of gore if that sort of thing interests you. The story isn't that good & has plenty of holes too, this is also the sort of film that you will have completely forgotten about within a few days.<br /><br />Now I have seen & commented on plenty of Sci-Fi Channel 'Creature Features' & usually the CGI computer effects are terrible & while Tyrannosaurus Azteca doesn't exactly buck the trend I will admit there are a few effects shots which look alright but then they are usually ruined by an absolutely awful effects shot straight afterwards. There's a few decent gore effects here too, there's a cut out heart, a guy's leg is bitten off, there's some blood splatter, a cool shot of a guy left holding his own intestines after he has been attacked by the dinosaur, there's a few dead bodies seen & someone is stabbed with a spear. The T-Rex gets to eat a couple of people too. The production values are really cheap, the Aztec set looks like one of those theme park attractions made from Styrofoam & those Spanish men must have been imprisoned in the worst enclosure in cinematic history with the fence supposedly keeping them in lower than a mans waist, they could have simply stepped out of it & run away it was so low.<br /><br />With a supposed budget of about $900,000 I can't see where the money went, shot in O'ahu in Hawaii in apparently fifteen days. The acting isn't great from no-one I have ever heard of.<br /><br />Tyrannosaurus Azteca really isn't any better than any other cheap Sci-Fi Channel 'Creature Feature' despite an almost interesting & unusual premise, that basic statement should basically be enough for you to decide whether you will enjoy this or not (at a guess probably not). | negative |
I saw this film many years ago, and absolutely hated it -- I could not wait for it to end, and would have walked out, but there was a girl sleeping on my shoulder. You know what? I have never forgotten this film, and more, I would say that it continues to haunt me with its images and music over the years. How many movies have I wept over and laughed over in the moviehouse, then forgotten as soon as I hit the street, like ... you see, I can't even think of one! Rarer are films like Death in Venice that enter your consciousness and work sea changes. The French like to say film is an art, and movies like this one prove they are right. I give it 10 stars, up from the 3 I gave it the night I saw it. | positive |
This will be somewhat short. First, don't listen to the critics, as it is not as bad as most say it is!! Sniper uses a classic movie formula, which many dismiss immediately as flawing the movie. While sniper does not reflect the 100% truth about how our country's Military Snipers work, it does give those who know nothing about the Professional Sniper a glimpse into the world of the Sniper. And yes, the movie has many flaws, but what movie doesn't? There are many good scenes and good acting by Tom Berenger. I have to say the 2 worst scenes are at the beginning of the movie with Billy Zane in the Helicopter followed by Zane in the Marine's bar scene. The best scene in Sniper is with Berenger in the middle of a field with the opposing force sweeping it!! Also there are plenty of good shots of the jungle and some classic shots using the camera as though you are looking through a riflescope. And yes, the Sniper Motto is `one shot, one kill'. Judge Sniper for yourself!!<br /><br /> | positive |
Years ago I did follow a soap on TV. So I was curious about this movie, and I was so rewarded for finding it. It's a marvelous spoof of soaps, with jealousies, the usual actors' insecurities, and all sorts of lovely excesses. But more than anything - an amazing cast and an incredible script. How did someone get all those top-notch actors to play in such a silly sort of movie? And how did this little movie get writers to write the perfect lines? I never hear anyone talk about this movie or even admit hearing of it, but it's marvelous and I highly recommend seeing it. Sometimes I'll throw it on while doing housecleaning, and end up sitting on the couch, watching, laughing and thoroughly enjoying the whole wonderful thing. Many congrats to all who made it. | positive |
"Happy Go Lovely" has only two things going for it. And those two things are Vera-Ellen's legs. This is a British (Excelsior Films) version of an M-G-M musical complete with second tier stars. I would imagine that Vera-Ellen took this role thinking that it might finally propel her to the status of a major musical star. But, I'm sorry to say, Ms. Ellen's chance did not pay off.<br /><br />Opening with a horrible Scottish number and stumbling thru awful dialog to the next dull tune, this movie seems very heavy handed and sloppy. The predictable mistaken identity plot is very thin, and with the exception of David Niven, Cesar Romero (who is way over the top in his role of a Producer) and Bobby Howes (who is totally wasted in a nothing role) the rest of the cast is totally forgettable.<br /><br />The choreography is boring, but Ms. Ellen gives it her all. She was never as famous as most of the other musical stars(and she shouldn't be since she couldn't sing and even had a "dancing stand in" in several of her pictures". But when she did dance, it was just entrancing.<br /><br />It's too bad that this film that could have made her a star did not give her the tools she needed to shine.<br /><br />4 out of 10 | negative |
In Holland a gay writer Gerard (Jeroen Krabbe) gives a lecture. He stays overnight with a beautiful woman Christine (Renee Soutendijk) and has sex with her (by imagining she's a boy). He plans to leave the next day, but gets a look at a picture of Christine's hunky boyfriend Herman (Thom Hoffman) and decides to stay to have a try at him. Then things get strange.<br /><br />A big X-rated art house hit in the US in 1983. Why was it X rated? Let's see...there's strangulation, full frontal male and female nudity, castration, mutilation, simulated sex, a scene in a church with a cross that will shock most people, a gay sex scene in a crypt...and it's all a comedy!!!!! Paul Verhoeven made this after "Spetters". "Spetters" was attacked by the critics for it's extreme sexual sequences and denounced as trash. So, Verhoeven filled this film with very obvious symbolism thinking the critics would think it was art and praise it. He was right! Critics loved the film not realizing that Verhoeven was playing a big joke on them. Still, it's a great film. <br /><br />It's beautifully shot by Jan de Bont (now a director himself) and there's so much symbolism and obvious "hidden" layers in the dialogue that you're never bored. All the acting is great--Krabbe plays a thoroughly despicable character but (somehow) has you rooting for him; Soutendijk is just stunning to look at and plays her part to perfection--the little smile she gives when Gerard agrees to stay with her is chilling; Hoffman is extremely handsome with a great body--he deserves credit for doing the church sequence and going at with Krabbe in the crypt.<br /><br />This is not for people easily offended or the weak of heart, but if you like extreme movies that playfully challenge you (like me) this is for you! A 10 all the way. | positive |
It's not often I give two stars to a horror movie because horror is my favorite genre. A movie can be BAD in that it isn't a masterpiece but can be enjoyable on the basis of unintentional humour, bizarre characters, etc. A case in point are a great number of horror/sci-fiction movies from the 1940s to 1980s era. They are enjoyable for genre-buffs and guilty-pleasure seekers because their "badness" is entertaining. However, this movie has none of the humour or effective gory scenes of the "Piranha" (1978) original. <br /><br />I suppose in 1995 it was the heyday of political correctness so gore on TV was at a minimum. Now in the mid-2000s with the C.S.I. shows, TV's an absolute blood-fest! (Good for us horror fans!)<br /><br />William Katt and Alexandra Paul are no Bradford Dillman and Heather Menzies (the original 1978 stars.) It's not Katt's and Paul's faults but the writers and director who created this tepid turkey. How the main characters interact is the main flaw of this movie. I won't say how because that is part of the plot. <br /><br />This TV movie probably had a bigger budget than the original but flopped as good horror, as can be seen from the user votes here. Stick with the 1978 original if you're in the mood for a killer-fish movie! | negative |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.