review stringlengths 32 13.7k | sentiment stringclasses 2 values |
|---|---|
I bought Unhinged because I got suckered by the gory picture on the cover. If you want to see all the good parts of the movie just look on the back of the box. All the kills are shown and I can honestly tell you that they look much better in the still frames than they do in the movie.<br /><br />Having said that, let's look at the plot. A group of college girls driving to a rock concert (by way of the deep, dark woods in one of the longest driving sequences ever captured on celluloid) slide off the road. No visible damage is done to the car but apparently it was enough to put one of the characters in a comatose state for the rest of the film (or perhaps she read the script and was already in a coma before filming began).<br /><br />The two remaining girls wake up in a big, isolated house. The house, by the way, is fabulous and manages more drama just by its presence than any of the actors in the film. For some reason, though, this house has no roads going to it. The only way you can get to the main road is by hiking five miles through the woods. The girls spend the rest of Unhinged sitting around listening to weird conversations between an old rich bitch (who looks like George Washington in drag) and her equally homely, sexually repressed daughter. The girls apparently were in no hurry to get back from that concert anyway being that they packed more clothes than the cast of Gilligan's Island for that three hour tour.<br /><br />By the time we, the viewers, get to the kill scenes, we no longer care. We wish that someone would kill us just to end our suffering . Unhinged finally wraps up with a quite shocking ending that deserved to be in a much better film. It's almost as though the ending, the one good idea in the film, was written first and then the writers tried to make a movie leading up to it.<br /><br />Unhinged is ultimately a boring film with bad acting, inept directing, and a plot with more holes than a leper in a porno film (sorry. I'm not sure where that came from). You will get an idea of how bad this movie is during the opening credits when, for some reason that is never explained, the screen goes black for about two minutes while the characters talk about nothing worth remembering. Don't waste your time. You'll just feel Unhinged and want your time and money back. | negative |
Blackadder 3 is probably the Blackadder series that people have least heard of - it has basically the same principles as the second and fourth ones and has nothing revolutionary in it. But it is still great - a fiery Duke of Wellington and a fat foolish Dr Johnson (writer of the first dictionary in England) make this series one to be reckoned with. There are still more hilarious one-liners to be delivered in this series, and it brings out the humour in a lesser-known era - in historically accurate and enjoyable episodes. Blackadder's third outing is not the most famous and well-known of the lot, but Rowan Atkinson's role as a butler to a stupid prince is a funny and effectively done one, and Hugh Laurie is at his best in this series. Very good! 9/10 | positive |
It is one of the worst movies i've ever seen, but Hostel is definitely much more worse. This movie is more funny and ridiculous, than scary. I laughed most of the time when watched it. Low quality effects (when you gonna watch it, you'll understand what i'm talking about and HOW LOW quality is that), bad actors (i hear of them for the first time), and it seems like it's shot by an amateur camcorder (so it looks more like a TV show, than a movie). But at least i've had the patience to watch it till the end. Like comedies? Watch it. Wanna horror? Go watch Ju-On: The Grudge or some other good horror movie.<br /><br />If i'm talking about the Legend of Diablo, i don't even know if i can classify it to a Horror genre. Just some low-budget crap.<br /><br />I rate it 3 out of 10 | negative |
"El Mar" directed by Catalonian director Agusti Villarona, and based on the novel by Blai Bonet, offers a glimpse of the Spanish history as seen by a Balearic author that takes the viewer back to the days of the civil war in that country. The movie concentrates on three friends, and follows them from those early days during the onset of the war in Majorca, to a few years later as two of those friends meet again when they are at a sanatorium, lost in the countryside.<br /><br />We first meet three boys that are playing happily. Not everything is what it seems. The tragic death of one of them points out about the cruelty of the one that commits the evil deed. The boys have excluded a young girl, about their age, from taking part in their games.<br /><br />When we meet the adult Ramallo again, he is on his way to a sanatorium. He seems to be suffering from tuberculosis. To his surprise, Manuel Tur, one of his boyhood friends is also being treated, and the young girl that was not welcomed to participate in their games is now one of the nuns that supervise their health care. It is obvious that Tur looks at Ramallo in a way that only means he is in love with the tough bully. Their relationship will have devastating consequences.<br /><br />Roger Casamajor does a good job with portraying the older Ramallo. Bruno Bergonzino makes an impression as Tur, the vulnerable youth. Antonia Torrens plays Sor Francisca with conviction. Angela Molina, puts an appearance as Carmen, the wife of the caretaker of the institution. Simon Andreu is perfect as Alcantara.<br /><br />"El Mar" is a dark film that clearly shows Agusti Villarona's talents in making the novel come alive for the viewer. | positive |
Like all cult TV shows, there is a group of people who love The Twilight Zone so much that they rate practically every episode like they are the greatest shows EVER. While several of them are indeed wonderful classics, the truth is for every great episode, there were several that were mediocre and at least one that stank. However, like die-hard Trekkies, these Zone lovers insist that all of them are gold. In fact, this is what initially got me to review some individual episodes of a couple cult series instead of the movies I usually watch.<br /><br />While this isn't the worst episode ever made nor is it among the very worst, it is poor by any reasonable standard. A widow watches a long procession of Civil War soldiers going past her home. In the end, a very unexpected twist is revealed and there isn't a whole lot of excitement or suspense here. | negative |
I walked out of the cinema having suffered this film after 30 mins. I left two friends pinned in by a great fat bloke to endure the remainder.<br /><br />As soon as the opening sequence of the film unrolled, I sensed something was wrong and it wasn't long before I to stop myself from hiding under my seat cringing in embarrassment. I'm not one for walking out of films however bad as they usually have some redeeming feature, but this one suffered from a catalogue of bad directing, bad acting (bar 'Bruno' character & the impeccable Jean Rochefort -according to my friends),awful editing (in terms of theme and meaning), terrible soundtrack and image correlation that seemed to make an art out placing the wrong peace of music over the image and scene at the wrong time . The worst crime was its overall insipidness and unbelievability (a result of the aforementioned atrocities). Why was it so awful? I do not want to waste more of my time explaining. I'd say go and see it for yourself but I don't want to fill the coffers of this project any more than necessary. Oh, the screening did possess one redeeming feature: My friend cambering over the rows of seats in silhouette with his umbrella hooked over his arm as he tried to steady himself -more pathos, tension & entertainment in those few moments than in the 125 mins of this sadly dire effort. | negative |
The cast although nothing special, all do an OK job, the story seems like a good idea, the script is bearable and the end has quite a good twist; so what's wrong with it?<br /><br />For a start the special effects are really bad (if this was made in the 60's) it might look OK but in 2003 there is just no excuse for visuals as poor as this. It makes me laugh that the DVD cover claims very proudly 'from the special effects creator of Jeepers Creepers'.<br /><br />Secondly the direction is weak, this film just does not capture the essence of the story, A doctor feeding the hospital inmates souls to the Devil (or demon type creature) should be tense or frightening; it simply isn't.<br /><br />All in all this is a pretty poor film, and although bearable and at times mildly entertaining, it is still probably best left alone.<br /><br />A rather sad 4/10 | negative |
everyone is a genius in something. Albert Einstien was a genius in science, William Shakespeare was a genius in literature and the boys from the Chasers war on everything are truly comedy geniuses. Their satire TV show is a constant hit on the Australian broadcast commission ( ABC ). After a small start as a satire newspaper, the chasers popularity skyrocketed when given their own television show. Never short on controversy with the cast members will do everything some of it even being arrested for. Chris Taylor going on Sunrise, a very popular live morning television show and telling his partner to f***k off, creating a fake motorcade and driving into APEC high security area and doing a very funny satire of a Australian ad about nicotine by following smokers around yelling out "NO GARY NO NO GARY NO". While controversial the show is increably funny and worthy of running for years to come. | positive |
From a poorly contrived plot line that makes almost no sense to bad dialogue and disjointed scenes to the ultimate downer, bad acting (even Peter Falk can't find his way) "Finding John Christmas" is better left lost. Ms. Bertinelli's performance is without depth or emotion as are her co-stars, William Russ as brother Hank and David Cubitt as love interest Noah. Jennifer Pisana as Soccoro, the daughter of single dad Noah is almost unbearable to watch let alone listen to singing. But who can blame them with material like this. Michael J. Murray's script is juvenile at best. <br /><br />Each year at this time I search the TV guides and wait anxiously for some of the really classic Christmas and inspirational holiday films to appear on the small screen. Films like "Miracle on 34th Street", Ernst Lubitsch's delightful "The shop around the corner" and, of course the 1951 version of "Scrooge". There's Frank Capra's classics "It's a wonderful life" and "Meet John Doe". Hey, forget the classics. What about "Home Alone" or " Home for the Holidays" with Holly Hunter and a great performance by Robert Downey Jr.? <br /><br />My present to you is by way of advice. Your time would be better spent searching out these films than finding "Finding John Christmas". Merry Christmas! | negative |
I don't understand the exaggerated good critics about this film, except that a lot of people from Venezuela are understandably very excited, based on that the Venezuelan cinema is really a bit behind of what other countries are in the region.<br /><br />The movie first of all is too repetitive, a lot of scenes are almost identical from each of the both leading roles, so you get the impression that it's a time filler. A time filler is also a good point, as this movie is definitely too long with 105 minutes, you will start to get tired after a while and watch on the clock.<br /><br />All actors are quite bad, by exception of the venezuelan guy Edgar Ramirez, who brings in a bit of slapstick and plays the role of the venezuelan recruit "Pedro".<br /><br />By the way, this is not a representative movie about the people of the region (caribean zone), it tends to ridicules them. | negative |
I can't believe that they took this off the air. Especially, when they only had a few more episodes left. My daughter, sister and a few of my friends loved watching this show. We were so upset when they stopped showing this because of so called ratings. It is not fair to the people who were watching this show since the beginning. We had a right to see the end. I wish they would take an overall vote from all people with a 3 times a year voting system. They could send out papers in the mail and we as viewers could give an overall vote on all programs that we watch or have heard about. This could also help promote a new show. People would see it and wonder what it is. Not only could you see what the viewers are watching, you could also use this as a tool for free advertisement for TV and cable channels. We want to see the other episodes. Bring it back!! | positive |
There is an interesting split in the voting for this movie (at the moment at least). Those who go expecting a documentary are impressed, or at least not disappointed. I anticipate that those giving the film 1 out of 10 are those who expected a war movie or a re-enaction of the invasion of Gallipoli.<br /><br />So - if you want to see actors, gunfire and gore, this film will not suit you. If you want to see an independent documentary about Gallipoli, without bias towards any one side (the only enemy in these events was the War itself) then you'll come away both impressed and sobered. I found it a very moving film, and even quite liked Captain Guy Nightingale by the end. | positive |
What a strange atmosphere is being created in the streets and on the Golden Gate Bridge of San Francisco in this exciting action picture. Although the characters and the story are in fact bad, it still has a certain cult-flair. | positive |
The appeal of ancient films like this one is that you get to see an actual moving image of life over 100 years ago. Here are a lot of people leaving a factory, all of them dead by now and none of them even remotely aware of the magnitude of the invention that they are walking before. I was shocked to read one reviewer call this film as boring as home videos today, and at least one other mistakenly identified it as the first film ever made (it was the first film made at the rate of 16 frames per second, rather than the then-normal 46 frames per second). <br /><br />Sure, all you see is a lot of people filing out of a building and passing before the cinematograph on their way home from work, but this is a curiosity piece for dozens of reasons, not the least of which is that it was the first film made by the Lumiére brothers, who probably had a stronger impact on the development of the cinema than any other individual or group of individuals in history. | positive |
Okay, now I am pretty sure that my summary got your attention and my commenting that Zazu Pitts is Satan is not without some basis. Let me explain. The film at first appears to be a dandy B-movie about an evil organization called "the Crooked Circle" and their vow of revenge in the form of murder on a rival organization dedicated to solving crimes. While this is very odd (especially the idea of a club of private citizens who solve crimes) and COULD have been interesting, this film falls apart despite a rather impressive list of familiar supporting actors. Why? Well because Zazu Pitts (never one of my favorite actresses) spends most of the movie whining just like Olive Oyl with a bad toothache!! While murders are being committed, people are being kidnapped or whatever, you can always count on Zazu whining at full volume--almost like someone's obnoxious 3 year-old who wants everyone at a party to pay attention to her! At the same time, she's NOT an integral part of the film but received top billing. Why she is even there is beyond me--I assume it's just to whine and yell. As a result, I found the movie practically unwatchable and it was completely ruined. Now you probably know why I referred to this actress of dubious talent as "Satan"! I'm sure that when the actors in this film saw the final product, they, too, felt pretty much the same way I did about her horrible overacting and amateurish performance.<br /><br />This film is in the public domain and can be found for free download on the internet. I can see why. | negative |
Riff Randell is a wildly, obsessed fan of the rock group; The Ramones and so are most of the students in the school. But a new tyrant of a principal, Ms. Togar thinks rock 'n' roll is a bad influence on the students, especially the music from The Ramones. So, when Riff finds out they're performing in town, she skips class for a couple of days to get tickets for herself and her friends. But when Ms. Togar discovers why she really took those days off she confiscates the tickets. While, this is happening Tom Roberts is totally love struck over Riff, but Riff's friend Kate Rambeau feels the same way about Tom. But Riff has her eyes set only on the lead singer Joe Ramone and hopefully in getting to that concert to get them to play her song.<br /><br />Fun! Fun! Fun! Yep, that's right 'Rock n Roll high School' doesn't drift away from it main focus
a boisterously, daggy romp! It wasn't what I was expecting, that's for sure. Everyone participating in this dandy project looks like they're having a great time and the relaxing nature of it shows on screen with the energy providing such a glowing spirit, which makes it a priceless experience. That's not to say I think its art and the plot is as pointless as can be. But watching this passionately, crazy ride that escalates into some good harmless high jinks, I just couldn't wipe the grin off my face. It's tacky, very cheesy, densely chaotic, but damn it's funky-dory! <br /><br />This low-budget, b-grade feature from producer Roger Corman and John Dante who was co-writer ( and plus he co-directed some scenes when director Allan Arkush was hospitalised on the last day shoot). Is basically a glorious homage on the rocking 1950s flicks by sticking with the fruitful clichés and throwing into the stew the teenage rebellion tag because of the generation gap between them and the adults (who always know best). These features might not be particularly fresh, but they do rack up some appeal because of the dynamically, gusto treatment. The film has just one thing on mind, to go out on a bang! And they manage to do that. Courtesy of 'The Ramones', who play themselves. Really, you could say its one big trendy video clip, since it's all about the Ramones
well, most of it anyway. I see a lot flack towards The Ramones' acting ability. These are musicians not actors, which means it's not about their acting here, it's the music we're suppose to dig. They're here to perform! Which, they deliver in that front with some kick ass tracks that peppered the film to create a totally upbeat vibe. Especially, their flamboyant concert performances. The buzzing soundtrack also had some killer tunes from some other artists such as Devo, The Velvet Underground, MC5, Fleetwood Mack, Eddie and the Hot Rods and Alice Cooper. But these jumping tracks fitted in well with the carefree feel and even the score was worked in rather well. Especially in the scenes involving Ms. Togar with the score grasping the right mood that surrounds her mind set. The playful mood of the film is pretty much like a roller coaster ride with such a racy pace between the electrifying tunes and comical segments ranging from scattered slapstick routines to it's sometimes clever, tongue-in-cheek dialogue. Thrown in for good measure is a variety of light and heavy gags, which I found very pleasurable and it gave it such a wider range to express itself.<br /><br />What else gave the film an added boost had to be the divine PJ Soles (better known for her performance in Halloween), who gave such a bang up performance as the peachy Riff Randell. Other exemplary performances were Dey Young, as the extremely cute Kate Rambeau, Vincent Van Patten as the gawky Tom Roberts and the go to man Eaglebauer who's stupendously played by Clint Howard. Also some top drawer Corman regulars pop up with great send up performances by Mary Woronov who's excellent as the demanding Ms. Togar who's pushing her unfair reign on the students, Paul Bartel as Mr. McGree and a small support role from Dick Millar towards the end. The enthusiastic acting is pretty campy, but that goes down well with the material and there's a certain likability stemming from these characters, but we totally despise Ms. Togar and her hall monitor goons.<br /><br />There's no beating around the bush here when I say 'Rock 'n' Roll High School' is an intoxicating hoot, of a rad time! | positive |
I'm a big fan of fan of film noir, and this film by Otto Preminger easily stands as one of the best that I've seen! Preminger has reunited two of his stars from the hit 'Laura' - Gene Tierney and Dana Andrews, for an entirely different sort of crime film. Laura was based around love, and this film is based around hate; as we watch police detective Mark Dixon, a copper already suffering scrutiny from his superiors for his heavy handed tactics, accidentally kill a suspect and try to pin the murder on a known criminal; a man by the name of Tommy Scalisi. The plot is brilliantly worked, and Preminger excellently balances several plot points; but it all comes back down to the main moral implication surrounding our main character. The fact that the film is set in the criminal underground means that the plot is given an excellent base to work from, and director Otto Preminger expertly captures the sleazier side of life by showing the main characters gambling, beating one another (and their women), shooting and more - and this also helps to offset the film from the earlier 'Laura', which was very much set in upper class society.<br /><br />The role of Mark Dixon gives Dana Andrews one of the most interesting parts of his career. Here, we have a character that is difficult to like as he's so cold - but the fact that we can understand his motives ensures that he's easy to sympathise with, and that allows the audience the ability to plug into his plight. The character development is well timed, and as we've follows this character and his motivations throughout the film; everything makes sense by the end. His co-star is the beautiful Gene Tierney, who isn't given as much to do in this film as she was in Laura; a film that made Tierney its linchpin. She does well with what she's got, however, and the lead duo's chemistry is excellent and Tierney helps to complete every scene she's in. I can't say that this is a better film than the earlier Laura; that's a hard act to follow, but this film certainly fits into the film noir formula better than Preminger's earlier film. The film also makes a good comparison piece for Laura; as just about everything in this film is opposite to the 1944 movie, yet it's all strangely familiar. Highly recommended to all! | positive |
I was lucky enough to attend a screening in Stockholm for this elegantly expressed, enjoyable, and thought-provoking film. With romance as the heaviest weapon in its arsenal, Paris je t'aime boldly plunges into love in Paris, navigating the different forms in eighteen separate "quartiers" but without pouting Parisiennes and saccharine formulas. Its goldmine undoubtedly stems from frustration on the directors' parts frustration over only having 5-10 minutes of screen time thereby you are only presented with the best and most assured direction from each party.<br /><br />Debating whether or not I should review all 18 segments, I reached the conclusion that it would be merely redundant and long-winded. Instead simply rest assured that each director graces the film with their eccentric styles and skills, and certainly you'll find your favourite. Although Gus Van Sant cannot resist the temptation to be introspective, his LES MARAIS is one of the better contributions, even sneaking in a well-placed Kurt Cobain reference. The Coen brothers recreate one of the more accessible segments in Paris, a scene with a muted but emotionally transparent Steve Buscemi, deadpan humour and clever camera angles that surely generated the most laughter in my theatre, and perhaps rightly so. <br /><br />In this way, all story lines are exquisitely unique filtered through the minds of different directors but the one that deviates the most from the rest is Vincenzo Natali's QUARTIER DE LA MADELEINE, a dark horror-Gothic love starring Elijah Wood as a lost tourist in the backstreets of Paris in the night who meets a vampiress. With a black-and-white format but blood-red colour contrast that seems to incongruously bleed off screen, it nearly becomes a pastiche of Sin City a refreshing eerie and visual turn in an otherwise fairly grounded film. <br /><br />Yet my single favourite segment was FAUBOURG SAINT-DENIS by Tom Tykwer but I think I was conditioned to think so, given that I went in the theatre with him as my favourite and nudged my friend in the side saying "finally, that's my favourite director here". Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that Tykwer delivers a lovely segment in which a blind boy picks up the phone, and hears from his girlfriend (Portman - for once not annoying) that she breaks up with him, and he reflects on their relationship. As is Tywker's style, the story is dizzyingly fast-paced, kinetic and repetitive, featuring screaming and running (Lola Rennt) making it the most adrenaline-pumping segment in Paris je t'aime and possibly also the most touching once Tywker starts wielding his most powerful tool music.<br /><br />To fill the negative account, clearly not all directors manage as touching as Tywker, Van Sant, Cohens, Coixet and Dépardieu. Sylvain Chomet scrapes the bottom of the pile by carving out a truly disposable segment in which a little boy retells the story of how his parents met. They are two lonely mimes. This part is so in-your-face French and desperately quirky that it is insulting to international viewers. Suwa also directs a poor and fluffy segment with an unusually haggard-looking Juliette Binoche whom mourns the loss of her son. Nothing else happens. Finally, the wrap-up and interweaving of the 18 stories in the end feels somewhat rushed and half-hearted.<br /><br />Yet Paris je t'aime truly spoils you with quality, for all the other stories are well-crafted with crisp acting and amusing writing. It is certainly one of the highlights of 2006 (not saying much, I suppose) and a very personal film in the sense that it is unavoidable to pick a favourite and a least favourite. Highly recommended both to mainstream of "pretentious" (heh) audiences.<br /><br />8 out 10 | positive |
This adaptation of Pearl S. Buck's film is certainly a classic. A true Hollywood epic, it has all the things a great Hollywood film has: Birth, death, happiness, sadness, exhilaration, despair, and so on. There is only one thing that irks me. I know it was a sign of the times, but neither of the two main characters are played by Asian actors. Paul Muni was a great actor, and he does an admirable job as Wang Lung, the owner of a farm in China. Luise Rainier plays Olan. She does not even look Chinese! I think she tried to get the role, but they should have put Anna May Wong in the role. I know why they didn't, and Ms. Rainier is very good in the film, but they hardly tried to make her look "authentic". Stillm its a great film, especially if you read the book (I did in high school, decades ago). Its a must see, just look beyond the casting. I think you can. | positive |
"Music and lyrics written and performed by Charlie Daniels"... 'nuff said. Just don't be expecting anything along the lines of "Devil Went Down To Georgia", ol' Charles sorta talk-sings through one song early in about the Whiskey Mountain (duh) and that's it for lyrics. Hey though, fans of arty rape scenes will get a kick out of the Polaroid montage (my second-hand copy is classified as a FAMILY film) and who doesn't love interminable scenes of rednecks gawking at purty wimmen? The box art made the movie look a hell of a lot weirder than it was, with the promise that "you can lose your life-- or your mind!", but mostly it's two couples trekking through the sticks and "acting" natural. Love that hermit. | negative |
This movie doesn't have an awful lot to do with it's predecessor "Robot Jox". This must be also the reason why its most common name is "Robot Wars" and not the alternate name "Robot Jox 2: Robot Wars".<br /><br />"Robot Jox" was basically a fun movie to watch because it had a nice premise of giant robots battling each other in the near future. This concept has been abandoned for this movie and instead it features a totally dull story that besides isn't very original or cleverly written. A shame it tried to be so much different from its predecessor really, for else this perhaps could had been a more fun movie to watch.<br /><br />Just like "Robot Jox" this is a B-movie but with as a big difference that it's just not a very good one. Perhaps this also has to with the fact that "Robot Jox" got made during the '80's, when B-movies still had a certain bit of charm and class over it, even though the movie got released in 1990. This really can't be said about this movie. It's just lame, badly made, poor looking and not exciting enough. It also has an ending which leaves you thinking 'This is it? That's all?'.<br /><br />What the movie its story is lacking is good clear main plot-line really. Perhaps a good main villain would had been a good idea and some other stuff such as an actual point to the story, some action, or likable main characters.<br /><br />Seriously what were they thinking when they picked the actors for this movie. All of them are simply not likable in their roles and especially Don Michael Paul is annoying as the main character, who behaves as if he's God's gift to woman and Mr. Perfect who can compete with anyone. Weren't they even simply able to get the actors from the first movie?<br /><br />For such a futuristic movie, with a concept of having large battle droids in it, this movie surely is lacking with its action. Had they put some more and bigger action into the movie, the movie would at least had been a more entertaining one to watch. Instead now we have a movie that fails to impress in basically every way imaginable.<br /><br />You can better watch a "Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers" episode, for some more action and likability.<br /><br />3/10 | negative |
I recall so many things about seeing this movie back during it's original theatrical release - the post Woodstock afterglow of peace and love, along with the pre-Watergate tension of fear and paranoia. It's hard to believe that it's thirty seven years later, and I can still remember the thoughts going through my head while watching the film with my best friend. Like marveling at Peter Boyle's characterization of the ultimate redneck, sure to typecast him the rest of his career (Oh, how wrong!), and how the counter culture jarred the sensibilities of most of the country. To this day, my buddy and I still use Joe Curran's line from my summary above when faced with a dilemma; curious how a simple line like that can stay with you for decades.<br /><br />It's curious to read comments about the film from others on this board, particularly the ones stating that the film has a dated quality and how over the top the characters were. Still, if you were around during that time, the picture gives a pretty accurate portrayal of the polar opposites that existed back then, pretty much side by side as the events in the story reveal. If you really want dated, when was the last time you heard the words Macy's and Gimbel's in the same sentence, or a line like Joe's - "Come on, get with the Pepsi generation". For historical perspective, you have that great Nixon poster lingering in one of the background scenes - "Would you buy a used car from this man?" With minor intricacies like those, director John Avildsen captures many of the subtle but ever present hints of how life was four decades ago.<br /><br />Today's viewing was only the second time I've seen the movie, and I have to admit I don't remember Susan Sarandon in one of the lead roles, but then again, this was her very first picture. The scenes of nudity and free love were something actually quite new and bold at the time, shocking in fact, as film makers began to experiment with their ability to push the envelope of propriety and convention. "Joe" took a major leap in that regard, particularly since it was a 'mainstream' picture.<br /><br />With the passage of time, the thing that impresses me the most about Peter Boyle was how he overcame the stereotype of Joe Curran to appear in or star in some of my very favorite pieces of work. I mean, how do you go from "Joe" to that hilarious rendition of 'Puttin' on the Ritz' in "Young Frankenstein"? And my absolute favorite episode of 'X-Files' has Boyle as Clyde Bruckman, in both a tender and tragic, funny and serious portrayal that turns the tables on Scully and Mulder more than once. And as a career capper, Frank Barone has to be one of the funniest characters in the history of television. Even repeat episodes in syndication are funny as he-- whenever the elder Barone lets loose with one of his observations. He is one actor that this viewer sorely misses already. | positive |
I remember watching this when it was made and thinking it was brilliant at the time. Watching it for the second time nearly 20 years later, I still think Traffik is brilliant and much better than the US film that was based on this drama.<br /><br />It should also be watched by all our come today gone tomorrow politicians who think they can win the war on drugs, as the issues raised in this film are as pertinent today as they were back then at the end of the 80s, and unless they change their policies, will be so in another 20 years.<br /><br />Well written, well made, beautifully acted and superbly filmed. A thought provoking drama that entertains as well as brings to light some of the hard realities of the criminal drug trade. | positive |
I watched this film based on the very favorable reviews that I read about it here by others.<br /><br />They definitely saw something in this movie I didn't see, that's for sure.<br /><br />The movie starts off at a good pace, and the first 15 or 20 minutes of it are interesting, then it begins to get logged down and draggy, not to mention completely unbelievable.<br /><br />Eventually you find yourself saying: "What?!? He's going to do that too? Just how far is he going to go with this thing?"<br /><br />The plot begins with Jeff Goldblum's character, John, going into a deli to purchase a bottle of wine. There is a robbery and a new store clerk, Auggie Rose, gets killed during the robbery. <br /><br />John gets in the ambulance and goes to the hospital with the guy. This seems a little much, but wait, there's more.<br /><br />John becomes totally obsessed with Auggie Rose. <br /><br />For reasons that never make any kind of logical sense, John, who has a very good life, a beautiful, loving girlfriend, a secure, well-paying job, nice house, nice car, expensive suits--decides he wants to be a loser like Auggie Rose was, and experience life in a low paying job, living in a dump with a dippy girlfriend and possible connections with dangerous people.<br /><br />Why this dim-witted, half-baked film got favorable reviews I'll never know. Sure Goldblum does a good acting job - he always does - and his looks have improved with age -- but unless you have a BIG infatuation with Jeff Goldblum and have to see every film he's in, I wouldn't recommend this turkey. It's approximately two hours of your life you're not going to get back - and believe me - you'll have nothing to be thankful about when those two hours are over, other than being grateful you're not still sitting there watching this film!<br /><br /> | negative |
This film was so amateurish I could hardly believe what I was seeing. It is shot on VIDEO! NOT film! I have not seen the likes of this since the early 70's, when late night networks showed movie of the week 'horror flicks' shot in......video. It looks like a bad soap opera, and that is paying it a compliment. Some of the actors give it their best shot. Michael Des Barres does okay with what he is given to do, which is to act like a sex addict out of control. I can't say that it is pleasant to watch.<br /><br />Nastassja Kinski as the therapist sits in a chair for practically the entire film, with very little variation in camera angles. I can't fault her for someone else's poor blocking, but she is totally unbelievable in her role. Her little girl voice works against her here. And I consider myself a Nastassja Kinski fan. She is certainly ageless and exotic, but she's outside her range with this.<br /><br />Alexandra Paul is pathetically overwrought. Every line she delivers is with three exclamation points. Someone must have directed her to scream at all costs. Why would Michael Des Barres want to have sex with such a raging shrew?<br /><br />Finally, Rosanna Arquette as the sweet, maligned wife comes off okay, and probably the most believable of the bunch. But that is not saying much.<br /><br />This has to be the worst film I have seen in years. | negative |
First of all, I believe that this movie is much more appreciated by viewers who have actually read Joseph Conrad's "Heart Of Darkness", the book that was the literary basis for the movie. With that said, I believe that this movie is astounding. It is an excellent war film that doesn't so much concentrate on the gore and brutality of the Vietnam Conflict, but more the psychological toll that it took on the young, inexperienced "kids" who were sent to fight it. Coppola showed real genius in the art of film-making, using many visuals to help tell the story. The acting I felt was definitely all-around up to par. Marlon Brando's part in the movie is what really got me as far as acting. His elucidation to Willard at the end of the film reels you in, and reveals the hollowness of a man that you've heard about and wanted to see throughout the movie. Those who would consider this just another war movie need to give a detailed look to all the literary elements that are entwined with this film, because there is a great amount of meaning behind it all. In my opinion, this is one of the most sculptured and best-made films of all time. | positive |
You know what kind of movie you're getting into when the serial killer main character is being transported to the electric chair (in what seems to be a bakery truck), only to have the prison vehicle collide with (and I'm not making this up) a genetic engineering tanker truck. The goo which spurts forth melts him, and fuses his DNA with the snow, creating our protagonist, the killer snowman.<br /><br />My favorite portion of the movie, however, is an over-the-shoulder shot of the snowman thrashing some poor schmuck, in which his hands look suspiciously like a couple of white oven-potholder gloves.<br /><br />Mmmmm, schlock... | negative |
"The Intruder (L'Intrus)" is a visual pilgrimage through a mysterious life. <br /><br />Grizzled Michel Subor plays "Louis Trebor" like Jason Bourne as an old man with a hidden past, living simply in an isolated hut in the woods for justifiably paranoid reasons (but attracting pretty young women who can be useful to him). We learn more about him through dreams, flashbacks and a journey that may unfold chronologically or not, as well as through his brusque interactions with family, lovers, business associates and a striking nemesis. Like "The Limey," the film resonates with parent/child regrets and a suspicious past revealed through clips from an old film with the same actor as a young man (here Paul Gégauff's 1965 adventure film "Le Reflux").<br /><br />In a complete contrast of moods, we meet his son Sidney (Grégoire Colin) who has to be the sexiest house husband in the world, as he sweetly and seductively does household repairs and cares for a baby, a toddler and every need of his working wife. Surely director/co-writer Claire Denis must have created him as a woman's fantasy if ever there was one and a lesson to other filmmakers on filming foreplay. There's an additional extended scene where he seeks his father in the woods while carefully carrying his angelic baby in a pouch. He is everything his father is not and has every relationship his father is incapable of sustaining; no wonder he thinks his father is "a lunatic." I spent the rest of the film in dread that something bad would happen to him as the true nature of the heart of his alienated father is very gradually played out before our eyes.<br /><br />The film is a puzzle, but Subor is ruthlessly fascinating as we watch him traverse countries and negotiate nefarious deals, and the voice-over narration for Denis's "Beau Travail" was annoying anyway. We have to figure out from skylines and incidental signage that he is traveling to Geneva, Korea and the South Pacific. Time passing is indicated by the seasons changing and scars being created and healing. There are lots of images of water for cleansing and for distancing. <br /><br />Continuing her fascination with the morphing of colonialism into globalization, as well as playing a bit on stereotypes of the Mysterious Orient and Russian criminals, Denis has incorporated elements from Robert Louis Stevenson, Paul Gauguin and Marlon Brando's Tahiti idylls and a 40-page memoir by French philosopher Jean-Luc Nancy, the last for the title and heart-transplant plot used for an ironic theme of limited immortality which does have consequences.<br /><br />While "Louis" thinks he's succeeded in being above boundaries, rules and morals, there is some amusement in the last act as the locals don't quite know what to do with him and try to help him solve his quixotic odyssey, even as he again lies in isolation.<br /><br />Several people in the audience left in frustration at the elliptical, but strikingly beautiful, story telling method. The unconventional narrative does raise a lot of plot questions on details. | positive |
Wow, this film was terrible. It is as simple as that. It is actually the first time that I walked out early, as far as I can remember. This turned out okay, though: I had a very nice chat with two most charming girls while we all waited for the rest to finally give up on that crap they called a "movie".<br /><br />Where to start. Bad acting, bad jokes. Faecal humour, which I simply cannot stand. Sorry, but snot, pee and scat are *not* funny. You have seen the title picture? That scene actually drags on for about 5 minutes, with the two "heroes" hitting and mutilating each other, which is supposed to be humorous all by itself. It is not.<br /><br />Apart from body fluids, violence and cross-dressing, I do not remember much about this. At least not much good. I was really, really disappointed by this piece of garbage. Or let us be honest here: given that I am actually a big fan of "british" (i.e., black) humour, I was angry.<br /><br />So, want my advice? Three words: do not watch. | negative |
Joe Rogan's whole act is profanity laced with bile. He is a pot smoker who entered Fear Factor, thinking it was a joke. He said he would egg people on because he did not know how stupid people were going to be. The producers of the show he explained were going on the premise of playing pranks on unsuspecting contestants to see how far they will go. The level of evil involved is a little twisted. Mr. Rogan's special is just filled with the rants of someone who is too good for regular human beings. I found him to be offensive and his stuff can be heard by more talented comedians such as Eddie Murphy or Chris Rock. Rogan even does a five minute set on the N word. Overall, ignore this special. | negative |
This movie was like a bad train wreck, as horrible as it was, you still had to continue to watch. My boyfriend and I rented it and wasted two hours of our day. Now don't get me wrong, the acting is good. Just the movie as a whole just enraged both of us. There wasn't anything positive or good about this scenario. After this movie, I had to go rent something else that was a little lighter. Jennifer Tilly is as usual a very dramatic actress. Her character seems manic and not all there. Darryl Hannah, though over played, she does a wonderful job playing out the situation she is in. More than once I found myself yelling at the TV telling her to fight back or to get violent. All in all, very violent movie...not for the faint of heart. | negative |
Not a box office success; no-one really knows why. It may have failed simply because of its title. It looks as though you need a two-word tough-guy title to attract a sufficient proportion of the idiot crowd - "Die Hard", "Lethal Weapon", "Hard Weapon", "Die Lethal", etc. - talking about "the long kiss goodnight" will get you nowhere. But for once Renny Harlin has made a GOOD action movie. A large part of the reason for this lies in the fact that the central character, Samantha, earns our affection and interest early on. As she becomes Charly again, we're torn: we certainly want Charly to thwart the bad guys, and all that; but we don't want her to lose touch with Samantha in order to do so - even though we like Charly, too. Geena Davis bestows all of her considerable charm on both halves of the central character. Samuel L. Jackson plays second fiddle for a change. It turns out he's good at it. That was a compliment.<br /><br />Intelligent, far superior to anything in the "Die Hard" series - if I were more cynical I'd add, "it's not surprising that it didn't do well", but I don't really feel that way; it IS surprising that it didn't do well. | positive |
There's a legion of Mick Garris haters out there who feel he couldn't direct a horror film of quality if he had to. And, SLEEPWALKERS(..screenplay written by Stephen King)is often used as an example of this. I like SLEEPWALKERS, though I fully am aware that Garris just says F#ck it and lets all hell break loose about fifteen or so minutes into the movie. Forget character or plot development, who needs them anyway. It's about violent mayhem and bloody carnage as a mother and son pair of "sleepwalkers"(..feline-human shapeshifting creatures who suck the lifeforce from virginal female innocents, moving from town to town, living a nomadic existence, truly powerful)set their sights on a teenager who doesn't surrender without a fight. Before all is said and done, many will be slaughtered as a mother shan't tolerate the possible death of her beloved son.<br /><br />Garris wastes little time setting up those to be executed, as a teacher(Glenn Shadix), suspecting handsome, All American charmer Charles Brady(Brian Krause)to be someone entirely different from who he claims, gets his hand ripped off and his neck torn into. Charles lures pretty virgins into his arms, drawing their energy, in turn "feeding" his hungry mama, Mary(Alice Krige). The fresh new target is Tanya Robertson(Mädchen Amick), and she seems to be easy pickens, but this will not be the case and when Charles is seriously injured in a struggle(..thanks to a deputy's cat, Clovis), Mary's vengeance will be reaped on all those who get her way. Mary, come hell or high water, will retrieve Tanya in the goal of "refreshing" her dying son.<br /><br />Like many teenagers, I had a crush on certain actresses I watched in movies. Such as Amy Dolenz, I was smitten with Mädchen Amick. She's simply adorable in this movie and I love how she bites her lower lip displaying an obvious attraction towards Charles, unaware of his ulterior motives. I just knew that Mädchen Amick would be destined to be a scream queen, but this would never be the case. Too bad because I would've welcomed her in the genre with open arms.<br /><br />Krige is yummy as the menacing, damn sexy, but vicious and mean bitch who wipes out an entire police force and poor Tanya's parents in one fail swoop, in less than ten or so minutes. She stabs one in the back with a corn cob! She bites the fingers off of poor Ron Perlman, before cracking his arm(..a bone protruding), knocking him unconscious with his own elbow! She tosses Tanya's mom through a window after breaking a rose vase over her father's face! A deputy is stabbed in his ear by Charles(Cop-kebab!), falling on the pencil for extra impact. Poor Tanya is dragged by her hair from her home by Mary, driven to the Brady home, and forced into an impromptu dance with the crippled monster! The sheriff is hurled onto a picket fence and we see how cats combat the sleepwalkers unlike humans. We see Mary and Charles' abilities to "dim" themselves and his car using a power of invisibility. Writer Stephen King even finds time to include himself and horror director buddies of his in a crime scene sequence with Clive Barker and Tobe Hooper as forensics officers, Joe Dante and John Landis as photograph experts.<br /><br />The film is shot in a tongue-in-cheek, let-it-all-hang-out manner with music appropriately hammering this technique home. It's about the ultra-violence, simple as that, with some deranged behavior and jet black humor complimenting Garris' direction and King's screenplay. The incestuous angle of the sleepwalkers is a bit jarring and in-your-face. Without a lick of complexity, this is closer in vein to King's own demented MAXIMIMUM OVERDRIVE than his more serious works. | positive |
OK, I love bad horror. I especially love horror bad enough to make fun of. Demonicus, or House of the Dead - those were bad enough to make fun of. Severed was not.<br /><br />It was worse.<br /><br />(spoilers - who cares?)<br /><br />My friend and I sat through the entire film, and I have a number of comments, both in the "this sucks" style and in the realm of actual critiques.<br /><br />Plot (sort of) - There's a guy in this city (which is possibly Seattle, see comment below) who is running around and cutting off heads. He's been doing this for over a year (I'm not going back to get exact numbers - thank you VERY much), possibly two or three years. One head a week. And the police are JUST NOW calling in a "specialist" (who ONCE refers to himself as a psychic, but that never comes up again).<br /><br />Schya right! Feds take over after, what, THREE connected homicides? After NEARLY A HUNDRED SIMILAR KILLINGS we'd be under freaking martial law!!!!!<br /><br />Anyway, this "specialist" consults the voodoo chick who the police have been ignoring the entire time, and the two of them come to the conclusion that it's Baron Samedi, a voodoo spirit, who is cutting off heads to gain enough power to make himself a body (and then presumably take over the world - or possibly just go to Disneyland).<br /><br />Um.<br /><br />Setting - where IS this happening? Well, if you're not from Seattle, you might not realize that at the bar/rave (occupied by about ten of the movie staff and their family members), there's a poster for a local radio station, and that in the highly-entertaining, "Pulp Fiction"esqe dialog (as IF) between the two cops (yes, the ones who get their heads cut off about 15 minutes into the flick) they discuss "the new stadium" which may still have been an issue when this movie was made.<br /><br />Being from Seattle, I apologize on the movie's behalf and hang my head in shame.<br /><br />OK, here's where it gets really critical - being a horror movie writer (not published, don't go looking for my name in the IMDb), I do research. Lots of research. And unlike the writers of this movie, I know that Baron Samedi - while a Voudon Loa (spirit) who guards the graveyards and has traditionally been associated (by various Christian oppressors) with "Satan" - is actually a "Loki"-like trickster god. <br /><br />In other words, he doesn't cut off heads.<br /><br />Besides, a major part of the Voudoun religion is that Baron Samedi can have a body whenever he wants. Their religious ceremonies center around the possession of various members of the congregation by the loa.<br /><br />Not to mention, if he's already possessed someone, why make a NEW body?<br /><br />Also, if Baron Samedi GOT a body, he wouldn't go around cutting off heads, he'd get some good rum and cigars and par-TAY!!!<br /><br />In summary, the only thing they did get (surprisingly) right is that in the completely unnecessary Tarot card reading (used only to show that the voodoo chick is "spooky") they didn't screw up the interpretations of the cards the way most movies do. Again, I've done research. (Anyone remember the old late-night ad for phone-in tarot readings - "The lovers - you will soon fall madly in love..." and all that nonsense?)<br /><br />If you made it this far through my comments, I congratulate you. And I'm sorry again. I'll be more sorry if you feel the need to watch the film on account of me, so please don't. | negative |
If you like silly comedies like Airplane you'll love this movie! It's definitely in the style of Airplane and Scary Movie. A fun film! It has the strangest cast of characters all in the same movie. Michael Jackson, Evan Marriott, Joyce Giraurd, Stuart Pankin, Charlie Schlater and Eric Roberts. The special effects are hokey, but I think they're supposed to be since it's a silly comedy. There is apparently two versions of the film, one at Blockbuster and one on the official website: MissCastaway.com. The one on the website appears to be a preview release version signed by the director. There's some fun behind the scenes material filmed at Neverland with Michael Jackson as well. The movie was filmed in 2003 and says it's PG rated fun on the box. | positive |
Faithful to the work of Pearl S. Buck whose years spent in China as a child of Missionary parents that provided her with deep insights into the Chinese culture and its philosophy, this film adaptation is brilliantly done, both in technically artistry and acting.<br /><br />Wang Lung is a humble farmer grateful for the basics of life: to survive off of his land and to be newly wed to Olan, a servant to a rich and powerful family in the village area. Despite Wang Lung and Olan's best efforts to farm the land, raise kids, and build savings and wealth, a famine threatens to wipe out everything they have worked for. Choosing not to sell their land, a traditional Asian belief, they instead journey to a major city to wait out the famine. While in the city, they are reduced to begging and being just one of hundreds of other unfortunate homeless families. Although not a looter, Olan gets caught up in a mob looting at a rich man's house. She's summarily rounded up for execution by the army, but is saved at the last minute. Her good fortune, however, is that she found valuable jewels at the looting site that affords her and her family the opportunity to return to their farm to start over again. The newly found wealth transforms Wang Lung. He becomes selfish, self-centered and takes credit for the find. He becomes a very rich farmer but that only makes matters worse as he increasingly becomes more unappreciative, arrogant and difficult to reason with. He loses touch with the basic things in life that money can't buy: loyalty, commitment, trust, fairness and honesty. As punishment, nature once again turns the table on Wang Lung by sending a plague of locust to destroy everything he has. Brought to his knees, Wang Lung enlists the aid of all friends, former friends, workers, and family. With all that help, he succeeds in saving the farm. From that experience, he once again returns to humbleness and an appreciation for the basics in life. | positive |
Me and a group of friends rent horrible videos to laugh at them, trust me it has lead to some horribly spent money but also some great laughs. S.I.C.K. is one of the better horror-but-funny movie we've rented. The plot is over-done, the whole take your friends into the woods and never return thing is very old. The goriest part of the movie looks like your visiting the local butcher shop except a little dirtier and with blood on the play dough looking meat. And if anyone has ever been scared of this movie at any time they should stick to Cartoon Network for the rest of their life, it's pathetic. The good aspects of the movie are that the two girls in it are reasonably hot, one better then the other and you see them both naked during the movie. The other good aspect is that this movie is so bad at times that you will laugh till you cry. I don't like watching horrible acting or renting these horrible videos, I don't find that fun but seeing the amount of effort these people put into it and still come out so bad is hilarious and worth renting.Unless you are too mature to laugh at someone's downfalls I would recommend it.<br /><br />If your renting/buying it to laugh at it I'd give it an 8.5. | negative |
Robert Jannuci,Luca Venantini, Venantino Venantini, Alicia Moro (two stars are from CITY OF THE LIVING DEAD (I wonder what Luca is doing these days, probably a lawyer or something, like Bela Lugosi Jr. or David Hennessey there kid from dark shadows who wants to forget dark shadows existed). Anyway, in the Thorn EMI video there's no music over the opening credits . . . but the music is great once it comes in . . . with the Italian movies the films aren't as good as the music . . . my favorite scene is with the boy with the robot arm following loner-Alien through the desert. Alien says why are you following me. Tommy answers because i feel like it . . . Alien replies which way are you headed Tommy says West then Alien says well, I'm going east. So after a while of walking, the theme playing in the background Alien looks up and sees Tommy sitting on a rock petting a pet hamster . . . tommy looks up and says to Alien, what took you so long . . . I love this movie . . . It touches my heart. The boy with the robot arm needs a daddy and Alien is drafted in to being Tommy's daddy in the desert . . . oh yeah, they need water too . . . not THE ROAD WARRIOR (MAD MAX 2) by any means but a silly western/post nuke movie with a boy with a robot arm and Alien and Trash and a few other good guys with a mean chick with an iron claw and CRAZY BULL who looks like Wez in the Road warrior . . .on Sunday afternoons on channel 57 (philadelphia, PA) after church i'd come home and find this on . . . often . . . too often. Love it. 10/10 | positive |
Big fat slob 'Uncle Buck', played by John (eats-a-lot-of) Candy, visits the sane members of his family for a week in order to baby-sit two cute kids (Gaby Hoffman and MacCauley Culkin) and a pretty but snobby teenager (Jean Louisa Kelly). The shenanigans begin when Buck makes breakfast and then tries to sleep in a bed two sizes too small for his blimp of a body. <br /><br />Mostly dull, but peppered with two or three funny scenes including Buck trying to get a word in edge-wise on the telephone with his angry girlfriend (Amy Madigan) and his meeting with a very disgusting clown.<br /><br />Candy looks like he weighs 600 pounds. | negative |
Pretty poor Firestarter clone that seems more like a bad TV movie than a bad feature film. How disappointing for this to come from Hooper and Dourif!<br /><br />Government contractors do a human experiment with a Hydrogen bomb. The boy born to the couple from the experiment constantly runs a fever of 100 degrees, and when he's an adult, people in his life start spontaneously combusting. He tries to find out why.<br /><br />The people completely on fire are well done, but when they get to the point that they are well done in another sense, they're obviously changed to dummies. When jets of fire shoot out of characters' arms, it looks silly rather than alarming the way it should. Also ridiculous is fire that evidently travels through phone lines and erupts in huge jets from the receiver's earpiece. How is that supposed to happen, exactly?<br /><br />Something else that struck me as silly about the movie is when a character has visions of his late parents. We later see the exact same shots from those visions in home movies. | negative |
I awarded this presentation 4 stars. They are all for the script, which has been butchered beyond recognition in places. What can possibly be said? They took one of the finest plays written in the last century and methodically robbed it of its heart, humor and humanity. I don't really blame the actors, who are probably doing their best with shoddy direction and incomplete characters (because the very complete characters of the stage version have had their insides -- and insights -- ripped out). I do very much blame the director, who seems to strain to find ways to undermine the script. There are so many awkward pauses, awkwardly re-staged moments and awkwardly re-imagined line readings in this TV movie that at times, I forgot ever loving the play. I'm not one of these people who thinks that genius plays are automatically inferior on film (quite the contrary), but this particular genius play has been tremendously under-served by this outing. Now I hope they'll make a *real* film of this play. The world deserves it. | negative |
One thing that astonished me about this film (and not in a good way) was that Nathan Stoltzfus, who seems to pride himself on being the major historian on the topic of the Rosenstrasse, was one of the historians working on this film, considering how much of the actual events were altered or disregarded. <br /><br />Another reviewer said that von Trotta said she never meant for Lena to bed Goebbels, but in that case, why did she give every impression that that was what had happened? Why not show other possible reasons for the mens' release, such as the disaster that was Stalingrad, or the Nazis' fear that the international press, based in Berlin, would find out about the protest.<br /><br />Also, why did the whole storyline play second fiddle to a weak family bonding storyline that has been done over and over again? Surely something as awesome as this could carry its own history! In places, it was as if the film had two story lines that really seemed to have little in common.<br /><br />Overall, this film failed in its aim, which was to draw attention to a little-known act of resistance, which is a shame, because done better, it could have had a major impact. | negative |
It does touch a few interesting points.. But! - It fails to show evidence of all the 'exclusive' studies shown. Who are the 'friends' and 'small groups of scientists' that gathered this data? - What's up with all the Al Gore biography going on there? Like how he liked playing with the cows on the ranch or that his kid got hit by a car.. too bad but.. what does that have to do with the ozone layer?<br /><br />I've seen MUCH better stuff, in much less time, on Discovery Channel.. I really don't understand why this has such a high score on IMDb. Unless you've been living under a rock, this 'documentary' shouldn't be any news to you... all this is old news... And all Al Gore is trying to do is get some popularity points. P.S. i'm not American so don't even try saying that i'm a bush fan :p | negative |
This movie stars Ben Kingsley as Frank, a hit man for some Russian mobsters based out of Buffalo. He is also a raging alcoholic, and this has caused his job performance to decline. After he falls asleep in his car during a would-be hit, his mob boss uncle sends him to San Francisco, where he is to attend AA meetings and get a job as a mortician's assistant. If you're thinking that this makes absolutely no sense, you're not alone.<br /><br />It gets worse. Well, it actually gets better, but not before getting much, much worse. Frank suddenly becomes a master mortician in spite of a complete lack of training, but his reactions with the people in the funeral home and the AA meetings are interesting. The viewer starts to root for him as they notice positive changes in his life. Luke Wilson is a welcome addition as Frank's sponsor, although he is given almost nothing to do (his character does tell us he is gay, but this ends up having no significance whatsoever). The movie plunges headlong into idiocy with the introduction of the Tea Leoni character. She is completely unrealistic, and her role as a love interest to Frank flounders, as the two actors have no chemistry together. Around the time she comes into the picture, Frank becomes much less engrossing as a character. His characterization is seemingly random; there is no consistency in his behavior. The comedy is low-key and only intermittently funny, especially disappointing considering the comedic pedigree of the cast.<br /><br />Problems abound in this one. Kingsley's accent is terrible and inconsistent. It alternates between Italian, Russian, and Hispanic. Throughout the course of the movie, Frank tells numerous people he is a hit man (including an entire AA group), but nobody seems to care, or wants to do anything about it. The movie relies on cliché scenes to carry it through its final act, most notably when Leoni's insufferable character chases Frank down at the airport, just when he is about to board a flight back to Buffalo.<br /><br />Though it has a strong premise and an interesting first half-hour, the movie quickly becomes a total disaster and devolves into complete nonsense. At the end of the film, Frank celebrates one year of sobriety. I hope to celebrate many, many years of not having seen "You Kill Me". <br /><br />My Grade: D+ | negative |
Poorly written conspiracy drama/mystery about the possibility that AIDS was introduced to the public by the government. Wlaschiha plays a gay researcher looking for answers--that within this foggy plot would be hard for anyone to find. Despite the cinematography itself being commendable, the camera hungers for characters of true depth instead of the shallow, amateur acting it unfortunately has to convey. Grade: D+ | negative |
What could ever happen in a dull Texan town in summer? Well, a bunch of teenagers find out a few things can and do happen.<br /><br />It turns out the Mexican werewolf of this story is nothing less than el chupacabra, and the movie, unlike the name would suggest, is not a remake or lookalike of the American Werewolf movies, but something completely different.<br /><br />Overall, for an obviously low-budget movie, it's not bad! Some clever camera work, quite decent looking traditional creature and gore effects, and for once not all-knowing people that can and do make mistakes, like shooting a colleague thinking it's the big bad beast, and are baffled by things they could not possibly know.<br /><br />Sit down at this expecting a blockbuster million-dollar production, and you will turn it off in disgust after a short while. Sit down at this expecting a bit of entertainment and a relatively simple story, and it's quite good! Overall it gets an 8/10 from me for being creative, having OK acting, and pulling off some good work for the budget this movie had. | positive |
I was lucky enough to get a free pass to an advance screening of 'Scoop' last night. Full house at the theatre and when the movie ended there was spontaneous applause. I didn't speak to anyone who disliked 'Scoop' although two teenagers sitting next to me sighed and fidgeted uncomfortably for most of the film. They were the exception though because everyone else including myself really enjoyed themselves.<br /><br />'Scoop' is a quickly paced murder mystery. A young female journalism student is unwittingly maneuvered by forces beyond her control into trying to catch a serial killer on the loose. Plenty of hijinks ensue as she partners up with a traveling illusionist and falls in love with a frisky and charming young nobleman.<br /><br />'Scoop' isn't a bad addition to the Woody Allen filmography. It isn't his best work but it is a very enjoyable and light hearted romp. I'd say it fits quite comfortably into being an average Woody Allen film, right in the middle of the pack. If you're a Woody Allen fan you'll probably enjoy yourself. If you're indifferent to his work then 'Scoop' might be enough to get you interested in seeing more. I don't think that anyone who dislikes his style of film-making and acting are going to change their mind. Woody plays the same kind of neurotic character we've grown so accustomed to although it borders dangerously close to forced and over the top in this film. While potentially aggravating for some who might find themselves wishing he'd hurry up and just spit out the words, Woody Allen fans know what to expect.<br /><br />Very good performances all around in my opinion although I found myself missing Ian McShane who is excellent and not on camera nearly enough. Hugh Jackman is great as the charming nobleman and I think Woody Allen has found a new regular star to work with in Scarlett Johansson. I think that with 'Match Point' this is their second pairing and she's just magic with the material that Woody gives her. Could be the beginning of a beautiful relationship! I'm glad I saw the movie and definitely recommend it. More sophisticated comedy than movies like 'Scary Movie 4' so if your brand of comedy is the latter rather than the former, 'Scoop' probably isn't for you. If, on the other hand, you like a touch of class, sophistication and fun, 'Scoop' is for you. Probably not the Woody Allen film I'd introduce to a newcomer but all others should give it a try. | positive |
"Opera" is one of the greatest achievements in horror genre. This masterful picture has everything what should be in the pure horror movie:good, captivating story, a lot of symbols, wonderful visuals and plenty of gore. The killings are very shocking and bloody. An unforgettable atmosphere of dread and fear. A must-see for a true Argento fan, so if you get a chance watch it. | positive |
I was lucky enough to watch this without any pre viewing hype. I was surprised at the resilience of the ghost's image in my mind the next day, and the day after that. I've watched it 3-4 times, and each time I appreciate it even more. The settings are gorgeous, the town at dusk has beautiful lighting effects, the marsh long shots, and the house itself is sufficiently grown with moss. The main hero is so likable and good natured, that he is easily sympathized with. To the person who complained that there wasn't enough 'spark' in this film, I'd say that it's because the whole fight against the ghost is being waged by just this one person. It is a fairly slow paced film, with an unusual amount of time being spent ,pre and post ghost attack, on developing his character with family and work life. SPOILERS discussion/<br /><br />I especially liked the turning point, when he comes back to the main town and meets with the man helping him and explains about seeing the ghost. He describes the Woman in black, and then at the end of the conversation he says that he is going back, because after all, what harm had she done to him? The other man says, "you can't go back... alone!" and lends the hero his dog. The cute little dog offers a small respite of comic relief, with it's bounding through the house and even into the locked room.<br /><br />The many casual appearances of the ghost really freaked me out. The woman shows up in mid shot at the church, showing that it is not afraid of the church, and is also not shy or bound to the house. This is all in the very beginning. Another unbelievably memorable scene was with the kids outside of the church fence, watching the funeral. As the camera pans to the right, the woman is seen in the background among the gravestones. The older man won't even look at it, but the kids are all yelling and taunting it. Crreeepy... Usually ghosts are hidden in shadows, haunting specific locales or people. As has been mentioned, the ghost's malevolence and wrath are frightening, and I feel it's attacks and the ending were perfect and fully justified. The ending underlined the fact that the hero made a major mistake by going back to the house. Or perhaps he was marked no matter what, by saving the gypsy girl. The guy who plays the hotel manager is so believable, and really fills the role well. I have been spreading the word to my friends about how much I enjoyed this film, and it is reassuring to see others feel the same. I can see how people don't quite see the same masterpiece, especially if they went into it with a lot of review hype.<br /><br />I think another person summed it up when they said that this movie settled the question of whether or not Ghosts could physically harm man. Whew.. I plan to watch it again tonight followed by The Changeling, aaww yeah. Any other films to recommend?<br /><br />Thanks, | positive |
Rumour has it that around the time that ABBA the multi-award winning Swedish disco favourites 's star had reached its zenith, the band grew disillusioned with singing in English and yearned to perform in their native tongue. Soon after, problems began to emerge in the onetime-wed locked-watertight partnership and recordings became less and less frequent. The band dissolved, albeit unofficially, in 1982 and pop lost one of its most celebrated artists. Although they have never admitted that there's any truth in those rumours, the fact remains that ABBA would never have been so successful had they only recorded in their native tongue. If you want to appeal to the largest money-making media market in the entire world, then you must cater for English speaking audiences.<br /><br />It's amazing for me how such a small island that's located a stone-throw away from the European continent could have created perhaps the most recognised, although not most widely spoken, language in the world. Everyone speaks a little bit of English; whether it be simply 'hello' or a common swear word - you'll find an English speaker almost everywhere. Pedro Galindo obviously didn't agree, because Trampa Infernal was never subtitled for global consumption until it was released recently on budget DVD. That's a real shame, because it's actually a decent slasher movie that's a lot better than many of its English-speaking genre compatriots.<br /><br />The film launches in the somewhat unfamiliar territory of a pistol duel. Two unidentified characters are shown sneaking around a dilapidated complex searching out one another for the inevitable final showdown. After some suspense and a couple of near misses, one of the pistoleers emerges victoriously. Next we learn that they were only paintball guns and the two competitors are actually youngsters from the local town. Nacho and Mauricio are fiercest rivals and Mauricio is always trying to prove himself to be better than his soft-spoken opponent, but as of yet he hasn't succeeded.<br /><br />Later that night, whilst the victorious gunslinger celebrates his triumph with his girlfriend Alejandra and his buddy Charly, Mauricio enters the bar and says that he has one last challenge for his glorious nemesis. He says that this will be the competition that will prove to the town once and for all who deserves the uttermost respect. Nacho is at first reluctant because Alejandra warns him of the perils of continual competitiveness, but he eventually succumbs to the weight of peer pressure and agrees; much to the distaste of his morally superior partner.<br /><br />They plan to head out to the remote region of Filo de Caballo, because recent press coverage has reported that numerous people have been butchered by what locals believe to be a vicious bear. Mauricio proposes that whoever murders the animal can be regarded as the greatest and he also promises that it will be the last battle that he wages against his adversary.<br /><br />After visiting the armoury to stock up on weapons and ignoring the warnings of the elderly store-keeper, the group set out to the remoteness of the secluded woodland. Hunters become hunted as they learn that the 'bear' is actually a homicidal Vietnam vet who is still unaware that the war has ended and considers all humans as his enemy. What started as a competitive adventure suddenly becomes a battle for survival as they are stalked and slaughtered by the malevolent assassin.<br /><br />I picked up Trampa whilst studying in Madrid from a Mexican student who lived in the dorm room next-door to me. I remember that the copy I watched was faulty and the tape ended about 10 minutes before the final credits rolled, which meant I never got to see the final scenes. Thankfully I came across the budget DVD recently on Amazon and immediately added it to my collection. <br /><br />Gallindo's slasher is a surprisingly good effort that excels from its skillful direction and enthusiastic plot, which attempts to cover areas not usually approached by slasher movies. It is in fact so good that it reminded me on more than one occasion of the Arnold Schwarzenegger classic Predator. This is especially evident in the scenes that show the creepily-masked assassin jogging through the forest and stalking the panic-stricken troupe as they struggle to escape the maniac's playground.<br /><br />Despite Gallindo's obvious awareness of genre platitudes (the bogeyman even uses a claw-fingered glove a la Freddy Kruegar); Trampa also attempts to add something different to the standard template. Whilst the majority of the runtime plays by the concrete rules of the category, the final third heralds a significant step in individuality as the maniac arms himself with a machine gun and entices the hero to his lair for the final showdown. From here on, the film rapidly swaps genres and becomes almost an action film, which depending on your taste will either excite or disappoint you. The last slasher that tried to crossbreed the two styles was that shoddy eighties entry 'The Majorettes', which is not necessarily a good thing.<br /><br />As is the case with many Latin films (especially Spanish flicks by Almodovar and Amenabar), Trampa has a subtle undercurrent of a moral to its story, which is conveyed successfully without being rammed down the viewer's throat. Over indulge in the temptations of competitive masculinity and you may not always be the winner. It's a sugar-coated point, but it's handled delicately enough not to detract from the fun of the feature.<br /><br />Trampa may be cheesy, but it deserves to be seen and recognised as one of the better late slashers. The killer looks great in creepy army fatigues and white Valentine-style mask and the attempts at originality just about work. It may lack the gore that most sincere horror fans enjoy, but it has enough in terms of suspense and creativity to warrant at least one viewing. | positive |
at last, a movie that handles the probability of alien visits with the appropriate depth and loving warmth. just in case we're not alone, i do believe that these visitors are just too touristíc to care for us or give that wayward bunch of anthropocentric goofs a stable proof of their existence. we wouldn't interfere in the battle rites of some agitated desert tribe either, unless we're out for messing with our travel insurance, huh?<br /><br />anyway, the movie depicts the transitional cathexis of a weary mind and body by a superior entity. that happens quite unspectacular and rather unrecognized, but we're dealing with a movie here, right? so prot's hospitalization is just a trigger to the plot.<br /><br />jeff bridges acts great as usual, but spacey is hilarious. the role seems tailored downright to him, convincing and lovingly "mad". eating unpeeled bananas, sitting in a tree, giving his doctor a hard time with quickness, wisdom and (most of all!) stunning quotes. they made me think and philosophize for hours already.<br /><br />it's an encouraging film, to say the least, and the soundtrack by edward shearmur is simply beautiful. just go and get a copy. catch a beam of light. now. | positive |
As others have noted, this should have been an excellent Hammer-style film, and it seems to me that that's how most of the actors were instructed to play it... but the screenplay is so leaden, poorly paced, and filled with a lot of dull soliloquies (poor Timothy Dalton is saddled with most of them) that it's all too overblown and self-important. This is an uncharacteristically weak performance from Dalton, although he quietly nails the climactic scene where Dr. Rock finally realizes what he's done. The only actor who comes off really well is Patrick Stewart who is a most welcome sight. Freddie Francis may have been a great cinematographer, but he was a lousy director. | negative |
The subject notwithstanding, this is an amateur, exhibitionist movie--or an effort at one--which is about as interesting and daring as a moody high school student's composition book full of death "poetry". To be sure, it will disturb viewers who are hell-bent on being disturbed, but the success will be attributable to themselves, not to the director. To genuinely get under somebody's skin requires sensibility, discipline, technique, and talent, as well as an eye and an ear. The film does contain one evocative image, shown as a still (and also used on the video case), but with no development leading up to or away from it. If the director had had an eye, he would have seen it as a possible starting point for an interesting movie--that is, a movie. | negative |
Paul Armstrong is a liberal, Scottish-born, professor of law at Harvard, known for his passionate opposition to the death penalty, who is hired to take on the case of Bobby Earl, a young black man from Florida who has been convicted of the rape and murder of Joanie Shriver, an eleven year old white girl. Earl claims that his confession to the crime was obtained under duress by a sadistic police officer and that the real murderer is Blair Sullivan, a serial killer already under sentence of death for several other murders. Armstrong visits Sullivan in his cell on death row, hoping to persuade him to confess to Joanie's murder, thereby saving Earl from the electric chair. <br /><br />At first all goes well. Sullivan confesses and Earl is released from prison when the appeal court quashes his conviction. As this development takes place only a little after halfway through the film, it is at this point that alarm bells will start ringing in the mind of the viewer. "Warning! Major plot twist ahead!" And so it proves. The anticipated twist soon materialises. Earl, it transpires, is actually guilty of the crime of which he has just been acquitted, and probably of several others as well, but hatched a diabolical plan together with Sullivan in order to secure his freedom; Sullivan will confess to Joanie's murder if Earl will murder his parents. (Just why Sullivan wanted his parents dead is never precisely explained). Armstrong now finds that he is himself in danger from the man whose life he has just saved; Earl has a grudge against Armstrong's wife, herself a lawyer, who acted as Counsel for the prosecution in an earlier case when Earl was accused of rape. <br /><br />"Just Cause" is an example of the auto-cannibalism in which Hollywood sometimes likes to indulge, cobbling together one film by recycling themes and plot devices from a number of others. The first half owes an obvious debt to films like "Intruder in the Dust" and "To Kill a Mockingbird"; about the only difference is that the Sheriff who beats a confession out of Bobby Earl is himself black, whereas in earlier films he would have been white. (Police brutality is now an equal opportunities activity). The central twist in the plot was borrowed from Costa-Gavras's "Music Box", although in that film the revelation does not occur until the very end. The finale, in which a lawyer, his wife and their young daughter are in danger from a former client, is an obvious plagiarism of the two versions of "Cape Fear", which also take place in the swamplands of the American South. Ed Harris' characterisation of Sullivan as a Bible-quoting religious maniac is a direct imitation of Robert de Niro's character in the Scorsese version of "Cape Fear", made four years before "Just Cause". <br /><br />(There is a postscript. Just as "Just Cause" borrowed heavily from several other movies, seven years later its central plot twist was, in its turn, to be blatantly plagiarised in the Ashley Judd vehicle "High Crimes"). <br /><br />The trouble with this style of film-making-by-numbers is that the resulting films are generally much less distinguished than those which inspired them. The whole is normally very much less than the sum of the parts, and "Just Cause" is a much lesser film than any of those which were cannibalised to make it. Harris is normally a gifted actor but this is one of his weakest performances, largely because he is not so much playing a character as playing de Niro playing Max Cady. Blair Underwood is OK as Bobby Earl the (supposedly) innocent young man of the early scenes, but unconvincing as Bobby Earl the murderous psychopath of the later ones. Sean Connery as Armstrong and Laurence Fishburne as the black Sheriff are rather better, but neither is good enough to save the film. (Connery and Harris were to act together in another, better, film, "The Rock", the following year). <br /><br />There is another problem with "Just Cause". The first half of the film looks like a standard liberal "issue" movie, anti-death penalty, anti-racist and critical of heavy-handed policing. The second half looks more like the work of a die-hard reactionary, preaching the message that all criminals are evil bastards, that the only way to deal with them is to fry them in the chair, that liberal lawyers are the useful idiots of the criminal fraternity and that police officers who beat up suspects are to be commended as heroes. The filmmakers seem to have been blissfully unaware that the plot twist casually introduced into the middle of their film had the (presumably unwanted) effect of reversing its political stance, or if they were aware of the problem they ignored it. A suitably convoluted plot was obviously thought to be more important than political consistency. 4/10 | negative |
I just saw "Checking Out" at the Philadelphia Film Festival. What a terrific combination of a heartwarming storyline and a great cast. Director Jeff Hare has done an outstanding job of inviting the audience into the disjointed, yet hilarious world of Morris Applebaum and family. The family life is presented in such a way that we enjoy the crazy antics yet feel the real pain and concern they have for one another.<br /><br />Typically I am not a Peter Falk fan, but he IS Morris Applebaum and plays the role with great humor and humanity.<br /><br />I hope that everyone gets to see this wonderful movie and enjoy it as I did.<br /><br />Hats off to the Director, Cast, and Crew for a job well done! | positive |
It's a pity to throw away such a good idea. The main idea of the movie is travel into past lives which - fortunately - is not a time travel but a journey inside man which has nothing to do with the past or the future. (Maybe they shouldn't be called past lives at all in the film now that I think of it... Another minus, I guess). It's all in the present, in a different space... Very interesting without causing much religious distress.<br /><br />However, the music is totally repetitive, melodramatic, sentimental and out of place (not to mention "western"!). There should have been more variety and more thought on where there should be music and where there shouldn't. The flashback romantic scenes take a lot of space and running time and are totally unnecessary. The acting is not bad although the language has kept me from understanding better.<br /><br />I believe the idea needed a little more thought, developing and unfoldment. The inside scenes could have had better background settings because in many cases they seem unreal. As a whole, I would say that this movie leaves a lot to be desired... | negative |
Woeful and unnecessary sequel to a bonafide classic. An American Werewolf in London was, indisputably, a gem of a movie: humorous, demented, with just a dash of romance and so very, very British it made me want to stand up and sing God Save the Queen every time the movie ended. Then came this abomination. You know you are in real trouble when the leads are so utterly unlikeable you are glad when they are slaughtered, and actually start cheering for the lycanthropes. Tell you the truth, folks, I only got about half way through this CGIed travesty before losing the will to live and turning it off. Absolutely pitiful and a putrid waste of anyone's time. | negative |
This show is awesome. I thought that the two episodes where Paul died were so sad; I actually cried. But the other shows were awesome; Kerry was my favorite character, because she was in "the dark side." I also thought that Bridget was funny because she was all perky. I also thought that guy who played Kyle was really, really cute. I loved it when Kerry made sarcastic remarks about everything. The guy who played Rory was cute, and Paul, played by John Ritter, was really funny. This whole entire TV show is funny, and I wish they still showed it on TV. when they did show it on TV, though, I watched it every single time it was on. The next time it shows, I will watch it over and over again. | positive |
Many critics have felt offended that R.W. Fassbinder has portrayed both protagonist Wilkie and the Nazis in this movie in a human-like manner. Connoisseurs of other Fassbinder films, however, will realize that "Lili Marleen" (1981) belongs to Fassbinder's "women movies" like "The Marriage of Maria Braun" (1979) and "Lola" (1981). Fassbinder was convinced that "stories can be told much better with women than with men", because, according to Fassbinder, while men usually fulfill their determined roles in society, "women are capable of thinking in a dialectic manner". Dialectics, however, means that there is not only a thesis and its antithesis like usually in our black-and-white world, but a synthesis where the oppositions coincide. Moreover, dialectic means that because of the third instance of synthesis the absolute opposition of the difference between thesis and antithesis is abolished. Concretely speaking: Starting from a dialect point of view and portraying the fascist state, the underground fighters must necessarily use the basic means like the rulers do, and between offenders and victims there is thus a chiastic relation, so that every offender is also victim and every victim is also offender. Fassbinder has illustrated this abstract scheme, that transcends classical logic, in his play "The City, the Garbage and the Death" (1975) which was filmed by Daniel Schmid under the title "Shadow of Angels" (1976).<br /><br />Therefore, approaching an a priori controversial topic like Nazi Germany, in a dialectic manner, the depiction of this time in the form of a movie gets even more controversial, especially for people who cannot or do not want to see that our recognition of the world is by far not exhausted with a primitive light-switch schema, but needs the third instance of synthesis as controlling instance of its opposite members thesis and antithesis. The mutual relationship between offenders and victims has to scrutinized, since it is simply not true that the offenders are the bad ones and the victims the good ones. In a synthetic viewpoint, the bad ones participate on the goodness as the good ones participate on the badness. They are mutually related. In a world-view based on classical logic, a relation between good and bad cannot even been established, and in an ethics based on this insufficient system of logic, the bad conscience of the survivors of Nazi Germany, feeling (illogically enough) responsible for the deeds of their ancestors, exclude the possibility of a relationship between the two extremes and thus a synthesis in the form a new evaluation based on this relationship as well. From Fassbinder's dialectic viewpoint, it follows that neither Lili Marleen nor Lola nor Maria Braun can be condemned for their "misuse" of the ruling system for their private purposes, because they don't misuse them, they just use them. In the opposite, since victims must repeat the actions of the offenders as the offenders must repeat the actions of the victims, because "good" and "bad" are no longer simple mirror images of one another like in two-valued logic, their strategies are legitimated by the chiastic structure of a logic that describes our world, that is not black and white at all, much better than a black-and-white logic. | positive |
If this is supposed to be a portrayal of the American serial killer, it comes across as decidedly average.<br /><br />A journalist [Duchovny] travels across country to California to document America's most famous murderers, unaware that one of his white trailer trash travelling companions [Pitt] is a serial killer himself.<br /><br />Rather predictable throughout, this has its moments of action and Pitt and Lewis portray their roles well, but I'd not bother to see it again. | positive |
(SPOILERS IN THIS)<br /><br />"Rosenstraße" is a movie about heroic women in German Nazi time. But it is way too long, it is not touching and sometimes even boring! There are too many clichés and not enough good acting.<br /><br />The storytelling (storyline) is bad. Like in James Cameron´s Titanic an old woman remembers events of her live. Good, now we´ve got a point of view. Than there is another woman introduced who does the same. Confusing is that they both are recalling events of lifes of other people! Come on! This is a lack of knowledge of basic story telling...How can Riemann know about the fate of the little girl´s mother and her interrogation for example?<br /><br />The scenes are shown in the wrong order and you rarely know when it took place. For example the scene when Riemann is proposing to Fabian. When did that happen? The scene looks like it is set in the Twenties...<br /><br />Riemann´s character is of course a talented pianist, well, she is even a Baroness! Wow. Her brother comes back from the Eastern Front, he has received a "Ritterkreuz" which he is showing in some scenes. So he is a war hero and still a fine man who preserved his conscience. And he gained knowledge of massacres committed by Germans. He even made some photographs! And so it goes, cliché after cliché is piling up and this is why the movie does not work.<br /><br />Basically von Trotta made a chick flick out of something what could have been a decent movie. And in the end it´s all very simple. Riemann finds a way to get Goebbels into bed and - ta da! - everyone is free. Which is not a historical fact but pure imagination despite the "true story" claim at the beginning. Like "Sass" it is vaguely BASED on a true event.<br /><br />It is sad but true, this IS the typical German movie these days. It is bad! Macaulay J. Connor<br /><br /> | negative |
I was fascinated as to how truly bad this movie was. Was the viewer supposed to learn something, or reflect on anything here? What was up with the pumpkins? Was I supposed to be impressed with the motel shots? Does it matter that there are some garbage bags on a rooftop across the street of a hotel? Why does the narrator unsuccessfully mock the people he interviews (it is so obvious that he edited out the really informative parts of his interviews to achieve mockery). The best part of the movie was the interview with the film professor who tells us how bad this movie will be even before it is finished.<br /><br />I am truly amazed. I believe that the creator is struggling to become an intellectual or is trying to impress the intellectual community. | negative |
The film gives a rather condensed version of what is contained in the book, which as far as I can tell by doing some research and investigative fact checking is largely a work of fiction. In reality, there are no ancient scrolls and if the author was hard pressed I'm sure he'd have to admit he's never laid eyes on any scrolls in ancient Aramaic found in Peru. These "valuable" texts written as usual by anonymous, were destroyed by the evil "truth haters" in the church and in the local government. That's rather strange, as all kinds of New Age crap comes out each year---hundreds of books, dozens of movies--and the Roman Catholic church doesn't seem to me to be hell bent on destroying the movement which it probably views as I do, a total crock of doody. I'm no fan of the church, mind you, but at least the ancient texts which they base their faith on are real.<br /><br />It's a typical pattern of scam artists and religious hucksters to claim to have seen or translated ancient documents which unfortunately got destroyed by "evil" men or in Joseph Smith's case, got taken back to Heaven once translated. Therefore, the actual texts cannot be found in any museums like the Smithsonian, nor the translations checked by specialists in ancient languages like Coptic or Aramaic. It's a scam. In one sense, I admire anybody smart enough to come up with a great idea and make millions off it, but I couldn't do it myself, as I've no desire to mislead the public with more New Agey hokum.<br /><br />Occasionally, a genuine ancient text does get found hidden away and lost for years. The Gospel of Judas, a Gnostic text, was discovered and after carbon dating and diligent study of the text, deemed authentic by experts. The Gospel of Judas was referenced as heretical around 300 C.E.. No church documents from that time mention any Celestine Prophecies as authentic, heretical or anything else.<br /><br />We are evolving towards something--that much is true---but the optimism in the Celestine Prophecy is based on nothing but fiction and lies, and a philosophy built on a foundation of lies, like a castle built on sand will collapse. The harsh, ugly, overpopulated, cruel world of Blade Runner is more likely what it'll be like over the Horizon, than some Utopian Hippie Commune where all is love and peace! I tell people the truth and they hate me, but tell them what they want to hear, even if pure piffle, and one can make millions. The Celestine Prophecy is what the world wants to hear. Too bad it is a castle built on sand. Don't get me wrong. I wish to God, the Celestine Vision was reality, only it's not. No ancient philosophy at any time expressed ideas given in the Insights with the modern concept of spiritual evolution going hand in hand with biological evolution. These New Agey ideas did not exist in the ancient world and did not exist until Darwininan Evolution became well-known. That means the ideas in the Celestine Prophecies cannot be older than the 1800s C.E, and do not go back to the early B.C.E period or near the time of Jesus of Nazareth. This type of claim by New Agers is not at all unusual. Wiccans claim their brand of magic and witchcraft -- the "old religion" goes back to the stone age, when in reality no Book of Shadows has ever been known to exist prior to Gerald Gardner who lived in the 1900s and was the buddy of Aleister Crowley.<br /><br />New Age gurus tell lies and claim their ideas are based on ancient teachings, when the ancients would thumb their noses at such absurdities that are preached by Gurus today. Why do they do what they do, perpetrate such fraud? Simple: there are millions of dollars to be made, and the modern Guru acquires power over his or her followers. They compete fiercely and have a strong hatred for their competition despite their claims of love for all things. Each New Age group bitter opposes the others. It's a struggle for your minds and your wallets.<br /><br />But learn one thing from me, that is actually similar to one of the insights, learn to follow your own instincts and look for guidance from within. That I can agree with wholeheartedly. | negative |
My husband and I watched this last night...It was wonderful....For once he was wrong in guessing ahead of time the suspenseful ending. It moved along very quickly and the acting was superb.. I adore Tom Wilkinson anyway. He has never made a bad movie as far as I'm concerned. The above description of his acting hits the nail on the head... The facial expressions are incredible. Even the picturesque scenery is awesome. We have just finished watched all of the Prime Suspect series and I am convinced that the British have a way of capturing the audience. There is no doubt that I would recommend this movie to anyone who wants to get a few hours of thorough entertainment. | positive |
Derek Jarman has shown us time and time again that dialog is not his strong suit. He is a painter, and paint he does. His films are almost always visually splendid, but about as exciting to watch as paint that is already dry. Watch his movies in fast forward, the really fast setting that you can only get on DVD. In The Tempest, Jarman does very little with the script or the characters, using them as simply a lattice to hang a very long and well-constructed cinematographic frame. He even goes so far as to contradict Shakespeare's original script to achieve these excrucriatingly slow and lifeless scenes. There is none of the romance, magic, trickery, or urgency the script calls for, little spontaneity, and the character of Caliban in particular is reduced to a quivering and insane idiot of sorts, similar to Gaveston in Jarman's Edward II. It is too bad that this is just about the only film version of The Tempest available. | negative |
I absolutely hate it when a film completely falls apart near the end, after you've already invested an hour into it. and that's what happened with this film. i was intrigued by its actors and the fact that malamud wrote its source story. I haven't gone to read that story but I cannot imagine that it ends like this film ends.Fortunately i didn't pay good money to see or rent it because my library had it. ohhhh such a waste of excellent acting (the wife in particular was so perfect).but milo o'shea as a Jew?!!!! now THAT was funny. I haven't researched into its making but it played like the director lost his marbles or died 3/4 of the way through the film. Before that point, a story and characters were developing,there were a number of neat plot points and there wasn't too much time wasted. but ooh that last 1/2 hour- if that wasn't the screwiest, most worthless denouement I've ever witnessed, I don't know what is. I just hate it when one's faith is so destroyed like that; it feels like an act of violence. | negative |
I particularly enjoyed Delly's review of this film and agree that Howard is not the only "damaged" character. Howard is rather ruthlessly "set-up" by the script, but there is no evidence that his previous employer is actually dead or, if she is, that he murdered her. Howard doesn't know and neither do we. In terror and confusion at seeing the woman lying there, he bolts. However, he never actually harms Helen Gordon, no matter how enraged he is. Indeed, he reacts with horror at Helen's fainting spell and the fact that he is holding a pair of scissors...then he resumes his tidying up and greets the recovered Helen with the almost pathetic " I'm very tired now. I think I'll go home". Frankly, I don't think he's a psychopath. A sick puppy, certainly, but not a psychopath.<br /><br />The problem with Howard is that he has no real male identity. He wanted to serve his country, but his mental condition denies him a place in the army. He is singularly rootless and isolated: no wife, no girl, no home (again, at least as far as we know). And, he does a woman's job - "Floor's are my speciality". Helen's niece ruthlessly strips away this pride in his thoroughness by exclaiming caustically that she would want a man with a real job. Also, although he finds himself strongly attracted to Helen, he is unable or unwilling to do more than scare her by making a strong sexual pass. He is remarkably powerless - can't fight, can't work, can't make love.<br /><br />Helen is justifiably terrified, however. She tries to connect to him but, finding that he doesn't respond normally (i.e. way outside the comfort zone provided by her rose-tinted memories of husband Ned), unwittingly presses all Howard's buttons by lying to him in her attempt to escape.<br /><br />Both characters, trapped in the house, trapped by fear, neuroses, rage and memory, deserve sympathy. I know the sudden ending has disappointed some reviewers, but I felt it fitted well, as it offered a kind of release to the characters. Helen is freed, I think, from the past. When Howard tries on her husband's army coat, Helen's disgusted reaction is highlighted. She no doubt feels that the "sacredness" of Ned's possessions has been violated but, hopefully, her need to keep everything "untouched" has been lost in the reality of her own struggle with danger. Perhaps she can move on.<br /><br />Howard is also freed - from his endless cycle of anger, hurt and violence. Whether he moves on to treatment or to jail is debatable, but I hope it's the former.<br /><br />Great performances from Ryan and Lupino. I prefer "On Dangerous Ground", but this is pretty good too. | positive |
In Landscape after the Battle, Andrzej Wajda in the second era of his filmmaking career, depicts emotional and psychological confusion in a former Nazi-prison in Poland, freed immediately after the WWII.<br /><br />A hand-held camera explores a lot of extreme close-ups and vivid colors. The end credit as graffiti on flanks of freight train cars symbolically concludes the film. The soundtrack is great, except Vivaldi, which sounds tacky in pop-art fashion, in the opening sequence. | positive |
Different film directors from different countries have contributed to the film medium a lot by their thoughts. As a result, we have experienced different genres when the medium is concerned. Jafar Panahi, unlike J.L. Godard or F. Truffault, believes in simple story telling; Schematic Narratives is one of the main traits of his directorial job. He has trust upon the automatic as well as critical intelligence of the viewer; he does not feel any necessity to go for Alienation or such things to reach to the viewers. He is equally effective despite being conventional. Offside (2006), is another schematic creation from him, where Gender Subordination of Middle-East Asia gets gradually clear to everybody as the simple but catchy tale of the movie progresses. Now-a-days, when all of us are shouting on the issue of Rights of Women, this movie very calmly creeps into our mind and ultimately becomes a hump for our critical intelligence by conveying the message that the Egality of Human Rights is nothing but an illusive good, an utopia. Paternity will never let the women to be empowered. An important soccer match where the nation is participating, a teenage girl who understands the game well, loves her nation does not have the rights to enter into the stadium to cheer for her country. She is merely permitted to listen to the live commentary. Her alias could not work for her. As a result, she had to undergo several humiliating situations. From the very beginning her worried father ran here and there for her daughter. At the end of the day, celebration came as the nation won the match which the girl could not see as she was detained in the outer side of the stadium during the match time. But the celebration cannot suppress the question of Rights of Women which remain in every corner of the world in different format. Jafar Panahi has most successfully pointed to this issue of Gender Abuse from with in the frame of conventional film making and patriarchy as well. A Global Tragedy has been dealt with ease and some times with humour which, in turn, teases our being constantly. | positive |
I have so much hope for the sequel to Gen-X. Luckily, my hopes have came true. You got a whole bunch of action, comedy...silly comedy, and surprises. I think the newcomer Edison, is really a hit in the movie, but I really find Sam's 'Alien' stupidly annoying with English. Although the movie had some flaws with the robot graphics and the silly dialogue, the action always keeps it strong. The action set-up is much stronger than the 1st.<br /><br />This movie is getting more of an American feel since 60% of the movie is in English from the Cantonese. This movie will not disappoint you. I recommended this for young 'uns that care about pure action-packed fun.<br /><br /> | positive |
Agreeable "Boy's Own Paper" nonsense with a sprightly performance from Cushing, some amusing rubber monsters, colourful jungle sets, & the ever-welcome appearance of Caroline Munro in animal skins. | positive |
A raw edgy thriller that aimed for great philosophical heights it couldn't quite attain. I did still enjoy the film immensely. It had great elements of suspense, leaving me with that delightful spine chill I expect from thrillers, and it achieved this purely psychologically, without resorting to escalating blood and gore. The soundtrack and setting added to the suspense perfectly. At times, it was a bit unpolished, particularly the acting, and character development. It could only have been a better film if we had known more about the nightmares from the past the characters see when they close their eyes, and why they felt this desperate need to seek the "answer" that is so integral to the storyline. After all they seemed to continue to seek it, despite knowing or at least having an inkling of what might happen when they found it. I would recommend seeing this film if you are prepared to look beyond the grit to see the potential of a diamond in the rough. | positive |
I got a few laughs out of this one, more than a lot of other so called comedies. The big ship was a knockout and getting to see a lot of it's scenery was fun: as was getting to see some of Dyan Cannon's curves. This wasn't the height of Lemmon's and Mattheau's career, but it wasn't a total dog as some suggest. | positive |
Thanks to this film, I now can answer the question, "What is the worst movie you have ever seen?"<br /><br />I can't even think of a close second, and I've seen some really bad movies.<br /><br />Absolutely nothing works in this film. Name a single element of any horror film and this movie fails. Honestly, I've seen better on YouTube. Here's some typical dialogue:<br /><br />"Steve?" "Steve?" "Steve, is that you?" "Steve, I'm not kidding" "Steve, this isn't funny!" "Steve, are you there?" "Steve?" "Steve?" "Steve?"<br /><br />"ARggh!!!! Ahhhhhh!!!! Nooooooo!" | negative |
I have to say I was very curious on viewing this film, and it was considered a notorious disaster when released by 20th Century Fox in 1970. It has also popped up on several critics lists of bad films, and this only deepened an interest, as I just had to see what made this movie so bad.Upon seeing it, I think I have my answers. Although I will say it does make for curious viewing, the acting, direction, and script are so laughingly bad, that the supposed satire is completely missing. Racquel Welch seems to try to carry the film, but after the opening sequence of the sex-change operation, the film goes so far down hill that she cannot handle this task alone. John Huston as Uncle Buck Loner is certainly no help, as he licks and leers at the screen, he sometimes looks like he wonders himself what he's doing there. Rex Reed bounces around as Myron, Myra's alter ego, and even has his own celebrated masturbation scene. Bravo for debut performances! Farrah Fawcett plays a dumb blonde; she certainly seemed convincing in this role. But , of course, arguably the most notorious role went to Mae west. The sight of a 75 year old woman with a plastic face making sexual innuendos seemed more suitable for a horror film. I don't mean to put this cast down personally; but in this film, no one comes out looking good. The direction seems so unassured and non-existent, that the film is not only bad, but boring as well. Throw in some old film footage of old stars, and the movie becomes even more disconnected. To each his own to anyone that enjoyed this, and I was glad I at least saw it, but Myra Breckenridge seems to be the disaster that it was always reputed to be from the beginning. | negative |
A bit of a disappointing film, I'd say: the acting was stilted, somehow. In many cases, I just couldn't feel that the facial expressions matched the words spoken or the intent of the scene. An angry (or sad, happy, frustrated) character should make the viewer believe that he's angry (or sad, happy, frustrated). That doesn't happen here.<br /><br />The comment about the writers assuming you already know the characters was apt. They do things and say things which come out of nowhere: the character Andrew accuses his parents of sending signals to each other at dinner; then he blows up and storms out, telling his father "Don't touch me, you f***!". Maybe, if we'd seen the prequel, we would understand where all that comes from, but there is no prequel, so we're somewhat at sea as to the reason! <br /><br />One odd, quirky thing that Andrew does is to go to an old stone quarry, sit down on the edge overlooking the "still water" below; then he reaches into his jeans pocket and extracts a pack of cigarettes and lights one up. He did this same thing three times during the film; I guess we're supposed to see this as some tortured act of being alone and angry? Maybe once, but three times? It might even have been four times, I lost count.<br /><br />To be honest, there is the fact that he's recently found out that he's adopted; this happens very early in the film so there's no sense of any dramatic change he might be undergoing because of this discovery. It's not really clear if that's why he's so bitter or if it's about something else.<br /><br />I guess there is a sort of Lynchian feel to the film but should a first-time director really be trying to scale such a mountain so early in his career? | negative |
i love this movie. it focuses on both issues: reality and fantasy. reality because hey, we all wanted a date from that popular guy Billy. and some of us haven't been kissed yet, right? be honest!<br /><br />another real issue is because of the pain people gain from teasing. and whoa, high school life. remember it? the fantasy is finding your true love, when you're 25 and still in high school. not really fantasy, but close enough!<br /><br />although some parts are unbelievable, it was a great movie. there are no other words to describe such incredible work. and the story was wonderful. Drew Barrymore did a charmingly wonderful job, same as the hilarious David Arquette. the people who worked in the movie are all wonderful. didn't i just repeat that?<br /><br />Never Been Kissed is one of the movies that the later generations should watch. it shows reality and some-not issues for people like you and me. | positive |
Very different topic treated in this film. A straightforward and simple description of local Chinese customs, by looking at the daily operation of a public bath, run by the old owner and his retarded son, when older son returns home, wrongly believing his father has died. How every man in town makes his daily visit to chat, play games, discuss personal matters and get honest advice, besides the usual spa-like therapies. When old man dies, strong and loyal family ties make older son take charge, so public bath operation is not disrupted. And finally, the arrival of modernization to end this way of spending relaxed hours and getting along. The public bath has to be demolished, making place for a commercial complex to be constructed. | positive |
What makes watching and reviewing films a pleasure is when every once in a while when you least expect it a film like The Cell comes along and knocks your socks off!. This movie is a superb horror that has everything a you could want when you want to be scared out of your witts. Without going into the story all i will say is that it has a great beginning ,middle and end that keeps you on the edge of your seat while being transfixed with the amazing special affects. The acting is good without being outstanding but that does not matter because the subject matter and the way it is put on the big screen makes this one of the best horror movies i have seen for a long while. It is one of those films that you imagine started as a novel but saying the credits it does not look like an adaptation , so a lot of credit must go to Mark Protosovich the writer. 9 out of 10. | positive |
Every Sunday, a trio of buds get together at a NYC diner to boast about their sexual conquests of the night before. Sometimes they're joined by a newlywed ex-comrade and hoochie hunter who hangs on them like a puling barnacle. They're unabashed horn dogs/corn dogs and Mia, who witnesses them on the prowl, decides that they need to be taught a lesson, dammit. Ergo, she'll date and dump - why not? All three of them! <br /><br />Gasp. What a wild idea. What a radical, naughty gal. Women now have the right to date and sleep around as much as they want to. As much as men do, even! <br /><br />There is one solitary laughable element in "Whipped" - namely the fact that not once, during the amigo's detailed discussions of their bodily functions and the tantric talents of the bed partners they trash, do the other customers in the diner turn around and say, "Dude, we're trying to EAT here." Indeed, a heh-heh gag has an older lady eagerly weigh in on the useful sexual properties of certain beverages. A big fat Kermit the Frog "Sheesh" to that.<br /><br />It's truly unfortunate that a buddy movie with a great setting, a smart, cute heroine and three possible pairings had to have such a cop-out ending.<br /><br />P.S. - 30 "whip-oosh" sound effects to the screenwriter for use of the phrase "You go, girl". It was tired in 2000, and it's tired now.<br /><br />Save your time and watch some "Sex and the City" reruns... | negative |
I've never seen the original movie others have commented on, so my perspective is just about this movie without comparison.<br /><br />I found the message of the movie to be,: if you only worry about yourself, all will be right with the world, everything will fall into place, your lovers will love you more, your friends will respect and like you more, your employers will want you more, pay you more and even your own children and parents will love you more.<br /><br />I find this message to be reprehensible and totally false.<br /><br />Kudos for the very funny birthing scene at the end; there isn't a mother out there who won't laugh during that scene.<br /><br />Overall a very disappointing movie plot. I didn't find myself rooting for anyone in this movie. I thought they were all pathetic self absorbed individuals that I just didn't care what happened to them and that's not a movie people want to see. | negative |
a really awful movie about a 30 meters long shark. bad story bad discussions bad characters bad plot even a confusing ending a complete. a waist of time in my point of view I thought it was a TV movie, but then I saw it was not I cant imagine having paid to see this load of crap please avoid this movie at any cost. even if u liked jaws, which I averagely did, don't see it even if you have interests in paleontology, don't see it even if you like corny movies with corny actors, corny plots during corny TV time, do humanity a favor and do not, I repeat, DO NOT pollute your mind with this ridiculous excuse for a sci-fi animal thriller still, some people gave it a ten ranting... don't know if they were serious or not (but sincerely expect they weren't) | negative |
From the portrayals of Andy Warhol in the films I Shot Andy Warhol and Basquiat, this is the type of movie I would predict Andy Warhol might make--airy, illogical, snobbish, amoral. The movie's (almost non-existent) plot which is sometimes increduously unbelievable is offset by the movie's rough, real-looking cinematography. The film has a way of being unreal, yet dictating reality to the viewer. The only worthwhile part of the movie is the development of the relationship between Joe and Holly and every thing in it should be viewed as a characterization device. There are a couple of comical scenes that I do admit are funny, but Trash is really just about a character study of unengaging people that is mildly enjoyable if you do not mind watching nudity and i.v. drug use. | negative |
I looked forward to seeing this movie, because the trailer made it look so cool. But the fact is that this movie is boring, and totally muddled. There is no plot, and half the movie is fast flashing shots from football games. Zoomed in shots, that gives you no overview of the games. I was constantly looking at the timer, to see when the movie was over!<br /><br />There's only ONE good thing about this movie. The sound!! The soundtrack is awesome! .............Don't expect anything from this movie. | negative |
For the life of me I can't understand the good reviews on this piece of crap. It was pointless. Matthew Modine was horribly miscast as a leading ladies man. Gina Gershon, well, others have said it, but I'll reiterate, why the stupid accent? Totally unnecessary. And her acting was just bad. I don't know if she was thrown by the accent, or what. There was no chemistry between these two. <br /><br />And the girl Modine was in love with, suddenly she's shoving half a head of lettuce in her mouth and acting in a goofy way? Where did that come from? I think we were supposed to feel sorry for her as we saw her marriage to a workaholic begin to crumble, but frankly, I couldn't care less about any of these people. | negative |
I didnt know what to expect . I only watched it on a rainy sunday afternoon on pay tv . Right from the start it drew me in . The music and settings and characters were excellent . I hadnt heard of any of the actors but they all were outstanding . A wonderful thriller .<br /><br />Now that ive read other comments on this movie referring to past versions and the book , i will be endeavouring to find out more on this great movie | positive |
It's a waist to indulge such great actors in such a weak and boring movie. Besides all the unanswered questions posted in the other comments, what's so difficult about capturing the robbers? Just eliminate the bank workers, see who was at the bank-from all the cameras' footage angles-prior to the robbers entry and you have those extra 4 remaining robbers among the hostages. Where is the suspense every body is talking about? It was so obvious the moment the hostages were asked to change into this identical uniform that they were all going to walk out the front door... seen it many times. At least Mr. Spike Lee could have seasoned the movie with some good music score and artistic shooting. The Movie is not worth it. Pronto! | negative |
This movie is beautiful in many ways: the plot, the depth of the characters, the stunning photography and acting, the kolossal-like scenes of battles (no computer graphics here, just thousands of people). Someone said the story has something to do with the Sheakespearian tragedies. I find some connections with the Greek tragedy tradition, too.<br /><br />The emperor, extraordinarily acted, struggles between power and love, but he is forced (for the greater good, for the will of his ancestors) to choose the power (and the loneliness, the hate of his subjects and kins) as his destiny. He, like Creon in Antigone, was a good guy before becoming emperor. Once gained power, he has to be merciless and cruel (with innocent children, his mother, his father, etc.) to defend and expand the empire. Entrapped by power he becomes a monster. Overall, The Qin emperor is a majestic Greek tragedy figure.<br /><br />The assassin evolves towards a different direction: from pure evil to heroism and morality. Even this character is forced towards his destiny by love and by his new ethics. This character is really unforgettable, too.<br /><br />Lady Zhao, a wonderful Gong Li, is the uncorrupted morality, nor by power or love or hate. She is morality against power, somehow like Antigone. Her conspiracies (for and against the emperor) have always a moral rationale.<br /><br />In conclusion, a wonderful movie. If you love cinema and you want to try Chinese movies you can start here. | positive |
This movie is just plain terrible. Poor John Savage had to stoop this low in order to be in another movie. He stars as a rare type of vampire that is to help a lady that looks like a washed out and thrown in the streets hooker that is a dancer at a local strip club. She acidently tastes a drop of blood from another dancer who happens to be one of those rare vampires as they get carried away making out on the floor of the dressing room. Savage is then assigned by a short leader of this rare vampire breed that looks like a cross between 80's punk rock and one of the Olsen twins with purple hair. This movie just gets all to crazy with Savage rapping and dancing with a midget with a tattooed spider on his head, also one of the rare. He quotes the Elephant Man and Jimmy Durante and I just had to laugh. This just gets rediculas. And then the most gross special effects that they could come up with is Corri throwing up her organs and pulling them out of her mouth. And you can tell that that is all to fake. Her son doesn't know what to do with his moms new identity and becomes more of a pest than an object of serenity. I enjoy a good vampire film, believe me I do but I just HATED this one. Even the photography stinks, in and out blurs with the camera switching this way and that trying to make it look like the vampires move to fast for the camera to keep up and then the camera turns all to bright in the scene of Savage chasing the son of Corri around till he blinds himself. Avoid this one!! | negative |
This is a truly awful film. What they have done is taken a TV show, which was never aimed at young children & given it the George Lucas treatment (i.e. ruined it by kiddifying it to appeal to the younger audience).<br /><br />OK so the Thunderbirds TV show wasn't exactly the most cerebral of shows, in fact it was pretty formulaic, but it was always enjoyable to watch (especially when the models got blown up) and the voice cast wasn't too bad.<br /><br />This suffers from bad casting & bad acting (with the notable exceptions of Sophia Myles as Lady Penelope & Ron Cook as Parker, who seem to be the only cast members to have a clue about how their characters should be played) & after this travesty I wouldn't let Frakes direct traffic.<br /><br />The whole point of Thunderbirds was that it was about the whole Tracy family & how they worked as a team, preventing disasters or coming to the rescue of those involved in disasters.<br /><br />Avoid this rubbish like the plague.<br /><br />I only give it 1 out of 10 because a zero rating is not supported. | negative |
Who? What? Where? When? Why? The acting was terrible. Very robotic, rehearsed. I have seen all of the actors in this film in better roles. The screenplay was very elementary. By the end of this film, the story line was tied up. And Jeane Claude LaMarre should be tied up, too. So that he never attempts to write/direct another film. | negative |
This has to be one of, if not THE greatest Mob/Crime films of all time. Every thing about this movie is great, the acting in this film is of true quality; Master P's acting skills make you actually believe he is Italian! The cinematography is excellent too, probably the best ever. This movie was great; and I have the brain capacity of an earth worm. | negative |
this is a movie which reminds me of avatar- starring rajesh khanna from the 80's. the issue of parents-kids divide is interesting but was handled in a rather unoriginal manner.. the characters were not developed fully and the kids seemed to go from being extermely loving ( in the first 15mts of the movie) to being totally unconcerned about the parents,, this transformation was not credible to say the least..they sld have explored this a little more. amitabh and jaya were miscast as this helpless old couple.. firstly amit was not too convincing in this role,because he just did not look like he should be helpless, i mean why not just go back to work where he is wanted instead of being w/ kids who didnt want them.. hema was not convincing as a 60 yr old either... she didnt look a day over 50.. then the whole isssue of the book baghban winning the booker prize begged credibility.. all in all, a movie that handles an important issue but cld have been made better, i give it 5/10 | negative |
This is one of those films that's more interesting to watch from an academic perspective than from an entertainment perspective. I do my ratings based on how much I enjoyed or was entertained by the movie, so I'm giving it a 4. If I were to rate it as an academic film, though, it would get a 10.<br /><br />It is shot in a very interesting manner, like a pseudo-silent film with elements of sound effect and reality. It's meant to convey disjointed memory and fragmentation of the mind, and it is interesting in these respects.<br /><br />However, the film has a lot of disgusting elements to it that I didn't find all that entertaining. They're mainly just disturbing. It has some very interesting imagery too, and some interesting concepts, but some of the character relationships (especially between the mother and son) are pretty disturbing.<br /><br />In all, this film will either appeal to you or it won't. For me, it was interesting from an academic perspective, but it wasn't a good watch, and I'll probably not go back to it a second time.<br /><br />4/10 if you're looking for entertainment. 10/10 from an academic standpoint. | negative |
i think dirty dancing was a great movie, they tried to make another one havana nights which was good but it was nothing like dirty dancing. i would like to see another dirty dancing with the same people. without them i think it would be a mess. a lot of times movies are made then when they try to add on more they start to change the people an make the movies go down hill. i would love to see dirty dancing have another one to see what happened after they were able to be together. patrick an Jennifer did so well together. this movie was made in 1997 its time to make another one. but this time start where it left off an keep the same people in it. | positive |
_Saltmen_ is a long film for its genre, and quite often the pace is much slower than that expected by Western audiences. That being said, I enjoyed it thoroughly both in terms of interesting subject matter and the magnificent images this film contains. Some of the scenery is truly breathtaking, and there is enough of interest that most should be able survive _Saltmen_ with minimal use of the fast-forward.<br /><br /> | positive |
I'm not sure why Spike Lee made this train wreck of a movie and conned poor Stevie Wonder into eternally pairing his beautiful music with this theatrical mess. I also resent the way he uses profanity as a part of the normal prose of professional Blacks. The abuse of his hold on ethnic movie goers is a shame. Scenes which seem to be contrived out the blue and have nothing to do with the theme or sub themes, play as if some college kid wrote this. I especially detest the ludicrous scene where the two leads are playfully sparring for no reason at all and the cops come and rough up Snipes. The overacting of the leads makes one feel as if Spike has no respect for his viewers or he has no clue what a movie is all about. The final scene appears to be thrown in to justify the use of a sledge hammer to tack a point in. This movie also supports the myth that all people of culture use the F-word in casual conversation. I am hoping he will realize that the rest of his movies are in the same pool as this one where he is not growing as a film maker. I think his union with Scorcesee in Clockers was a wise move. He should stick to making documentaries like the Four Little Colored Girls. Shock movies do not an Oscar make. | negative |
Now this is a bad movie if I've ever seen one. In one of film's greatest years, 1999, Detroit Rock City contends with Runaway Bride and Wild Wild West for the bottom spot in a barrel of junkies. The plot is masterful. Four scrawny high school youngsters finally have their chance at seeing the hard rock theatrics of KISS for
the third year in a row. So when their tickets are toiled by an ultra-religious, chain-smoking mom, the pals scramble themselves in getting to Detroit, and I'm sure you can figure out the rest.<br /><br />Well, not exactly; the movie does go to extreme measures in explaining how the four band members (no, not Gene, Paul, Ace and Peter) go about getting these tickets: losing your virginity in a confessional; saving a smoked-out bimbo and your mom's Volvo (from the Soprano's Steve Schirripa, nonetheless); preventing a robbery in the midst of botching one for a 12-year-old's debt; and of course, stripping down to your bare essentials for MC Ron Jeremy after shuttling a full blender with bourbon-leftovers. Sounds funny, doesn't it? Perhaps Detroit Rock City does have a point with all this tomfoolery in how extreme sometimes these fans can go. And we do understand this movie is a comedy; it is supposed to be filled with slapstick. But does Detroit Rock City aim to the proper audience? It is rated R, meaning the only way prepubescent adolescents-the audience as I see it, to which many will eventually hail this one a classic-will voyeur is through illegal terms.<br /><br />Detroit Rock City also fails at giving itself the late-1970's touch. The camera's texture quality is way too clear and way too bright, missing the necessary flair from films like This is Spinal Tap and Sid & Nancy. This would've allowed audiences to feel `more at home' with the times. Simply costuming kids into pre-90's grunge-wear and settling others into `disco infernos' does not do the trick. Environment does mean something you know; I doubt Detroit looked this glamorous in '78. If there's anything positive coming from this movie it's the kick-ass soundtrack of hard late-70 to early-80's rock. Van Halen, AC/DC, you name it, it's all here. Of course we can't forget KISS, the band aptly subjected throughout.<br /><br />What the film noticeably fails to manage are questions concerning why the Knights of Satin's Service (it's really just KISS) were so frowned upon by moms around the nation. Sure, the loud rock and devilish makeup might be a part of that; encouragements for youth to explore themselves and have a good time might be fair reasons as well. But, what is KISS saying in the music we hear throughout the film towards this highly rebellious group? What separates these anthems of `rock[ing] and roll[ing] all night and partying everyday' from the rest of the music? Most likely, these questions will remain in a music communication class and not in the films that should answer them, simply because it is KISS and they rock and we must do everything in our God-forgiven power to see them.<br /><br />1.5/5 stars | negative |
for me,this is not a good TV show,animated or otherwise.it is however,annoying to the nth degree.there are a few reasons for this,in no particular order.first,the intro of one of the most pointless,and annoying characters ever,Batmite.this character serves no purpose for the show,whatsoever.maybe it is intended as comic relief,but it doesn't work out that way.next up,the Joker.i thought it was really ridiculous to have his character let loose with that ridiculous laugh after almost every sentence.talk about repetitive.this gets old really fast..also don't think the had the right actor to voice the character.it just doesn't sound at all like the joker should sound.lastly,they made Robin look like a complete dork.other than these problems,the show isn't that bad.but these are big enough problems to drastically lower the likability factor.for me,"The new adventures Of Batman" is a 3/10,at best. | negative |
This great TV movie told of the 1975 murder of Martha Moxley in Greenwich, Connecticut by a nephew of Ethel Kennedy. The use of the "ghost" of Martha to provide some of the details was very effective and added a lot of heart to the story. Christopher Meloni seemed to capture the personality of Mark Fuhrman very well. Furhman, who got so much underserved bad publicity in the O.J. Simpson trial has certainly vindicated himself by his contribution of bringing the killer to justice after about 27 years. | positive |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.