review stringlengths 32 13.7k | sentiment stringclasses 2 values |
|---|---|
A Lassie movie which should have been "put to sleep".... FOREVER. That's how I'd describe this painfully dreary time-waster of a film. So mediocre in every aspect that it just becomes a dull, uninteresting mess, this is one of the most forgettable movies I've seen. It isn't even an achievement as a "so-bad-it's-good" or "so-bad-it's-memorable" movie. The idea of Lassie turning bad is intriguing but so little actually happens, and so slowly, that you feel your life slipping away while sitting there, watching the non-actors read their lines off cue cards waiting for their measly paychecks.<br /><br />It's an empty, hollow shell of a movie. Seriously, it's not worth wasting your, or your kid's time on. Unless you're both heavily medicated. That's all I have to say.<br /><br />Avoid, avoid, avoid! It will drive you barking mad! Hahahah, get it? BARKING! Hahahahahahaha! <br /><br />Sorry, I've had a rough week. | negative |
This is an excellent movie. There were several parts to the movie I liked. This movie is very funny! Visit the Ernest fun club web site at www.ernestfunclub.com There are several movies such as the following: Ernest Goes to Camp, Ernest Saves Christmas, Ernest Goes to Jail, Ernest in the Army, Ernest Goes to School, Ernest Rides Again Slam Dunk Ernest etc. I highly recommend these for family movies. All star Jim Varney again try visiting www.ernestfunclub.com Which is the best Ernest movie? In my opinion there are actually 2 Ernest Goes to Camp and Ernest Goes to Jail. So if you have never seen Ernest P. Worrell its time to go and see him. You will find him quite satisfactory "no what I mean"? | positive |
This is not the best movie you might ever see, but it still is very refreshing. Of course, it has it's flaws, it has it's humbling moments and yet at the same time it's different from all the sh*t you're used to and is funny in a way only the french can give you this. You might recognize a little from the masterpiece Amelie, when you see the opening. I give it 7 out of 10, but still reccomend it to you if you're tired of the usual bore you can rent in the videostore. | positive |
The first time I watched this show it was OK. There were some funny moments and I laughed a couple of times but this show is getting worse and worse. Carly and Sam's web show is NOT the least bit funny. They play a stupid video from the internet, scream at the camera and make some very bad jokes. And then the laugh track goes off?! One problem with the show is that none of the main characters are funny. Carly is not funny. Miranda Cosgrove's acting is lackluster at best. Her acting in this show is nothing like her acting from Drake And Josh. Her friend Sam is very rude and crude and the show is written in a way that makes her look like some kind of hillbilly. I mean they make jokes about her mom driving a rusty old truck, her mom smashing an old TV with a bat, and then there's the jokes about Sam failing in school, getting detention all the time and running from cops. None of that is funny at all. Then there's Freddy who is a computer geek. He isn't too funny unless his Mom is treating him like a baby. The show's only somewhat funny full time character is Carly's brother Spencer. He makes some funny jokes and does some pretty funny things like pretending to drive a space ship while making spaceship noises, knocking over a girl scouts' cookie table for revenge as they did the same thing to him. His material is the only thing worth laughing at. Aside from the characters other things make the show bad too. Like the fact that a couple of kids doing a local web show from a Seattle apartment is a worldwide hit and got them a free trip to Tokyo? Another thing is that how can a 26 year old single guy with no real job can pay for a 2 level apartment in downtown Seattle and raise his 13 year old sister and pay for a room full of camera and sound equipment including a remote controlled projector and a green screen and an HD camera? This sounds like it was written by a 10 year old. The worst thing is that the show contains some pretty questionable content. There are a couple of times when Carly(remember a 13 year old girl) appears on her internet web show in a bikini top. WTF? Then I saw an episode where Freddy tells Carly and Sam that he "slept in JUST his socks the night before." I mean WTF? Then there's an episode where Carly's rival Nevel blackmails her by taking her website rights and agrees to give her the website back in exchange for a kiss. Creepy! And I just saw an episode where Carly meets a boy who just moved into their apartment building and he has some kind of back injury and he takes off his shirt and Carly stands there drooling over him. I can't believe Nick even lets them show that kind off stuff and I can't believe that this was created by the same guy responsible for Drake and Josh. This show is not appropriate for kids under the age of 12 and that's even questionable. iCarly is just another addition to the long list of awful Nick programming. | negative |
Preposterous twaddle executed in a bewilderingly amateurish and inept way -- or perhaps several since the incredible lack of continuity, tone, realism, plausibility, suspense, and much more combine with Walter Pidgeon's bovine attempts at charm to produce a cinema curiosity to rank with some of Fritz Lang's other stupendous failures. (I thought the German ambassador was actually played by Lang but apparently not -- they could have been twins.) If you cannot predict the ending from several timezones away, you are not actually alive.<br /><br />I was eagerly awaiting this DVD and was totally surprised and disappointed by such dire crap (even with George Sanders and John Carradine -- maybe I can wash my mind out by watching Viaggio in Italia instead and for the umpteenth time).<br /><br />Anyone want a DVD used once? (There may be a movie to be made about the making of this atrocious film and how so many talented people could be wasted so completely.) | negative |
Trying to compare or represent this "swill" as anything "Hitchcockian" is an out-n-out attempt to mislead Hitchcock fans to waste $7 on this movie... Weak acting Weak story Weak script. <br /><br />No real suspense, no thrills. You wait all through the weakness of this movie for the big payoff or even any payoff...You're left thinking, what the heck was that all about.<br /><br />And please, enough with the movement to make "alternative lifestyles" HIP and politically correct!!...I can't recommend this to anyone...Did I mention how weak the acting is? Williams did a better job as Peter Pan and "Mork". But those were MUCH more innocent times........... | negative |
Okay, I'm not sure if this counts as a spoiler so i just ticked the box anyway to save the hassle.<br /><br />I've noticed that the opinions on this film seem to be a fair split. Personally, i loved it, although i must say that i think that some of the cameo's were there for the sake of having a cameo. (Peter Kay?) Personally, i am just thankful that it wasn't the Edward, Tubbs and Papa Lazarou show, and that they chose the 3 best characters in the series to headline the motion picture, especially Sir Goeff Tipps arguably the funniest of the bunch.<br /><br />Actually, this is less of a Summary more of a fairly obtuse blog-like thing, but what the hell, the film was awesome, and i guess that's all that counts. | positive |
This is a worthless sequel to a great action movie. Cheap looking, and worst of all, BORING ACTION SCENES! The only decent thing about the movie is the last fight sequence. Only 82 minutes, but it feels like it goes on forever! Even die-hard Van Damme fans(like myself) should avoid this one! | negative |
Writer-director Brian De Palma is best known for his string of films that have been called, somewhat unfairly, "Hitchcock imitations." Contrary to popular belief, De Palma doesn't rip-off Hitchcock; he borrows story or character elements that may have been seen in a Hitchcock film and then expands on them in a more violent, modern way. Like Hitchcock, De Palma is known for mixing blood-soaked death with macabre humor.<br /><br />"Dressed to Kill," made way back in 1980, is, perhaps, De Palma's most well-known Hitchcockian film, and it's probably his best as well. The story involves a cross-dressing serial killer stalking both a burnt-out housewife (played by Angie Dickinson) and a street-wise hooker (played by Nancy Allen).<br /><br />Yes, it will remind you distinctly of "Psycho," but De Palma's flick is just as technically ingenious and darkly creative. The museum sequence is particularly well-scored and edited; the elevator stab scene is also one of the most uniquely shot murders ever put on film. "Dressed to Kill" may not be a complete original, but I'd say it's definitely worth your time. Rated R. 105 minutes. 9 out of 10. | positive |
This is shallow hedonism and/or social commentary wrapped in a tragic tale about a jealous young woman's scheme to drive apart her father and his fiancée. Is it incest or just a view through the eyes of a daughter with an Electra complex? Who cares? All of the characters, except for Anne (Deborah Kerr) are vacuous and vile. Seberg is poor (I agree with the "boys with breasts" comment of an earlier review). The plot plodded. This predictable material was sufficient for about 30 minutes of film that unfortunately was stretched over an hour and a half! If you want to see great gowns and jewels on the Riviera, I recommend "To Catch a Thief" - in which you will get the added bonuses of an entertaining story and likable characters. <br /><br />I like for films to entertain me. I personally don't really care where a film is set. Whatever the time or place, I want a good story - comedy or drama. I also want to see some enjoyable characters. It doesn't hurt if I can relate to them. Poor Deborah Kerr gives a typically good performance, and so does David Niven in a despicable role.<br /><br />The "2" rating is solely for Kerr and Niven, and for the cinematography - the rich color scenes and the murky, foreboding black and white scenes. Unfortunately, all the great cinematography in the world cannot salvage a poor story with un-enjoyable characters. A sow's ear is still a sow's ear. Consequently watching this mess was a serious waste of my time. | negative |
What a production, what a waste of screen-time and money. Here is what some european so called producer think, of a scifi movie. Take former model, Alexandra Kamp, pair a with an US c-class actor and get one of film business most notorious producer Harry A. Towers. Towers then finds some obscure munich based prod. house, Tandem communication, Rola Bauer, and then mix it all up with no script whatsoever and you'll get "Sumuru" - a priceless gem among the worst movies ever done! Get a live people, and do something else, whatever you do, no movies please!! To top everything, producers went to South Africa for filming, what you see on screen is one giant sand hole, where the "action" takes place, between extremely bad actors and extremely bad fx that any film student would do better. | negative |
"Ask the Dust" looked intriguing from the trailer, and we especially like all of the actors. Unfortunately, the movie was not compelling enough to be considered drama, and it wasn't funny enough to be a comedy. It practically seemed to satirize itself, and to no entertaining effect. After seventy minutes of waiting for this thing to get better, my wife and I walked out, valuing not having wasted any more time on such nonsense. It simply was not interesting, moving, funny nor artistic. It appears as though it were written, produced and directed by a high school kid; worse yet, it was such a shameful waste of otherwise extraordinarily talented actors, not to mention our time and money. | negative |
Enchanting, romantic, innovative, and funny. The vision of this extraordinary film is almost unparalleled, exceeding better known "death romances" such as Ghost. While we know intuitively that Peter and June will find ultimate happiness at the end of that long-long stairway, the joy is in the journey. The moral of the tale, of course, is timeless: love conquers all. But the struggle to achieve that victory is played in a celestial arena of sweeping vision and gripping grandeur. With more than 500 suitably clad extras portraying various ages and cultures, the directors' vision of heaven remains memorable six decades later, far into the CGI era.<br /><br />Yet for all the cosmic scale, Powell and Pressburger knew an essential truth: the best story is told at the smallest level. The wonderfully, determinedly romantic aspect of "Stairway" is captured with ultimate simplicity: June's teardrop, preserved on a rose petal. <br /><br />This film, like the story and the set itself, is one for the ages. | positive |
Quite liked Flesh and looking forward to Heat but couldn't help but feel Morrissey grossly exploited most of the "performers" featured here. Stumbling around naked in a narcotic stupor seems to be all Dallesandro was capable of in this feature--a huge and heartbreaking contrast from Flesh. His semi-erection in a few scenes is the only indication that he might be acting; mostly it looks like something he did to buy drugs. Woodlawn is a revelation all right--she is the embodiment of the Lower East Side. But hers is a one woman show--she rarely engages the other performers though, it has to be said, her sex scene with a beer bottle definitely leaves Halle Berry in the shade when it comes to cinematic displays of raw passion. When she pounces on a young, would-be lover it is with the ferocity of a vampire. Two of the female performers, Andrea and Jane, have such annoying voices you'll have to mute the sound to get through their scenes. The fact that several of these performers committed suicide or were murdered a few years after only adds to the air of exploitation. But they were probably desperate to get in front of Morrissey's camera anyway. There probably isn't a worse way to spend a Saturday night but at least it brings a specific time and place vividly to life. | negative |
You better see this episode from the beginning, because if you start to watch it any later, you will be confused as to what is happening to Clark's life.<br /><br />Yet, that is the twist; Clark is stuck in an alternate reality. Lana is devoted to him. Lex lost most of his legs and is in a wheelchair due to the bridge accident when he swerved to miss Clark in the pilot of the series. Martha is married to Lionel. About the only constant is his most loyal friend Chloe, who still believes in who he is. And, oh yeah, he doesn't have any superpowers. He is in a mental institution for putting himself in a fantasy world where he does have powers, and is ridiculed for believing so. Aside from Chloe, there is one mysterious figure who believes in Clark: a black man who in the alternate reality is also a resident of the institution, who believes he is from Mars.<br /><br />Clark must stay true to everything he believes is actual reality, and not get brainwashed by the institution's psychiatrist, who is in fact the fourth Phantom Zone escapee.<br /><br />This episode is utterly mind-blowing and shocking. Plus, it provides a fresh twist from the usual type of "Smallville" episode. | positive |
I went to see this film yesterday and although i didn't have high hopes for this film, I was still bitterly disappointed! I actually cant believe I spent 96 minutes of my life watching this film...it was THAT bad!!! The storyline was disgraceful and the acting was terrible (even though it had big names such as Uma Thurman in it). This film heavily relied on its special effects...but they personally had no effect on me. I honestly wished id never watched it and I strongly warn everyone against seeing this film. It is a total waste of money and you'll only end up being disappointed afterwards. My advice is to save your money, go shopping, treat yourself, just don't go and see this film... You'll live to regret it lol! | negative |
I got to see this film at a preview and was dazzled by it. It's not the typical romantic comedy. I can't remember laughing so hard at a film and yet being moved by it. The laughs aren't gags here--they're observations, laughs of recognition, little shocks of "Oh, my God, I thought I was the only one who felt that way!" I won't give away the plot, which is more than just "Guy falls in love with his brother's girlfriend." The whole family plays a part in the relationship here. Probably the best blend of laughter and warmth since "While You Were Sleeping." <br /><br />Steve Carell goes much deeper than he's gone before, and for the first time I really liked him. The cast is amazing, a list of veteran theater actors whom I've loved in other roles, but they blend to make a convincing family. Dianne Wiest is lovely as the mother, Juliette Binoche is luminous and hilarious (who knew she was funny?), and even the reviled Dane Cook gives a warm, quiet, touching performance. The Sondre Lerche soundtrack is a wonderful addition, and I'll buy the CD the second it's available.<br /><br />Don't miss this one. | positive |
Forgive me, but this work of director Peter Hall is horrendous. If you can't get to us with the plot, why not kill someone's cat or dog. That surely reaches the audiences. This viewer is tired of seeing animals sacrificed for the plot of a movie. And, believe me, I saw it coming before she opened the package. How predictable can you get. Take a cute animal then kill it in a gruesome way. I have never been a fan of De Mornay and this performance tells me why. Overacted and somewhat stagnant in interpretation, I found her rather silly and definitely boring. I did like Banderas, but felt bad that he had to play opposite De Mornay. He has done much better in other films namely "Philadelphia" where he had some honesty in his dialogue. In this chestnut he did his best to keep his character real. But the writers, Green & Rush, did a good job in preventing this with their trite storyline and insipid dialogue. Please, let us not be subjected to this kind of entertainment. Some of us aren't fooled by corny plots, bludgeoning animals and generally long winded dialogue. Seeing her get away with it, made me furious. | negative |
First of all - I'm not one to go all sappy over movies. I saw Friends in the 70's when it was first released. I was about 17 years old at the time. Even now, at age 50, I still can remember some of the scenes. The movie is sweet and sad and may actually be too tame for teenagers today but I loved it. The story is about innocence, the purity of young love and the determination of 2 young people to make a better life for themselves then they had at home. At the time it was pretty risky to have a movie about a couple of young runaways who successfully setup house and have a baby on their own. I'm not surprised the movie and Elton John's soundtrack are almost unknown today. The music is beautiful. It was unforgettable. | positive |
Chucky (the murderous doll from "Child's Play" and 2 crappy sequels) is dead. But his ex-girlfriend Tiffany (Jennifer Tilly) gets his remains and (using "Voodoo for Dummies") revives him. Then, through circumstances too convoluted to get into, SHE is killed and has her soul put into another doll! Together they fall in love and kidnap a nice couple (Nick Stabile, Katherine Heigl) to take them to Chuck's coffin to get an amulet to make Chucky and Tiffany real people again...<br /><br />A lot better than it sounds. After the last two sequels to "Child's Play" (both of which were horrible) I was expecting the worst, but this actually was lots of fun. The movie doesn't take itself seriously for a second (seriously--how could it?) and the lines and situations are actually quite funny. Also there are a few VERY gory murders thrown in to satisfy us horror fans and the film never stops moving. The movie also has a few things usually not found in a horror movie--a gay best friend (Gordon Michael Woolvett) who is intelligent and not played for laughs and a sequence in which Stabile has his shirt off just to show his muscular body. John Ritter has a nice cameo too as a sheriff.<br /><br />The acting is good--Stabile is young, VERY handsome and likable; Heigl doesn't have much to do but pulls it off and Brad Dourif (the voice of Chucky) and Tilly are hilarious as the murderous dolls. My favorite part is when the dolls have sex (don't ask) and she asks for a rubber and he responds, "But I'm MADE of rubber!" The special effects are good (no lousy CGI here) and this is one of the few horror films to mix humor and violence in an entertaining way. Well worth seeing. I give it a 9. | positive |
1st watched 8/31/1996 - (Dir-Tim Robbins): Very thought provoking and very well done movie on the subject of the death penalty. Deserved more recognition and publicity than it received. | positive |
She is such an extraordinary singer, who cares about anything else!!!! That final scene is one of the best moments in all of show biz - bar none!! I'm glad she kept the camera on herself for ten minutes - she deserves that iconic status - such is the power of the voice. <br /><br />I first saw this film when I was five and it had a huge impact on me. I see it today, and yes, I can see some of the flaws (like Esther wanting to leave the Grammy's right as her award is being announced).<br /><br />But some of the other user comments are just plain false - I mean, where is the gratuitous nudity - maybe we saw different films??? <br /><br />Streisand's singing ability is monumental, and if she has a big ego - fine! <br /><br />She's earned it. | positive |
James Franco is totally cool in this movie. Not just handsome and charismatic but genuinely open and vulnerable in a sincere kind of way. At the Tristan screening some folks were on his back for being pouty and sullen and doing the whole James Dean thing but I don't think this true. Blind Spot is proof positive of his tremendous talent. In this film he carries himself with a different sort of weight entirely. It's a unique performance. Bittersweet and really moving. The lines from his journal cut you like a knife. You sense a sharp intelligence of observation behind his words. The tone is everything. He carries it through the action and suspense as well as the grim bits of gallows humor. I like the other two actors a great deal too. The blonde girl is totally gorgeous and the man is hysterical in his twisted tough guy stoicism. Some of the thugs seemed a little sketchy but this is a mini-point really. The film is totally solid and Franco is way cool all around. | positive |
As a "cusp-pre-baby-boomer"...born in 1944, IN Los Angeles; thereby having the dubious distinction of having been alive while Hitler was still actively involved in his "Last Great Offensive; but also with our President Roosevelt still actively fighting the offensive...this was one of the most important "first films" of my young life. Having the opportunity to see it in "re-release," several years after the 1946 opening (a common studio custom in those years), answered (even to my very young mind)oh-so many questions I had...being surrounded by our returning Vet heroes. Ensconced in all the many of William Wyler's equanimity of subtle "multi-plots"...intentionally NOT "surrounding," "mini" or "sub" plots...in all their "colors and shades of intensity"...did more, than anything else I can recall, to provide to me some semblance of "reason" and "rational explanation" of what had been going on all around me...in REAL life. (My personal experience perchance being a "new" and "different" angle when looking at this classic film.) | positive |
The best screen performance ever by George C. Scott. The screenplay by Chayefsky, the irony-freighted dialogue, is near perfect ('Just where do you train your nurses, Dachau?'). Rigg is wonderful as the rescuing angel who saves Scott from doom, as is the whole cast. It's a hilarious and serious movie. It is a movie of the period, the 60's, but it is not in any sense dated. What it is about, the chaos and irrationality of the system vs. the sanity of the individual, is timeless. And the "We heal nothing. We cure nothing" monologue (delivered, shouted actually, as no one else but Scott could) with its references to cloning and other 'wonders' of modern science could literally have been written this morning.<br /><br /> | positive |
A true story about a true revolution, 25 of April ; a revolution against a repressive regime of 41 years, that was imposing a colonial war on it's military's, for maintaining an empire (Angola, Mozambique, Guine-Bissau, Cabo Verde, S. Tomé e Principe; the first and the last of the great colonial empire's of Europe) of 600 years, since it's beginning in the conquest of Ceuta in 1415; a revolution by the army for the people, and for a democratic Portugal; the most's surprising fact in this revolution is that it were no people killed in it (except those that died in the hand's of PIDE, the political police of the State, during a brutal gunfire against an unarmed crowd protesting in front of it's headquarters in the day of the revolution, in 25 of April 1974, has it show's on the film).And has all revolutions it has it's heroes, one them of was Captain Salgueiro Maia, a returned soldier from the war, whose convictions along with the rest of the army, was that they were fighting (since 1961) a hopeless war, and that sometimes a soldier has to disobey it's country. | positive |
Lavish production values and solid performances in this straightforward adaption of Jane Austen's satirical classic about the marriage game within and between the classes in provincial 18th Century England. Northam and Paltrow are a salutory mixture as friends who must pass through jealousies and lies to discover that they love each other. Good humor is a sustaining virtue which goes a long way towards explaining the accessability of the aged source material (which has been toned down a bit in its harsh scepticism). I liked the look of the film and how shots were set up, and I thought it didn't rely too much on successions of head shots like most other films of the 80s and 90s do. Very good results. | positive |
Hal Hartley has been likened to a modern day William Shakespeare, by virtue of the fact that he gets his actors to deliver their lines in an iambic pentameter. He certainly knows how to assemble a cast and once again Martin Donovan is sensational, whilst Thomas Jay Ryan plays his role with an intensity that is unforgettable. Although the film is only 1 hour, the time frame works wonderfully and keeps the audience on a fast tracked race right till the very end. Without a doubt Hal Hartley is one of the best directors to come out of America in the last 20 years, with a vision that is unique, funny and heart warming. | positive |
First of all, if you'r a fan of the comic, well, you'll be VERY disappointed I'm sure ! Low budget movie !!! Largo is supposed to be Serbian in the comic, now suddenly he becomes croatian, pfff! chicken producers, it gave some spice and guts to the comic ( By the way, in the film, his father speaks Serbian and he speaks croatian... Lol ). The striking N.Y. Winch building becomes a common average-small yacht in H.K. The good looking Largo becomes some unshaved Tzigan/Turkish looking guy. Freddy the cool 'scarface' pilot becomes some fat, out of shape, sad, average guy. Simon, Largo's good buddy, does not exist at all !? He gave some pepper ! Largo doesn't throw knifes at all, but just some snake stares... The whole story is confused and looks like a pretentious TV-film. French directors and producers, if you don't have the money, the ability or the technology to adapt correctly the comic, please stick to some romance shooted in Paris. Very very bad film, good thing I just rented it, don't count on me to watch the sequel ( If there is any ! ). | negative |
I found this dvd in the store and figured, why not support some indy film and watch a cool horror flick. Please save your time and money and pass this one by. The acting, the script, practically everything with this film is sub par. There really isn't much of a story, and there is no character development. I found myself not caring what happened to the people in the movie as long as something happened. Everyone is supposed to be college age, but they all look like they are in their mid thirties, except for the woman who plays a mother who looks like she is pushing 40. In fact the worst part of the film is that every single scene is shown in a master shot. There is no editing, no cut ins or close ups. Do yourself a favor and skip it. | negative |
I really wanted to like this, but in the end it's a poorly made film with too few laughs.<br /><br />The politics are spot on, it's gonna offend the hell out of republicans but that's what it's designed to do. That alone gives me reason to chuckle.<br /><br />The problem is, it looks like it was made in a REAL hurry (like about a week). And it contains a stupid subplot about some bimbo singer, which seems to be completely off topic.<br /><br />Turiqistan is obviously Iraq, or Afghanistan, or any other number of countries the US has f**ked with since the 50s. The humour is a little dark (amputees dancing with prosthetic legs made by Tamerlane corporation) but it IS on the mark, especially with the corporations cashing in on the reconstruction ("democracy lite"!) <br /><br />However like a lot of satire criticising the US, it seems terribly heavy handed and laboured. I guess it's running counter to so much bs propaganda so it has to bludgeon people over the head to make a point. Who knows. I prefer more of a nudge, wink approach - a bit of subtlety. But that's just me.<br /><br />Anyway I might watch it again, perhaps I missed something.<br /><br />I'm hoping "W" is more on the mark. | negative |
I found The FBI Story considerably entertaining and suitably upbeat for my New Years Day holiday viewing. Its drama and action-packed episodes were thrilling. The Hardesty character was well drawn and admirable. Overall the photography, script and direction was perfectly creditable. Rather than taking the film to be a repugnant piece of propaganda, as some might, I enjoyed it as a well mounted portrayal of the necessity of ingenious minds and brave bodies in the fight against crime. Again, the depiction of a family holding together even under the strain of the husband's commitment to his (arguably) important work, I did not find to be a twee representation but an ideal and exemplary one. | positive |
Before I begin, you need to know that I am a huge fan of many of Sonny Chiba's films. His biographical series of the life of his master, Mas Oyama, were amazing and among the best martial arts films ever made, as were most of his Street Fighter films. The action was practically non-stop and with the possible exception of Bruce Lee (depending on who you ask), he was the greatest martial arts practitioner on film during the 1970s. Because they are so good, I've seen at least 15 of his films and recently bought some more (which I am in the process of watching).<br /><br />Unfortunately, despite my love of these films, I am NOT a mind-numbed zombie who worships the man to such a degree that I rate EVERY film a 10. There are a few reviews like this here on IMDb and I truly think that anyone giving this film a 10 should be ignored because this is such a bad film from a technical standpoint and isn't even close to the being Chiba's best work. A score of 10 isn't a real rating--it's some zombie fan trying to make a statement about Chiba, not this film! As I said, technically this film is awful. Some of this was the result of my seeing the American dubbed version, with its irrelevant prologue and bad dubbing. But most of the problem would still exist with the original Japanese print. The camera-work is simply atrocious--like it was done by chimps (smart chimps, but still chimps nonetheless). Often, much of the fast martial arts action is missed because the camera is so slow or the tops of the actors heads are clipped off due to the shoddiness of production. And, again and again, the camera pans in and out like it is a new toy being used by an idiot plus the editing is beyond wretched--with cuts being done haphazardly and confusingly.<br /><br />I don't know whether the musical score is original or not--but it was also very, very bad. Sort of like acid rock of 1970 blended poorly with Ennio Morricone's "Spaghetti Western" music--it was annoying, distracting and just plain silly.<br /><br />As for the martial arts action, I think that having chimps do the choreography would have improved things a bit. Instead of the great fight scenes you'd look forward to in a Chiba film, the fights are too brief and often missed by the camera!! So what you are left with is the story...and this MIGHT just be the worst part of the film! It's supposed to be an anti-drug film starring Sonny Chiba as....Sonny Chiba! And when the film begins, he vows to destroy the drug trade in Japan. But, the Mafia (complete with not a single member who looks Italian, but who are ALL Japanese) vows to stop Chiba. And, when a lady comes to Chiba with promises to give him information about how to destroy the drug trade, he agrees to help her and risk his life with no conditions--even though she's NEVER forthright about telling him what she knows! In fact, later it turns out she is just trying to use Chiba to protect her while she herself sells a huge briefcase full of cocaine--and he CONTINUES trying to protect her!! This makes no sense at all and throughout much of the film it looks as if they just shot the film without a script--such as when they went into the bars and brothels and had Chiba walking about as if he was drunk.<br /><br />So if it was THAT bad, why still does it merit a 3? Well, first, there are many more horrid marital arts films (such as many of those from Hong Kong in the 1970s)--including one with guys dressed up in gorilla suits doing kung fu and their handlers with 3 foot long tongues they used for fighting (now THAT'S bad). Second, while the action is very bad compared to other Sonny Chiba films, compared to its contemporaries, it's not that bad. Still, you could easily do a lot better than this horrid little film.<br /><br />By the way, if you are wondering if this is the worst Sonny Chiba film, it certainly is not! In one of his first films, INVASION OF THE NEPTUNE MEN, Chiba plays a leotard-wearing super-hero who battles pointy-headed invaders from the planet Neptune. It's so bad that it rivals PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE and THEY SAVED HITLER'S BRAIN for awfulness.<br /><br />A final note to parents--Like most of Sonny Chiba's films, this one is very violent and has its share of boobies. DON'T let little kids watch this no matter how much they beg! Make them wait until they are older before you let them watch wretched rated-R martial arts films! | negative |
Given that Roger Corman attached his name to this production, I had high hopes for this film. Corman directed many memorable low budget horror flicks in the 1960's. I particularly enjoyed his adaptations of Poe's stories such as `The House Of Usher,' and `The Pit And Pendulum' and `The Raven' which starred the late great Vincent Price. These films had solid acting, atmosphere, suspense, strong characterization, intriguing plot development and delivered some chilling moments. Sadly, `House Of The Damned,' for the most part, sacrifices these qualities in lieu of cheesy low budget special effects, gratuitous nudity and mindless gore topped with cliche fast edits and camera angles.<br /><br />`House Of The Damned' starts off interestingly with some beautiful location shots in Ireland, but it's straight downhill from here. Unfortunately, instead of spending some time building atmosphere, creating characters we might care about, or building suspense - the director opts to begin running up the body count. After a brief introduction to the lead characters, a young couple and their daughter, the audience spends the balance of the film being bounced from one `spooky' event to another which, in this film, substitutes for coherent plot development. The lead characters are so ill conceived and are so badly acted - the audience doesn't care what happens to them. To make matters worse, the `spooky' events are either utterly cliché or unconvincing due to low tech - low budget special effects. The soundtrack has been lifted from `The Omen.' The plot, what little there is, borrows heavily from `Poltergeist' and `The Legend Of Hell House,' but lacks any of the qualities which made these films convincing.<br /><br />If you interested in seeing well done haunted house flicks, I recommend you check out classics like `The Haunting (1963),' `The Innocents (1961) or look into Corman's early American International films and pass on `House Of The Damned' unless you're masochistic or mindless.<br /><br />3 ½ out of 10.<br /><br />Rob Rheubottom<br /><br />Wpg, MB. Canada | negative |
I remembered this show from when i was a kid. i couldn't remember too much about it, just a few minor things about the characters. for some reason i remembered it being really intense. also it was on really really early in the morning up in PA. I finally, after looking around the web for a long time, found an episode. the first episode no-less. Criminey! This show was so horrible. it was obviously just made to show kids playing lazer tag and having a great time. the show opens with bhodi li telling his mommy "my names not Christopher, I'm bhodi li-PHOTON WARRIOR!!!!!" we then are forced to watch kids playing lazer tag to the song "foot loose". and not just a quick little bit, but the whole song. ahhhhhhhhh my brain hurts just thinking about it. oh yeah, and as if i couldn't get worse, you cant even see the laser beams from their guns. its like they're just running around to the entire "foot loose" song. later on, after bhodi goes up into space or where-ever, they have a crappy laser gun fight to the Phil Collins song "su-su-sudio." ah, trust me, you don't want to know the rest. what can i say......THE LIGHT SHINES!!!!!!!!!!! | negative |
Still funny after all these years. Midnight Madness is good entertainment for all ages. It introduces Michael J Fox as a typical 15 year old trouble maker. Melio and Blaylak are by far the funniest characters in it and Leon is perfectly cast as a wierdo game master. The budding romance between Adam and the girl couldn't have been any cheesier. Fagabeefe!!!! | positive |
"Four Daughters" begins as just another clone of "Little Women" type melodrama. A single father with four musically talented eligible daughters has his hands full trying to keep them in line and guide them in their courting rituals. What turns the film around is the sudden appearance of a new Hollywood star, some critics say the first anti-hero long before James Dean graced the big screen. From the time the dark, foreboding figure of Mickey Borden (John Garfield) appears at Ann Lemp's (Priscilla Lane) gate splashing his self-pity and doomed philosophy on the rest of the cast, "Four Daughters" becomes much more than just a chick flick.<br /><br />Though Garfield is the main reason to watch "Four Daughters," there are other flashes of brilliance to enjoy. Hungarian-born director Michael Curtiz, later responsible for such gems as "Casablanca" and "Mildred Pierce," pinpoints certain images with his camera (aided by cinematographer Ernest Haller of "Rebel Without A Cause" fame) that sticks in the viewers mind, for example the screeching gate that Ann's first suitor, Felix Deitz (Jeffrey Lynn), swings on so merrily becomes symbolic of the shifts in moods and affections by those who use it.<br /><br />That Garfield delivers the standout performance is obvious, but the rest of the cast keeps up with him most of the way. The underrated Jeffrey Lynn plays his role to perfection, as the neglected suitor whose love for his cherished Ann never falters even when she's with another man. Claude Rains, somewhat miscast as the father of the four coming-of-age young women, gives a fine portrayal of a set upon doting family head who gets lost in the shuffle. The three Lane Sisters, already famous for their musical abilities, turn into accomplished actresses, playing their parts well. A raft of supporting actors, including Dick Foran, Frank McHugh, May Robson, and Eddie Acuff, makes it all believable.<br /><br />How opposites attract is part of the ploy for touching the quick of the viewer's imagination. Ann is the eternal optimist, even when she and Mickey are down and out. She always looks on the bright side and like so many caught in the pliers of the Great Depression in those days, she saw prosperity just around the corner. Mickey recites an entire list of bad things that have happened to him seeking company in his misery from Ann, which Ann refuses to do. Mickey expects to go out with a bolt of lightning striking him dead as he rounds the corner of life. Mickey has meager talent as a composer; Ann has talent to spare as a singer and musician. Ann is big on beauty; Mickey is big on personality in a warped sense of a way. And the differences go on and on. How all this is reconciled in the end is an important part of the movie, not to be missed.<br /><br />See "Four Daughters" for John Garfield's doozy of an acting debut on the big screen. The only time he was better came seven years later when he again mesmerized the film goers with one of the greatest screen performances ever, as Frank Chambers in "The Postman Always Rings Twice," opposite the equally charismatic Lana Turner. But also watch "Four Daughters" to catch important elements that may be missed if too much concentration is placed on the star of the show. | positive |
Can I be as simple and primitive in my evaluations as to simply say "I liked it"? It's reasonably funny by bits, it got great stars and it's gorgeous to look at. The songs (there are about two which are then repeated) are forgettable, but they get a healthy ironic treatment (such as the terribly handsome Mr Fairbanks exploding into frenzied Wagnerian version of the tender ballad Miss Grable has just rendered); there isn't much dancing with all the 1861 crinolines draped around Miss Grable, and the comedy might be a bit heavy handed, but the result still is very uplifting. The photography (including real outdoor shots which are a thrill) is amazing, playing around with different shades of lush heavy gold. Miss Grable is a bit past her prime and on the plumpish side, but still fresh and comfortable in this continental "olde worlde" comedy. It's pretty much along the line of "Down to Earth" with Rita Hayworth, and that one tends to be rather disliked by many. So I suppose several people would deem "That Lady in Ermine" to be outdated and stuffy. But it's a fairy tale, and these tend to move along at a certain paste anyhow. My suggestion is - just enjoy the artwork, the costumes, the witty script and everything else this film has to offer, and stop complaining. The film has been released on DVD in Germany, with both German and English soundtrack. | positive |
The "good news" is that the circus is in town. The "bad news" is that's right over Bugs Bunny's underground home. He wakes up as his place shakes like an earthquake hit it, when workers pound stakes into the ground and elephants stomp by, etc.<br /><br />To be more specific, the lions' cage is place exactly over Bugs' hole. The lion sniffs food, and by process of elimination, figures out it's a rabbit. Bugs, curious what all the racket is about, winds his way through the tunnel and winds up in the lion's mouth.<br /><br />I'll say for thing for BB: he is totally fearless, at least in this cartoon, and at least for 30 seconds. When he comes to his senses, he runs like crazy and we get a lion-versus-a rabbit battle the rest of the way. Once again, Bugs faces dumb opponent, one he calls "Nero," but lion is fierce and Bugs will need all his wits and somewhat-fake bravado to fend off this beast.<br /><br />About half the gags are stupid and the other half funny, but always fast-moving, colorful and good enough to recommend. I mean, it's not everyday you can see a lion on a trapeze, or doing a hula dance! | positive |
The basic premise of Flatliners is fairly simple. Several medical students put themselves at the point of death in order to find out exactly what the brain does during the fact. It sounds like something a mob of bored students would do for a joke, but it forms the basis of some very creepy substories. In today's world, where Hollywood has to mine foreign markets for the ideas to make a horror film, Flatliners is one of those rare gems that show Hollywood can make something different when it tries hard enough.<br /><br />What separates Flatliners from a lot of films based on this premise that would come out today is that it does not stoop to being condescending or arrogant. Flatliners recognises that people go to films to be entertained, not moralised to. In this kind of supernatural thriller, the difference this restraint makes is really incredible. What's even more incredible is that Julia Roberts appears without being annoying or demonstrating that she can only play Julia Roberts. The theory of obscurity, that performing artists do their best work with the smallest audience, is in force here.<br /><br />The subplots concerning what the characters find during their loss of pretty much everything that makes them alive, and how it comes back to intrude on their present time, are done surprisingly well. The moments when William Baldwin's character finds his personal videotape collection coming back to haunt him are especially intriguing. That William Baldwin seems so perfectly cast in the role says a lot either about the script or the direction. I am not sure which.<br /><br />Kiefer Sutherland, on the other hand, really shines as the lead. One really feels for him as the mystery of what past experience is intruding on the present and why unfolds. As Kevin Bacon's character goes to find an old school pier whose life he made hell and tell her how sorry he is, it becomes clearer what the film is about. We can try to change the past as much as we like, but it's what we do with the present that matters most.<br /><br />Another good aspect of Flatliners is how it achieves an atmosphere without the use of expensive, elaborate visual effects. Quite unusually for what is essentially a horror film, Flatliners did not expend its budget in places where it did not need to. Much of what we see during the more surreal sequences is a case of professional pretending, simple trick photography, or stock footage. Sometimes the simplest things are the best.<br /><br />If there is a problem with the film, it's that it feels about ten minutes too short. The ending seems more perfunctory than conclusive, as if someone in the studio asked the director to wrap the film up so they can bring it out at a certain market time. Of course, many films have been left with sore spots for this very reason, so Flatliners shouldn't really need to be any different. The hundred and fifteen minutes we do get is highly satisfactory, though not overly brilliant.<br /><br />I gave Flatliners a seven out of ten. It works well as a date flick or a kind of late-night popcorn film. That aside, it makes a good reminder that low-budget horror shows weren't always sad pieces of garbage. | positive |
Tom Fontana's unforgettable "Oz" is hands down one of the greatest television series ever created. Brilliantly written, acted, and directed it is as close to perfection in any art form (film, television, literature, music) as it gets. Haunting in it's extreme brutality it creates a prison world filled with diverse characters that range from compassionate to flat out terrifying. It is a show that no matter how brutal it is get through, one cannot take its eyes off of. The combination of professional trained theater actors with film and television actors allows for a range of diverse and all original performances.<br /><br />And while the show is universally praised and has/had a loyal fan base, one cannot feel that it was under-appreciated during it's television run because of other HBO dramas such as "The Sopranos", "Sex and The City", and "Six Feet Under". And while all those shows are fine and borderline masterpieces in their right, many people forget that it was "Oz" that was HBO's first entry into one-hour television drama series. It was a brave, risky first entry and with it HBO hit a grand slam with it. This is as good as it gets. | positive |
I remember my parents not understanding Saturday Night Live when I was 15. They also did not understand Rock n Roll and many other things. Now that I am approaching their age, I still remember, and find I understand many of the things my kids love. But this is pathetic. I cannot say I have seen any by Sarah except for a few appearances here and there. They were reasonable. I do not see her as anything special. But this show is just so far below what I expected from her. The IMDb write up made it sound like potential. So, just for that, I started watching the first episode. I turned it off half way through. Anything else is better that that. Jokes that are meant for a 5 year old presented on a supposed adult program. Well, Sarah, this adult is inly moved to turn you off. I just cant believe that someone actually financed this insult to comedy. Only good thing I can say is that there are sooooo many bad jokes deposited here, saving other shows from such an embarrassment. | negative |
I first rented this movie on the infamous day of September 11, 2001. Since then I've seen it a number of times. My only complaint is that it's too short. "Strangeland" would've be a complete piece of horror art at two hours. As it stands, the running time is only an hour and a half.<br /><br />Ex-Twisted Sister member Dee Snider wrote, produced and stars in this 1998 shockfest set in a small Colorado town. He plays Carleton Hendricks, a crazed sadist who has psychotic ideologies on human evolution and a love for near-death experiences. Hendricks is no pushover, he's a pumped up six-foot "modern primitive". Someone who has tattooed and pierced their body to the very extreme. When he makes his first full appearance in the film, it is a truly terrifying sight.<br /><br />Hendricks' main hobby in life is to share his "spiritual awakenings" with his kidnapped victims. He visits Internet chatrooms under the name "Capt. Howdy" and then invites people over to his house. They believe they're going to a party. Instead, they find themselves in a house of pain and suffering. Hendricks sows their eyes and mouths shut and tortures them by sticking blades and hooks in numerous parts of their body. If it sounds sick, it's because it is.<br /><br />One of Hendrick's victims is Genevieve, the teenaged daughter of detective Michael Gage. Gage not only manages to save her, but arrests Hendricks as well. Four years later, Hendricks is released from a mental institution completely rehabilitated to the disapproval of the community. A group of rednecks led by Freddy Krueger himself, actor Robert Englund, decide to kill him. They fail and Hendricks reverts back to his old self.<br /><br />The rest of the film I'll leave to you, only to say the conclusion is satisfying and will leave you in shivers. With the exception of Snider, the acting isn't too good, but it's serviceable. The direction is okay, too. There are some humorous parts in "Strangeland" and they are very funny. I also loved the soundtrack, it's awesome and worth buying if you love rock. Overall, this is a movie worth watching. If you love low-budget horror films with a sense of humor, check it out. You'll probably like it. | negative |
I really enjoyed this movie. The script is fresh and unpredictable and the acting is outstanding.It is a down-to-earth movie with characters one cares about. It brought tears into my eyes a few times but left me with a great feeling afterwards. | positive |
Dr. Pena (Giancarlo Esposito), a "crypto-zoologist" (fancy term for one of those self-deluded losers who likes to study extremely rare - read: nonexistent - animals) and his crew of hunters manage to trap a Chupacabra, a big, scaly, elusive fast-moving beast. To get it to the mainland, they smuggle it on a Grecian cruise ship and some idiots open up the crate containing it despite being told specifically not to. I guess the strange growling noises coming from inside weren't a good enough deterrent either. The monster then does the monster thang; running around biting chunks out of various passengers until the ship's captain (John Rhys-Davies), a square-jawed special agent pretending to be an insurance salesman for some reason (Dylan Neal), a squeaky-voiced blonde Tai Bo instructor (Chelan Simmons), a bunch of guys with machine guns and others try to stop it. The main victims (who I think are supposed to be the comic relief but it's hard to tell) are an old rich bitch (Paula Shaw) with a yippy terrier and a snobby effete gold-digger (David Millbern). Apparently the monster can be knocked out with a single tranquilizer dart, but can live through dozens of bullet hits. The Chupacabra design is acceptable (though unoriginal) but the rest of the movie is devoid of suspense, surprise or interest. A boring Sci-Fi Channel "original" movie; they've made dozens of movies just like this with nearly interchangeable characters and plots, but with slight alterations on the creature. Enough already! | negative |
I rented this film courtesy of Netflix, thinking I would receive the 1972 version. I sat clueless, watching this new version, thinking: Gee, the production values were spectacular! I was convinced the soundtrack had a slightly 70s' sound to it. I was even more convinced that this was a 70s film when it occurred to me (almost every five seconds) that the one thing that was missing between Gene and Finney was an intense hug, a loaded stare, a passionate kiss.<br /><br />I'm sorry, although John Knowles himself has indicated that this was not a homosexual relationship, it is painfully obvious that yes, that's exactly what it was. When people (usually adolescents) of the same sex have "intense" friendships, it means that those longings for love, togetherness, the desire to express oneself sexually, are all spilling over. These boys needed to connect, but they were never allowed to.<br /><br />Also, despite a spirited performance by Toby Moore, I never felt any of the emotions were real. I never connected to either of the boys, for the very reason their relationship was not truly honest.<br /><br />People want to live in a fantasy and think that because this took place in the 1940s that these boys couldn't have had these sexual feelings for each other. But I say they did -- at least in the book they did, and in this movie, Finney had them, almost painfully, for Gene. The "intensity" that John Knowles suggests existed between them was a closet homosexuality, a hero worship, an idolatry -- that would, under normal circumstances, be expressed in a sexual way. Even if these boys were repressing it, it should have been crystal clear, but this movie doesn't even really hint at it. <br /><br />Lastly, there is an unbelievably bizarre moment when Finney, who has broken his leg, is playfully jumped on by all the other boys during a ball game. Unless they were just a bunch of nincompoops, they would know they could not possibly throw their bodies against him. Obviously this bone-shattering moment was lost on both the director and the producer. | negative |
Stupid horror film about five 20 somethings (3 guys, 2 girls) going to this place in the middle of nowhere. What they don't know is Dr. Chopper and his female assistants attack and kill anybody who ventures in their woods. They use their body parts for some experiments...or something. Also five college girls and two lesbians are thrown in to be killed off and show some cleavage.<br /><br />Pretty desperate. The story is confusing and boring; the gore is laughably fake; Dr. Chopper and his assistants overact TERRIBLY; there's some dreadful black "humor" in here and people just stand around while their friends are being attacked or just stand there and let the people kill them.<br /><br />This was pretty insulting. There are a few pluses. A twist an hour in was pretty good and the five young actors are actually good! Chase Hoyt is great as Reese; Butch Hansen is OK as Jimmy; Ashley McCarthy is also good as Tamara and Robert Adamson has his moments as Nicholas. Best of all is Chesley Crisp as Jessica--she was excellent! Some of the dramatic scenes between these five were well-acted and interesting. Unfortunately the dialogue wasn't really there for them. I'm giving it a 4 for their performances--but nothing else here is worth mentioning. Hopefully these actors will get roles worthy of them. | negative |
I love horror movies that brings out a real amount of mystery like say "silent hill" ( which i found to be quite good, but still, was missing something ) and movies that keeps you guessing, this i thought was one of those movies. At first the movie starts out with some really good suspense and builds up a good starting point for a good horror scene, but after that it just rolls down the hill and from there it only goes faster and faster down. I mentioned silent hill at first for a reason because i can see a lot of "stolen" themes from that movie in here.. All in all i would say, watch silent hill instead of this one, its better, its more scary, it has a lot more suspense and also the ending is a lot better.. And best of all, you wont feel ripped off as i did with this one.. This just seems to be one of those "i like that movie so I'm gonna re-make it in my own really bad version" kinda movie.. Oh and one more thing... Lordi.. in a horror movie... thats like trying to scare a kid with a care bear who has "hug me and i will love you forever" written on the stomach of it.. | negative |
I thought this was one of the most depressing holiday movies I have ever seen--the others being THE Christmas WIFE and JACK FROST. All three movies are about death. If you LIKE being thoroughly depressed, then by all means watch this film or any of the others. In this film, the acting is good and some of the scenery (apart when people are dying) is lovely. But, I am worried that a clinically depressed person might accidentally see the film and do themselves in! Despite a "happily ever after" ending, the major portion of this film is one awful disaster following another. And, for some crazy reason, I DON'T WANT TO BE DEPRESSED when I watch a Christmas movie (I know this sounds crazy folks--after all, isn't bawling your eyes out and feeling miserable what the holidays are all about anyway?).<br /><br />For a more uplifting viewing experience, try the forgotten HOUSE WITHOUT A Christmas TREE, George C. Scott's Christmas CAROL or A Christmas STORY instead--unless of course you like being miserable. | negative |
This movie is inspiring to anyone who is or has been in a tough jam, whether financially or emotionally. You will definitely laugh, which is the best medicine! :) Left in a bad financial situation when her husband dies, Grace has to find a new way to make some money and it's not exactly legal which adds to the humour. Even my boyfriend liked it so don't think that it's a chick-flic. | positive |
This movie is an amusing and utterly sarcastic view of pop culture and the producers thereof. I was impressed with the photography that consisted of vivid colors and spin doctored settings, especially when you think that this is Zukovic's first large scale attempt.<br /><br />One warning, do not take the movie's message that seriously. It is not for mass consumption ( and that is not a compliment). The message is a somewhat stylized post-college, neophyte view of society.<br /><br />I did enjoy the basic plot line of a fictitious 'zine editor verbally whipping the mobocracy of the 90's. | positive |
I rented End Game, having never heard of it, but I'm fond of political thrillers so I thought I'd give it a shot. After doing some research on the movie, I found that it had initially been intended for theatrical release, but instead had gone strait to DVD. After seeing it, I'm thinking, "no wonder." The movie is shocking in its unoriginality. The plot and the characters are perfunctory. I figured out whodunnit by the half way mark but the ending was a curve ball. I have to say, I didn't expect it to end quite the way it did, but that's not a point in its favor. The more predictable ending would have been preferable to one that is so bad. Perhaps the film makers saw how predictable the film was and so they decided to throw in a twist--even one that made the movie even worse.<br /><br />Stay away. I want the $5.98 and my 107 minutes back. | negative |
I've seen thousands of movies and have never written a review, but the Red Eye I witnessed is so at odds with the glowing tributes posted here that I'm compelled to offer my two cents in protest- and vote the lowest score possible just to bring the average closer to reality. <br /><br />This is a dull, boring stinker of a film that is memorable only for its apologist depictions of the terrorists' target (a John Bolton-esquire bully diplomat who's really a great guy, don't you know) and of the oh-so-handsome and popular Dr. Phil (whose bestselling book, one learns, is read by frequent fliers worldwide). The only real Red Eye I experienced was from rubbing my eyes in disbelief.<br /><br />Before you fork out $10 or so dollars for this B movie, read the selected 'Quotes (from trailer)' above, and ask yourself if you'll really enjoy a movie in which these were the cleverest lines to be found. Unfortunately, nothing else in this film is any better. The basic premise is goofy as hell; the acting is bland and uninspired, completely lacking in pro/antagonist chemistry; the potential for suspense is thwarted at every turn- except during the last five minutes- by poor directing and anticipatory editing; the script is riddled with incongruities like: early reveals of the heroine as a university lacrosse star are called into question when she later battles the antagonist with a field hockey stick; and the plot holes are wider than First Class (while character development is strictly Coach).<br /><br />And then there are the moments of extreme ridiculousness, like when the daughter of a high level public servant does NOT head straight for airport security, at her first opportunity, to warn them of an assassination plot against the both the head of Homeland Security and her father. Or when that same woman runs hell-bent-for-leather along slick airport linoleum, arms pistoning and veins in her neck bulging, while wearing 4 inch stiletto heels. Or when her pursuer chases likewise with a sucking wound in his trachea. Or when terrorists use a fishing pole to bring up their weapon from the freaking harbor bottom. I'm always willing to suspend disbelief, but I'm not going to leap from 30,00 feet without a parachute.<br /><br />The one good thing I can say of this movie is that it portrays women who are capable (even in bimbo form) of handling the most extreme emergencies- the kind of gender imaging sorely lacking in American movies. Other than that, this movie never really takes off, and is no more thrilling than the red eye flight from Boston to NY. Remember the last time you got suckered by deceptive trailers and glowing tributes- in this forum or elsewhere? This is one of those times. Wait for the Red Eye video, and don't watch it then, either. | negative |
This is an excellent B-film horror movie that borders between horror and comedy. It is about a genetically mutilated scorpion in outer space. Can it get more unreal? It is a hybrid between "Alien" and "Chain Saw Massacre." The movie was shot in Stockholm with a mixed cast of Americans and Swedes that interact beautifully. Director Martin Munthe does a great job finding the comical highlights in this script and gets a few good laughs out of the audience. The movie was shot with little or no money and it is inspiring to see what can be done with limited resources. Stinger has all qualities of a B-film horror movie. It is comical and scary at the same time and the cast and crew are dedicated to their cause. It is great to see that movies like this can still be made! I would recommend seeing it if you like this type of films. | positive |
Just to save you the $3, or whatever it costs to rent movies at your local video store, and the anguishing hour-and-however-long-this-movie-is here's a simple plan. Go over to a friend's house, talk them into renting The Pest for you, watch the first 30 seconds or so and then make up some excuse to leave. The opening sequence is really funny, definitely worth watching. Unfortunately, the other 99% of the movie is horrible. Without the shower scene at the beginning this is one of the worst movies of all time. | negative |
This is my first CG animated film that I've ever seen. Usually, the look of other animated films made me reticent to see them. Not Ice Age. I wanted to see it the moment I saw the trailer with Scrat, the hilarious sabertooth squirrel.<br /><br />Ice Age was sporadically funny and overall fun film to watch. The story is basically an animated version of Three Men and a Baby, set 20,000 years in the past. The visuals were great. Simply beautiful. It's one thing to create convincing aninmation, it's another thing altogether to create visually arresting stuff and Ice Age is great to look at with its stylized visuals. Blue Sky Studios is a company to look out for in the future. | positive |
This is a run-of-the-mill nature porn movie. By porn, I don't mean sex. I mean gratuitous images of (for example) thousands of birds together, or hundreds of walruses, or a giant waterfall or iceberg. Several of the shots in the film seem to exist solely to make their way into the trailer, to get people into theatres to see it for all of ten seconds before it disappears never to be seen again for the rest of the film.<br /><br />There is almost no plot in this film. Told to expect a story of three animal families, "better than March of the Penguins", the movie simply doesn't deliver. The blame rests in three key areas: (1) the writers who gave James Earl Jones some of the worst lines to narrate in nature film history, (2) the music team who over-dramatized everything to tell you what you should be feeling, even when the film fails to motivate, and lastly but most importantly (3) the editors who had the story jump from place to place with no rhyme or reason, no continuity, no flow, sucking the life out of the entire film -- a film about life. When we got to the whales halfway through the film, I sunk back in my seat with dread, hoping against hope that the film was more than halfway through, and that I'd be able to survive the long endurance test along with the animals on screen.<br /><br />There was also almost no science in the film at all. They attributed hot and cold (all of it, not just the seasons) solely to the Earth's tilt, ignoring the fact that we'd have even greater extremes from location to location if there was no tilt because the poles would never warm. And it would be worst if we had no rotation (relative to revolution) like Mercury, because half the planet would bake and the other half would freeze. Then near the end they used the phrase "humans and animals", as if humans are not animals, somehow exempt from the laws of nature. So much for science.<br /><br />I must credit the camera work, however, and again that is why I call this nature porn. Everything from super-slow-motion to what appears to be a finely-tuned mechanically-controlled time-lapse photography, was put to use to provide some (and I caution, only "some") stunning moments that do raise the bar compared to other nature films. That said, I am not convinced that it was all nature on the screen. Some of the shots showing the great watering hole in Africa, as it changed from season to season seemed like CGI to me. A director might have expected such suspicion and built in other shots to demonstrate that it's all natural, but they didn't do that.<br /><br />For a film about Earth, I had expected a lot more of Earth to be shown. What we saw was pristine. We had to take the narrator's word for it that some species are at risk due to climate changes. They didn't show us evidence of it. They didn't show us Alberta's poisonous tailing ponds visible from space. They didn't show us the great Pacific trash whorl. They didn't show us a nighttime picture of human light pollution around the planet. These are as much Earth as anything else. Why cover it up for a feel-good whitewash? <br /><br />My last criticism of the content is of predation. Any time a predator was shown on the screen actually hunting prey, the music turned almost into that Mt Doom scene from Lord of the Rings, with the predator portrayed as some kind of Sauron ultimate-evil character. But predators aren't evil. They perform a necessary service, ensuring that the best members of the prey species survive. We are predators ourselves. Any time the predator caught the prey, we immediately cut away to something else, to sort of pretend that death and eating don't really happen. The final insult was the "dad" polar bear being left to die after he dared to try to eat. "Bad bear! Bad!", you can almost hear them say.<br /><br />On to the presentation itself. My theatre may be in part to blame for this, but maybe not. I had expected to see something with greater clarity than I could see on my own HDTV LCD at home. But the picture was blurry, and was presented in the same 16:9 ratio I could get at home, instead of the wider ratio many films come in these days. And during one action-packed scene near the end, the film (I can't imagine this happening digitally, from how it looked) was damaged, and we lost several of the colors, eventually blacking out completely. That repeated about three times.<br /><br />If they actually do plant a tree on my behalf, it will have been worth it. But how will I know? | positive |
The critics were like "a movie that will break your heart" etc. So a friend of mine and I had great expectations when we decided to watch this movie.<br /><br />I'll make it short and leave it up to others to write about its content. This movie tries to touch you, to reach your heart. But it fails. At least for me. And for my friend, too.<br /><br />Everything that happened happened only on the screen. It was always THERE, not HERE, where I am. I thought most of the time "hmm, something's happening on the screen, but it's only on the screen. It's not real."<br /><br />Movies which succeeded MUCH better in touching me: East of Eden (1955), Terms of Endearment (1983), Jerry Maguire (1996), Babe (1995), Mies vailla menneisyyttä (2002) | negative |
i was extremely excited for this movie! my expectations were under control because i read the book first sooo i expected differences. what i didn't expect were how great the differences were. Starting off by the characters physical appearances...like Channing Tantums lack of tattoos n Amanda Seyfried not being a brunette lol but i let that go...the character developments were not there at all...you didn't have time to love amanda seyfried character and you couldn't feel for her or for john when they first separated...i thought the two weeks were rushed and i hated that she left first then him...it took the emotional separation away...and why did they change Tim from the book...why did they make him a dad instead of a brother and why did they make him sooo old looking and the movie lacked that intense moment when they find out what happens at the end (didnt want to spoil it lol but for those who watched it u know what i mean) and whhhyyyy ooooo wwhyyyy did they change the ending...in the book it was heartbreaking and emotional and it emphasized on Channing Tatums character's decision whhyyy did they twist it...it just made it look like a rushed ending...it was terrible...thats what disappointed me the most...the ending of the book should have been exactly the same :( | negative |
LIGHTS OF NEW YORK was the first "all-taking" feature film, coming in at a brisk 57 minutes and directed by Bryan Foy (of the famous vaudeville family).<br /><br />The story has two dopey barbers (Cullen Landis, Eugene Palette) yearning for a chance at "big city life" and getting involved with gangsters and bootleg booze. One of the guys gets framed for the murder of a cop but is saved at the last minute by a gun moll (Gladys Brockwell).<br /><br />Much of the story takes place in a night club called The Night Hawk, which is run by a crook named Hawk (Wheeler Oakman) who has his eye on a pretty chorine (Helene Costello) who is the girl friend of Landis. Costello gets to do a brief dance, and we hear Harry Downing (made up to resemble Ted Lewis) sing "At Dawning) in his best Al Jolson style.<br /><br />The acting ranges from good (Palette and Brockwell) to awful (Oakman). A couple of the actors muff their lines but then keep right on with the scene. As noted elsewhere this was intended to be a short 2-reeler and was made on a shoestring budget. Yet the sound quality is surprisingly good, the voices all register clearly, and there is a neat cinematic touch in the silhouette death.<br /><br />The film was a box-office smash even though it was shown as a silent film where theaters were not wired for the new sound technology. No one expected this little film to gross an amazing $1.3 million. It briefly made stars of Costello and Landis and certainly launched Palette on his long career as a star character actor.<br /><br />Co-stars include Mary Carr as the mother, Robert Elliott as the detective, Eddie Kane as the street cop, and Tom Dugan as a thug. | positive |
Sadly,this is not 'the best British gore film since hellraiser', though the DVD cover claims this, which is what tricked me into buying it. It is, however, an homage to many of the great horrors of old, films from most notably the Amicus stable.<br /><br />Cradle... is shot on mini dv, which though we all know has more of a TV feel than a movie, can be done so much better. Every scene, set and shot looks like it has been lit in exactly the same way (standard key, fill, rear setup), which only enhances the cheap look of the finished piece. The gore content is, quite frankly, laughable. From the opening shots where we see a man's obviously foam rubber head torn apart, through to tacky cheap prop hammers, the creature effects and the terrible cg, there was nothing in there that impressed me at all.<br /><br />The acting is abominable, from the near-comatose detective to the brummie dwarf, via Dani Filth, the least convincing horror movie bad guy I have ever witnessed. Each of the substories is more formulaic than the last, and the sets get worse and worse as the movie runs. Look out for the 'Mental Asylum' - a Georgian semi detached house with a bad cg sign outside, and the most bizarre (and not in a good way) padded cell I have seen.<br /><br />It took me four attempts to get to the end of the film without my attention wandering (nay, running) away at any available opportunity. I actually found myself dusting at one point while the film was running.<br /><br />It does, however, mark one of the last known appearances of Emily Booth's breasts, which I guess is one (um, two) things it has going for it. Once that's out of the way though, it is all downhill.<br /><br />I've heard people say good things about Alex Chandon, and I would love to believe them, but on this evidence I'm not likely to. If you want a decent homage to Amicus, avoid this and go for the League of Gentlemen Christmas special instead.<br /><br />Currently battling it out with Blair Witch 2: Book of Shadows for the title of worst film I have ever seen. | negative |
I give this nonsense a 2 instead of a 1 because there is a worse show called Haunted Homes. But this kid and his buddies conduct their investigations like total idiots. They assume that there are ghosts from the get go and if they ever find rational explanations behind the experiences they have to be drug kicking and screaming into admitting it. But beyond that, the show's whole format is incredibly annoying. Even though a lot of it seems scripted, the college educated kids who make up the the cast can barely speak English but still insist on trying to use "big" words they obviously don't understand. And head investigator Ryan's ridiculously self important voiceovers make me just want to throw the TV through the window. (and he looks stoned all the time). In short, this group make the guys from TAPS on Ghost Hunters look like MIT scientists! | negative |
I'm warning you -- this movie is not scary. If you're a horror movie fan, especially a Child's Play fan, you'll think it's incredibly funny, but you won't be scared. It's not a bad movie, but it's not scary. | positive |
Where to Begin, I like the scary snow-monster named Jack Frost. The whole concept works well for me, we thought he'd be back and he was. Changing the local to a tropical resort works. Seeing old friends and meeting new characters. Scott MacDonald does a great job as Jack Frost, you can tell when an actor has fun playing a villain, you can see it or in this case hear it in the performance. Yup, Jack Frost 2 is a welcomed sequel that is better then the first. I do have one complaint, the little Jacks or the Jacklings as I call them. They looked like hand puppets. I think they could have done a better job with the Jacklings, the mouth could have opened wider, but the CGI was good and as a whole the whole movie is worth watching over and over again. If you liked JACK FROST, then you will like this sequel. No questions or debate, 9 BIG STARS. | positive |
I'm surprised to read all the positive comments on this movie. Even my 4 and 6 year old were bored. The chipmunks are cute...but the storyline is overly obvious. Not recommended for young ones with the least sophisticated tastes.<br /><br />We did hear a few laughs from the audience while we were in attendance; but I wondered why.<br /><br />I don't admit to ever being a 'chipmunks' fan, but I expected to be entertained. It's not even an 'escapist' movie as far as I can tell. Simply a heavy handed view of 'success too young spoils'. We've seen more than enough of that with Britney Spears, et al, haven't we?<br /><br />Don't bother. | negative |
I sought out this film for one reason--Al Adamson. He is among the worst directors of all time--right up there with Ed Wood, Jr. and Ray Dennis Steckler and the pantheon of awfulness. However, I was a tad disappointed because although the film was indeed bad, it never approached the levels of awfulness of some of his earlier schlocky movies. Because of that, this film wasn't particularly fun to watch for us bad movie fans.<br /><br />Now I was wary about watching this film, as the title "Naughty Stewardesses" makes the film sound like a pornographic film--something I wouldn't be reviewing on IMDb. However, this film appeared to be this at times--particularly the first 10 minutes. But, you could tell that the script underwent many changes, as for much of the film there isn't any titillation at all and towards the end of the movie there is a plot that comes out of no where that is violent and certainly NOT sexy! The result of all this is total confusion.<br /><br />Sadly, none of the many parts are even good. For example, as a porn video, it shows surprisingly little AND it's incomprehensible why they would put a 71 year-old guy in some of the love scenes. Sure, for a 71 year-old Mr. Livingston looked pretty good--but he was still an old man and no one would want to see him getting it on with young nymphet! Then, when the final 20 minutes becomes very violent, as Livingston became a Rambo-like guy! Talk about weird and inappropriate.<br /><br />Overall, there is little to recommend this sad movie. It's not bad enough or sexy enough to care about and the film manages to be rather boring even with such a crazy title like "Naughty Stewardesses". | negative |
Sleeper Cell attempts to swim both sides of the pool (terrorism/patriotic Muslim Americans), and it does neither very well.<br /><br />I had put off watching this show for a very long time, because I had a feeling it would be too predictable, but after a year in my netflix queue, I finally moved it up to the front.<br /><br />The show is about an undercover Muslim man working for the FBI in an attempt to infiltrate a terrorist cell operating in the United States. The undercover agent in the show actually is a Muslim, so we see his conflict/resolution between his Patriotism and his Religious beliefs. Personally I would have rather watched a drama about a Muslin American family living in the United States, but it is doubtful that an America TV channel (cable or network) will ever produce anything that shows Muslims in a flattering light.<br /><br />I am not a Muslim, but I have a lot of Muslim American Friends, and I can honestly say that none of them are terrorists and they all love America.<br /><br />Sleeper Cell comes close to busting stereotypes of Muslims, but it also focuses on the worse Muslim stereotypes. In the first episode we see an "honor killing," which is a very poor portrayal of Islam, but in the 3rd episode we see a very respected moderate Muslim scholar teaching the viewer that the real Jihad is actually a personal struggle that is not meant to incite violence towards others.<br /><br />If only the Moderate Muslim scholar had been the main character of the show.<br /><br />Americans need to learn a lot more about Islam, Sleeper Cell helps a little bit, but it comes up far short of giving the America audience what it really needs to knows.<br /><br />That said, the acting in this show is superb, and the drama is extremely engrossing. If only they had made this show about Islam in America without the terrorism, it would have been first rate. | positive |
I kind of liked The Lonely Lady. Give Pia a break. She looks great and she has really nice eyes. What's not to like? The scene where she gets raped by Ray Liotta with a garden hose was kind of gross and cruel. Actually, a LOT of stuff that happens in this movie is gross and cruel. But its a trashy movie. A lot of movies that are trashy are not all bad. I liked this better than Valley of the Dolls, which was not only trashy but boring as well. At least this wasn't boring.<br /><br />Pia gets naked a lot and seems miscast as a writer. Watching her talk about Pushkin and Byron with a guy three times her age is flat unbelievable. I'm sure Pia's a nice person in real life, she just doesn't project the writer vibe. She looked much happier when she was working as a hostess for that guy from Saturday Night Fever and wearing a glittery disco dress.<br /><br />A couple of the scenes are funny. The one where she tells the two-timing actor that she's pregnant and he rolls his eyes and snaps at her to "stop hanging around!", all the while he's practically fawning over every bimbo who flounces by.<br /><br />Pia's nervous breakdown scene is good. It was probably a mistake to go so supernova on it (the vortex of floating faces and freeze-frame scream - whoa!) and her subsequent catatonic stupor is kind of overdone.<br /><br />The acceptance speech is a hoot, though. I want to see someone do that speech in a drama class.<br /><br />But, again, this is trash we're talking about. You could find worse on any movie of the week back in the eighties. | positive |
First of all I must admit Batman: The animated series is the best batman series by far. We watched it when it used to be on TV. I didn't realize that there was a season four. Actually there wasn't. BTAS ends with season 3, and it should have stopped there.<br /><br />Why did they have to mess with a good thing. Catwoman and Poison ivy now have terrible grey faces. The Joker looks beyond scary, it seems that each time they revise his appearance he looks more and more creepier. He doesn't seem to have pupils anymore, and now he doesn't even look remotely human (although he is).<br /><br />Bruce Wayne is voiced by Kevin Conroy who does the best batman. Although he now looks like superman. There is nothing that sets him apart because they both look the same, Bruce Wayne now has blue eyes.<br /><br />Night Wing really needs a haircut, please! Alfred just has pupils from eyes, looks more like a character from the 80's.<br /><br />I have watched three episodes from Disc 1 in the series and I already find that this version is more violent and graphic (there is blood in every episode).<br /><br />If you are a fan of Batman: The animated series, there is no batman season 4. They just included this series as season 4 for marketability. If they just released it as The New batman adventures I don't think as many people would have bought it.<br /><br />Save yourself the disappointment and stick to seasons 1-3. | negative |
What a surprise this film was. I've seen a good few of Fulci's horror and zombie flicks and was amazed that this was by the same director. He also wrote the screen play which shows that the chap was quite capable of crafting a detailed, complex story line. The dubbing on this is not good, but far from the appalling slop that only further hinders later howlers like 'Manhattan Baby'.<br /><br />The photography in this film is fantastic. A strange, almost futuristic highway appears throughout the film which focuses on a small town where young boys are being murdered. A scene involving the beating of a woman is uncomfortable to watch, yet refreshing in comparison to usual cinema violence. <br /><br />What went wrong Lucio? Perhaps there is a strong case to suggest he had reached his peak with this film, and it slowly went downhill after that. | positive |
The original show was so much better. They should have left on a good note. This movie killed the whole idea. It was boring, over-dramatic, and the funny parts were too far in between to make up the slack. This movie really seemed like it was trying way too hard to be serious, and that was definitely not what I was wanting from this sequel. Not to mention, that for a long time it was just depressing about the same thing over and over again. So, sorry, Tyler Perry, but try harder next time. This movie is just kinda dull, and not that funny either. Sorry. 4/10 stars is it.<br /><br />Jay Addison | negative |
The Patriot is a well thought out, well produced film, that will draw the viewer into the story directly, and keep them involved to the very end. Granted, it is not in the same vein as Under Siege, et. al., but this is definitely the trademark film of what might be described as Seagal's second era of films. Not so much Action movies with a nod to a story thrown in for good measure, but a good story, matched with a point, and injected with some of Seagal's unimitable action sequences. Is this the kind of film that hardcore action junkies will enjoy? Probably not. But for those of us who not only like our action, but also can appreciate a well told story, this is a big step forward for Seagal. It's almost like the transformation Clint Eastwood made as he tried to step out from underneath the shadow of his "Dirty Harry" series. Either man, had he continued in the singular direction they were headed, would have forever been keyholed in in specific role and guaranteed the brevity of their careers... | positive |
James Bishop (Matt Stasi) goes to a `mental illness facility' for a medical residence assignment with Dr. McCort (Bruce Paynes). There, he realizes that many interns are being killed by `The Ripper', who takes their souls to the devil, in a cult promoted by Dr. McCort. This story is so absurd and imbecile that it is impossible to write a summary. The dialogs are so ridiculous, specially when the character of Helen, the blonde fiancé of James Bishop arrives in the asylum, that it is almost unbelievable that a writer has had the courage to include them in a screenplay. And what about the return of James to the hospital to bring the files of the dead patients? And the cast, composed of ham actors and actresses? Honestly, I do not know what or who is the worst in this film: the screenplay, the director or the cast. The correct answer certainly is all of them. I saw this flick on cable television, and I am astonished how can a producer spend money in such a garbage. This horror movie becomes very funny considering the absurd of the plot. My vote is three.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): `Demônio' (`Devil') | negative |
This film was great! I love the way it mixes dark humor with drama. There are times when you think there is no possible way you could laugh at the situation presented, and yet you experience a surprising giggle. It is wonderfully acted, with great performances by Sigourney Weaver, Jeff Daniels, and Emile Hirsch. It is well written with a stylish, surprising ending. I'm not one to say that everyone will like it as much as I did, but give it a chance and rent it. The DVD has great special features, including full-length commentaries by director, Dan Harris and Emile Hirsch and one by Sigourney Weaver, that give you interesting information about the film. I hope my comment is helpful, and that you enjoy the movie! | positive |
2001 wasn't perhaps Eric Roberts best year. Both Raptor and this came out. Watched Raptor a while ago and really thought it sucked and being Erics worst. But that had it´s share moment of fun and D-standard. This one doesn't have a thing.<br /><br />Tommy Lee Thomas is the name of the probably worst actor in these days. The story lacks any punch and the whole thing feels even slower than a snail breaking in curves.<br /><br />The two thing that stands out are Martin Kove and Eric Roberts. You could argue about their effort being good or what but compared to the rest they are above all criticism.<br /><br />I say thank you Roberts see you next time (and hopefully a better one). | negative |
BEING Warner Brothers' second historical drama featuring Civil War and Battle of the Little Big Horn, General George Armstrong Custer, THEY DIED WITH THEIR BOOTS ON (Warner Brothers, 1941) was the far more accurate of the two; especially when contrasted with SANTA FE TRAIL (Warner Brothers, 1940), which really didn't set the bar very high.<br /><br />ALTHOUGH both pictures were starring vehicles for Errol Flynn, there was a change in the casting the part of General Custer. Whereas it was "Dutch", himself, Ronald Reagan portraying the flamboyant, egomaniacal Cavalryman in the earlier picture, with Mr. Flynn playing Virginian and later Confederate Hero General, J.E.B. (or Jeb) Stuart; Errol took on the Custer part for THEY DIED WITH THEIR BOOTS ON.<br /><br />ONCE again, the Warner Brothers' propensity for using a large number of reliable character actors from the "Warner's Repertory Company" are employed in giving the film a sort of authenticity, and all is really happening right before our very own eyes. Major roles are taken by some better known actors and actresses, such as: Elizabeth Bacon/Mrs. Custer (co-star Olivia de Havilland), Ned Sharpe (Arthur Kennedy), Samuel Bacon (Gene Lockhart), Chief Crazy Horse (Anthony Quinn), "Californy" (Charlie Grapwin), Major Taipe (Stanley Ridges), General Phillip Sheridan (John Litel), Callie (the Bacon's Maid, Hattie McDaniel). <br /><br />THE rest of the cast is just chock full of uncredited, though skilled players such as: Joe Sawyer, Eleanor Parker, Minor Watson, Tod Andrews, Irving Bacon, Roy Barcroft, Lane Chandler, Spencer Charters, Frank Ferguson, Francis Ford, William Forrest, George Eldridge, Russell Hicks, William Hopper, Hoppity Hooper, Eddie Keane, Fred Kelsey, Sam McDaniel, Patrick McVey, Frank Orth, Eddie Parker, Addison Richards, Ray Teal, Jim Thorpe (All-American, himself), Minerva Urecal, Dick Wessel, Gig Young and many, many more.<br /><br />THE film moves very quickly, particularly in the early goings; then sort of slows down out of necessity as the story moves along to the Post Civil War years, the assignment of Custer as a Colonel in the 7th Cavalry and the ultimate destiny at the Little Big Horn, in Montana. Under the guidance of Director, Griffith Veteran, Raoul Walsh, the film hits a greatly varied array of emotions; from the very serious, exciting battle scenes and convincing historical scenes; looking as if they were Matthew Brady Civil War Photos. As with most any of Mr. Walsh's films, he punctuates and expedites the end of many a scene with a little humor; but not going overboard and thus risking the chance of turning the film into a comedy (farce, actually).<br /><br />AS previously mentioned, this is much more factual than its predecessor, SANTA FE TRAIL (last time we'll mention it, honest Schultz, Scout's Honor!). However, that is not to say that it wasn't without a few little bits of "Artistic and Literary License; as indeed, just about any Biopic will have. It would be impossible to make any similar type of film if indeed every fact and incident were to be tried to be included in the screenplay. Perhaps the most erroneous inclusion as well as the most obvious invocation of Literary License is that business about Custer's being accidentally promoted to the rank of Brigadier General. It just didn't happen that way, yet the "gag" both helped the film to move along; while it underscored the whole light, carefree feeling that permeated the early part of the film.<br /><br />DIRECTOR Walsh and Mr. Flynn collaborated in giving us what would seem to be a characterization of this legendary Civil War Hero that was very close to the real life man. And they did this on top of the recreation of an incident, being the Massacre by the Lakota Sioux, the Cheyenne and the Fukowi of Custer and his 7th Cavalry at the Little Big Horn. At the time of its occurrence, June 25, 1876, "Custer's Last Stand" was as big an incident and shock to the Americans' National Psyche as were the Japanese Attack on Pearl Harbor (December 7, 1941) or the Atrocities perpetrated by the Islamic Fascists to New York's Twin Trade Towers and the United States' Armed Forces' Headquarters in the Pentagon, Arlington, Virginia on September 11, 2002.<br /><br />JUST as so many films of that period of WORLD WAR II (and the years immediately before), there were so many incidents in it that were, if not intentionally done, were demonstrations of virtues that would be needed in time of another Global Conflict, such as we were in by the time of THEY DIED WITH THEIR BOOTS ON was finishing up its original Theatrical release period.<br /><br />POODLE SCHNITZ!! | positive |
I noticed with some amusement that in the end credits, the Detroit PD is thanked for their participation. The Chief of Police even has one speaking line playing himself (and boy, can you tell he can't act). The reason for the amusement is that in this movie the police shoot first and ask questions later. Not the kind of PR, I would think a police force would want. Other than that, this is your standard cops and robbers film dressed up for the '70's with a racial angle. Alex Rocco is given a thankless role of a lifer cop that can't get ahead and is saddled with a mentally ill wife. He makes up for this by hanging out at the local whorehouse. Hari Rhodes is his dashing partner that has a groovy wardrobe and likes to chase after suspects while wearing a trenchcoat. The movie moves along until the penultimate shootout that makes absolutely no sense (why do people that are only guilty of a robbery, take on a whole police force?). Not only do we see one shootout but since there are four bad guys, we get to see four. Then there is a twist ending that is supposed to leave one guessing what really would have happened but only left me thinking how stupid it was. Seeing that director Arthur Marks was also behind the braindead "Friday Foster" and "Bucktown", I shouldn't have wondered. | negative |
A serial killer dies in a snowstorm and gets mutated into Frosty the Snowman's evil twin. Then goes on a killing spree. Interesting plot. Sounds scary. And it is scary. If you're five years old. Otherwise, it's kind of cheesy. I saw it on cable and I'm glad I didn't pay money to see it. It has all the charm and style of a low-budget movie which may become a cult film. I'm sure it has a loyal fan base somewhere. I'm just not in it. Even though I didn't like the movie as a whole, there were some scenes I found amusing. Such as the bathtub scene and the post-explosion scene with the Picasso reference. It was also enjoyable to watch the many ways the heroes try to kill Jack and he just doesn't seem to want to die. In short, "Jack Frost" is a good low-budget B-movie comedy, but a bad low-budget B-movie horror. | negative |
The fight scenes were great. Loved the old and newer cylons and how they painted the ones on their side. It was the ending that I hated. I was disappointed that it was earth but 150k years back. But to travel all that way just to start over? Are you kidding me? 38k people that fought for their very existence and once they get to paradise, they abandon technology? No way. Sure they were eating paper and rationing food, but that is over. They can live like humans again. They only have one good doctor. What are they going to do when someone has a tooth ache never mind giving birth... yea right. No one would have made that choice. | negative |
Kolchak is sheer entertainment. Great stories and a great cast and nothing else to weigh it down. Darren McGavin gives an energetic performance that pulls the audience along with him. Simon Oakland, Jack Grinnage and Ruth McDevitt give McGavin the kind of solid support that most leading actors can only dream of having. Some excellent guest stars add colour and verve to individual episodes - Erik Estrada in Legacy of Terror, Phil Silvers in Horror in the Heights, Antonio Fargas in The Zombie. It's easy to see how a boyhood spent watching Kolchak drove Chris Carter to create The X Files. Darren - RIP. Simon - RIP. Ruth - RIP. | positive |
I can't explain it, but I find this movie not only funny, but so enjoyable I feel compelled to watch it over and over, or at least I did when I had cable TV. I always felt it was a really poorly made movie, but perhaps that is because I watched it on cable. I plan to get a DVD of this movie to really take an honest look at at, but more importantly to just have a good time watching it. I liked the plot and the idea of the movie and I especially liked the cast. I always wonder if the cast enjoyed making the movies they are in and this is no exception. This film deserved a better fate than it received and Kelsey Grammar deserved at least one love scene with Ms. Holly. Who wouldn't? The characters in this movie were the kind of guys I could identify with when I was in the military and the zaniness was exact. Nice going troops. | positive |
I would of given this film a zero out of ten, but i will give it a two. Reason One is that Shah Rukh Khan appears in the film, which is not really a reason. Last Point is that Rani Appears in this film and does a smooch with Kamal. I Love Rani very much and have a respect that she is a great actress. Which is why i didn't enjoy her in this movie kissing Kamal, but its no big deal. Anyway enough of the bedroom scenes that made this film noticeable, lets actually talk about this film. Is it good or bad, I think its a completely rubbish movie that made me yawn. Me being a Fantastic critic, you can see my other 250+ review's by clicking on my name, I have great taste. The movie is not entertaining is one thing and if this is suppose to be hard hitting cinema, why is there no morale in this movie. Its a biased movie thats not a true story and it stinks. Watching Kamal kissing these actresses makes me sick, Man cant kiss properly anyway. | negative |
Trifling romantic drama directed by Clint Eastwood about the loving relationship which grows between a comely hippie (Kay Lenz) and a Los Angeles real estate agent in his golden years (William Holden, surprisingly affable within this highly-concocted arrangement). The script is slight but not without some thoughtful passages; still, the scenario is such a middle-aged cliché by now that most of the picture comes off as puerile. It may have worked much better with different leads: Holden and Lenz don't match up well (her stature is so slight he seems to tower over her), making their intimate scenes less stirring than simply uncomfortable. Dated, blurry-romantic, and mostly unmemorable. ** from **** | negative |
How to lose friends and Alienate people came out in 2008. It bombed at U.S. Box offices. It's an absolutely hilarious film with a great cast. Simon Pegg is great playing Sidney Young, who wrote the book "How to lose friends and Alienate people. I know it's not a true story. The only way I know that is because Sidney wants to go out with an actress named Sophie Maes. Sophie Maes doesn't exist, but other than that, the film could be real. How to lose friends and Alienate people is probably the funniest film of 2008, and I think you definitely should see it. As I said earlier, the film has a fantastic cast including: Kirsten Dunst(Spider-Man, The Virgin Suicides) Danny Huston(The Number 23, 30 days of night) Gillian Anderson(The X-Files) Megan Fox(Transformers, Confessions of a teenage drama Queen) Jeff Bridges(The Big Lebowski, The Vanishing) Overall, How to lose friends and Alienate people is hilarious. I think Simon Pegg and Kirsten Dunst do work well together, and I think you should see it. Though there is some odd nudity including Trans-sexuals, it's a hilarious and awesome comedy. One of Simon Pegg's best.<br /><br />The Plot:Sidney Young, a journalist from England, travels down to New York to work at Sharp magazines. While there, he meets an actress named Sophie Maes and tries to sleep with her before his boss does. | positive |
This movie is by far the worst movie ever, The story line is weak and never shows what happens to the people after the 20 was left they hands. This really bugs me. It drags on and on with out any meaning, very boring. The only good thing was the cast, WOW, lots of big time actors and actress in it. But besides that it was horrible, terrible and repulsive, do yourself a favor, do not watch it.<br /><br />I gave it a 1 out of 10 | negative |
I found this movie at the flea market for cheap. I was so psyched because I thought it was a skateboarding movie. I got home put it on, the previews rules and the opening scene with the old guy rolling down the street on the skateboard was awesome. At that moment I realized it was a post-apocalyptic movie but I still had high hopes for it. This movie was awful. A friend of mine was stoned out of his mind when we watched it and even he thought it was horrible and a waste of being high. I kept falling asleep during the movie because it was so boring and the music was utterly awful. I don't know if during the apocalypse all the good music, and all the music that is only kind of crappy is destroyed and everyones memory of how to play it is wiped clean but I think I would rather die than have to endure that crap. Also what the hell was up with the TV studio? I can only assume that this movie was adapted from an old Greek play, with the names and title, but some plays are not meant to be adapted into a futuristic sci-fi setting. Or at least not by the people who were involved with this movie. If you are forced to watch this movie, I can only suggest bringing a hand gun and finishing yourself off before the end. It would be a good movie to kill yourself too, everyone will understand why. | negative |
When I was a kid in the 50's and 60's anything connected with Disney was by definition great. What happened? They are able to get any actors and actresses they want, the best of their time. But somehow Disney manages to screw things up in spite of their abundant resources.<br /><br />Disney can afford the best writers, the best producers and directors, but still...they screw things up! This movie is crap. The sad thing is that I suspect Disney in their arrogance does not even know when a movie is good or bad.<br /><br />It is only due to the talent of the actors that I can even give it a 3 of 10. | negative |
Firstly, there are some good things about this film, but it's all cliche slasher stuff combined with a teen movie. In the advertising of this movie, that I've seen, a large emphasis was on the fact that Denise Richards is in it, but she's a poor actress, and not as good looking as people try to make her out to be (not that that has anything to do with the movie). And what's with that look she gives everyone? Perhaps it's part of the character, but like I said, the acting... Still, the writing is fine. You know who it is all throughout the movie, and you can almost predict what is about to happen, but not in an irritating way. I think the book it's based on is probably good, judging by the plot line, but next time I'll read the book to find out rather than watch this. | negative |
Man To Man tries hard to be a good movie: it has its heart at the right place, it aspires to be epic and it has a message that no doubt everybody will appreciate. But there lies also some of the problems of this picture. It strives so hard to be good and to get its message across that sometimes the viewer must feel unchallenged. So it is only adequate that the images which are used by this picture are simplistic - Man To Man doesn't let the viewer decide what he thinks is right but is hammering its message in his head. Joseph Fiennes exemplifies this in his role: he does his best to look concerned, genuinely moved and all the other emotions you can express with the single one facial expression his repertoire has to offer. Add that the movie is overlong and loses its speed towards the end you would be easily led to the conclusion that Man To Man is not worth watching. But there are enough points to defend it: it is entertaining, has some humorous scenes and the show-stealing Kristin Scott Thomas. Of course you should not compare it to humanistic masterpieces like The Elephant Man (David Lynch) but you'll be leaving the theatre satisfied. It tries to grab your heart (even if your brain thinks that it is too obvious) and succeeds most of the time. | negative |
I love Stephen Kings work and the book was great but I was very disappointed when I bought this movie on DVD. This was one of the worst B-movies I have ever seen. It feels like they had a tight schedule and only took one shot at every scene even if it turned out to be a bad one. And where did they find the actors. | negative |
Old Jane's mannered tale seems very popular these days. I have lost count of the number of versions going around. Probably the reason is that her "ruts" are our "ruts" even at this late date. This TV mini-series gives it a mannered telling suitable to the novel. Headstrong, opinionated Emma is a pretty "modern" girl when you think about it, even though the ambience of Jane Austen's world may seem a tad artificial to us today. If you haven't seem EMMA, I'll only say that self-sufficient Emma does get her comeuppance. It's worth watching to find out how. The acting honours here go to the ladies: Kate, Prunella, Lucy and Samantha. They could almost have had a psychic connection to old Jane! | positive |
First of all, 'St. Ives' the film is only fairly loosely based on the Robert Louis Stevenson story of the same name, but for once, this is not a criticism. The original novel was a work-in-progress, unfinished at the author's death, and in freely adapting it and giving it an ending, the film-makers have brought to life some endearing characters who, although different from Stevenson's originals, would, I am sure, have charmed and amused him.<br /><br />It is 1813: Capitaine Jacques de Kéroual de Saint-Yves is a Breton aristocrat, orphaned by the Revolution's guillotine, now serving as a hussar in Napoleon's army. We meet him going out for the evening, claiming that since a hussar who is not dead by 30 is "a blackguard", he, at 34, is now "on borrowed time"! Certainly, as he faces a string of challenges to duels, our dashing hero seems in danger, but a surreal prank on his Colonel provides him a way out of the duels and into the bed of a beautiful courtesan/singer. Unfortunately, it also results in losing his commission... Further misadventures result in him being taken prisoner by the British, and sent to a POW camp in a Scottish castle.<br /><br />While carving toys and boxes, Jacques catches the attention of Flora, the young niece of Miss Susan Gilchrist, a well-travelled woman of the world who lives at Swanston Cottage. They fall in love, and most of the story concerns Flora helping Jacques to escape and to find his emigré grandfather, the old Comte. Of course, there is a problem. Jacques' older brother, Alain, a dissolute alcoholic, is - perhaps understandably - far from pleased when Grandfather disinherits him in front of the whole household, the very instant that Jacques has appeared... Cue treachery! There is also an entertaining subplot of the romance between the awkward, naïf but good-hearted Major Farquhar Chevening and Aunt Susan, who has travelled through most of the Ottoman Empire and been a prisoner of the Turks.<br /><br />Even allowing for a natural prejudice in favour of any film in which the heroines share my surname, 'St. Ives' is magic! It combines splendidly swashbuckling swordfights, a balloon-flight, comedy and romantic adventure. I would recommend it to anyone who loves 'the kind of film they don't make anymore' - Fairbanks, Colman, Flynn, & co. The acting is splendid. Anna Friel makes Flora a spirited and appealing heroine, and Jean-Marc Barr is delightful as Jacques, a genuinely lovable hero. Miranda Richardson and Richard E. Grant are already great favourites of mine, and have great fun as Susan and Farquhar, whose relationship runs as a comic counterpoint to that of the leads. As the rakish, scheming, but ultimately tragic Alain, Jason Isaacs shows, as he did more recently in 'The Patriot', that he has the classic swashbuckling style, besides the dashing good looks! Please, please will someone cast him as a *hero* in the genre?!!!<br /><br />My main quibbles with the film concern settings and costumes. In the book, the castle in which Jacques is a prisoner is clearly Edinburgh, but the film, shot in Ireland, Germany and France has 'Highlandised' the setting, making the retention of place names such as Swanston, Inveresk and Queensferry decidedly incongruous. The costumes too are a real hotch-potch, from 1780s through to the period in which it is set. While this would not be implausible with more down-market characters "making do", it seems odd for well-to-do ladies such as the heroines to be wearing 1780s gowns in 1813. Clearly, the costuming decision was æsthetic: these earlier styles are visually far more appealing and elegant than Regency fashions, and they work in the idealised world of the film. As a whole, 'St. Ives' is 90 minutes of pure delight. | positive |
Marlene Dietrich and Charles Boyer give solid performances in this beautiful but empty film. The irony is that Dietrich plays a woman with a beautiful but empty life. Truly gorgeous cinematography and sets, and yes Dietrich's bottomless trunk of clothes are also fabulous. She look great; Boyer looks young and trim.<br /><br />Story of a woman seeking meaning and an ex-priest seeking life seems pretty stale, but set against such unreal sets and skies it somehow works, given the two stars, the terrific score by Max Steiner, and a good supporting cast. The film runs like 76 minutes and seems badly edited, plus certain characters just appear or disappear.<br /><br />Joseph Schildkraut is funny as the Arab guide, C. Aubrey Smith is the old priest, Lucile Watson the mother superior, Tilly Losch the dancer, John Carradine the diviner, and Basil Rathbone plays.... well I'm not sure. He just rides in from the desert and spoils everything! As others have noted, John Gilbert was slated to star with Dietrich. I can't help but think he would have been wonderful. The role of world-weary Boris would have suited the great Gilbert quite well. And after the success of Queen Christina (with Garbo), his career might have gotten back on track.<br /><br />I can't think of any other 30s film Dietrich did in color. She looks great and wears some terrific clothes. My favorite is the Valentino as The Shiek-like outfit she wears by the pool.<br /><br />Certainly worth a look for the lush sets and color and the two great stars. | positive |
I am willing to tolerate almost anything in a Sci-Fi movie, but this was almost intolerable. While a few of the special effects are very cool (landscapes) this is no 'battlespace' rather a disjointed weird mother/daughter relationship with sci-fi concepts thrown in. The acting (wooden), framing and shooting (kindergarten film school) and with "hand-to-hand" combat scenes funnier than any Hong Kong chopsocky movie, this film bores. The plot line is convoluted and the devices used to move the plot along (narrator), unexplained scene jumps and plenty of deus ex machina reinforce the idea that writer cum director is not a good idea. Save your love of Sci-Fi for something else instead of losing a bit of it here. | negative |
"Girlfight" follows a project dwelling New York high school girl from a sense of futility into the world of amateur boxing where she finds self esteem, purpose, and much more. Although the film is not about boxing, boxing is all about the film. So much so you can almost smell the sweat. Technically and artistically a good shoot with an sense of honesty and reality about it, "Girlfight" is no chick flick and no "Rocky". It is, rather, a very human drama which even viewers who don't know boxing will be able to connect with. | positive |
The sword fighting was out of this world, the fights scenes spectacular without the flying on a wire techniques (until the end) that are way too common today. The scene with Chan and Pray was probably the highlight of the movie. The characters in the assault on the bad guys mansion were cliché but the movie is comfortable with it. An injection of humour from Woo.<br /><br />The plot with it's twists and turns was unpredictable and exciting and you couldn't tell who was good or bad or which side people were on. <br /><br />A good sense of suspense and well timed surprises. The depth of the story is quite intense for a flighty film of this genre and reaches you in ways most kung-fu flicks don't. | positive |
Of the three remakes of this plot, I like them all, I have all three on VHS and in addition have a copy of this one on DVD. There is just enough variation in the scripts to make all three entertaining and re-watchable. In addition has any other film been remade three times with such all star casts in each? Of course the main stars in this one are great, but the supporting actors are also superb. I particularly like William Tracy as Pepi. He was such a scene stealer that I have searched to find other movies he is in. He appeared in many, but most are not available. As the other comments, I also say - buy this one. | positive |
I can't for the life of me remember why--I must have had a free ticket or something--but I saw this movie in the theater when it was released. I don't remember who I went with, which theater I was in, or even which city. All I remember was how offended I was at this travesty someone dared to call a film, and how half the people in the theater walked out before the movie was over. Unfortunately I stuck it out to end, which I still consider to be one of the worst mistakes of my life thus far. My offense became pure horror when just before the closing credits the smarmy demon child sticks his head out from behind a sign and says "Look for Problem Child 2, coming soon!" That was hands-down THE most terrifying moment ever recorded on film.<br /><br />The plot, if I recall correctly, involved John Ritter and perhaps his wife (Lord, how I've tried without success to block this film out of my mind) adopting a "problem child." Maybe they think they can reform him, or something. I really don't know. If that was their intent, they fail miserably because from first frame to last this child remains the brattiest, rudest, most horrid demon-spawn ever to hit the big screen. Forget Damian, forget Rosemary's Baby. This kid takes the cake. The only difference is, we are supposed to feel sorry for him because he's a "problem child." However, this is impossible since this child is quite likely the most unsympathetic character ever portrayed. You want to kill him through the entire film, and when (SPOILER, like anyone cares) John Ritter decides to keep the vile hell-child you will be yelling "Send him back!" in shocked disgust (like several of the people at the theater where I saw it did).<br /><br />This is only the second movie I have given a "1" to on the IMDb. The other was Superman IV, and by God I couldn't tell you which was worse. John Ritter had a quote in TV Guide about the time that Problem Child 3, which he was not in, came out. He said something like "The only way I would do another [Problem Child] sequel is if they dragged my dead body back to perform." Amen to that!<br /><br />I would rather watch a 24-hour marathon of Police Academy sequels than see even twenty minutes of Problem Child again. 1/10, only because I can't give it a negative score, which is what it really deserves. Someone burn the original negatives of this film, please! | negative |
As a nice anecdote to one of the above comments: In was in Mumbai about two weeks before the release of this movie, I was approached -being white- to dub some of the lines of this movie in a recording studio.<br /><br />While I speak German as well, i was kindly asked to do all dubbing scenes in English, otherwise it would be too confusing for the Indian audience... So therefore, all Germans in this movie actually speak English! funny enough i did multiple characters, so if you would want to actually spoil some time by watching the movie again, listen carefully; <br /><br />all non-Indian characters are only done by 4 voices! . . . . | negative |
'The Mill on the Floss' was one of the lesser novels by Mary Ann Evans, who wrote under the male pseudonym George Eliot. I tried to read this dull and very turgid novel years ago, but was unable to finish it. I'll review this film version solely on its own merits, as I don't know how faithfully it follows the original novel.<br /><br />The film's opening credits are printed in an Old English typeface that suggests the mediaeval period, and so it's a very poor choice for a film with a 19th-century setting. (On the other hand, about halfway into the film, we see a close-up shot of a handbill advertising an estate auction. This handbill is set in authentic Victorian type fonts, and looks *very* convincing.) Most of this film is extremely convincing in its depiction of the architecture and clothing of early 19th-century England. The precise location of this film's story is never disclosed, but - judging by the actors' accents - I'd place it as somewhere in the Cotswolds, perhaps Warwickshire.<br /><br />The plot, what there is of it, involves a mill that changes hands a couple of times (over a couple of decades) between two rival families, one wealthy and one working-class. I disagree with another IMDb reviewer who claims that James Mason has only a small role in this film. Mason has the largest and most central role in this drama, as the scion of the wealthier family. As the spoilt and petulant Tom Tulliver, Mason is darkly brooding and impetuous. His performance here belongs in a better film: it made me want to see 'Wuthering Heights' recast with Mason as Heathcliff.<br /><br />As this is a multi-generational saga (something which George Eliot did much better in 'Middlemarch'), several of the main roles in this film are split among two actors apiece: child actors in the prologue, adults in the main narrative. The prologue of this film features a very well-written scene, establishing Tom Tulliver as wilful and bully-ragging from an early age, and young Philip Wakeham as decent and thoughtful. Through hard labour, Philip has earned a halfpenny: Tom tries to bully it away from him, but is unwilling to take the coin by brute force: he wants Philip to *give* it to him. All the child actors in this movie, male and female, are talented and attractive. Unfortunately, all of the children speak their dialogue in posh plummy-voiced accents that are utterly unlike the accents of the actors and actresses who play those same roles as adults. This discrepancy calls attention to the staginess of the material. Regrettably, none of the later scenes are as good as this prologue.<br /><br />The climax features a crowd of labourers in a rainstorm, much better paced and photographed than the earlier scenes. But modern viewers (in Britain, at least) can no longer take this sort of material seriously. By now, practically every British comedian has done a "trouble at t' mill, squire" comedy routine, parodying precisely this subject matter, so I had difficulty watching this movie with a straight face.<br /><br />The character actress Martita Hunt is good in a small role, but the opening credits (in that Old English typeface) misspell her forename as 'Marita'. I'll rate this dull movie 3 points out of 10: one point apiece for James Mason's performance, the early scene with the children, and the authentic Victorian typesetting in that auctioneer's handbill. | negative |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.