review stringlengths 32 13.7k | sentiment stringclasses 2 values |
|---|---|
This was on at 2 or so In the morning one Saturday a few years ago, for various reasons I don't remember the entire story but what remains are the two standout performances from the central characters. Dom has had a unfortunate lot, manipulated & literally working a rubbish job, Eugene torn between personal aspirations and duty towards his sibling. Tom Hulce' Dom doesn't plead for sympathy - It comes naturally. Ray Liotta Is a universe away from Henry Hill, displaying a soft centre In what must feel a thankless position.<br /><br />In many ways this deals with the dilemma many young carer's face - the past or the future. As It turns out, with some work the two can happily co-exist. Thoughtfully handled & sensitively played Dominick & Eugene Is difficult not to warm to. | positive |
In August 1980 the disappearance of baby Azaria Chamberlain and the pursuant trial of her parents Lindy and Michael for the alleged murder of the child caused an uproar across what was then a very angry nation. The media and the public had already tried and convicted the accused couple and were baying for blood. What followed was a gross miscarriage of justice.<br /><br />Michael and Lindy Chamberlain claimed that while camping near Ayers Rock, central Australia, that a dingo had taken their ten week old daughter from their tent as they were preparing to eat in the barbecue area. No-one believed them. Lindy was charged with the murder of her baby, and Michael as an accessory after the fact. The whole country was abuzz with whispers of a ritual killing. The Chamberlain's trial was over before it began.<br /><br />Lindy never proved her innocence, so she was found guilty. There was never enough evidence to convict her, yet the jury was swayed by public and media pressure. How could we as a nation even sit in judgement? From where we are, how could we possibly presume to know? Unless there was absolute proof, and no reasonable doubt whatsoever, the Chamberlains should have been acquitted.<br /><br />Fred Schepisi's film unequivocally and whole heartedly supports the argument of John Bryson's novel, that the Chamberlains were completely innocent of the charges laid against them. That in fact a dingo did take baby Azaria on that fateful night at Ayers Rock.<br /><br />Schepisi has brilliantly captured the mood of a blood thirsty nation, hell bent on 'the truth' being brought to light. He shows Australia in a rather unbecoming light as a people who were totally obsessed with seeing the Chamberlains pay! His screenplay, co-written with Robert Caswell, vigorously stirs the emotions and will most certainly find the audience saddened and angered at the travesty of justice which occurred.<br /><br />The outstanding Meryl Streep gives an incredible performance as the woman accused of the most dreadful of acts. She brings to life most convincingly the tough little Aussie who was ready to stand up to the allegations and set the world straight. Even her accent is almost, but not quite, spot on. A very good effort by the master of that trade. Sam Neill is every bit as good as Streep as the at first faithful but then disillusioned Michael who cannot comprehend why their world is falling apart, and he starts to question his Christianity. His, as was Streep's, is a showing of great emotional strength that will move you profoundly. The entire support cast are also excellent, with some of Australia's finest actors and actresses playing a part.<br /><br />Technically the film is brilliant too, with Director of Photography Ian Baker capturing this great land with splendour (especially the Rock). Editor Jill Bilcock keeps the whole movie tense and very emotionally charged, while Bruce Smeaton provides a telling score.<br /><br />For all Aussies this is a must see, a shocking look in the mirror if you will, at what we as a country did to a family who just wanted justice to be served, and the truth to be known. As Michael Chamberlain said : "I don't think anybody really understands what innocence means.....to innocent people."<br /><br />Saturday, May 20, 1995 - Video<br /><br />Even on return viewings Fred Schepisi's account of the travesty of justice that befell the Chamberlains, who lost baby Azaria at Ayres rock in 1980, is still emotionally powerful and honestly moving.<br /><br />Schepisi and Robert Caswell have expertly transferred John Bryson's novel to the screen, telling with simplicity the horrifying story of a vacation gone terribly wrong for Michael and Lindy Chamberlain, whose new born daughter Azaria was taken form the family tent by a dingo just moments after being put down.<br /><br />Amid media speculation and vicious public rumour Lindy was charged with the murder of her baby, and Michael was charged as an accessory after the fact. What followed was little more than trial by media, and with the Australian people determined she be put away, Lindy was found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment with hard labour, even though the prosecution could present no motive and little other than circumstantial evidence.<br /><br />Meryl Streep is in top form as the accused woman who battles Australia head on to prove her innocence. She is truly awesome, and the only thing that fails her is a true blue Aussie accent, though she does her level best to sound ocker. You might wonder why a top Australian actress wasn't cast in the role, but star power is probably the answer. Alongside Meryl is an equally impressive Sam Neill, outstanding as the husband who sees his world falling apart before his eyes, while he feels powerless to do anything about it. A strong Aussie cast lend compelling support.<br /><br />Editing from Jill Bilcock is very timely, Ian Baker's cinematography of the rock and other rugged locations is visually brilliant and Bruce Smeaton's music is perfect for the part. Truly a must for all conscientious Australians.<br /><br />Sunday, June 15, 1996 - Video | positive |
I've seen a lot of TV movies in my time as a student, the majority the normal waste of time that US television throws out. This one, however, was well crafted and plotted and had a very nice twist at the end. Having only seen Richard Dean Anderson in MacGyver and Stargate I was surprised with his excellent performance rather than the rather gamut of expressions from A-B that he normally gives. It was a pleasant surprise to see Daphne Zuniga after quite a long time dating back to The Fly II. Also nice to see Robert Guillaumme in a leading role again. I can't say that I ever take Jane Leeves seriously after her Benny Hill days but she just about managed to cope well in her role. All in all a highly recommended film. | positive |
Greystoke is without doubt the best tarzan movie I have ever seen. Christopher Lambert portrays a very believable man trying to return to the world of mankind alongside the fantastic Ian Holm. The struggle of John to leave the jungle and the apes who raised him is quite stirring. Some very memorable scenes including where Lambert makes the jungle noises to the romantic interest, and the scene where he witnesses his ape father's death. Tarzans feelings for both worlds is well developed and really makes you feel for him.<br /><br />An excellent and underrated movie. | positive |
I really don't think producer George Lucas didn't really set out to make such a horrible sequel as "More American Graffiti" turned out to be. But in retrospect it was the first crack in his then-seemingly impenetrable armor. Coming straight off the huge success of "American Graffiti" and produced basically at the same time as "Star Wars", this film was the first that Lucas successfully took away from Coppola without having to bother directing it himself. The result is typical Lucas -- far more interesting in terms of its structure and the way it's edited than the actual material. The writer/director Bill Norton has been allowed to use a variety of different screen ratios and split screens to produce odd associations in the images. While it's interesting to see ironic juxtapositions of the 4 story lines, the style ultimately only epitomizes the fractured nature of the film itself.<br /><br />Lucas' brilliant original film was all about a group of friends on the archetypical "last big night" before school ends and Kurt (Ron Dreyfuss) and Steve (Ron Howard) are supposed to go off to college. One thing that made that film work, despite the fact that it's very episodic, is that you had the core characters together at the beginning and they come back together at the end. There's a disposition of time, like in Nick Ray's "Rebel Without a Cause" where a certain period of time becomes very elastic and takes on more meaning than such a specific time really would in actual life, but everything takes place in a static space. "More American Graffiti" is basically the opposite -- the space is very dynamic, with Toad (Charles Martin Smith) off in Vietnam, his former girlfriend Debbie (Candy Clark) partying with hippies in San Francisco, Steve and Laurie (Cindy Williams) involved in student protests in Berkeley, and John Miler (Paul Le Mat) drag racing on the semi-pro circuit. In a contrived meeting early in the film all the principles are brought together to watch John race, but after that the threads don't come back together and weave apart the way they do in the original. Instead they split off and we follow the characters through about 3 years' of time, just seeing various events on New Years Eve in what seems to be 1967, 68 and 69. It's easy for the audience to become confused, and I think it's fair to say that we do. While the original film seemed to condense important events and rites of passages into unreal theatrical time that produced an experience of nostalgia even for those who never experienced those events, this sequel drags and stretches the few plot points from the epilogue of the original and attempts to make them into a coherent film.<br /><br />The best parts of the movie to me are the ones with Candy Clark in SF and Charles Martin Smith in Nam. Some of the jokes do fall flat but the style of those sections is interesting and they form a neat contrast with each other. A good movie could maybe have been made if these parts were just a bit better, and if the other parts weren't such a drag. Speaking of drag racing, the whole plot with Milner talking to a foreign exchange student was really lame, unfunny, and throwing in Mackenzie Phillips for a cameo didn't help at all. It was just another contrived moment, like when they briefly explain why Curt isn't in the movie because he's already in Canada. Instead Laurie just has another brother who is basically identical to Curt but has a different name and is now played by a very boring actor. There's a black kind of satire to some of the Vietnam stuff, very similar to what I would imagine Lucas and John Milius' original idea for "Apocalypse Now" would have been like. And there's some of that manic fun in the San Francisco scenes that made the first movie fun. But still along with that fun stuff, you have the rest of the movie dragging it down, as if anyone wants to see Steve and Laurie argue in their horrible suburban abode as if they were auditioning for a Spielberg movie about divorce and child abandonment. I think even if those parts of the movie weren't so painful, it still wouldn't really be comparable to the first movie because there's no closure and no sense of coming back together or of anybody having learned anything. It just sort of ends at the point when they ran out of money or something, a cheap freeze frame imitation of "Two-Lane Blacktop" and so many better films.<br /><br />Like the original however, this film has a great soundtrack of period hits that is probably worth owning for its own sake and almost makes the movie itself palatable. The performances by Country Joe and the Fish are great, and Scott Glenn all duded up as a hippie in love with Candy Clark is a sight to see -- I wonder if even back then he had to use a wig? I couldn't possibly recommend this movie, and yet it has some small affection in my heart because I love the original so much. Every couple of decades I guess I have to give this movie a try just to make sure that it's really as worthless as I remember it being. It's a party killer but it's something that every fan of "American Graffiti" or George Lucas in general will want to see at least once or twice. It shows how a lot of effort can go into something and it can still turn out pretty half baked. It makes you reflect on how much of a miracle it is that Lucas actually made such a good movie as "American Graffiti" in the first place, as if all the elements were in place and all the appropriate gods had been placated. Unfortunately such was not the case for this film or for Bill Norton. | negative |
This is one of those games where you love it to bits or hate it to shreds.Even being a hardcore Mario fan can make you dislike this game.You can hate it because it is 2 short and somewhat boring and easy.Or you can love it because it is a mixture of amazing graphics(not a Nintendo fan huge excitement) music or game play.I know a lot of people that say it is amazing,and others who think its the worst Mario ever.It really depends on the type of Nintendo fan you are.I personally love this game and I think it is the best wii game,but you should determine that for yourself.So I think you should absolutely get it if you are the right Nintendo fan.But If you love The classics too much,you may not like it.So try it out yourself. | positive |
When I first heard about this movie, I eagerly went out to rent it, believing (mistakenly) that it was one of those so-bad-it's-fun movies and that I was in for a treat. I was wrong.<br /><br />For starters, the pace is agonizingly, mind-numbingly slow. The pace doesn't even begin to pick up until the last 15-20 minutes of the movie! The plot was boring, and the ending was nonsensical and confusing. For those looking for a cheesy horror movie with cheap thrills, look elsewhere. This movie provides the cheesiness in spades, but is sorely lacking in "thrills," cheap or otherwise.<br /><br />Try "Child's Play," instead. | negative |
Watching this movie all I could think of was, maybe it gets better, but after 20 minutes I couldn't watch it any second longer. I don't want too wast to many lines about this, but really its a complete wast of time. All the actors say is c*nt this cont that. If you are still going too watch it, don't say I didn't warned you. Maybe if you are an hooligan or something, you might think its a tribute to your hobby. again.. Film is a term that encompasses individual motion pictures, the field of film as an art form, and the motion picture industry. Films are produced by recording images from the world with cameras, or by creating images using animation techniques or special effects. . | negative |
Nikki Finn is the kind of girl I would marry. Never boring, always thinking positively, good with animals. Okay, as one reviewer wrote, a bit too much peroxide, lipstick, and eyebrows (Only Madonna could get away with that). But that's why I love Nikki Finn, she's not your ordinary girl. She makes things happen, always exciting to be around, and always honest. Sure, she steals, but she doesn't rob or murder (unless you're out to do her in). She knows which rules can be broken and which ones should be obeyed. She knows what to take and what can't be stolen. If you need a favor from her, she's in 100%. Bottom line: She knows how to enjoy life. Nikki is always loving (which is why she has a way with wild animals), and completely dedicated to those she loves, and who love her.<br /><br />Who's That Girl? She's the girl for me. | positive |
I got to watch this one without commercial interruption, and let me tell you, even for a TV movie it was pretty predictable. The actors did a workmanlike job with what they had, and the cast was pretty accomplished -- Barry Bostwick, Jane Seymour, Frances Fisher, etc. However, the script was not only predictable (except for the last scene), but the dialogue was treacly and sounded as if it was lifted from a third-rate romance novel. Jane Seymour's psychotic monologues were laughable. I'm sorry, but I find it hard to believe that anyone that creepy would arouse no suspicions whatsoever. As bad as Theresa Russell was in "Black Widow" -- and she sure stunk it up -- she at least had the sense to play her pseudo-characters somewhat straight. Seymour is a much better actress but didn't overcome the material here.<br /><br />Lastly, the musical score is incredibly cheesy. It's almost a satire of its genre, like a Kenny G meltdown. A movie with such a lackluster and derivative script really should have gone for something edgier. | negative |
This is truly the greatest Swedish movie of all time. Not only is it revolutionary in its narration, but its also among the first movies to feature the next generation of Swedish humor and Swedish comedians. Felix Herngren and Fredrik Lindström are two of the most intelligent and witty filmmakers in Sweden today, and this film really puts that on display.<br /><br />"Vuxna människor" (Adult People) is a warm-hearted and hilarious story about adulthood, and the question if we wouldn´t be better off without it. | positive |
This movie could have been very good, but comes up way short. Cheesy special effects and so-so acting. I could have looked past that if the story wasn't so lousy. If there was more of a background story, it would have been better. The plot centers around an evil Druid witch who is linked to this woman who gets migraines. The movie drags on and on and never clearly explains anything, it just keeps plodding on. Christopher Walken has a part, but it is completely senseless, as is most of the movie. This movie had potential, but it looks like some really bad made for TV movie. I would avoid this movie. | negative |
Vampires, sexy guys, guns and some blood. Who could ask for more? Moon Child delivers it all in one nicely packaged flick! Gackt is the innocent Sho - who befriends a Vampire Kei (HYDE), their relationship grows with time but as Sho ages, Kei's immortality breaks his heart. It doesn't help that they both fall in love with the same woman. The special effects are pretty good considering the small budget. It's a touching story ripe with human emotions. You will laugh, cry, laugh, then cry some more. Even if you are not a fan of their music, SEE THIS FILM. It works great as a stand alone Vampire movie.<br /><br />9 out of 10 | positive |
The only redemption was the small part by Larry Miller. It seemed that the movie was trying too hard to be "Something About Mary," but I didn't even like that movie and it still fell short of those standards. The actor who plays Paul was great, but Selma Blair is stuck in the stupidity of her Cruel Intentions character. James Brolin was great, but Paul's father seemed like he was trying too hard to be the Randy Quaid character from the National Lampoon's Vacation movies. | negative |
Almost certainly staged montage of women reading lines (very briefly) and getting naked (not very briefly) in front of a anonymous (and uncredited) panel - almost certainly including producer Charles Band. Thrown in are random scenes of Surrender Cinema's many movies (primarily lesbian scenes). Most of the women like "riding horses" (Hmmm); there is a Polish woman who seems to have no interest in acting despite going to an audition; a 'secret; camera that films actresses getting naked behind the screen...<br /><br />Jacqueline Lovell (too made up but still beautiful) introduces a couple of her own movie scenes and talks in a 'sexy' Way to the camera (if you enjoy lesbian scenes the one with Lovell and Vanesa Taylor from Femalian is included and they are probably the best looking lesbian 'couple' ever). Weird excuse for a movie and aside from the obvious draw of naked women, a frankly dull and uninspiring experience. | negative |
Uzumaki is a visually astounding film however I felt as if some of the story line may have been sacrificed. There is hardly any character development which left me feeling personally detached from the film, which is ironic because all puns aside, this film really does draw you in with its many slight spiral effects and stunning scene transitions. At first the overall cinematography threw me off but as you get used to the overall appearance you start to see the beauty in this twisted film. This is a great movie if you are looking for a looker with out too much substance or deeper meaning.It is a great horror film that is not actually scary or suspenseful but somehow...eerie. | positive |
I'm not going to bother mentioning any of the plot - this is strictly a B movie on its way to obscurity. The shock to me, though, is seeing what has become of some of the actors in this film. Erika Eleniak, never anything you'd call a thespian anyway, seems to have morphed into Anna Nicole Smith (in her Big period). Daniel Bernhardt - I almost shed a tear. He's always been a favorite of mine because of his martial arts prowess, as seen in the Bloodsport series (also B movies but, if you like martial arts, eminently watchable). Here, he is a shell of his former self - sure, he's older, but doing the mercenary thing and not even looking interested ... I just don't get it. Don't these people invest? William Forsythe is another "heavy" that I've always liked, but his last several roles are what you would call "mailing it in". I'm not going to even mention Mr. Reynolds - his gig here amounts to a throwaway, nothing more. The only winner is Andrew Divoff, as usual a creepy, evil, pockmarked villain with a sandpaper voice that can curdle milk - the best kind! This is a movie you watch for laughs. There's nothing else to it. | negative |
[POSSIBLE SPOILER ALERT]<br /><br />It's unlikely that Seagal will ever again scale the heights of lousitude he did with *On Deadly Ground* (mainly because no one's ever going to let him direct again), but he sure tries, don't he?<br /><br />This one's a typically brainless and badly-written little fantasy about how Indian folk remedies are much more effective than Western medicine. Seagal seems to actually believe this nonsense, although he never explains why life expectancy in the Americas and Europe is so much higher than it was in 1492.<br /><br />Kinda like he never explains how his supposed "water-fueled engines" work in *On Deadly Ground*.<br /><br />Even the "action" in this one sucks. | negative |
This Christmas gift arrived courtesy of TCM. We had never seen the film, even though we have seen most of the films of Barbara Stanwyck. This comedy made us laugh so much, that at times, we had to restrain ourselves, in order to hear the dialog.<br /><br />This is a movie that should be seen by people suffering from stressful situations, especially around Christmas. It would certainly lift one's spirits by just letting go. The movie would make a perfect gift in the form of a DVD, or a VHS tape. <br /><br />"Christmas in Connecticut" was directed with great panache by Peter Godfrey, based on a story by Aileen Hamilton. <br /><br />The best thing in the movie is the felicitous pairing of two of the most popular stars of that era: Barbara Stanwyck and Dennis Morgan. Barbara Stanwyck always played strong willed women, obviously, this was a change of pace for her. In this film, as well as "Lady Eve", Ms. Stanwyck displays a knack for comedy. She and Mr. Morgan, who played in a lot of musical comedies, make a winning combination.<br /><br />There are no weak performances in the film. Sydney Greenstreet, an actor notorious for playing 'heavies', is a delight to watch as the rich, and fat, Alexander Yardley, the man who owned a media empire and who knew a good thing when he saw it. Reginald Gardiner, an accomplished English actor, adds luster to the stellar cast behind the two principals.<br /><br />S. Z. Sakall, is another source of continuous mirth; he plays the Hungarian chef Felix,who has a hard time with his own version of the English language. Also, Una O'Connor makes a perfect Norah, the housekeeper in the Sloan perfect Connecticut farm.<br /><br />In reading other comments in this forum, it's sad to learn that the glorious black and white cinematography is not appreciated by some people. After all, color was not widely used in the 40s, and most of the classic movies have to be seen in its original format because, what would be accomplished in 'coloring' them?<br /><br />This film should be a requirement for anyone looking to spend almost two hours of uninterrupted fun at Christmas time because total merriment is assured. Watch it with an open mind and heart an maybe you'd like to see "Christmas in Connecticut" every year. | positive |
Helges best movie by far. Very funny, very surrealistic. If Bunuel made a movie starring Buster Keaton as Krusty the Clown it would look like this.<br /><br />Brilliant performances by the cast we already know from other Schneider movies, especially Helmut Körschgen as the sidekick of 00Schneider. (Andreas Kunze who once more plays the wife in this one is a bit annoying though). And of course Helge himself as Nihil Baxter is absolutely incredible.<br /><br />P.S: if this movie had a proper merchandising i would really like to buy a replica of that "Holz ist" painting. | positive |
I saw this film and heard the writer-director, Juan Gerard, speak at the Santa Barbara Int'l Film Festival.<br /><br />All I knew about it was that it was the story of an 8-year-old boy at the time of the Cuban Revolution in 1958 and how it affects his home and family.<br /><br />Its opening scene will bring to mind "Cinema Paradiso". In fact, the film is filled with references to classic films: The Roulette Wheel (Casablanca), "chicken clucking" (Rebel Without a Cause), references to Bunuel, "Touch of Evil"; you'll find more. The homeless man (Georg Stanford Brown)is a reference to Cuban folklore which often uses a black man as a type of Greek chorus.<br /><br />What this film really is is the culmination of a dream. Gerard's wish to honor his family and medium of film that he has loved all of his life.<br /><br />This is the true story of Juan Gerard and all the people in it are real,as are the events depicted. Gerard is actually an architect and engineer (and passionate film lover) but his dream was to make this movie. He and his wife decided to live that dream and Harvey Keitel became an "angel" who believed in Gerard and agreed to produce and star in it. Keitel holds the screen powerfully as the mysterious and secretive grandfather "Che". Brown and Keitel are the only Americans in the cast. Iben Hjejle (High Fidelity) and Gael Garcia Bernal (Y tu Mama Tambien) offer strong support in key roles.<br /><br />Truthfully, the first half of the film suffers from stiff delivery of lines, and some overracting, but stay with it. The last half is much better as the events of the revolution combine for the bittersweet, and honest climax. It is the first effort of Juan Gerard, but it is honest as he is and his passion and heart really come through,in this sincere first effort. I would definitely see it again, and hope that he continues his film career.<br /><br /> | positive |
The strange people living in a town go about their lives. There's the licker a guy who licks everything, a dumpster diver that finds a body which he takes home to live with him, a crazy girl with a doll dressed like her, a guy who wants to cleanse girls of their wicked ways...offbeat in the extreme, this shot in black and white movie is better with out the color. The monochrome takes the edge off the two steps up from home movie feel. Like a Troma movie, this movie is fun in fits and starts but mostly its weird for weirds sake and soon becomes a crashing bore since one you see the set ups you can kind of guess where its going a lot of the time-not always- but enough for it not to be fun.(Though I didn't see the cleansing coming). Worth a shot if you've nothing else to watch and you're waiting for the next set of Golden Girls to come from Netflix. | negative |
The ultimate goal of Big Brother, that we know what to think before we think it, has been realized. Is it some kind of miracle, or sinister joke, that people don mental straight jackets of their own volition, twist themselves into contorted shapes, and grin like apes? Movies, art, no longer risk the unknown, but are forgone conclusions, drained of life.<br /><br />"The Notorious Bettie Page" is a bland case history, fit for a freshman college feminism course. Its lesson is schematic, right-angled and linear: "See how women are objectified, exploited, abused, then tossed on the trash heap, by a male-dominated society."<br /><br />Bettie Page, supposedly, was the "pin-up queen of the 1950's," the ass millions of men ejaculated to. (All reviewers repeat that phrase, "pin-up queen of the 1950's," like a choir of monkeys.) Her history as an American sex bomb is familiar: Southern, abused by her father, raped, etc. In this movie she is a naïf, an innocent unaware of the prurient interests she serves and shamelessly profits from. Although she believes in Jesus, she enjoys frolicking nude before a camera lens -- just the wholesome girl-next-door sex-slave American males supposedly fantasize.<br /><br />From the mouth of writer-director Mary Harron herself, Oxford-educated AND ex-punker (do you smell the combined rot of privilege and "hipness" as I do?): "I feel that without feminism, I wouldn't be doing this. ... I don't make feminist films in the sense that I don't make anything ideological. But I do find that women get my films better." What a cozy clique.<br /><br />The movie merely goes through the motions of telling the story of a human life, it's subject and purpose having been eulogized and interred well before the movie began. Ms. Page has a boyfriend, but we are shown next to nothing about their relationship. In fact, there are no intimate or detailed relationships in the film. <br /><br />One can't ignore its smug simplicity. In New York, where Ms. Page tries her best to fit into and appease a man's world, letting herself be tied up in the ropes of bondage and tightly laced into the black leather boots and bodices of S & M, the movie is black and white. But down in Miami, where she goes to get away from it all, gleefully takes off her clothes, and is photographed by a "liberated" female, the movie turns into color.<br /><br />Like hell Harron doesn't "make feminist films," doesn't "make anything ideological." Ideology has become so internalized, so assumed, so programmed, that it's almost invisible. Big Brother must be smiling. | negative |
My father took me to see this film when it was released in 1976. I was but a child and it scared the crap out of me. So much so that I had to leave the theatre during a particularly claustrophobic tunnel scene as it was too intense for me!!! I went home to the safety of my family. I saw the film all the way through as I got older and thoroughly enjoyed it. Shame about the men in monster suits, though. If you overlook the cheapness of the production and delve deeper, you'll find an excellent performance by Cushing, a stunning opening score, some nice photography and the ever reliable Mr.Douglas McClure, my childhood hero!British police constables guarding the Whitehouse at the end! Titty bang bang cave woman! Monsters with beaks! Actors in monster suits gliding on wires! This has it all! Superb. | positive |
That song keeps humming in my head. Not the greatest song, but it's the 80's. This movie is about a lead singer who "supposebly" gets killed while being accused of murders as he stalks his girlfriend who sings backup vocals in his band. The lead singer whos name is Billy "Eye" (yeah, right) is dead after two years and his band comes back for a concert only the backup vocalist is the lead singer this time. Billy stalks her and eventually goes around killing all these people and terrifying the girl and makeing people around her think theres something wrong with her and that shes imagining things. She finally decides to go to a cemetary and dig up his grave to see if he's still there. She sees that he's dead but still see's and hears his voice. During the end of the movie we find out the reason behind all of this, Billy has a brother named John (right again) and John admits that he was jealous of his brother and that he killed all those people to get back at him and place the blame on his brother and then take his girlfriend and terrorize her because she called him crazy. The ending is very cheezy and the acting is very lame and wooden. But.... I like it anyway. I watch it for the song. I wish I had it. | negative |
Frankly I met real Han Su Ying before and seeing her portrayed by an American actress which has no resemblance of anything Chinese makes my head spin while I am watching this movie Why can't Hollywood get Nancy Kwan instead .... at least its more true to the story...cos for goodness sake...Dr Han Su Ying is Chinese I know cos I have meet her in person<br /><br />and looking at the whole cast....so few Asian faces in a movie about a Asian love story makes me wonder too <br /><br />I think the acting is good but without real Asian faces in a Asian love story makes the plot so corny and a whole load of Baloney<br /><br />its just like another movie I know of ' THE CONQUEROR' imagine my eyes pop out when I see John Wayne as Genghis Khan!!!!!<br /><br />and to make matter worst ....how on earth can a man born an bred in MONGOLIAN STEPPES come up with a Alabama southern accent??? !! and a cheap imitation of anything Asian<br /><br />Good Grief<br /><br />I am not surprise that one day I will see Dr Martin Luther King Jr being played by One of the boys from the black and white minstrel show<br /><br />Would love to see that<br /><br />and laugh the whole roof off !!!<br /><br />Cheers | negative |
Cor blimey. This film really surprised me as it is a comedy masterpiece. Billy Zane is stunning as the central character, and everyone manages to play it straight enough for the comedy to be natural and easy.<br /><br />The soundtrack is really good, and the set pieces are a joy to behold. I recommend that you watch this film with a bunch of mates, a few bottles of your liquor of choice, and prepare to be astonished and highly entertained.<br /><br />This carries on so perfectly from kitsch masterpieces like Plan 9 From Outer Space that it is in the true "B" movie tradition. But what makes it more than that is the caliber of the people who took part in the film. Ron Pearlman for example. I still find my self giggling at the scene where Zane prances down a set of steps for no apparent reason in an almost ballet style. All a bit mad, and all the better for it. | positive |
Have not seen this 1958 film in a very long time and greatly enjoyed Kim Novak playing the role as Gil Holroyd who is an actual witch and has an aunt named Queenie Holroyd who is also a witch and Gillian also has a brother warlock named Nick played by Jack Lemmon. When Gillian sets her eyes on Shep Henderson,(James Stewart) who is engaged to a girl he is going to marry; Gillian performers some magic spells with a cat and changes his mind about his intended bride and then becomes very lust full and falls in love with Gillian. The story tells that a real witch cannot fall in love, blush or cry and this begins to prove a big problem between Shep and Gillian, so Nick and Aunt Queenie decided they have to do something about this situation. Great film to view over and over again and a great classic film from 1958. | positive |
What offends me most about the critics following this film is the mentioning of 'originality'. This film does not contain ONE innovating element. If, by 'originality' you refer to pathetic action scenes, overacting, gluttony in violence, blunt humor and a script beyond intellectual belief. Then, 'originality' is something Swedish film can do without.<br /><br />How Röse and Karlsson can agree to 'act' in this poor excuse for a film is a mystery to me. And how Eva Röse after the making of this film can be seen at breakfast-TV promoting it just disappoints me.<br /><br />This film doesn't contain a story, the script is illogical, stiff and last but not least, just plain bad. These two young directors have put together a quite disgusting boy-fantasy containing violence, comic-strips and trivialized psychological portraits. I wouldn't be surprised if the scene of DD masturbating in the kitchen over a micro-wave dinner actually is put there to describe the everyday life of these two overgrown cinematic nerds that pose as directors.<br /><br />I wouldn't show this movie to my worst enemy. | negative |
My boyfriend and I rented this because we thought it might be a good 'Halloween' take-off. A killer terrorizing young people, a white mask...you get my drift. We were dead wrong! No pun intended. We not only discovered one of the worst movies out there, but also that it is a cult classic! It is filled w/plot holes and makes no sense. The actress who plays Maddy is pretty, but that's about it. I do give credit for it being shot on a VERY low budget--I always support movies like that. Just not this particular one.<br /><br />This movie may be good to see if you're drunk or high; otherwise don't bother. Unless you want to lose your movie privileges like I did! | negative |
This is a gem of a movie not just for people who like fun and quirky premises, but who love the history and traditions of Sci-Fi and Classic Hollywood movies. Each alien of the Martian crew is the embodiment of a classic Sci-Fi character or member of Hollywood royalty and it's pure pleasure watching them bounce of each other and the residents of Big Bean. | positive |
The Cure is a fantastic film about a boy with AIDS. I've cried about 4 times watching this film and it's just so sad. I can't promise everyone will cry watching this but it will make you want to. Very emotional and very sad, The Cure is a must-see movie. It shows you the meaning of friendship and love and is an extremely great movie.<br /><br />At first I didn't think it would be as great and wondered why my mum always cried watching it. But now I know it's a stunning film that is so original and is so close to real life situations, unlike most of the other films that doesn't make sense. Words cannot describe the greatness of The Cure, you just have to see it. | positive |
Fascist principal Miss Togar(Mary Woronov, who is lensed by expert photographer Dean Cundy as if she were ten feet tall)has a plan to turn her high completely square. Complications ensue which challenge that goal in delightful rock'n'roller Riff Randell(PJ Soles who lights up the screen--she's got a hot bod, too)who is an obsessive fan of the punk band THE RAMONES. Pal Kate Rambeau(Dey Young, whose big rimmed glasses and nerdy role can not hide her stunning beauty)joins forces with Riff to put an end to the supposed crisis of killing rock'n'roll for good which is Togar's desired mission.<br /><br />Vincent Van Patten has a hilarious role as Tom Roberts, a success at everything, but getting laid. Kate is crazy about Tom..if only he could pull his head out of the sand and see it. Clint Howard steals the film almost(honestly, who can steal this film away from Soles?)as Eaglebauer, "the supplier" who can get everyone almost anything. His office is located in the boy's restroom! Paul Bartel is also hilarious as a music teacher who becomes an ally of Riff's when he enjoys a concert of THE RAMONES.<br /><br />A raucous high school romp that defies all rules of normalcy..and I loved it. It's like someone just says, "Let's make life fun for 1½ hours." The film really is anarchy..a plot-less chaos lovingly adoring THE RAMONES with all it's heart(even if they are horrible actors, they have an opportunity to gain new audiences with this film).<br /><br />The ending pretty much sums up the film as a whole..Riff and her classmates take over the high school and one massive party begins. To be honest, I didn't want the party to end! Not conventional in any way whatsoever, this film just let's loose a frenzy. Accompanied by a great rock soundtrack featuring some of THE RAMONES best songs, this film allows a viewer to accept a time in life when war didn't dominate headlines and people just had a good time. Those, I guess were the days. | positive |
I'm watching this on the Star World network overseas which buys American and Canadian series that last one or two seasons like The Jane Show. I thought of how many female lead comedy shows Im actually able to watch on my own, There's Lucy, Bewitched, I Dream Of Jeanie (the one with Barbara Feldman), and then my mind goes kind of blank I cannot think of any others, the women are all supporting roles not the lead. So for me, The Jane Show is in pretty good company. One thing I just thought of though. I've watched several things made in Canada, and I never recall any thing being filmed in a regular TV series that shows SNOW! It's all made at the height of summer, LOL! Granted it's a great place to live climate wise in the summer but you would THINK, they would show a little bit of Canada in the winter since that's part of the lifestyle there also. I mean SCTV, Just For Laughs come to mind as two comedy shows that lasted a long time filmed in Canada and very little or none is shot with snow present even though they both do a lot of outdoor shots. I digress but I kind of chuckle at Jane and her obviously liberal ways being accused of racism to her neighbor, and I like the bald guy and his craziness, I found it on par with a UK series called The IT Crowd (I Think) another office comedy with a female lead. Not by any means the best comedy ever but for a guy to say he can watch it alone, thats saying something. If I was with my wife she might really enjoy it since it addresses sex in the office and stuff like that so might be a good light comedy for couples to watch. 7 of 10. | positive |
The acting is bad ham, ALL the jokes are superficial and the target audience is clearly very young children, assuming they have below average IQs. I realize that it was meant for kids, but so is Malcom in the Middle, yet they still throw in adult humor and situations.<br /><br />What should we expect from a show lead by Bob Saget, the only comedian in existence who is less funny than a ball hitting a man's groin, which is probably why he stopped hosting America's Funniest Home Videos.<br /><br />Parents, do not let your kids watch this show unless you want to save money on college. Expose your kids to stupidity and they will grow up dumberer. | negative |
I saw this when it first came out, and found it to be a work of some genius; but I must confess I was clearly in the minority at the time.<br /><br />For me, the progressive lunacy of the proprietors of Guest House Paradiso just gets better and better throughout the film, with one of the most hilarious climaxes to a film ever.<br /><br />But I wouldn't recommend it to Mother.<br /><br />Lovers of gross-out comic book style humour will appreciate this movie; there are subtle jokes hidden away, but they are usually quickly flattened by a comedy frying pan. Rik Mayall and Ade Edmondson are superb, and the deadpan, unsuspecting guests are also excellent. | positive |
...had I watched it in my teenage years. This movie was mildly entertaining. What I liked about Soul Survivors were the gothic atmosphere during the party scenes, and the constant flips between 'dream' and 'reality.<br /><br />Had there not been movies like 'The 6th Sense' and 'Don't Look Now' I would have been surprised by the ending. | negative |
Who are these "They"- the actors? the filmmakers? Certainly couldn't be the audience- this is among the most air-puffed productions in existence. It's the kind of movie that looks like it was a lot of fun to shoot TOO much fun, nobody is getting any actual work done, and that almost always makes for a movie that's no fun to watch.<br /><br />Ritter dons glasses so as to hammer home his character's status as a sort of doppleganger of the bespectacled Bogdanovich; the scenes with the breezy Ms. Stratten are sweet, but have an embarrassing, look-guys-I'm-dating-the-prom-queen feel to them. Ben Gazzara sports his usual cat's-got-canary grin in a futile attempt to elevate the meager plot, which requires him to pursue Audrey Hepburn with all the interest of a narcoleptic at an insomnia clinic. In the meantime, the budding couple's respective children (nepotism alert: Bogdanovich's daughters) spew cute and pick up some fairly disturbing pointers on 'love' while observing their parents. (Ms. Hepburn, drawing on her dignity, manages to rise above the proceedings- but she has the monumental challenge of playing herself, ostensibly.) Everybody looks great, but so what? It's a movie and we can expect that much, if that's what you're looking for you'd be better off picking up a copy of Vogue.<br /><br />Oh- and it has to be mentioned that Colleen Camp thoroughly annoys, even apart from her singing, which, while competent, is wholly unconvincing... the country and western numbers are woefully mismatched with the standards on the soundtrack. Surely this is NOT what Gershwin (who wrote the song from which the movie's title is derived) had in mind; his stage musicals of the 20's may have been slight, but at least they were long on charm. "They All Laughed" tries to coast on its good intentions, but nobody- least of all Peter Bogdanovich - has the good sense to put on the brakes.<br /><br />Due in no small part to the tragic death of Dorothy Stratten, this movie has a special place in the heart of Mr. Bogdanovich- he even bought it back from its producers, then distributed it on his own and went bankrupt when it didn't prove popular. His rise and fall is among the more sympathetic and tragic of Hollywood stories, so there's no joy in criticizing the film... there _is_ real emotional investment in Ms. Stratten's scenes. But "Laughed" is a faint echo of "The Last Picture Show", "Paper Moon" or "What's Up, Doc"- following "Daisy Miller" and "At Long Last Love", it was a thundering confirmation of the phase from which P.B. has never emerged.<br /><br />All in all, though, the movie is harmless, only a waste of rental. I want to watch people having a good time, I'll go to the park on a sunny day. For filmic expressions of joy and love, I'll stick to Ernest Lubitsch and Jaques Demy... | negative |
Despite strong performances by Minnie Driver and Tom Wilkinson, this film fails to ignite the imagination of the viewer.<br /><br />By the way, what has become of Ms. Driver? She had such a potential in the film industry.<br /><br />This to me was almost like an 1850s version of Yentl without the musical fanfare. With the death of her father, Driver takes a position as a governess to a Christian family, hiding her Jewish identity.<br /><br />While I realize that this is a period peace, it was awfully dull even for 1850 England and Scotland.<br /><br />The lady of the house is most irritating with that sing-song voice of hers. I expected her to refer to Driver as dear at any moment. What kind of name is Mary Blackchurch? I know that Driver is trying to pass herself off as a Christian, but does this name signify all the way?<br /><br />In the interim, Mary finds love with the young charge's father (Wilkinson) and his emotionally unbalanced son.<br /><br />In the end, the only thing that we see accomplished is that Mary has found a profession to provide for her family-photography. Did we really have to be subjected to what was happening throughout the film?<br /><br />The early scenes of Judaism practiced in 19th century England and the cholera epidemic at the end could have been played up more. There is a definite underlying feeling of anti-Semitism by the Wilkinson family but that's never allowed to come out. | negative |
Gilmore Girls is one of the funniest, most clever, sharp-witted, sarcastic and heart-warming television shows I've ever watched, (second only to my most favorite television show of all time, F*R*I*E*N*D*S). The quick pace and many pop-culture references can leave some viewers confused, but once you catch on to the ways of the Gilmores, you'll be hooked for life. Just some random comments, I recently (finally) began watching Season 6 and wow! It's one of my favorite seasons so far. I love the Luke-Lorelai thing and all the drama in the various episodes is (as always) exhilarating. The only thing I'm not so fond of is the surprising bad attitude and reckless actions Rory has suddenly 'adopted'. Unfortunately I don't find this very realistic and hope it's not just a way to stir up some more drama to keep the season going strong. All in all great season though and I can't wait for the next!!!<br /><br />~ Ashly a.k.a. "Tookie Clothespin" | positive |
very straight - not happy with the movie.<br /><br />The main center of the movie is the story where the lady is the mother of all the snacks and all the things.<br /><br />If they can more explain that how this is happening and all the stuff then it was quite a fun and more rating for this movie.<br /><br />The end was very short and sudden, till now actor of the movie was to save her then at last he told sorry !! now we are late. OH !! crap.<br /><br />what was the story , and how this all this thing happen, I think they can put all these stuffs. So the end user like us will be satisfied that yes we are happy with the movie. <br /><br />any way , but nice idea and nice try so I will say 4 or max 4.5. | negative |
This show is awesome! and I've seen it about 6 times.<br /><br />Granted it may be lacking in educational content as some people like those sort of movies, but I think it's great, very funny and excellently written! | positive |
the only thing great about the movie is its title. In this case, "Snake On a Plane" is example of not judging the book by its cover, the title says nothing about the movie. When I went to the theater, I wasn't expecting Citizen Kane, I was expecting Independence Day, a movie that's pure popcorn fun, but instead, I got that horrible Roy Liotta movie called " Turbulence" Yes, this is how bad SOAP is. The only thing make SOAP better is its title. And it's not even the apporiate title for the movie, the wasn't even a glimpse of "snake" or "plane" 40 minutes into the movie! What a false advertising! If it wasn't for its title, SOAP would be just another unforgettable cheap B-grade summer movie. And the R rating? It has to be the most undeserved R rated movie of all time! The makers of the movie only add a few f word to make this a R, All of the violence are kept pg-13 level. You know what's really R rated? The R rated superstar Edge! See him at Summerslam instead of waste your money on a snake! | negative |
I was absolutely mesmerised by this series from the moment Tom Long walked into shot - the whole 'bad boy' thing, it was just addictive.<br /><br />The story has you hooked, what will happen next - will Joey get the girl in the end, after doing 5 years in prison, and all that time thinking about his lost love, crossing paths with her again, finding he has a son... Although he is a violent bad guy, you still want him to find happiness.<br /><br />A truly captivating two parter - please bring it out on video! | positive |
As you can tell from the few comments posted here - mine may very well be the last you'll see, unless there is a big DVD-release or TCM plays it again ! - this is a kind-of "Our Gang" movie with a bunch of different kids. MGM certainly WAS the musical studio - if the musicians, dancers and singers weren't under contract, they were on tap. Heifetz was one of the most expensive.....that does it for a little charity work !!! The fee he received in that era was unheard of. Another musical film with Jose Iturbi (Mexican pianist) featured about 100 kids playing some simple tune on 100 pianos......so, those skeptics who think young children aren't musical are mistaken: I was one.<br /><br />As all write, "Frankie Smith" - good-ole American name - (Gene Reynolds) was the bad-but-good kid who is taken-in from the streets by the owners of a music-school. Can you believe that Walter Brennan ("Prof. Lawson") of all those western movies was the man running the school? Joel McCrea ("Peter McCarthy") and Andrea Leeds ("Ann Lawson") were the bigger stars in "They Shall Have Music", with a host of well-known extras (many of whom went-on to become stars in their own rights). As others have commented, almost all of the kids in the orchestra (actually, The Meremblum Symphony from Los Angeles) made big successes of their lives, either as musicians (for the studios) and other businesses.<br /><br />Sad to say, there aren't that many young-people's orchestras today - a sad mistake. Parents with children in school are usually so busy trying to keep their heads above water, and many don't even know what is happening to the kids in school. Musical instruction can get to be pricey, and almost EVERYONE would rather had a football-team.....<br /><br />This is the cheapest concert by Jascha Heifetz you'll ever hear is contained in this movie.....in those days, a quarter. His playing is brilliant, even if he looks like he'd rather be someplace else.....emotionless. By contract, any concert by Yo-Yo Ma is so joyful, it makes you want to run right out and buy a cello.....this guy is having a good time....like the kids in the "street" concert, when they hoodwink Heifetz to play at their school.<br /><br />All of the orchestral numbers were played by "the kids," and they make it sound easy. I love this type of movie - their plots are so simple, it doesn't take you two days to figure-out if you enjoyed - or understood - the movie, at all. We need some new movies like this - can't do anything but inspire younger kids to play other instruments than guitars.......Bravo! | positive |
When I first watched Zoey101 with my sister we thought it was a piece of garbage. No one is that rich and lives at a dorm off the pacific coast. In the show, Zoey is a mega popular rich girl that everyone always go to her for advice. Zoey is always the one with the good idea and everyone agrees with her no matter how stupid her idea is. She is always perfect at everything including her perfect figure. And she is such a dietetic freak she talks about carbs like she knows what they are. When she sees that her friends are eating chocolate she confiscates it. And another thing that ticks me off is that she is always chewing a piece of spearmint every time you look at her. And everyone wants something do with her, for example in one episode that Logan guy bid $4,000 to have her and her friends cheer for everything he does in his pathetic life. And her friend Nicole is an overly perky freak that screams a lot.And Lola dresses like a hoochie Houdini lady. 80s called they want there bushy hair back.Might as well shave off the hair chase. This show sends a bad message to kids everywhere to make them think that if they don't have the latest I-Pods and designer clothes they will hate themselves. <br /><br />This show is a big thumbs down. <br /><br />We hate you Jamie Lynn, <br /><br />Best wishes Ryan, and Kara L | negative |
The first two Bring It On movies were both quite good in their own ways. The first was fairly serious, the second was successfully satirical - and the third opted for the usual idiotic low-brow comedy that we always see in the utterly brainless teen movies that Hollywood has coming out of the woodwork. The entire point in this movie was that cheerleaders are total airheads who hardly know enough to carry on a common conversation, and that's the extent of this movie's comedy. Ha ha. Not.<br /><br />There is no shred of cleverness in this movie, no theme, no subtext, nothing for anybody with half a brain to be entertained by (and sure enough, I could not sit through all of it). If you're the sort of person who're entertained by fart jokes, this movie is for you. Congratulations.<br /><br />2 out of 10. | negative |
A tragically wonderful movie... brings us to a Japan that does not exist anymore. Despite Hollywood's technical expertise, I have yet to see a (hollywood) movie that can match the authenticity of the atmosphere in this small town by the river near the sea... Tom Cruise's The Last Samurai looked liked the last installment of the Lord of The Rings in trying to capture rural Old Japan.<br /><br />If you like serene but intense story lines, this is a must see film. It will be a respite from hollow flashy films much like the last 1000 blockbusters you saw. I think this is one of Kurosawa's better stories.<br /><br />Even if it's a movie about geishas and brothels and the complicated rules that govern life in such settings, it did not turn into a skin flick. The characters are full of depth and act with much intensity. | positive |
so... it's really sexist, and classist, and i thought that it might not be in the beginning stages of the movie, like when stella tells steven that she would really like to change herself and begin speaking in the right way and he tells her not to change. well, he certainly changed his tune, and it seems that the other reviewers followed suit. what at the beginning appears to be a love story is really about social placement and women as sacrificial mothers. the end of the movie does not make her a hero, it makes the whole thing sad. and its sad that people think it makes her a hero. perhaps that is the comment of the movie that people should take away. positive reception reflects continual patriarchal currents in the social conscience. yuck. | negative |
This movie is so bad it's good -- in an unintentionally funny way. I couldn't stop watching it, I was laughing so much! It's like a parody of a romantic thriller, except it's not a parody. <br /><br />Alexandra Paul plays Emily Wendell, an oppressed preacher's wife who falls hard for Luke (Corey Sevier), a hunky and mysterious drifter who we eventually learn was in prison; the only thing Sevier is guilty of, though, is bad acting! Mind you, he's no worse than the other actors. You get the sense that the actors have *no* idea they're in a really awful film; they're playing it straight. Everything about the film is bad: the acting, the script, the love scenes, the pacing, the plot twists, the choice of music. The climactic scenes are just so ludicrous -- first the shootout in the church, then Luke's final words to Emily -- I was howling with laughter. <br /><br />Evidently Luke did a lot of weight lifting and ab crunches in prison, and we get to see plenty of his naked torso. That's probably the highlight of the film. | negative |
EIGHTEEN as written and directed by Richard Bell may have a few too many stories to tell simultaneously for a 102 minute movie to completely succeed, but there is such a fine sense of commitment on the part of all the cast and crew that the viewer ends up wanting the movie to work - and so it does. Yes, aspects could have been finessed if the producers had more money to spend on the final cut, but as a small independent movie from Canada this is a tender, gently humorous, very touching tale about vulnerability and communication and commitment. It works on many levels.<br /><br />In a very well choreographed opening we are voyeurs at a family dinner where obviously something has gone awry and results in a father and two sons taking off in a car and having an accident in which one of the sons is killed. With an introduction like that the mood is set for the surviving 18-year old Pip son (Paul Anthony - looking far too old for credibility as a teenager) to desert his family and live on the streets. He meets Clark (Clarence Sponagle) a male prostitute who gives Pip food and shelter, Jenny (the very fine Carly Pope) who saves him from a bashing by her associate Derek (Ryan McDonell) and becomes romantically entangled with Pip, and Father Chris (Alan Cumming) in a finely wrought sympathetic role as a priest. It is Pip's 18th birthday and his father (Serge Houde) traces Pip down to give him a present from his deceased grandfather with instructions the gift should be opened on Pip's 18th birthday.<br /><br />Pip, though drinking too much and full of anger, pawns the tape machine but keeps the tape and begins to listen to the words of his grandfather Jason (voice by Ian McKellen) who recounts his own 18th birthday in WW II in France where he (now the very sensitive actor Brendan Fletcher) has an experience with a wounded medic named Macauley (Mark Hildreth, also superb) and reflects on his one night marriage with a cabaret singer Hannah (Thea Gill of 'Queer as Folk' fame and a fine singer and actress here), only for something to live for during the war: Jason offers succor to Macauley as he dies, with a beautiful scene of redemption for he two men at the end. The parallels of Pip and grandfather Jason interplay every time Pip listens to the tape and lead Pip to ultimately alter his view of life and love. Subplots include Clark's isolated existence as a hustler being altered by Jeff (David Beazely - in a surprisingly fine film debut) who simply wants to be loved; by an unexpected pregnancy between Jenny and Pip; by the trust Father Chris instills in both Pip and Clark in a good shepherd's manner: and by a flashback to the car accident where Pip could have saved his brother Daniel (Paul Dzenkiw) from an abusive act at the hands of his father, just before the accident, but failed to do so, opening his deep guilt and resultant misplaced anger, mirrored by his grandfather's taped experiences. Each of these subplots pulls together at the end, creating a sense of closure for each of the people involved.<br /><br />There are aspects of this film that make it seem like a big budget production: the musical score by Bramwell Tovey is performed by the Vancouver Symphony members, the cinematography by Kevin Van Niekerk is aptly atmospheric, and the general quality of acting by this Canadian cast is very fine. Though Paul Anthony handles his role well, casting a very young teenager in the pivotal main role would have made the story work much better, and Richard Bell, with only one other film 'Two Brothers' on his resume, gives promise of a young talent to watch. Despite the shortcomings, EIGHTEEN is a worthwhile film and deserves attention. Grady Harp | positive |
I saw this movie as part of the Midnite Madness at Sitges. Set in 18th century England, the plot covers the life of Arthur Blake from his first outing as an apprentice grave robber to his final confession on the eve of his execution.<br /><br />The plot moves along via a series of misadventures involving Arthur and his partner encountering various unsavory characters and bizarre situations.<br /><br />The first thing that strikes you about this movie is how accurately they managed to capture the look of the Hammer period horrors, the atmosphere is set with lots of fog laden graveyards, rowdy tavern scenes and excellent set/costume design.<br /><br />For a movie titled I Sell the Dead, I was expecting the emphasis to be mostly on horror don't get me wrong there are some jumpy moments and gore, but the tone is very much comedic, driven by the situations the characters get themselves into and their dialog. The closest comparison to the scenes between the two leads (Larry Fessenden and Dominic Monaghan) is the character interaction seen in the classic English comedies Only Fools and Horses, the Two Ronnies and Morecambe and Wise.<br /><br />The acting is strong and the casting of very familiar faces in Ron Perlman and Angus Scrimm lift the movie above many of the others on view in Sitges.<br /><br />Overall the movie offers something very different to the current crop of mainstream horror and will leave a smile on your face. | positive |
The 2005 edition of the Royal Rumble came live from the Save Mart Centre in Fresno, California. The two top Championships of the WWE were being defended, The Undertaker was battling Heidenreich in a Casket match, Shawn Michaels was taking on Edge in a grudge match that had been building up since last October and of course the every man for himself over the top rope Royal Rumble match itself. Who was going to take the price this year? Chris Benoit? Edge? Eddie Guerrero? Edge? John Cena? Batista? Edge? Shawn Michaels? There was no shortage of contenders.<br /><br />It was Batista that picked up the popular victory in the main event battle but not without controversy, or should I say, a botched finish. Batista and John Cena were the final two men in the ring. Batista was supposed to dump the young Smackdown! star over the top rope but it all went wrong and they both went toppling to the floor. The referees acted on their feet as we had an arm-raising contest similar to that of Bret hart and Lex Luger back in 1994. This brought out the chairman of the board. Vinnie Mac walked down to the ring the way only he can but injured himself badly getting into the ring. It was unusual to see Vince McMahon sitting, legs out, telling the two men to restart the match. Batista then did was he was supposed to do first time round and dumped Cena to the floor sealing his own future with a Championship match at WrestleMania 21.<br /><br />The undercard for this years Royal Rumble had a very solid line up, with many of WWE's biggest stars competing in matches. Each brand had two big matches each.<br /><br />Raw opened the night with the match between Shawn Michaels and Edge. This was a good technical contest. Back and fourth all the way until Edge got the pinfall. This was a smart booking decision and kept Edge as a contender to the World Heavyweight Championship.<br /><br />The second match of the night was the feud ending Casket match between The Undertaker and Heidenreich. The match was not a classic, but then again have their been any classic Casket matches? It was entertaining. Especially when Snitsky got involved and then Kane popped out the casket to a great pop. The Undertaker surprised no one when he got the win, slamming the lid on Heidenreich and this mediocre feud.<br /><br />The first of the two Championship matches of the night was John Bradshaw Layfields defence of the WWE Championship in a triple Threat match against both Kurt Angle and the Big Show. This match was very good. Again, not a classic but entertaining none the less. JBL took the win after pinning Kurt Angle. His celebration was short lived however when backstage teddy Long informed him at No Way Out he would defend the WWE Championship in a Barbed Wire Steel cage match against Big Show. Not a very nice way to spend a Sunday night.<br /><br />And of course there is no show without Punch. Punch of course being reigning World Heavyweight Champion Triple H. His rematch from Unforgiven 2004 with Randy Orton was lot better than the original encounter. It's a pity because they just don't seem to click to well in the ring and this would be an excellent feud if they did. Orton played the concussion role very well and went down in defeat to The Game.<br /><br />So the first big one of 2005 was a good one. It achieved its goals. Feuds ended and new ones began. We were now officially on the road to WrestleMania 21. | positive |
Other than it reassembled the characters from the first film and gave them more backstory. Essentially, Lucian the Lycan (werewolf) fell in love with Sonia the Vampire, a Romeo and Juliet scenario you know is going to end badly if you've seen the first movie. So with absolutely no suspense, we blunder forward with two hours of unremitting CGI and actors with little or no screen presence. All shot in that monotone color that the first movie had because nothing was shot in daylight.<br /><br />Worth your time.. probably not. In fact, the quality has gone down, even the CGI looks like it was done on the cheap, you don't buy for a minute that these are real werewolves. | negative |
Lock Up Your Daughters is one of the best high-spirited comedies I have ever seen.<br /><br />It is misunderstood since it lacks the "social commentary" values that many films of the day (1969) required to be successful.<br /><br />The characters are over-the-top satires of everyday people and played to that purpose by all of the actors.<br /><br />Christopher Plummer shines especially bright as Lord Foppington, a noble with hair too big to fit in the door.<br /><br />The plot involves the usual 18th century stuff; mistaken identities, thwarted romances, corrupt government officials, and jokes at every turn.<br /><br />It answers the questions: What happens when 4 rambunctious, eager to party sailors are on leave in a small British coastal town? And, who do they get involved with and how does it all turn out?<br /><br />Despite doing poorly at the box office, it has great costumes, excellent music(based on the Mermaid Theatre musical of the same name), great,lively acting and sets that are obviously authentic.<br /><br />That it has never been released on either VHS or DVD is truly a shame, since so many bad movies are released every day. | positive |
So, Prom Night was supposed to be a horror and thriller movie. I'm a big wuss and was scared to see this movie at the beginning, but upon seeing it, it is neither horror or thriller.<br /><br />I was basically making fun of the movie in my seat because it was so predictable. You could predict what was going to happen next. The young actors were alright at playing their characters, but I'd have to say the killer was definitely at the top of the game - acting wise.<br /><br />Yes, I'll give props for the plot because it was good, but it's not thrilling or scary. There were almost zero "jump-in-your-seat" scenes. So, don't waste ten dollars seeing it in theatres, wait 'til it comes to DVD. | negative |
Let me just say I loved the original Boogeyman. Sure, it's a flawed clichéd 80s horror movie, but hey those types are fun to watch! And plus it gave us something a bit different. So I gladly bought it and to my surprise this movie came along with it (only copy they had actually) so I thought "Eh, what the hell" and bought it. Mistake #1. So that night I felt in the mood to watch a movie (I actually bought tons that day) and figured this was the shortest out of all the ones I bought so I'll just watch this and hit the sack. Mistake #2. Yes, I have heard how bad it was but I was willing to take a chance.<br /><br />So a few minutes into the movie and there's the first flashback. I think nothing of it at first. Then the new footage with the prediction of the chick in the bathtub and I'm kinda liking the direction it's going in. Then the next flashback which is a bit longer and I'm sitting there thinking "Yes I've seen the first Boogeyman! I know what happens so move along!" Then the next one comes up and I figure screw it and fast forward through it. Then the final one (Maybe I fast forwarded through the explanation but why was she lying topless on the mirror? At least she could've shown them!) and I decide to fast forward through it and then the climax and the movie was over! WTF? What happened to the prediction stuff? What happened to the long hair dude (Did he tap that or what?)? And more importantly what kind of weed was the writer and director smoking when making this awful POS??!!! And what was the point? Was Annie just having flashbacks of what happened in the first movie? Or was the stuff from the first movie just happening at the same time as this? The latter could make sense because the stabbing of Pantyhose Face happened in 1978 according to the characters in this movie and it was 15 years later. Wait a minute, no it wouldn't! Because Lacey (who the movie questionably renamed Nancy! Is Uli too dumb to remember his movie characters' names?) would be 20 years old since she was 5 when that happened and not only is she married to someone who looks 30ish but also has a kid who looks around 7 and 10! Did she get around during middle school? And also why would Pantyhose be after Annie? What connection does she even have with the characters of the original movie? And a BIG HUGE MOVIE MISTAKE I found in this movie is that when the doctor is writing in his notebook does anyone notice that he's just SCRIBBLING? Wow, how professional, Doc! So, what is the explanation for all of the questions I asked above? IT'S A POINTLESS MOVIE WITH NO THOUGHT PUT INTO IT AT ALL! I will try to find a copy of the original movie that comes with just that movie and that's it (Maybe a couple of extra features, any Special Edition of it yet?). Then I will return this DVD and hopefully this review and all the others will prevent those who haven't seen it from seeing it thus making movie stores get rid of it and this movie may not exist anymore! Please let that be so! Sorry this review is so long. I'm just angry at this movie I had to vent somehow | negative |
Enjoyed the movie very much. Certainly will leave the audience wanting to know more, and there is truly a lot more historically to find out!<br /><br />Did the production team fall to the temptation of over dramatization, particularly of the shooting event? There is a ton of interesting accurate material hinted at? Prince Albert's contribution to UK and the monarchy warrants a movie on it's own but granted that was apparently not part of the intention here.<br /><br />The costumes and sets are especially good but am I alone in thinking that this production (which judging by the length of titles at the end was certainly not a cheap one) wanted badly for a British Court historical etiquette expert beyond the Duchess of York? i.e. Did Princess Victoria really stuff an entire truffle/rissole(?) into her mouth while speaking to the Prime Minister in the company of His Majesty with her mouth full? <br /><br />'Could never really felt that sympathetic to Victoriain this movie, or indeed in her shoes at all. Yet loved the casting of the principals, whose acting was convincing, so did the script really allow us to really get to know them well? I always felt like a totally detached, uninformed outside observer, much more so than with "Mrs. Brown" or even "The Queen". Yet to be honest I still could not take my eyes off the screen, except that is for some of the more avant-garde camera techniques which were distracting from time to time. | positive |
This film has a decidedly weird setting, taking place in a school that's really old to begin with but it certainly doesn't look like any sterile medical school environment. Very Gothic and atmospheric. As for the film itself, well, OK, the premise is a bit far-fetched but hey, that's why we watch movies, isn't it? And it's less far-fetched than some of the garbage that's out these days, that's for sure. Medical students are experimenting with 'short term' death, as in allowing themselves to be briefly dead so they can experience what the afterlife is like. It's kind of nice, in some cases, till parts of it come back with the voyager and start meddling in their earthbound lives. I hadn't seen this film in years till I got it on DVD and I have to say that I'd forgotten just how good it was. And it struck me that Julia Roberts looks truly beautiful in this film, not like actresses of today that are supposedly gorgeous but are dressed and made-up like cheap hookers. Ahh, the good old days. Anyway, this is a great flick, perhaps not for fundamentalist Christians but many others may enjoy it. 8 out of 10 stars. | positive |
I watched Pola X because Scott Walker composed the film score and I admire his music a lot. Frankly, I expected a somewhat pretentious and possibly incoherent French movie. I was wrong. The vision of the film quickly managed to engage my attention to the fullest - starting with the opening sequence, which shows black and white footage of military airplanes throwing bombs at graves at the sounds of music and Scott Walker's beautiful wailing voice. The film explores the identity crisis of Pierre (Guillaume Depardieu - a brilliant choice for the role) and his consequential (self-)destruction. The story is divided into two parts the first depicts Pierre's carefree life in a beautiful house in the French countryside and the second follows his utter personal disintegration after he abandons everything and moves to Paris to live in squalor with his supposed half-sister. Both parts contain some amazingly stunning photography the first very colorful and bright, the second utterly gloomy and nearly apocalyptic - adding up to a true aesthetic feast. Pola X is a fascinating and quite unique movie experience. | positive |
One of the best documentaries released in recent years. Some points...<br /><br />1. Hugo Chavez was elected Venezuela's president in 1998, his support largely coming from the poorer regions of Venezuela.<br /><br />2. In 2002, a coup briefly deposed Chavez. At the time, Irish filmmakers Kim Bartley and Donnacha O'Briain were in Caracas, shooting a documentary about Chavez for British television. Their film deconstructs the coup and its aftermath, and electrifyingly records history unfolding on-the-spot, outside and inside the presidential palace.<br /><br />3. Chavez aimed to free Venezuela from the free-market policies imposed on it by the US. Though Venezuela's oil was already state-owned, it was run for private benefit by executives who Chavez wished to replace.<br /><br />4. Despite being the world's fourth largest oil supplier, Venezuela remains swamped by poverty, its resources literally sucked away by foreign multinational corporations.<br /><br />5. The documentary begins by portraying Chavez's first years as president before the coup. It focuses on his popularity with the poor, and his various policies which proved popular with working class locals (educational plans, distribution of the oil revenue, grass-root democracy etc).<br /><br />6. Chavez was a huge proponent of education, and printed thousands of copies of the Venezuelan constitution, encouraging children and adults to study and understand it.<br /><br />7. When Chavez came to power, he immediately pledged to redistribute oil profits. This, understandably, made the oil companies nervous.<br /><br />8. A media-war broke out. The six private TV stations promptly began opposing the state-run TV station. They questioned Chavez's motives, sanity and sexual orientation.<br /><br />9. Without media support, the coup would not have been successful. The film makes it clear that coups rely heavily on the media to disseminate information and that news can be easily fabricated.<br /><br />10. Under the guise of "re-establishing democracy", the opposition silenced the state-run TV station, dissolved the National Electoral Board, Supreme Court, National Assembly and took control of the military.<br /><br />11. Moneyed interests, backed by the military elite (encouraged by the US and CIA), organised a citizens' march on the presidential palace to effect the coup. Snipers shot at Chávez supporters, but the private media stations edited footage so it appeared that return fire was aimed at the opposition march that in fact had been safely diverted.<br /><br />12. Police went on a shooting rampage against Chavez supporters, further bloodying the streets.<br /><br />13. Chavez, held captive, refused to resign. Of course the media/government then lied, saying he had resigned, but Chavez's cabinet members communicated the truth to the international community, which eventually got the message back to Venezuela by cable TV.<br /><br />14. The people rose up, pressuring the return of the president they had elected, whom only a referendum could constitutionally replace.<br /><br />8.9/10 - At a little over an hour long, this doc is far too short. Nevertheless, its an engrossing piece of journalism and deals with a form of "media warfare" which rarely gets touched upon. Makes a great companion piece to "The Battle of Algiers".<br /><br />Worth one viewing. | positive |
How on earth this film isn't more widely regarded is beyond me.<br /><br />I picked it up for £1, and I'm not exaggerating when I say it's the best pound I've ever spent on a film.<br /><br />The thing that usually lets films about the club scene down is either the music or the actual scenes filmed in clubland.<br /><br />Here, the music and club scenes are completely credible,using some big tunes of the time, and filmed in real clubs, with people actually looking like they want to be there.<br /><br />The performances from the actors are of a high standard all round, although Jason Donovan in particular for me stands out (he was playing Frank N Furter in The Rocky Horror Show in London at roughly the time this must have been filming, so his drag phase was in full flow!), and of course Tim Curry who's eloquent drug land boss is convincing.<br /><br />Simply put, if you're a fan of British film you have to see this, it matters not a jot if you're into clubbing as the film is strong enough as a story anyway.<br /><br />Highly recommended. | positive |
Bradford Dillman plays a scientist who wakes up one morning in the middle of a bloody crime scene; having partial amnesia (or "global amnesia", which one character claims to define as elective loss of memory), the scientist finds a private detective in the phone book in the hopes of piecing his life back together. Abhorrent concoction very loosely based on Walter Ericson's book "Fallen Angel" (filmed in 1965 as "Mirage" with Gregory Peck). It was probably too racy for television--what with drugs and hippies added to the mix--that NBC initially refused to air it, which is how this low-budgeter wound up in theaters. Director James Goldstone gets freaky with the hyperkinetic visuals and camera-tricks, while editor Edward A. Biery goes wild with the zig-zag cuts. Unfortunately, their admittedly-colorful gimmicks cannot cover up the weaknesses of this updated plot, and the acting is woefully overripe. Dillman, under pressure to recall the events of the night in question, goes through an Actor's Seminar of tics, stammers, nose-wipes, and crazy half-laughs while spitting out dialogue like, "Dream...a dream...drugs...yeah, drugs...that SOUND...bells...help!" As a villainous fellow scientist with a Cheshire Cat smile, Pat Hingle nearly upstages Dillman in the Grand Thespian department by continually addressing everyone in baby-talk, strutting about like a middle-aged peacock and twisting his mouth around in agony. Hope Lange's scientist/love-interest is given the short shrift, but not before she screams at indifferent-lover Dillman: "What do I have to do, talk Ape Man? Me want You!" This is one frantic "Jigsaw"! *1/2 from **** | negative |
I really enjoyed the first episode and am looking forward to more. A little soft on the crime front (it's almost an afterthought and not terribly suspenseful or fleshed out) but thought the romance angle was wonderfully charming. Will be watching again for sure! <br /><br />I'm hoping that they'll have a bigger role for the aunts who are wonderful actresses and were somewhat underused this time around. The actress who plays the assistant/waitress (also from Bewitched I think) is very sweet and bubbly and comes off as nicely dorky and sweet instead of dumb and annoying which is very nice.<br /><br />Check it out. | positive |
I went to see Vanilla Sky with a huge, huge, huge!!..Tom Cruise fan, my extremely cynical brother and my girlfriend ... what can I say .. I was totally blown away by the movie and especially TC's performance, I thought it was a very moving film and it was not at all what I was expecting.<br /><br />I had read the reviews and had decided not to go and see it, I am so pleased that I was 'coerced 'into seeing it. The strange thing is I cannot say why, all I can say is that I found it totally involving and could not stop thinking about it the next day. As to what I felt about the film, all I can say about is, ITS NOT THE STORYLINE (fantasy, psychodrama, whatever) its about the people and the events that shape their life and how small events, like getting into a car can change everything......<br /><br />As to what the critics wrote, yes maybe the original was a stunning 2nd film for Alejandro Amenábar , but this was a totally different interpretation of the subject, and by no means a narcissistic remake for the benefit of Tom Cruise and Penelope Cruz.<br /><br />I cannot even consider writing a couple of trite, glib sentences to describe the film just go and see it!!!!<br /><br />Yes I know this isn't a balanced thoughtful review but so what .It's not that kind of film. | positive |
This movie is flawed on many fronts. Like many before it, it portrays more of the mythology of the Alamo than the history. The production is poor, overall giving the impression of a welfare project for lots of actors who might have otherwise had to work on Hollywood Squares. This to me was the greatest flaw - I know the ages and general personalities of the real Alamo protagonists and the geriatric ensemble of TV actors chosen to portray them never let any hint of believability intrude.<br /><br />As a native Texan, I grew up with the mythology. I later learned more about the history. I can accept a decent production from either perspective (although I prefer more historical accuracy), but this never gave me a chance to enjoy it. Even John Wayne's or Fess Parker's versions had more life than this stolid mess, while being only slightly less accurate.<br /><br />Very disappointing - avoid it. | negative |
Well, the episode I just watched had the older "Gastineau Girl" whining about why people keep mentioning her husband (Mr Gastineau, a famous American Football player apparently). She seems unwilling to accept that he's the only reason she isn't flipping burgers, she married someone famous and that's why she has cameras pointed at her.<br /><br />When challenged by an interviewer to explain what she actually does, she gave a wonderfully circular reason for why people should pay attention to her: "I work really hard on my reality TV show". Then she said "I'm not a celebrity... I'm a personality."<br /><br />I'm not quite sure who this series is meant to appeal to, except people who've had all their intelligence removed. It's certainly no role model to anyone except gold-diggers as the two stars do nothing but spend money, and all it tells you about rich people is that they have no money problems. | negative |
I found Horrorvision almost unwatchable. While only 70 minutes in length I still found myself hitting the fast forward button again and again. The acting was of the `if I scream and say ***k a lot I'm intense' school. And the story was at best a scenario that had yet to be fleshed out.<br /><br />While I never go to Full Moon for great film making I have never seen them produce as bad a piece of junk as this. | negative |
This junk bore as much resemblance to the novel as a pickle slice does to a cucumber. The film makers took the Alamo section out of the book, made it into a movie, and said it was based on the book. Hah! Wonder what they did to induce Mr. Michener to endorse this piece of fluff? It was just another Davy Crockett, flintlock rifle, Santa Ana, 13 days of glory collection of poppycock. I almost started rooting for the mexicans, just to get the damn thing to end. And what was that scene where Stacey Keach was trying to get James Bowie to let him look at the knife? The sexual innuendos he used were juvenile and unnecessary. They could have used the film they wasted on that silliness to put in some real dialogue. This show was an embarrassment to Hollywood. Or can those clowns be embarrassed? | negative |
A great combination: - Chabat's humor - Uderzo/Goscinny world and characters - limited presence of Christian Clavier<br /><br />The original Comics was great - one of the better of an overall great series - and Alain Chabat, one of the funniest member of the famous French group Les Nuls, was able to film, replicate and supplement, the great work done by goscinny and uderzo by cleverly enforcing the story, giving to Djamel Debouze his best role (at last a little bit far from his usual repeatable part), gathering a bunch of great actors (Gerard darmon is wonderful, as often, Chabat himself is a great Cesar).<br /><br />In addition, while being obligated to keep on with Christian Clavier as Asterix, Chabat cleverly tuned down his role in the movie to give prominence to Darmon and Debouze... which is always a good idea!<br /><br />=> Great environment, great scenario, great director, great actors, great humor, beautiful Cleopatra... This movie would have deserved a 10 if Clavier hadn't been involved. | positive |
For the most part, romance films were never my cup of tea. But Valley Girl is one of the few romance films I not only could sit through, but actually enjoy. Nicholas Cage is great in his first role and Deborah Foreman is cute beyond belief. There are some side stories that tend to become muddled, but not enough to diminish this film. | positive |
I'd heard of the case, but hadn't really paid attention during the whole hoopla of Fuhrman writing the book, Skakel being arrested, etc. However, this movie did an excellent job of detailing Martha, the Skakel brothers, the murder, Mark Fuhrman's involvement and the results of his investigation. I especially liked the flashback scenes with Martha talking about her last summer. The actress who played her literally glowed with life and made it even more poignant that the real Martha was probably like that. It made Martha seem like a real person rather than a victim. I'd definitely recommend watching this. | positive |
William Russ is the main character throughout this made for TV movie. He left his family behind to only reappear and begin paying off his debts. But he tries to keep away from his family. Thats where Peter Falk (Colombo) comes in, playing several different roles, to convince him to come home.<br /><br />The story is average and they actually managed to get a former star (Peter Falk) and use him to a fairly nice degree. But William Russ wasn't truly a star. However, it appears his acting is still OK.<br /><br />I found the delivery and story very cheesy in how everything was predictable. In fact, the last 20 minutes I could almost dictate word for word before it happened. A good movie should never be like that.<br /><br />Overall, it was a sub-par movie. In a letter grading system, it would receive a "D". | negative |
To start, I'm not a person to rate movies that I haven't seen, nor am I a person that rates movies 1's when they don't deserve it. This movie was really that bad. The basic plot was extremely formulaic, and while it wasn't great, the plot deserved about a 5. The part that really bothered me was anything referencing swimming in the film. I compiled a short list of things wrong with the swimming aspects of this film.<br /><br />1. No character development. 2. No sense of time. 3. Completely inaccurate swimming scenes, which include: a. A team of six swimmer going to something called both "Nationals" and "regional" with no mention of how they qualify. b. This same team going to whatever the hell this meet was without swimming a real meet at any point in the film. c. The rival program goes from being a high school to a club team back to a high school and then a club team again. d. In the scene where Ellis is interviewing for a job the banners show high school state wins and placements at nationals, yet the team consists of anywhere from 5 to 12 swimmers depending on which of the 3 meets are happening. e. A team of 5 guys and a girl win nationals/regions whatever. f. Said girl wins a men's 100 butterfly event. g. In this race, said girl beats two guys from a team that the previous year was in the top 3 in the nation. h. The announcer changes a race from the 200 breast to the 100 breast back to the 200 again in the span on about 45 seconds. i. In the final relay, the 4X100, which is being swum in a 50 meter long course pool, one swimmer is seen doing two flip turns. j. In this same relay, the teams anchor swimmer freaks out and steps off the blocks, prompting an inspirational pep talk, which lasts for about two and a half minutes, or about 3 times as long as the leg would take at a national caliber meet. k. The movie begins in the month of July or August, assuming that Ellis was applying before the school year started, and the pool was to be closed in 3 months, so assuming these things both hold true, the swimmers went from not being able to swim to winning nationals/regional whatever, in less than two, as the pool had to be cleaned and the kids didn't start practicing for a while. l. I'm sure there are a couple hundred more, I'm just trying to block them out of my memory. 4. Throughout the film there is not a single mention of a swimmers time. 5. If you're going to have a movie about swimming, it would be a good idea to hire extras that know how to swim well. 6. The scene where the kid is kicked underwater is physically impossible.<br /><br />That being said, all the swimming scenes were way too slow, swimmers had horrible technique, and the idea of being able to qualify for a national meet within three months of learning to swim is just insulting to swimmers everywhere.<br /><br />OK, if you still don't believe me, let me say that this movie is one of the 5 worst films i have ever seen, and this is coming from the guy that owns Gigli, Soul Plane, Manos: The Hands of Fate, Skullduggery, and any number of other total piece of crap that have been put on film. Please don't go! | negative |
I'm no Jane Austen purist but why make a film like this if you have nothing to say.<br /><br />Billie Piper was so wrong for the part it is difficult to know where to begin-wrong personality,modern make-up,completely wrong hair (there is no way a young lady of her age would have romped around in public with her hair loose and unbrushed like that),she didn't seem particularly meek nor put-upon by the family and I didn't understand why everyone seemed to think of her as particularly saintly or kind.<br /><br />The picnic(substituted for the ball) was so low-budget it was embarrassing to watch and missing out the Portsmouth section completely destroyed the point of the piece (as well as losing scenes which could have added a gritty counterpoint to that oh-so-claustrophobic pink sitting room.)<br /><br />To those responsible:-If you haven't the imagination (even the budget doesn't matter so much as the imagination) to do something meaningful with an adaptation please don't pretend to be producing Jane Austen.<br /><br />It was about 10% Mansfield Park and 90% nothing much at all<br /><br />PS Edmund was very good | negative |
Lee Chang-dong's exceptional "Secret Sunshine" is the single most emotionally ravaging experience of the year. It is an instantly sobering, brutally honest character piece on the reverberations of loss and a graceful memento mori that resonates with a striking density of thought, yet remains as inscrutable as the emotions it observes. Through its layered naturalism and stunningly trenchant view of small-town dynamics, Lee implicitly deconstructs the traditional Korean melodrama by pulling apart the cinematics of excess and ripping to shreds the arcs that shape its characters and grounds the proceedings into a crushing grind of stoic realism.<br /><br />"Secret Sunshine" remains an immensely compelling, fluid work throughout its 142-minute runtime. Its bravura first hour is filled to the brim with subtextual insinuations, remarkable foreshadowing and adroit reversals of tone brought about by humanistic capriciousness. Adapted from a short story, Lee infuses the film with his sensitivity for the sublime paradoxes of life, last seen in his transgressively comic and irreverent "Oasis". Understanding how personal revolutions are forged when views of our universe are changed, Lee not only sees the emotional cataclysm of a widow's sorrow through an inquiring scope but also feels the tumultuous existential currents that underpin the film when religion becomes a narrative scapegoat in comprehending the heinousness of the human experience.<br /><br />Do-yeon Jeon's ("You Are My Sunshine") Best Actress accolade at Cannes in 2007 is well deserved. Her performance as the widow Shin-ae remains an unrelenting enigma. As a character pulled apart by forces beyond her control, the sheer magnificence of this performance is central to the film's turbulent nature. With Jeon essaying one cyclonic upheaval after another, there's a tremulous sense of collapse that the film, to its credit, never approaches. Instead it finds a delicate balance that saps the charged theatricality and subsequent banality from ordinary tragedies and its fallouts. She becomes the centre of the film's universe as well as ours. Filmed in glorious hand-held CinemaScope, the film demolishes the cinematicism of frames and compositions by becoming visually acute just as it is quietly harrowing when the camera never relinquishes its gaze from Shin-ae through times of happiness, guilt and remorse.<br /><br />Lee captures the details of life in the small, suspicious town of Miryang the awkwardness of communal situations, its uncomfortable silences and its devastations spun out of personal dramas. Shin-ae's interactions with the townsfolk rarely inspires dividends, especially when they are merely done out of obligation to fit in for the sake of her son, Jun (Seon Jung-yeop). The one recurring acquaintance is Jong-chan (Song Kang-ho), a bachelor mechanic of uncertain intentions who helps her en route to Miryang in the film's enchanting open sequence set to a captivating stream of sunlight. Song has situated himself as a comedic anti-hero in South Korea's biggest films but his nuanced, low-key delivery here purports the director's thought process of never having to reveal more than plainly necessary.<br /><br />If pain is ephemeral, then grief can never truly dissipate. And Lee finds complexity in subsistence. When Shin-ae attempts to head down the path of reconciliation only to be faced again with unimaginable heartbreak, she unsuccessfully employs the fellowship of evangelical Christianity as a foil to her sorrow. But Lee knows better than that when he understands that religion, in the context of the human canvas of strife and misery, is never a simple solution. But Lee never rebukes the essence of religion as he realises the value of salvation for some through a higher power even if it serves a form of denial in others. The scenes in its latter half which deal with religion doesn't allow itself to become aggressively scornful, which is a feat in itself considering how many filmmakers let the momentum of the material take over from what they need to say to be true to its story and characters.<br /><br />Lee's first film since his call to office as his country's Minister of Culture and Tourism is an uncompromising dissertation on human suffering. In a film so artless and genuine, it arduously reveals that there's nothing as simple as emotional catharsis, just the suppression and abatement of agony. "Secret Sunshine" leaves us with tender mercies pulled out of evanescence, and points towards a profound understanding of despair and faith. | positive |
Heavy-handed moralism. Writers using characters as mouthpieces to speak for themselves. Predictable, plodding plot points (say that five times fast). A child's imitation of Britney Spears. This film has all the earmarks of a Lifetime Special reject.<br /><br />I honestly believe that Jesus Nebot and Julia Montejo set out to create a thought-provoking, emotional film on a tough subject, exploring the idea that things are not always black and white, that one who is a criminal by definition is not necessarily a bad human being, and that there can be extenuating circumstances, especially when one puts the well-being of a child first. However, their earnestness ends up being channeled into preachy dialogue and trite situations planted to move the plot along. The decent production values and interesting use of documentary-style camera footage are not enough to accomplish their aim when the script and the acting fall flat.<br /><br />Logic is often compromised for the sake of creating tension: Soid first tries to blackmail Pablo into participating in her documentary in exchange for helping them escape, then in the same breath basically tells him not to trust her because she's not helping them out of altruism. Well, duh. And for a man on the run, Pablo is far too swayed by a temper tantrum. Cristina's well-being is so important to him that he's fleeing capture and jail or deportation for her, but he's willing to risk all that to appease her when she doesn't want to go to Mexico. Right. Talk above over-permissive parenting. Third, when Pablo's employer Charlie gives the phone to Detective Bright, she is remarkably unprofessional, especially given her seniority - did she really think she was persuasive? Oh, yeah, I would have turned myself in. CCH Pounder's Detective Wims could wipe the floor with her.<br /><br />To be fair, I'd like to list the things I liked. Um, I liked the midget. And I liked the fact that the midget was named Sexy. There's cross-dressing, always a plus; juvenile cross-dressing, no less! Harry is infinitely cuter than Cristina. But my favorite moment in the film has to be when Cristina kicks Detective Not-So-Bright. I also find it interesting that, in a heavily minority cast (which I much appreciate, by the way), the black character is the racist one. Too bad it's just thrown out there and not further explored.<br /><br />There's a distinctive, unconventional score, but it's nonetheless generally context-unspecific, not enhancing mood or tension in any scene, except the pathetic, anguished wailing every time the main character is in anguish, as though they think his acting doesn't show it enough: 'Just in case you weren't sure, he's upset, and we have the musical cues to prove it.'<br /><br />Stilted, clichéd dialogue results in a depressing lack of subtext; everything has to be spelled out in dialogue, even when the body language had been up 'til then conveying it just fine. For example, every impassioned speech Pablo makes, and Mrs. Knight's lament that her child won't be crawling into bed with them in the morning.<br /><br />'Papi, tell me about Mama again' - what shameless, blatant exposition introducing the generic dead wife! (She's always the most beautiful woman the widower had ever seen, the kindest he had ever met. Why can't we see a man cry over a woman like Shakespeare's - she may be fat, ugly, obnoxious, but his love for her is deep as oceans? Now _there's_ a story which would move me.)<br /><br />The police always being literally one step behind them gives many scenes the out-of-place feeling of a French farce. Most boring foot chases ever - Bright and Lightning are so out-of-shape and easily-fooled (he certainly isn't quick as lightning, and she, well, I don't feel the need to spell things out). Some guy dragging along a small child outrunning a bicycle cop, complete with macho biker picking a fight but then being felled by a child? To quote Margaret Cho, that's so sad. Would we ever see this on 'Cops '?<br /><br />Hackneyed and over-the-top deus ex machina: as an employer, would you really waive checking his green card just because he can quote the author of the inspirational saying on a poster behind your desk?<br /><br />Plus several scenes, including the above, threaten to devolve into porn: 'Well, I'll do this favor for you, as long as you do something for me...' I can almost hear the bowm-chicka-bowm-bowm.<br /><br />When the parents view the footage shot of Pablo's remorse, the grieving mom's freak-out is the most real the movie feels. Unfortunately, this is diminished by the fact that she looks completely swayed by his emotional speech right up until she goes ballistic. A more ambivalent look would be more convincing here.<br /><br />I'm in constant awe of the stupidity of the main character doing things for the sake of plot: holding up a convenience store without a mask, visiting the dead girl's grave. And why doesn't the mother recognize his face from when she saw him before he drove off?! 'You seem awfully familiar...'<br /><br />What is the purpose of that wholly unnecessary, somewhat gratuitous scene with Soid and the artificially-enhanced bartender? Character development? Tch. Too little, too late.<br /><br />Speaking of unnecessary traits that never went anywhere, Detective Lightning's saying skeptical Detective Bright must be a Scorpio shows how little he really knows about the occult. And I don't think that believing in fate quite qualifies as voodoo mumbo jumbo.<br /><br />At the end, when Bright holds Pablo as he dies - wait, why does she care now? Her character is as inconsistent as Soid's. What, she has to shoot him just because she said 'Stop, or I'll shoot'? (She's cared _so_much_ about her integrity thus far.) He was unarmed. There was no need for lethal force. What's wrong with shooting him in the leg to immobilize him?<br /><br />Finally, Cristina's childlike acceptance of her mother's death giving Dr. Knight peace over his daughter's death - so forced. And the contrivance of the family whose child was killed becoming Cristina's new family... It angers me that she could be a 'replacement' for their little girl. It's also unrealistic that a white couple would take in the Latino daughter of the man who killed their own daughter. I'm not saying there aren't generous, loving people who would do that. I'm just saying that the characters here are never developed far enough for me to believe that _they_ would do that.<br /><br />I find it offensive that another IMDb reviewer said that of course as a woman she was moved by the sappy scenes. I am a woman who reserves my emotional movements for moments that don't wax sentimental in a manufactured manner.<br /><br />Co-writer, co-director, co-star Nebot said himself he wore too many hats during this production. Too many cooks may spoil the broth, but one cook alone just might end up making an after-school special.<br /><br />In conclusion, this film's title has less to do with the story and more to do with the feeling of regret, helplessness, and loss accompanying the revelation that you will never see your money again. | negative |
This film sat on my Tivo for weeks before I watched it. I dreaded a self-indulgent yuppie flick about relationships gone bad. I was wrong; this was an engrossing excursion into the screwed-up libidos of New Yorkers.<br /><br />The format is the same as Max Ophuls' "La Ronde," based on a play by Arthur Schnitzler, who is given an "inspired by" credit. It starts from one person, a prostitute , standing on a street corner in Brooklyn. She is picked up by a home contractor, who has sex with her on the hood of a car, but can't come. He refuses to pay her. When he's off peeing, she answers his cell phone and takes a message. She runs away with his keys.<br /><br />Then the story switches to the contractor, who pays a professional call on a rich, bored New York woman, who plays with him until he is aroused, then she pulls away. She tells him how desperate and unhappy she is; he tells her how beautiful she is, and lucky. As he is leaving, she asks if he would have sex with her. She sits on top of him, bounces up and down. This time he comes, the he leaves.<br /><br />The woman and her husband throw a dinner party for their trendy friends. Hubby (Robert) is talking business, wife (Ellen) is bored, and switches the subject to sex, and how often men and women think about it. Husband switches conversation to desert. Later, after the guests leave, Ellen tries to entice Robert into sex. Robert wants none of it, and puts on a jazz record. Ellen turns on the radio; Robert turns up the music; Ellen turns on the TV; Robert turns on another TV. Cacophony ensues. Ellen goes up on the roof, Robert joins her. Ellen confesses that she needs to experience more men, men other than Robert. Robert says that he too needs to experience men.<br /><br />We next follow Robert as he visits an artist, Martin, played by Steve Buscemi. I wish Buscemi could have more roles like this, where he is a sexy, smart, totally desirable guy. Robert praises Martin's work, much more than it deserves, promises to get it into a show. Martin is excited, until it turns out that Robert is speaking out of his groin, it is all a mating dance. Robert tries to kiss Martin, on the lips, and Martin pulls back, saying that he is not gay. Robert asserts that he's not gay either, Martin scoffs. Both admit that the artworks are bad. Robert is about to leave, when Martin allows Robert to kiss him. They make out, and Robert goes down on Martin.<br /><br />Next we follow Martin, as he prepares for an art show at a Manhattan gallery. He is smitten by the receptionist, Anna, played by Rosario Dawson. (I had to cut some of this review to keep it under 1000 words) ... and they make love to each other.<br /><br />We next follow Anna, who is sitting at a lunch stand. Her boyfriend, Nick (Adrian Grenier), enters, bearing flowers. She is cold toward him; he tries to figure out why. He coaxes out of her the information that she has had sex with someone while he was in San Francisco. She coaxes out of him the fact that he has stayed with his ex-gf while in San Francisco, and had sex with her. The latter revelation turns out to be a lie. The two of them make out in the luncheonette, but she decides that they must break up. Nick is heartbroken.<br /><br />And we follow Nick, who confesses his troubles to an older woman who he meets on a park bench, Joey (Carol Kane). Joey is sort of weird and child-like, but is a good audience for Nick, who needs a sympathetic ear. The two of them go to Coney Island at night, and look at the stars. Nick falls under Joey's spell, despite the age difference between them. They go back to Joey's apartment, and Nick gradually realizes that he is about to have sex with a crazy old woman. She is on top of him, doesn't want to let him go. But he manages to escape.<br /><br />(This is, by the way, the best Carol Kane role since she played Latke's wife in Taxi.) Joey's phone rings, and it is a man calling the Psychic Friends Network, and Joey is one of the psychic friends. Although she is still hurting from Nick, she gradually gets into her psychic shtick. The man is at his office, late at night, and wants to have phone sex with her. Although that is not Joey's business, Joey goes along, and coaxes the man to come. She wants to keep talking, although the man want to get off the phone, and finds out that he has embezzled a lot of money from his company, and will be found out tomorrow. His life is ruined. Joey realizes that the man is going to commit suicide, and she tries to make him believe that she is his friend, that she cares about him. And she does care about him.<br /><br />But the man packs a gun into his briefcase, and goes off to seek a prostitute on the Brooklyn waterfront, and we come back to the beginning, to the same prostitute who started out La Ronde. She wants to give him $75,000 in cash if she will kill him. He tried to kill himself, but couldn't do it. The prostitute does not want to do it, but he insists, holding her hand, holding the gun inside his mouth, telling her where to aim. Eventually, the gun goes off, and we see the prostitute walking down the street, and arriving at the corner where she normally does business. The contractor who didn't pay her earlier in the movie drives up, rolls down the window. They look at each other. THE END. | positive |
This movie is a very enjoyable homage to the Bogart and other detective films of old. Robert Sacchi nails it as Bogie and Michelle Phillips is a truly timeless beauty as Gena Anastas. <br /><br />However, the most noteworthy portion of this film involves the longest belly dancing scene ever produced in a Hollywood film. One well-known professional instructor commented that nothing else in cinema comes close for dance excitement. <br /><br />The scene, which ends up being an important part of the plot, occurs in a lushly beautiful Middle Eastern nightclub and is by all accounts mesmerizing. The pulsating music, the swirling veils and ringing finger cymbals, free-flowing undulations and beautiful costumes - and a surprise twist involving the seductive Sybil Danning - build tension and excitement until the very end. <br /><br />The three talented and beautiful professional nightclub dancers are led by exotic brunette beauty Kamala Almanzar, one of the US' leading belly dancers since the mid-1970s. She was hand-picked by famed Armenian musician Guy Chookoorian to travel with his orchestra on the road. Guy's ensemble is the live band that the dancers perform to in the scene. If you watch the trailer on this site, you will see a glimpse of Kamala (playing the finger cymbals behind Sybil Danning). <br /><br />If you're not yet a fan of belly dancing, you will be after watching this movie, and if you're an aficionado, it holds up very well after repeated viewing. | positive |
Well...the movie was a fun watch. The main problem with this movie is the fact that it goes against everything that most vampire myths abide by. Like vampires that walk in the sunlight. Though there are parts that just make you enjoy the way society makes movies. A scene where a vampire gets stabbed and screams "Ow this hurts...It's really stuck." Then there seems like there might be scenes missing but you get used to after a while. And there are random dream sequenes' that really don't help with the plot. Come to think of it, nothing really made sense, but i just got a bunch of friends and watched it twice to get the full effect. Come to think of it the fight scenes were aweful, and the zombies were just fun to watch. Slowly as i write more of this I like this movie more. But you know, all in all you can't expect Schindlers List but its a fun watch. | negative |
I had high hopes for this film, because I thought CLEAN, SHAVEN (Kerrigan's first feature) was absolutely terrific, the most assuredly cinematic low budget film I'd ever seen.<br /><br />But much of CLAIRE DOLAN is utterly pointless and flat. Scene after scene seems randomly tossed into the mix, without much thought for narrative or character.<br /><br />Is Claire trying to escape being a prostitute or not? Hard to tell. Why does she pick up the trick at the airport if she wants to escape that life? Why does she then not pick up tricks when she needs money in Seattle? Why do we have to see her dye her hair to what is virtually the exact same color? Why does Claire accept some johns and not others? The filmmaker doesn't seem to know.<br /><br />It feels as if everything is improvised (though I understand this wasn't the case) and the filmmakers just held a camera on it as if they were making a verite documentary.<br /><br />After the screening I saw, Kerrigan defended his lack of narrative choices by condemning film narrative as politically conservative. It sounded like learned rhetoric. I think it was a cop-out.<br /><br />I am saddened that the maker of a film as exciting as CLEAN, SHAVEN would go on to make such a lame film as this one and then defend it with tired old "political" cliches. | negative |
In this early Fulci work the director shows his most mainstream side as well as a talent for compelling storytelling and more than reasonable elucidation for the genre. Personally I think he has been unfairly maligned throughout his career as an aesthete of gore. It's a pretty capable procedural and surprised me with its subtextually rich narrative that shows his distrust for small minded small-town mentality and the inefficiency of the police, as well as the twisted ideals of the Catholic church, the last of which seemed to have cut this film at its knees when it was first released and could have possibly given the director another direction so early on. The comparative lack of gore in the film shows a more urgent and psychological imperative to this film in its prevailing "mystery" but the gore and puppetry he does utilise is put to good use here most notably in the scene where a falsely accused murderer is senselessly lynched by a mob of men in a graveyard and left for dead in a show of vile and antiquated vigilantism, expertly choreographed to the modern tunes off a diegetic radio.<br /><br />Another example was the final scene (which was indeed awesome) in which a strikingly handsome priest falls from a cliff and the puppet used is markedly showed in a medium closeup which accentuated its demonic appearance and evident ugliness. Curiously, considering his later works, Fulci also invokes the idea of modernity seized upon the hamlet holding on to its anachronistic superstitions and ignorance when the idea of black magic is just that, a quaint idea of supernatural evil that never really ends up manifesting from the voodoo dolls while making its witch nothing more than a disturbed woman. Another thing I liked was that he adds to these character layers by making a bourgeois city girl into an ambiguous figure - is she the corrupter the priest fears for his wards and perhaps more tellingly, for himself? This giallo does lend itself to becoming one of Fulci's more personal and substantive films, in that we actually get a fair influx of ideas from him. | positive |
Sheba Shayne (Pam Grier) receives a telegram informing her that her father may be in trouble. Sheba, a private investigator and former cop, goes to her father's aid. But someone will stop at nothing to run her father out of business. An attempt to show their muscle goes awry and Sheba's father is gunned down in cold blood. These guys have messed with the wrong woman.<br /><br />If I had to describe Sheba Baby, the best I can come up with is Pam Grier Lite with some really bad acting. For a Pam Grier film, Sheba Baby is incredibly tame. It's nowhere near as violent as some of her earlier films. Gone are the over-the-top images of Pam placing a small revolver or razor blades in her afro. Pilot (D'Urville Martin) and his crew can't hold a candle to some of the real villains Pam faced in her previous movies. It's strictly by-the-numbers and almost has a made-for-TV feel. As for the bad acting, the baddies that Pam faces off with are as unnatural sounding in their delivery as I've seen. As a result, characters like Pilot don't come across as threatening as they should or need to for the movie to work.<br /><br />That's not to say there aren't moments or elements in Sheba Baby that I didn't enjoy (Pam in a wetsuit and Pam brandishing a spear gun), it's just that when compared with Pam's other films like Coffy, Foxy Brown, and even Friday Foster that the movie fails.<br /><br />One final observation - maybe I'm just more sensitive to these things post-9/11, but I don't remember a time, even in the security lax 70s, when you could take a suitcase full of guns on an airplane. When Sheba flies to her father's aid, she's got an arsenal packed in her luggage! | negative |
With all of its technical flash, the 1993 "Stalingrad" movie is very disappointing. Before watching it I had read non-fiction accounts of the Stalingrad campaign and had seen a lot of documentary footage and photographs of the actual battle and its participants. I don't think that any movie can really succeed in depicting the titanic struggle and suffering that actually occurred, but I still wanted to see what a relatively recent German movie production would be like. While there are a few good elements of this movie, overall it is a failure. To me the worst aspect is that it includes substantial anachronisms, and also some very contrived and clichéd elements, most glaringly in some encounters between a German officer and a Soviet woman.<br /><br />Also there are some ideological elements in the movie which result in very distorted perceptions, including what amounts to a caricature of a German chaplain, some overblown class-warfare messages, and problematic depictions of "good" vs. "bad" Germans. Certainly the German Armed Forces of World War II included men who were able to maintain some decency throughout the war, and others who did very bad things, but the attempts in the movie to show this contrast are very simplistic and childish. I give "Stalingrad" credit in the sense that it doesn't completely portray German troops in the simple demonic quality which is the stereotype that many people now have, yet the movie includes stereotypes of its own, such as an almost too-good-to-be-true infantryman who has attitudes more akin to the 1990's than the 1940's, and two completely evil infantrymen and a rear-echelon officer.<br /><br />Some recent movies such as "Stalingrad" and "Saving Private Ryan" are frequently praised for their "authenticity" in depicting graphic scenes of combat, yet these same movies are deeply flawed and distorted in their depictions of the attitudes, values and behaviors of 1940's soldiers and civilians. "Stalingrad" and "S.P.R" have major and minor characters who lack the unselfconscious stoicism that was common among regular people during the World War II period. Certainly soldiers throughout history have been notorious for their frequent grumbling and occasional cynicism, yet the self-absorbed, talky and touchy-feely characters in both of these movies are something else, and are much more prevalent in our world of today than they were in the 1940's. While many people these days like to denigrate war movies from the 40's and 50's which present more patriotic messages and aren't as graphic about combat, many of those earlier movies such as "Battleground" are much more accurate in their depictions of typical soldiers' attitudes, and they are often successful in showing the horrible effects of war in more indirect ways.<br /><br />One well-done part of "Stalingrad" is a battle between German infantry and Soviet tanks, which does a reasonable job of capturing some of the horror and confusion in such combat.<br /><br />"Stalingrad" does a poor job though of showing the common look of the frontline soldier. Part of this might be due to the difficulty in finding thin, haggard-looking extras in our pampered and well-fed America and western Europe of today. Also, too many of the German troops in the movie don't wear their uniforms and equipment properly, and don't display the professional bearing that was common in the German Wehrmacht even during the years of German defeat. If you want to get a good idea of how the actual German troops looked, I recommend the following documentaries which contain footage of the Stalingrad campaign: "The World at War," "War of the Century" and "Russia's War." Also the books "Operation Barbarossa in Photographs" by Paul Carell, "Stalingrad" by Geoffrey Jukes and "Stalingrad" by Paul Carell contain a great many helpful photos. Books written about the battle by Antony Beevor and William Craig are recommended also, and the latter one is especially good about the common soldiers and civilians on both sides.<br /><br />Relatively recent movies which, in my opinion, are much better than "Stalingrad" and "Saving Private Ryan" in depicting attitudes and characters of persons during World War II, and the general feel, look, horror and grittiness of that war, are "Der Untergang" ("The Downfall") and "Talvisota" ("The Winter War"). While "A Bridge Too Far" and "The Longest Day" cover events on the Western Front rather than in the East, they are also excellent war movies, and stick very close to factual accounts. The latter two movies lack some of the grit that is more prevalent in more recent films, but they compensate for that lack with their other strengths, including truthfulness. | negative |
This is a film about loneliness and how the distance physical and emotional -- between people tends to stultify relationships.<br /><br />The narrative is simple to the point of banality: a young man Yusuf (Emin Toprak), from a rural village, arrives in Istanbul to stay with his older and successful cousin Mahmut (Muzaffer Ozdemir); Yusuf wants work in the big city. After trying for a few weeks to find work without any success, the strain of having Yusuf living with him is too much for Mahmut. They quarrel nothing physical, just verbal. Eventually, Yusuf goes, leaving Mahmut alone again. End of story...<br /><br />Except for the fact that the performance of the two men as relatives is one of the best on film. Much is said visually; dialog is used to bring out disagreement, distrust, hostility, and insecurity that exist within and between the two men.<br /><br />There are many visual gems in this film. For example, while searching for work, young Yusuf, needing a relationship, tries in vain to gain the attention of various young women around the city. The look on his face, as he is thwarted every time, says it all.<br /><br />Or, wanting a cigarette, Yusuf opens the door to the balcony of Mahmut's apartment and lights up in the frigid December air, leaving the door open; Mahmut, eventually gets up from his work desk, walks to the door (all glass) and the cousins just look at each other for what seems way too long a time. Then Mahmut closes the door, leaving Yusuf out in the cold. The metaphor is complete.<br /><br />Or, Mahmut cleaning up after Yusuf, grudgingly and with increasing anger; and all the while, Yusuf wastes his time chasing skirts instead of looking seriously for work, and spends Mahmut's money on a toy for a nephew
Yusuf is emotional, untidy, impulsive, and vulnerable. Mahmut is rational, logical, self-confident and a demanding control freak: the right-brain, left-brain dichotomy beautifully played out by two actors who say more with a look, a gesture, a frown than any words can convey.<br /><br />But, Mahmut is not completely emotionless: he still loves his ex-wife who tells him that she's off to Canada with her husband-to-be. Mahmut affects a distant and confident friendship with his ex, and makes sure that she is okay about going. He wishes her well. He says goodbye. He leaves the coffee shop where they were talking. Later when she calls to say a last goodbye, on the way to the airport, Mahmut goes there and secretly watches as she leaves. The poignancy of the emotion on his face, as she disappears through a door, is worth the wait.<br /><br />All in all, this is a standout piece of work by the two main actors and the director, Nuri Ceylan. Some might argue that the pace is too slow; but life goes slowly for much of the time, especially for those who are alone. The camera work is relatively simple also: choose the scene, set up the camera and lighting, and let the actors move across the scene, enter the scene and leave the scene, all the while keeping the camera still. There were a few panning shots, some high-angle tracking shots, a few rural scenes but much of the film is shown as though on a stage with a fixed camera and a wide angle lens. Except for TV and radio music within the story, there is no music sound track. And, there are those many long silences as the two men sit and watch TV together and/or engage in very limited conversation.<br /><br />I saw this movie on TV so I was amused to see that, on a few occasions, I was watching TV as they were watching TV also. The silence in the movie matched the silence in my house (I was awake, all others in bed); my chair and position matched that of Mahmut's as he watched TV. Quite eerie, giving me a sense of almost 'being there' with him
And, I guess I was, in a sense.<br /><br />I'll say no more, because I want you to savor the other scenes that I haven't described. It's not a movie for everybody, for sure. More than any movie I've seen, it shows just how much we die when we are all alone just as we are all alone when we die. Mahmut's face, as it fades to black in the final scene, will stay with me for a long, long time...<br /><br />Highly recommended for serious movie buffs. | positive |
I didn't have much high hopes for this one. Before seeing it, the story yelled "stereotype" at me.<br /><br />I mean... come on! It's so stupid the plot line about the innocent android that realizes that the people who created him are immoral, then decides to change everything.<br /><br />I had to see it three times. The first two times I fell asleep because I was so incredibly bored by it. It's very rare that movies bore me so much I fall asleep during them. The third time I forced myself to watch it, simply to be able to warn people about it.<br /><br />I got the distinct impression that the people responsible for this mess had tried to take all the cool/neat things from other scifi/action movies, and put them together to make a kick-ass movie! They took the android/robot, lots of action, thin story, stereotype characters, and a big fight in the end and threw it together. Unfortunately, the movie sucks. The acting is so wooden you could build a house out of it, the storyline/plot is absolutely laughable, the camerawork and editing is horrid, the direction is non-existent, and to top it all off, everything is so cliche and ridiculous that it just annoys the hell out of you.<br /><br />I was left with the feeling that I could've spent the time watching this one doing something much more creative, like trimming my fingernails, or watching the grass grow. | negative |
It wasn't good. The characters were underdeveloped and the only personality were from the memories I had of the previous movie which contrasted with the 'new' personalities (or lack thereof). I seriously thought the opening scene was a nightmare by Ariel because of how absurd it was. It was serious. It just reminded me of all the annoying characters on the Disney channel-everyone is hyperactive and the story jumps from action to embarrassing scenes without any really connection.<br /><br />The most disappointing part was the horrible songs-not catchy, not amazing. In the original Ariel had an amazing and powerful voice and all the song are catchy and fun. You remember them and want to sing them. But the songs in this movie weren't creative in the least; it's as if they're talking in a annoying sing-song voice-quite weakly, disappointing. I don't have that want-to-sing-them feeling you normally get from a Disney movie.<br /><br />It's as if not one wanted to do this movie, so they barely made an effort . . . this movie would needs a new story line, new catchy songs and more warmth and enthusiasm without the annoying "look at me! look at me! I'm so annoying!" mentality of this generation of Disney. :'( | negative |
This film brought back a lot of good memories and really works to give a good buzz. There was no pc message and the film is all about having a good time, which is all there really is to it when people go out clubbing. | positive |
<br /><br />I take issue with the other reviewer's comments for the simple reason that this is a MYSTERY FILM, not a supernatural one! It is not the only film to have a seemingly "supernatural" explanation ("vampires"), but turns out to be a very mundance one.<br /><br />Other films that come to mind are Edgar Wallace's "Before Dawn" and the (more famous) "Mark of the Vampire". <br /><br />The film does a WONDERFUL job in creating a very "spooky atmosphere", similar DRACULA, when Renfield meets the Count on the staircase of his castle, or in MARK OF THE VAMPIRE, when the two people look thru the windows of the castle ruins and see a "corpse" playing an organ, while Luna descends using wings! VERY surreal!<br /><br />If one likes these (often silent) atmospheric touches, THIS film is a MUST!<br /><br />Norm Vogel | positive |
The first installment of this notorious horror series is presented as if it were a snuff film discovered by the producers and set up like an amateur camcorder tape, complete with a digital timer at the bottom of the frame. It presents a woman being kidnapped by a gang of black-clad men who torture her for several days before finally killing her. The hapless victim is beaten savagely and pelted with raw meat before having her fingernails pulled out with pliers, her hand smashed with a hammer, her eye punctured with a needle, and so forth.<br /><br />In the most nauseating scene, the woman's captors burn her with hot water and drop live maggots into the burns. The series received a great deal of publicity when American actor Charlie Sheen, believing the series to contain actual murder, attempted to ban its distribution in the United States. An FBI investigation revealed that the films were only what they appeared to be to most viewers -- sick re-creations using nasty, but obvious special effects. Gruesomely staged by acclaimed Japanese comic-book artist Hideshi Hino, who also directed the third and fourth episodes, this film is a sure way to clear all but the most tolerant of rooms. But, gorehounds probably won't find anything special. | positive |
Loosely based on the James J Corbett biography "The Roar Of The Crowd", Gentleman Jim is a wonderfully breezy picture that perfectly encapsulates not only the rise of the pugilistic prancer that was Corbett, but also the wind of change as regards the sport of boxing circa the 1890s.<br /><br />The story follows Corbett {a perfectly casted Errol Flynn} from his humble beginnings as a bank teller in San Fransico, thru to a chance fight with an ex boxing champion that eventually leads to him fighting the fearsome heavyweight champion of the world, John L Sullivan {beefcake personified delightfully by Ward Bond}. Not all the fights are in the ring tho, and it's all the spin off vignettes in Corbett's life that makes this a grand entertaining picture. There are class issues to overcome here {perfectly played out as fellow club members pay to have him knocked down a peg or two}, and Corbett has to not only fight to get respect from his so called peers, but he must also overcome his ego as it grows as briskly as his reputation does. Along with the quite wonderful Corbett family, and all their stoic humorous support, Corbett's journey is as enthralling as it is joyous, yet as brash and as bold as he is, he is a very likable character, and it's a character that befits the tagged moniker he got of Gentleman Jim.<br /><br />The film never sags for one moment, and it's a testament to director Raoul Walsh that although we are eagerly awaiting the final fight, the outer ring goings on are keeping us firmly entertained, not even the love interest sub plot hurts this picture {thank you Alexis Smith}. The fight sequences stand up really well, and they perfectly show just how Corbett became the champ he was, his brand of dancing rings round slugger fighters is now firmly placed in boxing history. As the final reel rolls we all come down to earth as an after fight meeting between Sullivan and Corbett puts all the brutality into context, and it's here where humility and humbleness becomes the outright winner, and as far as this viewer goes..............it will do for me to be sure to be sure, 9/10 for a truly wonderful picture. | positive |
How anyone can praise this crude film version after seeing the marvelous WATERLOO BRIDGE with Vivien Leigh and Robert Taylor, is beyond comprehension.<br /><br />MAE CLARKE's Myra is a far cry from the role as played by VIVIEN LEIGH in the remake. She plays a common American girl with a Brooklyn accent and the "Yeah" responses are a bit jarring when one is expecting a less coarse character. DOUGLASS MONTGOMERY (billed in final credits as KENT DOUGLASS) is wildly improbable as a soldier smitten with her no matter how many times she lets him down. BETTE DAVIS has a nothing role in a bit part.<br /><br />Their melodramatic confrontations during the last twenty minutes of the film are beyond belief (extravagant bits of overacting)--even given the fact that this is a cruder version of the story when sound was only a few years old and silent acting was still the rage.<br /><br />Just awful. And it ends abruptly with Clarke losing her life during a bombing on the bridge. The End.<br /><br />It has none of the beautifully shaded performances in the MGM remake of 1940, including a sterling supporting cast. Instead, this one is mounted with low-budget production values (and I mean a shoe-string budget) with no subtlety at all. And there's no pre-code braveness in the scene where Myra tells the aristocratic lady why she must not marry her son, Roy. She simply says, "I picked him up on Waterloo Bridge." Explanation over. Nothing bold there.<br /><br />Summing up: For once, the original is not the best version by any means. VIVIEN LEIGH and ROBERT TAYLOR have never been surpassed as Myra and Roy in the tender, exquisitely acted 1940 film classic. | negative |
I consented to watching this movie with a group of friends despite my extreme dislike for horror movies. However, it was not the shock of a monster that turned me off this movie, it was the horrendous acting and absolutely disgusting ending. Within, or the Cavern, has no redeeming qualities- it is poorly made, laughably scripted, sickeningly bloody and the inclusion of the gratuitous final scene repulses me. No, it is not my dislike for horror movies that makes me hate this film-I've seen such wonderful teen horrors as "House of Wax", its the fact that the film leaves you with the awful understanding that by renting the video, you are supporting the creators of Within | negative |
G&M started a the odd couple downstairs in Man About the House and went on to amusing the nation in their own sitcom.<br /><br />What was the typical small-scale personal charm of the couples chemistry on the small screen, G&M's transferral to the big screen was as appalling as genuis's Morcombe and Wise, and countless fine TV shows.<br /><br />Unfunny. Unsatisfying and featuring an ill Yootha Joyce who died before the film was released. | negative |
Felix in Hollywood is a great film. The version I viewed was very well restored, which is sometimes a problem with these silent era animated films. It has some of Hollywood's most famous stars making cameo animated appearances. A must for any silent film or animation enthusiast. | positive |
This was a very thought provoking film, especially for 1973. At the time it was actually a huge box office success. After the 1970s it appeared to be forgotten, but its central messages were too important to disappear completely.It was actually at least fifteen years ahead of its time...no one had ever heard of the 'greenhouse effect'before 1985, and the controversial subject of euthanasia was rarely brought up.<br /><br />The sets and special effects might look a little outdated, but big money for sci fi films was a gamble in that period. If you look closely you will see everything usually makes sense. This is a message movie, not for zonked out star wars fans that cant sit through one minute of thought stimulation unless it contains a million bucks worth of explosions.<br /><br />This was also Hestons last good film, the end of his famous dystopian sci fi trilogy. After that it was all overblown disaster epics and big budget crowd pleasing trash. THis might not be the most amusing two hour movie ever made, and the ending might be creepy and depressing, but its hard to find any film producer with guts anymore who would tackle a subject like this. | positive |
Now I've seen it all. Just when I thought it couldn't get any more pathetic and cheesy than "Woodchipper Massacre," just when I thought dialogue and acting couldn't get worse than "Nail Gun Massacre," just when I thought "Don't Go In The Woods" would retain its title as Lousiest Slasher Film Ever, along comes "THE LAST SLUMBER PARTY!" Somehow, this cheap, wretched manure manages to avoid lewdness, but it remains terrible! I couldn't believe my eyes--for once I can't complain about excessive (or in this case, any) nudity in a slasher film, but it still managed to make me crimson with embarrassment for renting it. Never before have I seen such horrible acting, dialect, direction, writing,....I could go on forever with this list! Here's a quick run-down:<br /><br />A mental patient somehow escapes from the loony bin, dresses up like a surgeon, somehow finds out where his doctor lives, and breaks in while the doctor's daughter is having friends over for the night. Then begins the most stupid killing spree (ripped off from other movies such as "Slumber Party Massacre" and Halloween") this side of the universe. The characters have negative IQs, which suggests they are not human. Then again, I guess they are not, since they have the tendency to bleed Kool-Aid when they get cut, as the slasher likes to show use when he holds up his scapel to the camera in WAY too many scenes. It is only 80 minutes...how many times must we look at that scapel like that before it consumes the whole movie?...which I suppose wouldn't be all that bad of an idea in this case! There is one moment where I thought maybe, just maybe, the director would make it interesting (a second killer was added), but alas! It was not to be! And then to insult even further, there is a stupid super cop-out sub-ending and an even stupider final conclusion. That probably doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but I would hate to give away the dumbest few scenes in movie history to those two or three fools (like me) dumb enough to rent this sewage.<br /><br />I sure hope that, by writing this, I have saved 80 minutes of someone's life. I get on my hands and knees to beg anyone still thinking about renting this: PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE DON'T! This is a fan of the slasher genre talking; I know what is good for you! The only real victims in this rattlebrained, asinine nonsense are the poor morons that have sat through the whole toilet tank! Zanatos's score...since there is no negative point scale, I have to give it a 1, but a below-average 1 at that. Avoid it at all costs....please!!!! | negative |
Of course, all this nonsense begs the question 'Does a genre as self-referential as the teen comedy really need another parody movie?' The woeful 'Scary Movie' (I and II) took the formula about as far as it could go - 'Not Another Teen Movie' really doesn't have anything either intelligent or shockingly excessive to add.<br /><br />The plot, essentially based on fairyfloss teenflic 'She's All That', walks a shaky line between parody and homage ('John Hughes High School'). Everything from 'American Beauty' to 'Varsity Blues' is mined for references. The result is ultimately an unfulfilling viewer experience. The downside of giving us a carbon copy plot of 'She's All That' is that we all know where its going anyway. And if we didn't then the jokes would be meaningless.<br /><br />There's extremely little to recommend here. The token gross-out scene (an erupting toilet) seems badly out of place here amongst all the 'feel-good' references. There are moments of humour - the song is funny enough and the odd good line is send the audiences way. It stinks, don't watch it. | negative |
Just like all of Mel Brooks' other comedies, Men in Tights is hilarious. But in seeing this as an outrageous comedy, I think many fail to realize that the reason the movie is so funny is that the characters themselves are acted so well. Elwes is the well-spoken former British noble, Lewis is an eternally annoyed king (I hope it's worth all the NOOOOOOIIIISE!), DeLuise is a FANTASTIC godfather, Roger Rees is a worried and cynical sheriff.... The actors and actresses are so loyal to their parts that the jokes flow forth with ease. Yes, we've seen this kind of comedy before, but the only comedy to achieve better character development, in my opinion, is The Big Lebowski. Very very funny. | positive |
I'll give it a two because it has a lot of music, otherwise it would be a one.<br /><br />I saw this movie for the first time tonight and it's the first "Road" picture I've seen. I was expecting waaaaay better. Robert Osborn says this is the best of the Road movies. If that's true I needn't bother to see the others. The best thing about this movie is that it has a lot of songs in the first half, but that's balanced out by only one production number with dancing in the entire movie.<br /><br />I didn't like the movie. Neither Hope nor Crosby came across all that well, their characters weren't very charming, the movie was not funny at all, most of the dialog was just lame filler, there wasn't much action, there wasn't much spectacle.<br /><br />The movie wasn't what I expected. I was expecting more "Road," but there isn't much. They quickly make it to the palace and then most of the movie takes place there, until the end. I was also expecting a lot more of the famous "road" style of breaking the fourth wall, wherein the characters talk directly to the audience or comment on the plot. There was only about 4 instances of that. One of those is an example of the non-funny humor of this script:<br /><br />(Hope recaps the plot up to now to Crosby) Crosby: I know all that! Hope: Yeah but the people that came in half-way through the picture don't. Crosby: You mean they missed my song?<br /><br />Those are two weak punchlines, but at least they are actually jokes. Much of the rest of the script doesn't even have any jokes. An example is: <br /><br />Crosby: Remind me to throw you a piece of cheese in the morning. (Indirectly calling Hope a rat).<br /><br />That's not funny at all, it barely even qualifies as a joke, but that's the kind of non-joke dialog that carries most of the movie. Many of the scenes don't even come that close to a joke, just using generic uninteresting dialog like:<br /><br />Crosby: Hey, whadda ya' take me for? You think that you can just throw me to the dogs? Hope: Well why not, you did it to me didn't you? Crosby: Yeah but that's because I was lookin' out for us. You're not lookin' out for nobody. Hope: Oh yeah? Well then why did I pay the check?<br /><br />(the above is just from my memory. It's not exact but it illustrates to you what I mean).<br /><br />And so on....just generic dialog with no jokes at all.<br /><br />My grade: A waste of time. | negative |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.