review stringlengths 32 13.7k | sentiment stringclasses 2 values |
|---|---|
This movie is awesome due to the fact that it showed how good cartoons really looked in the 80s,the animators were not lazy like they are today,the cartoon had so much detail with very little resources they have with them compared with what we have today.If more people would request these cartoons to be rebroadcast then maybe all of the other 80s cartoons would be shown on television once again,therefore to finish my sentence i would just like to say that this was a cartoon that i grew up with and really would like it to be on tv once again. | positive |
Take away all parts of the movie that were "present" day and stick to the flashbacks. Then you would have had a great story. Faith and Wolf's story and their relationship was the best part. Diaz and Eccleston were wonderful. Brewster was ponderous to sit through. Surprised to see Blythe Danner as mom. She was great. Also look for Patrick Bergen as the father, always like him (Sleeping with the Enemy). This is a very hippy, save the world, kind of film. Don't care for it much, but I recommend seeing it for Diaz's performance alone. She has excellent range and it should be used more. Eccleston is, as always, compelling. He's wonderful! | positive |
I was first introduced to this movie while in San Antonio, Tx. This movie was the 2nd. in a double feature. Unfortunately, the theater where I saw this was torn down. Anyways, Five Fingers of Death (aka: King Boxer), was released in 1972 and introduced in the U.S. the following year. Like a lot of "other" Kung-Fu movies released while riding on the "coat-tails" of Enter the Dragon, this particular movie actually was pretty good. It's the story of a country boy who is sent to a martial arts institute to better himself & his fighting skills. Meanwhile, the "opponent" martial arts school plans & scheme to thwart our hero, utilizing dirty tactics to try to throw him off track & try to prevent him from participating in the tournament. By surprise, I had thought since Warner Bros. distributed this movie in the U.S., Warner Bros. was going to issue a DVD. It never happened. As far as I know, this movie has been released in both English & Cantonise, w/sub-titles.....the latter a more "cleaner & clearer" version. Although the fighting sequences are a bit funny to watch (i.e.: flying in air & hitting, jumping on buildings, a fighter using his head....literally....to hit his opponent, etc.), nonetheless, it's classic kung-fu action wonderfully planned & executed. If you like Enter the Dragon, Five Fingers of Death would be an excellent addition to any Movie collection.....if you can find it. | positive |
This movie may seem scary on commercials, but the actual movie was a reason to vomit. This is a below below average, (even lower than that) and has no plot. I mean every house can make you feel scared and sure, a dead Japanese woman would scare the poop out of you, but so what? Make a movie that would appeal to watchers and not just show images of scared people and some hair (dead Japanese woman). Can you say "horrible rip-off of Samara (The Ring)"? Don't get me started with the "dead child". Not even that scary! So what? He has a cat and he can imitate it, big freaking deal! Just bury the poor zombies and save some lives that have the potential of being harmed by the Grudge! 1/10! Yuck! >.< | negative |
I sat through both parts of Che last night, back to back with a brief bathroom break, and I can't recall when 4 hours last passed so quickly. I'd had to psyche myself up for a week in advance because I have a real 'thing' about directors, producers and editors who keep putting over blown, over long quasi epics in front of us and I feel that on the whole, 2 to 2.5 hours is about right for a movie. So 4 hours seemed to be stretching the limits of my tolerance and I was very dubious about the whole enterprise. But I will say upfront that this is a beautifully I might say lovingly made movie and I'm really glad I saw it. Director Steven Soderbergh is to be congratulated on the clarity of his vision. The battle scenes zing as if you were dodging the bullets yourself.<br /><br />If there is a person on the planet who doesn't know, Ernesto 'Che' Guevara was the Argentinian doctor who helped Fidel Castro overthrow Fulgencio Batista via the 1959 Cuban revolution. When I was a kid in the 1960s, Che's image was everywhere; on bedroom wall posters, on T shirts, on magazine covers. Che's image has to be one of the most over exploited ever. If the famous images are to be relied on, then Che was a very good looking guy, the epitome of revolutionary romanticism. Had he been butt ugly, I have to wonder if he would have ever been quite so popular in the public imagination? Of course dying young helps.<br /><br />Movies have been made about Che before (notably the excellent Motorcycle Diaries of 2004 which starred the unbearably cute Gael Garcia Bernal as young Che, touring South America and seeing the endemic poverty which formed his Marxist politics) but I don't think anyone has ever tackled the entire story from beginning to end, and this two-parter is an ambitious project. I hope it pays off for Soderbergh but I can only imagine that instant commercial success may not have been uppermost in his mind.<br /><br />The first movie (The Agentine) shows Che meeting Castro in Mexico and follows their journey to Cuba to start the revolution and then the journey to New York in 1964 to address the UN. Cleverly shot black and white images look like contemporary film but aren't. The second film (Guerilla) picks up again in 1966 when Che arrives in Bolivia to start a new revolutionary movement. The second movie takes place almost entirely in the forest. As far as I can see it was shot mostly in Spain but I can still believe it must have been quite grueling to film. Benicio Del Toro is excellent as Che, a part he seems born to play.<br /><br />Personally, I felt that The Argentine (ie part one) was much easier to watch and more 'entertaining' in the strictly movie sense, because it is upbeat. They are winning; the Revolution will succeed. Che is in his element leading a disparate band of peasants, workers and intellectuals in the revolutionary cause. The second part is much harder to watch because of the inevitability of his defeat. In much the same way that the recent Valkyrie - while being a good movie - was an exercise in witnessing heroic failure, so I felt the same about part two of Che (Guerilla). We know at the outset that he dies, we know he fails. It is frustrating because the way the story is told, it is obvious fairly early on that the fomentation of revolution in Bolivia is doomed; Che is regarded as a foreign intruder and fails to connect with the indigenous peoples in the way that he did with the Cubans. He doggedly persists which is frustrating to watch because I felt that he should have known when to give up and move on to other, perhaps more successful, enterprises. The movie does not romanticise him too much. He kills people, he executes, he struggles with his asthma and follows a lost cause long after he should have given up and moved on, he leaves a wife alone to bring up five fatherless children.<br /><br />But overall, an excellent exercise in classic movie making. One note; as I watched the US trained Bolivian soldiers move in en masse to pick off Che and his small band of warriors one by one, it reminded me of the finale to Butch Cassidy. I almost turned to my husband and said so, but hesitated, thinking he would find such thoughts trite and out of place. As we left the theatre he turned to me and said "Didn't you think the end was like Butch Cassidy
!" | positive |
Somebody mastered the difficult task of merging sports with romance. In reality, sports and romance go together like oil and water. So, to successfully put the two together on screen... well, that is about the equivalent of splitting the atom. I never thought it could be done. I will be the first to say that in general I don't like romantic comedies... but I do like sports and most movies about sports. This movie was a pretty good mix of the two. Being a baseball fan, I could really appreciate the comedic ordeal with Ben Wrightman (Jimmy Falon) being a rabid Boston Redsox fan. Anyone who knows anything about baseball knows the curse of the Babe that plagued the Redsox for 86 years, and they know just how nuts about baseball a lot of Redsox fans are. The Farrely brothers did a great job capturing that and it made for good comedy. This was a very good movie that could appeal to many. | positive |
stars: Julianna Donald, Lonny Price and Louis Zorich. cameos: Art Carney, Brooke Sheilds, Liza Minelli, James Coco, Joan Rivers, Dabney Coleman, Linda Lavin, Gregory Hines and others.<br /><br />Muppeteers: Jim Henson as Kermit, Rowlf, Dr.Teeth, Swedish Chef, Waldorf, Ernie and others.<br /><br />Richard Hunt as Scooter, Janice, Statler and Beaker.<br /><br />Frank Oz as Fozzie Bear, Miss Piggy, Animal, Bert, Cookie Monster and Sam the Eagle.<br /><br />Jerry Nelson as Camilla the chicken, Floyd Pepper, Lew Zealand, Crazy Harry and Pops.<br /><br />Dave Goelz as Gonzo, Zoot, Beuregard and Bunsen Hunnydew.<br /><br />Steve Whittemire as Rizzo the rat and others.<br /><br />Another great Muppet flick. This time, Kermit, Fozzie, Miss Piggy, Scooter, Rowlf, The Electric Mayhem, Gonzo and Camilla the chicken are out of college and starring in a musical that they're trying to get on Broadway. After miserably failing at getting it produced, they all split up and go their separate ways. I love the characters and cameos. The songs in the film are "Together Again", "Look at Me, Here I am", "Saying Goodbye", "And I'm Going to Always Love You", "Rat Jazz" and "He'll Make Me Happy". Frank Oz directs this movie excellently and all the actors do a great job acting like the Muppets are real. See it! 91 minutes. Rated G. My rating: A. | positive |
I was going through a list of Oscar winners and was surprised to see that this film beat Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid for best picture in 1969. After actually seeing it, however, I'm not surprised anymore. It was way ahead of its time in regards to its style, cinematography, and use of flashback to help develop Joe Buck's character.<br /><br />The most amazing thing to me is the depth of Joe Buck's character in such a short movie. I think Voight captured the naivete and the viciousness-when-provoked. The two scenes that really caught me were after he gets the blowjob in the theater and when the older man solicits him. I think when he looks in the mirror he's trying to see if it's really him that has done- or is about to do- something terrible.<br /><br />I think it was a brilliant decision by Hoffman to take this role. Otherwise he may have been typecast after the Graduate. Anyway, this considered an all-time great for a reason. | positive |
I was VERY disappointed with this film. I expected more of a Thelma and Louise female-buddy crime movie. Instead, the women prison escapees in this flick, had no sense of loyalty to one another. They were an extremely vulgar pack of hyenas, who beat each other up, double-crossed each other, and even committed lesbian rape against other women in the film.<br /><br />Instead of being shrewed thieves, who stuck together to plan their escape and find the hidden stash of money, the women escapees were too selfish and vicious, to trust each other for long. These women weren't liberated in a positive sense. They just ended up being a bunch of loose-cannons, incapable of respect for themselves, or each other. If you like 70s female crime caper films, skip this bomb, and see The Great Texas Dynamite Chase, which stars Claudia Jennings and Jocelyn Jones. | negative |
This was very energetic and well played show. I saw it back in 98 and my friends and i still joke about it. Each time I watch it's always as funny as the first. I also love the way that everyone can relate to it in their own particular ways. I am very much looking forward to seeing more of John's own scripts and productions. <br /><br />Unfortunately I can't find it anywhere for sale, and I've done quite a lot of looking. If anyone knows a website or store to refer me to, I would very much appreciate it as I am looking for his other live performances as well. Please send me a message if any of you have info on the subject. Thankyou. | positive |
This is a beautiful, rich, and very well-executed film with a rich and meaningful story. Basically, it tells how an old master story teller needs to find a (male) heir to carry on his craft, but ends up not getting what he expected in his very male-dominated world. The characters must then deal with their situation and the old master must grapple with the conflict between his desire for a companion and heir and his and society's traditional notions.<br /><br />The story is fun, emotional, and complex. The exploration of the characters, their lives, and emotions, is rich and compelling the character development is strong while the characters are complex and not one dimensional at all. The film expertly conveys the old man's emotions and his desire to find an heir, and compellingly shows how he and the kid handle the situation. There is also humour, sometimes quite subtle, at appropriate points. The film also examines the good and bad of traditional Chinese culture, creating further interest and depth to the film.<br /><br />The directing, acting, and scenery are all outstanding. Added to the other strengths, this creates rich and convincing visual images and compelling, real characters. As a result, the film evokes strong empathy for, and feelings about, the characters.<br /><br />Some have claimed that the ending weakens the film, but I do not necessarily agree. Perhaps it could have been stronger with a different ending, but any improvement in the overall film would have been rather small. | positive |
Twenty years ago, the five years old boy Michael Hawthorne witnessed his father killing his mother with an axe in an empty road and committing suicide later. On the present days, Michael (Gordon Currie) invites his girlfriend Peg (Stacy Grant) and his best friends Chris (Myc Agnew), Jennifer (Emmanuelle Vaugier), Lisa Ann (Kelly Benson), Ned (Brendon Beiser), Mitch Maldive (Phillip Rhys) and Trish (Rachel Hayward) to spend the Halloween in the country with his grandparents in their farm. He asks his friends to wear costumes that would represent their greatest innermost fear, and together with his Indian friend Crow (Byron Chief Moon), they would perform an ancient Indian celebration using the carved wooden dummy Morty (Jon Fedele) that would eliminate their fears forever. The greatest fear of Michael is to become a serial killer like his father, but something goes wrong and Morty turns into his father, killing his friends.<br /><br />"The Fear: Resurrection" is a disappointing and pointless slash movie that uses the interesting concept of eliminating the greatest innermost fear of each friend before it grows, but in a messy screenplay full of clichés. There are some exaggerated performances, like for example Ms. Betsy Palmer; others very weak, but in general the acting is good. Unfortunately there is no explanation why the dummy is brought to live; further, in spite of being surrounded by close friends, the group does not feel pain or sorrow when each one of them dies. The low-pace along more than fifty minutes could have been used to built a better dramatic situation. In the very end, Michael shows a charm that his father was interested that I have not noticed along the story. I do not know whether the previous reference was edited in the DVD released in Brazil with 87 minutes running time. The special effects are very reasonable for a B-movie. My vote is four.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Fear 2: Uma Noite de Halloween" ("Fear 2: One Night of Halloween") | negative |
I must confess to not having read the original M R James story although I have read many of his other supernatural tales. I've also seen most of the previous BBC Christmas Ghost Stories and this one, in my opinion, surpasses most of them, only equalling The Signalman.<br /><br />I can't really fault A View From a Hill - the direction and 'mood' is perfect, as is the acting, lighting and, of course, the story and writing. I thoroughly enjoyed this and can only hope for more of this quality from the same director and production team. I understand that the BBC plan to make some more (not necessarily based on M R James stories) so that's promising.<br /><br />10/10 | positive |
I must admit - the only reason I bought this movie was because I am a big fan of Gackt and a *huge* fan of Hyde. I was expecting a good movie with a lot of shots that were, shall we say, pleasing to the feminine eye but a slightly cheesy story. I mean, the synopsis sounded really out there. And now that I have just finished watching it - I feel the need to tell the world of its brilliance! Hyde and Gackt both gave heart-wrenching performances, and my eyes are still hot from the crying that lasted throughout the last half of the movie. You get sucked into the story, and you really feel for the characters by the end. The element of vampirism - which I love, but is very easy to overdo or to ruin a movie with - is subtly mixed into the storyline as to make it something merely exotic, normal to this setting, rather than a random unnecessary addition to the story. I ranked it at a 9 out of 10 at first...and then I went back and tried to think of why I wasn't giving it that last point. Came up with nothing. So a ten out of ten it is. After all - I'm not much of a critic - the fact that I'm bothering to write a review at all means I either really hate the movie or really love it. You can tell what side I'm on with Moon Child. | positive |
I am amazed at the amount of praise that is heaped on this movie by other commentators. To me it was rather a disappointment, especially the combination of historical facts, fantasy and the main character's internal turmoil does not work at all (in Vonnegut's book Slaughterhouse Five and even in George Roy Hill's adaptation for the screen it does). Credibility is often overstretched. Too many questions are left open. Did I miss some central points? Or did I fail to spot the lines that supposedly connect the dots? <br /><br />A boy called Campbell, Jr., grows up in upstate New York. At home his father has many technical trade papers and one book. It has photographs of heaps of dead bodies in it. The boy leafs through the book, his dad doesn't like his doing that. What should this tell me? The family moves away from upstate New York to Berlin. BANG. It is 1938, the boy is a married man in Berlin and a theater playwright. What kind of plays does he write? In what language? Is he successful? His wife is an actress and looks glamorous. The parents move back to the USA and invite their son to do the same. He does not. Why? Because having grown up in Germany he feels more German than American? Because he is successful? Because his wife is? Because he likes his life there? Because he likes the Nazis? Because he is just plain lazy and doesn't like change? Don't ask me.<br /><br />Possibly, the man just does not care, is not interested in politics, is a kind of an existentialist. He states that he is deeply in love with his wife. He speaks of his Republic of Two (meaning he and his wife). There is little to no evidence proving his love for his wife in the movie, it much more seems a Republic of One.<br /><br />On the request of an American agent Campbell, Jr., agrees to broadcast anti Semitic Nazi hate propaganda to American listeners as a device for transmitting encrypted messages to American authorities who read between the lines. The crucial meeting with the agent on a Berlin park bench is short, unexciting and anti climactic, the decision to play along comes pretty easily with no explanation, the rise up to broadcaster seems to be uneventful and apparently fast.<br /><br />So now we have Campbell, Jr., presenting himself over the air as the Last Free American. The scheme for transmitting secret messages is fairly realistic and exciting - although one wonders what happened when Campbell, Jr., really and honestly had to cough, hiccup etc. (must have scrambled the messages terribly). Anyway, the Nazis lose, the wife dies (touring in the Crimean for German troops - I never heard such tours really happened on German front lines in WW II), Campbell, Jr., says he goes to the Russian front but does not go, is captured by an American soldier who recognizes his mug (how come?), is dragged to a sight-seeing tour in Auschwitz, is then released and resettled with the help of the Crucial Agent somewhere in the City of New York.<br /><br />AND THIS IS WHERE THE STORY REALLY STARTS <br /><br />BANG. From now on it is like a short story by Paul Auster. It is 1961, Campbell, Jr., lives in New York tenement as a has-been and mourns the loss of his wife. Nobody really cares - or do they? Yes, somehow they do, and his neighbors offer some sort of distraction. Auschwitz survivors. A painter. Some American supremacists discover" him and want him to be their figurehead. They even find his presumed dead wife for him, or is she his wife? Anyway, in the end Campbell, Jr., calls in at the Israeli consulate, and they obligingly give him the Big War Criminal treatment, placing him in the cell adjacent to Adolf Eichmann's. He writes his life story and, once this task finished, hangs himself on the typewriter's ribbons without getting sooty the least bit.<br /><br />While I can see that there must be an issue of guilt and of loss, I just had the impression that the main character is a person who at all times is pretty indifferent to everything and hardly capable of love for anyone. So I found it difficult to sympathize for this looser who mourns his loss. Amazingly, many reviewers focus on his status as a potential war hero, having put his reputation at stake for playing the Last Free American. I assume according to them this took a lot of courage. As a matter of fact, however, the movie suggests that by accepting the assignment Campbell created for himself a win-win situation, as he would have been politically on the safe side no matter who had won the war. The danger of his being uncovered never comes up during the first part of the story.<br /><br />One might argue, that the whole story is a dreamlike fantasy and that nobody should bother with historical accuracy or a logical development of the story which explains everything. But even then it fails to make a point, primarily, I suspect, because the love affair in the Republic of Two falls completely flat. This is a pity, especially if you consider that the wife was played by Sheryl Lee, a talented, versatile and sensuous actress. She has much too little screen time and is forced to use a ridiculous German accent. Another somehow neglected aspect are the different texts (confession, broadcast and hidden messages), but I guess this is largely unfilmable. Maybe I should give the book a chance. | negative |
...was so that I could, in good conscience, tell everyone how horrible this movie is. I barely made it through twenty minutes before I started thinking to myself,"Wow, this is pretty bad.". And, to be honest, I would've given this movie 1 star if it wasn't for Esai Morales (though he had very little screen time). He's the movie's only well-acted role, which is a shame because I really like Gil Bellows...or at least I thought I did.<br /><br />While watching this I started thinking back to his part in "Shawshank Redemption" and realized it wasn't as good as I thought it was. Problem: his jail-house/tough guy act seems like it's just that, an act; his dialogue sounded like he was doing a very poor impression. Has he ever met someone who speaks like his character was SUPPOSED to? I doubt it, but maybe he should have.<br /><br />And, to make matters worse, they've managed to inject a little jail-house philosophy and make it seem nothing short of contrived, especially when you consider that the rhetoric was being spouted by a "rasta" who's accent was so strong that it seemed unnatural.<br /><br />I wouldn't normally slam a movie like this, but when I saw the movie it had a fairly favorable review. I felt like I was cheated and lied to, and I thought I should try to save someone the misery of having to watch this movie.<br /><br />I say BOOOOOOOO. | negative |
Many reviews here explain the story and characters of 'Opening Night' in some detail so I won't do that. I just want to add my comment that I believe the film is a wonderful affirmation of life.<br /><br />At the beginning Myrtle Gordon is remembering how 'easy' it was to act when she was 17, when she had youth and energy and felt she knew the truth. Experience has left her emotionally fragile, wondering what her life has been for and, indeed, if she can even continue living. A tragic accident triggers a personal crisis that almost overwhelms her.<br /><br />Almost - but not quite. At the eleventh hour she rediscovers the power of her art and reasserts herself ("I'm going to bury that bastard," she says of fellow actor Maurice as she goes on stage). It seems almost sadistic when Myrtle's director prevents people from helping her when she arrives hopelessly drunk for her first performance. He knows, however, that she has to have the guts to make it herself if she is to make it at all.<br /><br />Some critics wonder if this triumph is just a temporary pause on Myrtle's downward path. I believe this is truly her 'opening night' - she opens like a flower to new possibilities of life and action, she sees a way forward. It is tremendously moving.<br /><br />Gena Rowlands is superb. The film is superb. Thank you, Mr Cassavetes, wherever you are. | positive |
One can only assume that Robert Osborne is contractually obligated to express delight at even the least appealing films in the TCM library as this would explain him extolling the 'virtues' of this "charming" film during his introduction when I saw this on cable TV. Seeing as any old film on IMDb receives 'classic' status from a number of fawning amateur reviewers, I thought there was a dire need for a more honest review of this film.<br /><br />This is not your father's 'Shop Around the Corner'. For all my quibbles with 'You've Got Mail', it still outshines this as a remake in just about every way imaginable. For those who have seen the original, the flaws will only be all the more obvious.<br /><br />From one of the lamest Meet Cute sequences I can recall seeing (a sad slapstick attempt at 'humor'), this film gets off on the wrong foot and it never really gets back in step. This 'musical' only qualifies as one in the sparsest sense of the term. There are a sprinkling of instantly forgettable musical numbers and then there's Judy singing "I Don't Care" while flailing her arms around as if in a seizure. The Christmas song she sings in the store is probably one of her better numbers here. Miss Garland was wonderful in a number of musical films, but here she seems horribly miscast. The role was originally to have been filled by June Allyson and Judy is definitely unable to fill the shoes of Margaret Sullavan's old part. Van Johnson also turns in a rather bland performance as a second rate Jimmy Stewart type. The leads never achieve the chemistry of Stewart/Sullavan or even that of Hanks/Ryan.<br /><br />This is a film that knows (some of) the notes, but not the music. It doesn't really seem to understand why the original worked and even feels the need to add another possible love interest for Van Johnson's character to complicate things unnecessarily. The remake's substitution for the original's infidelity subplot is a hackneyed plot device involving a priceless violin. It is almost embarrassing to watch and feels as if it had perhaps been lifted from an episode of Three's Company by someone with a DeLorean and a flux capacitor. It's really just an excuse for a Keaton pratfall. Even the big resolution scene between the romantic leads is mishandled. After seeing both films, you'll understand why they called it 'the Lubitsch Touch' and NOT the 'Robert Z. Leonard Touch'.<br /><br />Avoid this and rewatch either the original film or one of Judy Garland's earlier films unless you're an iconoclast who enjoys seeing a once great star falling down to earth. | negative |
Visconti's masterpiece! I admit that I am unfamiliar with much of his work but I cannot imagine his other work surpassing this fabulous film. Last night I watched Death in Venice after an absence of about 25 years and was totally captivated by all that I saw. This captivation was a pastiche composed of many elements: The extraordinary shots directed by Visconte, primarily his love of long, languorous shots of people dining, swimming, walking and containing a significant character passing through this mass of people; the cinematographers brilliant interpretation of Visconti's shot selection; the acting by the principles without over-riding dialog and conveying the scenes complexity through facial features alone.<br /><br />It is true: young people watching this film for the first time must be aware that they are watching a unique film, a film that could not be made in 2006. A film whose time rests in those brief handful of years in the Sixties and early Seventies of the last century when artistic license was passed to film directors and money-men took secondary roles. As many of the recent IMDb commentator's have written, this film, in their judgment, is long, boring (too little action) and pretentious. I suppose by the standards of Hollywood pap, these comments contain merit. Unfortunately they tragically minimize the amazing beauty and depth of this work and others like it from those years.<br /><br />Please, if you have not seen Death in Venice, rent a copy and immerse yourself in a film and story from another time. You will be rewarded. | positive |
When I started watching "Fay Grim", I had no idea that it was a sequel to "Henry Fool". Now, the latter was not a movie that I envisioned as having a sequel. But one has arrived, and it's quite good. I assume that you've seen the original, so I won't explain it. This one starts with Fay (Parker Posey) living with her son whom she had with deadbeat Henry (Thomas Jay Ryan). Simon (James Urbaniak) is still in jail. One day, the son gets expelled for bringing a pornographic toy to school. But this is no ordinary toy. It holds a secret that explains much of what happened in the first movie. And this secret delves deeper into geopolitics than "Syriana".<br /><br />I must say that I'm quite impressed with what Hal Hartley has accomplished here. Maybe this one doesn't quite reach the original's quality, but it certainly takes a good look at what's going on in the world. And the end leaves open the possibility for another sequel.<br /><br />Also starring Jeff Goldblum. | positive |
This film appears to draw a borderline - on one side, those who love it, on the other, those who find it unbearable.<br /><br />To begin with, there is an awful lot of comedy in this film that many viewers are not "getting". Of course jet Li's Mask looks like Bruce Lee's Kato - he's supposed to, it's a joke. The guy who has a time-bomb sewn to his heart - outrageous? of course, it's a joke! Some readers will probably ask, if this film is supposed to be so funny, why all the excessive and gory violence? well, for one thing the tolerance for this level of violence is actually different, from culture to culture; and while Hong Kong audiences would recognize this violence is extreme, it's certainly only slightly more than average for a HK action film.<br /><br />Also, Black Mask is really the kind of film that takes a genre's conventions and pushes them to extremes, simply because the conventions themselves are wholly unrealistic. After decades of watching people get shot without any noticeable open wounds, many people were horrified to see Bonnie and Clyde and the outlaws of the Wild Bunch spurting blood all over the place. But the fact is, when you're shot with rapid metal projectile, it's almost certain that blood will spurt, especially from an artery.<br /><br />This film is a Chinese comic book movie. It is true that the Spiderman films never get this gory - but if they were faithful to reality, they would be! Well, despite its comic-book origins, this film is faithful to reality.<br /><br />The only complaint I have is the flashy, over-stylized filming and editing. If the makers of this film had shot it with an eye to Hollywood-style nostalgia (as, e.g., The Rocketeer, or the recent Sky captain film), I doubt anyone would have found it offensive.<br /><br />But as it stands, I still had a lotta fun watching this movie. | positive |
STMD! is one of the most fun and enjoyable low-budget films I've seen in quite some time. Director Jeff Smith (who also served as co-writer, cinematographer and editor) definitely shows his love of under-appreciated 80's horror films with this movie! Anyone who loves the cheesiness, preposterous situations, wacky and stereotypical characters of 80's horror movies will definitely love this very tongue-in-cheek homage to the past.<br /><br />STMD! definitely lives up to the qualities described in the poster and then some. It has all the "excessive violence" and "gratuitous nudity" that is reminiscent of those entertaining 80's horror movies we all love. I had a blast watching STMD! From the 80's outfits that the stereotypical characters wear to the blood splatter to the goofy tone I just couldn't get enough! | positive |
at least for me. and rather unexpected -as subject. a movie that makes you question your beliefs, your life, your approach on everything. that helps you see the world you , we live in through a lens - or a multitude of lens...a moving, surprising and haunting movie.<br /><br />and it benefits of one of the best performances ever from Kevin Spacey. seconded very well by Jeff Bridges. there isn't a false note in this tango. it's a perfect dance. perfect 'till the end.<br /><br />what does the ending reveal ? well...everything you want it to...<br /><br />a movie one will want to see again. maybe not right away. maybe after a few days. months. years. but it's something to go - or come - back to. | positive |
Cult classics are nearly impossible to predict. Who could guess that Vision Quest, Fight Club, and 2001: A Space Oddysey, movies that were panned by critics and audiences alike upon their release, would become immensely popular? Like many IMDBers, I consider myself a movie expert. Unlike the majority of those who hated Envy(evidenced by a dismal 4.4 rating), I found Envy to be one of the funniest movies in the last decade.<br /><br />The plot of the movie is ridiculous. The dialogue isn't clever, the scenes have little continuity, and the script seems like it was written by a fourth grader. But that's exactly why the movie is so hilarious. You see, in order to appreciate the accidental genius of Envy, you have to enjoy the movie from an ironically-detached point of view.<br /><br />Why do I love Envy? Because the movie is bad to the point that it becomes good. This is the recipe for a cult classic, and Envy definitely fits the bill. | positive |
First of all, I apologize for my English. <br /><br />Everybody from ex-Yugoslavia who isn't some extreme Serbian radical will agree with me. This movie, shows Serbian side, and only Serbian side. No Serbian crimes were represented. Luckily, everyone can see that this movie was made by Serbians, so there is no neutrality. All ''professionals'' who were interviewed are not professionals at all. Some guy only read a book written by some radical Serbian, the other one is genocide denier etc.etc.<br /><br />Even Slovenians were accused in this movie.And the whole war in Slovenia lasted for few days, and only because Slovenians were lucky.There weren't many Serbs in Slovenia, and YNA couldn't reach Slovenia trough Croatia (after Croatia-Serbia war started). Every Slovenian is outraged by all accusations in this movie. <br /><br />Every reasonable Croat will agree with one thing: The independence was too early. Perhaps all major conflicts could be avoided. However, mentioning WWII and some unrelated things was truly pathetic attempt to justify everything. Just imagine Japanese throwing nuclear bombs at Seattle and Washington, and saying that was justified by Hiroshima and Nagasaki. You will find no evidence about strangled YNA soldier, and murdered Serbian civilians near Vukovar. But you can find the tape with reporter committing that his claims about Serbian civilians near Vukovar were lies. All over the internet. And the director forgot to mention the whole bombing of Vukovar by YNA (now on Serbian and Montenegro side-and 100% full of Serbs and Montenegrin) And let's not start about the Chetnik movement. At the beginning, it was simply a resistance movement. But director somehow forgot to mention collaboration with the Nazis, including Ustashe, ethnic cleansing, and fighting again the Yugoslav partisans. There are thousands of other things, but all of it can be easily checked. There are many misleading things in this movie. Only few of all accusations are true. Every Croatian is outraged by this movie. <br /><br />I believe that I don't need to mention Srebrenica genocide denial, the genocide that has too many evidence. Imagine the movie about holocaust denial. This movie is the same. And according to this movie Bosnian Muslims in Sarajevo bombed themselves. Every Bosnian Muslim is outraged by this movie. <br /><br />Somehow director forgot to mention the short occupation of small piece of Macedonian (FYROM) land by the Serbs. <br /><br />Croatians, Slovenians, Bosnians, and Macedonians never entered Serbian borders. If you are not Serbian and you actually started to believe some things from this movie, know that Serbs have some kind of propaganda that Croats, Bosnian Muslims, and Macedonians are actually Serbs who made up their history. So...<br /><br />Even 50% of Serbs will say that this movie is ''little'' extreme and pro-Serbian. <br /><br />And Serbian radicals are very, very pleased with this movie (there is about 40% Serbs who vote for radicals).<br /><br />I think everyone understands my points in here. In this so called documentary is very little truth, and my advice to everyone is: Inform yourself before watching this movie. After that, you will only laugh at all pathetic accusations.<br /><br />Watch real, neutral documentaries about death of Yugoslavia. | negative |
One of the worst movies I ever saw. My only thought was: "how can I get my money back from Hollywood Video". This is no way worth four dollars, or any dollars. I think it was an attempt to rip off The Mexican, or Vin Diesel's movies, but it failed miserably to do this.<br /><br />The acting was terrible, I felt sorry for the actors that they couldn't find something better to do with their time. The story was ridiculous. We were calling out the lines ahead of the actors, it was so predictable. The Mexican accent of the leading lady was insultingly exaggerated, worse than a cartoon. <br /><br />Skip it. | negative |
WOW! What - a - movie !!!!!!!!!!! I'm not at all a fan of contemporary Italian directors. Usually I don't like dramas. I am not a Will Smith super fan even thinking that he is a very good actor......but this movie ! It is such a great movie with a such original script and so good direction and so well acting...wow...it is stunning. This movie captured my attention minute by minute and I even did not like "The pursuit of happiness" (maybe also because i did not like the acting of Will's son who is a very bad actor while children usually seems all natural born actors, I saw him also last night in "The day the earth stood still" and I confirmed my sensation that Jaden can't act). I don't want to write spoilers and so i don't talk about the story but what I can say is that this movie talks about Love, Death and other feelings which i don't like to watch in movies....but THIS MOVIE is such a super great movie. If you have a minimum of heart you'll don't regret watching it | positive |
Chris Rock, apparently desperate for a cozy star-vehicle which would cross his appeal over to white and mainstream black audiences, updates the hit 1978 comedy "Heaven Can Wait" with an urban agenda. He plays a struggling comedian involved in a car accident who has his soul removed too soon from his body--consequently, his angels must find another body to place him in, and can only come up with that of a white businessman. Rewriting a movie as bland and sentimental as "Heaven Can Wait" only shows that Rock's eye was on the box-office (this was strictly a corporate move organized by the most mercenary of Hollywood players). Why not strive for something loftier or more memorable than a silly reincarnation comedy that culminates with an Evening at the Apollo? Terrific supporting cast (including the usually-reliable Regina King, the wonderful Mark Addy, Wanda Sykes, Eugene Levy, and terrific Frankie Faison) do what they can, but Rock seems awkward and unsure of himself throughout. *1/2 from **** | negative |
I saw this movie as a very young girl (I'm 27 now) and it scared me witless for years. I had nightmares about every aspect of this film from the way it was drawn to the music to (obviously) the violence. My parents still argue about who allowed me to watch it and both of them say that they would never let me watch such a movie. I think they only say that knowing that I have such strong feelings about it ;0) I am currently reading the book (out of morbid curiosity and the fact that it's a classic) and it is really a great story. However I don't think that it should have been made into a cartoon. Ever. Well, maybe kids nowadays would find it quaint but it gave me nightmares for weeks and weeks and I still have a hard time seeing rabbits drawn in a similar way. Gives me a little heart palpitation every time. Yah I am a wuss but I strongly suggest that any parent looking to show this movie to their kids, read them the book instead or watch it first to make certain that they approve of the content. Not everyone finds it as disturbing as I did but we are out there ;0) | negative |
Directed and co-written by Eytan Fox the writer/director of the highly acclaimed 2002 mini feature "Yossi & Jagger" (2002). This comparative epic, at 1hr 53 minutes, is another fine romantic drama in which we must deal with tragedy as well as celebrate the beauty and joy in life. Westerners, especially urban gay men like myself, need to be moved outside our safety zone and be informed of the real life and death struggle elsewhere to be able to love with equity.<br /><br />While "Yossi & Jagger" focused on a pair of gay lovers in the closeted confines of Israeli military service, "Ha Buah" is centred on a group of civilian friends, both straight and gay, who share a unit in the heart of Israel's generally gay-tolerant, but not always gay-friendly, capital Tel Aviv.<br /><br />"Ha Buah" opens with a dramatic border check point scene in which Noam (Ohad Knoller Yossi from "Yossi & Jagger") first meets handsome young Arab Ashraf (Yousef Sweid). Romance soon blooms but in that political climate opportunities would have to be seized quickly or lost altogether.<br /><br />From there we follow an intricate interplay among the members and lovers of the housemates and the unavoidable effect of Ashraf's very conservative family. If you follow this film's dialogue attentively enough then you will have no reason to be disappointed with the ending.<br /><br />The soundtrack for "Ha Buah" is vibrant and the visuals are both beautiful and stark i.e. real life in the Middle East.<br /><br />The English subtitles are very easy to follow and you quickly relax and appreciate world cinema at its best. | positive |
The Contaminated Man is a good film that has a good cast which includes William Hurt, Natascha McElhone, Peter Weller, Katja Woywood, Michael Brandon, Nikolett Barabas, Hendrick Haese, Désirée Nosbusch, Arthur Brauss, and Christopher Cazenove.The acting by all of these actors is very good. Hurt and Weller are really excellent in this film. I thought that they performed good. The thrills is really good and some of it is surprising. The movie is filmed very good. The music is good. The film is quite interesting and the movie really keeps you going until the end. This is a very good and thrilling film. If you like William Hurt, Natascha McElhone, Peter Weller, Katja Woywood, Michael Brandon, Nikolett Barabas, Hendrick Haese, Désirée Nosbusch, Arthur Brauss, Christopher Cazenove, the rest of the cast in the film, Actio, Thrillers, Dramas, and interesting films then I strongly recommend you to see this film today! | positive |
This movie is terrible. The suspense is spent waiting for a point. There isn't much of one.<br /><br />Aside from a few great lines ( "I found a tooth in my apartment" ), and the main characters dedication to killing himself, it's a collection of supposedly eerie sounds.<br /><br /> | negative |
It's said that this film is or was banned in the US since it was released. Since there is no information on IMDb I must rely on my other sources and believe it. If this is really true, the movie is even more hurtful and frightening and is it is anyway.<br /><br />The movie is a so-called mockumentary, although I think the topic is too serious call it like that. It creates a scenario where America is like a military state and all revolutionary objects are arrested immediately without proof. After an obligatory tribunal they have to decide if they go to prison for some years or choose the punishment park. In that, they have to walk through the desert for three days to reach an american flag, posted 50 miles ahead, while they're are followed by police and army troops.<br /><br />The movie itself pretends to be a documentary about these incidents and follows both the tribunals and the hunting through the desert, filmed by european film crews. All the facts are explained, the interviewers ask questions and film everything. People stare directly into the camera, shouting at it. It seems very, very real. Talking about realism here is nonsense. This movie is not about how to make a realistic film, it is about how such a film would look like, if it was real. And it certainly would look like this. If it would be filmed anyway. In an 'utopian' state like this, there surely wouldn't be a european film crew allowed to film those things.<br /><br />There are many things that frighten us. The defendants are people from all social classes. Political leaders, musicians, authors, philosophists, unemployed, etc. They seem to be hopeless, rebellious or scared. They are no heroes. They talk a lot in the tribunal, knowing it doesn't lead to anything, saying nevertheless all they said in speeches and books and songs before. One says he's not afraid to die. Is this true? Well, he doesn't have to run through the desert hunted by cops. The defendants have no chance, or at least, their only chance, the decision between prison and punishment park, is no chance really. The way they decide in the end and the way film ends, makes it clear that this kind of heroism is suicide.<br /><br />These tribunals remind us a lot of tribunals in the Third Reich. The officials use the same kind of idealistic speeching, ignoring all the arguments from the defendants, starting to scream at them and then telling them they should be quiet. They warn the defendants of "watching their language" and insult them much more. They ask them questions, the defendants can not answer, but it's never intendend they should. These scenes are a statement about what we call justice.<br /><br />The scenes in the desert are on a different level. When we see the prisoners for the first time, we realize that they realize, they haven't got a chance. Seeing the desert and the mountains, feeling the sun and the thirst, they don't have a clue how they should stand this free days. The film crew follows them and talks to them while they try to escape this madness. They argue, should they play the game, or escape, or revolt? It all leads to the same and no one is surprised. Some will question if such parks would exist in reality in such a state? Why not? It empties the prisons and allows the government to punish the revolutionaries as they want to. It is not a gas chamber, but the Nazis killed jews before concentration camps were built. The comparison is fair, since they is no real difference.<br /><br />The movie is scary and depressing. The problems that are talked about sound to familiar to ignore. These is not science-fiction. Talking about poverty, unemployment and crime is not utopic. The film shows us that government and democracy as it is presented to us, is not only useless, but dangerous. It also shows us that revolution is not definitely the solution. The defendants seem to be confused because they don't really know how to fight this. They do things, but for nothing. Even is this delivers no solution to us, it still is a statement.<br /><br />To me, the most frightening thing is the fact of the banning of this movie. Here we have a film that accuses the loss of freedom, moral and peace. It accuses the government, a fictional goverment nevertheless, to be dangerous and inhuman. And such a film is banned. Think about it when you see the american flag the next time. | positive |
A thin story with many fine shots. Eyecatchers here are the three ladies from the D.R.E.A.M. team. And, to a lesser extent, the guy accompanying them. Traci Lords convincingly acts out the female half of an evil business-couple intending to poison the world with antrax. Original in this movie is the bra-bomb, put on a captured member of the D.R.E.A.M.-team. Of course she is rescued by a co-member, three seconds before explosion. Although clearly lent from James Bond's 'Goldfinger' and 'You only live twice', such a climax always works well. All in all a nice watch, James Bond replaced here by three Charlie's Angels. | positive |
Red Eye starts in Texas where hotel receptionist Lisa Reisert (Rachel McAdams) is about to catch the last 'red eye' flight back to Miami where she lives & works. While waiting for her plane Lisa meets the handsome & charming Jackson Rippner (Cillian Murphy) & they both seem to hit it off, then when they board the plane they discover that by a coincidence they are seated next to each other. Once the plane takes off & they are in the air Jackson reveals who he really is & that their seemingly chance meeting was not a coincidence, Jackson says that he is working for someone who wants to assassinate the homeland security secretary Charles Keefe (Jack Scalia) & they need her to change his rooms at the hotel where she works in Miami. Jackson tells Lisa to phone the hotel & make it happen or her father will be killed...<br /><br />Directed by Wes Craven who is perhaps better known for his horror films such as The Last House on the Left (1972), A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984), The Serpent and the Rainbow (1989), The People Under the Stairs (1991) & the Scream trilogy of teen slashers a short, punchy, fast paced little thriller like Red Eye seems like a big departure from the sort of film Craven usually makes. The script by Carl Ellsworth makes for a surprisingly gripping thriller that I must admit I really enjoyed, at only 85 odd minutes in length it's a very quick moving, economical & straight to the point sort of film that focuses almost entirely on one tight, taught plot rather than go off in various directions with lots of subplots. Some may like this approach like I did while other's may not but I think it draws you into the action a lot more as it comes thick & fast without the film slowing down any & giving you a chance to relax. I really liked the plot for Red Eye, sure a film like this is always going to have one or two questionable moments in terms of plotting but what the hell, it's a film made to entertain & for me that's what it did. I really liked the two central character's, Lisa comes across as very likable while Jackson Rippner (an obvious play on the name of the notorious Victorian serial killer Jack the Ripper) is a suitably slimy villain with a cold 'I'm only doing my job' type mentality. Another plus point is that I didn't think anyone behaved overly stupid here, everyone actually seemed like human beings & the films plays out in a relatively plausible fashion. I really liked this & it's one of Craven's better more recent films.<br /><br />Craven turns in a good solid tense, tight, taught & fast paced thriller with an attractive cast, some good action & a gripping plot. He certainly doesn't hang about & once he starts the action & tension he never lets up, far & away the most effective part of the film is when Rippner is holding Lisa hostage on the plane & once the film switches to Miami & Lisa's fathers house it does become a little bit more routine but it's still good. A special mention goes to Rachel McAdams who is absolutely gorgeous in this, I could probably watch Red Eye again just because she is in it & looks drop dead stunning. Those who see Wes Craven's name attached to Red Eye expecting a horror film should think again since there's no horror in it at all (despite the IMDb listing 'Horror' as Red Eye's genre). I am not sure about the ending, on the one hand it was nice to see the villain live for a change which goes against traditional expectation but it might have been more satisfying to see Lisa kill him in some way.<br /><br />DreamWorks apparently gave Red Eye an initial budget of $44,000,000 but reduced it to $25,000,000 although it's still a very well made film with glossy production values. Actually shot in Los Angeles & Florida in California. The film was supposedly written with husband & wife Sean Penn & Robin Wright Penn intended for the leads but eventually the makers opted for younger leads. As I have already said Rachel McAdams is pure eye candy & is a total babe in this & worth watching the film for on her own. Oh, & she puts in a decent performance too.<br /><br />Red Eye is a really fast paced taught tension filled little thriller that I enjoyed immensely, I didn't think I would enjoy it as much as I did & I am glad I decided to watch it. This definitely gets a recommendation from me & Rachel McAdams really is hot stuff in this... | positive |
I actually though that Black Snake Moan was great movie which takes place in the south. The story follows a man named Lazarus whose wife dumps him for his brother and finds Rae abandoned and beaten up on the side of the road. Lazarus finds out that Rae is a sex addict and was abused as a child so he decides to take matters into his own hands by tying up Rae with a chain to cure her of her wickedness. Samuel L Jackson and Christina Ricci have great chemistry together and their performances make you believe that through their struggles and search for redemption that Lazarus and Rae become best friends. I was also amazed by Sam's ability to play an electric guitar and being able to sing. S Epatha Merrkensen is great as Lazarus' love interest Angela, Justin Timberlake plays Rae's boyfriend Ronnie who is underused in the film but does the best that he can to deliver a fine performance. | positive |
This movie was terrible. The acting was awful. The script was awful. What was even worse were the camera shots and sound. Half the time the voices did not match up with the actors lips, and different camera angles in the same scene would be completely different hues. The worst part had to be when one of the actors was at the top of a huge cross-shaped building. The building had to have been 50 stories high, and probably 100 feet wide. However, when the actor was on top of it in another shot, they had "recreated" the top of the building. The building's width had been reduced to about eight feet wide. How could a building hundreds of feet high be eight feet wide? I know the film was low budget, but it is inexcusable. The movie itself just pushed ideas about a "rapture" then actually having a storyline or point. This reduced the script to mere rubbish, the characters seemed to be selling ideas in their lines rather than conveying emotions and moving the movie along in a direction. It was a complete waste of time watching. The movie gives Christians a bad name if it is one of the current best Christian films out there. | negative |
Following the collapse of Yesilcam (Turkey's answer to Hollywood) in the mid '90s few but the most prescient of observers could have foreseen such a recent pique in the Turkish film industry, arguably built upon the work of ex-photographer Nuri Bilge Ceylan.<br /><br />Uzak is the director's third feature and forms something of a trilogy with his two earlier pictures (Kasaba and Clouds of May), following similar themes and techniques. The film finds Mahmoud, a commercial photographer, living alone in a small Istanbul apartment only visited occasionally by his brusque, married lover. Yusuf, his nephew, has left his village home after the closure of a factory and the loss of his job. The younger man stays with Mahmoud while fruitlessly looking for work in the city, drinking in cafés and nervously observing young women he never approaches.<br /><br />The film's title is translated as "Distant", and the film beautifully illustrates every possible connotation of the word; Yusuf's physical distance from his home, Mahmoud's emotional distance from the world around him and the generational distance between the two men.<br /><br />Ceylan's films rarely contain heightened dramatics, instead allowing full and rich characters to develop from within the tightly framed, static shots. He acts as director, producer, writer, cinematographer and co-editor and casts friends and family in many of the roles. Such a confined, insulated approach to film-making might be expected to lead to films hard to infiltrate and connect with for most viewers, making Uzak's undoubted humanity all the more impressive.<br /><br />Ceylan is, however, a better cinematic formalist than dramatist, taking the reigns from such past masters of cinematic language as Ozu and Tarkovsky. After viewing Uzak, I can think of few better suited to the task. | positive |
People criticise Disney's animated features of the 1950s for being overly glossy, set in landscapes that are much too pristine. That criticism is just. And yet it can't be the whole story, because the two least glossy - "Alice in Wonderland" and "Peter Pan" - are also the weakest. "Cinderella", on the other hand, set in a world in which the very dirt sparkles, is clearly the best.<br /><br />It DOES look good. The backgrounds are subtle and consistent; the colours are pure without being too bright. The animation varies a bit. I'll swear that some of the humans are rotoscoped - but then, the rotoscoped humans (including Cinderella herself) aren't full-blooded characters in the script, so this approach works well enough. It's really the animals that make the movie. I think the studio had never quite used animals in this way before, as totems rather than sidekicks. The mice, for instance, are the creatures who draw us into the story; but they are really representatives or allies of the more colourless Cinderella. The cat, Lucifer, is a kind of witch's familiar to the Wicked Stepmother. (The cat is brilliantly conceived and animated - one of the best feline creations of all time. The supervising animator was Ward Kimball and he modelled it on his own cat. I wonder how he put up with the animal.) This approach allows the animals to steal the show without drawing our attention from the main story. Their actions are of maximum interest only in the light of the main story.<br /><br />Among the supporting cast the notable humans are the King and the Grand Duke. The King is a one note character - he wants grandchildren and appears to have no other desires at all - but the note is struck in a pleasing fashion. The Grand Duke is a put-upon character who deserves to be lifted out of his sphere as much as Cinderella does. (Although he, of course, is richer.)<br /><br />"Cinderella" is Disney's return to features after an eight-year hiatus, and neither with it nor with any subsequent movie would he recapture the raw brilliance of his early years. Moreover he made things hard for himself by picking "Cinderella". She's a passive heroine and there's not much anyone can do about that. (Maybe I'm wrong on this score - I haven't seen the recent "Ever After".) Nonetheless it is remarkable how successful Disney was in bringing this unpromising story to life, without cutting across the grain of its spirit. | positive |
Even if it's not labeled as a Slasher flick, it has all the elements. The fact that slashers are well known for it's low budget, lame plot, cheesy effects, and everything you may add, it doesn't means that there can't be good slasher movies. "Opera" fills the description. Even though it's part of Italian giallo; which is far from being a slasher sub-genre.<br /><br />Dario Argento proves that he deserves the label of one of the best directors in Horror. "Opera" is one of the most stylish Horror movies from the past 30 years. Though the movie takes place in a beautiful, shinning place; the situations and gore turns it to be one of the scariest places ever used in a Horror movie. <br /><br />I think of "Opera" as a stylish Slasher although there's in depth plot and character development. The cheese factor often used in most Slasher flicks is not present here but in exchange we got a suspenseful, visually stunning gore tale. The movie's plot is simple (as in every Slasher). There's a psycho in the opera that is somewhat obsessed with the lead actress/singer and forces her to watch gruesome deaths. The death scenes are extremely gruesome and are the best thing about the movie. The infamous "peep-hole" death scene is the highlight of the movie in my opinion. It's a terrific death scene that none other than Argento could release. The knife through the neck (and mouth) is another gruesome scene but less violent than the scissors death. The gore in "Opera" will please the wicked and lovers of violence.<br /><br />What I didn't like about the movie is the lack of coherence or logic. I mean, after watching the first death, the lead female, calmed as if nothing happened gets a ride home and doesn't makes much of a big deal about what she saw. Also, she's left alone in home and doesn't take security measures. Still, the suspense in the movie makes you forget the lack of logic. Argento knows how to create tension and how to scare the subconscious. For example, when Betty's friend tells her that someone was watching her from outside she freaks out and sets suspense in case that something happens. <br /><br />The direction of the movie is great. For an Italian giallo it's excellent. Argento's creative POV shots are impressive. The ravens also added a creepy feeling to the movie. Argento add his unique spice. <br /><br />"Opera" is one of the most underrated but popular through the Horror community for these reasons, in my opinion: -the peep-hole death scene (brilliant) -the ravens attack in the end -the opera setting -the knife through the neck and mouth -the heavy metal score combined with Opera music (this music never freaked me out before) -the killer's ferocity<br /><br />The only thing I don't like about "Opera" is the heavy metal songs used in death scenes. It's OK to disturb the audience but I think that the Opera music could've added a creepier feeling. Still, the "shocking" use of heavy metal is a singular disturbing aspect in the movie.<br /><br />Watch "Opera" even if you don't like gore. There's a lot of suspense and tension that could scare the most skeptical person. This is no "Suspiria" but it deserves to be among Argento's finest. | positive |
It may be difficult to believe, but the basic plot of this abysmal flick has been lifted from Hitchcock's perennial classic, "Vertigo". To see Edward James Olmos in the part once played by James Stewart is heart-breaking; Sean Young is better, but still a poor substitute for Kim Novak. | negative |
I'll have to add dissenting comment here. Various reviews I have read compared this movie to the likes of those by Wong Kar Wai or Hou Hsiao-hsien. i.e. one of the admirable flotilla of mandarin goodies that have come our way in recent years. Unfortunately this isn't quite accurate. The film plays out rather like a film school graduate's attempt to emulate these masters. All the pieces are there - the beautiful backdrop, the vaguely minimalist dialogue, the slow swaying camerawork, and male leads, in particular, who spend a fair whack of time sitting around being contemplative. Sounds good but unfortunately nothing is up to par. The dialogue is leaden. The acting is generally unable to lift the characters above type; the married couple and the little sister are particularly poor and uninvolving. Unfortunately when mediocre character acting is combined with a classical "Chekovian" (i.e. very predictable) plot, the results are at best tedious and at worst painful. I couldn't help but see the "Blue Danube" river scene, for example, as verging on genre parody (although the smoggy looking "springtime" sky over the river did provide a bit of black humour...) I actually went to this movie on the basis that Mark Li Ping was photographing it. While the setting is elegant, and the swaying camera attempts to replicate the mood of "Flowers of Shanghai", the film is not in the same league, visually. In fact I must confess that after an hour of wondering whether it was the script or the acting that was ruining the film, I suddenly remembered that I was meant to meet my flatmate for dinner and took the chance to leave (and I can't recall the last film I walked out of). I'm guessing from the reviews that the ending may have left a positive aftertaste but by that point I couldn't care. If you'd like to see something along similar lines done with real talent then I'd recommend anything by the above two directors, for example "In the Mood for Love" or "Flowers of Shanghai", both of which were filmed by the talented Mr Ping (the former with Chris Doyle), and both of which are films masterful enough to inspire years of failed emulations like this. It's not often Mr Hoberman leads me astray, and perhaps you'd rather listen to him, but don't say you weren't warned. Craig.<br /><br /> | negative |
Step Up is a fair dance film about some kids that get their big performance break. The film is average in every way with little more for the viewer. A jock fights external prejudices to become a dancer with an accomplished partner and a teach who sees something special. The acting was fine, but the dialog and directing had little to add to overcoming a predictable story. None the less you still feel quite good about the outcome of the film. There were some dark scenes and some typical generalizations about dancers that went a little overboard. This is a class B+ film with moderate continuity errors and dialog mishaps. The scenery was good and the characters held true to life. It is worth the watch if you like that kind of film. | negative |
I have just seen Caribe a couple of nights ago at the annual Vistas Film Festival held here in Dallas, and I must express my discontent. The opening caption tries to tell us that the film is a portrayal of the current invasion of South American countries (Costa Rica, in this particular case) by North American oil companies, and the negative effects, both economic and environmental, of this invasion. The main characters are a married couple who live a simple, pleasant life maintaining a banana farm. Right away, a woman arrives and announces that she is the wife's half-sister. I'm not going to go into specifics about this (and to be honest, I don't feel that I'm spoiling anything with this review), yet another key point is that the company to whom they distribute their bananas drops them due to budget demands in a poor economy. So, the main conflict that is supposed to be addressed in the movie is of the husband between the rock and the hard place, trying to preserve his livelihood. On one hand, the Reynolds oil company has basically offered him employment and financial compensation (basically a bribe) to use his public influence to encourage the town to allow the company to begin drilling in their town (compromising his standing with the community and the community itself). On the other hand, he is faced with being dead broke, but on the side of his community, protesting the drilling. Given the length of this film, it would have been ample time to explore the issues just described, but it just doesn't happen, and I'll tell you why. You will notice that this film has won a couple of awards so far, one for direction and an audience award. I'm not going to pick apart Esteban's direction, it wasn't bad or good enough for me to be all that passionate about writing anything. The audience award was at a film festival in Spain, and for it to gain an audience award, I'd have to imagine that Spanish people just dig soap operas. In fact, Central and South America dig soap operas as well, I know that much. I assume that Esteban was either aiming to take advantage of this or that he himself digs soap operas, because that is what unfolds over the course of this film, so much to the point that it kicks the whole oil company plot to the side, almost as if they imagined halfway through the making of this film that it had become tiresome, because it seems like at least three of the supporting characters have had their back story and character development severely compromised to make room for more sex and crying scenes. The only true villain in the movie is one of these three characters, and at no point do you actually get to find out who the hell he is. It's almost as if they cut his screen time just short of taking him out of the film entirely. From time to time, they toy with the oil against community plot, but these are digressions at best. What we see a lot more of are scenes of passion, jealousy, betrayal, adultery, etc. These themes saturate the story to such a degree that the oil company 'sub'plot becomes unnecessary. It's almost as if this was a stunt to legitimize a romantic drama (soap opera) by throwing in a little political relevance. Nevertheless, the film gets so caught up in the romance that it ultimately doesn't know what to do with itself, resulting in an ending so tacked on that you're left wondering what it is that you've been waiting around for, or if there was ever anything to begin with. Here are two things that I think could have saved this movie: either cut out the half-sister or cut out the oil company. It's obvious which one of the two they were more interested in. Or, perhaps if Caribe had been an hour longer, they could have worked this all out. Regardless, I'd have been fine with a straight-up soap opera and I think that the subject of oil companies exploiting foreign nations is in dire need of addressing by the film community. Caribe is both and neither. These two angles could have worked together had they been balanced accordingly, but with a romantic plot running around in circles and taking up almost twice as much time as necessary at the expense of an oil plot that's barely been established to begin with, both sides suffer. Best of all, the romance plot is never even resolved. I'd like to say I'd watch this movie again to see what I've missed, but I have a strong feeling that I already know what it is. As far as I'm concerned, it wouldn't matter if I saw Caribe ten more times. I've missed it because it is simply not there. | negative |
The movie is based on a Jules Verne book I actually have read once, about ten years ago. I remember I liked the book a lot, and this movie does a good job in telling the story. The most important thing in this movie isn't the story, however, but the highly original visual look it has.<br /><br />The visuals are absolutely beautiful, and they are apparently achieved by a clever combination of animated drawings combined with live actors, stop-motion animation and sets that are painted so that they look much like from an animated movie. Combined by Jules Verne's own unique versions of airplanes and submarines and Karel Zeman's good directing results in a very well done and convincing visual style that manages to effectively hold one's attention until the end of the movie.<br /><br />There are some problems as well, one of the underwater scenes at the end takes maybe needlessly lot of time for example, as the story in the first part of the movie is rushed through quite quickly. None of this matters much though since the movie is always highly enjoyable. A gem that deserves to be more well known for today's audiences as well. A recommended movie for the whole family. | positive |
These writings write about the end of the plot so don't read it if you haven't seen this rubbish.<br /><br />I found this rubbish film in the horror section which made me think it would be a horror. If I owned a video store I'd put it in the BORING section. This film is so rubbish it will make you feel like you have lost your socks.<br /><br />This film contains endless shots of people driving as if that was scary. Well I drive to work and back (and sometimes to the store or to visit my cats) almost every day and trust me it's not scary. It even starts with 20 minutes of some people driving. Even the little kid does it too. Round and round he goes and he never stops. What's so scary about watching a little kid riding a bicycle for an hour? I think NOTHING and if you watch it you will not think so too.<br /><br />The family in the car arrive at a big castle and they are given a tour just walking around endlessly looking at kitchens. Then the man walks around a for an hour and tries to kill his family for no reason. That's all that happens and as you can see it's rubbish. | negative |
I've read a few of the reviews and I'm kinda sad that a lot of the Story seems glossed over. Its easy to do because its not a Book, its a movie and there's only so much that can be done in a movie- US Or Canadian- or anywhere.<br /><br />Colm Feore does, at least for a recovering "F@g-Hag" like myself, a great job of not only playing the 'friendly neighborhood' gay man- but playing sick. I mean, the man really can't get much more pale! Though, you might never know it from the strip down near the... um, end.<br /><br />If you need decrepit, there are a few SKing movies you might like.<br /><br />Being the daughter of a Recovering Alchoholic, the druggie brother {David Cubitt} was the trick for me. I'm going to give him cred, he grew up quick- and believe me that's good. And, as an Aspiring writer, moimeme, I can dig a lot of his insights and overviews. But I'm more prosy than poetic.<br /><br />I may be easy to please, but I enjoyed it. A nice story pretty well put together- by Canadians, quelle surprise. Just toed the line of the 'Movie of the week,' missing it by not being as drawn out, GREATLY Appreciated. And it was rather cleverly portrayed. | positive |
I'm all for the idea of a grand epic of the American Revolutionary War. This ain't it. (And for that matter, neither was the Emmerich/Devlin/Gibson THE PATRIOT. But I digress.)<br /><br />I saw this film at a publicity screening at the old MGM Studios (now Sony) just before it came out. The audience had high expectations for this expensive period piece, written by veteran Robert Dillon, directed by the esteemed Hugh Hudson (of CHARIOTS OF FIRE fame), and starring Al Pacino.<br /><br />But it didn't take long for people to start squirming in their seats, whispering derisive comments about Pacino's horribly misconceived accent -- he was supposed to be an American frontiersman of Scottish ancestry(!) -- and that of Nastassja Kinski, who was supposed to be recently emigrated from England(!!). Then the story started and it all went downhill fast.<br /><br />Motivations were muddled, dialogue was atrocious, events had no historical or political context. What there was of a plot lurched forward on absurd coincidence; by the second or third time that alleged lovers Pacino and Kinski stumbled into each other it had become a bad joke. Donald Sutherland gave an unhinged performance as a British officer/pederast. His accent was all over the map too. I guess there weren't any English actors available.<br /><br />Lots of people left. Those who stayed tried to stifle giggles, then openly guffawed. I stuck it out -- I figured that at least the battle scenes might be good. I was wrong. Inexplicably, Hudson chose to film them with hand-held cameras, not even Steadicam, the jerkiness giving a misplaced newsreel 'authenticity' which ruined the sense of scale.<br /><br />There was a semi-famous TV reviewer in the audience a few rows ahead of me: (the late) Gary Franklin of Channel 7 Eyewitness News. I could tell he was peeved by the behavior of the rest of us. And sure enough, on his TV segment the next day he gave the film a '10' on his notorious 'Franklin Scale of 1 to 10', while remarking churlishly about the louts who'd disrupted the screening the night before, who clearly didn't know art when they saw it. What a buffoon.<br /><br />After this disaster, Pacino didn't star in another film for almost 4 years. Hugh Hudson's career never recovered. You can't say I didn't warn you. | negative |
I guess I wasn't sure to what to expect from this film, it had a good cast, an interesting story line, and a bunch of other things going for it, but I still couldn't shake a feeling of dread that I had in my stomach about what it would be like. I am glad to say that I was very pleased with the result and regret worrying about it all along. The films opening scenes were extremely intriguing and were enough to sustain early interest in the film. As the film progressed we were introduced to the characters of the film, as well as what happened in the prison riots. Like most reviews for this film, I have to admit that there is some unessecary cliches but it can't erase the overall power of this film that reads like a good novel. The cast are all great, particularly Chestnut and McGowan, and the film ranks as one of the better made-for-tv films of this year. Certainly worth watching if you are looking for a good courtroom drama. | positive |
It's a rather good movie, but too Americanised in it's predictability. Change the Kung Fu for football and the Turkish Family for a Pakistani one, and you get to watch Bend It Like Beckham (2002) almost scene for scene. A nice feature the serves as the backbone of the movie is the progression of fights with the mysterious ninja under the highway, beginning with miserable losses and slowly progressing until the last fight is a win against oneself, as the Kung Fu master stressed several times. On a different level, the Danish life is revealed quite different than the image it has by outsiders: the non indigenous immigrants that make a large proportion (actually, the majority) of the Danish citizenry, the graffiti in the Copenhagen suburbs, the taunting of the immigrant girl in the begging of the movie. All portray a different picture than one has in mind when one hears the word Denmark. | positive |
Need a lesson in pure, abject failure?? Look no further than "Wizards of the Lost Kingdom", an abysmal, dirt-poor, disgrace of a flick. As we all know, decent moovies tend to sprout horrible, horrible offspring: "Halloween" begat many, many bad 80's slasher flicks; "Mad Max" begat many, many bad 80's "futuristic wasteland fantasy" flicks; and "Conan the Barbarian" begat a whole slew of terrible, horrible, incredibly bad 80's sword-and-sorcery flicks. "Wizards of the Lost Kingdom" scrapes the bottom of that 80's barrel, in a way that's truly insulting to barrels. A young runt named Simon recaptured his "good kingdom" from an evil sorcerer with the help of a mangy rug, a garden gnome, a topless bimbo mermaid, and a tired-looking, pudgy Bo Svenson. Svenson("North Dallas Forty", "Inglorious Bastards", "Delta Force"), a long-time b-moovie muscleman, looks barely able to swing his aluminum foil sword. However, he manages to defeat the forces of evil, which consist of the evil sorcerer, "Shurka", and his army of badly costumed monsters, giants, and midgets. At one point, a paper mache bat on a string attacks, but is eaten by a 1/2 hidden sock puppet, pitifully presented as some sort of dragon. The beginning of the film consists of what can only politely be described as bits of scenes scooped up from the cutting-room floor of udder bad moovies, stitched together in the vain hope of setting the scene for the film, and over-earnestly narrated by some guy who never appears again. Words cannot properly convey the jaw-dropping cheapness of this film; the producers probably spent moore moolah feeding Svenson's ever expanding gullet than on the cheesy fx of this flick. And we're talkin' Brie here, folks... :=8P Director Hector Olivera("Barbarian Queen") presents this mish-mash in a hopelessly confused, confuddled, and cliched manner, destroying any possible hint of clear, linear storytelling. The acting is dreadful, the production levels below shoe-string, and the plot is one tired cliche after another paraded before our weary eyes. That they actually made a sequel(!!!) makes the MooCow's brain whirl. James Horner's("Braveheart", "Titanic","The Rock") cheesy moosic from "Battle Beyond the Stars" was lifted, screaming and kicking, and mercilessly grafted onto this turkey - bet this one doesn't pop up on his resume. Folks, you gotta see this to believe it. The MooCow says as a cheapo rent when there is NOTHING else to watch, well, it's moore fun than watching dust bunnies mate. Barely. :=8P | negative |
I understand the jokes quite well, they just aren't good. The show is horrible. I understand it, and that's another horrible thing about it. The only cool character there EVER was on the show was that one hobo in that one episode, but then I see the other episode including that episode and the show is horrible. It's not funny, NOT funny! I don't want people to say "Only smart people get it" because if they're so smart why do they judge people they don't even know and say that they're not smart or intellectual enough to understand it? It's like saying "The sky is red" but never looking outside. But anyways, this is absolutely the worst show I have ever seen in my life, the jokes are terrible, I mean, you can understand them, they're just horrible, her controversy is very lame, her fart jokes and other jokes on bodily fluids are really dumb and usually consist of really bad acting. I'm not sure what these "smart" people see in this show, but judging others when they don't even know anything about any of us isn't exactly a smart comment. | negative |
I approached this movie with the understanding that it was one of the worst flicks ever made. I sat down to watch it with this mindset, and was pleasantly surprised.<br /><br />It's not great. It's not even that good; in fact, it's pretty poor. However, it's not as bad as I had been led to believe, by a long shot. It's pretty inept, and, evidently as a cost cutting measure, a lot of stock footage is pressed into service, a lot of which has no apparent relation to the narrative.<br /><br />What it is, however, is an intensely personal movie made by a man who evidently did not have the skills or the funding to do his idea justice. Before you discount _Glen or Glenda?_ out of hand, examine your own artistic skills. Me, I'd love to be able to draw, but anything I try to sketch comes out like stick men. I'd love to be able to sing, but all I do is frighten young children.<br /><br />Wood had an idea, and unfortunately he didn't have what it takes to make it work. However, this was an incredibly daring movie for the puritan 50s, however exploitative or incoherent it may appear at first glance. | negative |
Oh, I heard so much good about this movie. Went to see it with my best friend (she's female, I'm male). Now please allow me a divergent opinion from the mainstream. After the first couple of dozen "take off your clothes," we both felt a very strange combination of silliness and boredom. We laughed (at it, not with it), we dozed (and would have been better off staying in bed), we were convinced we had spent money in vain. And we had. The plot was incoherent, and the characters were a group of people about whom it was impossible to care. A waste of money, a waste of celluloid. This movie doesn't even deserve one out of ten votes, but that's the lowest available. I'm not sure why this movie has the reputation that it does of being excellent; I don't recommend it to anyone who has even a modicum of taste or intelligence. | negative |
This movie is one big stereotype. The acting (except Philbin & Harrison) is awful and the horrid script only make things worse. I must agree with another review that the "local" characters sound ridiculous as a matter of fact so do the "caucasian" characters. 3 stars out of 10 for 1)Philbin 2)Harrison 3)surf scenes. (1/2* out of ****) Watch "Aloha Summer" (**) and/or "Beyond Paradise"(***) for Hawaii done right, especially BP which I found to be entertaining and brilliant. | negative |
Strange things happen to Americans Will (Greg Evigan), Maura (Alexandra Paul) and their young daughter Aubrey (Briana Evigan, Greg's real life daughter) when they move into a large, newly inherited house in Ireland. Crusty corpses are found in the cellar, a turkey squirts blood, furniture moves and the ghosts of a dead child and a cackling old lady show up to scare the little girl. Paranormal investigators are eventually called in to banish the evil spirits, but Maura becomes possessed anyway and chases everyone around with a meat cleaver.<br /><br />This film is full of cliches, but there's a standout performance from Alexandra Paul... too bad it doesn't belong in this movie (nor any other I can think of off hand)! She can barely keep a straight face and her over-emoting and hysterical screaming tantrums are a joy to behold. In any case, she's a lot more interesting to watch than anything else in this movie.<br /><br />Score: 3 out of 10 | negative |
I saw the film in its original theatrical release in Austin Texas. The old Paramount Theatre (I don't know if it still exists.) went all out with speakers around the walls connected accurately to all six channels. At 15 years of age, I was blown away. The concept of surround sound was completely foreign to music and film at that time.<br /><br />I vividly remember at least three outstanding scenes where the surround sound made a huge impact. (Though please forgive me if time has warped my memories with inaccuracies.) The first was a travel by the camera through Catfish Row, alive with the sites and sounds of daily activity. You saw each one first, such as a blacksmith for example, then as the camera passed them by their sound would continue to be heard passing left or right down the side of the theater to the rear. The second was a marching band that was seen first in the front, then it marched past the camera splitting left and right. Not only did the sound of each instrument follow its own directional path, it also changed in timbre as it played toward you, to the side of you, and then away from you. And if that wasn't enough, they also accounted for the Doppler effect for each instrument as it went by. The third scene was near the end of the movie as Porgy is leaving Catfish Row for New York to look for Bess. He and about half the cast members pass by the camera as they leave the village with the same sound effects as the marching band. The other half of the cast/chorus sing along with them and also wave and voice goodbyes to Porgy and their other friends. The friends' replies can then be heard from the sides and the rear.<br /><br />Surround sound was used with splendid effects throughout the movie. I think I remember a rock or something thrown from a pier and hearing it land in the water behind me. Little things like that were evident to theater-goers lucky enough to have the full six channels -- things that would just seem mundane in theaters without it.<br /><br />I stayed in the theater for several showings. You could do that then. And I went back several more times before it left town. I never saw the movie again. It literally BEGS for release on DVD with restored picture fidelity and surround sound. I do hope someone somewhere has preserved it. Please, Gershwin family, allow it to be released before it is lost for good to other generations. | positive |
Read on and take note - you could save 88 minutes of your life (was that all!).<br /><br />Unremittingly bleak, this film sets out to produce (I'm guessing) a modern small town American Christmas fable in the Capra style. If fails....completely and absolutely fails. I've been trying to think of one good thing about it and can't. Let me mention some of the highlights ...<br /><br />People don't die, they get to spend eternity as immigrant workers in Santa's factory. Angels are actually ex-cowboys who sit in trees. Santa can bring people back from the dead (if you send him a nice letter). <br /><br />And the plot.. I won't spoil it for you but there has to be some light in films if only to contrast with the darkness but there isn't any. Even the photography is bleak - snow shown at the end of a freeze, everywhere looking cold, damp and miserable. <br /><br />As you might guess, the film has a happy (schmaltzy) ending. What a relief ! | negative |
This must be one of the most overrated Spanish films in history. Its lack of subtlety and complexity and its total political correction make it really childish, with only good/bad characters. The world is just not like this, and good movies show complex characters with opposite impulses, dilemmas, etc. However, what I HATE most about this film is Bola's friend's father. The director tries to teach us a good lesson: tattoo artists with shaved heads are not always bad guys, in fact they can be better than the average looking dad (wow, this is like... philosophy, or something). Thank you, Achero. I'll propose you for the Nobel prize of literature. | negative |
The prerequisite for making such a film is a complete ignorance of Nietzche's work and personality, psychoanalytical techniques and Vienna's history. Take a well-know genius you have not read, describe him as demented, include crazy physicians to cure him, a couple of somewhat good looking women, have his role played by an actor with an enormous mustache, have every character speak with the strongest accent, show ridiculous dreams, include another prestigious figure who has nothing to do with the first one (Freud), mention a few words used in the genius' works, overdo everything you can, particularly music, and you are done. Audience, please stay away. | negative |
When I had first heard of "Solar Crisis" then got a load of the cast, I wondered why I had never heard of a movie with such a big cast before. Then I saw it.<br /><br />Now I know.<br /><br />For a movie that encompasses outer space, the sun, vast deserts and sprawling metropolises, this is an awfully cramped and claustrophobic feature; it feels like everyone is hunkered close together so the camera won't have to pull too far back.<br /><br />And the effects, while good, are pretty underwhelming; we're talking about the imminent destruction of the planet Earth if a team of scientists and soldiers cannot deflect a deadly solar flare. But other than shouting, sweating and a red glow about everything, there's no real feel of emergency.<br /><br />Don't get me started about the cast. What Heston, Palance, Matheson, Boyle, et al are doing in this movie without even bothering to act with any feel for the material is anyone's guess. Makes you wonder who else's condos aren't paid for in Hollywood....<br /><br />And as far as the end goes.... Well, let's just say it's tense and intriguing but it's too little too late in an effort like this. If it had kept up that kind of pace all through the film, maybe I would have heard of "Solar Crisis" sooner.<br /><br />Two stars. Mostly for lost opportunities and bad career moves. <br /><br />I wonder how Alan Smithee keeps his job doing junk like this? | negative |
When I saw that Icon was on TV, I was surprised. I know that the first clue of where it was headed was the fact that it was on the Hallmark Channel - Has to be said - sorry!! I was hopeful when I saw that FF himself was the Exec Producer but very quickly saw that the only real way that the TV movie and the book were similar were in the name and the character names only. The TV plot was a ho-hum to say the least but I concur that in and of itself, the action was worth a 3 stars. In my personal opinion, Mr. Swayze could have portrayed a valid Monk, however I think that in order to do the movie justice, it would have been a far longer movie, and I don't think Hollywood itself would have gone for the plot of discreditation by subterfuge. A case in point is the terrible film version of The Sum of All Fears - need I say more? | negative |
This story takes place in Wisconsin. I was half heartedly watching my tape when I heard the name Appleton. I wasn't sure where it was taking place until I heard them say Green Bay & then I figured it was Wisconsin. Watching further confirmed it.<br /><br />Anxiously awaiting the outcome I could really feel Corrine's frustration. I did not know it was based on fact until the end. It left me glad but sad and wanting to know more. | positive |
I get it the Diehl character is s'posed to be a microcosm of America itself - seeing Arab terrorists under every rock, only to find out at the end that it's his own actions all along that got him into that siege state and truly if he practices good-will to all men everything will be rainbows and lollipops. Sorry Wim you have made amazing movies in the past that stay neutral of the politics and for good reason, polemics are your weak point and they weaken this a well-made, amazingly filmed movie with absurd characters, dialog and plotting. Better luck on your next flick. Another thing that yanked my crank was the belabored point of the homeless section of LA being there for reasons of hunger, these people don't get enough to eat. Truly these folks aren't eating regally but the real hunger these folks is a spiritual hunger, an emotional hunger, a mental hunger. They need self-respect, self-worth, dignity which you can't give a man. Yeah those folks are hungry and if they need it it is available. Less the center for hunger in America, I would say it's more the center for alcoholism, drug-abuse, mental suffering and economic devastation. Dealing with hunger although a noble endeavor is band-aiding a more profoundly systematic societal and age-old human problem of homelessness. Bill Diehl was good though and Michelle Williams was cute as the young yet (cliched) old soul. | negative |
I've rent the movie because i'm very fond on war movies and on the cover picture i've read " better than save private ryan"....mmmmm ...i thought cool! guys....is just a ridiculous movie. Almost fun. Nothing to do with a proper war movie. I want my money back! Why the f...k the peoples lies??????????? F NO SUBTITLES They tried to make everything cooler with the light....but they didn't make it. Sorry about this.....but the movie is awful. The italians are shown as "Mafia e mandolino"<br /><br />The American as stupid farmer The Germans as even more stupid farmer.<br /><br />The actor are ridiculous and unprofessional.<br /><br />Please....please...... | negative |
In a college dorm a guy is killed by somebody with a scythe. His girlfriend Beth (Dorie Barton) discovers him and tries to commit suicide. She's institutionalized. A year later she's out, has a new boyfriend named Hank (Joseph Lawrence) and is about to spend Spring Break with Hank and four other mindless friends in a BIG, beautiful condo in Florida. Naturally the killer pops up (for no reason) and starts killing again.<br /><br />Lousy slasher thriller--a textbook example of how NOT to do a low-budget horror movie. For starters, large portions of this film are ENDLESS filler of these six idiots videotaping themselves, having "fun" (more fun than the audience), getting drunk, acting stupid etc etc. Also there is NO nudity in here at all. I'm not saying a horror film needs nudity but ANYTHING to liven this up would have helped. None of the deaths are really shown (you hear them), are only a little bloody and there is no gore. There's one REAL gruesome one--but that's not till the end.<br /><br />With a few exceptions the acting sucks. Dorie Barton is dreadful as the main woman and Tom Jay Jones is lousy as Oz. Chad Allen pops up as Brad and he's TERRIBLE. Lawrence is actually very good--handsome and hunky and giving this crap his all. And Jeff Conaway pops up in a small role doing a pretty good job.<br /><br />Logic lapses abound--after they realize a friend has been killed two of the girls casually talk about sex; Baston's non reaction to seeing a friend getting killed is kind of funny and WHAT happens to Lawrence? His character disappears without a trace at the end! Dull, stupid, no gore, no nudity--skip this one.<br /><br />Rated R for Graphic Violence and some Profanity. | negative |
The excruciatingly slow pace of this film was probably the director's express intention, in order to convey what life was like growing up as a village teen in China. However, I found the combination of the glacially slow 'plot' and the general filming style so impersonal as to be totally alienating, particularly to a western audience. At times I actually had trouble telling some characters apart, as they were filmed from such a distance. Two hours in and I was totally past caring. As someone who is not only interested in music but is also very into the history and culture of China (and is by the way no stranger to Chinese cinema), I couldn't engage with a single character and found nothing to get my teeth into. It begs the question: If I disliked it, who on earth would like it? Give me Zhang Yimou, give me Chen Kaige. Give me the work of just about any other Chinese director I've ever seen. This sorry effort just doesn't measure up at all. I'd be sorry to see Chinese cinema judged against this benchmark. | negative |
I loved "Anchorman; The Legend of Ron Burgundy" and hoped this would be just as funny, but alas, it wasn't. Some bits are excellent though. I thought the sports guy, Champ Kind, professing his love for Ron Burgundy in the car filled with the other members of the news team was hilarious. Everyone is ignoring him and he just gets louder and louder and finally kisses Burgundy which doesn't get acknowledged either. But on the whole the story doesn't gel. It's a noble attempt, however, to salvage the unused bits from the first movie, including an entire plot about some pretty benign would-be domestic terrorists called "The Alarm Clock." Maya Rudolph of Saturday Night Live is one of the members and has a couple of funny lines, but basically this unused plot line has good reason to be unused in the first movie. The extras on this disk are pretty good, with the best two being the filmed rehearsals featuring lots of improv comedy, and the faux commentary with Will Ferrell and an "exec producer" who Ferrell discovers early on was not even a part of the movie in any way, shape or form. Turns out he's "just a guy" who walked in the side door of the recording studio and pretended to be a producer. It's some pretty funny stuff though and goes on for about 10 or 15 minutes | negative |
I couldn't even...I mean...look....okay...<br /><br />Wow.<br /><br />Not even a bunch of my drunk friends trying to make fun of the movie could enjoy themselves in the least bit.<br /><br />I can only think...how. How do independent film makers everywhere go years without getting noticed (or even their lives) and con-artists like the guy who made this get a DVD on a shelf? It seriously looks as if some guy with a home movie camera went out with some guys he met at Subway and made the worst thing he could think of.<br /><br />"Hey guys, give me some ideas. Start with a corn-field and work backwards." "Well, you've gotta have actors straight out of high school, and some broken corn stalks with shreds of clothing attached. And boobs." Thanks, guy, I'm sure that you and Windows Movie Maker will be side by side on your next anxiously awaited project. | negative |
my friends and i watched this movie last night. it was pretty incredible. by all means, this was probably the worst movie i have ever seen. at first, it was tolerable. it stunk of BAD IMPROV but it was pretty friggin hilarious, despite the scenes being too long & drawn out and the terrible quality (i read $400 budget above... sounds about right) of the film itself.<br /><br />the biggest problem came from the lack of a script; with a background in improv, i know how hard it can be to keep scenes short & efficient. what happened in this film was that the actors were left to improvise the scenes and they didn't know when to stop, they just kept going for ages on stupid topics. at first i thought this was because the movie was short and they needed long, useless scenes to flesh it out. as the movie progressed, i realized it was just a really bad movie.<br /><br />there were a lot of parts where i could see that the film maker had a really good idea for a shot but not the resources (or talent!?) to pull it off effectively. a lot of the scenes were taken from a single shot (cause, you know, improv) for what felt like a really long time. so boring! if you can stand to put up with and hour and a half of terrible improv, watch it. it's really funny at parts but also really stupid and annoying. the acting ranges from alright to absolutely terrible. it seemed like the only good parts were the parts that really had nothing to do with the main plot; the ballsy kid who swore lots, the barbershop, etc etc.<br /><br />but yeah. painfully bad. like, i was literally hurting. after an hour or so, my friends and i just got bored and left. | negative |
Saving Grace is a feel good movie with it's heart in the right place. Grace is recently widowed and realizes her late husband left her with a lot of debts. She could lose her lovely house and sees no other solution to her misery than to start growing marijuana. She's living in a beautiful village where most viewers would love to live and the villagers are all wonderful people most viewers would love to have as neighbors. There's only one thing wrong with this picture and that is the way it portraits the effect marijuana has on it's user. It's obvious none of the actors or writers of this film actually ever did smoke the stuff. The way the villagers act after smoking a joint is ridiculous and only supposedly funny. It's precisely in those scenes that wit is replaced by English slapstick, and that is a pity in a movie that is none the less very enjoyable. | positive |
I first saw the film when it landed on US cable a year after it came out. It blew my little head away, I was only 16 and it was the first new wave music I'd heard, having been a strictly folky, classical kid growing up. The music mesmerized me, as did Hazel O'Connor's amazing look and charismatic vocal performances, and Phil Daniels' tough but soft Cockney manager just stole my heart. But I think my favorite character was Jonathan Pryce's drugged out sax player. He was so out of place in the band and so harmless and pathetic, he just begged for sympathy. Favorite scenes, the performance when the lights went out, and the love scene on the train.<br /><br />Okay, so the movie isn't the Rose! But it was really excellent for its limited budget and for its portrayal of the Britain of the early 80's, exploding with rebellious youth, looking for a way out of the dole queue. I went to Britain only a couple of years later and found the movie to have been very reflective of the atmosphere I found when I was there.<br /><br />If you get a chance to, see it. It is a great movie, with some wonderful performances, and the music will blow you away.<br /><br /> | positive |
The Nun is a revenge picture whereby a very strict nun is killed by her rebellious trailer trash charges and comes back years later to get even when the now adults visit their old school. Story line is predictable in spades and will hold no surprises as it slowly winds its way to the end. It is a screamer of a movie with passable acting and a below average script and screenplay. Much of the special effects are low grade and there is almost zero believability in the final battle. Still, if you look past these there is some suspense and acting jewels. If you like senseless cookie cutter screamers, you'll like this, otherwise you should pass. | negative |
Joe Don Baker. He was great in "Walking Tall" and had a good bit-part in "Goldeneye", but here in "Final Justice" all hope is gone...the dark side has won. <br /><br />As with most of humanity, my main experience with this one was on MST3K, and what an experience it was! Mike and the robots dig their claws deep into Baker's ample flesh and skewer this flick completely. It's obvious they were just beginning with "Mitchell" on their anti-Joe Don kick and here lies their continuation on a theme.<br /><br />It makes for a funny experience, though: there are plenty of choice riffs. My favorites - "John Rhys-Davies for sale", "It's 'Meatloaf: Texas Ranger'", "none of them are sponge-worthy", "Why was she wearing her prom dress to bed", and my favorite - "'Son of a...'? What? What was he the son of: son of a PREACHER MAN?"<br /><br />By itself, "Final Justice" is, as Joe Don puts it in the movie, "a big fat nada". But here, it actually has some entertainment value. You get a chance, catch THIS version of "Final Justice".<br /><br />Two stars for "Final Justice". Ten for the MST3K version ONLY.<br /><br />Oh, and try not to visit Malta when Joe Don's in town. | negative |
This series was just like what you would expect from Mr.Spielberg. It is truly one of those frighting, funny, childish shows that you won't forget. Just like Outer Limits (another great show) this little series does what not a lot can. It was great, and deserved to run longer. It was a great show, that even kids could watch, though some of the shows were a little scary when they wanted to be, but all of them always had a moral at the end (like the Twilight Zone) that made you realize what situation you didn't want to end up in, or ones that you did. I remember watching some of these on Sci-fi when I was 10, and even now, I still enjoy seeing them when I can. Truly a fun, imaginative show. I loved it, and still do. | positive |
---------SPOILER ALERT----------------------------<br /><br />This was the worst of the series, it is horror disguised as political satire and it is as subtle as a sledge hammer, not very scary and not very insightful. Did Micheal Moore have anything to do with this piece of Garbage.?<br /><br />I'm really sick of Hollywood using entertainment as a political campaign against George Bush and constantly repeating the same talking points over and over again. This movie wants to be DeathDream, but unlike that movie which subtly poignantly tackled the problems soldiers who came back from Vietnam by clever making the main character come back as a blood craving zombie and slowly built on this theme: it was a true horror film that was also good social commentary, because it didn't get sanctimonious, exploitave and preachy.<br /><br />I guess Joe Dante, thought this was trying to make a horror film to scare Republicans, conservatives and Libertarians and me being the last in that list found this film to be totally ridiculous, manipulative and exploitave all at the same time and I don't mean the good type of exploitative, that you often find in the " drive-in" type movies, I mean exploitative in the most sickening and vile manner: using the deaths of our soldiers as a manipulative political statement disguised as a horror film. <br /><br />This film assumes that all the soldiers who died in Iraq, would vote against a conservative president if they would come back to life as zombies, which is a flawed premise, because as I recall for the most part and going by George Romero's rules; zombies are mindless, flesh eating creatures, operating on pure impulse and even though the zombie Andy, in DeathDream could talk, he couldn't really hold a conversation and he was driven by his addiction to human blood. Okay, zombies are mindless creatures driven by impulse and not intellect and obviously they are dead, so why would dead people be allowed to vote in the first place? My interpretation of this film is that the only war a liberal democrat could win is by having mindless, dead people vote for him, I guess they meant to say the people that vote for presidents like George Bush are the mindless zombies, while the real mindless zombies, are actually the ones making the intellectually sounds decisions. Yeah, whatever. Dawn of the Dead tackled this idea much better, but user the idea of mindless consumerism. This film isn't Dawn of the Dead by any stretched of the imagination.<br /><br />The film addresses the issue while the soldiers are alive that a majority of them voted for a Bush like president, but after they die they would vote for a liberal anti-war democrat after they are zombies, who are normally considered brain dead creatures and laughably has them destruct after they vote.<br /><br />If you are gonna make a zombie movie Mr. Dante and invoke George Romero's name in it, you better have mindless zombies that like ripping people apart and eating their intestines, not zombies that vote. I also like how the zombies just go "evil" conservatives who support the war.<br /><br />If you want a good movie with social commentary skip this poorly made, preachy piece of junk and watch DeathDream instead.<br /><br />The worst of the Master of Horror Series hands down. | negative |
The Leap Years stars some heavy hitters in the local and regional film and television scene. And yet, they cannot save this movie. It has so many things going against it - over acting, overly melodramatic, poor script, inconsistent direction; and too few things going for it - decent music , good cinematography. This comment is mainly for anyone who throws all local movies into one basket after watching this film and says all local movies are bad. Please do not judge the rest based on this one film. This is a television soap opera masquerading as a romantic feature film. My hopes were high when I bought my ticket and my hopes were dashed five minutes into the film. | negative |
Police Story is a stunning series of set pieces for Jackie Chan to show his unique talents and bravery. Some of the stunts here are among Jackie's best and most dangerous the whole mall fight finale is probably Jackie's greatest single fight sequence, more brutal and less comedic then say Project A or Drunken Master at the end of the fight you can almost feel the pain of the impact.<br /><br />But unfortunately the rest of the film doesn't hold up to this quality as it is a rather formulaic cop thriller with some comedy elements. I always prefer JC in films such as Project A where his natural comic talents shine through. In the serious confines of some elements of Police Story it just doesn't work for me. Having said that though this is still up there with Jackies best films due to the incredible stunt work and sheer spectacle.<br /><br />As usual with Hong Kong films avoid the English dubbed DVD version as it is truly awful stick with the subtitles.<br /><br />Great stunts, OK movie a fine starting point if you've not seen a JC movie before and well worth a watch for any movie fan 7/10 | positive |
I awake suddenly, aware that I'm drooling onto the plastic couch cover, and realize it's a warm Saturday afternoon. Why was I sleeping? Did I hit my head? Or accidentally swallow all of my grandma's muscle relaxers? Could it be adult onset narcolepsy? <br /><br />No, I momentarily paused on Cheap Seats while channel surfing, and the stunning lack of humor and talent drained my life force with such speed that I blacked out.<br /><br />It's that head-shaking, mouth-agape, shoulder-shrugging bad. But I have to give these moronic and boring twins credit for selling this idea through. Perhaps they had the same effect on the ESPN programming executive that they had on me, and when he/she woke up, a few horrendous episodes were already in the can and he/she hoped that since all the viewers will be asleep, no one will now how awful it is and he/she can keep the $425,000 annual salary.<br /><br />You've been warned. | negative |
Probably Bigas Luna's finest achievement for it achieves a delicate balance between sleaze, eroticism and surrealism. The delicious Mathilda May, who spent most of Tobe Hooper's "Lifeforce" in the buff, is the object of young Biel Duran's pre-teen lust. He can't get May's breasts out of his mind and wants so badly to suckle them and suckle the breasts of his own mother, too. His pursuit of May IS the film. As in Luna works such as "Lulu" and "Jamon! Jamon!", the director brings a slightly warped sexual sensibility to his strange but beautiful tale. The usual suspects will be offended, but those with open minds will enjoy this frothy erotic poem to the female breast. José Luis Alcaine's images are gorgeous and Nicola Piovani's score is sweet and rich. A gorgeous cinematic confection with a delightfully anarchic sensibility that the Spanish do so naturally. | positive |
GRANNY IS THE BEST MOVIE EVER Ganny is the best movie i have ever seen. the plot was like nothing ever seen or done before these people are truly blessed with a talent no joke i love this movie. i need to buy it but i cant find at any place. it is a dream for me to go and meet the actors and try and do a granny 2.i rented GRANNY at Broadway video and kept it for a week longer than i should have and asked them if i could buy it off of them they said no a big disappointment and an even bigger one the week after i returned it i wanted to go and rent it again but come to find out Broadway video was out of business. if anyone has the movie or knows where i can buy it at then please tell me write to me at iloverot@aol.com | positive |
I think that it was just pointless to produce a second part of a movie like "My Girl". "My Girl" was a very good movie but it is ridiculous making a second part of a movie in which one of the main characters (Macaulay Culkin as Thomas J.) dies. The story was over after the first movie. I wonder why someone tried to find a way to make the story going on. That was senseless! | negative |
Finally i thought someone is going to do justice to H.G. Wells's classic , not another version set in the wrong locale or era , but one based firmly on the book . Well it definitely follows the book pretty closely , and that is the only plus to this mess.<br /><br />This is 180 Min's (yes 3 hours) long , the book is only around 150 pages .<br /><br />If Timothy Hines had the nerve to come on here and say "if you can do any better ..." i would say "yes , i could" and i have never used a video camera or been to any sort or drama school in my life.<br /><br />I paid good money to get this crap over to the UK from the USA , do not make the same mistake as me . | negative |
The movie starts out with a bunch of Dead Men Walking peeps sitting in individual cells, waiting for their inevitable meeting with death represented by the electrical chair.<br /><br /> Then our "hero", who is called Tenshu, is taken to the chair, he's zapped, and then....he's still "Alive". AHA ! He is given a choice by some creepy military guys who look really cool : Either we zap you until we've made sure you're actually dead OR you can walk through this door and take whatever destiny might lie ahead of you". Our hero says yes to option 2, and then the actual story commences.<br /><br /> He wakes up in a different sort of cell (very high-tech and very big), where he finds another cell-mate, who also managed to survive the electric boogie-ride. A voice in the speakers tells them that they are free to do whatever they wish, as long as it happens within that room. Sounds a little suspicious, but the two men accept : What else can they do ?<br /><br /> What these two men do not know is that they have been set together, so they can awaken an inner urge to kill within them. Basically the unknown scientists in the background p**s them off until they decide that they should kill each other. Sounds weird ? Indeed, but there's a greater purpose to all of this. THIS is the part which should not be revealed, and so it shall remain unrevealed.<br /><br /> But fear not, it is the unknown that lures the viewer to watch more of this pseudo-action movie, fore it has an entirely different approach to the question : How long time can you stand being with a man who's an S.O.B. and would you kill him to obtain freedom ?<br /><br /> The first hour is basically trying to awaken your interest, it sneaks up without you actually knowing it. Then it becomes a roller coaster ride with WILD Matrix-like action fight-scenes with a touch of individuality to honor the comic book from which the movie is based upon.<br /><br /> The movie is indeed very special, so special that normal cinemas won't view it under normal circumstances. However, the story is fascinating, the music is fantastic, and the actors do their bit (some more than others) to make the movie truly unique.<br /><br /> If you should be so fortunate that your cinema or video store has it, watch it, and enjoy the fact that not everyone is trying to make mainstream movies to earn huge bunches of cash.<br /><br /> | positive |
The funniest movie from Britain I have ever seen, "The Supergrass" is a tale of sex, drugs, cream teas, and murder by the seaside. Dennis Carter (Adrian Edmonson), average moron, is out to impress his so-called girlfriend, Andrea (Dawn French), because she thinks he is too law-abiding. So, to get her to come along with him on a romantic getaway, he comes up with a scheme that perhaps will impress her and entice her to spend some time with him. Trouble is, Dennis' lie is that he's somehow gotten involved in an international drugs ring, and while telling her, a couple of policemen overhear his boasting and nick him. And so begins this witty movie, full of slick comedy and crude jokes. Dennis is banged up in the local nick, and, much to the arresting officers' delight, there seems to be no way out (Andrea's earlier attempts to explain it was all a lie were dismissed by a hilarious melody of "Stand by Your Man" by the two officers'). Then comes along Commander Robertson (Ronald Allen), Chief Intelligence, Scotland Yard. He makes a deal with Dennis, that if he helps him catch the drug smugglers, then he will be set free and allowed whatever he pleases. Dennis agrees, and is teamed up with Harvey Duncan (Peter Richardson), and Lesley Reynolds (Jennifer Saunders). The rest is an unforgettable rib-tickling experience, with Robbie Coltrane as Sergeant Troy adding humourous colour to the film. His walk along the dry-dock against "Frankie Goes To Hollywood's Two Tribes" is superb, and probably the best scene in motion picture history. The two officers' who nick Dennis are wonderfully played by Michael Elphick and Patrick Durkin, and Alexei Sayle as the motorcycle cop is a laugh! If you want something good to watch on a Saturday night, then I suggest you rent this. You won't forget it! | positive |
Though the video technology may be dated, this classic musical play, now on DVD, is the best version of Sondheim's most important and polished work on Broadway. If you've never seen SWEENEY TODD, then you must buy this DVD. I saw this production in November 1980 at Kennedy Center in Washington--and fell in love with a pre-"Murder She Wrote" Angela Lansbury. Subsequently, I tried to find any and all of her work, among them: MOVIES: "The Harvey Girls," "The Picture of Dorian Gray," "Manchurian Candidate"; CDs: "Mame," "Dear World," and "Gypsy"; and many more. The rest of the cast is flawless, too. All in all, this wonderful DVD gives us the definitive version of Sondheim's opera! | positive |
This film starts out with all the moody promise of a great contemporary noir Western - after the ill-conceived opening flashback sequence anyway. The scenery is beautifully desolate, the characters achingly isolated. While some of the acting is less than believable, the plot ultimately delivers enough tension and twists to make this movie worth a look. | positive |
My mom would not let me watch this film when I was in grade 2, because she said it was too violent. Well, years later, and the only reason I remember this film is because of my mom, I stayed up and watch it on PBS. Well, maybe the build up after all these year lead to the big disapointment of this film, but I found it lame. It did not age well, and this made the acting choppy, huge unbelievable holes in the script, but there is a few cool scenes like car chases, and a big gun fight. I will not stay up for this film again. | negative |
Gere and Danes star as 2 workers for the department of public safety who keep track of released sex offenders. Gere, who plays Babbage, refers to them as his flock. Gere is an over obsessed vigilante whom is on his way out. He is training, new comer Allison, to take over his job. Gere sees his flock as very sick, disturbed puppies. He asks them questions that are not on the list, and tries to act like the police and solve crimes. He keeps getting warned for this behavior, hence the reason he is being replaced. During his final few days on the job, a young girl goes missing, and Babbage is sure it is one of his flock whom has gone astray. Him and Allison narrow a list down and discover some of the offenders have gone AWOL. So, he decides that he needs to track the missing girl down rather than help the police. That part is a little far fetched.<br /><br />There is some sick, twisted stuff shown in this film. Like when Babbage and Allison go to this building where a bunch of sick people do disturbing things to each other. Also, there are the people who kidnapped the girl. At the end of the film, we see what sick freaks they are. However, I wouldn't call this movie excessive because not really much is shown on film.<br /><br />FINAL VERDICT: If you like thrillers and films about serial killers and cops chasing killers, then you will like this. | positive |
"I remember waiting to be born..." <br /><br />"Vision quest that was the American West." <br /><br />"We went to a psychic..." <br /><br />"I'm sure their first reaction is that she's cuckoo" <br /><br />"...the place is haunted..." <br /><br />"I think there's another dimension right here." <br /><br />An artist (Marta Becket) and her husband many decades ago left the hustle and bustle and culture of New York and moved to a god-forsaken town with a population of 10 in Death Valley. There, they renovated a theater--painting it is a very home-spun/folk art manner. And, once finished, she bega putting on dancing performances for practically no one. In many ways, it's highly reminiscent of the Werner Herzog film FITZCARRALDO or FIELD OF DREAMS--though AMARGOSA is a documentary of a real person--not a mythical crazy man like Klaus Kinski or Kevin Costner. Her husband eventually leaves--much of it apparently because of the lifestyle she chose. So, today she lives on with her ten cats and a sanctuary for burros eventually along with her new male companion, Tom.<br /><br />What you think about this documentary depends on your perspectives. If you are into New Age ideas and open to these sensibilities, then you'll more likely appreciate the film. Her talking about how she remembers her birth, ghosts, vision quests and psychics frankly made the psychology teacher in me cringe and this would definitely be the case for many people. In addition, her burro sanctuary and trying to preserve horses in the desert will most likely appeal to PETA and many other animal lovers, though with my background in environmental concerns and biology, I see the burros and horses as a blight that would destroy the native plants and animals. So on two different accounts, I tend to think quite the opposite of Marta--who is more of a "feeler" and "sensing" individual. Depending on how you feel about all this will definitely color your opinions--and I am pretty sure most people will either think she's a genius or a nut! You'll just have to guess what I think.<br /><br />Now despite all this, the film is interesting and Marta's life is definitely NOT dull--particularly since in recent years, people have actually begun taking trips to the desert to see her perform. There is a definite following for her and her unusual little world. While I would not be nearly as positive as most reviews, I also can't be as negative as the one review, as there is definite merit to this odd documentary. I like films about unusual people and Marta certainly is unusual! I also appreciate her love of her art and happy life--that is a rare gift. <br /><br />I teach psychology at an arts school and it sure would be interesting to show this to the staff--where I am pretty sure we'd get a strong positive and negative reaction to the film--probably depending on whether the teachers taught the arts classes or core curriculum! It sure would be interesting.<br /><br />By the way, and I am not trying to be sarcastic, but when Marta's husband was having affairs, with whom did this occur?! After all, they lived in the middle of no where and I was left wondering where he'd find partners.<br /><br />By the way, if you'd like to see her perform and/or stay at her hotel, it can be found at www.amargosaoperahouse.com/ . The site is in English, French and German and hotel rates are pretty reasonable as are ticket prices. | negative |
Naach would have won an Razzie for the Worst Film in 2004 (may be overall too) if it were global. When it comes acting badly (aka showing attitude/yawning/over (not) acting) Halle Berry is no match for Antra Malli. While the catwoman had storeline, supposedly hot actress in microscopic costume, and some action sequences, Naach had nothing at all.<br /><br />One of those movies which makes me wonder why IMDb does allow one to rate a movie as 0/10. Yet again, I think that movie does not even deserve a 0. It has to be something negative or minus infinity.<br /><br />OK what about the plot outline? It is a funda-giving, arrogant, full of attitude choreographer meet an useless, skill-less, loafer who aspires to be an actor tale. The story is so short that if just another sentence, IMDb might ban me for writing a spoiler. About the story-telling? Its like a bunch (sorry 2 people for the most part) of people moving in super slow motion. Don't try this movie if you have bought new DVD-player. You would end up believing that either DVD is in bad shape or DVD-player is struck. Not its fault at all.<br /><br />At the end of it all, you end up giving some credits to the director. At least he realized that both Antra Malli and Abhishek Bachan (at least at that time) can't speak dialogues convincingly, so there are not too many dialogues in this movie. So, you can at least sleep your way through the movie, with some annoying noises from those Antra-malli song sequences.<br /><br />Do watch this movie if you are new to Bollywood Cinema. Once you have tolerated this movie, you would be able to see any Bollywood movie and enjoy it.<br /><br />There can't be worse 3 hour torture than this! | negative |
...Heads, Hands, and Feet - a band from the past, just like Strange Fruit. A triple whammy there. Those who have professed not to like this film are either heartless or under 40, and have had no experience of the real thing. Sad for them. This is an achingly well-observed little picture that is an excellent way of passing an hour or two, and will probably not even fade much on the second showing. Stephen Rae, Timothy Spall as the fat drummer (in many ways quite the most delightful figure of all), and Bill Nighy - a new name for me - as the neurotic vocalist and front man all turn in super performances, and Juliet Aubrey has lovely doe eyes to go with some sharp acting as Karen, who tries to hold the band together as they spectacularly self-destruct.<br /><br />The Syd Barrett/Brian Wilson echoes are loud and clear, Mott the Hoople rear up before one in all their inflated ridiculousness, and the script is never mawkish for more than a minute. Don't compare this with Spinal Tap or The Rutles or The Full Monty - it's unfair on all of them. The nearest comparison is The Commitments, and that's no bad thing. And any film that can conjure up memories of Blodwyn Pig - a band I do not remember ever seeing, but the name lives on - well, it shows somebody in the team knew what they were on about.<br /><br />A small delight, and thanks for the memory.<br /><br />Oh... and I've got ANOTHER one - Stiff Little Fingers; a-a-and what about SteelEYE Span... Spooky TOOTH... Ten Inch NAILS anyone? (You have to see the movie or have been on the road) | positive |
Well I'm probably about to be lambasted by everyone on this site, but The Good Earth is one of the worst structured films I've seen in a long time. We have a 2 and a half hour film that feels like its three and a half because it has two films in one. The first film tells the story of a family that has to move form their home because of drought and famine. They have to travel south to the cities to find food or work of some kind. Conveniently they happen to find a bag of jewels and at the same time they find out that the drought has ended. Yeah OK. With this knowledge they return home with their riches and everything is fine and wonderful again. <br /><br />Well that takes about an hour and a half of film and while its incredibly lifeless at this point it does have a nice arc to it. You would think this would be a fantastic place to end the film. However, the film then continues on for a whole other hour. And in this remaining time, its takes a simple story about a family dealing with the hardships of the world and turns it into a sappy melodrama about betrayal and jealousy between lovers. Oh yea and the age old, money is the root of all evil blah blah blah. Just because you know your making an epic film doesn't mean that your story can go on needlessly for more than it has to. Also the main idea I would gather about this film is that the earth is good to this family and holds them together. Then why do we spend an hour telling a story about a rich man falling in love with another woman, and why is the final moment of the film dedicated to a wife that our main character hasn't even cared about through most of the film. <br /><br />Oh wait and the film isn't the only thing thats poorly written, the main characters wife makes absolutely no sense. She complains a lot about how she was a slave and she never wants to have a slave and yadda yadda yadda. Then why at the drop of a hat is she willing to sell her only daughter into slavery. Even if they are starving at the time of this idea, it still doesn't make sense when 20 minutes later in the film she is complaining about not wanting a slave again. <br /><br />There are other films from the thirties that should be paid attention to. The only thing this one has going for it is the cinematography. The land is shot beautifully, oh and the sequence with the locusts is quite impressive. Too bad that were in a film that had nothing to say. <br /><br />One last thing. I know that at this point in time Hollywood was focused mostly on stars and they figured that a good actor can portray anything. For most of the film Paul Muni does portray an Asian man to the best of his ability, but once it hits the half point where the film goes on for no reason he loses it and just becomes regular old Italian Paul, they even cut his hair so he looks like Tony from Scarface(also a better film than this). Of all the main characters in the film I think maybe three are actually Asian, the rest are just Americans being silly. Oh and please Ms. Rainer that was a really nice one note performance, not, if i could i rip the Oscar out of your hands, oh i would. <br /><br />The Good Earth is one epic waste of time. If you want something along this vain to watch on nice evening get The Grapes of Wrath, a film that truly deserves all the praise it gets. Mainly because it wasn't written by a monkey. | negative |
Wow probable the worst movie i have ever seen!! This person should never make another movie!!I cant believe anyone would have produce this in good conscience.YOu have have wasted every cent. No concept of real life. I have wasted 2 hours of my life i will never get back. EVER!!! Everyone who worked on this show should be embarrassed!!!!!! I'm embarrassed for them! All of you should be ashamed. If i was gay i would want to tell the director that they have personally set back gay rights progress by 5 years. Please never watch this movie.I have never written a blogg about a film before but The distaste for this film has compelled me to do so. | negative |
One day I thought to myself....what is the worst possible thing that could happen today? I answered my self with a simple," Oh, it already happened. I rented Killjoy/Killjoy 2" on DVD. Well, what is there to say? The budget was not large enough to rent a police uniform, the movie cuts out sex scenes and death scenes. There is one funny line that I can remember, and the acting is far worse than the first one. There seems to be no lighting on the "set" (the woods somewhere) and the killer clown known as Killjoy (who makes Leprechaun look like The Exorcist)is less than spectacular. This time, he is not portrayed by Angel Vargas and is completely changed as a character from a crazy irritating clown to a different kind of crazy irritating clown that says "CHILD" a lot. Somewhere between Freddy Krueger and a blade of grass... lies this version of Killjoy. Somewhere between a pile of dirt and a pile of s---t lies Killjoy 2. It's badness is underrated. This movie does not have any redeeming qualities, except the song at the very end over the credits... which at leas provides some enjoyment. Killjoy 2 is not even really a movie, so much as an exercise in tension. Killjoy 1 is at least good enough to be considered as the worst movie I have ever seen. MINOR SPOILER######### Let me describe one of the supernatural kill scenes. A girl is locked in a wood shed of some sort (maybe an outhouse?) when Killjoy peers in through a hole. He has some small chattering teeth (like the ones you can buy at Spencer's Gifts) and he does something with them (maybe winds them up?!). Then he holds them in his hands and says a terrible line (which can't be written on IMDB). From what I gather of this scene (not from what is shown by the movie) the teeth went into the outhouse and killed the girl in some interesting, but unshown way, and then came back to Killjoy. If I were those teeth I would have run. Run far from Killjoy so he could never ever get his hands on me again. Killjoy 2 is hopefully the last Killjoy we will have to endure. Even as a fan of movies others would say are very bad, I think that this "film" could unify the human race and create world peace if it were promised that this film and anything reminding us of it would be destroyed. I give it 2/10 - simply because the creators succeeded at making the pictures move. | negative |
I won't describe the story, as that has been done elsewhere. We are great Clive Owen fans, and when our Netflix recommended the movie, we were intrigued. <br /><br />No wonder we had never heard of this "movie", because it was a BBC Television movie back in 1992. Hence, the poor production values, grainy image , jerky camera work and poor sound.<br /><br />But, you don't really mind the mechanics, because the story itself will put you to sleep. It's an interesting human story, but not at all compelling, and there is hardly any ending. You don't really care for the characters as their lives are as boring as your life watching this tedious movie. Save the two hours and do something to make the time more worthwhile. | negative |
Vincent Price's follow-up to HOUSE OF WAX (1953), the film which cemented his reputation as a horror icon, similarly revolves around a bitter albeit resourceful showman. Though a remake, the former (shot in Technicolor) remains the superior effort; that said, apart from some resistible comic relief, the obligatory resort to cheap gimmickry (it was another 3-D showcase) and occasional narrative shortcomings (whatever happened to the missing bag which supposedly turned up at some police station containing a severed head?), this offers more than enough Grand Guignol-type thrills and overall camp value (Price hamming it up in a variety of disguises as an inventor of illusions impersonating 'missing' star conjurers who had taken advantage of his genius) to stand on its own two feet. Incidentally, director Brahm's involvement here proves no mere coincidence since the narrative incorporates elements from two horror titles (both starring Laird Cregar) he had previously helmed i.e. THE LODGER (1944) and HANGOVER SQUARE (1945). The young leads are played by Mary Murphy (as Price's ingénue assistant) and Patrick O'Neal (as her police detective boyfriend curiously enough, he would himself take the lead in a similar piece, CHAMBER OF HORRORS [1966], which I have acquired just in time to serve as an encore to this one). An interesting sideline here is the latter's adoption of a novel detection technique, fingerprinting, which is crucial in bringing about Price's downfall (in a predictable but rather awkward fiery climax)
though the persistent snooping of his amateur crime novelist landlady has at least as much to do with it in the long run! Watching the star in a made-to-measure role, the film emerges a good deal of fun particularly at a compact 73 minutes. | positive |
"Rock 'n' Roll High School" will probably have to go down in history as the ultimate rebellious party flick. Portraying a bunch of high school students using the Ramones' music as inspiration to rise up against their despotic principal (Mary Woronov, of "Eating Raoul" fame), the whole movie is a mile a minute. It's basically a big excuse to have fun, and I'm sure that you will. Bullied freshmen? Check. A dorky music teacher (Paul Bartel, also from "Eating Raoul"*)? Check. Exploding mice? Checkmate.<br /><br />Anyway, this is the sort of stuff that makes life worth living. Even for someone like me who doesn't know the Ramones' music, it's pure pleasure. With Roger Corman executive producing and Joe Dante co-directing, how could we expect anything less? Too bad that director Allan Arkush later degenerated into fare such as "Caddyshack II".<br /><br />Also starring P.J. Soles, Vincent Van Patten, Clint Howard, Dey Young, Dick Miller (who has appeared in every one of Joe Dante's movies, and many of Roger Corman's), Don Steele, and of course the Ramones. A real treat.<br /><br />*It seems like Bartel and Woronov always co-starred. They also co-starred in Joe Dante's "Hollywood Boulevard" and the slasher flick "Chopping Mall" (also starring Dick Miller)...in which they reprised their roles from "Eating Raoul". | positive |
An unflinching descent into psychological and physical oblivion that will undoubtedly burn images of the truthful brutality and suffering of war into your cerebral cortex in a way not many other films will. In fact, there is simply no other war film like it.<br /><br />Director Kon Ichikawa witnessed the unthinkable horror of Hiroshima first hand only 10 days after the bomb was dropped. He has said that from that day it would always be his mission to express the pointless, empty violence humans inflict on each other and themselves. <br /><br />Mr. Ichikawa shows us that there are no winners in war... for the paths to victory and defeat are paved with the same soldiers soullessly marching down roads which only have death and destruction at their end.<br /><br />Mr. Ichikawa succeeds in bringing his message to the world thru this haunting piece of cinema. | positive |
Quirky, vulnerable, raw, honest and a treat to watch. I'm not here to give a summary or synopsis of the film. I simply wish to congratulate this small film with the GREAT BIG HEART. I tip my hat to the filmmaker and it's excellent cast. If you want to know what happens in the film...then go see it. Michael Parness, writer/director, has handled a very sensitive and emotional subject matter , Suicide, with great compassion, comedy and empathy. I see a great career ahead for Mr. Parness. This film works. Right from the outrageous opening sequence to the tender, honest moments between David Krumholtz and Natasha Lyonne. As with every movie, we need to suspend some disbelief, yet I found with MAX AND GRACE I was easily transported and completely convinced with it's "surreal moments". I only wish they would have pushed some of those moments even further. Mr. Parness has "pulled" some wonderful performances from this already talented cast. For instance Guillermo Díaz' performance as a patient in the asylum was hysterical as well as moving. The colossus Ralf Moeller, former Mr Olympiad, as a terrified patient...perfect. I can go on and on...This independent feature has the star power of a big budget Hollywood film however, you forget about the STARS on screen as you flow along with this wonderfully written story. The real star here is the brilliant screenplay. I look forward to seeing more from Writer/Director Michael Parness. | positive |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.