review stringlengths 32 13.7k | sentiment stringclasses 2 values |
|---|---|
(May contain spoilers) I find myself disappointed with the criticism this movie receives. While it is most certainly not perfect, it is much better than it is given credit for. The acting and photography are excellent. Some of the musical numbers are great; including the title number, "Where Do I Go?", "Easy to be Hard", and "Black Boys/White Boys". While I have not seen the stage musical, I think that it clouds the judgement of many. This is not the musical you see in theatres. Do not attempt to compare them. The theatrical musical might have been sensational to watch, but it would never have had the same effect on film, so a plot had to be added. And the ending that has been added is just amazing. The movie left me feeling like I had actually watched something important, unlike most of today's movies, which only satisfy on one level. | positive |
Well I guess I know the answer to that question. For the MONEY! We have been so bombarded with Cat In The Hat advertising and merchandise that we almost believe there has to be something good about this movie. I admit, I thought the trailers looked bad, but I still had to give it a chance. Well I should have went with my instincts. It was a complete piece Hollywood trash. Once again proving that the average person can be programed into believing anything they say is good, must be good. Aside from the insulting fact that the film is only about 80 minutes long, it obviously started with a moth eaten script. It's chock full of failed attempts at senseless humor, and awful pastel sceneries. It jumps all over the universe with no destination nor direction. This is then compounded with, ............................yes I'll say it, BAD ACTING! I couldn't help but feel like I was watching "Coffee Talk" on SNL every time Mike Myers opened his mouth. Was the Cat intended to be a middle aged Jewish woman? Spencer Breslin and Dakota Fanning were no prize either, but Mr. Myers should disappear under a rock somewhere until he's ready to make another Austin Powers movie. F-, no stars, 0 on a scale of 1-10. Save your money! | negative |
Long before Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins would shake the world of the Christian subculture (and make millions in the process) with the LEFT BEHIND books, MARK IV Pictures, the Christian film distribution company of the Billy Graham evangelistic association, gave us this masterwork. What I love most about this genre is its incredible attention to detail, sitting in a living room. Instead of taking us to the dramatic scenes of this "post-rapture" tribulation, we sit in the living room, hearing about it on the news because the filmmakers can't afford to show it. The film's premise is grounded in Pre-Millenial, pre-Tribulation eschatalogy, believing that Christ comes once for the secret taking of the true church, and then comes again at the end of the seven years of hell on earth. What used to terrify me in junior high now makes me laugh. The intriguing adventures of Patty and her journey throughout the tribulation (and two of the film's three sequels) tells her remarkable story of unbelief and ultimately damnation. I hate to admit it, but I still thoroughly enjoy watching this. It even has the SAME EXACT score of Monty Python and the Holy Grail. I think I'm the only person in history to make that observation. | positive |
I liked this film a lot. The actors were great, particularly Potente, who is different in every role; Fürmann, who is also able to play anyone; and Loos, who spices things up (she is also a talented singer - she sings the song "My Truth", heard when one character cranks up the stereo in the lab).<br /><br />Anatomie is a good horror flick, which pays attention to its characters. It is also very gory at times, and the set design is innovative. It is too bad they had to make a sequel, which is nowhere near the original.<br /><br />On a side note, two other things definitely worth mentioning. The DVD is not dubbed, which makes for a better experience of the film. Also, make sure to keep watching after the final credits start rolling. | positive |
So umm this woman has a vagina that sucks people into it when they umm do it and there's this dude who like follows her around...everywhere....and uhh is umm in love with her and she cant love him back because of her thingy. Well her thingy starts talking to her...sort of...it just says feed me over and over and she tries to feed it hot dogs but that doesn't work because it ummmmm wants fresh meat?!?!!? So this woman heads to the red light district where she picks up tourists but only the really sleazy ones cause I guess they deserve it and after a while this dude comes looking for her and even though shes like right there he doesn't see her so eventually he gets involved with conjoined twins but he only likes one of them cause the other is a real hussy. This isn't bad good like I thought it would be cause like the novelty sort of wears off within the first 1/2 hour and it goes on for another hour. I think it killed off a few brain cells cause I sat through this whole thing and now im a little brain damaged. Either way man this is the worst man-eating vagina movie I have ever seen. | negative |
This Horror movie is definitely one of the best ones I have seen in my life and there are many reasons why. The storyline is really good it has lots of action and great horror sequences in it The actors are not very good but there are not that bad but Kane is definitely the best actor in this but he was always a good actor also The cast is very good such as Kane as Jacob Goodnight, Christina Vidal as Christine, Michael j. Pagan as Tye, Samantha Noble as Kira etc. Also I just have to warn you that the killing scenes are very disturbing but They are very creative but that just makes it better and you can't have a horror movie without blood and gore Also they look very realistic. So I am sure that you will not be disappointed with see no evil because it is a really good movie. So make sure that you rent or buy see no evil because it is just so great.<br /><br />Overall score: ********** out of ********** <br /><br />***** out of ***** | positive |
Investigative reporter Darren McGavin (as Carl Kolchak) is back; this time, he's after "The Night Strangler". Once again, police officials and fellow journalists either disbelieve, or want to cover-up, the supernatural angle. Producer-director Dan Curtis presents the same basic story as his preceding "Night", with understandably less success.<br /><br />Mr. Curtis assembles a fun supporting cast, included are "Dark Shadows" alumni George DiCenzo and Ivor Francis. Jo Ann Pflug (as Louise Harper) heads up a sexy collection of belly-dancers. And, although I've never seen it mentioned anywhere, that must be Roger Davis as Mr. McGavin's dining companion in an early scene, feigning disbelief in the existence of vampires! <br /><br />**** The Night Strangler (1/16/73) Dan Curtis ~ Darren McGavin, Jo Ann Pflug, Simon Oakland, Wally Cox | negative |
Fred Williamson, one of the two or three top blaxploitation stars. Cynthia Rothrock, one of the two or three top American female action stars. Imagine a film with these two together for the first time! Now imagine THE WORST film that could possibly be made with these two together for the first time. Welcome to "Night Vision". Of course, this movie was made in 1997 and they were both past their prime, but that doesn't mean they didn't have what it takes anymore - they just needed the help of good writing and direction. They got neither here. Rothrock does get to throw a couple of kicks near the end, but this film is so atrocious that you probably won't be awake to see them. (*) | negative |
I first seen this movie like a year and a half ago and I loved it, I decided to get the DVD last year for my birthday.. It has the right amount of suspense, action and drama.. This movie is about prep school called The Regis School and its packed with rebellious kids, in which one kid William Tepper (Sean Astin) has a hard time adjusting due to prior rejections from other schools cause they couldn't control his rebellious act and now at The Regis School committing more acts of a rebellion there school gets taken over by terrorists on a random day and which the real reason is because the leader Luis Cali's (Andrew Divoff) father has been sent to prison,and the leader will do anything including killing the students, setting bombs and so forth in order to get his father back.<br /><br />Along side William Tepper, is his rebellious friends at the Regis School, one in particular is Joey Trotta (Wil Wheaton) in which this guy holds a troubled past of living in a Mafia family and being sent to The Regis School because of hating his father for who he is and which now he must deal with these terrorists taking over the school, so William, Joey and there friends must band together to stop these terrorists from violent acts and hazardous tactics.<br /><br />This movie was really awesome and I believe people should notice it more because when people think of a good hostage movie they would say "Die Hard" and even though I would have to agree with them, they need to recognize that Toy Soldiers was a good thriller, it sure had my heart beating because the students are my age and I would be scared to confront terrorists like these if they took over our school ... But overall this movie is really worth a good 112 minutes of your time and If I had a decision to rent or buy it... I WOULD BUY IT! I recommend it with a lot of hype! 8/10 | positive |
The Lack of content in this movie amazed me the most. First i though that people was going to compare this to Rock On! but i'm really surprised myself to say that this was worst than Rock On! So-so story Horrible cast Ajay Devgan Jamming with Salman Khan and Asin you gotta be kidding me. The music was Okay Khanabadosh was the track of the movie the rest was bad! Vipul Shah hasn't still learn from Singh is King's critically bashed comedy. Now Asin.. where do she come from sorry for Asin's fan out there but she suck*d big time in this movie seriously bad acting she didn't look good at all overdose of make-up! My final verdict go watch Aladin with your family instead wasting your time here. | negative |
It's pretty surprising that this wonderful film was made in 1949, as Hollywood generally had its collective heads in the sand concerning black and white issues at that time. The film deserves strong kudos for taking this stand, for having exceptional acting from its mostly lesser-known cast and for the super-intelligent script that doesn't insult the audience or take the easy way out when it comes to white racism. Plus, with the movie's rather modest budget and fast running time, it does an amazing job! <br /><br />Juano Hernandez (an exceptional actor who played supporting roles in many films of the era) is a proud black man who is accused of murdering a white man in the South. The crowd could really care less about the details--they are just hell-bent on a hanging. And, despite his commitment to the law, the one lawyer in town who has agreed to defend him also assumes he is guilty and doesn't really want to know the truth--just delay the hanging until they could try and convict him and then have a LEGAL hanging! Fortunately, a young white man (Claude Jarmin) begins to wonder about Juano's innocence and begins seeking out the truth. At this point, the best character in this wonderful drama is introduced--played by Elizabeth Patterson (the old lady who later played Mrs. Trumbull on I LOVE LUCY). She single-handedly steals the show as the white person with not only a conscience but the will and determination to stand up for the black man. At one wonderful point in the film, a mob is trying to push past her to get to the prisoner to kill him, but she stands very firm and forces them to back down. There is a lot more to this rather complicated but intelligently written story, but I'll leave it to you to see it for yourself. See it with your kids if you have a chance--it will open up some amazing dialog about how far race relations have come in the last 50 years.<br /><br />By the way, apparently 1949 was a great year for Hollywood finally addressing race prejudice head on, as Twentieth-Century Fox also released "Pinky"--an equally effective and strong film about racism, interracial marriage and even rape! See both films if you can. | positive |
Whether you watch the regular version of this monstrosity or the MST3K version, you can only be impressed by the utter GALL that went into this production. The filmmakers insult the viewer's intelligence from one end to the other and obviously couldn't care less that they are doing so.<br /><br />Everything about it is rock-bottom cheap. Even the 1950s car in the flashback sequence to that era looks like it was hauled out of a junkyard.<br /><br />The "hobgoblins" are, as you probably know, "realized" with badly-crafted hand puppets and stuffed toys; when a person is supposed to be attacked by them, it's clear the toy is being held by the victim to his or her own body. When the critters scurry away from the two security guards, this is shown (or rather, not shown) by the camera aiming UP at the guards as they look down and turn their heads as if watching the hobgoblins scurrying past. It's reminiscent of the scene in the film "Tangents" where two people are standing in the ruins of a future world, surveying the wreckage, and we aren't shown any of it. Budget constraints alloyed with utter incompetence generally mean you won't have anything worth showing, so why try? The "sets" were utterly laughable. "Club Scum" was an obvious diner; the house appears to have been a vacant house --probably for rent or sale-- which the production company got hold of for an hour or two to do the shoot. The "spacecraft" is something I would have been ashamed to build when I was a model-making 10 year-old.<br /><br />The motivations of the characters make no sense-- Kevin gets denigrated by his worthless ingrate of a girlfriend because he hasn't made her "proud of him." I'm sure this was intended to make their reconciliation oh so touching at the end, but any guy with real self-respect would have told her to go to hell and left her. Nick is supposedly back from 2 months of Army training (yeah, nice regulation haircut, Nick,) and seems bent on proving that our country is being defended by sadistic, moronic animals who are sex maniacs. Kyle is a phone-sex freak in red shorts who dreams of a night with a spandex-clad dominatrix type, but he's so effeminate that he's more likely gay than not. One of the girls is a prude and the other is a sleaze.<br /><br />And the hobgoblins? At the end they all head back to the vault where they've lived for 30 years. Why? Who knows? Who cares? Watch this film and be amazed at how primitive film-making in our modern age can be when you have an idiotic script, incompetent direction, actors who are so bad they'd be rejected from a high school theater production, and sets worthy of Edward D. Wood, Jr. | negative |
I fail to see how anyone who has actually read the M. Didius Falco mysteries could make such a mockery of them. An Aussie has no business in Ancient Rome. Nothing of the books is in this film except the setting and characters, and they are wasted on a plot thin enough through which to read the silly script. Kevin Connor and Lee Zlotoff have a lot of nerve displaying their names in the credits. | negative |
Anyone who has seen this movie and reviewed it poorly, I would refer them to Roger Ebert's review of this movie. He is one of the most respected Critics in the industry, and he gave it 3 1/2 Stars.<br /><br />This is a great movie. It may not be perfect, or spectacular, but I enjoyed it. A Chorus Line is not so much a story, as it is a group of stories about the lives of Broadway hopefuls. I read reviews where people said that too much time was wasted on the romance between Zach and Cassie. That is an incorrect view. It is another story along with all the other stories that are told about each of the Broadway hopefuls. What people fail to realize is that those who are dancers for Broadway shows go through the same things that the common man goes through. And that I think is really the point of the whole show. It is to showcase not only the talent of these special dancers, but to give us some poignant things to think about in regard to life in general. This is a study of life as a Broadway star. Anyone who has dreamed of becoming a Broadway star watches this movie with a great feeling of relationship because they have gone through exactly what the characters are going through. <br /><br />This is a great musical. It has its slow points, and at times gets a little confused with the pacing of certain story lines, but all in all, I thoroughly enjoyed it. Take a closer look at the movie, and then maybe you will understand what I am talking about. | positive |
To paraphrase the previous reviewer's comments, if you're a Stooges fan, avoid this one at all costs! My basic question is, being the experienced troopers of comedy that Moe and Larry were, why did they insist on attempting to continue the act when it was so obvious that their home studio, Columbia, was so clearly not interested in giving them serious writers and veteran comedy directors? This movie plays like someone who's giving a pale imitation of the trio and you can see how very hard Moe and Larry are working to make every little bit of slapstick relevant. Joe De Rita, despite his background in vaudeville is just not up to the job as a replacement for Curly, Shemp, or even Joe Besser. If that's who Moe and Larry had left to pick from, they should have just closed up shop and enjoy their retirement years. Leaving us fans with better memories of far better films they had done earlier. Always leave them laughing is the motto for comedy and always quit while you're on top. Hence Seinfeld's leaving the sitcom while right up there, instead of sticking around for the inevitable decline. | negative |
I had high hopes for this movie, because I enjoyed the book so much. However, I don't think I would have understood the premise of the movie if I hadn't already read the book. The movie is a noble attempt to show the despair of people trying to break the bonds of overpowering government rule, but the book portrays the suffering much more thoroughly. The corrupt government officials have comfortable, almost luxurious lives, while the common people struggle to obtain the bare necessities for survival. Perhaps most people feel this way toward their leaders and rulers regardless of whether or not they are actually oppressed or repressed. Orwell's dystopia seems as if it could exist in many places in our modern world. It has been several years since I've read the book, but one hears references to Big Brother, the Thought Police, and Newspeak frequently in the media and casual conversation. Probably many people using these terms don't realize where the terms came from. I strongly recommend that you read the book. | negative |
I saw this movie on Thursdays night after having a really boring day. I had no expectations, those I had were rather negative. Being that the only movie I've ever watched Jimmy in is the American version of Taxi with Queen Latifah(?)...don't ask why! But seriously..this movie is so cute! Drew Barrymore is always sweet, but I almost fell in love with Fallon's character. Why can't I meet a cute nerd like that. :) Movies like that are excellent. Simple, sweet and necessary. Sunday on a Thursdays. I'm not even a sports fan, but it's something about American movies with baseball that fascinates me. Probably the fact that we don't have that sport here in Norway.<br /><br />(My first comment ever.) Haha | positive |
I first saw this movie on some movie channel (HBO?) some time ago. I was a fan of Public Enemy, NWA and other early rap and had seen CB4 in theaters. Anyway, the promo for it caught my eye, and I wanted to see what it was all about. Well, right off the bat I knew it was going to be good (WARNING!) and I was right. The parody songs alone make this movie worth watching over and over (My Peanuts), but the overall flow and delivery of the movie was great. You've got to love the satire of rap groups (obviously NWA), certain rappers (Eazy E, Flava Flav, Ice Cube), and the humor of the three members of NWH. Who can forget Tone Deaf scratching with his ass? It's too bad this movie didn't get the credit it deserved, as it was overshadowed by CB4 during their releases, but in my opinion is a much better film. If you know and like 90's 'gangster' rap, you'll be watching and laughing with this movie for a long time. If you aren't into or don't like 'rap', you'll enjoy the jokes at the expense of the genre. | positive |
In Cold Blood was one of several 60s films that created a new vision of violence in the Hollywood film industry. Capote coined the phrase "nonfiction novel" to describe the book on which this film is based, and the spirit of that form was carried over into the film script, which he co-wrote. Despite the fact that we were well into the era of color film, Richard Brooks elected to present this film in black and white to underscore both the starkness of the landscape and the bleakness of the story. This is the first problem with the TV remake --color changes the tone of the story. In addition, the confinement of shooting a film for TV makes reduces the options of how the shots are framed and focused. As a result, we lose the dramatic clash which makes the second part of the original film (police interviews, trial, imprisonment, and execution) so claustrophobic. On the small screen, it's just another version of Law and Order spin-offs. <br /><br />Hollywood's search for scripts continuously takes it back to movies that were successful in another age. Usually, that's a mistake, and this is no exception.<br /><br />All of the actors are competent. The script is OK. The directing doesn't get in the way. It's just that the movie doesn't work as well as the original precision instrument. It doesn't hook the viewer into the ambivalence toward Smith and Hickock that the original film provokes. At the end of the TV version, we are left with the feeling: "Ho hum, who cares?"<br /><br />See the original first, on as large a screen as you can, then watch the TV version simply to understand why the first one was such an important film in 1967.<br /><br />Wouldn't hurt to also go on line and read a bit about Capote and the original book. It will help you to understand the extraordinary effort he put into the material, and also some of the controversy surrounding both the book and the movie.<br /><br />I actually only gave this a 4 because I save the bottom 3 rankings for true bombs--the kind that enrage you about having been sucked into spending an | negative |
"The Leap Years" is a movie adapted from an e-novella by Singapore writer Catherine Lim, which became the first Singapore novel/novella to be sold over the internet. The film had a tortuous post-production schedule: shot in early 2005, it was slated for release at the end of 2005, but only turn up eventually 3 years later, on the 29th February 2008, a leap year.<br /><br />Before I say anything, I must first admit I'm no fan of the romance genre, so I may be a little biased against this film - I watched it merely because it was a Singapore production, and that it's available for borrowing at my neighborhood library. Here's my two cents on the movie.<br /><br />Let's just start by saying that other than Qi Yu-wu's KS and Wong Li-Lin, everybody here of note seems to be a Eurasian. The love interest is a Eurasian (Ananda Everingham), and Wong's trio of buddies are all, er-hem, Eurasians. Does this film perpetuate the stereotype that falling in love and associating with Eurasians are more "in" than the common Chinese (or whatever Asian race you are?) I don't know, it sure seems that way. Also, everyone in the movie speaks in some mystical "anglified" accent which doesn't exist anywhere, certainly not in Singapore. It's the kind of "semi-perfect English" that authorities would like us speak, but which doesn't exist anywhere outside, say, the MTV Channel. The effect is that the dialog of the movie sounds forced and stilted, not helped by the lack of true-blue Singaporeans in the cast.<br /><br />The scriptwriter seems to be trying too hard to string one-liners after one-liners. After twenty minutes, the "wit" of the movie starts to pall and the film starts serving up its usual plate of clichés. <br /><br />I guess I didn't enjoy the movie because the entire premise of sustaining a love affair over 16 long years seems unbelievable. <br /><br />There are other incredulities in the film. I can't for one believe that KS (played by Qi Yu-wu) would fall for one of Wong's girlfriends. And the scene where the bridegroom says, "Go, before I change my mind," has been used in a hundred East Asian (Korean, Chinese, Hong Kong, Taiwanese etc) TV serials...<br /><br />So 4 stars for this film. The production value is fair, and Wong Li-lin tries her best, but she's not helped by the script. Joan Chen has a 15-minute bit-part in the movie as the older Wong and is perhaps the best actress of the lot, but, hey, her role is just cameo.<br /><br />If you come across "The Leap Years" in the rental or library, you may want to pop it in the DVD player for curiosity's sake, but otherwise, for people who don't exactly enjoy the romance genre, you can decide whether or not to give it a miss. | negative |
Although the director tried(the filming was made in Tynisia and Morocco),this attempt to transport the New Testament in the screen failed.The script has serious inaccuracies and fantasies,while the duration is very long.But the most tragic is the protagonist Chris Sarandon,who doesn't seem to understand the demands of his role. | negative |
This is actually an insult to the victims and their families of the BTK killer. The events in this movie are not even close to the truth. Why they couldn't make a movie of the real events doesn't make any sense since the real events are more interesting then this made up farce. Don't even waste your time watching this for free. Low budget and a shameful depiction of the events which should not be made a joke of, which is really what this movie did. If they would allow me to give a -10 to this movie I would. The acting sucked and it looks like it was shot on an old VHS video camera from the 80s. Save your time and money by not watching this movie. | negative |
This TV-made thriller is all talk, little action. It works hard to set up its convoluted plot, yet the writing is so muddled the exposition is still cloudy at best. By the end, I knew no more about these characters than I did at the beginning. It has a quasi-"Ten Little Indians" scenario, but ditches it mid-way through in favor of spotlighting Sally Field and her uncovering of a killer. Field overacts here with a gracelessness I've seldom seen from her. The early introductions are good, but the writing quickly strays off-course and eventually goes over the top. Lots of hysteria, and constant thunder and lightning effects (which adds nothing). A curious failure from producers Aaron Spelling & Leonard Goldberg. With all this talent, couldn't they give us something more than a script full of red herrings and Sally Field hiding in a closet? | negative |
I give "Flashdance" a lowest rating of 1 out of 10 because it's nothing more than a series of music videos with a movie short surrounding the music videos, in order to clock in as a feature length film. Since when does that count as film? Jennifer Beals plays Alex Owens, an aspiring 18-year-old dancer, who, incomprehensibly, has a job as a welder in a Pittsburgh steel factory. Not a line of work most older women find their way into, much less 18-year-olds fresh out of high school. Meanwhile, at night she works as an exotic dancer, who never actually takes off her clothes, in a greasy spoon bar called Mawby's. Yet looking at the well choreographed and well polished dance routines the girls do every night at Mawby's, you would think they were working at the best casino on the Las Vegas Strip.<br /><br />Alex ends up having a predictable romance with her boss, Nick Hurley (Michael Nouri), who is about twice her age. After resisting Nick's advances, because going out with the boss isn't a good idea, she wastes no time in going all the way with him after their first date. Alex and Nick make no effort to hide their relationship on the job, which makes no sense given how it is likely to look to Alex's co-workers.<br /><br />When Beals isn't being doubled for the many dance sequences in the movie, her character spends most her time throwing temper tantrums. Alex's dream is to get an invitation only audition at the prestigious Pittsburgh Conservatory of Dance. Inexplicably, when her boss/boyfriend helps her get the audition she's been dreaming of, she's throws one her tantrums. She angrily tells Nick she isn't doing the audition because of his intervention, and then gets out of his car in the middle of a busy tunnel. This is just one scene that leaves you wondering what the hell the makers were thinking when they were making this.<br /><br />Of course, Alex does eventually get her audition at the Conservatory. She puts on a dance routine before the Conservatory board that is so ridiculous that you would think it was in a movie marketed to the MTV generation. Oh yeah, it is a dance routine in a movie marketed to the MTV generation.<br /><br />I don't think I can judge whether or not Beals can actually act well on the basis of what I saw in "Flashdance". This is because the character she is forced to play is so poorly written, that I don't think it is a fair litmus test of her acting abilities.<br /><br />You have to hand it to the makers of "Flashdance" though. This movie is proof that the poorest film making can be covered up by a slick marketing campaign. In this case a best selling and award winning soundtrack and music videos for said soundtrack in heavy rotation on MTV. If they had devoted more of their energy to the writing of the script, then they might have been able to come up with a plot and a story with characters that I cared about. Instead what we get are stock characters put in ridiculous scenes any viewer with a functioning brain can't take seriously. A truly forgettable "film". | negative |
I had lost faith in Sooraj R. Barjatya after the movie Main Prem Ki Deewani hoon, then a year back now I saw promos for Vivah which looked good. But I didn't want to waste my hard earned money watching it in cinema. When the film first came out on DVD I rented it and watched and I loved the movie and took back my words for Sooraj. I just finished watching it yesterday again and this time I thought I have to review this movie. Sooraj R. BarjatyaGot it right this time, okay I was not a huge fan of Hum App Ke Hai Kaun. But I have always loved Manie Pyar kiya, after Manie Pyar kiya to me I think Vivah is Barjatyas best work. I hardly ever cry in a movie but this movie made me feel like crying. If you have ever been in love before then there will be many moments that will touch you in this movie, the movie is just too sweet and will have you falling in love with it, my view a much underrated movie.<br /><br />The story of this movie you might call desi and very old times, but to me it seemed modern because the two couples which are getting an arrange marriage are aware it's an old tradition. It's done in present times, lots of people don't believe in this arrange marriage, but I do. The journey between the engagement and wedding which will always be special and this movie shows it clearly. When Prem meets Poonam for the first time, they show it how it is and that's reality and my parents where saying that's how they got married and it showed it in a way which is so real yes people the way Prem and Poonam meet in this movie is how most marriages happen. It was a very sweet, you feel nervous yet excited, the song "Do Ajnabe" shows that very well. Getting back to the story yes it's a journey which you soon get glued to between Prem and Poonam (Shahid Kapoor and Amrita Rao) and there families. A twist occurs in this movie which is really good, the last 30mins you all will be reaching for the tissue box.<br /><br />What makes this film so amazing is the chemistry between Prem and Poonam, how they fall for each other is too sweet. Simple boy and Simple Girl, when they first meet during and after the song "Do Anjane Ajnabe" It's very sweet to watch, She hardly says anything and Prem does all the talking being honest with her about his past and the girl he liked and him smoking. Then it leads on to them all having a family trip and then that's when they really do fall for each other. It makes you just want to watch the couple and watch all the sweet moments they have. Another factor is that Poonam chichi is really mean to her and you feel sorry for Poonam because she has been treated bad and makes you want to see her happy and when she finally finds happiness, you too start feeling happy with her the movie basically makes you fall in love with Poonam more then just Prem. When she finds happiness through Prem you want her to stay happy and also hope nothing goes wrong because the character is shown as a sweet simple girl. Which brings me to performances and Amrita Roa as Poonam is amazing in the movie, her best work till date you will fall in love with this innocent character and root her on to find happiness. Shahid Kapoor as Prem is amazing too, he is Poonam support in the film, he is her happiness the movie, together they share an amazing chemistry and I have never seen a cuter couple since SRK and Kajol. If Ishq Vishk didn't touch you to telling you how cute they are together this surely will. "Mujhe Haq hai" the song and before that is amazing chemistry they show. Scenes which touched me was when Prem takes Poonam to his room and shows her that's where they will be staying and he opens her up and they have a moment between them which is too sweet. Again if you have ever been in love with someone that much these scenes you can defiantly connect to. The film is just the sweetest thing you will see ever.<br /><br />The direction is spot on, to me a good movie is basically something that can pull me in and stop me believe for this hours what is being seen here is fake and there is a camera filing them. To me this film pulled me in and for those three hours I felt really connected to the movie. The songs you will only truly like when you have seen the movie as they are songs placed in the situation after I saw the movie I been playing the songs non stop! The music is amazing, the story is simply amazing too what more can I ask for?<br /><br />What I can finally say it, rarely do we get a movie that makes us feel good, this movie after you have seen it will make you feel really good and make you want to be a better person. Its basically the sweetest journey ever, its basically showing you they journey between engagement and marriage and many people say it's the bestest part of your life
Well this movie actually shows you way do people actually say that? Why do people actually say that the journey is just that amazing! Watch this movie and you will find out why the journey is amazing! | positive |
"Black Angel" is minor whodunit, with June Vincent as a woman trying to save her husband from the electric chair after he is found guilty of killing an old acquaintance. Dan Duryea (the husband of the murdered woman) decides to help Vincent find the real culprit. Peter Lorre has one thankless role as a suspect. This film noir looks and plays like a cheap programmer, never achieving anything special. It is pleasant enough but then, at some point, it stops making sense and the solution to the mystery provokes one of those big "give me a break" reactions. That ending alone could have sank the film completely, but what precedes the conclusion is not very good either. Vincent is a wimpy heroine and Duryea was never very good at playing good guys. I love film noirs, but this one was a real disappointment. | negative |
When I rented this I was hoping for what "Reign of Fire" did not deliver: a clash between modern technology and mythic beasts.<br /><br />Instead I got a standard "monster hunts stupid people in remote building" flick, with bad script, bad music, bad effects, bad plot, bad acting. Bad, bad, bad.<br /><br />Only reason why I did give it a 2 was that in theory there could exist worse movies. In theory..... | negative |
This is the best direct-to-DVD effort from Van Damme that I have seen yet. Van Damme plays a border patrol agent who is out to stop heroin smugglers trying to cross into the United States. The action in this movie is great and the fight scenes rank with Van Damme's best. Costar Scott Adkins shows why he should be the next big star in the martial arts genre. For further evidence check out "Undisputed 2". Adkins is so good in fact that before I watched "The Shepherd", I thought that Van Damme might not look very believable in defeating him on screen. Van Damme holds his own though and although he isn't quite as athletic as Adkins is, he can still kick with the best of them. All of the fight scenes in this film are very well done and the gun battles are above average for this type of film as well. The only negative thing I can say about this movie is that the story is a little underdeveloped. I think Van Damme's character's motives should have been presented earlier in the movie, especially in regard to why he carries around a rabbit. The reason he does is very cool but you don't find out until the very end. There are a couple of other things that are never really explained either but this is a Van Damme movie so you know where the priority lies in making this kind of movie and it ain't character development. Overall though, this is a solid action movie that I recommend. So run for the Damme border! | positive |
You gotta love the spaghetti western universe. The vision of a west where good guys get shot point blank with no warning, cartoonish villains chew the scenery in extreme close-ups, and the anti-hero walks away from the girl in the end. A lot of people call Corbucci's films 'depressing'. I find that a bit dodgy as far as descriptions go. I think bleak and unforgiving are more apt mostly because 'depressing' suggests a level of sentimentality almost every Eurowestern director ignored in favour of painting characters in broad strokes.<br /><br />GLI SPECIALISTI must be seen in all its widescreen glory before it can take its proper place in the Sergio Corbucci canon. It's a beautiful movie. And it makes sense that Corbucci wanted to blow off some steam with COMPANEROS after the unremitting one two punch of THE GREAT SILENCE and this (although he would later revert back to his usual tricks with the foulmouthed SONNY AND JED). There's still a certain amount of caricature that detracts from the overall grimness of the movie, imo it hurts more than does any good to have a needless inclusion of three kids dressed like hippies skulking around town in search of gold and trouble. And it hurts to have Mario Adorf playing Mexican one-handed bandit El Diablo as over the top as he always plays his characters.<br /><br />Those minor gripes aside there's more than enough here to wet the palate of the spaghetti aficionado. Shootouts galore, the population of an entire town reduced to crawling naked in the dirt, the typical iconic badassitude of the laconic antihero (played by Johnny Halliday), the moral bankruptcy of almost every character in the movie. Corbucci might never receive the acclaim of the more famous Sergio or the American patriarchs of the genre but you and I know that's a gross injustice for a very talented director. His dynamic shot selection, in depth staging with objects sticking close to the camera and receding in the background, his flair for quick pacing and feverish energy in moving a story that wasn't always all that along, the way he photographs open spaces, everything in his work makes me sure that if Corbucci was American and had emerged 15 years later along with Mann and Hawks, the Cahiers du Cinema critics would have lauded him as an auteur worthy of serious critical consideration. | positive |
Do not see this movie if you value your mind. At the end of our collective viewing, me and my friends estimated that we each lost 5% of our brains during its course. The only person involved with its making that was not clinically insane was the set designer.<br /><br />Most movies leave a bad taste in your mouth. I realize now that instead of a feeling of revulsion, this movie has bred a deep hatred within me. I hate this movie so very, very much.<br /><br />Some might say this movie is not meant to be taken seriously. If only it didn't take itself seriously. But it does. The plot is a warmed over version of Blade Runner-esque universe melded with the cheap rubber suits so prevalent in bad dinosaur movies. The dialogue is not only puerile and meaningless but often literally painful. Whoopee Goldberg isn't even trying, but George Newbern as the voice of Theodore Rex is like fingernails on the soul. And whether its Juliet Landua with her off again on again British accent or Richard Roundtree (aka Shaft) as the blustering Commissioner, you will sink into an ever increasing sense of incredulity and disillusionment.<br /><br />I recommend this movie only to anyone who wishes to see the depths of stupidity to which mankind may fall. | negative |
OK the director remakes LOVE ACTUALLY The director Nikhil Advani after debuting with KHNH does his second half and wait<br /><br />He makes a 3:30 hours + film which loses on patience, time.etc The viewer seems like a 3 hrs sleep watching this film<br /><br />OK they had 6 stories so it was necessary but why? 6 stories?<br /><br />We have the Anil- Juhi story convincing but boring don't TV serials show such stories?<br /><br />We have Govinda- Shannon story which is funny and works well <br /><br />We have Akshaye-Ayesha story again believable but gets boring soon and the focus is on comedy more and that too slapstick boring comedy<br /><br />We have Salman- Priyanka story which is the worst, not just acting terms, it makes no sense at all<br /><br />We have Sohail- Isha story to make you laugh and the trick works at times thanks to the boredom set by most of other stories<br /><br />We have John- Vidya story a good story in all respects<br /><br />But then by the time all stories come in bits n pieces the viewer gets bored and sleepy The climax isn't appealing though especially The climax of Salman- Priyanka story Nikhil Advani's handling is alright at places, some stories are well handled but weak at places Music(SEL)is good, but too many songs Cinematography is nice, every story is given a different look, texture and it works<br /><br />Actors Govinda rocks, after a dismissal comeback with BB he actually makes you laugh and love him in this film despite his age and weight Anil Kapoor acts his part well, though he looks out of shape and tired John excels in his part, Akshaye Khanna overacts for a change<br /><br />Sohail Khan is too over- the - top and Isha has nothing to do Anjana Suknani is dismissal<br /><br />Priyanka and Salman deserve an award for this film you are shocked?<br /><br />Salman Khan doesn't act only, just talks like he is in his sleep and that fake accent oh god Priyanka overacts to such a standard you feel like throwing something on her, she does get better towards the end Vidya Balan is good, Juhi Chawla is okay Shannon is okay | negative |
The barbarians maybe´s not the best film that anybody of us have seen, but really????........It´s so funny......I can´t discribe how mutch I laughed when I first saw it..The director really wanted to do a serious adventure movie, but it´sso misirable bad....so bad that it´s one of the funniest movies I´ve ever seen......so my advise is that you should see it.....and if you alredy did, se it again!!!!!!! | positive |
Reading my review of THE HOUSE THAT SCREAMED, many may assume that I'm some 14 year old who thinks SCREAM is considered "classic" horror. This is not the case, as I'm 30 years old and have been watching horror films for most of my life. But admittedly, I'm a child of the 80's that grew up on slasher/zombie/ghost/cannibal, etc...types of horror films - so I do typically prefer horror films that are more graphic and faster-paced. Just like someone who can appreciate different music, painting, or in this case, film - but not necessarily like them - I can appreciate why some people may enjoy this sort of film...I just don't...<br /><br />THE HOUSE THAT SCREAMED is an exceedingly dull and tedious film about a school for wayward girls. The heavy-handed mistress of the school rules with an iron hand (or whip in some cases...) to keep the girls in line. She has a young son who creeps around and peeps on the girls while they shower (in their nightgowns no less (?!?)...), and meanwhile, girls are disappearing from the school as they are the victim of a murderer who's lurking about the campus...<br /><br />I can see why THE HOUSE THAT SCREAMED is often compared to SUSPIRIA (which is a masterpiece of a film in my opinion...), in terms of the atmosphere of the school itself and the interaction between the girls and their guardians - but this film is so dull and uneventful that I could barely stay awake. I'm all for "tension" and "suspense" in horror films - but this film held neither for me. Luckily, I wasn't expecting a whole lot going into this one, so I can't say I was really disappointed - THE HOUSE THAT SCREAMED just reinforced the fact that I personally don't typically enjoy most horror films much older than from the 70's. This isn't a hard and fast rule, but those that I HAVE enjoyed definitely seem to be more of the exception. Probably a "must-see" for horror fans who enjoy more understated and suggestive horror films - but as I don't really know too many fans of that sort of material, I can't really recommend this one...4/10 | negative |
"The Running Jumping & Standing Still Film" is not a film as such, but it is a short series of clips with a comical slapstick theme. This 'film' got Richard Lester recognised and paved the way for him to direct the first Beatles film: 'A Hard Day's Night".<br /><br />Richard Lester directed and wrote the music for his first film in 1959. This film was entitled The Running, Jumping, & Standing Still Film. It was intended to be viewed only by those who had aided in its production. Since the film was intended to be viewed by Lester and his partners alone, a small amount of money and time was invested. The sole purpose of this film is entertainment, but the main reason for its existence is the fact that it served as an experiment to work the camera. The film cost 70£ to make, and it was filmed in sepia-toned film stock in a field on a couple of Sundays. All of the shots that were filmed were included in the finished production; the finished production is eleven minutes in length.<br /><br />The Running, Jumping, & Standing Still Film is a comedy about English Sundays and the small hobbies that people do to pass the time. All of the events in this film take place in a field. A few of these comical events include a woman scrubbing a lawn, a man running around a tree stump with a needle to play a record, a photographer developing film in a pond, an artist aided in painting by the numbers on a model's face, a man building a tent, an athlete running over the tent, and a duel between a man with a knife and a man with a gun. Not only does the film poke fun at the hobbies that people do to pass the time away, but it also pokes fun at English culture when compared to American culture. Another one of several events in this film includes a group of men and a kite, which has been constructed out of the flag of the United Kingdom. One of the men jumps inside the kite while the other men attempt to fly it, and the kite breaks. According to Neil Sinyard, author of The Films of Richard Lester, this event symbolizes the United Kingdom as lesser in power and technology when compared to the United States during the space age. According to this scene, the British fly primitive kites while the Americans, the world-power after World War II, fly highly-advanced rockets and space shuttles. | negative |
Anyone who knows anything about evolution wouldn't even need to see the film to say "fake". "it's never been disproved" also is a weak argument. Saying the universe was created by a giant hippo cannot be disproved. Although, to be fair, it does seem like the only people who do believe are the same people who open email attachments from people they don't know or give their bank details to a dude in Zambia. No bones of any primates are have been found in the United States or Canada. There is also a good reason why legitimate scientists don't bother studying this. The same argument goes for the Loch Ness monster, ghosts and god. | negative |
There is one good thing in this movie: Lola Glaudini's ass! Sorry to be so blunt but it's the truth. Too bad she didn't do a nude. It would at least have made this mess tolerable. We see another chick's boobs but she's nowhere near Lola. And man, is Armand Assante old or what? The man looks like crap! "Consequence" is the usual B-Movie you would expect. The story had potential. It's like they had good ideas but didn't know how to execute them. The cinematography is just plain awful. Ugly! The directing is uninspired and the end result is a bland thriller with lame twists and washed up actors. Lola Gaudini is great as the vixen in a cheap, slutty way but not even she saves "Consequence" from being trash and not funny trash, just plain old stinking trash. | negative |
Oh man, does this movie ever bite! If you were ever afraid of seeing a rehash of the slasher genre, done as cheap as possible and as cautious at the same time (pc-friendly, means no nudity, a classic element of slasher films) Cut is it. Every cliche is retread without a hint of self-awareness and the acting. Oh, the acting redefines the word horror. I should have known better as the direct Dutch translation of the title would have tipped me off. | negative |
A friend of mine, who is even more into 1970s cult films than myself, recommended this one to me and in fact gave me the copy of it that I watched. However, I was not as enthusiastic about the result as he or, for that matter, Michael Elliott was. The film is a hybrid of HOUSE OF WAX (1953) and THE Texas CHAIN SAW MASSACRE (1974): indeed, I would venture to say that it served as the basis of the 2005 remake of the former much more than the 'original' did! So, we have a remote and derelict Wax Museum of incredibly lifelike dummies (guess why that is?) with its apparently harmless curator (a hammy Chuck Connors) being 'invaded' by the obligatory group of stranded teenagers (among them Tanya Roberts). He also has a mad brother shades of PSYCHO (1960) incorporated for good measure, down to the self-same twist who is supposed to be a mechanical genius (showcased in a 'poltergeist' which unaccountably accompanies the first murder). The film does benefit from a Pino Donaggio score but, being so derivative and not especially well made to boot, essentially ends up merely a redundant (and fairly muddled) genre effort. | negative |
My first question, is NOT about the horrible acting, NOT about the horrendous writing, it is the directing. The choices that were made about the cinematography are some of this worst decisions I have ever seen. Why does EVERY single bad guy have to die in slow motion? I was about to beat myself with a rubber hose. The camera shots make it so that you can't see whats going on. I was JUST about to turn the movie off because of Jalal Merhi's accent, when it made it to the sex scene, so I thought it might get better, well it did not. If you rate special effects on an A,B,C rating scale, I would have to put it around a W or so, and did I mention the acting? Wow, was it bad!!! And the WORST part of the entire "Expect to DIE" experience, is the blatant misuse of the phrase on the cover, which is: "THE MATRIX JUST GOT DEADLIER". comparing this movie to the Matrix is easily the WORST comparison I have EVER seen. If you haven't seen this movie, Don't, unless you are looking for a good reason to beat your head against the wall. | negative |
I hadn't heard of this film until I read an article about it on the Unknown Movies website, which made me curious. As a cartoonist and illustrator myself, I'm an admirer of Richard Williams's work - I rate Ziggy's Gift as one of the finest Christmas specials of all time, and even though Who Framed Roger Rabbit stopped being one of my favourite films when I got past the age of sixteen, I still have the highest of regard for the amount of work, care and attention to detail that went into creating the visuals - but it seems the man has his faults, most notably a propensity for going over budget and over schedule, and this film is a testament of just how far wrong even a super-talented individual like Williams can go, given the right circumstances.<br /><br />Raggedy Ann and Andy is a strange confection that tries to be weird and experimental and off the wall within the confines of a children's cartoon. It tries also to be a musical. It tries to be a thousand and one other things as well - is it a freakout? Is it a mind-blower? Is it a paean to the innocence of childhood imagination? - until it finally collapses under the weight of its own limitless ambitions and aspirations. It's beautifully animated, for the most part, though the bland backgrounds could have used a little more attention, but even that doesn't count for much when you're confronted with the hallucinogenic absurdity that constitutes much of the 'action' here.<br /><br />There are a number of problems with the film, but let's start with Raggedy Ann and Andy themselves. They're the stars of the show, yet they have no personalities. Actually, we get the message that Andy is a wannabe tough guy ("I'm no girl's toy", he sings) and that Ann has a unique perspective on things because her owner, a little girl called Marcella, carries her upside down, but that's all we get to find out about these dull-as-mud characters because the overwhelming weirdness of this film kicks in not long after. I use the word "weirdness" advisedly, because some weird films can be hugely entertaining, but this is just flat-out strange. The toys and dolls in the playroom are supposed to be cute and lovable, but they're actually bizarre and disturbing. The two marionettes who do and say everything in sync are a prime example of this. But even they're relatively normal compared to the constantly sneezing pirate captain, whose moustache becomes erect and whose groin visibly swells when he first catches sight of a glamorous French doll. Yes, this is supposed to be a children's film! Then there's the music, none of which is memorable, and all of which is sung by actors who can't sing. And to add insult to injury, there's a lot of singing in this film. When Ann and Andy finally make it out of the playroom, the first thing they do is sing a LONG number in the woods about how scared they are, about how they'll always have each other and...yes, we get the message. This seems to go on forever, but at least it brings some semblance of normality back to the film. Not for long, though, because the Camel with the wrinkled knees leads us into a bizarre world where everything looks like it's made from worn and faded denim, and - bad enough that he's clearly a paranoid schizophrenic - he also starts hallucinating. But this is nothing compared to the scenes that follow. The Greedy, a living, breathing. belching, farting, constantly eating pool of taffy, is so trippy, creepy and ultimately disturbing, you'll hardly believe what you're seeing - this is as close to a drug-free psychedelic experience as I've ever seen on film. Then, after a l-o-n-g time spent with the Greedy, along comes the psychotic Sir Leonard Looney and his master King KooKoo, whose throne resembles a urinal. I can't believe I'm actually writing a capsule description of a real film here - I just had to rub my eyes and remind myself that I'm not blogging about an overwhelmingly whacked-out nightmare I had. Part of the sequence in Looney Land resembles one of the old Winsor McCay / Little Nemo cartoons, for no good reason other than somebody felt like doing it, probably. All this would be fine if there was some kind of rhyme or reason behind it, but there isn't. These scenes are just strange, and very, very long. Surrealism only works when there's a strong idea behind it, or takes place against some semblance of reality. But NOTHING in these scenes points towards any kind of reality. Take away this element, and you're left with pure self indulgence.<br /><br />As the final scenes unravel, even the animation begins to look less impressive (the pirate ship, ludicrously detailed, jerks about on the water in a manner that suggests some of the cels went missing during the production) and there's a non-event of an ending that simply suggests money ran out. Even at a meagre 86 minutes in length, the film feels like a never-ending ordeal, and it's understandable why it flopped on its original release. Animation buffs will probably scratch their heads and wonder just how Williams managed to flub this one so spectacularly, but he did, and there's nothing anyone can do about it. | negative |
A pig-tailed Linnea Quigley drinks milk, strips and kills her sister and her sister's boyfriend after they have sex. She goes to an asylum, makes a best friend out of Amy (Karen Russell) and the two blackmail their way out of a mental institution by sleeping with their psychologists (one is played by "Carol Burnett Show" regular Lyle Waggoner). On the outside, these two man-hating mafia princesses (!) stop taking their medication and invite six slimeball ex-boyfriends over to their large country home for a party where they're systematically slaughtered in very gory ways by a gloved, leather-clad mystery killer.<br /><br />The hideous David Barton FX are so bloody, but so unrealistic that they take on a sort-of surrealistic quality. Same goes for the movie. The dialogue is so strange and stilted, the film so ineptly paced and edited and the acting so other-worldly, you'll start to doubt your own sanity. This film actually attempts to have a plot and three-dimensional characters, but it's all so poorly handled it's almost like what would happen if Ed Wood did a rewrite of an Ingmar Bergman script! And like any good Bergman film, this has a mature moral to abide by--Any good party needs a proper guy/girl "ratio," so there will be enough chicks to "tickle your lizard." See it for yourself... or don't!<br /><br />Linnea (the only reason I was even interested in watching this to begin with) is very amusing in this one, has a lot more dialogue than usual and has several eye-popping nude scenes. Unfortunately, she also completely disappears from the final third of this film and the movie suffers because of it.<br /><br />Score: 3 out of 10 | negative |
Caught this 1969 film on cable TCM one night. I remember when I first saw the film in Hong Kong, I really enjoyed the songs and performances by Peter O'Toole and Petula Clark. I love Clark best in Francis Ford Coppola's "Finian's Rainbow" (1968) opposite Fred Astaire, Don Francks and Tommy Steele. Simply ecstatic to learn that finally, this delightful Irish-flavored pot of gold musical is released on DVD! Ah, "it's that old devil moon (in your eyes)." <br /><br />Peter O'Toole as Mr. Chips - yes, he did sing - quite a deliverance. He may not be a veteran at musical like Rex Harrison, but he inhabited the role marvelously. The scene of him running across the lawn in his cape a-flying reminds me of the PBS series, "To Serve Them All My Days" - a lovable schoolmaster and loving man, he is, 'Mr. Chipey.' Clark and O'Toole somehow gave us just the right mix of spunk and circumstance. The songs and lyrics by Leslie Bricusse are catchy as usual. The tunes of "You and I" and "Walk Through the World (with Me)" stayed with me the most all these years. And there's "What a Lot of Flowers," "And the Sky Smiled," "Fill the World with Love" - not syrupy at all. Sometimes I think if the world is immersed in Bricusse's songs and words, we would overcome all strife on earth and 'lovely' will be all our days! Yes, "Talk to the Animals," too. ("Doctor Doolittle" 1967) <br /><br />Musicals are a blessing to the world of moviegoers, they are somehow larger than life. Like the music and lyrics by the Sherman Brothers (Richard M. and Robert B.) who gave us "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang" (1968) and "Mary Poppins" (1964) - who wouldn't feel absolutely delighted simply uttering "supercalifragilisticexpialidocious"? I was tickled by even just one featured song & dance number in the Spanish film "Km.0 - Kilometer Zero" (2000). My all time favorite is French filmmaker Jacques Demy's "Young Girls of Rochefort" (1967) with colorful cast of Catherine Deneuve and (late sister) Francoise Dorléac, Jacques Perrin, Michel Piccoli, Danielle Darrieux, Gene Kelly and George Chakiris singing, dancing to Michel Legrand's music. Long live musicals. | positive |
WARNING! This review will reveal the ending of the movie, "Scoop." If you don't want to know how the movie ends, don't read this review!<br /><br />"Scoop" is so bad you'll think "Annie Hall" was a fluke.<br /><br />It gets one star because you get to see Hugh Jackman's naked chest. That's the only thing "Scoop" has going for it.<br /><br />Woody Allen's misogyny, and his fixation on women young enough, at this point, to be his granddaughter, has crippled any ability to make movies he may have had at any point.<br /><br />The plot seems promising: a ghost, Ian McShane, directs a fluffy headed student, Scarlett Johansson, to investigate whether or not an English Lord, Hugh Jackman, is the notorious Tarot Card Killer of prostitutes. A magician, Woody Allen, helps the girl.<br /><br />Promising plot notwithstanding, the movie completely lacks charm, or humor, or atmosphere. It's an amazingly leaden, amateurish effort for someone who has made even one previous film, never mind dozens. Perhaps Allen has had a stroke that has gone unreported in the press.<br /><br />Much is made of the fact that unlike in his previous films, Woody Allen, now a septuagenarian, has FINALLY allowed a younger male lead to get the girl.<br /><br />Not so. In fact, the plot is constructed in such a way so that the girl gets no one.<br /><br />There is an early scene where Johansson, for no reason central to the movie, allows herself to be gotten drunk, and seduced, by a powerful, older director. "Seduced" is a euphemism for what happens. It's a "slam, bam, I've gotta go" kind of moment. It bears no relation to the plot whatsoever, and it cheapens Johansson in the viewer's eye. Why did Allen add that unnecessary scene to the movie? Because it shows a powerful director - like Allen - having sex with the female lead. Allen gets to have his cake and eat it, too.<br /><br />Johansson is not yet an actress. She doesn't know how to command the screen except by wearing a tight, low cut top. She imitates Allen in a couple of scenes, and that just looks weird and sad.<br /><br />It doesn't help that her character is scripted as a doll who can't function without a ghost, or an elderly and less than awe-inspiring magician, telling her what to do at every turn.<br /><br />She is approximately half Jackman's age, and she comes across as a very vapid screen presence in their scenes together.<br /><br />Audience members not obsessed with breasts deserve better in their heroines, and Jackman deserves better, too -- a script that gives the heroine some intelligence and agency, and an actress who can convey those qualities.<br /><br />Hugh Jackman is similarly cheated by the script. Allen apparently can't stand it that Jackman is so stunningly good looking and young, and so he gives Jackman nothing to say or do. Like Johansson, he is used merely for his good looks. This is a shame, because, as Jackman has shown in any number of productions, from "Oklahoma" to "X Men," he CAN act.<br /><br />Here's the big plot twist -- Jackman, suave, charming English Lord, really is a killer. So, though the movie says it is all about letting someone else, other than Allen, get the girl, she doesn't get anyone. Jackman, the man she's been making love to, is a man who murdered a prostitute. Nice, Woody. Nice way to punish your heroine for being beyond your grasp.<br /><br />In a passive aggressive touch, Allen deprives his heroine of his own presence, as well, killing off his character, the magician, leaving Scarlett Johansson all alone at the end of the film.<br /><br />A final note: at my screening, not a single audience member laughed at any point during the film. Always a bad sign when a film is advertised as a comedy. | negative |
Witchy Hildegard Knef traps a group of people in an isolated hotel and picks them off one by one in twisted, disgusting ways. I thought I'd seen it all until one unfortunate man here is crucified and then has his head set on fire. Hildy is quite the prankster too: she takes a nagging harpy and sews her mouth shut...then hangs her upside down in the chimney just in time for a roaring fire! "Witchery" made me sick. It made my eyes hurt. I was ready to write it off as the worst movie ever-ever-ever made by otherwise competent people...until the finale. I have to admit I loved the ending. It involves a boy and his toy tape-recorder cornered by Linda Blair looking fantastically possessed. The scene only lasts for about a minute and the movie's over, but you know that old saying: "If you've got a great ending, people will forgive you for just about anything!" | negative |
Born Again the Limerick: <br /><br />If a man could come back from the dead <br /><br />And live in a little girl's head <br /><br />Revenge he would get <br /><br />For the murder he met<br /><br />By the guy that's now in his wife's bed.<br /><br />For me Born Again is a highly under-rated, classic episode that makes up a part of what defined The X-Files for me before I started watching it. I saw a few segments before when the show first came on and I was much too young to watch it such as parts of The Jersey Devil, but I very specifically remember watching this episode as an 11 year old and being absolutely creeped out by the scene where they guy gets choked to death by the bus and then the hypnosis scene with the little girl. I tell you I couldn't sleep for weeks! For this reason the episode has a special aura about it now of the creepiness factor that I have since grown to enjoy. Its enough to let me look past some of the obvious flaws in the plot such as why the girl had to wait until she was 9 before her previous life spirit really began to exact his revenge. Or what she was doing just randomly sitting on a bus in the middle of the night. You'd think her parents would have been worried. And maybe they were we just don't really see that part of the story. And was was with the telekinesis? Other than adding the really cool Carrie factor to the already creepy story, there really wasn't any kind of good explanation for it. But even with its little flaws, in my mind this is a classic episode and has little to no reason for me to not like it. 10 out of 10. | positive |
So we're supposed to find it funny that this woman travels all the way to the jungle - to the warzone - just to find out why her fiancée didn't travel to Switzerland? Or are we supposed to take it seriously? It's not even remotely funny, clever or entertaining - it's stupid - and so is the movie. The lead actress is one of the most annoying characters I have ever seen in a movie - even worse than Jar-Jar Binks. Dialog tries very hard to be funny (almost all the time) but it never is. The number of funny jokes is somewhere between zero and nothing. And as for the plot - did they even once bothered to explain to us what are the rebels fighting for (other than being anti-government)? I guess that didn't matter to anyone - neither to the rebels nor to the characters who just blindly flew to the battlefield. Don't waste your time. "Coronado" is neither funny nor entertaining. | negative |
Buddy Manucci(Roy Scheider, solid in a chance leading role)heads a secret undercover police squad called the Seven-Ups whose tactics don't necessarily follow the exact ways of the law. They get the job done in their own way without anything being leaked to the press, and this gives them a freedom to expand their means of getting to the criminals most working detectives and policeman just can not nab. Buddy has a pal from childhood named Vito(Tony Lo Bianco)who swaps information with him regarding mob types and shysters working the streets in NYC. What Buddy doesn't know is that Vito is hatching a scheme using names from Buddy's "check list"(he has this book open taking down notes provided by Vito, but doesn't know that his friend has copied those very names written within his mind)to set up mob families in a series of mob kidnappings eliciting cash thanks to two cop-posers, Moon(the always-villainous Richard Lynch)and Bo(Bill Hickman)working with him. When this scheme goes awry, with one of the Seven-Ups being killed, Vito becomes fearful because he knows how Buddy can be when he's doggedly after someone..especially when one of his own is murdered.<br /><br />Extremely underrated cop flick has thrilling car chase through New York City as Buddy follows the kidnapping cop-imposter's trying to get them after killing his partner. The film isn't overly complex after the plot is set-up and we realize who is the ring-leader in the scheming of mobsters. Scheider has never been given the credit he deserves as a fine lead actor. He has emotional range and we see how losing his cop and friend takes it's toll on him. The film is briskly paced with good action sequences and sets up an interesting plot of betrayal between friends as greed comes before that childhood friendship and how what seems like a smooth crime-spree against evil mob families can get cops killed. | positive |
In a movie that follows a struggling actor, played, evidently, by a struggling actor, this does no favours for Chris Klein. He struggles to bring anything memorable to the role and meanders on through the shallow script managing to display, what could only be described as, a bland leading man. The story exists, but that is all, and fails to show any basic start, middle and end and the viewer is left shrugging his shoulders feeling as though nothing in the past hour and three quarters has really happened.<br /><br />One bright light in the midst of this is Fred Durst, who manages to stand out above his seemingly averagely talented co-stars and does a semi-decent job of bringing the backward character of Legde to life. Whether Fred can re-create this when working with a higher calibre of cast remains to be seen but I'l be watching out for him in future. | negative |
Koyaanisqatsi and Powaqqatsi are both Beautiful films, but this final installment of the trilogy is a major let down. They got too carried away with stock footage and photography, so little content. The executive producer puts his own image in the film... Its just pretentious. Maybe if they had more than $3 million to spend maybe it would have been something. I actually thought Steven Soderbergh directed it because it was so bad, but Godfrey Reggio the director of Koyaanisqatsi and Powaqqatsi directed this. I'll have to assume that they just didn't have the budget to make a decent film. You would think that Francis Ford Coppola would have wanted to be a part of this film and help get more money together. | negative |
An unusual film from Ringo Lam and one that's strangely under-appreciated. The mix of fantasy kung-fu with a more realistic depiction of swords and spears being driven thru bodies is startling especially during the first ten minutes. A horseback rider get chopped in two and his waist and legs keep riding the horse. Several horses get chopped up. It's very unexpected.<br /><br />The story is very simple, Fong and his Shaolin brothers are captured by a crazed maniac general and imprisoned in the Red Lotus temple which seems to be more of a torture chamber then a temple. The General has a similarity to Kurtz in Apocalypse Now as he spouts warped philosophy and makes frightening paintings with human blood. <br /><br />The production is very impressive and the setting is bleak. Blood is everywhere. The action is very well done and mostly coherent unlike many HK action scenes from the time. Sometimes the movie veers into absurdity or the effects are cheesy but it's never bad enough to ruin the film. <br /><br />Find this one, it's one of the best HK kung fu films from the early nineties. Just remember it's not child friendly. | positive |
This was obviously a low budget film. It shows in every scene. What is nice to see is where it was made. A lot of the film was shot in Columbia, CA, in the Sierra Nevada Mountains near Sonora, CA. Some of the film was also shot in Jamestown, CA, very near Columbia. There is a railroad museum in Jamestown and they used some of the old trains in the picture. "High Noon" was also shot in Jamestown, as was "Back to the Future III". | negative |
I usually enjoy watching Laurel and Hardy, but this is obviously one of the films they made while they were on their way to becoming a successful comedy team.<br /><br />The plot is all too simple, and is mainly based on one joke; how strange kilts and Scotsmen are. And that's all. Okay, there are some other jokes, but I didn't find them very funny at all; they are outdated and (I guess) were not very entertaining when the movie was first released.<br /><br />Still, the movie has got two of the most charming faces in history, and they make the best out of the awkward story (which I expect was filmed without a proper script) and the scenery is nice to look at. <br /><br />In my opinion, watching this is only worthwhile for Laurel and Hardy fans, other people should stay away from it. | negative |
Despite gorgeous and breathtaking animation, this is probably one of most uninspiring Disney films I've seen, and I don't slam Disney films very often. Spirit is a wild stallion who repeatedly gets captured, either by the cavalry or by Indians, both of which try to "break" him. Spirit ends up forming a bond with the Indian, and that, in a nutshell, is the story. With exception to the beautiful animation of the horses, neither I or my five year old were very inspired or excited by this film. It's ironic that it's titled "Spirit", as spirit is what this film could have used a bit more of. An extra point was given for the soundtrack, which was enjoyable, with songs by Bryan Adams and Hans Zimmer. And although this film is rated G, you will still probably have to end up explaining what "breaking a horse" means to your five year old. I did.<br /><br /> | positive |
Kid found as a baby in the garbage and raised at a martial arts academy has a knack for sinking baskets. With the help of the man who found him he gets in to college and is promoted to the championship as he searches for his real parents. Infinitely better in pieces action comedy is a real mess as a whole. It seems to be striving for a hipper basketball version of Shaolin Soccer, but the comedy is scatter shot, its focus wanders more than a Chihuahua with ADD on quadruple espresso. I kept asking "What am I watching". I watched it from start to finish and I still don't know what the hell happened. Its a shame since there are some great action scenes, some amusing jokes and the occasional moment, but nothing, none of it ever comes together, I'd take a pass. | negative |
The definition of a vampire is an inhumane corpse supposed to leave its grave at night to drink the blood of the living. Bakjwi nearly nails this concept on the head minus the cliché of pointy fangs and neck biting. Being an R rated movie, I knew this was actually going to pertain to vampires actually being vampires. Which means that the characters in the movie are going to do what vampires actually do without restraint and rightfully lack any glamorous moments in comparison to Twilight. Having viewed Chan-wook Park's preceding Oldboy, I had very high expectations of Bakjwi.<br /><br />I anticipated some awkward plot sequences with our anti-hero, known as Priest Sang-hyeon, and was very impressed by his performance as a holy-man who is forced into this quandary of being humane and obeying his thirst as a vampire. (SPOILER) After the initial premise of him surviving the defective blood transfusion, he starts to crave blood and discovers his super strength and his flying ability. The screen shots do his transition phase without overbearing on exposition. He starts drinking the blood of the dying and those who wish to be euthanized for moral reasons. The oft tragic and dysfunctional love affair the priest has with the manipulative Tae-joo is very riveting as they are played by The Host's Kanh-ho Song and actress OK-vin Kim. The special effects are properly placed in the backdrop and while it doesn't offer anything new in the ways of stunts and CGI, it didn't impose itself into the plot driven and character developed premise. The story and the pivotal plot points are very perverse and grotesque yet very original in its own Korean style. <br /><br />There aren't many negatives I can say about Bakjwi. Sometimes I ask myself if the priests transition phase could have showed more of the priest having an emotional crisis with his transformation, but then again this would have made the movie 3 hours long. The movie was long to begin with. On the same token, vampires really don't have much in the way of expressing emotions to begin with. As mentioned before, this movie is very tragic, so don't expect anything hopeful while watching this. <br /><br />Overall, Bakjwi is delightfully dark, morbid and original. I strongly recommend this movie for serious viewers who are past the teenage phase of Twilight. This is definitely the Korean answer to the Swedish Let The Right One In, which is also a good movie. | positive |
The film is about the battle of Stalingrad. For those of you who don't know anything about it, it was the worst battle in the Second World War. Over 1 million people died in the course of the battle. This is the only film that I've seen that seems to have actually captured how bad things were in the war between Russia and Germany. What I really liked about it is that the two ideologies (Nazism and Communism) were nowhere in the film. Unlike most American films, the Germans are not seen as blood thirsty murderers, but what the average German foot soldier was, a person.<br /><br />The film revolves around four soldiers fighting in Stalingrad. They were transferred there to try and take the city. The film follows these men from August of 1942 to early 1943. During this time, they learn about the horrors of war and try to find a way out of the battle.<br /><br />Through the entire film, one feels the desperation of the entire battle. Unlike "Enemy at the Gates" the film makers didn't try to put some sappy love story or dress up factual occurrences of the battle. This film may be fiction, but it conveys what happened in the bloodiest battle in World War II. | positive |
My mother and I rented this gem a few years ago while she was here visiting for Thanksgiving. I have rarely laughed so hard. This is a typical low-budget horror movie with dumb special effects, a worse plot, and even worse acting. But are you really expecting a classic when Linnea Quigley receives top billing? I thought not.<br /><br />Since this movie does have some entertainment value, I give it a 3 out of 10. | negative |
Sometimes a movie is so comprehensively awful it has a destructive effect on your morale. You begin to really ask yourself, what does it mean for our society that the standard is so terribly low? Can they honestly expect that we'll endure this many clichés and still be entertained?<br /><br />Of course, it is still a Hollywood mainstay to make the GUN the major character, plot device, and the source of all conflict and resolution in films. Character needs a gun. Gets a gun. Can't do that because he has a gun. Puts his gun down first. OH MY GOD What are we going to do!? He has a gun! He waves it around, acting more malicious than real human beings ever do. He pushes it in someone's face for 90 minutes, shouting questions. The hallmark of any conclusion will be the comforting sound of police sirens. <br /><br />It's a real challenge to make such a tired, hackneyed formula work again; a film has to be very clever and well executed. This one is neither. It has no life and no personality, and it will suck these components from YOU. it will make you feel WORSE about living in the time and space that you do. Really, who needs that!? So yes, I'll say it: I think this may well be the worst film I have ever seen. Anyone who was involved in the making of this sub- mediocre soul killing trash should be publicly embarrassed for the disservice they've done to us all. | negative |
Tipping the Velvet has just three weeks ago been released in the UK and already I watch as countless letters flood to the national papers and TV guides, claiming that it possesses a thin plot, weak performances and an even weaker script.<br /><br />You find me incensed. This is heresy.<br /><br />I would really like to dispel all doubt by first congratulating Andrew Davies on enabling Geoffrey Sax to create this wonderful dramatization of Sarah Waters' novel by cushioning him with such a fantastic script. Kudos. But I fear I must now change tack.<br /><br />I saw one of the premiere TV guides here in the UK (which shall remain nameless) relentlessly describing Tipping the Velvet as a "lesbian love story". If they are, and I assume they are, trying to promote interest in the film, then this is completely the wrong way to go about it (aside from the phrase being a disappointingly inaccurate description). By saying such a thing, they are either a) turning away those who would instinctively be repelled by "that" subject matter or b) attracting a class of people who will only watch to see some "serious girl-on-girl action". Buy a video! Through this display of serious inconsideration, this and other magazines are cheapening what is a brilliant adaptation of one of recent literature's greatest works. Tipping the Velvet is a story of love, of passion, of moving on, of loss, and of heartbreak. It's not a lesbian love story. No siree.<br /><br />The end result is a stylish affair, with excellent performances all round (particularly from Stirling, Hawes, Chancellor and May). Direction-wise, it's intoxicating and immersive - sometimes, fast-paced, sometimes not - but it never ceases to be anything less than compelling. As a whole, it's polished and well delivered, the sex is undertaken with tenderness and delicacy - and although many will not class it as a real "film", it will remain among my favourites for some time to come. | positive |
Surprisingly well done for an independent film, An Insomniac's Nightmare paints a startling picture of what it would be like to suffer from insomnia. Wonderfully well written, and directed, it creates the atmosphere of a dream as the viewer is taken through one night in the life of an insomniac.<br /><br />Starring Dominic Monaghan as Jack, we get to see everything he sees as the long hours of a lonely night drag on. The narration is almost hypnotizing, and from the opening lines, it is impossible to turn away. Fascinating and slightly disturbing, it shows how someone copes with a lack of sleep, balancing on the brink between sanity and madness.<br /><br />With twists and turns around every corner, An Insomniac's Nightmare is provocative and engaging. It comes very highly recommended. | positive |
Inspired by a true story tale is full of 1970's feeling but is disjointed in the telling. This is the tale of a black college swimmer who ends up in Phillie at a closing rec center in a bad neighborhood and somehow puts together a swim team. The film staggers around blindly for the first half hour until Terrence Howard, as our hero, gets the kids into the pool.It picks up at that point by becoming somewhat engaging, though it still staggers about. There is a good story in this and its clear why Howard and Bernie Mac took part in it, but the script is poor and most of the direction seems intent on making it feel like 197something instead of making us feel anything for the story.<br /><br />Not the disaster that some reviews made it out to be, it instead suffers by all of the recent sport true stories-Coach Carter, Invincible, Glory Road, etc, which at least knew that you have to at least work with the story to make a movie as opposed to just letting the audience suffer because "its true". | negative |
One of Chaplin's longest films up to that point, Burlesque on Carmen is a clever and surprisingly complex parody of what was then "Prosper Merimee's" well-known story about "Carmen." I was a little confused about the difference between the IMDb's listing of the 1915 Burlesque on Carmen and the 1916 version. Based on the running time I assume that it was the 1915 version that I saw, since the 1916 one is a good 20 minutes longer, and from what I've read, those are 20 unnecessary and unimpressive minutes. <br /><br />From the very beginning, it's clear that Burlesque on Carmen is one of Chaplin's most complex and ambitious efforts to date, starting off with a long back story, told through inter-titles, about the tragic love story of Carmen. <br /><br />Carmen is sent by a band of gypsies ("A band who put the GYP in gypsy."), to seduce a Spanish officer so they can pull off their smuggling operation. It's a clever, Chaplinesque band of criminals, the leader of whom, Lillas Pastia, has "spent 50 years learning to steal, thinking he might be offered a job in politics." <br /><br />On a side note, I've seen some almost misogynistic messages and jokes in some of Chaplin's earlier work, but probably none quite as overt as in this one. Near the beginning of the movie, as the band of gypsies are traveling, there is a scene where the mules and women are loading, and an inter-title explains that "the mules are the ones with long ears." In case you couldn't tell, I guess. <br /><br />Chaplin plays the part of Don Jose, the hapless officer who is to be seduced by Carmen. He is described as "a brave soldier and lover of women." Not exactly a stretch for Chaplin who removed any doubt about his ability to play a convincing comic soldier a few years later in the brilliant Shoulder Arms. And of course, he didn't have to act about being a lover of women.<br /><br />What is different here, of course, is his polished military uniform and straight-backed disciplinary manner, interspersed, of course, with some of his traditional slap-stick moves. He strikes me as a little guy in a position of authority, struggling to maintain the respect of his subordinates by exerting a gruff, stolid exterior.<br /><br />Soon Carmen enters ("Loved by all men under the age of 96
"), and she immediately begins flirting with Charlie. I should mention that for a good majority of the movie, it is surprisingly faithful to the original story, which was full of jealousy and tragedy. Chaplin is strangely convincing as a jealous lover, able to evoke a jealous passion that I've never seen from him. There's at least one scene where he is genuinely a little scary. <br /><br />Chaplin has some great sight gags in the movie, like a hilarious table dance and some classic sword fighting near the end. And his boyish charm and the role of a soldier is also definitely a winning combination, although there is another peculiar stunt involving a group of men pushing a huge door back and forth that wasn't very effective to begin with but just kept going on and on and on, probably about five times longer than it was worth. Although it was interesting that when it finally fell over it clearly was revealed as a movie prop. I always appreciate such glimpses at the old movie sets.<br /><br />The end of the film is it's strongest part. It bears striking resemblance to Romeo and Juliet, but just when you think that Chaplin is going to conduct a major thematic experiment by diverging distantly from his traditional style, there is a hilarious twist that is as vintage Chaplin as anything I've ever seen. Nice work! | positive |
I was prepared for a bad movie, and a bad movie it is, so I guess I shouldn't complain. Twentysomething Tom (gay poster boy Robert Stadlober) has so many issues he doesn't know if he's coming or going. I wouldn't have stayed but for the pretty girls: Serious Mavie (Anna Brüggemann); no-nonsense Angie (Emma Daubas); Sarah Baumann as the star of the movie within the movie. And then there's Tom's soul mate, wild-eyed Margarete (Jana Pallaske). She reminds me of Béatrice Dalle and Gina Gershon. If you've got to remember, these are fine memories. She looks good even in the most ridiculous outfits, and I mean ridiculous, even by Berlin standards. I wonder whether I'd have liked this movie when I was the characters' age. My guess is I wouldn't. Watch out for indie idols Oli Schulz and Max Schröder of "Der Hund Marie" performing as street musicians, feeling no pain. | negative |
Wow this was a great Italian "ZOMBIE" movie by two great director's Luci Fulci ("ZOMBIE") and Bruno Mattie ("HELL OF THE LIVING DEAD") Lucio started this movie and was ill so the great Bruno took over and it turned out surprisingly better than I expected it to turn out so if you have seen "HELL OF THE LIVING DEAD" directed by Bruno Mattie and if you saw "ZOMBIE" directed by Lucio Fulci and liked both or one of theme then this is a movie you must watch it has great "ZOMBIE" make-up witch equals great looking "ZOMBIES" has a funny "ZOMBIE" flying head!And "ZOMBIE" birds that spit acid at you and turns you into a "ZOMBIE" (That Only Happed To Two People) but they are mainly just the great toxic "ZOMBIES" like in Bruno Matties "HELL OF THE LIVING DEAD".So if you like Italian "ZOMBIE" movies or just "ZOMBIE" movie's in general than check this one out its a great Italian "ZOMBIE" movie! | positive |
I always try not to be harsh while criticizing something that I didn't like, but after watching this mini-series I was so disappointed that could not help my irritation. On the one hand, it is true that series stayed faithful to the novel and of course I found that very nice, but on the other hand terrible casting, poor acting, especially of key characters like Funny Price, impression of stage play, I mean theatrical way of acting makes you irritate from the beginning to the end. I am sure with this budget, even if it was low, could have been done something much better and worthwhile. it is up to you to watch this series, but personally i don't advice you to spend your time on this disappointing ecranization. | negative |
The tragedy is that this piece of rubbish was part of my curriculum while I was studying cinema. So imagine how I was forced to watch it in complete. Believe me going through hell is much much easier. Our professor told us that this is some film ???, but he never thought that we'd disagree or assume the apposite. I don't think that there is any gods on earth, we're only humans, so all the filmmakers, therefore they CAN make mistakes, bad movies.. Or very bad too. The main problem wasn't that art, by all means, is susceptible to endless points of view, but that a lot of people just don't get it, that every single human got his own genuine taste, his own opinion, hence what I suppose it the greatest movie ever made, can also be your worst one ever, and how that is right both ways, but how many people can understand this correctly?. So my professor believes in this movie, and simply I don't. However, the only way to evaluate this "thing" is by measuring it by its original intent to show us different kinds of old folk stories or whatever to catch on this society's mentality, imagination, and nature. To tell you the damn truth Mr. Pier Paolo Pasolini as the scriptwriter and the director made it too unbearable to watch in the first place. The movie is so UGLY. I can't stand this, so how about analyzing it, then discovering the potential beauty in it !! It's beyond your mind hideousness, and strangely not for the sake of the movie's case or anything, it's for the sake of the unstable vision of (Pasolini). His work is so primitive to underdeveloped extent. The deadly cinematic technique, the effective sense of silliness, and the incredible horribleness made everything obnoxious. Look at the atrocious acting, the unfruitful cinematography, the awfully poor sets, .. OH MY GOD I've got the nausea already. It can terminate your objectivity violently as watching this movie is one true pain like taking the wisdom tooth off by a blind doctor. There are dreadful nightmares which could be more merciful than this. So originally, how to continue THAT just to review it fairly ? Actually, you don't. As this very movie doesn't treat you fair at all. There is really memorable scene in here where some boys are peeing into the eye of the camera (!) I'm trying to connect some things like that with Pasolini's end as murdered. | negative |
OK I had higher hopes for this Carnosaur movie simply because it seemed like the sequels were getting better as they came out. I did like Carnosaur 2 better than 1. I figured well this one is newer so it must be better right? Well... I quickly learned I was wrong. I was extremely confused with the casting. They brought back Rick Dean for another spotlight character and Michael MacDonald as a police officer. Now for Rick dean lol, in Carnosaur 2 I thought he fit the role pretty well and wasn't really annoyed by him, now in Carnosaur 3 wow they placed him as an elite soldier. Now we are getting goofy here. The movie actually started out pretty good with a decent gun fight and dinos escaping out of there little freezer trucks, but as soon as Scott Valentines team showed up we had a mix of a romantic comedy with very funny performances from retarded and floppy dinosaurs.<br /><br />I'll start with the raptors first, they had there tails drag the ground, which in the second one they were up in the air which looked more common for a dinosaur that can run up to 50-60 mph. Now when they ran they wiggled back and forth and the heads didn't move at all. there hands were floppy all over the place and since they were extremely poorly shot by the director they looked stupid and out of place.<br /><br />The t-rex was extremely pathetic, they would of been better off using the one from the previous 2 movies. At least that one looked somewhat frightening. The one in this film looked like it was smiling all the time. The legs when it walked was hilarious, like it was john wayne in the old west all stiff legged and stuff. LOL another thing I noticed is that the hands did not move, they were stuck next to its body so it looked and sounded (god the sound effects were awful) retarded!!! Now if I was the director and realized that I had this to work with maybe I would of maybe tried a little bit harder to hide the fakeness fact. As for the rest of the movie, well this was the sloppiest and loudest military team I have ever seen. The weapons they used wouldn't make sense for the scenario. They even had an arm wrestling scene inside the warehouse where the carnosaurs were roaming, now I was tickled at this scene because I thought that while this stupidity was going on that the Dinos would get in there and cause some damage. Instead the director wasted about 7 minutes of our time. I would like to look at this movie as the 3 stooges of dinosaur movies. You have retarded military, retarded dinosaurs, retarded scenario and you have a wonderful 83 minutes to spend of your day watching this.<br /><br />Now I'm not saying I wouldn't watch this, bc actually i do recommend everyone see this movie that wants 83 minutes of pure entertainment. It may seem like I'm ranting but really I'm hyping this movie up to what it is. Its really a lot of fun to watch because while watching this you think to yourself, "did the director really make this seriously?" | negative |
This movie is really sick, and funny. I have made my friends cringe describing it to them. I saw it about 8 months ago, and I still have the song 'Shall we Gather at the River' echoing through my head.<br /><br />So basically, it is a Tromatized Romeo and Juliet, but it goes beyond what you would expect. Let's just say incest, references to child molestation, gore (of course), but unfortunately, has a sort of happy ending...sort of...it's more weird than happy. Cappy Capulet was brilliant! He has this sort of intellectual snobbish tone, he's abusive, but civilised. He quotes more Shakespeare than anyone else in the film...all while engaging in his sadistic role as a husband and father.<br /><br />The meat guy was pretty cool too. He was Juliet's fiancé, deeply infatuated with her, and soon to be heartbroken because of Tromeo. And Tromeo, a true romantic. He's a handsome, really sweet guy, desperate to find true love. 'She doth make torches to burn brightly!' Unfortunately, Troma just had to resort to that awful fake green vomit and their other antics. They really get carried away with that stuff sometimes. But hey, this film made a great impression on me. How often do I refer to it in real life situations...wow that's pathetic.<br /><br />Anyway, enjoy! | positive |
Sometimes you get exactly what you expect. A film produced and by and as a vehicle for a rock band in the middle of a comeback is not to be expected to rank high in artistic merit- and in this case it certainly doesn't. In fact, as expected, the soundtrack is a much better investment than the movie itself, which like the 70's rock and roll lifestyle it attempts to portray, is characterized by excess, drugs, and over-the-top antics, but unfortunately is not nearly as much fun. Utilizing a script by Carl Dupre horrible enough to make a fellow screenwriter cringe, and wasting the talents of Edward Furlong, the sole highlight of this rock and roll period piece gone wrong is the music, most notably the elaborate recreating of a 1978 KISS concert. | negative |
This was the most uninteresting horror flick I have seen to date. The premise is glaringly forgotten after about 1 minute. The acting is terrible. The scariest thing about this movie is when the two guys kiss, yuck! What were the film festival judges thinking when they gave this garbage a 'best film' notation? The only reasons I didn't turn this movie off were to see what NOT to do as a filmmaker, and if the paper-thin plot line could really keep going on as is was. I was not disappointed by this latter notion. There wasn't even a single bit of nudity or gore to keep the kiddies interested! Also, I thought it was tacky to use about 3 minutes of "Resident Evil 2" in the movie... Was that supposed to be filler? 'cause it was the goriest and most interesting part of the movie. | negative |
It's the nature of businesses to try to capitalize on others' success. Here we have a movie taking elements from the earlier 'Dracula' (1931) and 'Frankenstein' (1931) -- in a Germanic town the village leaders believe that vampires (in the shape of bats) have been the cause of recent deaths of bloodless victims. Even though shot at Universal (and at the Bronson caves!) it's a Poverty Row feature; it's not fair to compare it with those earlier, more expensively made and superior films.<br /><br />From the familiar and exciting, chilling music of the main titles (which must have been by Mischa Bakalienikoff), through the talky but well done opening sequence, we anticipate the arrival of Lionel Atwill, Fay Wray and Dwight Frye to give us a good 30s mystery film. Unfortunately, it doesn't happen. That's the disappointment.<br /><br />We get little more than the formulaic elements of such films but with slow pacing, low budget, not enough of Dwight Frye, the overdone presence of Maude Eburne (Aunt Gussie), and the premise for Lionel Atwill (Dr. von Niemann) to require human blood or how he exhibits mind control over his servant Emil (Robert Frazier) never made very clear.<br /><br />Do not watch the technicolor 'Dr. X' (1932) -- which also stars Lionel Atwill and Fay Wray but as father and daughter -- before watching this the way I did; it's an Oscar winner by comparison. So watch this one first. Structurally, 'The Vampire Bat' still isn't that good. It plods along with too much talking or unnecessary comic relief, without focusing strongly on the vampiric villainy.<br /><br />Besides 'Dr. X' and 'Mystery of the Wax Museum' (both 1932 and co starring Fay Wray), Lionel Atwill's most famous appearances are as the one armed gendarme in 'Son of Frankenstein' (1939) and as Moriarity in 'Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon' (1943). Dwight Frye steals all his manic scenes in 'Dracula' (1931). As the 'young lovers,' Melvin Douglas and Fay Wray have a nice kissing scene, but that's about it. He can be seen in 'The Old Dark House' (1932), and Fay gets dragged around by Joel McCrea in 'The Most Dangerous Game' (1930). Then there's her 1933 classic 'screamer.' Too bad more time, money and rewrites weren't available for this film to better showcase the talents and chemistry of Lionel Atwill, Fay Wray and Dwight Frye. Sadly, then, this drearily disappointing film only gets a 4. | negative |
Diagnosis Murder is one of the only programs i watch regularly on TV now. The way all of the main characters have something to do in each of the episodes makes it so unlike today's shows where they concentrate on 1 or 2 people per episode and everyone else is shoved to the side. The way mark's brain works is also so obscure that you never really know what he is thinking, and if you think you do, you are wrong.<br /><br />Diagnosis Murder has tackled a diverse range of topics, not just in the cases but in each of the characters personal lives. Everything from racism and adoption, to terrorists and technology.<br /><br />As for it being for old people? I am 24!! I don't think i can be classed as old yet.<br /><br />I just want to know when they will be releasing all 8 seasons on DVD (not NTSC) so that i can watch them all in order. They seem to be doing it with lots of other programs from the same era so can they hurry it up a bit! | positive |
I rented this movie not knowing what to expect but WHOA was I in for a treat!<br /><br />For anyone who, like myself, was waiting for a good movie that combined horror and sci fi, it is time to rejoice because the wait has finally ended. Writing, acting, filming and directing - all top notch. I hate to admit it, but I actually cried at one point (when Dracula was talking to the crippled guy). Truly an emotional roller-coaster from start to finish. The corridors of the ship provided the perfect spooky setting for this tale and the actors were really able to make their fear come alive to me. And Coolio as a vampire....very nice!<br /><br />And believe me....as great as the bulk of the movie was...the ending will BLOW YOU AWAY! I know this movie gets a lot of flack on this site for some reason but I know NONE of you saw the ending coming. Brilliant! | positive |
As always Joan Hickson is wonderful as Jane M. Subtle, sharp and aware. I do not wish to dwell on her acting skills as they are praised enough on this site. I would like to criticize some of the smaller parts as the rest of the cast seemed to be hand picked by director David Tucker.<br /><br />Liz Fraser's performance as Mrs. Bent (the mother of the missing girl Nora) is a joy to watch. Subtle and deeply moving as the alcohol-depending grieving mother who loves and misses her daughter desperately. A good long shot of her monologue (thanks Tucker!) so she can be enjoyed to the fullest. I was moved when I saw her the first time when it was broadcast and I am moved again, now I have it on DVD. Brava.<br /><br />Joanna Hole as Madge the tour-guide I find highly amusing. She is on the edge of over-acting but her role can have it. She is SO funny as the over-organized guide who wants to do good with everyone on that bus, I find her hilarious. Her reaction after she boarded every-one on the bus is great... As always: to perform comedy one has to take it very seriously, and that's what Ms Hole does.<br /><br />I do hope those two ladies have good careers (as I live in Holland I do not know if they have, not all theater productions can be googled...) -their performances on the screen deserve it.<br /><br />Pieter | positive |
I was really looking forward to seeing this film, but after watching it I was really disappointed. The best bit was when Stephen King was in it. Rober John Berk cannot act to save his life and neither can any of the others. A few of the performances even made me laugh out loud! The film was was not as I imagined it, after reading the book which was awesome, I imagined it darker and a lot scarier. If i was Stephen, I would be really mad!<br /><br />I don't know why they changed the ending, I thought the ending of the book was very good. If you just found out the pie killed your daughter, you wouldn't feed it to anyone else would you?!<br /><br />Book was so much better! | negative |
Even though we know how the story ends, this is a gripping fly-on-the-wall film that plays almost like a political thriller. During the calm before the storm, we meet Hugo Chavez as a charismatic, larger than life man who has an unbreakable connection with the mestizos who make up 80% of the population but have previously been shut out of Venezuela's political process and its oil wealth. He seems as devoted to them as they are to him. He travels the country at a hectic pace, reaching out to the campesinos, addressing huge crowds, hugging and kissing ordinary people, accepting letters on scraps of paper, and hearing pleas for help. The people are excited that one of their number has made it to the highest office in the land. There is an electric sense of hope and optimism that change for the better is coming to the festering barrios.<br /><br />But not everyone is happy with the situation. The pure-blood Castillian Spaniard elite who are a small minority but previously controlled all the wealth are full of bitterness and resentment. One of the most unintentionally hilarious moments in the film is when an Ann Coulter lookalike, at a residents' meeting in an exclusive gated community, complains of the mestizos, "they have no concept of struggle or sacrifice." Minutes later, a speaker tells the meeting to "beware of your domestic servants - they could be Chavez supporters." Duh! Of course they are.<br /><br />In a late night interview alone with the film crew, Chavez reveals something of his soul as he tells the story of his grandfather. He can be a sensitive, poetic person, though with an impish, even clownish, sense of humor (like we saw when he addressed the UN and called Bush the devil.)<br /><br />Then the storm starts to gather force as the coup organizers call for a mass protest and cynically manipulate their supporters into changing the route at the last minute and marching on the presidential palace, knowing it is surrounded by Chavez supporters and violence is inevitable.<br /><br />Another element of the plot falls into place as snipers on rooftops begin to fire on the Chavez supporters, some of whom fire back. The local equivalent of Fox News shows this return fire and claims that Chavez supporters are massacring protesters. Then the camera pulls back and reveals that there are no protesters - the street is empty! The protesters took a different route. Needless to say the footage of the empty street was edited out by the rabidly anti-Chavez private TV stations (who had been airing a constant barrage of propaganda calling Chavez mentally ill and sexually fixated on Fidel Castro.) Immediately after the coup, we see the ringleaders and their media propaganda masters openly bragging on TV about how they had manipulated the situation with reckless disregard for the lives of supporters and opponents alike.<br /><br />The filmmakers continue to be at the heart of this chaotic, fast-changing situation as the military coup surrounds the palace and threatens to bomb it. Chavez eventually surrenders to avoid bloodshed but refuses to resign and is whisked away to an offshore island where a plane awaits to take him - where? The US? How can the remaining cabinet members avoid arrest and defeat this heavily armed conspiracy of right-wing generals and ultra-wealthy businessmen who are closely linked to the Bush administration? Watch the movie and find out!<br /><br />If your only knowledge of Hugo Chavez and Venezuela is from the US media, then you know nothing. He is not an "unelected tyrant" and does not "rule by decree" - he is enormously popular, having been elected and re-elected several times with over 60% of the vote (something George Bush Junior has never achieved) and the devotion he inspires in ordinary Venezuelan people is ultimately the reason why the coup fails.<br /><br />This is an extraordinary film about an extraordinary man in an extraordinary situation. The skill of the filmmakers is in being unobtrusive and letting the story unfold through the voices of Venezuelans at every level from the barrio to the presidential palace, the tumultuous scenes, the chaos and confusion out of which a coherent whole emerges that is tense, riveting and moving. Not to be missed! | positive |
I was 19 or 20, years old at the time and living in Salt Lake City, Utah and I still remember the new dome theater, called the century 21. Layback chairs that rocked and a new sound system, large screen and huge open space between the screen and the packed theater. We felt all the excitement of a new preview screening of a film. Ta da da daa da ta da dada dada... I can still hear the opening music ringing trumpet and the crash of cymbals. I loved the interplay of characters and the filmed vistas. I know Peter Finch and Luv and Sally had some trouble with the lip-sink but hey, this was a feel good, go feel better about things film! What I regret is the way they cut the meaningful heart out of it, showed the cut version and then called it a flop. I saw the cut version and I can see it lost its view of the vision it had in the preview edition. Yes I wince a bit at Peter's effort to make love through music but, you know I didn't see it that way when I left the theater. when they surveyed us as we left I regret any comment I made that may have altered the original. I liked it then and still see it while I listen to the music on my LP. Most of my family has heard me sing much of the sound track and I can use the films monologues in our games of "what movie is this". I wish a director's cut on DVD was available. It is available on VHS but its not quite the same. I would particularly like a full serious lord of the rings style commentary about its origins, struggles and triumphs. Picky people should leave things well enough alone. Bring it back!!!! | positive |
When we started watching this series on cable, I had no idea how addictive it would be. Even when you hate a character, you hold back because they are so beautifully developed, you can almost understand why they react to frustration, fear, greed or temptation the way they do. It's almost as if the viewer is experiencing one of Christopher's learning curves.<br /><br />I can't understand why Adriana would put up with Christopher's abuse of her, verbally, physically and emotionally, but I just have to read the newspaper to see how many women can and do tolerate such behavior. Carmella has a dream house, endless supply of expensive things, but I'm sure she would give it up for a loving and faithful husband - or maybe not. That's why I watch.<br /><br />It doesn't matter how many times you watch an episode, you can find something you missed the first five times. We even watch episodes out of sequence (watch season 1 on late night with commercials but all the language, A&E with language censored, reruns on the Movie Network) - whenever they're on, we're there. We've been totally spoiled now.<br /><br />I also love the Malaprop's. "An albacore around my neck" is my favorite of Johnny Boy. When these jewels have entered our family vocabulary, it is a sign that I should get a life. I will when the series ends, and I have collected all the DVD's, and put the collection in my will. | positive |
At the beginning of the movie, Ramgopal Verma says that "Sarkar" is his tribute to The Godfather. This one feels more like an insult. It pales terribly in comparison to the Coppola classic. Although no one was expecting Ramgopal Verma to fill Coppola's shoes, the movie did create a lot of expectation and buzz. <br /><br />Amitabh Bachchan plays "Sarkar", a character automatically drawing instant comparisons to Indian political party Shiv Sena's Supremo Bal Thackeray. Abhishek Bachchan plays his son Shankar who returns from abroad and gets caught up in Sarkar's politics at home. Just like Al Pacino in the original Godfather. <br /><br />As most Bollywood fare, incidents and characters are overtly simplistic and devoid of any kind of solid foundation. Quick phone calls and sudden announcements turn the film from one direction to another. Abishek takes to Mumbai's murky underworld politics-crime nexus like a duck takes to water. Amithab Bachchan as Sarkar is supposed to look magnificent and powerful, he just ends up looking old and clueless. Most of his acting is centered around constantly staring at different things around the movie set - the actor in front of him, the floor or in some other random direction. <br /><br />However, Kay Kay performs exceedingly well as the wronged elder son Vishnu. So does Zakir Hussain as Rashid, the Dubai based dope smuggler who wants to gets his footing in Mumbai. This actor has awesome screen presence and can send chills down your spine with just the way he looks. The moment he enters the screen, you want to run and hide under the bed. <br /><br />All its obvious flaws not withstanding, the film did well at the box office. The buzz and the big star cast obviously helping. Also Verma manages to hold your interest albeit mildly towards the later half of the film. He is actually making a sequel to this one which I am sure will be more of the same fare. | negative |
I had numerous problems with this film.<br /><br />It contains some basic factual information concerning quantum mechanics, which is fine. Although quantum physics has been around for over 50 years, the film presents this information in a grandiose way that seems to be saying: "Aren't you just blown away by this!" Well, not really. These aren't earth shattering revelations anymore. At any rate, I was already familiar with quantum theory, and the fact that particles have to be described by wave equations, etc. is not new.<br /><br />The main problem I have with this movie, however, is the way these people use quantum theory as a way of providing a scientific basis for mysticism and spiritualism. I don't have any serious problem with mysticism and spiritualism, but quantum mechanics doesn't really have anything to do with these things, and it should be kept separate. The people they interviewed for this movie start with the ideas of quantum theory and then make the leap to say that simply by thinking about something you can alter the matter around you, hence we should think positively so as to have a positive impact on the world and make our lives better. The reasoning is completely ridiculous, and the conclusions do not logically follow from quantum theory. For every so called "expert" that they interviewed for this film, there are scores of theoretically physicists who would completely disagree. They would point out, quite rightly, that the unpredictability of the subatomic world does not lend support to mystical notions about our spiritual connectedness.<br /><br />It disturbs me that people are going to see this film and completely eat it up because it leaves them with a nice positive feeling. The main thrust of the film is based on a total misinterpretation of quantum theory, and it is as bad in its reasoning as any attempt to justify organized religion with similar pseudo-scientific arguments.<br /><br />Avoid this film.<br /><br />Oh yeah. At one point, one of the "experts" says that since throughout history most of the assumptions people have made about the world turned out to be false, therefore the assumptions we currently hold about the world are also likely to be false. Huh? That totally does not follow. And even if it did, I don't see how that helps his argument. I mean, if his ideas ever became common assumptions then I guess we would have to assume that they are false too, based on his own reasoning. | negative |
I don't mind the odd artsy film. But when they are larded with arcane symbolism and murky dialogue and when it's obvious they were done for the filmmaker's ego rather than the viewer's benefit, I get upset. I'm not a stupid person yet I simply didn't understand what this film was trying to say. Or do. Film is a magnificent form of human communication. Why do some filmmakers use it instead for obfuscation? | negative |
A team varied between Scully and Mulder, two other scientists, a pilot, and the guy who plays Bana on Seinfeld, go up to an Arctic research post where all members have died off by either killing each other or killing themselves. They discover there's a worm- a virus- that is parasitic to the point of madness and death. The problem is, after a certain dog lashes out, anyone could be infected, but who? This is not just my favorite episode of season 1, but also one of my favorites from the show. The Arctic environment encloses the characters and, of course like Carpenter's the Thing, it's a lot of fun watching these even-tempered characters suddenly start to flip out in dramatic scenes. And the visual effects of the worm and its effects under the skin are cheesy, I didn't mind them at all. The drama between the characters ends up working more than it would usually because of the tension and because all of the actors (including the Bana guy) understand what's going on in the story. And, as usual, I loved the ambiguity of the ending. Highly recommended. | positive |
I *loved* the original Scary Movie. I'm a huge fan of parody- it is my favorite form of humor. It is sometimes regarded as the most intelligent form of humor. The Wayans boys seemed to grasp that concept perfectly in the original film, then temporarily forgot it when making the sequel. I think the Wayans' are a family of comical geniuses. Alas, even geniuses make mistakes.<br /><br />The movie begins with promise. I liked "The Exorcist" parody, especially the "come on out, ma" gag. Now, that's Wayans-quality material. But, other than that, I can only think of two other times I laughed: 1) when Tori Spelling is seduced in the middle of the night by a spirit, then becomes clingy and starts talking about marriage with him. Meanwhile, he's saying, "It was just a booty call!!" That was kinda funny. 2) The "Save the Last Dance" parody where the Cindy character inadvertently beats up a girl while practicing her new moves. But even the short-lived giggles are no match for the side-splitting laughs of the first Scary Movie.<br /><br />The rest of the movie is pure trash, filled with cheap gross-out gags. Jokes from the first movie which were subtle or implied are magnified and overdone. For example, in Scary Movie I, several innuendos are made to imply that the character Ray is gay. This was hilarious. But, in Scary Movie II, the whole penis-strangulation scene with Ray under the bed was mind-numbing and incredibly unfunny. This is the pattern of the whole film. Shock humor *alone* doesn't take a movie very far. This was a trend in 2000 and 2001, unfortunately. <br /><br />As much as it pains me to rate a Wayans movie so low, I have to give this one a 2 out of 10. | negative |
Oh, God! Why didn't you give this money for charity? I thought I saw the lowest crap by now, but I was wrong! Who did this script, anyway? A retarded? Who did this cast? I can't believe that there are people that spend money and time to do garbage like that! I was under the impression that I'm watching a porn movie, only without sex scenes, that bad was the so called acting. Onestly, did this film have a director? I believe not and I'm convince that everybody had upon them a page with some lines and red it in front of the camera. I can't explain myself how all the characters in this garbage died without a fight. Nobody can do lower than this! Please, erase it even from IMDb! Bleah! | negative |
Background info - The movies Octopussy & Never Say Never Again were both made the same year, 1983, and so naturally people compare them. Moore vs. Connery. Bond vs. Bond.<br /><br />I've heard many people claiming that the "official movie" Octopussy is far superior. Well, I just watched Octopussy. Bond is riding an airplane at 100 miles an hour (impossible---the wind would blow him off), using his feet to force the plane to ground, and then jumping off at some 60 miles an hour (again impossible---try jumping out of your car---you'd end up with a shattered body). How is that octopussy scene supposed to be "good" in any sense of the word? Suddenly Bond has super-human strength & a titanium body. And he does all these stunts at the ancient age of 56??? Complete crap. Unbelievable. Farse.<br /><br />---> Now let's contrast the above scene with Connery's "unofficial" Never Say Never Again: It doesn't have the same polish due to its independent film status (less money), but at least you can believe that Connery is a real spy in real danger.<br /><br />The movie starts off with Bond showing his age (he is 50 after all) and being sent off for recuperation. Entirely believable. But of course, there's no such thing as a "day off" for a world-famous spy, and Bond quickly finds himself a target, even inside the hospital. From that point the story spins off into another adventure, with Bond trying to locate his attempted killers and ultimately foiling an attempt to steal nuclear weapons.<br /><br />As usual Sean Connery did a brilliant job, and avoids the over-the-top/unbelievable stunts. This movie feels like a natural successor to Connery's last film, 1971's Diamonds Are Forever... the old style of Bond... before the franchise got silly.<br /><br />Highyly recommended. | positive |
Fairly interesting exploitation flick in black and white written by David F. Friedman. The lead actress Stacey Walker is well-cast and strangely attractive. She resembles a deranged Renee Zellweger with a bad hair-do. This chick only made two of these films and then moved back to Texas. The music is terrible. One of her boyfriends is played by Sam Melville (from the TV show THE ROOKIES) using a different name.<br /><br />Best line in the film from Tony - "Are you putting me on, doll? None of my chicks put me on". Good B/W cinematography from Laslo Kovacs (EASY RIDER & TARGETS & many others). Good locales (cool swimming pool, also used in THE DEFILERS). Strange ending but fitting. A 4 out of 10. Best performance Stacey Walker. | negative |
This is a great adaptation and a great miniseries in its own right. The plot cutdowns might disappoint the fans of the book (but really how many modern readers have read Bleak House without seeing a film version first? I know of only a few). <br /><br />I think it is quite appalling to see reviews critical of the series which have clearly been written by people who haven't a clue about the story - did you actually SEE the series or did you just bag a BBC production because Gillian Anderson was in the newer version?<br /><br />The series captures the mood, pace, characters and plot-drivers (cutting out the Dickensian flourishes which aren't needed and detract from a film treatment like the Turveydrop story, the Smallweed family dynamic and the extra lawyers - Tangle, Vholes etc are very truncated). The only omission that I wish had been kept was the Jellyby incident but as the first episode is already a trifle slow (after the first episode the pace is perfect) I can see it had to go. <br /><br />The only other criticism I have is that Jo's death could have been more faithfully done. I can see that would have practically canonized Woodcourt and he's kept a little more human for not having that scene but really I think Jo's death is one of the most poignant points of the book and I missed it even though it always makes me cry.<br /><br />Has theowinthrop actually seen the series? HOW did he think that Esther was raised by her aunt and UNCLE?? Who is this uncle? I suppose someone who could mistake the name of DENHOLM Eliott for Desmond isn't really an appreciator of English art (film or literature).<br /><br />I also think he mistakes the treatment of the law. YES the law is drawn VERY badly in Bleak House. It fails the descendants of Jarndyce whose valuable inheritance is eaten up by the costs of litigation, it fails the deceased Tom Jarndyce and Rick Carstone and all who have faith in the suit. It fails Miss Flyte. In some sense it also fails Captain Hawdon who is driven to his death by the monotony of law copyist work. Yes it feeds the scavengers of Vholes and Tangle. But it also makes men like Guppy and Kenge able to move beyond their station in life. Though not kind to social status-climbers Dickens clearly would have preferred that they weren't bound to being stuck in the station to which they were born (contrast Jo and the brickmakers' families to the climbing out of poverty by Charley Neckett). <br /><br />Also, the law, while misused by Tulkinghorn and the Chancery vultures, is actually the source of security for the wards of the Court Ada and Richard, and for Esther who is simply Jarndyce's ward. Their security was ensured by the law which delivers them to Jarndyce.<br /><br />I can't see how anyone could have trouble following the story - remember you aren't supposed to realize Esther is Lady Dedlock's daughter right at the beginning. Neither are you supposed to "get" all the connections immediately. Instant gratification just doesn't happen in Dickens.<br /><br />As for "seeing clearly" through the fog - gosh the Gillian Anderson had such scatty editing that I found IT impossible to follow and I knew the plot already!<br /><br />I found Diana Rigg absolutely brilliant (overacting and drama don't make a good Lady Dedlock but if you think they do try the Gillian Anderson version).<br /><br />It's ADA and Rick not "Kate"! and you get all you need of the Rouncewell subplot. | positive |
Joe was first released in the US in the summer of 1970. Despite respectable notices, reasonable box office and an Oscar nom, it vanished shortly afterwards and remained forgotten about throughout the 1980's, before being enthusiastically reappraised, somewhat unjustly, in the US in the late 90's. Thanks to this lengthy unavailability, its reputation has gone on to see it placed (inexplicably) alongside the likes of Michael Winner's original Death Wish. Although revenge is a theme, a film about vigilantism this most definitely is not.<br /><br />The plot isn't worth synopsizing. Its a flabby, hammy and bizarrely stagey ramble about an accidental murder and the unlikely relationship that blossoms out of it. That relationship and the largely class-based quirks of its two leads are exaggerated into ridiculous caricature; these two, and their situation, bear absolutely no relation to reality.<br /><br />Almost everything about the film is cantankerous and begrudgingly antiquated, which makes the whole thing completely fascinating. Hippies are depicted as snide and exclusive misanthropes, hard drugs either make you sleep or dance around maniacally with lipstick on your face, and most young women are prepared to have sex with strangers in exchange for marijuana at the drop of a fly. Its very much a film of the 60's rather than the 70's, so why some industry luminaries have begun to include it in retrospective conversations about the beginnings of the Hollywood New Wave is a complete mystery. Martin Scorcese of all people even got involved, though probably only to give a nod to the dank, lavatorial hues of the grim urban cinematography, which almost certainly influenced Taxi Driver four years later. But Joe seems very much like a furious tirade against the likes of Easy Rider and Bonnie And Clyde, rather than a continuation of that same insurgent cinematic ethos.<br /><br />It isn't a film of any real artistic significance - despite Joe's incontinent fury at everything in his world, it remains a story about absolutely nothing - but its value as a cultural museum piece is unprecedented. Shot on and around the streets of New York City during the darkest hours of the Vietnam war, and at a time when America (and, significantly, its cinema) was being revolutionized to the horror of the old guard, the film ends up, in its own completely oblivious and accidental way, saying more about that period of history than numerous infinitely superior movies that directly endeavored to capture it.<br /><br />But as a film? Despite a really surprising and effective shock ending, this is basically a Michael Winner film, but not as well made. How does that tickle your fancy? ** Incidentally, if you are, like me, a fan of spotting arbitrary background lookalikes, then check out Harold Steptoe at 1:22:11 in the hippy art gallery. | negative |
In the era of the Farrelly Brothers and the Jackass series, to have a movie made and performed by Americans come out that is well paced and full of charm as well as hilarity is well-nigh miraculous. This ensemble has been behind some other efforts, most recently "A Mighty Wind" which was so subtle it seemed to be an actual documentary without the overlay of entertainment, but "Best In Show" hits on all cylinders. It is superbly cast with some of the best of current US actors, Parker Posey, who exudes energy even when she stands still, Eugene Levy as tolerant everyman who is nobody's doormat, even when he appears to be (or maybe, 'indomitable doormat'). The brilliant stylings of Fred Willard, the understated performances of so many others, which is a characteristic not normally associated with Americans or American actors. One of the few humorous movies I can watch again and again. | positive |
This is the most compelling and excellent performance that Robert Taylor ever gave. It even surpasses his wonderful performance as "Johnny Eager" coming a full 14 years after that film. His looks are still a wonder to see, but he has a maturity now that gives him the edge in this gritty, violent role. Charlie Gilson (Taylor) is the last of his breed, a buffalo hunter who kills not for the money but for the pleasure. His wild eyed killing of not only buffalo but human beings, is stunning to watch. He is basically a lonely man, needing the people around him, but they dislike him because of his sociopath behavior. His partner is Sandy McKenzie (Stewart Granger) who is sick of the hunt, and only goes along, because he is a failure at anything else. Along the way Charlie kills a family of Indians and captures the beautiful Debra Pagent. Charlie tries to seduce her to no avail, but sees that Sandy is interested in her also. Granger is kind of sad to watch, so fed up with the hunt, longing to go away with the girl and her baby. Lloyd Nolan as the drunken skinner is wonderful with his wise cracks and accordian playing. Russ Tamblyn plays the half breed trying to fit in a white world. The group is an odd mix of good and evil, young and old. In the end Taylor gets spooked by the buffalo, as many hunters before him had, and runs off leaving Sandy with the girl. Upon his return, that night Sandy leaves with the woman, setting Charlie off on a rampage of killing in a quest to get Sandy and have the girl for himself. The final confrontation comes in a snow storm and the last scene is so shocking that you will never forget it. It is Taylor's film all the way and he was truly a much underrated actor of the era. | positive |
The brilliance of this movie is that even a competent dentist is pretty scary. It's one of man's primal fears. This movie is the nightmarish image every kid has to go through in the waiting room. Corbin Bernsen gives a surprisingly non-lackluster performance as a crazed dentist who I guess tries to kill people but he only works on their teeth so it's not really working out. In a particularly gory scene we find so-so actor Earl Boen having his teeth completely destroyed with drills and whatnot, which I guess is the absolute worst you can do when you're a killer dentist. It's a typical Brian Yuzna situation, not well written but there's gore. The plot is shoddy and at times seems to be made up on the spot but hey, it's a killer dentist movie, we've all thought of it but they did it first. | positive |
This has got to be one of absolute worst movies I've ever seen in my life. The writing and acting are just pathetic. It ranks right up there with Uncle Sam on the all time worst movies ever made. However, when I see crap like this able to make it to video, it really inspires me to pursue my wild dreams of making films because I know I could do a better job than what the makers of Killers did. | negative |
I rented this because I'm a bit weary of '80s NBC programming and apparently I saved myself a lot of money. I have nothing against any of the actors and for their credit they do a good job but this show is flawed from the premise.<br /><br />We have a character who is unlikable. He's full of flaws, not enlightened, and a complete jerk on a good day. Yet the reason why anybody should care just isn't there. While creating an American sitcom centered around a complete bullheaded jackass is revolutionary and full of potential, it just isn't met here within this show. Most of the supporting characters aren't fully fleshed characters but rather sad punching bags that want empathy from the audience for being punching bags. As in any sitcom, they are the ones who are made the most normal for the audience to relate to, and in doing this they negate the lead character to such an extent that we see Bittinger being himself and harming people and they just stay there because....why? There is no reason. Any normal people would have simply left the abuse. Keeping them there without any real reason--even the really unbelievable one given by Joanna Cassidy in the very special 2-part abortion episode that has major problems of its own--is where the show just falls apart. To simply believe that people put up with this guy because we are told he has a heart of gold does not mesh with the reality of the situation. If anything, this isn't even dramedy. This is a badly plotted, conceived, and executed premise that had a few moments but overall met the fate it deserved. Someone had the guts to go out and make a very good idea, but the execution is so haphazard that it just looks like a weirdly scripted version of the Jerry Springer show where someone is abused by this tyrant that we're supposed to root for because we are told to. A show like this requires a deft touch that the actors here could have provided easily, but somehow aren't able to. And that's a fatal error that really killed the program.<br /><br />Chalk it up to a show in its infancy. Regardless, the show is worth a watch. But it really screwed up when trying to aim for the stars, and made the whole enterprise not what it could have been. | negative |
Even Steve Martin and Dan Aykroyd couldn't save this movie from laying an emu-sized egg. Based on the classic Phil Silvers TV series, it bombed because: A) It was updated to the 1990s, and B) The simple premise of the TV series was turned into a confusing, feeble and silly screenplay.<br /><br />The original TV series used a small cast of talented actors to portray lovable characters acting out simple yet hilarious pranks. To expand this premise into a 1990s movie was asking for trouble, and it shows. No one could pay me enough to sit through this stinker a second time. | negative |
This is a film that had a lot to live down to . on the year of its release legendary film critic Barry Norman considered it the worst film of the year and I'd heard nothing but bad things about it especially a plot that was criticised for being too complicated <br /><br />To be honest the plot is something of a red herring and the film suffers even more when the word " plot " is used because as far as I can see there is no plot as such . There's something involving Russian gangsters , a character called Pete Thompson who's trying to get his wife Sarah pregnant , and an Irish bloke called Sean . How they all fit into something called a " plot " I'm not sure . It's difficult to explain the plots of Guy Ritchie films but if you watch any of his films I'm sure we can all agree that they all posses one no matter how complicated they may seem on first viewing . Likewise a James Bond film though the plots are stretched out with action scenes . You will have a serious problem believing RANCID ALUMINIUM has any type of central plot that can be cogently explained <br /><br />Taking a look at the cast list will ring enough warning bells as to what sort of film you'll be watching . Sadie Frost has appeared in some of the worst British films made in the last 15 years and she's doing nothing to become inconsistent . Steven Berkoff gives acting a bad name ( and he plays a character called Kant which sums up the wit of this movie ) while one of the supporting characters is played by a TV presenter presumably because no serious actress would be seen dead in this <br /><br />The only good thing I can say about this movie is that it's utterly forgettable . I saw it a few days ago and immediately after watching I was going to write a very long a critical review warning people what they are letting themselves in for by watching , but by now I've mainly forgotten why . But this doesn't alter the fact that I remember disliking this piece of crap immensely | negative |
A 1957 (yes, that's the correct date) J. Arthur Rank production with James Robertson Justice, Margaret Rutherford, Wilfred Hyde White; it has to be a smash comedy, right? Oh, it's just awful. It's a one gag film: watching people be shocked at the sight of a little alligator. Music is thrown in, most inappropriately and forgettably. Jeannie Carson is a lively dancer and competent singer. But what was she doing in this film? Diana Dors is here too, providing oh-so-daring shots for use in the previews. Her acting level is not bad, but she's in the film to provide someone to leer at. Well, one must do something beside groan during this film. The movie is being sold on VHS now by people on e-Bay. Spare yourself the expense and the waste of time. A comedy without a laugh. A musical without a memorable song or dance. | negative |
This video contains an outsmart way to confuse and manipulate Americans about Islam. It's a pity that the people who did it really believe that American people is so dumb to believe in it, perhaps, as an American citizen, every person must protest against this kind of crap. If you want to know the truth about Islam, don't let nobody tell you... THE QURAN IS PUBLIC! you can read it by yourself and decide if what they say it's true or false...<br /><br />The video uses a lot of audiovisual strategies directed to manipulate and associate things that are not even related. The music used at some points prepare the public to hate what they see, even if they don't really understand what's going on in there. They use images that are misplaced from their original content.<br /><br />To end the comment I would like to make a reflexion... Don't you think you can do the same exact movie with every religion in the world? | negative |
After being forced to sit through some real stinkers (Racing Stripes, Shark Boy and Lava Girl) -- I truly enjoyed watching "Fried Worms". For once, I did not guess the ending! It was funny and entertaining and didn't resort to a ton of gross-out humor, despite the title. My boys (6 and 10) both LOVED it too -- oh and my 45 year old "boy" had a smile on his face the whole time. This is a family movie that is not just tolerable for the parents. The relationship with the little brother is so close to real life. "He is not stopping singing just to annoy me!!" Also, the way the new kid tries to make friends and how those friendships actually form is right-on with the way kids behave. Of course the parents have to act a little goofy -- but my favorite scenes involved the Dad getting used to his new job. Have fun! | positive |
I love this movie. I mean the story may not be the best, but the dancing most certainly makes up for it. You get to know a little bit about each character the way THEY want you to learn about them. I just think that you won't like this movie unless you're into Broadway... | positive |
Really good horror flick featuring to of the greatest, Boris Karloff and Bela Lugosi. Dr. Janos Rukh(Karloff)is on an expedition in Africa trying to find an ancient meteorite. After finding it, Rukh is poisoned by the its radiation. All he touches dies and the dark side of Rukh makes him become an egotistic murderer. His friend, Dr. Felix Benet(Lugosi)finds a limited remedy to the problem and at the same time realizes the radiation could be used for the good of mankind by curing diseases. The two fiends will battle over the radiations possibilities. Pretty good special effects. Others in the cast: Frances Drake, Frank Lawton, Beulah Bondi and Frank Reicher. | positive |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.