review stringlengths 32 13.7k | sentiment stringclasses 2 values |
|---|---|
So pathetic its not even funny. From the first scene in the movie I knew I was in for a bad time. Thank goodness I only saw this movie on tv. The story line was terrible, not to mention the acting. It was horrid. Very unreal and unusual things happened in this move such as. The lady sticks a whip under the door and whips the guy a little and he just hands over the keys. I'm like, GET REAL. The creators lousy attempt to make a futuristic city even deepened my dislike for the film. To tell you the truth the only good thing in this movie at all was the fighting, which was in itself pretty lame. All I could ask myself when watching this movie was "when is it gonna go off!" | negative |
A craven, cowardly film. Director Boorman shows Cahill burglarizing rich houses, but the male occupant is shown being unfaithful with the nanny, thats all right then. The forensic scientist investigating Cahill is blown up in his car, but he is rat faced sourpuss, and doesn't look like a nice man, so thats all right too. The Beits, owner of Russborrough House, made their money by exploiting 'darkies' digging up diamonds, so it's okay to rob priceless art from them and hide it in a bunker in the Wicklow mountains. The Garda kill his ferrets and are implicated in his murder. The moral equivalencing is sickening, Boorman looks for a hit film, but doesn't have the guts to stand against the criminality of the generals gang, who terrorized the neighbourhood, and unleashed another wave of scumbags upon Dublin. He even liaised with the Generals son while making it. Disgusting. Shame on him for his cowardice. | negative |
The only aspect of this film that saves it from being my least favorite piece of celluloid trash is a single line uttered by an agent attempting to infiltrate the man-eating tomatoes by dressing in a tomato costume: "Can somebody please pass the ketchup?" I highly urge anyone with a sleeping disorder to use this film as a sedative; it works better than an overdose of demarol. | negative |
I also saw this upon its release in '56, and have been struck since then with its final scene. If this is an answer to 'High Noon,' then it's an apt and apposite response. The notion that, as this string is headed, "The town comes together" is a much stronger message than the lonely personal heroism of 'High Noon.' In this theme, 'Concho' is a phenomenal precursor of one my other all-time favorites, 'The Magnificent Seven.' Both Sinatra and Conrad give impressive and convincing performances, especially Sinatra's transformation from bullying kid brother to liberating town savior. I can only hope that at some point all the friends and family on whom over the years I've inflicted my affection for this movie will have the opportunity to experience it for themselves. | positive |
This movie was a complete waste of time.<br /><br />I viewed this movie with a group of cinematic enthusiasts, who have varied taste in movies yet always a keen eye for a work of "genius" (as one of my fellow commenters on this site had the gall to label this steaming pile
); not one of them found a single redeeming quality. We ended the movie with a rousing chorus of expletives I will not reprint here.<br /><br />I can only guess that the positive reviews provided here were written by Sir Anthony Hopkins, himself. Afterall, as one of those reviewers will tell you, he financed the film himself because no one else in Hollywood or anywhere else in the world, for that matter, would risk a single penny or their good name in association with this film. Don't let the semi-famous actors who appear in the film lure you into its clutches as Christian Slater admits in the special features "making of" he signed on to the film without reading the script or knowing any details (a folly I am sure he will never repeat).<br /><br />I pity the hapless individual who stumbles into this quagmire of self-indulgence written, directed, produced, and financed by a man who is too famous to admit to himself that not everything he creates is a masterpiece (and if you don't believe me please google "Anthony Hopkins" AND art). | negative |
I'd heard of Eddie Izzard, but had never seen him in action. I knew he was a transvestite, and when I saw he was on HBO one night last summer, I put it on, not knowing how my husband would react. Well, he blew us away. He's better than Robin Williams ever was. He has total control of the audience; when he does the 'Englebert is dead - no he's not', routine, the audience doesn't know what to think by the end. God as James Mason is also an inspired touch, and his version of the Python Spanish Inquisition as carried out by the Church of England - 'Cake or Death?' is priceless. My jaws were aching from laughter by the end of the show. We scoured the TV listings for months after that to be able to see him again, and were lucky enough to tape him the next time he came on. If you get the chance to see this show, cancel everything and tape it, you won't be disappointed. | positive |
Stephen King is generally known for the morbid, and that's fine, but this story is too morbid. Some movies, by the end you feel sad for the characters or the situations they were put through...here you just feel depressed. The movie has a nice feel to it (at first), with the family moving to the country, and creepy old Fred Gwyne greeting and warning them of the pet cemetery, but this plot leads nowhere. It starts with so much potential, but by the end, it loses the potential to be a good horror movie, and becomes corny, extremely stupid, and ultimately depressing.<br /><br />Louis (Dale Midkoff), his wife Rachel (Denise Crosby), their kids Ellie and Gage, and their cat move to a new home in Maine. They are warned by the loony farmer neighbor Jud (Fred Gwyne) about the local pet cemetery and how it is cursed. Louis thinks nothing of this and everything's fine until the family cat is killed. He bury's it in the cursed cemetery and it comes back to life, constantly hissing at the family and wanting to be left alone. One day, infant Gage runs out in the road and is run over and killed by a truck, and Louis knows he must bury him in the cemetery. When Gage comes back to life, he is changed and wants to murder.<br /><br />With many of Stephen King's works that don't translate well into films, I blame the directors and screenwriters. In this case, Mr. King was the screenwriter, but I'm going to blame him for his awful story. By the end it's so pointless, and though unfunny, the premise is laughable. A little boy comes back from the dead and manages to kill people with what looks like a tiny scalpel, and not only that, but he manages to lift their bodies and in one case, carry a body from the ground to the attic!(?) I know this isn't set in reality but seriously, how stupid can this get? The scene where Louis injects his deceased, now living again cat to kill it is strangely sad, because the cat did not deserve this. All it did was go around minding it's own business and he killed it. The scene where he injects his own infant son is almost unbearable. Not unbearably sad, but the whole situation is just awful to think of. After being injected Gage staggers drunkenly around before falling down dead....why did they need to make a movie ending with the death of an infant? But...even worse, the actual ending of them film involving Louis burying someone else (Not going to give away who) in the cemetery after Gage kills them....what did he expect? Why did Mr. King write this horrible story and why was it made into a movie? It's depressing and pointless!<br /><br />My rating: * out of ****. 90 mins. R for violence. | negative |
I was bored, around 10pm, so I watched this movie. And I could not stop laughing. Everything was so ridiculous. The way the kids were acting like they were older than 11 just cracked me up. One of the kids had a ring, that supposedly killed people after 3 or so years. It gave me the impression that he wanted to be a gangster.<br /><br />It's pretty hard to take little kids seriously, especially when it has to do with eating worms. They act like everything is such a big deal, like if Billy (the main character) doesn't eat the worms then the world will end.<br /><br />This is a good movie for little kids (excluding the fact that a 5 year old says 'penis'), but not for teens or adults who don't want to waste their time. | negative |
Letting the class watch this in English was a bad idea. Films that are serious and more educational can have an effect, but it appears this one didn't have any effect whatsoever on the class - whenever the teacher left, conversations quickly started - and I didn't hear the words "Shakespeare" or "Tempest" being used at all. And when you look at this, it is easy to see why. The acting is nothing special - everyone seems bored to bits, just reading from the page without a care in the world. Shakespeare always did prefer expository dialogue to action and death, but I just couldn't understand a word anyone was saying. The costumes aren't too bad and neither are the special effects - the class may not have loved the film, but they weren't exactly taking the p*ss either. But it is hard to joke at a film that is devoid of any sort of inspiration or joy. The scenes on the ship at the start of the film weren't too badly done - though the rain looked a bit unrealistic, everything else was done well and good. But where were the severed heads and exploding masts? Where was the death? Where was the inspiration? The character of Ariel would have been taken a lot more seriously had he been wearing clothes - but as all was on show, he was just another excuse for a joke. This film is not in any way appealing to either sex. The women and girls won't have any romance or comedy to enjoy, and there is an abundance of naked men and lack of action or death that will put most men and boys off. The Tempest wasn't badly done, but this felt like something the producers HAD to make, not something they wanted to make. And the general boredom and lack of inspiration show. 3/10 | negative |
My mom, my cousins, and I are pretty big Jane Austen fans. We know all the words to the 1995 Pride and Prejudice masterpiece, and have watched Gwyneth Paltrow's Emma an embarrassing number of times. I've read all the books, and I've even sat through Sense and Sensibility and Persuasion a few times. So my mom and I thought it would be nice to see Northanger Abbey on film.<br /><br />Bad idea! This is just about the worst movie I've ever seen. It's even worse than the 1998 version of Alice Through the Looking Glass, or the 1939 Nancy Drew movie I bought at Wal-Mart for $1 (my previous "worst movies.") The first thing wrong, which you notice in the opening scene, is that the "heroine," Catherine, has a gruesome and weird imagination, inspired by trashy novels that a Jane Austen heroine would never touch. Throughout the novel, she has dreams (day and night) in which she is carried off by some hideous man with a greasy wig, dragged across a field headed for God-knows-what-all, and suddenly rescued by a dashing guy on a white horse.<br /><br />The second thing any viewer of the movie will instantly notice is the high-pitched wailing and saxophone music that is supposed to be the soundtrack. No dainty classical music or English country dances here! It is also evident, almost at first glance, that the actress (for lack of a better word) chosen to play Catherine is completely off. First, she is rather unattractive, and is rendered even more so by her un-Austenlike behavior. Her looks and movements are just wacky! Plus, they're completely affected and unbelievable.<br /><br />This sad lack of acting skills affects pretty much all of the actors in the film. Not even Mr. Tilney, the supposed "dashing young suitor" is decent.<br /><br />As more and more characters are introduced, a strange taste in costumes on the part of the filmmakers becomes evident. Huge, Marie Antoinette-style headdresses clash with the (for the most part) correctly styled Empire gowns. A French woman, apparently a friend of General Tilney's, is made up all in black as some sort of ancient Goth nightmare--she bears a striking similarity to Michael Jackson in a black dress. Her appearance is made even sillier by a HUGE half-moon beauty mark on her cheek. I also had to wonder about the historical accuracy of the bright red lipstick that almost all of the women were wearing.<br /><br />Another anomaly that kept my mom and I howling with laughter for about ten minutes was the "bathing" scene. The first thing we noticed was that men and women were bathing in a big bathhouse together--probably not very likely in the early 1800s. Then we saw that all the women seemed to be wearing large china or plastic plates, worn around their necks with strings. The plates floated horizontally on the water, containing some mysterious pieces of...something. We guessed it was soap, then aromatic herbs, then finally, when the mystery substance began disappearing between shots, we deduced it was food. But I'm still not sure.<br /><br />And that's not even half of what's wrong with Northanger Abbey. My warning to anyone who is considering renting this movie: stay your hand. And if anyone is considering BUYING it--well, I don't even know what to say to that.<br /><br />You'd think that when the actors and others making this film got about 1/4 of the way through, they'd realize what a monster they were creating and stop. Unfortunately, they didn't, and Northanger Abbey was let out into the world. | negative |
I really wanted to like this film as I have admiration for Italian rip-off cinema (especially Jaws rip-offs!), but the simple fact of the matter is that Monster Shark isn't very good. All the signs of this being a great piece of trash are there; we've got one of the kings of trashy cult cinema, Lamberto Bava, in the director's chair - one of the best ridiculous cult actors, Michael Sopkiw, taking the lead role, and a central creature stupid enough to give even the best that this sort of film has to offer a run for it's money, yet somehow the film still manages to be rather stale. The fact that the 'monster shark' doesn't feature too often is probably a good thing given the creature design, but there's never enough elsewhere to pull the film through without it. The plot focuses on a resort off the south coast of Florida (or rather, somewhere in Italy) where several local people have turned up in the water with arms and legs missing. It's not long before the local authorities decide that this creature has never been seen before, and it's up to a motley crew of various sea experts to catch it alive! <br /><br />The main problem with this film is that it always feels very pointless, and since there is little in the way of characters or plot development, even the least demanding of viewers are likely to start getting bored before long. This sort of film is hardly famous for being brilliant, although the fun element of films such as 'The Last Shark' and 'Killer Fish' is unfortunately absent for most of the running time. The thing I love about lead actor Michael Sopkiw is that he always seems like he's taking himself seriously no matter what film he's in (although he only ever made four). This is certainly the case here, although Bava never really allows him to completely dive in, and often he feels as much like a spare wheel as the rest of the film. Much of the runtime is spent watching the various characters sup American lager, and it's not very fascinating; although Bava does manage to come good by the end with an entertaining flurry of action as the central monster finally gets to wreak havoc upon its would-be captors. Overall, there really isn't much to recommend this film for. As mentioned, I really like this sort of stuff and even I found myself bored on numerous occasions. For hardcore Italian horror fans only! | negative |
If you want to see a retarded homosexual Karate expert beat up a bunch of try hard wannabe Mexican gangsters repeatedly for an hr, then this is the film for you. if not then choose another DVD from the 20c bin which is the only place this film belongs. the acting was so horrible that i had to force myself to watch it to the end. The cover makes it look so cool but its just another cheap, b grade gangster film along the lines of 2 g's and a key, bloody streetz and menace. I would not buy or rent this film unless you are planing to get stoned and plot , editing and acting really don't matter to you. it is truly the worst film in the history of humanity!!! | negative |
A SOUND OF THUNDER. One of the greatest short stories ever written. By one of the grandest Grand Masters of Fantasy, Ray Bradbury. What a great story.<br /><br />But what a vomitous movie! <br /><br />In Bradbury's science fiction short story, a company called Time Safari offers big game hunters the opportunity to go back in time and kill dinosaurs. Rule Number One is: Stay On The Path, a floating metallic walkway that ensures no interaction with the prehistoric environment. During a hunt, a man steps off the path and inadvertently crushes a butterfly. When the hunting party returns to the present - the world as they know it has drastically changed. Though there are paradoxes in any time travel story, Bradbury's tale was a quick jugular stroke, a parable of the ripple effect.<br /><br />A Sound of Thunder was published in 1952 (according to Wikipedia, the most republished science fiction story of all time), and illustrated Chaos Theory, Darwinism, and The Butterfly Effect (which would only be coined in the 1960s by Edward Lorenz). In Bradbury's story, the wonder of time travel was overshadowed by corporate greed, in turn overshadowed by the mortal danger to humanity's existence itself.<br /><br />While in the movie, A SOUND OF THUNDER (directed by the uneven Peter Hyams, CAPRICORN ONE, 2010: ODYSSEY TWO), a clutch of bad actors goes through the time portal again and again to try to rectify their mistakes, like an excrement version of BACK TO THE FUTURE. The movie has nothing to do with Bradbury's powerful tale, except the initial jolt of the time traveling prehistoric hunting party. Egregious liberties are taken with Bradbury's story - baboon-faced reptiles, plants overrunning Chicago's concrete, time waves rippling through the city, CGI insectoids - for which Bradbury should sue the pants and underpants and ass-hairs off the filmmakers.<br /><br />Novice writers Thomas Dean Donnelly, Joshua Oppenheimer and Gregory Poirier should start a Big Balls Agency, for thinking they could actually add elements to a Ray Bradbury story that would improve it. How do these guys walk in a straight line with balls this big? Ben Kingsley is the corporate owner of Time Safari, with a hairpiece so bad it looks like a hairpiece, Edward Burns is his lead hunter, Travis, and Catherine McCormack (who was Murron MacClannough, in BRAVEHEART) is the scientist with the best breasts.<br /><br />I can't possibly relate the hundreds upon thousands of egregious stupidities and asinine pieces of dialog, but here is just one, spoken by David Oyelowo as some kind of "scientist": he refers to the Pleiades star cluster, "The Seven Sisters, they look like stars, don't they? But each of them is a whole galaxy." Uh, no, idiot scientist, they're actually, uh, stars.<br /><br />Those three morons who rewrote Bradbury's story forgot they didn't know anything about physics or astronomy. Or writing.<br /><br />Best part of the movie is Catherine McCormick's chest straining against her disheveled one-size-too-small blouses.<br /><br />--Review by Poffy The Cucumber (for Poffy's Movie Mania). | negative |
A pre-Nerd Robert Carradine, a pre-Automan Desi Arnaz Jr., and an almost pre-pubescent Melanie Griffith take to the road and head for Alaska with romantic dreams of becoming wealthy salmon fishers. Well, their dream is about as exciting as this lackluster youth road movie. They aren't particularly interesting, and the film doesn't exactly have much of a point, beyond `We got together the spawn of some famous people and made a low budget film about their misadventures.' Out of the cannon of 60's and 70's road films and rebel youth films, this one is mediocre, under developed, uninvolving characters, not much wit, not much freshness to the story, which is as bland as the films muddy landscape.<br /><br />But, for those who care- They head to Alaska, and apparently Alaska was like the Wild West in the 70's because everyone carries a gun and is rough and tumble. Robert Carradine says charming things like `I hope we can find a shower, my nuts sure itch.' (And he's the one with Melanie Griffith!) They are quickly robbed and forced to take jobs, and the local bigwig, their employer, puts the moves on Melanie and eventually fires Desi for not being corrupt. That's when they aren't smart and do not leave town, opting instead to eat dog food or go hungry, get beat up by the guys goons, and then take a joyride in the bigwigs car. The final half of the film abandons the evil bigwig as the trio commit a robbery, go on the run, and hatch a kidnapping scheme, and so forth. The film just sort of ends, annoyingly and ambiguously, but seeing as how they didn't bother to have much character development and story in the first place, its rather appropriate. Worth a look if you are really into low budget 70's fare, but ultimately pretty forgettable. | negative |
I was looking forward to this ride, and was horribly disappointed.<br /><br />And I am very easily amused at roller coaster and amusement park rides.<br /><br />The roller coaster part was just okay - and that was all of about 30 seconds of a 90 second ride. <br /><br />It was visually dull and poorly executed. <br /><br />It was trying desperately to be like a mixture of the far superior Indiana Jones and Space Mountain rides and Disneyland, and failed in every aspect.<br /><br />It was not thrilling or exciting in the least. | negative |
Mr. Moto's Gamble has a fairly straight forward plot - when a boxer is murdered in the ring with a mysterious poison, it's up to the even more mysterious Mr. Moto to solve the case.<br /><br />I'm shocked at the number of positive reviews for Mr. Moto's Gamble on IMDb. Because to me...well, I found it extremely disappointing. I enjoy Mr. Moto and I enjoy Charlie Chan, but I can't say I cared for this mish-mash of the two. For those unfamiliar with the story behind Mr. Moto's Gamble, it was originally intended to be a Charlie Chan film. But when Warner Oland backed-out, some of the scenes and action were rewritten for Peter Lorre and Mr. Moto. As I indicated, the end result left me underwhelmed. Mr. Moto is not Chan. He's more mysterious, he's more athletic, and he's more exotic. So trying to put Moto in a Chan film is like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole - it doesn't work. And listening to Lorre/Moto try to deliver one of Chan's trademark euphemisms just ends up sounding silly. Add to that the fact that almost 10 minutes of the already brief 72 minute runtime is made up of boxing scenes (something that I never seem to enjoy) and you end up with a movie that I couldn't help but dislike. If I have to say something positive I would point to the performance of Keye Luke. But even he's not near enough to save Mr. Moto's Gamble in my eyes.<br /><br />Sorry, but a 4/10 is about the best I can give this one. | negative |
OK, aside from the psychedelic background imagery, the info presented here was good. The music I could have done without (not that it was bad music, just that it didn't fit this film at all).<br /><br />As for the content of the film, the director brings up the often-lacking Pagan perspective on Christ's existence and a startling comparison of the deeds and events of Christ's life vs. the lives of mythological figures/deities such as Mithra and Dionyses. Then he brings up the chronology of Christianity's origins and presents an 'ok' case, but not one that blew me away.<br /><br />If the director had stuck with the facts and continued on with them, this film would have been good. However, at this point in the film, it disintegrates into a group of personally-gratifying attacks on Mel Gibson's "Passion of the Christ" and a Christian private school which the director attended in his youth. During an interview with his old principal, (which during the course of, it comes to light that the director set up under false pretenses) I felt that the director was acting sort of childish. He was asking good questions but, like the film itself, the interview crumbled into an attack on this particular private school's rules, not Christianity.<br /><br />All in all, if you're just interested in some info, watch the first 30 minutes or so and then shut it off. | negative |
Black Snake Moan is uproarious. It is over-flowingly rich, fantastically orchestrated, strange and cumbersome, unique and visionary. In continuation of Hustle & Flow, Brewer paints his portrait of the American South almost as a mythological land one would expect to see in a Fantasy or Ancient Greece epic. And yet as far high above us his movies hover, they are still rooted; rooted in the deepest, darkest soil there is.<br /><br />As in traditional fairy-tales, Brewer paints his portrait in Black Snake Moan using extremes and exaggerations. Sharp and stark character traits, when coupled with such extreme acts as chaining a half-naked white girl to a radiator in an attempt to redeem her of her sins, exaggerate and emphasize the metaphor the same way such extreme visual techniques such as some characters having colour in Pleasantville strengthened the metaphor in that fairy tale film. But Brewer doesn't begin his film with "once upon a time"; in this film and also in Hustle & Flow, Brewer presents us with a different fairy tale; a dark, Gothic fable of sex, prostitution, and ultimately, redemption. These themes run through the film's veins like blood and resonate and bloom in its dark, brooding setting.<br /><br />But despite these harsh extremes, Brewer treats his characters like humans, and creates extremely well-executed, three-dimensional characterizations in Lazarus and Rae, particularly emphasized with their relationships with Lazerus' friend at the pharmacy, Angela, and Rae's mother.<br /><br />The acting is, all-around, quite perfect. One gets the feeling that both Christina Ricci and Samuel L. Jackson were born to play these roles. Their characterizations are so intense and so severe; it's even more of a challenge for the actors to keep their heads on and craft realistic characters. And they succeed admirably. Samuel L. Jackson in particular utterly disappears into his character, which serves as a polar opposite to most of the character's he's played before. With films like Pulp Fiction, Jackie Brown, Shaft, and others, he has crafted for himself a typecast of the "ultimate bad-ass". In Black Snake Moan Jackson plays an old, broken, defeated and earthy character quite unlike anything he's done before. And frankly, it's just fantastic. What comes as quite a surprise, though, is the casting of Justin Timberlake, and more specifically, the fact that he comes across as quite tolerable. Sure he doesn't have much screen time, but like what Brewer did with Ludicrous in Hustle & Flow, he actually gets Timberlake to act and do what he is meant to do, and not come across as totally unconvincing and irritating.<br /><br />But what is really so incredibly great about the movie is the atmosphere Brewer creates. The rural Southern locations work to his advantage in creating a dark, dirty, grimy, crusty, rugged kind of texture to the entire film, which more than fits in with the film's thematic and metaphorical aspects. And by utilizing all sorts of elements such as the rising sound of cicadas when Rae gets her itch, or a raging thunderstorm that increases and intensifies as Lazarus plays his "Black Snake Moan" blues number for Rae, Brewer truly manages to create almost a fantasy world, an undermined mythology to the rural Southern setting. And it works so utterly fantastically to craft Brewer's unique vision.<br /><br />And one can't talk about a Craig Brewer film without mentioning the music. In Hustle & Flow, he utilized a soundtrack of down-and-dirty, street-wise hip-hop music to emphasize the atmosphere and the vision. In this film, the music works even better at polishing off and fully representing the unique atmosphere. It is a rural blues soundtrack, but it's the dirtiest, rawest, grittiest blues you've ever heard. And it sounds just absolutely fantastic.<br /><br />In all, it can be said that had this movie been a simple tale of an old, broken, lonely, god-fearing black blues singer redeeming a young white woman who was sexually abused as a child and now suffers from nymphomania, there may have not been very much to write home about. But this film is not about the plot, and not even about the characters, as well as they are crafted in the film regardless. No, this film is about the vision and what a unique vision it is! It is about the atmosphere, the mythology, the setting. It is about anger, fear, redemption, and most importantly, the blues. And it's all wrapped up in a unique, entertaining, stylized and impeccable ribbon. Brewer has guaranteed himself a spot on the most promising up-and-coming directors list, and with such a solid follow-up to a great debut film, Hustle & Flow, he will definitely be on my radar for future projects.<br /><br />It also must be mentioned that the film has one of the most fantastic and unique titles I've heard yet. | positive |
As a community theater actor who works hard at it but doesn't take acting too seriously, I'm always amused by those who treat it as Great Art. This movie skewers the "Actor's Craft" mercilessly while dishing up a lot of good laughs.<br /><br />A ham actor on location for a movie bears a resemblance to the dictator. When the dictator dies of a heart attack from too much drink and food, the actor is kidnapped and forced to play "the part of a lifetime" by the neo-Nazi head of the secret service. He plays it to the hilt, gets the dictator's girlfriend to fall in love with him and vice versa, and turns the tables on his captors beautifully.<br /><br />Lots of great shtick by the leads, lots of good work by some unknown supporting actors, particularly the household staff and two members of the palace guard, and fun little cameos abound. Sammy Davis Jr. makes light of himself, Jonathan Winters plays a semi-retired American businessman with something else going on, and Raul Julia, Sonia Braga, and above all Richard Dreyfuss are exceptional.<br /><br />This is a dumb movie, but it has lots of beautiful locations (in Brazil), a humorous script, and good actors doing their thing and looking like they're actually having fun and not going through the usual existential angst about what is only play-acting! | positive |
I was delighted to see this gem of a film available on DVD. Despite being a 'TV Movie' and shot on 16mm, it provided a wonderful insight into the different types of people who wanted to become a 'London cabbie', along with their foibles and family commitments. Even the most hapless of candidates, 'Titanic' with his uncommunicative wife, it was possible to see how Jack Rosenthal was able to craft an often funny and sometimes tragic snippet of London life into an entertaining 90 minutes.<br /><br />Originally premiered as a vehicle for Mick Ford (pun intended), the quality of the acting from an ensemble cast including Michael Elphic, Nigel Hawthorne, Jonathan Lynn, Lesley Joseph and Maureen Lipman (Mrs Rosenthal) meant Mick may have had top billing, but he had to work hard in the face of such competing talents.<br /><br />Even 15 years after its 1991 release, it is still as fresh as ever! | positive |
I thought that this was an absolutely charming movie centering around the lives of Mary-Kate's and Ashley's characters Sam and Emma Stanton! They are both trying to make both themselves and their parents happy but; unfortunately, it's just not that easy for them to actually do! I thought that this was an utterly charming and sweet movie and if you are a real fan of these marvelous young ladies then I'm sure that you'll agree with me here! If you haven't seen this movie yet then I say you really missed-out; big time, and that you should definitely take the time out to see it now! This movie is a real winner! Sincerely, Rick Morris | positive |
Some guy named Karl Rhamarevich learns how to live on even after death through telekinesis. He's interred in a mausoleum. That same night Julie (Meg Tilly) has to spend the night there to get into a group called "The Sisters". And Karl's "power" is in full bloom.<br /><br />Silly movie. I saw it in a theatre when I was 21 and was generally bored. The PG rating should have tipped me off--this is a horror movie for kids. One REAL stupid scene at the end has a corpse breaking THROUGH concrete to hit a young guy! For starters corpses are put in HEAD first making it impossible for the corpse to use his arms and there's no way anybody is going to break through concrete. When you're noticing silly mistakes like that, the movie is not doing its job.<br /><br />It has two good scenes--two of "The Sisters" are "attacked" by floating corpses crowding them in. At one point one of the sisters punches a corpse in the stomach--her hand goes IN the body and she can't pull it out! That scene has stayed with me every since. And there's a cute little bit involving a corpse and a toothbrush at the end (which had my audience laughing). But the rest of the movie is a dim, dull memory. For kids only--adults will be bored. I give it a 3. | negative |
"THE KING OF QUEENS," in my opinion, is a pure CBS hit! Despite the fact that I've never seen every episode, I still enjoy it very much. For that reason, it's hard for me to say which episode is my favorite. Even so, I must say that CBS really knows how to make a good sitcom. Before I wrap this up, I'd like to say that everyone always gives a good performance, the production design is spectacular, the costumes are well-designed, and the writing is always very strong. In conclusion, if this show lives on in syndication after it goes off CBS, I strongly recommend you catch it just in case it goes off the air for good. | positive |
This show has everything you could ever want from a prison drama. There are twists and turns all the way till the season finally. The characters are very strong, and it gives the show a lot of power. When watching the show you feel for not only the prisoners, but the prison staff. The actors who play prisoners on this show have done a very good job portraying a prisoner. Also if you like law and order svu or law and order criminal intent there are many actors from this show that appear in those shows. The only problem with Oz is that it was not long enough. This show could of easily had nine to ten seasons without getting old. Even after the season finale i sill find myself watching Oz all the time on DVD. This show is easily one of the best shows on television. Don't be a fool, go watch Oz. | positive |
Doppelganger has its moments, but they are few and far between.<br /><br />Essentially, this is a grade B blend of pop-psych thriller, ghost story and horror. Drew Barrymore plays a young woman who is haunted by the demons of her past (most of her family has been murdered and she was, in at least one case, the prime suspect), or does she just have a really bad case of multiple personality disorder? George Newbern is her new room mate, and most of the action centers on him.<br /><br />Newbern's character is pretty sympathetic, and both he and Barrymore do decent work (though not exactly good). The mediocre to (at times) totally horrendous script and the unimpressive directing seem to have combined to sink the rest of the performances into oblivion. Leslie Hope's character is memorable, but so irritating that you will want to forget her.<br /><br />The plot eventually disintegrates into a bifurcated (one story arc is psychological realism, the other is supernatural horror) outlandish climax which is so badly conceived, acted and photographed that it effectively counteracts most of what value the film had achieved previously.<br /><br />Overall, the film has the feel of what might expect to be the result of M. Knight Shamalyan's first undergraduate film class. The acting and script for the two leads are just good enough to make you care a little about them - at least until the film derails utterly and completely.<br /><br />My recommendation - send your doppelganger, but avoid a first-person encounter. | negative |
No,<br /><br />Basically your watching something that doesn't make sense. To not spoil the film for people who actually want to this take a look at the flick I will explain the story.<br /><br />A normal everyday to day women, is walking down a street then find's herself driving by in her own car. She follows her and many events take place during that time that include her and her family.<br /><br />I specifically made an account to comment on this film, of how horribly written this was. The acting was great, the events were great, but the story just brought it nowhere - it could of been added to tremendously and be made into a worldwide epidemic. I'm not sure what the writer was trying to accomplish by making this, usually at the end of films most of your questions get answers but this film has you asking, What just happened and 1 hour 20 minutes just passed for nothing.<br /><br />Spoiler Starts__<br /><br />They had this area between 2 dimensions (ours and behind the glass) that would come into our world and kill us. It was not elaborated on all during the film, and you never know how it was happening or why it was or when it happened. Nothing gets explained during the film. The main character shouldn't of even been the main character. At the end of the film the guy who finally figures it all out and runs away (her sisters boyfriend) should of been the main character but sadly the movie ends 20 seconds after. <br /><br />I bought this movie for $10, threw it out right after.. don't waste your time. I really hope nothing like this is made again. | negative |
This movie is a lot better than the asylums version mainly its war of the worlds. The tripods look pretty cool but their walking and deaths could have been better. The action scenes were really cool. Walking... walking...walking...walking!!! oh my god stop walking please or i'm going to kill myself. The thunder child scene was my favorite sequence mainly because a ship rammed bunch of tripods. Good movie I recommend it for people ho have read the book. The music is awesome and the directors cut looks pretty cool.<br /><br />pros. Good soundtrack 99% to the book Cool violence Tripods and handling machines are cool to look at<br /><br />cons. some bad acting cheesy looking London | positive |
I spotted in the guide to films list for the Santa Barbara Film Festival, where I went when I was in Hollywood, that this film was in screening. Basically there is an election for the new chairman of the Hong Kong Triads Wo Sing Society coming up, so you can imagine how much violence that is going to occur during this. The struggle is between "candidates" Lam Lok (Simon Yam) and Big D (Tony Leung Ka Fai) for control of the oldest and most powerful Triad parts of the society. Also starring Louis Koo as Jimmy Lee, Nick Cheung as Jet, Cheung Siu Fai as Mr. So, Lam Suet as Big Head and Lam Ka Tung as Kun. There are some good realistic corruption themes and moments, just about enough action, apart from maybe when the cops get involved, but a sequel followed, so it's a pretty worthwhile crime drama thriller. Very good! | positive |
this movie is not good.the first one almost sucked,but had that unreal ending to make it worth watching.this one has nothing.there's zero scare,zero tension or suspense.this isn't really a horror movie.most of the kills don't show anything.there's no gore to speak of.this could almost be a TV,except for a bit of nudity and a bit of violence.the acting is not very good,either.and don't get me started on the dialogue.as for the surprise ending,surprise,there isn't one.i suppose it could have been worse,although i don't see how.but then again,it is less than 80 minutes long,so i guess that's a good thing.although it felt a lot longer. apparently this is the cut version of the film.i found it for a very cheap price,but it still not worth it.if you want the uncut more graphic version,check out the Anchor Bay edition.anyway,this version of Sleepaway Camp II:Unhappy Campers gets a big fat 1/10 from me. p.s.if you watch this movie,you will probably be a bored and unhappy camper.if you are a real fan,you might want to pick up Anchor Bay's Sleepaway Camp(with survival kit) three disc collection containing the first three movies uncut and with special features | negative |
This thing is really awfull. There´s no charachter with weight, they´re all floating around in the BG´s. The Motion Capture is a fine toy, but this movie demostrates that you really need people who knows animation to do an animated film. THE MACHINE CAN´T DO ANYTHING WELL BY ITSELF. If you see it as a bizarre film, you´ll have fun finding mistakes of continuity... IN A 3D MOVIE!!! It´s funny to watch the princess dress move around like a thing with diferent phisics. You need animators and 3D animators, not data-entries whom know 3D programs. Note the junctions, like the elbows, how they lost volume and get deformed. The person who made the charachter design (a very good one) sufered for sure when he/she watched them move, ´cos you can´t say they come to life. | negative |
After seeing NAKED CITY and NIGHT AND THE CITY (which is still my favorite Dassin) I was more than excited to watch his "Masterpiece" (O-Word Criterion) RIFIFI.<br /><br />Now i am a little bit disappointed about the story.<br /><br />So I have at least these five questions in my mind:<br /><br />1. In the final Countdown Louis Grutter shot from the inside a house the main Character Tony le Stéphanois. He couldn't know if he is still alive or not, but he didn't care about it and ran directly after it outside the house (with the money) to reach his car. So of course Tony wasn't dead and shot him. BIG QUESTIONMARK.<br /><br />2. In another important scene the specialist in safes Cesar gave directly after the robbery as a present a diamond ring (which was a part of the robbery) a Woman which was working for Louis Grutter in a night bar. Stupid, because before this character wasn't THAT stupid. And of course Louis knew directly that Tony planned the jewel robbery. SMALL QUESTIONMARK.<br /><br />3.After the Gangsters behind Louis Grutter murder Mario Ferrati and his wife,Tony and his best friend Joe planned a revenge against Louis gang. At the same time they don't care for the security of Joe's wife and his five years old child. Of course Louis gang kidnapped the son. CHEAP and SIMPLE.<br /><br />4. The perfect heist: Of course this is the best 30min. long scene in the whole Plot, without any word spoken in the whole time, but was this a perfect heist?? Comparing with other movies which handle with this theme i could only smile when for example Tony was taken a fire-extinguisher to banned the alarm. Also too SIMPLE.<br /><br />5. The Grutter gang went to the house of Mario, because they knew (however....) the jewels will be there. Then they murder Mario and his Wife. And then? They are not searching for it! NO. They ran directly out of the apartment. And more. They not observing the apartment after it so Tony can go after a while (which was the same day) inside to take the jewels. BIG QUESTIONMARK.<br /><br />Over all: it's a good movie. Because of the brilliant 30min silent heist scene. Because of the very good cut (The end scene in the car through Paris is stunning) . Because of a very good actor called Jean Servais. Because of this Black/White fever you will get while watching it. Because of some other reasons too other user wrote about, but please don't tell me this is a stunning story. | positive |
I saw this movie a few months ago on cable, and it was fantastic. William H Macy is one of my favorite actors, and his performance was just amazing. He makes you care for his character, even when he is clearly doing the wrong thing, and Neve Campbell gives a performance that is with out a doubt the best performance I have seen by an actress this year. She is fantastic as a wild young woman who is wise beyond her years.<br /><br />Donald Sutherland is just plain creepy as Macy's father, and John Ritter is fine as a shrink stuck in the middle of everything that is happening.<br /><br />I wish that this was in the theater because I feel that it's a movie that should be view by a wider audience. That's a shame, because it's a hell of allot better that most of the new movies coming into the theater now.<br /><br /> | positive |
Although Cameron Grant was clearly hired to replace Andrew Blake over at Ultimate Pictures when the latter started his own company (Studio A), he practically outdid the "Master" right out of the gate when it came to setting up steamy sex scenes. So, while all the window dressing Blake had pioneered (starlets in fetish lingerie and sun glasses, coiffed and made up as if they're about to hit the catwalk) remained very much present and accounted for, Grant added his own personal spin to the carnal content. In doing so, he raised the heat to a level that had eluded Big A ever since his first and IMHO best film NIGHT TRIPS. Cam's maiden effort, ELEMENTS OF DESIRE, might still have been handicapped by an overly slavish adherence to the Blake aesthetic (with a surfeit of girl on girl gropes), but his subsequent DINNER PARTY already shows him at the top of his form in what must surely rank as his masterpiece.<br /><br />The title spells out the premise as a group of well to do friends and acquaintances gather over dinner to swap sexy stories, with an extended orgy at the conclusion. Scrumptious Juli Ashton and Tammy Parks smear food stuff all over each other's flawless physiques in their kitchen sequence that is sure to delight those with a taste towards combining pleasures of the palette with those of the flesh. Busty Crystal Gold (here : "Catalina") was rarely more than a reliable second-stringer, adding spice to several Ona Zee bargain basement noirs, yet looks absolutely stunning here in a romantic four poster frolic with Fabio lookalike Vince Voyeur. Beautiful blondes Kylie Ireland and Yvonne, making out with Marc Davis (for the record, the latter two were an item at the time) under a waterfall, complete the eye candy section of the movie.<br /><br />Time to get cooking ! Early Jenna Jameson ("Daisy" back then) foreshadows the greatness to come as she drains Frank Towers ("Mark Slade" on his subsequent shift to the gay side of the industry) of all vital juices, albeit with a little help from brunette Diva for effective contrast, the scene's stylish industrial setting providing an atmospheric backdrop to the full tilt sex taking place. Impossibly hunky construction worker Gerry Pike seeks to cool off on a sweltering summer day by hosing down, a prospect too tantalizing for prim 'n' proper business woman Asia Carrera (at her all time most achingly pretty) to pass up. Best of show must be the imaginative sequence that has nasty Norma Jeane and handsome Sean Michaels teasing the pants off each other for starters ! while separated by a glass partition right until the predictably splashy conclusion.<br /><br />With sex that proves either artsy or hot, and more often than not both, Grant has concocted a veritable smörgåsbord of fleshy wares to continue the film's gastronomic analogy the title implies. Couples may be the prime intended audience, but an alternation between naughty 'n' nice should rightfully include that "something for everything" recipe so many adult features are aiming for. Acting as his own DoP, the director shows great eye for detail, like the shot of Asia Carrera's pristine white shoes being spattered with mud, enriching his vision. This marks him out as a great filmmaker rather than a merely serviceable one, as was the case with Nick Steele who stepped up to take his place at Ultimate effectively making him a replacement's replacement ? when he packed up for greener pastures. | positive |
One of the more prominent/popular episodes, but clearly one of the worst. A red-shirt female falls for Khan (instead of dropping dead - for a change) and then proceeds to betray Kirk and the Enterprise as if loyalty were a non-existent character trait on the ship. Makes one wonder what kind of psychology tests this supposedly brilliant Starfleet uses to test people when hiring. We have the same kind of absurd lack of loyalty in "Wink Of An Eye", when a red-shirt male takes the enemy's side just because he falls in love! Same as in SS. (However, in that episode the betrayal plays a tiny role in the overall plot.) This is very silly because it once again makes Kirk's crew seem like a bunch of soft-headed, easy-to-impress morons, who - once they fall in love with the enemy - are capable of doing just about anything. The fact that McGivers switches back to Kirk's side doesn't ameliorate the illogic in any way. Lord McGiveth and the Lord McTaketh...<br /><br />Why is Khan kept behind a regular door when they know he has superior strength? That's one of several ST plot-devices that undermine Kirk's intelligence. Why does Khan hold a knife against McCoy's throat? If Khan is of such superior intelligence then one would expect him to be more wily with the way he carries himself. And what's with a Sikh being played with a Latino accent? Montalban should have been provided with a vocal coach. I was half-expecting to hear "the plaaain! the plaaaain!" in the background at any moment. Why the hell would Kirk (or any ship captain) provide limitless use of the ship's library concerning the innermost technical details of the Enterprise to ANYONE? Is the Starfleet an institution solely consisting of idiots? <br /><br />SS is a very cartoonish, silly episode, so no wonder Trekkies love it. It doesn't have too many sci-fi elements in it, which is what Trekkies hate the most. It also figures that the ST franchise chose to revive this dull character for the second movie, that way pleasing rabid Trekkies, who were so very disappointed with the first movie which - you guessed it - had far too much sci-fi for the average tiny Trekkie brain. | negative |
I was a still photographer working in Europe the summer that Jim Salter shot the movie Three.<br /><br />I did some swell pictures for him, one of which I was told became the poster for the movie. I didn't see the film until years later. I thought it was bad. A pity, because the elements that went into it were compelling. Robie Porter's girlfriend was almast as beautiful as Rampling herself. Salter asked if I would stick around and be an extra cameraman so they wouldn't have to shoot everything twice. I said sure, but I had to return to NY, promising I'd be back. Alas, I never did get back. One of life's unsung melodies.<br /><br />I wish I could post the pictures I made somewhere.<br /><br />Rowland Scherman | negative |
I find myself comparing all stand-up acts to this one performance now. Even older recorded performances I once thought were funny just don't seem as funny after seeing Eddie Izzard in this award-winning look at history, language disparities, and Englebert Humperdink... | positive |
I watched this movie purely for the setting. It was filmed in an old hotel that a friend owns shares of. The plot was predictable, the acting was mediorcre at best, the scares were all gross-outs, not true scares.<br /><br />I don't remember much of the plot, and I think that's because there wasn't much of one to remember. They didn't even use the hotel to it's fullest potential...The beaches are fantastic and the hotel is situated on a peninsula. At low tide, you can walk almost 1/4 mile into the bay, which is actually an eerie sight first thing in the morning or late at night when the wind is howling through the cracks.<br /><br />The best way to see this movie is with the remote in your hand so you can fast forward through the action (and I'm using that term loosly)scenes and pause at the beauty of the surroundings! | negative |
This movie is just downright horrible, the movie was only an hour long and for about 25mins of the movie was just useless random snowboarding clips that don't even connect to the movie. The storyline is completely "retarted", my 5 year old cousin could probably write a better script. I don't understand how someone could fund the production of a film like this ... horrible. This is definitely the shittiest most horrid movie i've ever seen in my entire existence. I think the casting director just took some random kids from off the street to act in this movie. The directing, acting, producing and writing for this film are all really bad. I feel bad for the people who wasted money funding this garbage. U couldn't pay me to watch this crap again. | negative |
Burt Reynolds directed this action movie and (surprise!) he is actually a pretty good director. This movie starts off well as Burt's attempted bust of a drug dealer is botched, and he is demoted down to the vice squad. The ensemble cast has some pretty funny scenes as Brian Kieth is always eating something, Bernie Casey has more class than all of his co-workers combined, and Charles Durning loses control of his squad.<br /><br />The vice cops stumble on a high-priced call-girl ring that may have something to do with a series of murders. Sharkey spends days staking out Dominoe's (Rachel Ward) apartment, and starts to really adore her from afar.<br /><br />Just when they are getting close to the crime leader, Dominoe is murdered. I won't give away any of the surprises in the plot, but the first hour of this film is great.<br /><br />Unfortunately, the screenplay gets very clichéd and unbelievable after that.<br /><br />Why would Burt Reynolds confront the crime boss with his big secret? Sure it makes the guy sweat, but it causes many more cops to be killed. And it is not believable that Dominoe and Sharkey would make love after they have know each other for one day, much less while their lives are in danger. And at the end, what happened to all the police that run into the building with our heroes? Isn't there a SWAT team? Also, the film never actually tells you how all of the bad guys are connected, and why they have to kill so many people.<br /><br />There is a very effective torture scene on a boat near the end of the film, which is probably the only really nail-biting scene of the film. It is a shame that the climax is a typical shoot-em-up. Still, this film is certainly entertaining if you like crime and action movies. Don't think about the plot holes, and you will have a good time. | positive |
It was full of plot holes, inaccuracies (doesn't the time-clock stop for injured players or loss of helmets in Texas football games?) and not so much redemption (So Your Dad Beats the Crap out of You? Well, do something right for once and then he will Love You and make it all worthwhile).<br /><br />Either make the movie about a team and its quest for a championship OR make a movie about a player within a team and his personal struggle but instead, this movie tried to do it all and came up more than a couple yards short. The book probably showed the whole story much better; the movie should have picked one element of the story and stuck with that.<br /><br />Instead, the movie jumped from one character dialogue to flashes of game play and then another character dialogue months later without actually telling you who people were or why they were important--the QB calling his sibling to take care of the mother--whatever happened with that? Because the mother was coherent by the end of the final game, does that mean she's not crazy anymore? Its one redeeming quality was the soundtrack. Buy that and then watch SportsCenter highlights while Iggy Pop plays in the background. | negative |
Here is proof of why Mary Pickford was `America's Sweetheart.' In this rather complex drama, Mary plays the young daughter of a squatter that dare to dream of a relationship with the son of one of the `hill-toppers.' The scenes where they steal a kiss and otherwise fall in love are simply delightful. She is even willing to take a bath. That Mary could pull this role off at the age of 30 is simply amazing and somewhat due to her diminutive stature (5').<br /><br />Tess must face numerous physical and emotional challenges. She does so with spunk not seen in many heroines of the time. Tess packs a wallop and is not shy about fighting with anyone. Why she agrees to help the `hill-topper' daughter is beyond me, but she sacrifices her own happiness in order to keep a deep secret. Pickford's close ups are wonderful.<br /><br />Danish-born Jean Hersholt is simply wonderful as the villain. The scene in which he manhandles a small baby is enough to make you throw vegetables (or whatever) at the movie screen. If Forrest Robinson (who plays Daddy Skinner) had worn a beard, he would have been a match for the model used in those World War I recruiting posters of Uncle Sam Wants You!<br /><br />Although the story is somewhat predictable and slow in the beginning, it is worth the investment in your time to see the piece or pure `Americana.' The film highlights choices available to us all involving making someone else happy and what it is to be a real Christian. Recommended. | positive |
I used to think that "It Came from Hollywood" was the worst movie I had seen that showed clips from horror, sci-fi, crime and drama movies. Of course, I hadn't seen THIS beauty yet.<br /><br />What's wrong with "Terror in the Aisles"? Four things:<br /><br />1) It assumes that most of the great moments in shock cinema history began in the '70s when directors like John Carpenter and Brian De Palma came along. And what bones are thrown to the true classics (i.e. - the black and white films) like "Frankenstein", "Dracula" and "The Wolf Man" are either shown with Martin and Lewis or Abbott and Costello alongside or not at all!<br /><br />2) The clips are most times so brief and out of their originals' place that they just give a momentary shock to the viewer and, for those unfamiliar with these films, will make no sense at all (indeed, the moment where the shark jumps out of the water at Roy Scheider in "Jaws" is shown much to the effect of a sight gag. Whereas, in the original's context, it had power.)<br /><br />3) Did we really need Pleasance and Allen in the audience reminding us that "it's only a movie" or that most of the violence in the horror movies "is, sadly, against women"? So, is that an indictment against the movie-makers for adding those scenes or the movie-goers who tromp into the theaters and watch the same kind of fodder time and again? Sorry, that's a whole can of worms to open for a more deserving movie.<br /><br />4) And most importantly, why is the movie so SHORT? It isn't like there wasn't enough of these kinds of movies to use. If they had just opened up their resources and used EVERY available film, they could have had a "That's Entertainment!"-style movie that would have been comparatively more entertaining. Heck, even drag out Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing (Cushing was alive then, mind you) and better yet, even Vincent Price would have been more than willing, I'll bet! What a cheer THAT would have gotten from the audience!<br /><br />But no... all we're left with is a dreary little flick that pretends to pay homage to these movies but all it does is leave the viewer feeling cheated out of less than 90 minutes with which they could have went and watched a REAL movie. Don't get me wrong; it was good to see what clips they did show, but if they could have just done more with the goods!<br /><br />Two stars. Another good idea left laying "in the Aisles". | negative |
There are a few things in life that we can't experience more than once and the college experience is one of them. Especially if we're living in a foreign country and in a apartment with 6 wackos from 6 different countries. Xavier the main character leaves his tidy life in Paris, his ex-hippy mother and his beautiful girlfriend and goes to Barcelona to study spanish in order to get a job at the embassy. He falls in love with the wife of a french doctor and he makes friends that make him look at things differently. When Wendy's brother (Wendy is one of the room mates) comes from England the film starts to become a lot funnier. Well anyway, Xavier starts to see things differently with all his new friends and he probably lives something he will never forget and will change his life forever. Overall a very nice nostalgic film, which becomes even more interesting because of the multinational cast. I thought it was very interesting that you could see all these kids from different countries, all of them speaking different languages and having different cultures get along with each other and fun. I gave it a 9 out of 10 because I left the theatre with a smile on my face and thinking about things I haven't done yet while I'm still in college and would want to do before it's too late. | positive |
Actually I feel like having my review be that one word. My friend, whose opinions I almost always trust about movies, especially horror movies, warned me NOT to rent this no matter how tempted or bored or desperate to see a new horror movie I was, because it was a complete waste of time. Unfortunately I haven't talked to him in a while, and I was in a hurry to pick a movie, and thought, 'what the heck, how bad could it be?' WHY don't I learn? What was I thinking? Did I think it would magically turn into a better movie while sitting there on the shelf for years waiting to be rented?<br /><br />The 'plot' concerns a guy who edits films for some company. His boss is a jerk. The guy who had the job before him went insane and blew himself up in the pre-credits sequence, so for some reason the boss picks nerdy 'Ed' for the special project of editing "Loose Limbs" splatter movies. He never says what Ed is supposed to edit, but I guess that doesn't matter. Ed is upset by some of the clips, working on them up at this house all by himself that the boss has decided to relocate him to for no apparent reason. He asks his boss if he can stop or do another project, but his boss doesn't care. He starts to slowly go insane, supposedly from watching the clips, and wants to carry out the gory murders in real life. Or has he been this way all along? Please note that I am making this plot sound much more deep, interesting, and coherent than it actually is.<br /><br />We don't care about the characters at all, or have any sympathy for them, or even hate the bad guys. The plot is really, really boring and predictable. The splatter isn't even that gruesome or creative-this is NOT worth renting just to see the gore, because what there is isn't interesting or original.<br /><br />All the 'tributes' to Sam Raimi just come off like really bad ripoffs, and no-one in the movie is anywhere near good looking enough as Bruce Campbell, so you can't distract yourself with that. I think an "Evil Dead II-Dead by Dawn" poster is only prominently displayed in one scene in the hopes that Sam Raimi will be flattered and not consider any sort of legal action. A trained chimp could have written a better screenplay. Every time I hear lines like "Are we having fun...yet?" (which even Bride of Re-Animator couldn't pull off without making me wince) I start feeling like picking up some sort of deadly weapon myself. Characters just appear out of nowhere with no explanation, wandering in only to get killed. This might be OK if the movie was even remotely amusing or entertaining, but it was all I could do to keep from fast-forwarding through most of it. Fortunately I chose to pay some bills and balance my checkbook at the same time the movie was playing. Trust me, it did not require my full attention-I still felt like 90+ minutes of my life were wasted just by having this on in the background.<br /><br />Don't watch it, no matter HOW tempted you are-you'll hate yourself for wasting your money. Horror fans will be completely disgusted by how incompetent it is. Even those who haven't seen too many splatter movies should stay away, as there are so many movies out there you could rent that are much more well worth your while. If you want something brainless, low-budget and fun, rent something else. Complete waste of time with no redeeming qualities whatsoever. Be smarter than I was at the time and don't be fooled by the "Warning-Not For the Faint of Heart" on the box. You have been warned!<br /><br /> | negative |
Retitled from its original Japanese name of LAPUTA (for being an offensive phrase, something which director Hayao Miyazaki was oblivious to at the time), CASTLE IN THE SKY is the master animator's third film, and it's one of his most beloved of all time. Initially a box office disappointment in its 1986 release, it has since been embraced by critics and audiences around the world. Inspired by Jonathan Swift's "Gulliver's Travels", CASTLE IN THE SKY is a steampunk-themed action adventure tale about two young orphans -- young miner Pazu, and mysterious girl Sheeta (who wears a magic crystal around her neck) -- who team up to find the long-lost island of Laputa, which is rumored to have great riches and gems. They are aided by a band of bumbling yet sympathetic air pirates led by the feisty Dola (who at first chase them, yet turn out to be true allies) and pursued by the government headed by its villainous topmost-secret agent, Muska, who wants the power of Laputa for his own benefit.<br /><br />For anyone looking for an exciting way to spend two hours, this film is an excellent choice, featuring just the right amount of humor, exploration, wonder, and mystery to keep one interested. The artwork, although not as spectacular as in some of Miyazaki's later movies, is fantastic and gorgeous enough to watch with imaginative characters and locations, incredibly exciting action scenes, and breathtaking flight sequences that will make one feel giddy. And while the characters that populate this tale are less complex than Miyazaki's other works, each has a memorable, endearing personality that stays with the viewer long after the film is over. Dola, in particular, makes for a terrific comic character, shouting orders to her dimwitted sons one moment and being protective of Sheeta the next. Muska is one of the few Miyazaki creations to ever come across as an irredeemable villain, but like Dola, he commands every scene he's in with a sinister charisma that is both alluring and chilly.<br /><br />Anime fans have often compared this movie to Gainax's sci-fi adventure series NADIA: THE SECRET OF BLUE WATER. After all, both works share similar story and character elements... not to mention that they were both created by Miyazaki himself. Where both differ is in their execution. NADIA, although charming for the most part, suffered from taking a wrong turn at its midway point, devolving into cartoonish nonsense which all but distracted from the main plot, even though it did have a strong ending. CASTLE IN THE SKY, on the other hand, remains consistently entertaining and focused for its two hour running time, and is all the better for it. While the film's epic tone is sometimes broken up by some "cartoonish" moments, like a brawl between Pazu's boss and one of Dola's sons, it's never to the point that it detracts from the film.<br /><br />About eleven years ago, Disney released an English version featuring a cast of big-names such as James van der Beek, Anna Paquin, Cloris Leachman, Mark Hamill, Mandy Patinkin as well as some cameo appearances by veterans such as Tress MacNeille and Jim Cummings. It also features an ambitious reworking of Joe Hisaishi's gorgeous musical score for a performance by the Seattle Music Orchestra (interestingly, the man behind this rescore is none other than the composer himself). As much as purists have cried blasphemy over this version for its occasional extra dialogue and the aforementioned rescore, Miyazaki had no such problems; in fact, he is said to have applauded the reworking, and for good reason, because the newly rerecorded music is truly the star of the new dub. While there are some instances where filling in some critially silent scenes from the original Japanese is a bit jarring (notably the journey through a dragon-infested storm cloud), the overall reworking is fantastic and in many ways improves on the original, particularly in scenes such as when a robot attacks a fortress and the climactic moments toward the end. Here, Hisaishi displays his musical versatility and genius for matching music to visuals. <br /><br />As far as the performances in the dub go, the leads are probably at the short end of the stick; James Van Der Beek's Pazu sounds significantly more mature than his character, while Anna Paquin's Sheeta speaks with an odd accent that fluctuates at times (a problem which actually works in favor of the character). That said, both do good jobs overall and provide a fairly believable chemistry throughout. It's the lively supporting cast, however, that really make this dub so much fun, particularly Cloris Leachman's Dola and Mark Hamill's Muska. Both are perfectly cast and steal every scene they're in; as with the rescore, these two really warrant a listen to the Disney dub. The script adaptation borders on the loose side at times--there's quite a bit of extra lines and/or commentary (some of which are pricelessly funny and others somewhat overdone)--but aside from at least one debatable alteration (Sheeta's speech in the climactic showdown "the world cannot live without love" as opposed to the original "you can't survive apart from Mother Earth"), the overall characters, story, and spirit remain fairly faithful to the original. On the whole, there is little point comparing the Disney version to the original language track; each puts their own stamp on this legendary masterpiece, and I like them both. (They're also better than Streamline/JAL's more literal but frightfully robotic, lifeless, abysmally acted and poorly written older dub from the late 1980's; don't believe anybody who says this version is "superior" to Disneys--trust me, the opposite is true.) <br /><br />Either way, though, you can't go wrong with CASTLE IN THE SKY. It's one of Miyazaki's all-time greatest, and I highly recommend it. | positive |
No shortage of female flesh but still not interesting! Lenzi at least is capable of so far greater probably peaking at Spasmo and starting with Kiss Me Kill Me<br /><br />The Hard Gore R2 DVD release may be cut at 86 minutes, but this movie contains one act of cannibalism and one victim - a scene with a native girl who is brutalised and disembowelled by the cannibal tribe we are warned of and who later set fire to some huts. Arsonist Holocaust? Firestarter Fernox anyone?<br /><br />Certainly not a cannibal flick but was there ever a decent one made? Avoid. | negative |
This movie just pulls you so deeply into the two main characters. I popped it into my laptop without even reading the cover (let alone reviews) and was intrigued for two solid hours. Two lost ships from two different worlds collide. The sexual tension that brews between a secretary and a criminal is almost palpable even without hardly any physical contact. Toward the end I couldn't decide which I wanted more: Our hero and heroine to pull off their caper or simply consummate their passion. RML could've done without a curious subplot and a traditional 100 minutes would have been plenty. I'm nitpicking though. After a series of Netflix, Blockbuster and local library duds this movie restored my faith in great film making. | positive |
In this tense and character-driven romantic tragi-comedy, we are given an insight into the intertwining lives of four thirtysomething Parisians. At the centre is Vinz Cassell's portrayal of Max. A starry-eyed Romeo, he falls head over heels for beautiful stranger Lisa (Bellucci). Encouraged by his put-upon best friend Lucien (Écoffey, in an understated but effective performance), he wins her heart and they live happily ever after... that is, until the scheming, neurotic and obsessive Alice (the versatile Romane Bohringer) becomes very involved in the lives and loves of the other three.<br /><br />The rich plot is thickened by a curious chronological jumble, and the movie emerges as an intricate jigsaw, the eye-candy of picture-postcard Paris at the heart of it all. The use of colour does not go unnoticed, particularly in Lisa's spectacular apartment (presumably accounting for the film's title), where the reds and yellows provoke the fires of passion and lust.<br /><br />The audience can relate to Max: he truly wears his heart on his sleeve and is constantly punished by irony and circumstance for it. In one memorable scene, our fated lovers (agonisingly separated by a 'choreographed' misunderstanding) narrowly miss out on the chance meeting that would surely reunite them. Independent of one another, they travel to the same destination: her on the Metro, him in a taxi, practically tête-à-tête. Yet fate seems to have it in for them, and the audience is captivatingly teased.<br /><br />The performances in this film are really what make L'Appartement stand out. I still cannot understand why Vincent Cassell is not a big star outside France. He has presence and diversity in abundance. Monica Bellucci (Cassell's real-life spouse at the time of writing) has recently found fame in the Anglophone film industry, but perhaps for the wrong reasons - true, she is divinely beautiful, but behind that is a talented actress who can dominate a scene in classic 'leading-lady' style, which many British and American actresses dismiss in favour of the all-too-easy 'subtle' approach.<br /><br />All in all, watch this film! I doubt you'll be disappointed. It is gripping, satisfying, amusing, sad, lavish, and a lesson in artistic film-making. | positive |
Don't let the wildly varying reviews of the movie deter you. You'll love it or hate it according to your own tastes. However, if for no other reason, see "Greystoke" to experience the excitement of a great actor grabbing your heart as he breathes life into his role. Ralph Richardson was not a great actor for how perfectly he could handle Shakespeare; rather, he is to be remembered for his sensitive treatment of every character he portrayed. He was never indifferent to his responsibility as an actor. His reading of the part of the Sixth Lord of Greystoke, his last performance, is to be cherished by all who love the theatre. | positive |
Having just borrowing the Series one DVD collection from my somewhat obsessive brother, I was expecting to get through the first couple of episodes and handing it back. I have just found myself yelling at the screen for ending the first season on a cliff-hanger - a mere week later and I've watched the entire season. Where I found the time for this I have no idea.<br /><br />This show is great. It doesn't take itself too seriously, it has likeable characters who are well acted, and the special effects (ignoring the odd tacky puppet here and there) are "special" enough to give it that polished feel. At first, I didn't realise it was filmed mostly here, and it seemed odd to hear so many Aussie accents on a Sci-Fi show - it was most amusing for the main character (John) to land back in Sydney midway through the first season.<br /><br />I believe this show's biggest strength is the vision that the creators of the show obviously had. They have gradually introduced new aspects of the characters that have explain previous actions, and the continue to smatter John's conversations with slang in an amusing and unforced way. On top of that, having watched the entire Voyager and Next Gen series, I see little plot rip-off - so it has managed to maintain a sense of originality throughout the entire first season. I hope the rest of it is as good.<br /><br />Farscape is not like any other Sci-Fi that I've enjoyed in the past. I heard that the fourth season wasn't as good as the first three, and I am now quite annoyed that they cancelled it before the 5th. I hope that they revive this show - with the same actors in either a movie or another series. It would be a shame to leave so many plot lines unfinished as I imagine that with a show that's had so much thought put into it, to have it axed without adequate warning will leave me feeling robbed.<br /><br />Gotta go now... heading back to my brother's place to snaffle the 2nd season.<br /><br />V. | positive |
I blind bought this movie and am pretty upset that I paid as much as I did but I would say that it's at least worth a rent for some cool deaths and laughable acting. It is not a good movie in any way but I must say that I was pretty darn entertained. I guess it could be called so-bad-it's-good.<br /><br />As I said, the acting is awful, I feel like I could have done a better job showing, at least, any emotion. The story is nothing new and has been done better. I guess I just have a soft spot for any carnival-esquire type film. I would say rent this or download it but definitely don't buy it. It is not worth more than one watch. | negative |
When a comedy movie boasts its marvelous soundtrack on the back cover you know your not dealing with a top notch movie. I rented this movie with friends expecting to get some chuckles but overall to get most of our laughs off each other making fun of the movie. We couldn't have chosen a worse movie.<br /><br />The movie may have been alright with a few changes. First off, the comedy was painful. Physical gags were poorly performed and placed. The fat kid in the movie made us want to kill ourselves, bless him for trying scene in and scene out but he was like a puppy begging for love. If he had been pulled from the movie everything might have been bearable. There were some funny jokes, I believe one was when the group of boys steal one of the parent's porn movies and it turns out to be gay porn. But to best sum up the comedy I will simply tell the opening gag for the fat kid. He wears a puke stained shirt and talks about not knowing when something is done.<br /><br />To finish off, the editor of the movie could have saved the movie by removing the fat kid, cutting out 20 minutes of the school scenes and making an ending that is longer than thirty seconds of random bickering.<br /><br />OH, BTW, there are two good elements that the movie possesses. Kadeem Hardison plays his role wonderfully and performs his jokes so that none are missed or under-appreciated. The other redeeming element to the movie is the beautiful Mrs. Ali Landry. Her character is ignored most of the movie which is a shame.<br /><br />Don't waste your time even renting this one. It didn't appeal to me and I was part of the target audience (18 male). | negative |
"Fever Pitch" is a sweet and charming addition to the small genre of sports romances as date movies or movies a son could be willing to go to with his mother (though the guys in the audience got noticeably restless during the romantic scenes).<br /><br />I have lived through a milder version of such a story, as my first exposure to baseball was dating my husband the spring after the Mets first World Series win and then I watched the Mets clinch their next one because I was the one still up in the wee hours with our two little sons, who have grown up to teach me more about baseball through our local neighborhood National League team's other heartbreaking failures to win it again (and it was me who took our older son to his only Fenway Park game as I caught a bit of Red Sox fever as a graduate student in Boston).<br /><br />So compared to reality, the script believably creates two people with actual jobs. It is particularly impressive that Drew Barrymore's character is a substantive workaholic who has anti-Barbie skills, though she pretty much only visits with her three bland girlfriends during gym workouts that allow for much jiggling and the minor side stories with her parents don't completely work.<br /><br />It is even set up credibly how she meets Jimmy Fallon's math teacher and how she falls for his "winter guy" -- though it's surprising that his Red Sox paraphernalia filled apartment didn't tip her off to his Jekyll-and-Hyde "summer guy." Their relationship crisis during the baseball season is also played out in a refreshingly grown-up way, from efforts at compromise to her frank challenges to him, centered around that they are both facing thirty and single. Fallon surprisingly rises to his character's gradual emotional maturity.<br /><br />While the ending borrows heavily from O. Henry, the script writers did a yeoman job of quickly incorporating the Sox's incredible 2004 season into a revised story line (with lots of cooperation from the Red Sox organization for filming at the stadium).<br /><br />The script goes out of its way to explain why Fallon doesn't have a Boston accent, as an immigrant from New Jersey, but that doesn't explain why his motley friends don't. The most authentic sounding Boston sounds come from most of his "summer family" of other season ticket holders, who kindly kibitz the basics of Sox lore to neophyte Barrymore (and any such audience members).<br /><br />The song selection includes many Red Sox fans' favorites, from the opening notes of the classic "Dirty Water," though most are held to be heard over the closing credits as if you are listening to local radio and are worth sitting through to hear. | positive |
The 221 episodes of "The Lone Ranger" were originally broadcast on ABC from 1949 to 1957; and then for many years they played in local syndication. For most of the original broadcast years the series was ABC's most watched piece of programming. <br /><br />The new DVD set from Pop Flix contains the first 16 episodes (15 Sept-29 Dec 1949) and for some reason unknown to me episode 22 from the fifth season, for a total of 17 episodes (the same 17 available on last year's Mill Creek Entertainment release so these are probably in the public domain). These sets pretty much render "The Legend of the Lone Ranger" movie superfluous as all three episodes that were combined in 1952 to form the movie are included in these releases. <br /><br />The early episodes hark back to radio as there is considerably more voice-over narration used as an introduction and to introduce key plot moments. <br /><br />The series itself was pure kiddie western with clear-cut good and evil distinctions and no romance. The title character (played by Clayton Moore) started out Texas Ranger John Reid. The first three episodes provide the background for his transformation to Lone Ranger status, his partnering with the Indian Tonto (Jay Silverheels), and the taming of his horse "Silver". <br /><br />There is an unambiguous code of positive morality infusing each episode. The Lone Ranger is totally good but he adopts the guise of evil. While a masked man in the west was normally feared by the good citizens and an Indian was distrusted, the Lone Ranger is feared by those who would do evil. One persistent theme is that when the Lone Ranger and Tonto first encounter an average citizen they are greeted with suspicion, and by the end of the episode the citizen has been convinced of their value. The trademark ending was a secondary character asking the question: "who was that masked man?". <br /><br />To really enjoy the series you must accept it for the simplistic morality tale it was intended to be. If you don't take it seriously and keep wishing for some self-reflexive campy parody elements you will only get frustrated. <br /><br />Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child. | positive |
I would like to make it very clear that I am not at all religious. I am an atheist but I could see that Richard Dorkins was contradicting himself over and over again. I would also like to make it known that I am not the sort of person that argues against something with philosophy all the time, but I feel that when comparing science and religion we must be philosophical and be willing to question the belief in main stream science as well as questioning religious beliefs.<br /><br />I wonder if Richard Dorkins ever spends any time to think philosophically about belief, anyone who thinks long and hard enough about science and religion will realise that science is indeed a religion in itself. Yes there is a fundamental difference between the way that scientific beliefs are held when compared with other religions, but at it's roots, it's faith in a particular human instinct.<br /><br />Throughout this series, Richard insists that science methods are the only right way of thinking and that it makes sense to believe in something only if the evidence for it is strong enough. If you dig deep enough into how science functions you'll realise that it is just as irrational as religion and that it comes down to faith in the end, faith in the evidence, faith in our sanity, faith in our senses but more than anything else faith in our instinct to follow patterns of recurrence.<br /><br />This is not easy to explain but think about how the laws of physics were decided, it was because they were and still are the most common patterns of recurrence that we are aware of. I think that human beings have an instinct that makes them believe that the longer something remains in a certain state or place of existence the more we just assume out of blind FAITH that it is more likely to stay like it. For example, we don't expect that gravity will suddenly work in reverse tomorrow, by this I mean pushing matter away as supposed to attracting it. But the only reason why we don't expect this sudden change is because we have known for so long that it has always attracted as far as we are aware. However that doesn't mean that it couldn't do exactly the reverse tomorrow or even right now. It doesn't matter how long something may stay in a certain state or change, there is no rational reason to make assumptions about it but we do out of instinct. I would ask you to consider what is a long and short amount of time? There is no such thing, I don't know exactly how long it took for these supposed wise men to decide that everything must be made out of matter, Sound, Light, etc but lets give them what they would consider to be an edge way! Lets say far longer than it really was 12,00000000000 years! Is that a long period of time? 99999999999999999 years makes 12,00000000000 years seem like an incredibly short period of time. For all we know there could be an extreme amount of change in the so called laws of science within the next trillion years. It's all about comparison, only when we compare things can we say "that is long" or that is short. It's the same with big and small, wide and thin, heavy and light, strong and weak and others.<br /><br />I doubt that any scientist could tell me why they think that trusting this instinct makes sense. I certainly don't see why it should, but that doesn't mean that we as humanity should necessarily stop using it. With this in mind, the most hypocritical comment that Richard Dorkins made was when he said that faith is irrational, "a process of non thinking" he said. If what we have in this instinct that I've been describing and this instinct that we all possess on some level isn't faith then I don't know what the hell it is. Other times when he is being hypocritical is when he talks about the religions being bronze age, "bronze age myths" he says. I would like to point out that no matter how much scientific methods have been changed over the years due to experience, experiments and evaluating, the pure rules of science are getting older and older all the time! They could even be described as the holy bible of science. He was going on about how he is sick of the different religions being stubborn " I am right, he is wrong" but looking back on how rude he was to the various interviewees, he seems to be just as stubborn him self. To be fair to him, at least he doesn't try to bomb religious communities. I appreciate his hatred for certain religious beliefs that generate war, but I don't respect his arrogance in his own beliefs.<br /><br />As far as I'm concerned, Richard has the right to believe in science if that is his way. I am scientifically minded as well, but I don't think he has the right to go up to religious leaders having unfriendly arguments, trying to force his opinion on to them and virtually describing them as stupid. Despite all his education, experience and discoveries he seems to fail to have the wisdom to properly question his very own system of belief. I have read what he says in defence of this argument that open minded atheists such as my self put forward, What he states suggests to me that he is totally missing the point.<br /><br />Finally the title of the documentary, Root Of All Evil. This states that religion is the root of all evil, it isn't true. There are causes of evil that have nothing to do with religion.<br /><br />All round the documentary series was frustrating, narrow minded, hypocritical and flat-out rubbish. | negative |
I can't believe I rarely ever see this title mentioned by all you eighties horror freaks and I definitely won't be joining all my fellow reviewers here in saying that 'Bloody Birthday' is awful viewing. On the contrary, I enjoyed it very much and I was pleasantly surprised by the ingeniousness and surprise twists it offers. Don't just refer to this film as being 'another 80's slasher' because the victims here are rather unlikely and so are the killers. We're introduced to three cherubic-looking youngsters who were all born during a solar eclipse. At the moment they were delivered, planet Saturn was blocked by both the sun and the moon and, due to this, the kids are emotionless and seemly without conscience. This really starts to show around their tenth birthday as they go on a merciless killing spree.<br /><br />Granted, this stuff is incredibility far-fetched and even slightly offensive but, seriously, who cares? Unlike many other horror films from this period, it at least attempts to bring something original and imaginative. For once, the kids' acting is good and the entire film has a creepy atmosphere and grizzly music. The murders sequences are grim and tense, and it's always eerie to see them getting committed by angel-faced kids. I don't know who hired the 3 kids but they did a good job. Especially the girl and the kid with glasses are highly memorable. The bleak images of the heartless trio remind you of classic highlights, such as 'Village of the Damned', 'The Bad Seed' and 'Children of the Damned'. This film is nowhere near as memorable as these milestones but great fun and not one horror lover will regret watching this. <br /><br />Bloody Birthday was written and directed by Ed Hunt. Not particularly the greatest genius in cinema, but a pleasantly deranged fella who also brought us immensely entertaining cheesefests like 'The Brain' and 'Starship Invasions'. If all this isn't enough to convince you yet, Bloody Birthday has a lot of nudity. And not just any nudity, but a topless dance-act by MTV-VJ Julie Brown. Oh, and keep your eyes open for a completely redundant cameo by Joe Penny, later the star of TV-series 'Jake and the Fatman'. Check it out!! | positive |
This movie gives a cinematic example of the word worthless. It's awful, you can forget plot or decent acting, cause it's not there. And with the dismissal of any decent story or acting or even the trait of being mildy frightening then there is usually only one plus left for a horror film. The appeal to those who like soft core porn. This film doesn't even have that. The women show a little skin, but not really anymore than say the Xena show. Except for the main star who is not particularly attractive and has a couple of poor, and I mean poor sex scenes. So in short if you like good movies you have no interest in this film, if you like cheese you still don't have any reason to rent this film, if you like erotica and soft core porn you really have no motive to rent this film, and most importantly if you value your time in the slightest, you cannot do better than to avoid this movie. | negative |
Once big action star who fell off the face of the earth ends up in a small town with a problem with drug dealers and a dead body of a federal agent. Reuniting with some former co-stars to clean up the town.<br /><br />Low key, often to the point of blandness, "action" comedy mostly just doesn't work. Part of the problem is the casting Chris Klien as a former action hero. he's not bad, but he's really not believable as some one who was taken to be a tough guy. As I said he's not bad, he's just just miscast for what his back story is. The real problem here is the combination of the script, which really isn't funny and seems artificial at times, and the direction which is pedestrian to the port of dullness. There is no life in the way things are set up. Its as if the director had a list of shots and went by that list. It makes for an un-engaging film. And yet the film occasionally springs to life, such as the in the final show down that ends the film. That sequence works, but because the earlier parts of the film floundered its drained of much of its power.<br /><br />I can't really recommend the film. Its worth a shot if you're a fan of the actors or are a huge fan of independent cinema in all its forms, but otherwise this is just a disappointment. | negative |
It's interesting to see what shape Pierce Brosnan's career was in before Bond arrived on the scene. In this "tense" thriller, Pierce Brosnan plays the gentle Patrick, who works leading ghetto kids on "confidence courses". He romances a woman, who has a bog-standard mop-top mid-90s kid called Eric. The woman's drunken ex-husband soon arrives on the scene and begins to mess with Pierce.<br /><br />At one stage Pierce is innocently making "vegeburgers". The husband enters. Pierce resumes making vegeburgers. The husband then assaults Pierce. Little chunks of half-eaten vegeburger call fall from Pierce's mouth. The fight abruptly ends without showing the outcome. This is as good as the film gets.<br /><br /> | negative |
This documentary is such a wonderful example of what an entertaining and amazing experience a documentary can be, if done so well as this. The subject, Mark, is smart, funny and very driven, and this story of his personal fight to live his dreams will be inspiring to anyone who knows what it is like to harbor an "impossible" dream. See this mov | positive |
"Once in the life" is a very good movie. However it's not good for everybody, due to the extensive use of vulgar language and the violence of some of the situations. The movie manages to represent in an anecdotic, believable way the "life" in NYC neighborhoods where drug problems are important. This depiction is in turn used as the decor for a most thoughtful and suspenseful drama backed up by powerful dialogs (however I had a hard time understanding some of them because english is not my mother tongue. On video it's OK). There is a little overplay sometimes, but I think it fits quite well to the general orientation Fishburne gave to the movie, which gives matter for reflexion more than just being a good style exercise, notably in the time/action management. The characters, even though not simple, are easy to relate to and actors do a fine job at impersonating them. By the way I much enjoyed the soundtrack (B. Marsalis). If you're not too prude, you should enjoy seeing that movie once, twice, three times. I rated the movie 9/10. | positive |
Watchable little semi-soaper, but hardly captivating. Still, two or three funny moments. What amazes me is how slippery and morally highly questionable McNicol is. She plays an invalid (a leg problem), yet she not only isn't the "ugly duckling" whom men shun, but she is even a man-eater - and we are supposed to feel for her! Oh, poor little McNicol, with her leg problem... Poor little McNicol??! She is constantly getting passes from men, and even dumps them without so much as blinking! At one occasion she even has a premeditated one-night affair with a blond stud, and then she tells her newly-found French girlfriend quite non-chalantly that it took him time to get an erection! Makes us viewers wonder why she is so leg-conscious if every guy wants to hump her. Well, almost every guy; the only guy who really shunned her after seeing her leg wrapped up in metal is the guy working on the telephone. But otherwise she seems to be doing just fine with men! No shyness, no lack of success with men, and she throws them away like toys; the way she dumped Carradine was ridiculous. Poor little invalid girl?? I don't think so. And yet we are meant to believe that this woman has a major confidence problem; hence the scene in which she prepares to start playing the flute for a solo concert and somehow manages to throw the notes on the ground out of nervousness. Nervousness?? The rest of the movie shows little or nothing that would suggest that she has confidence problems, so this flute scene is absurd and doesn't fit into the bigger picture. I was also surprised how quickly and eagerly McNicol makes friends with a French woman who is screwing a married guy. On the surface the movie would appear to be a "sentimental story of one crippled woman's struggle for acceptance" (or something like that) but it's nothing like that at all; the writer clearly shifts between this type of movie and a "screw anything that moves - it's the 80s" kind of movie - very confusing.<br /><br />As far as her leg: it's not like she has a big, fat purple balloon growing on her calf muscle. She "only" has a normal-looking metal prosthetic attached to the lower part of her leg, so I really don't understand why the makers of the film try to make it seem as if she is a female Quasimodo or something, at the beginning of the film. It's not like she has a twin head growing out of her neck! Though McNicol is hardly a major catch. Kind of cutish but nothing special, quite average.<br /><br />But what the hell is Carradine doing playing some kind of a (relatively) smooth guy flirting with McNicol and her pal?! This guy was in "Revenge of the Nerds"! But I guess it's the same thing with the Carradines in the movies as it is with the Kennedys in politics: no matter how ugly, unable, or dumb, all the doors are open for a career in movies and politics, respectively.<br /><br />Down with nepotism.<br /><br />If you want to read bogus biographies about the Carradines, and other Hollywood nepotists and morons, contact me by e-mail. | negative |
I'm always interested to see neglected movies that appear to have good credentials, but in this case the film's neglect appears justified. Evidently based on some actual incidents during WWII, the film just doesn't connect with the viewer for some reason that it is not quite clear to me. One very likely reason is that - in the print I saw on TCM, anyway - none of the scenes where the Germans talked among themselves were given titles. This interesting directorial concept - to let the non-German speaking viewer just guess from "context" what the Germans are saying to each other - is, in my book, an utter flop and helps to lock the viewer out. Also, the way the movie begins - just dropping us into a very confused situation without much setup - is disorienting. Brian Keith is pretty good here, but the reputations of "The Great Escape" and "Stalag 17" will not be challenged by this flick. | negative |
A have a female friend who is currently being drawn into a relationship with an SOB who has a long term girlfriend. Of course the SOB is very good-looking, charming, etc and my friend is a very intelligent woman. Watching Jean Pierre Leaud's character at work is exactly like watching what goes on in real life when guys like that destroy the lives of our female friends. It's tragic, and you know she's going to end up very hurt, but there's nothing you can do. Leaud is brilliant. Totally empty. A blank throughout, he pulls the faces and tells the stories he thinks will get the reaction he wants.<br /><br />The scene two hours in when Leaud and Lebrun have made love, and the next morning he puts on a record and, very sweetly and charmingly, sings along to amuse her is brilliant. The "What the hell am I doing here with this idiot" expression that flickers back and forth across her face will be in my memory for a long time to come.<br /><br />It's a long film, but see it in one go, preferably in a cinema. Takes a while to get into, but then the time just disappears. | positive |
It's really too bad that nobody knows about this movie. I think if it were just spruced up a little and if it weren't so low-budget, I think one of the major film companies might have wanted to take it. I first saw this movie when I was 11, and I thought it was so powerful with the many great, yet illegal lengths that Mitchell goes to just to keep his family together. It inspired me then and it amazes me now. If you're lucky enough to find a copy of this movie, don't miss it! | positive |
Subspecies is set in Romania where two American college students Michele (Laura Mae Tate) & Lillian (Michelle McBride) arrive to study local folklore with the aid of local friend Mara (Irina Movila). There they rent rooms in a hotel & become curious about the mysterious ruins of a nearby castle, it turns out that a powerful & evil Vampire named Radu (Anders Hove) lives there who has stolen the Bloodstone from his father King Vladislav (Angus Scrimm). Radu takes a fancy to the three girls & starts drinking the blood of Mara & Lillian, meanwhile Michele falls for a guy named Stefan (Michael Watson) who just so happens to be Radu's brother. Michele & Stefan decide to team up & rid the world of the evil Radu...<br /><br />Directed by Ted Nicolaou this film seems to be quite highly regarded amongst genre fans & while it's not terrible I certainly wouldn't call it very good & I could't really see anything much to get excited about. Subspecies is a rather slow going film, not that much actually happens & while it does try to stay close to certain classic Vampire lore there's all this nonsense about a Bloodstone & some little monsters that grow from the tips of Radu's severed fingers for some reason. Subspecies could have been a half decent film if not for the fact that it's dull, I really can't remember that much about it, good or bad. The character's are alright but some f the dialogue is silly & there's a scene which bugged me near the start when the girls are at the castle ruins & one says they have to go because it's getting dark yet it's still clearly the middle of the day & very bright. There's also a scene where one of the American girls finds a coffin that hotel's attic & doesn't really seem that bothered by it, I am not being funny but is some bloke whose house I was staying at had a coffin in his attic I would be very, very worried if you know what I mean. I don't think I would ever want to watch it again, there's no real threat, the plot is weak that mixes classic Vampire themes with silly subplots & I was distinctly unmoved by it all. Not the worst film ever but hardly the best either.<br /><br />The film looks alright with nice locations & some local scenery although you feel the look is down to the budget rather than the makers attempt a authenticity. There's not much gore apart from a decapitation & some broken off finger tips. For no apparent reason the makers throw in some average looking stop-motion animated monsters that really don't do anything or have much significance to the story.<br /><br />Filmed on the cheap by Charles Band's Full Moon Entertainment production company in Bucharest in Romania, the production values are alright & better than many later day Band productions. The acting isn't great with many of the cast putting in below par performances while genre regular Angus Scrimm has a small cameo at the start. There's a little bit of style here on occasion with a few scene reminding heavily of the original Nosferatu (1922) in particular the bit showing Radu's shadow coming down the stair with his long claw like fingernails standing out.<br /><br />Subspecies is a film that many seem to like for reasons I don't quite see, I thought it was throughly average at best & overall rather dull. Followed by Bloodstone: Subspecies II (1993), Bloodlust: Subspecies III (1994), Subspecies 4: Bloodstorm (1998) & the spin0off film Vampire Journals (1997). | negative |
It's interesting that a novel with no plot has become the basis for two films. While The Heiress was a good, if not entirely accurate, adaptation, Washington Square is a heavy-handed and poorly acted, except for the part of Dr Sloper, film that could have been so much better.<br /><br />The director's attempts at making 'beautiful' scenes were so obvious that I actually cringed. It has none of the understated and simple beauty that a movie with no plot can have, such as Onegin. I agree with other comments about Leigh's portrayal of Catherine as an idiot, instead of naive and shy; she made me despise her not feel for her.<br /><br />Catherine's transition from childlike trusting to adult cynicism, the whole point of the story, was internalised, just as it was in the novel. But we don't have the benefit of a narrative voice to tell us that in a film! I think someone skipped adaptation class at filmschool.<br /><br />I appreciate the director's attempts to make a moving and beautiful film out of a difficult text but it just didn't work. | negative |
A small funny film. It is totally incredible, unbelievable, impossible. But it is funny how an introverted masochist can become totally dependent and mesmerized, even hypnotized by a girl he hardly knows but who was able to get down into his phantasms. Of course it is a denunciation of the foolish deals you can get to on the Internet. You must not believe ten percent of what you're told there and never, ever, ever accept to tie up your hands in a way or another to someone or something or some organization you do not know personally. Most of their "businesses" there are in a way or another going to fool you and raid you. But here the chap deserves being the victim of such gangsters because he is not only naive, he is absurdly silly. But then the film becomes funny because it ends up with the victim of the crooked business having the upper hand and ending up playing the same game with his victimizer and winning. One think is sure too. Security in English airports is not exactly what it should be, but I guess it's not better anywhere else in the world and even now they have tightened up all rules and regulations it is just fun to go through their procedures and foil them systematically. Then they have their vengeance by losing your luggage, a real plague on modern airports, and don't expect to get fair compensation. Or even confiscating a bottle opener or a can opener because it may be dangerous. I can see myself cutting my way through the side of the plane with a can opener. Funny, isn't it? Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris Dauphine, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne & University Versailles Saint Quentin en Yvelines | positive |
When it was released, in the beginning of the 80's, Pixote brings to Brazilian society the problems of young delinquents, and the impact of this in Brazilian society. I can't watch the movie at that time, cause I was too young, but now I got a chance and watched It a few days ago. It's a very brutal movie, but everything is absolutely true, and sad. pixote is the name of a 12 year-old boy who lives in the streets, and survive with misdemeanors; he stays for a while in a house of detention, and when he left it he continues to plan robs with other buns and a prostitute, played by marilia Pera. the boy is still a marijuana addicted and smell glue with another teenagers, to forget his sad reality. the quality of the images it's not the best, but the movie is totally realistic about Brazilian problems, and must be viewed and admired. | positive |
This is one of my favorite sports movies. Dennis Quaid is moving and convincing in the part of a man who gave up his dream of being a baseball pitcher when his arm gave out on him. As a high school coach, he challenges his players to win the division championship by telling them he'll try out for a baseball team if they do. They win (partly because of all the batting practice they take with a coach who can pitch over 90 miles an hour), and he keeps his side of the bargain--and is signed! <br /><br />If you have ever decided to try something new and terrifying as an adult, Jim Morris's story will resonate with you. It is moving and inspiring, and the man's relationships ring true. <br /><br />Inspiration is not the only reason I rent this one, though. Dennis Quaid is just downright purdy in the part, and a baseball movie with a good-looking man changing a diaper is my idea of heaven. Ladies, if you feel the way I do, check this one out. | positive |
The story: Young-goon is a girl whose family has a history of mental illness. She ends up in a mental institution after she starts believing that she is in fact a cyborg. In the institution she meets Park Il-sun, a young man who develops a bond with her.<br /><br />If you're reading this you probably already know how talented Chan-wook Park is. But 'I'm A Cyborg...' is a big departure from familiar, and (sadly) stronger territory. I'm a big fan of any film or story which is attempting to do something different. God knows, we all get subjected to enough crap at our local cinemas. The main point about the movie I need to say is, that it fails to say anything about mental illness, or create a characters that you care about.<br /><br />This story has to be one of the weirdest things I've seen in years...but weird isn't enough. There's no heart to the movie...just surrealism and confusion. Confusion does seem to be the main theme of the movie. The characters all try to make sense of their own problems, but it's Chan-wook Park himself who proves to be the most confused of them all. | negative |
A Cinderella story made for adults who live in dreamland. The romance is very unrealistic, fluttery, lovey dovey, perfect etc. The Cinderella plot till the very end and Shahid Kapoor is the only reason for my stars. If you're looking for a dreamy romance with a twist, this is definitely you're movie, but for the rest of us real world people, I'd highly recommend saving your three hour watch time. Wake up people!<br /><br />Four out of the five people that saw the film with me would not recommend the film. We had a great time bashing majority of the unrealistic scenes. Maybe I'm missing something.. I just can't believe a movie like this can beat a classic like HDDCS!! | negative |
This is a funny movie, there's not a lot of those. OK, the plot is a bit disturbing, but very original. A teen trying to get even with dad, because he hasn't been around and almost sending him to jail because she lie to impress an older boy, how could that not be funny? Plus it not the typical movie featuring teens. First remake i've seen, that is better than the original, the only problem with both: Gerard Depardieu. With another actor this would be a perfect 10, because he plays all rolls the same way, sucks. Another problem it's all the women melting over him, that's not remotely believable, he is not attractive!, y had a rubber troll that was better looking than him, come on! | positive |
-it has Carla Gugino *yay* and a crappy ending *boo* <br /><br />-"Jaded" is a highly erotic story about a beautiful woman who arrives in a town trying to escape her past. Whiles there she meets up with two lesbians and after a couple of drinks the two decide to have some fun. But one of the girls takes things a bit too far and rapes her whiles the second girl holds her down. She is discovered on the beach where the incident happens the next day and is taken to a hospital. After that, we spend the rest of the movie watching her attempting to bring down the two girls and at the same time learn some new info about who she is and where she comes from and a bit about her past.<br /><br />-Director and co-writer Caryn Krooth does an excellent job with this movie considering its uber low budget. It hand-held and sometimes looks like 16mm but it fits the movie since the story demands a harsh look to it. The actors all do okay jobs with what is given to them and there's not really anything to complain about it. The standout feature in the movie is of course Carla Gugino who bares it all in this movie. She is actually more nude in this movie than she is in "Sin City". Christopher McDonald is also in the movie but his character is really kinda pointless, but he is fun to watch. I didn't really pay much attention to the music since it doesn't really draw attention to itself but it gets the job done with what it's got. The movie is R rated and it's that for a very good reason. it's very sexual and very graphic at times. It's essentially borders on soft core at times but the sex scenes are necessary for the movie so it doesn't feel like it's just there for the sake of being there. Although there is one pointless scene where we see Chris McDonald getting it on, that scene was a tad pointless but it's not really much of a problem I guess. The only fault with the movie is that we don't get to see the court trial after all that we go through in the movie. It's like having sex and not having an orgasm or something <br /><br />-It's a shame that the talented Caryn Krooth has never made a feature film since this. This is a highly gifted woman can do great things with a very little budget. I really hope that she gets back in the game soon because she is an amazing director. Jaded is not a masterpiece of erotic cinema, instead what we have is an enjoyable movie that shows a great director in the making.<br /><br />-Hide the kids and close the curtains, you don't want people to think you're watching porn whiles watching this movie. | positive |
Greetings;<br /><br />I never thought I would see the day when I would be so disgusted by A movie that it would be a burden to finish it... I was always a fan of horror movies, B'C and C's included. But in this case it's hard to describe how a movie could fail to qualify for any letters in that scale...<br /><br />The movie is centered on a poorly developed back story, a mix of folklore with an after taste. And to top it up, the performance of the actors is questionable. Horror B movies usually fall in two categories... 1) A gem that was under looked, and under funded 2) So bad it's funny, laugh or your money back. Well this movie falls in between. I wasn't scare, didn't laugh... So I guess if you really need to see it you could but I recommend you don't... | negative |
Let me start off by saying that after watching this episode for the first time on DVD at 10 o'clock P.M. one night, I could not fall asleep until about 3:00 A.M.<br /><br />This brief review may contain spoilers.<br /><br />I'm a long-time fan of The Sopranos and I can safely say this is the best episode I've seen. I'm not saying everyone should feel this way, but I do. This episode is identical to the weekend I spent with my family, watching over my own father, comatose in the ICU before he passed.<br /><br />The episode begins with Tony in an alternate reality: he is a salesman who's identity has been mistaken for that of a man named Kevin Finnerty.<br /><br />By the time ten minutes had gone by, I knew either Tony was dreaming, or I was watching some other show. It wasn't like the normal Sopranos and I loved it.<br /><br />Option 1 is confirmed when Anthony (or "Kevin") looks into the sky at a "helicopter spotlight" and we see prodding through it, a doctor with a flashlight. We see this only for a moment and the sequence plays out until we go back to real life in a situation similar to the one I just stated.<br /><br />Tony has come out of the coma for only a moment. His boys take A.J. home and Carmella, overcome by stress, breaks down in the hallway: a signature moment in the episode.<br /><br />For the remainder of the episode, we cut in between the real world: the family dealing with the potential negative outcome of this coma, and Tony's alternate reality, which parallels what's going on both in his mind and in the real world around him.<br /><br />Then comes the stellar point in the episode: after A.J. finishes telling his mother he's flunked school, she walks in to see Meadow sitting at Anthony's side.<br /><br />She approaches Tony, and utters the best line of the episode: "Anthony, can you hear us?" In Tony's world, he enters a dark hotel room and turns on a light. He takes off his shoes and goes to the phone. He tries to dial, but he cannot--as if he were trying to say something back to Carmella, but couldn't physically bring himself to do so. Not yet.<br /><br />He sits down and looks out his window. A shimmering light that has reoccurred throughout the episode now seems to call to him from the other side of the city.<br /><br />"When It's Cold I'd Like To Die" by Moby marries perfectly with these last images and helps in creating an emotional roller-coaster of an episode.<br /><br />10 out of 10.<br /><br />P.S.: Watch the next episode. You find out what the light is. It's wonderful. | positive |
In this 1943 film, Judy Garland is deemed not to be ready for the big-time yet by the man who loves her-Van Heflin. This film was certainly a big change for Mr. Heflin, especially after his supporting Oscar win the year before in "Johnny Eager."<br /><br />Wasn't Spring Byington too old to be the widowed mother of 5 children, with four of them appearing to look like her grandchildren?<br /><br />The singing and dancing are just marvelously staged but the way that the blossoming romance between Heflin and Garland was depicted left a lot to be desired. It was a Gigi-like one where a young girl is eventually swept off her feet by a charmer. | positive |
Lucille Ball was a mighty power in television throughout the 1950s and 1960s, but she still made an occasional film, most notably THE LONG, LONG TRAILER and THE FACTS OF LIFE. Although her television career remained strong, as the 1970s began her movie career seemed to be winding down--but Ball was determined to have one last big screen fling, and the project she selected was the 1966 musical MAME.<br /><br />In many respects the role seemed tailor-made: based on the popular novel which gave rise to two different Broadway plays, Mame Dennis is a wacky, wildly uninhibited woman who "inherits" her orphaned nephew Patrick--and leads him on a wild tour of life's possibilities, bouncing from one comic spree to another. The music, which featured such songs as "Open a New Window" and "If He Walked Into My Life Today," was among Jerry Herman's best work. The supporting cast, which included Robert Preston and Bea Arthur, was the best of the best. Expectations were high; opening night fanfare was tremendous; the film was a disaster. Critics were aghast and audiences sat slack-jawed.<br /><br />No matter what hardcore Lucy fans may say, MAME is a fiasco, so much so that it is hard to know where to start. It is badly directed, badly filmed, badly performed, and there Lucille Ball is at the center of it all, unable to dance, unable to sing, and grinning like a waxworks dummy while incredibly bad choreography swirls around her. But the disaster is hardly of her making alone; the supporting cast fares no better. Bea Arthur and Jane Connell recreate their stage roles of Vera Charles and Agnes Gooch; the former is stagey, the latter is dismal. Robert Preston manages to sing with a smile, but he's pretty much on his own and clearly none too happy about it.<br /><br />The DVD brings the film from the VHS pan-and-scan release to widescreen, but that only means there's more awfulness to see. Everybody loves Lucy, but only the least critical fan could love Lucy's MAME; while I wouldn't say it's bad enough to make you want to gouge your eyes out, you may wish you had. Not recommended.<br /><br />GFT, Amazon Reviewer | negative |
I was duped into watching this by the many friendly reviews here. Boy, are they way off mark! To give this 9 to 10 points and call it "one of the best movies of the 1990ies" is just unjustifiable. The big problem here is lack of pace and a paper-thin plot. It's like slapstick on Prozac. Everything trundles along predictably and listlessly. The plot is weak to begin with -- two garbage men peep on their foxy neighbour, witness a murder and unravel a waste disposal conspiracy -- and the movie never manages to go much further. There are some amusing situations and decent acting, but that's not anywhere near enough to save this jalopy of a movie.<br /><br />It's simply a comedy that doesn't get its fat ass off the ground, so why waste your time? | negative |
I am not a usual commenter on this website but seeing how underrated this movie is, I endeavour myself to write some comments and remarks about it. I had fun watching this movie, perhaps because Cat is everything I wish I could be, I am not going to post spoilers or reveal plots but there's are things that i really found amazing, the way she manipulates people it's just so divine. this is a very underrated movie, I lack of arguments here, I usually go enjoy and then speak little about it, when you go to the movies is to have fun, and i really enjoyed the 1h53 i stayed in the dark room. a must seen over and over again until the delight fades away. let's try not be so critical about it. thank you for reading. | positive |
If you're going to spoof James Bond it's a brilliant idea to find a leading man who resembles BOTH Sean Connery and Leonard Rossiter so step forward Jean Dujardin who captures perfectly the Connery sneer that masquerades as a smile plus the self-delusion of Rossiter thinking he is suave. Dujardin plays it like a Clouseau who can hold his own at karate. The plot has him looking for Our Man In Schtook who has disappeared mysteriously and includes such improbabilities as a Nazi cell concealed inside a pyramid. If there is a jarring note it is the leading lady, Berenice Bejo who has all the sensuality of a suet pudding and is eclipsed - but only just - by Aure Atika. It's good for one viewing but that's about it. | positive |
The creepy demons "The Gentlemen" capture the voice of the population of Sunnydale, to steal human hearts without scream. Giles find that in accordance with a legend, if a lady screams, the creatures will be destroyed, but Buffy and her friends, including Riley, have to fight the monsters speechless.<br /><br />"Hush" is certainly the best episode of the Fourth Season of Buffy up to this moment. Having lots of humor and funny situations, I liked a lot. Spike is hilarious, the romance between Xander and Anya is cool, but I loved the "intense" dialog between Buffy and Riley in end. The Gothic scenario of the final battle against "The Gentlemen" recalls the environment of "Dark City". My vote is ten.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Silêncio" ("Silence") | positive |
Piper, Prue and Phoebe bring Dr. Griffiths to the Manor in order to try and save him from The Source's personal assassin, Shax. Whilst Phoebe looks in the Book of Shadows for a spell to vanquish Shax, Prue and Piper are attacked by Shax and chase him into the street. Unbeknownst to Prue and Piper, they were filmed by a news reporter and her cameraman using their powers and broadcasted live on national television. With Phoebe in the Underworld, Prue, Piper, and Leo must find a way to reverse the damage done. Leo goes down to Phoebe, and tells her that the Charmed Ones have been exposed as witches. On the surface, Piper is shot by a manic witch-wannabe, and Prue has to take her to the hospital. The problem here is that the crowds are blocking the driveway. So Prue has to use her magic on the crowd, and they go to the hospital. Piper is pronounced dead, and a SWAT team moves in. Leo learns of Piper's death, and goes down to tell Phoebe. Cole is asked to ask The Source to reset time, and The Source agrees; only if Phoebe turns to the dark side. Phoebe agrees, but the deal will shatter them. Up on the surface, Prue and Piper are battling Shax. Prue shouts out for Phoebe, who unbeknownst to them is in the Underworld. Shax throws Piper and Prue through a wall, and Dr. Griffiths out of a window. Prue is not pronounced dead until the Season 4 Premiere episode, "Charmed Again, Part One".<br /><br />"All Hell Breaks Loose" is a gripping episode, and it made me sit on the edge of my seat. Sad that Prue's dead, but happy that there will be five more seasons of Charmed. My vote; 10 out of 10. EXCELLENT | positive |
This two-parter was excellent - the best since the series returned. Sure bits of the story were pinched from previous films, but what TV shows don't do that these days. What we got here was a cracking good sci-fi story. A great big (really scary) monster imprisoned at the base of a deep pit, some superb aliens in The Ood - the best "new" aliens the revived series has come up with, a set of basically sympathetic and believable human characters (complete with a couple of unnamed "expendable" security people in true Star Trek fashion), some large-scale philosophical themes (love, loyalty, faith, etc.), and some top-drawer special effects.<br /><br />I loved every minute of this. | positive |
Call me stupid, but I absolutely loved the 2001 horror movie, Valentine. It was so well-made, well-written, well-acted, well-directed, etc! Everything about it was wonderful! There were parts that were relatively routine (Lily's death), very funny (www.Bleed-Me-Dry.com), completely horrifying and creepy (Paige's death), and just plain heartbreaking (the first scene). I think the entire cast did a great job, especially the three leads: David Boreanaz, Denise Richards (both of whom I met, and got autographs from, during the filming of this movie - VERY nice people!), and Marley Shelton.<br /><br />I am very sick of people calling this movie "another Scream clone". This movie is, in no way, a Scream clone. In fact, this film runs rings around Scream. It actually makes SENSE! Scream was also NOT the only movie to feature a masked killer in it. Excuse me, but it looks like Scream was also a clone too (ahem..., Friday the 13th, Halloween, and many other scary movies also featured masked killers). I also think that the novelty of the cupid-masked killer is brilliant. It's so strange to see a sweet, cupid face doing all of these horrible things. Another novelty (the nose bleeding) makes way for a fantastic ending! The ending gives me chills every time I see it!!!!! So, even if you didn't like it the first time, watch Valentine again and give it another chance!<br /><br />PS- Keep an eye out for my new website (WWW.LOVE-HURTS.ORG)! Coming soon... | positive |
In 1968, Stanley Kubrick made this historic film masterpiece base on a book written by Arthur C. Clark. It was such an early effort to make a science fiction movie combined with scientific facts. His style of movie making is still fresh and intact.<br /><br />I have seen this movie more that half a dozen times and I even have a VHS copy of the movie in my library. CS3 class made me to see the movie again with another perspective: Who is HAL and what is he thinking?<br /><br />I enjoyed watching the movie again and tried to focus of HAL's dialogues throughout the second episode of the movie. In the second scene, Dr. Dave Bowman and Dr. Frank Poole are eating their food in front of two TV monitor on their sides and HAL's round reddish glass dome is in the middle of them. In the TV report, HAL was introduced as the new generation of super computer put in work in January 12, 1992 called HAL 9000 Series. During the interview HAL reacts as a humble working machine trying to accomplish the mission of the spaceship fully. <br /><br />In another scene, Dave is sketching Dr. Hunter, Dr. Kambel and Dr. Kaminsky who they are all in Hibernation sleep. HAL is curious to see those sketches and brings up his doubtful question about the purpose of the Jupiter mission. His calm and monotone voice makes the audience listen to him more carefully. <br /><br />In the next few scenes we will see how HAL tries to kill astronauts one by one and takes the power. His conscious makes him capable to try to save his life from termination. When Dave wants to return to the spaceship and HAL does not listen to him, there is the most memorable line of the move: ' I'm sorry Dave, I am afraid I can't do that. ' In the middle of the most important interact between human and machine, HAL's voice can conjure both solid calm and malevolence in the same monotone. <br /><br />Dave has gone back to the ship, lost all his fellow astronauts, and determined to disconnect the HAL's main brain cells. HAL uses his final apologetic techniques to convince Dave of not disconnecting him. HAL begs him to stop and let him correct himself. These are his famous lines while Dave is disconnecting his modules one by one:<br /><br />'Dave, what do you think you are doing?<br /><br />Dave? I am entitled to the answer of the question!<br /><br />I know everything is not quiet right with me recently
<br /><br />But I feel much better know
<br /><br />I can see are really upset about this very poor decision of mine recently
<br /><br />Dave, stop! Will you?<br /><br />Dave, stop!<br /><br />I am afraid Dave!'<br /><br />HAL's voice is slowing down during this process and becomes thicker and less audible:<br /><br />'my mind is going
I can feel it'<br /><br />'Can I sing a song for you?'<br /><br />Dave is putting final modules out and let HAL to sing his song called 'Daisy':<br /><br />'Daisy give me
<br /><br />your answer to me
<br /><br />I am crazy
<br /><br />Although I am not confused
'<br /><br />HAL dies as the Jupiter Mission continues
<br /><br />Artificial God bless you HAL, store in peace! | positive |
The Matador is better upon reflection because at the time one is watching it, it seems so light. The humor is always medium-gauge, never unfunny but never gut-busting. The story is a very simple thread. The characteristics of the plot are often recycled features, namely the unscrupulous bad guy in need of a pal and the straight-laced glass-wearing good guy in need of security in life team up and learn from each other and somehow complement each other's lifestyles. I also find the bullfighting parallel to the story unnecessary, as it is a simply cruel thing and the symbolism is hardly potent enough to carry itself. However, it really is a good film, because though it seemed so thin and unaffecting at the time, it wasn't. It has a subtle way of connecting with the audience.<br /><br />I believe the reason it slowly but surely gives the audience something to take with them is because though it's a formula that is nothing new, even most of the humor, both main characters, virtually the only characters in it, are somehow met and gotten to know. Forget calling them real. That's not at all what I mean. What I mean is that though Pierce Brosnan's filthy, womanizing, boozing hit man is a detached comical character, he's grasped firmly by the writer and definitely by Brosnan, who is aggressively communicating how much he enjoys his breath of fresh James Bondless air. Greg Kinnear's character seems quite the same in his detached scriptedness, but he's given certain very unexpected footnotes that for a moment due to the film's lightfootedness pass us by but then hit us only a moment later. We then realize the film is not simply Analyze This or Planes, Trains and Automobiles told stalely over again. Its truly saying something.<br /><br />The film's climax is of a sort that wants to partially be a thriller with twists. But with its lightness, how can that possibly be the focus of the film, though the plot has been leading up to it? No, the focus is what Brosnan and Kinnear get out of their unlikely relationship to each other. Strangely, The Matador is a film about regret and loneliness. Brosnan deals with loneliness and regret every day, and though we don't understand why Kinnear is so lenient and accepting with Brosnan continually interrupting his life, it's slowly understood that Brosnan is salvaging Kinnear from a more down-to-earth version of his own feelings as a means of redemption. The very last scene of the movie stays with me. It, I think, is where the film's subtle side-stepping impact finally begins to seep. | positive |
This has to be one of the worst movies I've ever seen. This movie has nothing positive about it. Some of you people actually like this movie! I've seen a lot of Dracula movies and I've liked everyone that I've seen, but when I saw this movie I said to myself, "What the hell is this?" What a stupid movie. Now they have Dracula becoming who he is because he is Judas. For those of you who don't know who Judas is, he betrayed Jesus Christ and then felt so guilty he hung himself. You have to be kidding me. That's the dumbest reason I've ever heard for why Dracula became evil. Who asked for a reason anyway? What a piece of sh** this movie is. Who ever came up with this sorry excuse for a movie should be beaten. Even the Dracula is horrible. If you ever saw this movie you wouldn't even think it was Dracula. Wow, Dracula 2000! Is that title supposed to impress me? Don't waste your time or your money on this trash. | negative |
I mean let's face it, all you have to do in modelling is pose for photos. The judging is so over the top with it's criticism. The show however is entertaining, especially with Tyra Banks, Nigel Barker, J Alexander and the supermodel herself Twiggy. I've watched season 5, 6, 7 and in the middle of season 8. It looks like American Idol gone sexy but I'm a guy and I only watch it because of the hot girls posing in their bikinis! The show can be quite boring, when it comes to judging, Tyra tends to go on and on and it's really off-putting. Anyway would I recommend it? Yes, Would I recommend it to women wanting to go into the modelling business? No. | positive |
I really liked this movie ... but the ads I saw implied, and one published review actually said, that this movie "benefits from a light touch." That to me is very misleading.<br /><br />There is indeed plenty of humor: eccentric, un-subtle, sometimes somewhat twisted humor: the kind of humor I generally find very appealing indeed. But most of the humor is the kind that appears conscious at all times of things deeply serious, deeply sensitive, even deeply painful. The movie weaves together themes of Past and Present, Perception and Truth, Memory and Activity, Life and Death. The entire movie is suffused by the history of European anti-Semiticism in general, and of the Holocaust in particular.<br /><br />How can Humor and Horror be combined in the same movie? The review I saw suggested that the humor is Absurdist. I don't think this is the case at all; at least not in the common sense. Instead, I think this movie stands in the tradition of much Jewish / Yiddish literature and theatre. I don't claim to be any kind of expert in this area; but from what I've seen, Humor is used, in this cultural context, both as a coping tool for the horribly tragic experiences of this people; and also Humor is used as a means of "recovering the Divine" for men and women who choose a path of Faith rather than a path of either Despair or Absurdism. See "Fiddler on the Roof" for Humor used in both ways in this rich tradition.<br /><br />Elijah Wood (Jonathon) Wood wears horn rimmed glasses that really make him look, well, strange: compare Sin City when he wore the same kinds of glasses with chilling effect. In this movie, it's easy to see how the glasses become a metaphor for both his Search and for his Struggle between Perception and Truth. Eugene Hutz (Young Alex) and Boris Lesking (Old Alex) are both really just wonderful. Jonathon and Young Alex are from the same generation, yet seem so very, very different; and then find that they are not so different after all. And the way in which the Apparent Narrative Voice changes gradually from that of Jonathon to that of Young Alex .. as a journey of intended discovery for Jonathon becomes one of discovery for both Young Alex and Old Alex ... is to me so very moving.<br /><br />There are some wonderful scenes and panoramas from (I'm told) Prague and environs, standing in for the Ukraine of the story line. All feels very authentic and seems to give a wonderful sense of place; although I've never been myself to the Ukraine and can hardly testify to this from first hand experience.<br /><br />All in all, if you're looking for light comedy, I would not recommend this movie at all. On the other hand, if you are interested in a wonderful, delightful, and deeply moving film, please, check out this wonderful movie. | positive |
The final frames of the original "American Graffiti" provide one-line summaries of the fates of the film's four central male characters. While somewhat sexist in omitting the female characters, the ending of the original film provided all the information about those people that even the most ardent fan of the movie would want. However, someone felt that mega-bucks could be made by detailing the dreary lives of these characters after the original film ended. Bad move. Making an insurance salesman and his wife, a nerdy private in Vietnam, a drag race driver, and a overgrown hippie into interesting characters in interesting situations was far beyond the talents of those who wrote this nearly unwatchable movie. While most of the original cast is back, with only Richard Dreyfuss having the good sense to stay away, "More American Graffiti" is a mess of silly situations that involve protests, car races, country singers, and the Vietnam war. The use of split screens, once thought innovative and daring, is overused here to the point of distraction and adds confusion to the already confused goings one. This is a sequel that demonstrates nearly everything that can go wrong with a sequel. Perhaps it should be screened in film schools as a lesson. Even the use of period music, which was a delight in the original, is poorly done here. If you want more "American Graffiti," see the original twice. | negative |
This movie was awful. The ending was absolutely horrible. There was no plot to the movie whatsoever. The only thing that was decent about the movie was the acting done by Robert DuVall and James Earl Jones. Their performances were excellent! The only problem was that the movie did not do their acting performances any justice. If the script would have come close to capturing a halfway decent story, it would be worth watching. Instead, Robert DuVall's and James Earl Jones' performances are completely wasted on a god awful storyline...or lack thereof. Not only was I left waiting throughout the movie for something to happen to make the movie....well an actual movie...not just utterless dialog between characters for what ended up being absolutely no reason. It was nothing more than common dialog that would have taken place back in that period of time. There was nothing special about any of the characters. The only thing special was how Robert DuVall portrayed a rambling, senile, drunk, old man. Nothing worthy happens during the entire movie including the end. When the movie ended, I sat amazed...amazed that I sat through the entire movie waiting for something of interest to happen to make watching the movie worth while. It never happened! The cast of characters suddenly started rolling making it apparent that the movie really was over and I realized that I had just wasted 2 hours of my life watching a movie with absolutely no plot and no meaning. It wasn't even a story. The entire movie takes place in a day's worth of time. That's it. It was one day in the life (and death) of some Southerners on a plantation. How much of a story can take place in a single day (other than the movie Training Day)? The acting performances by the entire cast were excellent, but they were grossly wasted on such a disappointment of a movie...if you can even call it a movie. | negative |
You want a movie that'll take you places? Well this is a good pick. If you were an adolescent in the era portrayed in this film--the hayday of Motown--or if you want to reach back and see what your parents made so much noise about, I suggest you pick up this flick and give it a watch. At the risk of sounding cliche, you'll laugh, you'll cry, you'll reminisce and remember. You'll go back to a time when school violence was a fist fight. You'll recall with fondness your best friends from school. It's a feel good movie with an edge of angst and pain and realism--misconceptions, losing friends, deciding what to do with your life. I think everyone regardless of race, age, socioeconomic standing can pull something from this movie and really enjoy it. So take a couple hours out of a lazy day and check out this film; there are much worse ways you could spend your time. | positive |
don't mind the soundtrack, which is played out by now.<br /><br />Still, Debra Winger is always interesting and while this was an earlier role for her, she is quite good as Cissy, girl from the wrong side of the tracks, lived in trailer with Bud, (Travolta), only to be replaced for a time by city slicker Madolyn Smith as a rival.<br /><br />I agree with an earlier review regarding Scott Glenn, he is used for plot only, thrown in to the mix to create suspense; the story is predictable and contrived.<br /><br />Also, even though I am from the east, many of us did NOT like "Saturday Night Fever", while it had its moments, the perpetual stereotypes are beyond criticism at this point.<br /><br />Worth seeing for Debra Winger; she is still so likable, and never had that Hollywood persona we are subjected to by too many actresses today. 7/10 | positive |
This movie sucked plain and simple. Okay so it's basically about a girl that gets raped, and to get revenge she gets another guy to rape the rapist. The rapist is a douche, but the girl victim is partly to blame. I mean they both get in the mood and start kissing and stuff, but when the rapist tries to have sex with her, she doesn't allow it so the rapist rapes her. And the thing is the rape scene for the girl is very short and it doesn't really expose or show anything, but when it comes to the rapist getting raped, it's a pretty long rape scene. There is basically nothing in the story that is worth watching.<br /><br />3.2/10 | negative |
This movie is brilliant in every way. It touches on the complexities of loving relationships in a meaningful way, but never lectures. The script never condescends toward any character, not even the hapless Johnny. It also and benefits from spot-on direction, production design, casting, and performances. The fact that Cher is so perfect in the film and is more unlike "Cher" than she has ever been is a wonder to me. I watch Moonstruck at least once a year and I just viewed it again this Christmas eve with my 16 year old twin daughters and they loved it as well. It has something for everyone with a heart and leaves you filled with joy in the end. | positive |
Oh my god. oh my god, i cant get over this movie. It was god-awful. horrible, terrible! Don't even waste your money to buy it in the 99 cent bin. No, avoid it at all costs I'm warning you!!!<br /><br />It was the worst movie I've ever seen. In my life. In my life!!<br /><br />First of all, G-girl? Are you kidding me. Get real that sounds like some kind of new Barbie doll.. Super Women? Are you kidding me. It was so fake fake fake fake. The people of the town didn't even seem to care that there was a flying blonde just zooming her way around the town saving a fire.. Ohh big!<br /><br />Jesus, was it just me or did this movie seem offensive?? I guess what you need to be a super hero is a couple of double D's, blonde flowing hair, no glasses and a leather skin tight suit?!<br /><br />If it was trying to be romantic ... than.. god, i don't know. It was horrid, if love means taking some one to an art show and than having sex in a bed AND in the air.. than they totally had love!<br /><br />It was pathetic, everything went too fast. First that guy was single, than he was dating G-girl.. than they broke up than he dated that Hannah girl.. and.. it just goes on. <br /><br />I have to say this movie made me wonder.. How the hell did they get this in theaters??!!<br /><br />Avoid this movie at all costs. | negative |
"Live Together, Die Alone" is divided into three main story lines, and each one of them alone would have been enough for a great episode. So when you put all of them together, you have a great ^ 3 episode. It was a daring move to give the flashbacks of a season finale to a character (Desmond) who had only appeared in 3 episodes up to that point, but it worked: his backstory is absolutely fascinating to watch, both informative about the past of the island & the Swan station itself and honestly moving. Desmond and Penny seem magically connected to each other, even when they are on opposite ends of the world, and both characters are beautifully acted (it's hard not to cry when Desmond reads Penny's letter). The action inside the hatch is edge-of-your-seat tense, as Locke is determined not to allow the button to get pushed again, convinced it was all just a psychological experiment, Desmond gradually realizes the consequences of this decision, and Eko is locked outside and tries desperately to get back in. The melting of the clock and Locke's "I was wrong" are unforgettable moments. The outside action has Jack, Kate, Sawyer and Hurley captured by the Others due to Michael's betrayal (after they make a puzzling discovery connected to the Pearl), and "Henry Gale"'s game-changing return as the Others' leader. Even the least important plot line, Sayid, Jin and Sun sailing to the beach where the Others are supposedly camping, contains one of the greatest mythological mysteries of the show, the giant statue that's almost entirely missing except for a foot with four toes. In short: emotion + history + mythology + adventure + suspense + the threat of annihilation + a ray of hope = a classic LOST episode. ***1/2 out of 4. | positive |
The first time you see The Second Renaissance it may look boring. Look at it at least twice and definitely watch part 2. It will change your view of the matrix. Are the human people the ones who started the war ? Is AI a bad thing ? | positive |
If you know the story of Grey Owl, you'll love the movie! Annie Galipeau is a great actress, and Pierce is better than never in Grey Owl. But in this movie there's no real scene of action. I think this movie should be nominated at the Oscars! Welll go see this movie, it's A CLASSIC! | positive |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.