review stringlengths 32 13.7k | sentiment stringclasses 2 values |
|---|---|
A friend of mine showed me this film yesterday, and I was really amazed that someone could make a movie this terrible! <br /><br />Mix the most awful, clichéd dialog, with the most wooden acting you've ever seen, with the cheesiest special effects know to man, and you get this magnificent beast!<br /><br />'Vampire Assassins' is funnier than most comedies I've seen, it really is awful! <br /><br />I was in stitches during the scene where the ex cop/vampire assassin character is having coffee with the internet journalist. Just watch it and you'll see what I mean!<br /><br />I honestly can't believe that someone made this with serious intentions.<br /><br />Tragic, but a really good laugh. It has to be seen to be believed. | negative |
Although I saw this movie in Korea, in Korean, and therefore did not understand the language, images sure say more than enough. From what I can make of it, this is the story: Two superb sword fighters become friends in their service as the king's guard. One of them finds himself opposed to the ways of the king and starts assassinating important men. The other has to hunt him down. This movie is visually great. The swordfighting is great. And the movie has a gripping end. I just hope this movie will be marketed for the western cinema goers. And be released on DVD, of course. | positive |
The makers ask for a huge suspension of disbelief, you grant them it in the hope that given a little time they'll convince you it's possible. Alas, with TV movies it seems as though they specifically set out to make cheap Cosmo questionnaire films. With a small budget and big claims you should spend every penny on the details to convince the audience. Not here though. The film gets a few points for the good performance the two leading ladies give against the odds, but unfortunately it's not enough to save the day. oh, and the less said about the ending the better. Happy Film-Viewing Everyone ! | negative |
it´s a movie to see on tv and only once.. i mean, it´s good, but it´s a little too lengthy and the plot is so well-known, it isn´t very original but it isn´t boring. the best thing of the movie are the performances, natalie portman and susan sarandon are great actress and in this movie they have done a great job. i give it a 7. | positive |
This was so much better than i expected, the film oozed proffesionalism compared to other B-moive of this sort of budget. The script was good if a little formulaic but the acting was surprisingly good from all including Lorenzo and you always expect good standards from Scheider and Busey. Aswell as the good plot and acting the action is good especially the car chases and the crashes are A-class. All in all this is a rise above other B-movie thrillers and doesn't have to rely on constant nudity or a flow of cheesy puns to make up for budget and script defficiencies, its certainly worth a rent. | positive |
This was, without a doubt, the worse horror movie I have ever seen.... Forget the fact that the story had little to do with the facts of Ed Gein... Ed Gein's story is horrific & this movie ignored the facts and strayed way off course. Acting, on all levels, was pathetic. Story, again, for some unknown reason didn't go into the horrific facts. Could have been so scary if it would have stuck to the facts. WHAT WERE THEY THINKING? TERRIBLE MOVIE! Steve Railsback version was much, much better. Don't waste a penny on this terribly made flick... And, why ignore the reality of the horrific events? That alone would make for a great story. Man, makes you wonder why this would ever be approved for release. Why spend so much money on a movie that will never make a penny (except for my wasted $5... | negative |
This film is actually pertinent even today given the threat of bio-terrorism, and the threats of superbugs, West Nile Virus, and SARS. As a thriller, the tension is fairly intense. Richard Widmark and Paul Douglas are more than serviceable in their roles. The domestic scenes between Widmark and his wife provide a nice interlude to the main plot. The actor in this film who most left his mark is Jack Palance. His sharply defined features and seemingly easygoing exterior always wither way to reveal the avaricious and cruel man beneath the surface. The chase scene through the packing plant is impressive even today. Recommended, 7/10. | positive |
Watching this last night it amazed me that Fox spent so much money on it and got so little back on their investment. It's the kind of disaster that has to be seen to be believed.<br /><br />I'm sure that the first morning of filming Raquel Welch dusted off the shelf over her fireplace to prepare a spot for the Academy Award she would surely win for this daringly original movie. Oops. That's not what happened.<br /><br />The infighting on the set was detailed in print by Rex Reed and this helped the movie attain a reputation before it was even released. When it was finally released there wasn't the usual three ring circus of publicity. If I remember correctly, in Houston it opened at drive-ins and neighborhood theatres and never played any of the big venues.<br /><br />I lay most of the blame on director Michael Sarne, who was hot after having directed (the not all that good) JOANNA, a film with music about young people in swinging mod London.<br /><br />If I recall correctly, Fox wound up firing him and piecing the film together the best they could. That's why scenes play out in no particular sequence and characters appear and then vanish. An impressive supporting cast (Kathleen Freeman, Jim Backus, John Carradine, Andy Devine and others) is wasted with nothing to do.<br /><br />To expand it to feature length there are numerous clips from Fox movies featuring stars like Carmen Miranda (in amazing footage from THE GANG'S ALL HERE) andLaurel and Hardy, who never dreamed they'd be playing in an X rated movie.<br /><br />The X rating is due to occasional language numerous sexual perversions; however, none of the characters seem to be having any fun. Maybe somebody involved with the film had a warped Puritan sensibility and figured that if they could make these things unappealing it wasn't bad to exploit them.<br /><br />This was one of the "youth" pictures that nearly bankrupted Hollywood in the 1970's. One writer joked that EASY RIDER (which was made for pocket change) was the most expensive movie ever made because so many films followed which tried and failed in the worst way to duplicate its success. Sixtyish, once honored directors like Stanley Kramer and Otto Preminger made movies like RPM and SKIDOO in an effort to attract a young audience. White directors and writers attempted to make films to attract a Black audience. Those movies are locked somewhere in a vault and the two named and many others from that genre have never, as best I know, been out on home video or cable. They're the studios' deep dark secret.<br /><br />Raquel Welch's performance in this is, all things considered, very good. With the right direction and script she could played the type of sassy liberated women Rosiland Russel and Barbara Stanwyck specialized in. She looks great and has awesome costumes. Mae West is the liveliest seventy-something actress I've ever seen. On the one hand it's kind of heartbreaking to watch her attempt to capture her glory from years gone by, but I'm sure she needed the money.<br /><br />If you want to see a big budget X-rated movie from this era check out BEYOND THE VALLEY OF THE DOLLS (also from Fox) because it doesn't take itself seriously. It's crazy kids playing with the equipment at a major studio. MYRA BRECKINRIDGE tries to Say Something. There just wasn't anyone who wanted to listen. | negative |
Quite a ways away from "Go Fish". Both were good films but Troche had a bigger budget and cast to work with here. This film was very entertaining and easy to like. The acting was good lots of slow burn sexual tension.<br /><br /> | positive |
While the idea is more original than most Sci-Fi movies, the execution is, as usual lacking. While the practical mummy effects are not bad, and the "Gun Nut" character is over the top giggle inducing, the only real draw is to see Morena Baccarin and Adam Baldwin reunited on the small screen. I suspect that was the idea all along. They do the best they can with what they have but the "must see" moments for me were in the first 40 minutes or so when Morena's character sported some Tomb Raider style shorts. Not high brow cinema I know but you can't deny true beauty when you see it!!! And Adam Baldwin once again hams it up as the guy you love to hate. If you just want to watch a couple of your favorite Firefly characters have a good time with some sub par material then this might be for you. If you want good acting and character development then be advised to look elsewhere. | negative |
The infamous Ed Wood "classic" Plan 9 From Outer Space features an indignant alien calling the human race, "...stupid! Stupid, stupid stupid!" I'd have to say exhibit A in that trial would probably this movie, a ridiculously silly sci-fi film.<br /><br />Falling action star Jean Claude Van Damme returns to a hit role for him from the original movie, Luke, a former Universal Soldier who now works making really good universal soldiers. While Van Damme was too big to reprise the role in the first two sequels, he was too small to do much of anything else by the time the fourth film in the Universal Soldier series came around. So, probably cursing under his breath the whole way, he kicks and grunts and scowls through ninety minutes of explosions and karate kicks. You'll find plenty of mindless violence, but I'd advise you get a coat check for your brain at the door when you start watching this thing. Otherwise, you are liable to forget where you left it by the time it's over.<br /><br />Luke is called into action against more Universal Soldiers after a really really REALLY evil computer named Seth (makes HAL look like Ghandi) turns all the other universal soldiers into evil, remorseless killers. Of course this is what these things are programmed to do, but in this case they are killing their creators, not "the enemy" so that's a problem.<br /><br />I love the dumb logic of this movie. Logic that believes that a supercomputer would create a body for itself that looks as ashamed as Michael Jai White does to be in this movie. Logic that dictates that the creator of Seth be a blue-haired cyber-stereotype geek who spouts cliches more regularly than Old Faithful does steam. Logic that has a climactic karate fight feature two characters kicking each other though ten separate panes of shattering glass in the span of three minutes of screen time.<br /><br />The film also features a daughter in peril character, wrestler Bill Goldberg as a wrestler disguised as a Universal Soldier, and a romance so tacked on, I have to think the writers thought tacked on romances were actually a GOOD thing. And when this movie ends, it ends. Not a minute after a gigantic towering finale-style explosion are the credits running. No epilogue, no where are they now, no final kiss, just explosion, hug, over. Even the creators want to get out of this thing as soon as possible.<br /><br />While it's no Plan 9, US:TR is a silly little trifle of an action movie that would be fun at parties full of rowdy Van Damme fans who enjoy seeing their hero really reaching new depths. Not to be seen on a serious stomach. | negative |
Miriam Hopkins is "The Lady with Red Hair" in this 1940 biopic of Mrs. Leslie Carter which also stars Claude Rains as David Belasco, Richard Ainley as Lou Payne, and a fine cast of supporting players, including Laura Hope Crews and Victor Jory.<br /><br />Miriam Hopkins and Claude Rains give wonderful performances. Hopkins was a beautiful actress who really makes us feel for Mrs. Carter. Rains is great as the flamboyant, egotistical producer/writer/actor/impresario David Belasco, one of the great names in theater.<br /><br />Though Mrs. Carter's second husband, Lou Payne, served as adviser on this film, it's a poor representation of the real events of Mrs. Carter's life. True, there was a much publicized and bitter divorce, and she was undoubtedly viewed as a scandalous character for that and for becoming an actress. However, she had custody of her son Dudley, so there was no custody battle. Once she broke with Belasco, she did not go back to him and, in fact, started working in vaudeville and actually made some films toward the end of her life. She did indeed marry Lou, and he became her leading man in many productions.<br /><br />The driving force for Mrs. Carter in the beginning of this film is regaining custody of her son, but she finally realizes that in her time away from him, he is thoroughly bonded with his father. In the film also (and I'm not sure if it was true in real life) she traveled with her mother and lived in a theatrical boarding house, which gives the film some added interesting atmosphere.<br /><br />Not a bad movie, probably not a depiction of the greatness of either Carter or Belasco. One of Mrs. Carter's most famous moments was in The Heart of Maryland, where she wore a wig with six-foot tresses. Off-stage, fans blew her hair as she hung 35 feet above the stage clutching the center of a bell to keep it from ringing. Quite a visual. | positive |
I'd have to say that I've seen worse Sci Fi Channel originals, but this Nu Image shonker from Yossi Wein was still quite a drag. The big problem with it is that it simply isn't convincing, not just its creature, but acting, writing and any attempts at drama. The direction lacks any kind of flair and the script from Boaz Davidson and Danny Lerner never really works, predictable, often laughable, whilst it delivers less howlers than a fair few of these sorts of films it never offers anything to engage or raise the pulse. The actors do their best, but with such material their workmanlike efforts have little effect. Matthew Reilly Burke is a blandly watchable hero, Meredith Morton similar as a blandly watchable love interest. Actually she was a bit less convincing but at least she was easy on the eyes. The film at least has the dignity to bowl along at a reasonable pace, but its biggest plus is that the octopus isn't entirely CGI rendered. So even though it doesn't look good, at least there are a few legit scenes of characters inanely grappling with rubbery tentacles in pretty amusing fashion. I also chuckled at the disparities between different representations of the octopus, the cgi shots of the creature as a whole vary over the course of the film, they are also different not only in size but appearance to the practical shots of it, and there are scenes where the tentacle action suggests that the makers had abandoned pretending they were making a film about an octopus and just envisioned their creature as a bunch of miscellaneous tentacles. The scenes of the creature attacking people get old pretty swiftly, but there are a few funny scenes where it takes on other things, like a boat and a crane. Yes, these scenes are poor, but they did make me chuckle. Undisputable highlight though is a hilarious sequence in which the octopus takes on a New York landmark, the scene may not be much more than a minute but it really is inspired, and well worth looking up on youtube. Apart from that things are uninspired all round, (a PG level lack of gore or nastiness stops this one from even pulling off much in the trash good times) the film does take a turn into semi gripping disaster movie territory at the end, but I can't really give it credit because the best shots in the last few scenes were culled from the Stallone flick Daylight (which by my recollection is quite good). Altogether this was pretty rubbishy stuff and not something I'd really recommend to anyone except creature feature die hards. Better than a poke in the eye with a wet stick, but not by much. | negative |
...a true geek-girl's dream: high tech, high drama, smart guys, steamy sex, and large explosions. (VERY large explosions.) Sam Waterston is so natural in the role of Oppenheimer that tapes of the REAL Oppenheimer sound odd: apparently, he had a voice similar to Ronald Reagan! The triumph and tragedy of Oppenheimer is one of the 20th century's most stirring dramas, and this movie stands as a model of what docu-drama ought to be: the facts are allowed to speak for themselves, while the fictional parts are used to amplify and fill in the record, not to call attention to themselves. An interesting fact: some of the technical details used had only recently been declassified, and so are of special interest. A must-see! | positive |
"Absolute Beginners" was a film for the younger generation, a multi-time film that discussed the issues that teens were facing in Britain and how these troubled, constantly hitting each note, teen's problems can relate to the youth of tomorrow. It could have been dubbed the "Moulin Rouge" of the 80s, but it disappeared. It made its very shallow mark on the world, snuck under the radar, and can now be found collecting dust at either the musical section, the comedy section, or the politically obscure section of that seedy video store that doesn't need chain money to survive. Alas, that wasn't where I found it but I found it, watched it, tried my hardest to sing along with it, stared into Bowie's eyes, but found myself faded by the end. Did it not survive the test of time? Is 1950s London too far removed from our current society? Is Bowie too creepy? I think "Absolute Beginners" falls somewhere into each of these questions as the perfect example of cinema that starts out with a bang, but withers to a mere sparkle by the end.<br /><br />"Absolute Beginners" opens with a huge number that takes us through the non-gritty streets of London which involve theft nightly, prostitutes on every corner, dance throughout, booze like rivers, and the swankiest ties on nearly every individual. Sounds like a place we would all hate to be
right? Director Julien Temple keeps the mood light and flashy throughout most of the songs as we attempt to learn something about a plethora of our main characters. The one we follow most is Colin played by Eddie O'Connell who follows his dreams of being a photographer while shooting his favorite girl, Suzette (played by Patsy Kensit). These two have chemistry, and while Suzette looks like a pre-rehab Lohan, to me they worked. There was a huge spark between them, the chemistry was like lava, and I believed that these two could take me down a road I had never traveled. I was ready but then, something happened. Temple takes us out of the nightlife, takes us out of the city we grew up with at the beginning, and completely reverses the roles without any dedication to the first. Suzette runs away, Colin becomes a pervert, and Bowie
well
I am not quite sure what his role is but he sings amazingly well while climbing a mountain I can tell you that much. Temple gives us this flashy city, this opportunity to see those that inhabit it, but leaves us hanging high and dry when it is time to pull the trigger. We learn about Colin, mainly, but nobody else. I could probably watch this film again and still be equally confused as to whom is angry at whom, and what importance fashion had to that era. Also, were they teens really they all seemed like they were pushing their late 20s, but maybe it was my TV.<br /><br />Character development thrown right out the door, Temple tries to overcompensate by giving us bigger, more lavish songs using even more characters that we know nothing about. One of my favorite songs in the film uses this thought as a prime example. Temple uses a split house to show us the lives of Colin's parents (of which I didn't know it was them until after the film) and a song which screams apathy. Great song, too many characters, not enough time, suddenly dragged into another scene of missing coherency, and it just falls apart in your hands. Then, if that wasn't enough, we are rocking our heads to the beat of some great songs, rubbing our noggin' trying to understand where our characters are or are going, and Temple throws in hatred, anger, and politics into the final act. While I was hoping that this film would have a dedicated theme, I didn't think racism would be on the top of the bill. Suddenly, friends are missing, people are angry, and there is some random guy running around fighting Colin because he lives in poverty and has a friend of a different race? Somebody help me out here. It seemed completely rushed and overwhelming nearly to the point of wanting to turn the film off. To me, the ending of "Absolute Beginners" was nowhere near the excitement from the opening number. That first part set the pace, and Temple could not keep up.<br /><br />Overall, I must say that Temple can direct a music video, but I don't think he was quite prepared for the feature film. I don't think this film will ever make it into full "cult" status, and will probably remain unremembered or in the dollar bin for years to come. It is a fun film to watch initially, but when we get to that final part, it just explodes from the inside. I wanted some cutting edge work, but instead what I found was a freaky Bowie coupled with characters I cared nothing for. I could see how this film could relate to the youth of the 80s, but by the end it just felt forced. I think everyone in this production should have taken a moment and listened to "Motivation" by the ever-freaky Bowie in this film, it may have helped solidify this feature into better cult status. I am glad that I watched this film once, but that is all that my small brain can take. I loved the way that Temple caught me from the beginning, but he couldn't control his characters (way too many), and the songs didn't seem to match the final moments of the film. It came out of nowhere, and it was unwelcomed. If this was a film about racism, it needed to be from the beginning. "Absolute Beginners" was a welcomed adventure, but I don't think I will be dusting this film off in the future.<br /><br />Grade: ** out of ***** | negative |
This is a good movie, a good family movie to watch if you have nothing else to do. If you are expecting this movie to be word to word from the book, you will be very very disappointed. I was somewhat disappointed because I read the book a few times when I was in elementary school.<br /><br />This is about a new kid in town named Billy. He makes a bet with the school bully and the bet is not like most bets. Billy has to eat 10 worms in one day or the bully wins.<br /><br />The acting is OK, probably the worst part of the movie. The kid actors over exaggerate on many things. They think it's apocalypse if Billy does not eat the worms. Hallie Eisenberg did a magnificent job, though.<br /><br />The plot line is good as a movie, but it sucks as a book adaptation. I was able to watch this movie without looking at the time....sometimes.<br /><br />Overall, this was a good family movie with some weak points. I rate this movie 7/10. | positive |
According to this board, I guess either you love it or hate it. Usually how it goes with all movies. There is no need to get testy with others though. All we are doing here is giving opinions. I rented this movie last night and I want to come and throw my opinion in the mix. I was surprised by how many people are thrashing it though. There's a difference between a movie fan and a horror movie fan. I'm a horror movie fan. Most plain olé' movie fans don't like horror movies. So many low budget cam corder looking movies are coming out these days. It's hard to keep up. And what makes it tough to stay into these movies is how bad they are. I wanted to come and write a review about "Hood of the Living Dead" because it's pretty damn good compared to the rest of the junk out there. It's nothing special but it's those horror film makers that try to be too serious that end up making a horrible horror film. I really liked this one. You telling me there is no effort in this one? And one more thing, I bet all of you have all of these huge DVD collections that you are so proud of, nothing but Major Motion Pictures right? Nothing wrong with that, but you have to know how to appreciate low-budget independent. I knew what I was getting when I watched this movie. I'm not going to be upset because I thought it was going to be some 100 million dollar movie. Some of you might need to stick with watching the Matrix over and over again and stop trying to compare everything to the Matrix. And if most of you are under 24, that explains everything. Good movie folks, check it out. | positive |
Lance Henriksen has a knack for being the top name in a B-movie, even in this case starring along side Charles Napier, Master Control Program, and Joe Don Baker. As always he does a great job of being the bad guy, but the plot is just bad (don't even get me started about the ending). And the editing is so horrible it might actually be a thing of beauty. Is it just me, or does it seem that Joe Don Baker was spliced into the movie at the last minute? Also, anytime glass is broken in this movie, the editing is so anti-phenomenal. Lastly, after watching this, I figure David Warner is dying for Tron 2.0 to finally get the green light.<br /><br />Unfortunately for Felony, this will be the third movie I give the rating of 1/10, joining Iron Eagle IV and No Mercy. | negative |
As horror fans we all know that blind rentals are a crap-shoot. Sometimes we find a real gem, but many times we find that the film we've just spent our hard earned money on is nothing more than a putrid steamer made worse by the completely undeserved rave reviews and film fest awards listed on the box. Such is the case with Five Across the Eyes ( a title I'm sure is a double entendre referring to both the films budget and the compulsion anyone watching it might have to using all five fingers to stab their eyes out ).<br /><br />The story, or, at least what the *ahem* writers think passes for one, centers on a group of teen girls who unwisely decide to go on a backwoods joyride late at night after leaving a football game and run afoul of a crazy woman who plays cat and mouse with them as punishment for what she thinks the girls found in her car after a fender-bender in a gas station parking lot.<br /><br />In fairness, it's an interesting idea. Some of the best horrors have very simple story lines. It's in the execution of Five Across the Eyes that this idea falls flat. The film tries to be a cross between The Blair Witch Project with its shaky camera work and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre in its bare-bones approach to the material but succeeds at being neither. What we get instead are redundant scenes of chase, torture, release; chase torture, release, in that order for 94 minutes with long interludes of bitching, moaning, and incoherent rambling acting as plenty of padding in-between chase sequences.<br /><br />The look of the film is incredibly grainy and dark, which, in a better made film might have enhanced the tension and the realism. Here it's merely annoying. The characters are undeveloped and the viewer is hard-pressed to find anything to sympathize with them. One character stops to get a first-aid kit and tend to some scrapes on her face while gunshots heard in the background indicate her friends may be getting killed. Another girl mutters hilariously dumb lines like "Don't go out there, she'll get you, if she gets you she'll kill you and if she kill's you you're dead".<br /><br />It was an accolade from Fangoria magazine and Dreadcentral.com listed on the box that compelled me to check this one out. Talk about a fake orgasm! Perhaps my expectations would have been met had this been in the comedy section. I'm all for low-budget Indie horror but this one takes the crap-cake. Give Five Across the Eyes (or FATE; get it?) a pass.<br /><br />RazorFriendly gives FATE 1 slash out of five / | negative |
It seems at least vaguely possible that this movie provided a bit of inspiration for "The Sopranos," as its main character, Martin Blank (John Cusack) is a hit man who has so many issues from his past and his profession that he's in therapy trying to deal with it all. Everything finally comes to a head at his 10-year high school reunion. The problem was that by the time Blank got to the reunion I had stopped caring. Frankly, I found this movie a drag from start to finish.<br /><br />It had potential. There was a reasonably good cast, headed by Cusack and Dan Aykroyd, playing Grocer, his arch-rival in the hit-man business, along with Minnie Driver as Debi, Blank's high school sweetheart who he stood up on prom night, and a limited role for Alan Arkin as Dr. Oatman, Blank's psychologist. That fairly talented cast never really seemed to come together, though. The drama lacked intensity and the comedy lacked real humour. What I thought had the most potential to be a comedic storyline was Grocer's proposal for a hit man's union, but aside from becoming a bit of a running joke, the idea never really got developed. As for the romance, one wondered why Debi would even think of letting this guy back into her life.<br /><br />There were a handful of chuckles, but nothing really caught me and held me and I spent most of the movie wondering whether this thing was ever going to start to click. It never did - not for me, at least. 2/10 | negative |
I could not agree less with the rating that was given to this movie, and I believe this is a sample of how short minded most of spectators are all over the world. Really... Are you forgetting that Cinema used to be a kind of art before some tycoons tried to make it only entertainment? This movie is not entertainment, at least not that easy entertainment you get on movies like Titanic or Gladiator. It has style, it is different, it is shocking... That's why most of you have hated it so much: because it does not try to be pleasing to you. It's just a story, a very weird one I admit, but after all, only a weird story. It is not a great story, not even a great cinema work, but I believe it is worth a 7-stars rating only for the courage of both author and director to shot a story that is not made to please the audience, thus selling billions of copies and making the big studios even richer. This movie is, for me, European-artistic-like movie made in the US, and everyone involved in the making of it deserves respect. Be it for the courage, or be it for the unique sense of humor. | positive |
This is a brilliant sci-fi movie that is very strange in how men and women both view the same film. I have talked to many people about the film and almost every guy loved it and said it was brilliant--while most women thought it was just disgusting and stupid! This is the only movie I know of that has such polarized views based on gender. Perhaps many women just have a lower tolerance for disgusting or depressing plots--but whatever the cause, I have always found this difference fascinating.<br /><br />The film begins with a murder and a subsequent investigation headed by Charlton Heston. This is set in the near future and the head of the huge international Soylent Corporation has been assassinated. As the film unfolds, you quickly realize this is a terrible and highly inequitable future American society. The rich live in gorgeous apartments with security and all the pleasures money can buy(including "furniture"--a euphemism for paid mistresses that come along with the apartment). At the same time, the masses are dirt poor, unemployed and in many cases living in abandoned cars or apartment hallways. Overpopulation and smog have taken a severe toll and the future looks awful indeed! <br /><br />Why the rich man died and the awful truth he could not live with I really should NOT discuss--it could ruin the film for you. However, the film has a great plot and acting and is super-exciting to watch. Plus, it features Edward G. Robinson in his final screen performance as the crusty sidekick to Heston. Though not for the easily depressed or squeamish, this is a great sci-fi film that is allegorical and profound. | positive |
Oh I remember watching this show at 4:00 p.m. during my junior high days. It was not a pleasant experience because I remember watching it when I made my homework.<br /><br />Still, the show caught my attention when Alex displayed her special powers and dealt with the typical junior high problems.<br /><br />But the show wasn't all about adventures and special powers; it was more of an educational effort for a younger audience in order to get more interested in school and biology overall.<br /><br />The lead actress (can't remember her name and I'm too lazy to copy and paste from the main details) delivered a fantastic performance. She made the show watchable.<br /><br />They just don't make shows like this one anymore... | positive |
Usually musicals in the 1940's were of a set formula - and if you studied films you know what I'm talking about - a certain running lenghth, very "showy" performances that were great on the surface but never got into the real personalities of the characters etc.<br /><br />THIS ONE IS DIFFERENT - and light years better and well worth it's nomination for best picture of the year - 1945 (although had no chance of beating the eventual winner - Lost Weekend).<br /><br />Gene Kelly was probably in the best form of his career - yes I know about "American in Paris" and "Singing in the Rain". This one is different. He really gets into his character of a "sea wolf" thinking (at first) that "picking up any girl while on leave" is nothing more than a lark. And if you had to make up a "story" to get her - so be it - until. Sort of like the Music Man when he gets "his foot caught in the door". The eventual hilarity of the film stems mostly from his and his new pal (Sinatra)'s attempt to make the "story" good in order to "get the girl" that he REALLY and unexpectedly falls in love with. You are going to have to see the movie to see what I mean.<br /><br />Besides that there are so many other elements of great film in this one, it's a classic buddy story, nostalgia to a time when WWII was almost over (the war ended about a month after the films release), a realization that a guy that always laughed at life can find out that he really is a great human being, great songs and probably a few other elements of classic film making that I can't think of right now.<br /><br />Why not a 10? Near the end - at nearly 2 1/2 hours starts to feel a bit long. There is a small ballet number that Gene Kelly does that must have been a sensation in 1945 but seems dated and feels like it just adds minutes now. But overall, this ones a definite winner on every level. | positive |
The Woman in Black (1989) is a TV adaptation of Susan Hill's modern classic ghost story, published only a few years earlier than the film was made. Sadly, this film has not been released on DVD, and as far as I am aware it has been deleted on VHS. It's availability is in direct contrast to it's popularity amongst those in the know about horror films. The story revolves around events in a seaside community in the early 20th century where a young solicitor is sent by his firm to conclude the affairs of a recently deceased widow, who died on her isolated marshland estate. What he thought would be a routine and probably tedious task turns into a nightmare as he discovers that the old woman was haunted to her death, and that the ghosts of her past are not content to rest. The story is told in a subtle but concise way, never being self-indulgent, flashy or over-expositional. The obviously tight budget may have contributed to the no-nonsense approach, but it's just what the story needs, and why it works so well. It's what you don't see that scares. Having said that, there is one particularly terrifying scene that relies on the visual, and it works to perfection. I watched this film during the day, and it still gave me nightmares nearly a week later. If you love being terrified, do what you must to get hold of and watch a copy of The Woman In Black. | positive |
It's been a long time since I last saw a movie this bad.. The acting is very average, the story is horribly boring, and I'm at a loss for words as to the execution. It was completely unoriginal. O, and this is as much a comedy as Clint Eastwood's a pregnant Schwarzenegger! <br /><br />One of the first scenes (the one with the television show - where the hell are you?) got it right - the cast was 80% of let's face it - forgotten actors. If they were hoping for a career relaunch, then I think it might never happen with this on their CV! The script had the potential, but neither 80% of the actors nor the director (who's an actor and clearly should stick to being an actor) pulled it off. Fred Durst was the only one who seemed better than any of the rest.<br /><br />I'm sorry, but if you ever consider watching this - I highly recommend you turn to something less traumatic, because not only it's a total loss of time, but also a weak example of what bad cinema looks like. | negative |
2:37 is an intense and fascinating drama which has some similarities in tone and subject with films like Bully, Elephant and Kids (although, by my point of view, 2:37 is a superior film to those three ones).Before watching this movie, my expectations were neutral, but I ended up taking a very good impression thanks to the intelligent screenplay, Murali K. Thalluri's perfect direction and the excellent performances from a group of young actors.<br /><br />The sporadic instances of school violence around the world have inspired many movies, TV programmes and books which pretend to find and predict the external or internal reasons of those unbridled expressions of rebelliousness, discontent...and specially madness.Some people may say that 2:37 arrives too late to that artistic movement; however, I do not think like that, because that delay permitted the movie to make a more artistic analysis, focusing on the situation with more subtleness and intelligence instead of the obvious reaction of cruelty and anguish which impregnated other movies with similar stories.<br /><br />On the characters from 2:37, we can find clichés from the juvenile cinema (from director and screenwriter John Hughes -RIP-'s movies to the teen horror films): the beautiful "princess", the clumsy "nerd", the antipathetic athletes, etc.It would have been very easy to make them become in hollow caricatures defined by their function in the screenplay; but it is something admirable that the screenplay transcends the stereotypes to make them real people with credible problems which, in more or less degree, any person can find on his/her road to maturity.<br /><br />2:37 is an excellent movie, whose only fail is that the ending feels a bit affected, but which compensates that with a lot of positive elements.It will be very interesting to see Thalluri's next projects, since he has had a great debut with this movie. | positive |
all i have to say is if you don't like it then there is something wrong with you. plus Jessica is just all kinds of hot!!!!! the only reason you may not like it is because it is set in the future where Seattle has gone to hell. that and you my not like it cause the future they show could very well happen. | positive |
This movie was a total yawnfest that took forever to get going, but never really did. It was simply boring to watch, so much in fact I could just never really get into it. This movie is not a horror movie by an stretch of the imagination, the cover of the videotape made it out to be one. Instead it is a thriller type movie with a few elements of horror thrown in as to make the movie more interesting. Of course, it does not help this movie at all. Mostly all I remember is that this movie was kind of like a movie from the 1970's called "The Deep". Bunch of looking for treasure, rival groups that sort of thing. There are supernatural twists in it too, but to tell you the truth I was so bored when watching this movie that I kind of zoned out so I can not really tell you what the supernatural elements were. I kind of remember footprints on the bottom of the sea so maybe it was some sort of walking dead, or that may be me thinking of Lucio Fulcio's "Zombie" movie instead as that one was a horror movie that was set in a tropical island and as outlandish as that one was it was a lot more entertaining than this movie. That day we learned a valuable lesson, never rent a movie based on its cover art. | negative |
This movie was better than I expected. I don't think it deserved an R rating, though. I've seen PG-13 films with worse language and violence. I found this movie entertaining and I enjoyed it. If you're a person who dissects everything, you might find a lot wrong with it, but if you take it for its face value, I think you'll find it entertaining. | positive |
This is a decent little flick made in Michigan, about a guy that is haunted by his past, with his abusive stepfather (Gunnar Hansen) and has grown up not-so-well-adjusted. In fact, he's absolutely bonkers, but tries not to be too obvious. He's got an entourage too, his own little demon & angel that follow him around. The demon never says a word but really, doesn't have to, and he's Max Schreck-creepy. Let's just say that the angel pretty much spins his wheels in this, as Eric is busy doing things that make him feel better, like "freeing" people that he decides need it, mostly beautiful young women. This is a decent portrayal of madness, and you're kind of on your own at some point to figure out some of what's going on, but overall, I watched this from start to finish very focused on the film because it definitely held my interest. It's a little lacking in some areas but nothing I can really lay my finger on. A decent effort and worth seeing IF you like serial killer flicks. | positive |
The thing viewers will remember most is the bad headache the movie has given them due to the overly flashy, shaky, camera-work and the fast, confusing cutting. I am not against those kind of stylistic devices if they are done right like Oliver Stone and Steven Soderbergh proof with most of their movies, but in this case there was WAY too much. It seems like the jump-cuts and light flashes that accompanied every flight over Mexico city and every important scene were there to distract you from realizing that the story is quite thin and the whole thing was very predictable. The biggest disappointment lies in the fact that you can easily figure out how the whole thing is going to end. For a movie that pretends to be violent, ruthless and morally corrupt it is inexcusable that it's story has been told so many times and with a lot more depth and character development. That is another disappointing aspect of the movie. If I want to watch an over the top action flick I do not need any justification, but this movie tried to justify the killing spree of Denzel Washington's character and poorly failed in delivering any believable performances. The first half hour or so nothing much happens except that dumb archetypes and clichés are portrayed and when the action machine starts rolling it is so quickly cut that you do not know what really happens. So the movie does not work either on the level of a believable drama/thriller , nor as a pure action movie. Of course the movie is not as bad as some oft the totally messed up blockbusters of the last years, but I absolutely cannot understand why so many people claim this movie to be something fresh and so cool. For a video clip it is way too long and for a movie it has too little substance. | negative |
'Never Been Kissed' is a real feel good film. If you haven't seen it yet, then rent it out. I am going to buy it when its released because I loved it. Drew Barrymore is excellent again, she plays her part well. I felt I could relate to this film because of the school days I had were just as bad. I thought the plot was well written, there was comedy and romance which are the type of films I love. I loved the ending because even though you know what's going to happen, it still leaves you sitting on the edge of your seat waiting - anticipating!! | positive |
This is a quite slow paced movie, slowly building the story of an ex stripper who begins a new family life with a complete stranger. The viewer slowly feels that there's something wrong here ...<br /><br />I really loved this movie even though it leaves a slight bitter taste in the end. It is clever, well paced and very well acted. Both Philippe Toretton and Emmannuelle Seigner are deeply into their characters. <br /><br />The little son "pierrot" is also very touching.<br /><br />A thriller which does not seem like one. A very unconventional movie, very particular atmosphere throughout the whole movie though you might feel awkward a few times with a couple of scenes.<br /><br />i'll give it a 8/10 !! | positive |
I usually don't walk out of a movie, but halfway thru I did. This movie promised something different, but I kept thinking haven't I seen that before? Spoiler Alert! Back in 1, the spaceship crashes and lands on earth, well, all these years later, with a super adult on board no less, this thing still manages to burn up and crash! What, this advanced civilization can't seem to develop landing gear? For an industry that's so liberal, we get to see another Woody Allen movie, no blacks please! Superman runs around saving people, making sure he sticks to Europe and the US, don't go into darkie areas please. Maybe I could stomach this about 30 years ago, but now now. | negative |
Journalist Bob Woodward's blistering, scattershot and sometimes suspect account of actor John Belushi's rise and fall becomes a wholly misjudged movie, a nebulous "fantasy" directed by Larry Peerce as if he were doing something edgy and vital. Michael Chiklis (years before his breakthrough on "The Shield") is put in the unenviable position of portraying Belushi, taking a post-mortem trip through his life, recreating those "Saturday Night Live" skits which are now part of TV history. It's like watching someone try to out-Lucy Lucille Ball--it can't be done. The reason why there was such sorrow at Belushi's death was because he was one of a kind. Chiklis makes a commendable attempt at looking the part, and he's funny in an early scene trying to escape from the morgue. Still, it's an uphill venture and no actor--no matter how talented--could have saved it. * from **** | negative |
This crew-versus-monsta has been done a hundred times, sometimes better. This one was pretty slow-moving ; only the monster's resurrection was really worthwhile. Attempts at character developments gets botched by routine. Yeah, "routine" is the word. Went straight to video in France. No wonder | negative |
This movie is the first of the six infamous Guinea Pig Movies and is one of the best. At the same time, it looks realistic and unrealistic, just knowing that the movie is fake. The story is about a woman who got captured and is tortured in a lot of different ways. A man in the beginning of the story receives a letter without a return address, and it includes a manga video, showing the torture. The men who capture her are testing the limits of a human before they die. Some scenes are shocking, such as the eyeball scene and others are not shocking like the girl being punched 100 times, because you see punches in nearly every movie. This movie has a lot of gore so I would recommend this to people 17 or older.<br /><br />9/10 | positive |
Contains *spoilers* - also, my quotes may not be exact.<br /><br />Everyone always notes the satire in social commentary and economic parallels - how true. But to me, I see this movie as much more than that. I love the symbolism of this guy in a glowing white suit. There is so much confusion and filth in the world around him, but it won't stick. Alec Guiness was the perfect guy to play this - his boyish grins and eternal curiousity are so appropriate:<br /><br />"That's ingenious - can you tell me, what is the ratio of ink to petrol?"<br /><br />The only moment of defeat is when he realizes that his invention hasn't worked after all - standing there almost naked. Yet, more than shame is the simple disappointment that "it didn't work." He's never really intimidated by people. Remember,<br /><br />"But Sidney, we want to stop it too."<br /><br />Barely a moments hesitation before he's off trying to get away again. Does he show any sign of the pain such a betrayal must've caused? No.<br /><br />Also notable is Dapne's role. She is sick and tired of money and power. She thinks she's finally found love, outside of her father's company. At first she doesn't really care about Sidney anymore than anyone else. But that moment when he falls off her car and she goes back to see if maybe she killed him - and yet he is still thinking only of the beauty of his invention. She's finally found something she thinks is worth living for. The funny thing is that it's not even romance. It is friendship, but of such an ephemeral nature that the title almost doesn't fit. It's more admiration, and perhaps even inspiration.<br /><br />Upon her discovery that Michael has no real love for her, and that her father is completely incompetent to take care of her, she gives into cynicism and tries to temp Sidney. Fortunately she finds that there really are people in this world living for more than power, money and lust. What a refreshment:<br /><br />"Thank you Sidney. If you would've said 'yes' I think I'd have strangled you."<br /><br />I love the very end, when all of this crazy business seems to have come to nothing. But then, the bubbly, quirky beat starts up and Sidney goes off, his stride matching the tune: dauntless. Where is Daphne? We don't really know - but they weren't really in love and she wasn't really a scientist. He got help escaping and she got "a shot in the arm of hope." (Pollyanna) A cont'd relationship would've been nice, but as Billy Joel says "it's more than I'd hoped for..."<br /><br /> | positive |
Perhaps, one of the most important and enjoyable Greek films i've seen in the last ten years..Excellent performances(especially yiannis zouganelis is great), well-written script and effective direction from a very special, for the Greek very average standards, auteur. A film, obviously influenced by Sam Peckinpah's Straw Dogs, that could be a masterpiece if it avoided some evident and exaggerative situations and symbolizations in the end. Nevertheless, this is a movie which deserves our attention and belongs to that rare category of Greek movies which should be watched outside Greece. It's a shame that in Greece didn't work commercially, in addition with other fake and cursory big productions like Politiki Kouzina.. | positive |
First, an explanation: Despite my headline, I'm giving this film only 8 stars because overall this is NOT one of the best films ever made. All the criticisms registered here have valid points. Also, be warned that to enjoy the script you really need to appreciate Neil Simon's brilliance with finding the wit within real human banter. He does have a distinctively New York ear for dialogue -- especially dry, Jewish, love-suffused sarcasm -- and if you have trouble accepting sarcasm as an expression of love, then you might have trouble accepting the optimism at the heart of this movie.<br /><br />So much for warnings. Here's my main point: Walter Matthau is flat-out perfect, even beyond perfect, in this movie. I have never seen him funnier, or more touching for that matter -- because at the same time that he shows us the hilariousness of this character who refuses to give up his Big Star self-image or insufferable attitudes even as his coherence is in decline, he also shows us the more vulnerable, maybe even heartbreakingly scared person inside the grouch. And he only barely shows us that sad part -- it's just enough to really get to you if you happen to be coping with your own father's or husband's mental decline right now (I mention this as a warning), but artistically, it's just enough pathos to give this character the most authentically deep roots I'm seen in possibly any film performance. This is beyond Method acting -- Matthau's performance is exquisite as character work and a pure delight as comic delivery. This is a masterpiece of comic acting.<br /><br />About Richard Benjamin: I personally find his acting annoying in general, and his work in this movie is no exception -- although he has some fine moments here. ("Chicken is funny...." is one of them.) So if you like him, you should like him here, and if you don't this movie won't change your mind.<br /><br />About the 1976 Oscars...I agree that Matthau was unfortunate to be up against Nicholson in "Cuckoo's Nest" that year. It was a killer year for leading-actor competition; if only there were separate Oscars for comedy and drama, then I think the Best Actor Oscars would have gone to Al Pacino for "Dog Day Afternoon" and to Walter Matthau for "The Sunshine Boys" -- not to dis Jack's fine work as McMurphy, but I think that Pacino and Matthau were each CLEARLY more masterful and astoundingly effective and downright legendary in their performances than Nicholson was that year. Also, I believe that Burns got the Supporting Actor Oscar more for sentimental reasons than for the quality of his performance -- I mean, he was good in this movie, but not THAT good. (Burns's fine-as-ever but unexceptional-in-itself return to show biz beat Brad Dourif's truly brilliant debut in "Cuckoo's Nest," not to mention Chris Sarandon's stunning debut in "Dog Day Afternoon" -- which I think proves my theory.) <br /><br />Oscar theories aside, here's my bottom line review: If you like Matthau's comic acting, then see this movie and savor his powerhouse tirades and wonderful grandmother-inspired gestures, fleeting facial expressions and seemingly unscripted asides. (But if you're currently dealing with the pain of watching an old person lose his grip, then be warned that this movie might either be the comic relief you need or a dose of reality too painful to watch right now.) | positive |
There were so many classic movies that were made where the leading people were out-and- out liars and yet they are made to look good. I never bought into that stuff. The "screwball comedies" were full of that stuff and so were a lot of the Fred Astaire films.<br /><br />Here, Barbara Stanwyck plays a famous "country" magazine writer who has been lying to the public for years, and feels she has to keep lying to keep her persona (and her job). She even lies to a guy about getting married, another topic that was always trivialized in classic films.<br /><br />She's a New York City woman who pretends she's a great cook and someone who knows how to handle babies, etc. Obviously she knows nothing and the lies pile up so fast you lose track. I guess all of that is supposed to be funny because lessons are learned in the end and true love prevails, etc. etc. Please pass the barf bag.<br /><br />Most of this film is NOT funny. Stanwyck was far better in the film noir genre. As for Dennis Morgan, well, pass the bag again. | negative |
Another movie that makes the story of The Beach Boys worse than it is. I especially remember the scene when Brian says he's to quit touring and the other Boys calls him traitor. I didn't happen like that, and like the movie indicates in the beginning is that some scenes are over-reacted. A movie about The Beach Boys doesn't have to be that way because a lot of things happened anyway. The sad thing is that this movie gives the wrong picture about the boys to those who ain't so familiar with the group. Hard-core fans like myself knew that this isn't the entire true story and that's why i gave it a low rating 3. However it is the best movie about The Beach Boys I've seen so far, that says quite a bit about the other movies. If you want the truth I recommend the documentary Endless Harmony. | negative |
Some critics found this film bleak, but for me there was enough good humour and optimism to overcome this impression. For example, the quietly positive and stoic character of the daughter is the still centre of the film, often counterbalancing the unhappy aspects of the setting and plotline.<br /><br />The film is full of original ideas and characters, and the final outcome is not predictable: I felt it could've gone either way.<br /><br />By the way, many reviews I've read mention the effective use of black and white, but the print I saw, shown on the SBS TV network here in Australia, was in full colour.<br /><br /> | positive |
Unless you are between the ages of 10 and 14 (except for the R rating), there are very few things to like here. One or two lines from Kenan Thompson, David Koechner (we really should see him more) and Sam Jackson are humorous and Julianna Margulies is as good as she can be considering her surroundings, but sadly, that's it. Poor plot. Poor acting. Worse writing and delivery. The special effects are dismal. As much as the entire situation is an odd and awful joke, the significant individual embedded situations are all equally terrible. If we consider the action portions, well there are unbelievable action sequences in some films that make you giddy and there are some that make you groan. This movie only contains the latter kind. This leaves little left. I'm so glad I did not pay for this.<br /><br />Despite any hype, I can read and think, so as I sat down to watch, I did not expect anything good. I had no expectations, but was somewhat worried going in. Yet, like a train wreck, one cannot merely look away. And even with no expectations, I was let down. Bad. Not even 'so bad, it's good' material. I'm _very_ tolerant of bad movies, but this makes "Six String Samurai" (which I liked) Oscar worthy.<br /><br />No, this piece of over CGI'd rubbish is in the same company as Battlefield Earth, Little Man and Gigli. How this is currently rated a 7.2 completely mystifies me. Brainwashing or somehow stacking the voting system is all that I can think of as answers.<br /><br />I could go on and on but suffice to say that tonight, I witnessed a train wreck. I need to go wash my eyes. 1 of 10 | negative |
I'm serious as well, I mean don't get me wrong, if you haven't got a bent for this type of Z grade, creaky creature feature {why would you be watching is my first thought?} then it's a rating of about 3 to 4 out of 10 tops, but to me it's a special kind of nonsense that takes me back to a nice time in my childhood. You know the kind, the memories that never leave you. Eagerly taking it all in with youthful wonderment as Doug McClure and Peter Cushing tunnel beneath the mantle to do battle with a host of creatures and sub-human species'. And guys,! now we are all grown up we can admire most seriously at the wonder of Caroline Munro and her heaving cleavage. No wonder my older brother was keen to take me to the cinema to see this one!.<br /><br />Yes the effects are bad, men in suits, strings pinging parrot monsters around and exploding rubber frog like thingies amuse us greatly. And yes, Cushing and a surprisingly pudgy McClure act as if they have truly been mesmerised by the evil Meyhas at the "core" of our film. But it matters not, zany and clunky and awash in glorious colour, At The Earth's Core is a throwback to a special pre-ILM time when kids like me queued around the block to see such joyous nonsense. 8/10 | positive |
For the record, I am a Curly fan through and through. But I do have to say that in reality, Shemp wasn't really that bad. Yeah, he might have lacked the same kind of slapstick that Curly had, but in his own way he was hilarious. At least he wasn't as bad as Joe Besser.<br /><br />In BRIDELESS GROOM, Shemp plays a music professor (Stooge? A professor? Yeah right), who recently inherited a half million dollars from a dead uncle, and Moe & Larry have to prepare him to marry a woman by six o'clock that night, or no money.<br /><br />This was one of the Stooges' first skit with Shemp, before they started recycling their material. Perhaps it isn't surprising that Shemp was part of the Stooges before Curly came into the picture, so he seemed natural at this. The slapstick gags are hilarious, especially this one scene with Moe and Shemp in a phone booth. Essential Stooge short to be honest. | positive |
If you fast forward through the horrible singing, you will find a classic fairy tale underneath. Christopher Walken is very humorous and surprisingly good in the role. His trademark style of acting works well for the sly Puss in Boots. The other actors are well for their parts. I did not find any of the acting terribly fake or awkward. The king in particular appears a real dunce though, and I wonder if he is supposed to be. I can not remember the original tale. The special effects are typical of the eighties, but at least they are not overly fake like some of the computer generated fare that we see today. Overall, I recommend this movie for children and adults who are a child at heart. | positive |
I'm not a fan of scratching, but I really dug this movie. It gave me a real insight into a world I never had a clue existed; and what else is a documentary for? Funny, clever, hip - just like Pray's previous film, Hype! about the grunge music scene. | positive |
Pros: Nothing<br /><br />Cons: Everything<br /><br />Plot summary: A female reporter runs into a hitchhiker that tells her stories about the deaths of people that were killed by zombies.<br /><br />Review: Never in my life have I come across a movie as bad The Zombie Chronicles. Filmed on a budget of what looks to be about 20 bucks, TZC is a completely horrible horror movie that relies on lame, forgetable actors whom couldn't act to save their lives and gore that's more gross than frightening. How does a movie like this even get made? Simply put, avoid TZC like a sexually-transmitted disease.<br /><br />My last 2 cents: Humorously enough, this movie was made by a movie company called Brain Damage Films. They're brains must have really been damaged to come up with a craptacular movie like this.<br /><br />My rating: 1 out of 10(If it were up to me, this movie would get the rating of negative bajillion) | negative |
Worthless movie. A complete waste of time and nothing what I expected it to be. The packaging makes it seem as if it is of the American Pie genre (it isn't). rather it is a ridiculous stringing together of coincidences that makes the movie seem more like a writing exercise (let's try to see how many mix ups we can write in to make what should have been a bad SNL skit into a full length feature presentation). What is remarkable is that the director's (based on their commentary on the DVD) take themselves completely seriously. I have been a huge fan of the movies that National Lampoon lends its name to, up to and including Van Wilder. With this one, I feel completely cheated. In fact, I FEEL DUPED. I was expecting a Van Wilder like farce to relive my college days but instead was served an hour and a half of garbage. What lead to my ultimately unmet expectations? Well, for starters, the fact that the cast all appear naked (with an enormous sausage covering what must be covered) on the COVER of the DVD. Add to that the imagery on the back of the case as well as the description and you mislead people into thinking this is a movie that it is not. To make matters worse, the movie starts off as one might expect it too with half-naked drunk college students feebly trying a photo stunt, but ultimately this has nothing whatsoever to do with the movie. In fact, I didn't even realize that the people in that opening sequence where supposed to be the characters in the movie until I was told so by the directors in the commentary. Don't get me wrong, I love plot twists and being surprised by movies, but I hate the fact that this movie tries to pawn itself off as something it is not. Ultimately, it does itself a huge disservice (artistically, though most likely not financially) because it sets its audience up for confusion and disappointment simply because it neglects to deliver what it advertises. <br /><br />In short, do not rent this movie based on what you see on the case. It is not your usual National Lampoon movie. The only thing funny about it is the fact that many of the actors have appeared in other movies and TV shows that make their involvement here entertaining. | negative |
OK. So it's a low-budget "film" (I used the quotes because it was shot in Hi-8 video). The acting is universally horrid, the makeup is laughable (the blood looks like it came from Sherwin-Williams and I've seen more convincing bruises made from halloween ghoul kits), and the lighting generally looks like they used someone's borrowed Toyota pickup to shine headlights on the actors.<br /><br />I might be able to forgive these low-budget traits if there were some actual content, if a movie made an attempt to tell a story. But this collection of video footage can boast of no plot, no real characters, and no momentum. It's a self-indulgent mess.<br /><br />And don't worry -- no spoilers here, 'cause there's absolutely nothing to spoil. | negative |
The silent one-panel cartoon Henry comes to Fleischer Studios, billed as "The world's funniest human" in this dull little cartoon. Betty, long past her prime, thanks to the Production Code, is running a pet shop and leaves Henry in charge for far too long -- five minutes. A bore. | negative |
The film is about a sabretooth on the lose at a amusement park where teens are on a scavenger hunt. Since there are no rules they break into a building and start getting killed off. The deaths are cheesy and are dumb. But at least it had better effects then sabretooth. I gave it a three because Stacy was in it and I loved the movie Sabretooth. I thought it was okay but some deaths were off-screen. There was a dumb scene where the two teens kiss and the sabretooth's head pops out and the boy leaves his girlfriend behind leaving her to have her totally fake looking red guts out. Then the sabretooth gets up in the vents and bites the kids head off. The end death with the owner was totally fake looking graphics. Even that death was stupid because the statues tooth went through his mouth and hangs there like that will support it and there is a scene when a goth girl loses her contacts doesn't find them, and seems like she doesn't need the. The film is idiotic and a waste of time. | negative |
Good show.<br /><br />The basic background is that humanity is at a crossroads. There is a set of moral dilemmas that are being faced. Mankind has made a number of technological breakthroughs, but is mankind mature enough to deal with the its new toys? There is moral decadence in a virtual world. There are religious fanatics who are willing to kill to get attention. I predict (based on the BSG background) that there will be an issue with Cylons and slavery. In addition to this, there are all the other problems that we humans bring upon ourselves.<br /><br />This show is not BSG -- at least not as far as mankind being on the run from a ruthless problem that was ultimately of their own making. There are not a lot of shoot-em-up or space-based special effects either - at least not in the first few episodes I have seen so far.<br /><br />What it does have are very good stories, characters, and themes. It also has good performances from the actors. They can make a culture which is similar to modern-day society, but alien at the same time be completely believable. Like BSG, this show is about humanity - our strengths, weaknesses, potential, and flaws. It may seem a little odd that a human society on a different set of worlds has neckties, antique cars, and chicken. But those things are really more to create a semi-familiar background than anything else. Anyone who gets stuck on those details is really missing the point. Whether you are from a mafia-style culture or an affluent and high-tech culture, humans and human nature aren't that different 150,000 years ago in a high-tech past than what we see in the world today. Wonder if the writers are trying to tell us something. | positive |
According to the article at http://blog.ifeng.com/article/2737487.html, one of the actors in the film, Carina Lau, was forced to appear in this movie for free. She was the victim of an infamous kidnapping shortly before this movie was made, and later photos of her in distress were published in a magazine, which has since been forced to shut down and its publisher sent to jail. The actress denies she was assaulted but there was a movie leaked on net that allegedly showed her being gang-raped. (The Hong Kong press, out of respect for her, has mostly refused to report on the incident, but google will turn up a few articles about it.) | negative |
This is the first and as far as I can tell, the only completed production of "Heart of Darkness" ever released. Prior to starting on "Citizen Kane," Orson Welles shot some test footage for a version of "Heart of Darkness" that was to be filmed entirely in what would now be called "POV", where we would see everything from the point of view of the main character Charlie Marlow; he would be seen only fleetingly in mirrors, windows, water, etc. The film was never made. The "POV" technique was used, not too successfully, in 1947 in "The Lady in the Lake," with Robert Montgomery starring as Philip Marlowe. Presumably, the coincidence of the two "Marlow(e)" characters is just that. Of course, Francis Coppola's "Apocalypse Now" was based on "Heart of Darkness."<br /><br />The short novel "Heart of Darkness" by the Polish-born British writer Joseph Conrad, first serialized in a British literary magazine in 1899, features one of his favorite alter egos, ship captain Charlie Marlow, who also narrates the short story "Youth" and indirectly tells the story of "Lord Jim." Marlow, temporarily out of work, decides to take a job captaining a river boat for a Belgian company involved in the brutal exploitation of the resources of King Leopold II's personal fiefdom, the cruelly misnamed Congo Free State. Marlow travels from London to Brussels, signs on with the company, and is told that his mission is to take a boat up the Congo River to a far inland station headed by one of the company's most productive agents in the colony, a German named Kurtz. Shipments of ivory, latex (for the production of rubber) and other products from Kurtz's station have ceased, and no word has come downriver from Kurtz for some time. There are rumors that he has "gone native." Marlow is to investigate, take any necessary action, and make a report on his return. He takes passage down the West African coast to the mouth of the Congo, is delayed for weeks while he is forced to repair his boat at the company station on the coast, and finally sets out upriver to find Kurtz's station. The river, the heat, the vegetation, the wildlife, the insects, the people, all take their toll on his endurance, his imagination, and his mental resources. He finds Kurtz ill, half-mad, and close to death. The final encounter and the death of Kurtz are almost an anticlimax, especially since Conrad is so obscure about what actually happens that we are left to puzzle it out for ourselves. This is a novel where you close the book vaguely dissatisfied with the ending but nevertheless treasuring the story for its amazing atmospherics.<br /><br />This "Heart of Darkness" was filmed with Guyana in Central America standing in for West Africa. It is best where the novel is at its greatest disadvantage: Actually showing us First World urbanites what a boat trip up a tropical river would look like. But the rest of the film was forgettable. Tim Roth does his best as Marlow, but so much about the plot, characterizations, and character relationships has been altered beyond recognition that you wonder why they bothered. If the aim was to make Conrad's story for the screen, why didn't they leave it alone? It's unreasonable to expect that no compromises will be made when a book is made into a movie, but so many changes were made that to me had no cinematic justification that you wonder whether we are simply dealing with incompetent screenwriters and cinematographers. Most disappointing of all was John Malkovich as Kurtz. He was completely miscast and simply flubs the role. Everything about him is wrong: His looks, his acting style, his voice, his accent, everything. A vastly better choice would have been someone like Bruno Ganz (unlike Malkovich, an actual German, like the character).<br /><br />This is a very disappointing production and I would recommend it only after you've read the book if you want to depend on more than your imagination to get a visual picture of a boat trip up the Congo River circa 1900. | negative |
This film is a complete re-imagining of Romeo and Juliet in Tel Aviv and Nablus. The lovers are one from Tel Aviv et the other from Nablus. There is a border between them, and a constant state of war with the Israeli army ever present everywhere and the Palestinian militants everywhere else with their bombs. The situation is bleak enough. We can imagine love in that enormous loveless trap. But the film goes several light years further by imagining the two lovers are gay, Noam from Tel Aviv and Ashraf from Nablus. To be gay is accepted in Tel Aviv. It is off limits in Nablus. The conflict between the two peoples, the two communities is thus doubled with a conflict between two cultures, two ethics. But this could even be livable if the war did not bring some extra dimension. Ashraf's sister is going to get married to a militant activist in Nablus. Ashraf finally tells his sister about his being gay. She cannot accept it but accepts to speak about it later. From the wedding itself the newly married husband sends a commando into Tel Aviv to set up a bomb attack. It takes place in a café in Tel Aviv and one friend of Noam's is severely wounded. Bad enough. The Isareli army sends a commando to Nablus to arrest the person responsible for this attack, but it turns sour and the newly married wife is shot dead in the street. The funeral follows the wedding. The husband and widower volunteers for a suicide bomb attack. Ashraf volunteers to take his place. The exiled lover comes back to Tel Aviv to die and kill a few people to avenge his sister. He arrives at a diner managed by some friends of Noam's. But Noam sees him and gets out to speak to him. Ashraf has moved back to the middle of the street and he detonates his bomb when Noam reaches him in the street. The vengeance reunites the two lovers in death. We thus have the dual conflict but we do not have the Prince of Verona, a neutral character that can impose peace, or even worse the Prince seems to have chosen sides and to be on the side of Israel. The game is entirely false and death is sure on both sides. But the dimension of impossible love is all the stronger because it is redoubled by a play in the film, a play that shows love in Auschwitz, between two prisoners, one wearing a yellow star and the other a pink triangle. This is both strikingly strong and breathtakingly shocking: gay love in Auschwitz. What comes out of the film is that over there in Tel Aviv or Nablus love is impossible. The film is thus a denunciation of the conflict in Palestine that cannot but continue though it has no reason to even exist though it has thousands of reasons to go on. We should never have let Great Britain deal with the region a long time ago. Today we have to find a solution in which no one will be humiliated. This will only be able to succeed if everyone comes together in order to find a lasting solution. But so far everyone is trying to avoid that general confrontation and discussion preferring bilateral manipulations. So suffering will go on and love will be forbidden, of course not sex since children are needed for the war to go on: so let's procreate more and more little soldiers. But love is just an extra-terrestrial concept.<br /><br />Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris Dauphine & University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne | positive |
In the immortal "Shaun of the Dead", we are introduced to a London where the slackers and the high-and-mighty alike are forced to battle flesh-eating, reanimated corpse versions of their friends and family. At the end of the film, it is suggested that the zombies are rendered harmless and used as cheap labour. "Fido" presents us with an epilogue to "Shaun" set in 1950's America, in a hilariously witty and original "what-if...?" movie.<br /><br />The film is set post-zombie-apocalypse, for a change; after the terrors of the Zombie Wars, ended by the creation of the ZomCon company and their patented zombie collars which make the corpses as docile as lambs. Every town in the world is fenced off from the Wild Zone, the once-fertile landscape torn asunder by the surviving zombies and left-overs from the apocalyptic wars. The idyllic town of Willard is your typical, pristine 50's suburbia, with one small difference; social status is measured by a family's amount of domesticated zombies. Unfortunately, the Robinson family has no zombies whatsoever, due to their patriarch, Bill's, fear of the reanimated dead. Timmy Robinson and his mother Helen both suffer from the pressures of suburban life, until the day that Helen purchases a zombie servant in a desperate attempt to impress the neighbours.<br /><br />The zombie earns Timmy's love when he rescues him from a pair of violent bullies, and the two form a bond to rival the classic "boy-and-his-dog" cliché... a boy and his zombie. Timmy names his "pet" Fido, and he soon becomes an aid for both Timmy and Helen to escape the prison-like routine Bill has put them in. But when Fido's domestication collar goes on the fritz and he devours the elderly Mrs Henderson, the Robinsons have to contain their connection the sudden wild zombie epidemic and still manage to keep their beloved Fido.<br /><br />A film whose sharp wit and satirical gore carry it just as much as its all-star cast (including "The Matrix"'s Carrie-Anne Moss as Helen Robinson and Billy Connelly as Fido), "Fido" is a zom-com for the ages. With some rather twisted subplots - for example, the sweet and unsettling feelings that Helen and Fido begin to have for each other - and a poignant commentary on 50's suburbia and the zombie genre, the film manages to bring out the worst (and the best) in its characters while still enabling you to care for them.<br /><br />"Fido" is, by far, one of the best dark comedies I've ever seen, one of the best films that I've seen in a long time, and THE best zom-com since the incredible "Shaun of the Dead". | positive |
warning:It contains spoilers. If a movie starts with a sex scene then it's a bad movie. (see for example 300). This one confirms the above lemma. The second scene constitutes the spinning center of all the action. The fact that we know the end makes the movie boring. Even more, other plots are revealed as the story goes back and forth several times. And this made more frustrated. To compensate the consequent lack of suspense, we learn more and more about how unbalanced are the characters. And oh yes, they have lots to show. Andy (P.Hoffman), for example, is a drug addict, more?, he is cheating his wife, more?, he plans to rob his father, more?, his wife is cheating with his brother, more?, he doesn't regret his complicity to his mother's death, more?, he is a serial killer, more? etc etc it's not enough space to write here... I wonder how could he have a top job. And why his wife didn't leave him before. On the other hand I enjoy much the performances of the actor Hoffman.<br /><br />Even here PSH saves what is left from my 7$ spent for this absurdity. Why absurdity? Because it doesn't have sense, why should I care for the despicable characters? Another broken lemma is that a movie should have a sympathetic( at least pleasant) character. <br /><br />Also it's a lot of sentimentality, for example we are supposed to care for the sufferance of the widowed father without knowing anything about the parents'lives before the crime. | negative |
A small-town schoolteacher (Geena Davis) slowly begins to realize that she has suffered amnesia and really use to be a secret government assassin! Soon, there are men after her and a small-time private detective (Samuel L. Jackson).<br /><br />This was action-packed, with some great special effects and really funny one-liners (especially from Jackson). Although the action may get a little silly at times, who cares? After all, aren't movies meant to be a good time?<br /><br />Craig Bierko is fun as a ruthless villain. The movie itself was an all-around good time. Just don't expect to have to think too much about it because then, if you take it too seriously, then the movie actually won't be fun but stupid instead.<br /><br />This movie doesn't deserve to be called stupid or any other bad name. | positive |
Golden Boy is in my opinion one the sleeper / lost treasures animes out there. A sexy comedy, about a young man quest to find his nitch in life and he blunders into all sort of odd jobs that somehow has this rather sexy girl who ultimately falls for him but he not really realizing it! Its truly something that you can easily miss if you at the name, but once viewing it...will fall for the comedy/silliness that lies inside. Truly a crime that only produced 6 OVA episodes and pilot movie were made. However, being unique as it is. I'm surprised it survived to produce that many. If you want a good laugh, with high quality anime that is (100% CGI free), check this anime out. Boy who one day may save the world....or maybe not. | positive |
This review contains a partial spoiler.<br /><br />Shallow from the outset, 'D.O.A.' at least starts as if it might be a slick, entertaining piece of nonsense like Fincher's 'The Game'. It's central character(Dennis Quaid) suffers from a nightmarish sequence of events that appear to be setting up a twisted and cunning thriller. But the plot rattles along at too great a pace, leading to a dramatic twist not half way through, when the character learns that he has been poisoned and has only 1-2 days to live. And this, simply, is too big a twist to add casually to a story. Once this has happened, the film's only chance of success is if it treats the psychology of someone in this situation as its principal, indeed, its only subject matter: but 'D.O.A.' continues as if this was just a normal revelation like any other you might usually encounter in a thriller. The problem is two-fold: firstly, Quaid's actions don't convince as what someone is his situation would be likely to do; and secondly, even if they did convince, it's hard to care about what happens next when the most significant point of plot has already been prematurely resolved. The rest of the film is pretty standard fare for a film of this sort, but made more tedious than usual by the character's slightly-treated predicament, which logically dwarfs the events the film is interested in. Dennis Quaid, in the lead role, doesn't convince either as a burnt out professor or as a man who is destined to die: Meg Ryan is, as often, ditzy and annoying. Another negative feature is the ugly 80s soundtrack. Watch 'The Game' instead, which from similar roots remains tight and character-driven, whereas 'D.O.A.' drifts into developments that only undermine its own premise. As the premise is itself quite intriguing, it's a shame to see it drowned in a surplus of over-cooked plot. | negative |
Just love the interplay between two great characters of stage & screen - Veidt & Barrymore | positive |
As much as I love Rodney Dangerfield, this was a terrible movie. The plot was kind of a holistic rip off of various movies, but unfortunately they forgot to rip off any good jokes. In addition it was annoying and boring and that's being kind. If you're looking for a good laugh, rent a copy of Private Parts. | negative |
This movie could have had a lot of potential. Certainly with today's technology, one would expect real special effects. But movies are not made with special effects alone, of course acting is needed. This film lacked both!<br /><br />First, let me say to those who are upset with this not following the bible: why can't a movie take artistic license? If you want to know about the story of Moses, read the bible. I have seen very few movies that follow a true story fact by fact. Look at of movie from its artistic quailities.<br /><br />In viewing this movie, you will inevitably compare it to the 1956 version. It fails miserably in that. Heston and Brenner had PRESENCE. They became their roles. You don't see this here.<br /><br />Even if you don't compare, standing on it's own, this movie to too rushed. Parts where a scene should be developed, it does not. It becomes boring.<br /><br />My advice: skip this and watch the other. As campy as the other is, it's far and away the better movie. | negative |
PLOT IN A NUTSHELL: Dave Seville, father figure & manager of the Chipmunk brothers Alvin, Simon & Theodore, has gone off to Europe on a business trip, leaving the boys at home with Miss Miller as their watcher, much to the chagrin of Alvin, who wanted to go to Europe. While playing against his female counterpart, Brittany, the leader of the Chipettes, comprised of her younger sisters Jeanette (the female counterpart of Simon) and Eleanor (the female counterpart of Theodore) in a fierce arcade game of Around the World in 30 Days, they catch the attention of two evil foreign siblings who need to smuggle money & diamonds around the world, but need a way to do it that won't draw the attention of their arch enemy, Jamal. The 2 evil siblings, Claudia & Klaus, overhear the banter between Alvin & Brittany and decide to use them as the delivery boys & girls for their loot (more Claudia's idea than Klaus's, the latter initially objects feeling that it's too dangerous for children). The 2 siblings make an offer to the boys & girls - travel via air balloons to 12 drop off points to leave dolls (which resemble the kids) that contain diamonds and/or money to indicate their arrival, with the promise that whoever wins the race will get an obscene amount of money. But as the two different set of talking animal siblings make their rounds, they are stalked by the henchmen of Jamal - but who is Jamal? Is he friend or foe? <br /><br />OVERALL: Enjoyable, lighthearted farce based on the 1980s TV series version of Alvin & the Chipmunks. Beautiful animation is a highlight, lacks the crude humor that keeps creeping into today's family films and engaging songs (Boys & Girls of Rock & Roll being a stand out). Eagle eyed fans will probably notice that Brittany's character design has been tweaked from the animated series, giving her a less round face while adding a seemingly permanent blush to cheeks (which Jeanette & Eleanor also display).<br /><br />Keep an ear out for Nancy Cartwright, the voice of Bart Simpson. | positive |
I loved this film because of the dialog and superb acting by Candace and Jacqueline. However, I never knew until now, watching a Bette David marathon on TNT that this film is a remake of a 1943 Bette Davis classic called Old Acquaintance. Bette co-stars with Miriam Hopkins who she was in a terrible feud with during the making of the movie because Bette had had an affair with Miriam's husband who directed her in a film before they made Old Acquaintance.<br /><br />Anyway, both are worth every minute spent watching. I highly recommend this film if you like a lot of dialog and drama. It's a study in the psychology of women and their relationships with each other, in my opinion. | positive |
Excellent movie, albeit slightly predictable. I have to comment on Nicole Kidmans acting in this movie. Some of her other works haven't shown the amazing talent this woman has, but Birthday Girl doesn't suffer from this in the slightest. Even without words Kidmans acting shines through. | positive |
Hey everyone...<br /><br />There really isn't much to say for this movie at all. The basic plot is that a guy (Brandon) takes a few friends on a trip to his cabin in the woods for a weekend holiday away from work. After picking up a girl on the way there, things start going badly wrong for all of them.<br /><br />The storyline alone (written by the actor playing Brandon, I believe, although I could be wrong here) is unlikely and unconvincing, and is acted out accordingly. The "Clown Killer" himself is a rather a sad excuse for a psychotic killer. Far from being a dark, mysterious but most of all, intelligent predator, we are instead offered a rather clumsy, nursery rhyme-singing buffoon who appears to be going through a minor mid life crisis. The only thing that warranted the writing of this comment were the sex scenes and whatever gore there was in the film (the quality of the film led me to derive some enjoyment out of such things).<br /><br />In short, this film falls below every possible set standard. Admittedly, I was sharing a few beers with a close friend as I watched this, so we managed to scrape together some relative entertainment value out of this film and it is therefore only fair to mention that S.I.C.K did fall just shy of a two rating. However, in reality, (and with the benefit of hindsight) the one star rating is a more than legitimate score for this film.<br /><br />1 star out of ten. | negative |
Imagine being so hampered by a bureaucracy that a one man spends 8 year's of his life, and has a mental breakdown trying to solve a mass murder case virtually by himself! The murder technique is clear, but a government unwilling to admit the truth let's a monster destroy dozens of lives. When I think my job is stressful, I merely remember the true story behind this wonder flick. The devotion to duty of the main character was masterfully portrayed by Rea. The comic (and almost tragic at times) relationship between Rea and the Sutherland character made this one of my favorite movies of the last 5 years. The catching of one of the worst mass murderers in history had me on the edge of my seat. While not nearly as well advertised and talked about as "Silence of the Lamb's", the plot was just as suspenseful. Rent or buy this movie today! | positive |
I preface by stating I am a big fan of JJL and NOT one of Patrick. Therefore I watched this to see her performance and of course, it was excellent. I do not feel the director was adequate for the film as several very bad choices were made re: shot angles, blocking, etc. If the director was trying to give it a "realistic" feel, they failed and lost some good performances because of it. Nearly always felt that the camera was way too static, too far from intense facial reactions -- and so many times when the action depended on the intimacy of lead characters, the dialog was slow and plodding. This easily could have been resolved by cutaways or changes of camera angle. But the impression I got was that the budget was too small and only one camera was used! I also got the impression that perhaps scenes were shot multiple times and the energy coming from the actors was... used up. | negative |
I enjoyed it. In general, I'm not a fan of comedies and comedians, but I do like Whoopi. I'm also partial to Sci/Fi Fantasy. And the dinosaur craze. I read for pleasure, but when I'm feeling over-stressed or really mind-dead, I watch TV & movies to escape. Theodore Rex enabled me to do so. That makes it a success in my eyes! I didn't even walk away to do something else while it was running. Whether or not it was rated as "good" or not doesn't really matter to me. And no, I'm not a juvenile. Nor am I a moron. | positive |
I love oddball animation, I love a lot of Asian films, but I didn't love this particular product of Japan. The Fuccons are supposedly an American family (they're all mannequins) who have moved to Japan, and they're somewhat a 50's sitcom type family, with slightly more modern sensibilities at times. The DVD features several very short episodes (like less than 5 minutes each?) and I did not find it to be either funny or entertaining, not even in a weird way. I'm not sure what the appeal is of this. I did pick up on some satire here and there, gosh, who wouldn't, but satire is usually somewhat humorous, isn't it? And nothing I saw or heard rated even a little smirk. I picked this up used and it certainly SOUNDED appealing, but I guess either I'm missing the point or it's just plain LAME. The box even says it's Fuccon hilarious, right there on the front, but I beg to differ. 2 out of 10. | negative |
What could be expected from any Adam Sandler-produced comedy, Grandma's Boy is predictable and so dumb it is sickening. Allen Covert stars as Alex in the film, a 35 year old pothead who works as a video game tester and has had to move in with his grandma and her two roommates after losing his apartment. Some usual plot turns occur: he has trouble adjusting to his new living situation, which in turn makes him have trouble at work, which is particularly bad because he is trying to nail one of the office's new consultants. Throw a weird boss, almost alien company star, really nerdy best friend, a few scenes at burnt-out pot dealer's place, a really big party scene, and an original video game Alex is trying to finish by himself into the mix you have Grandma's Boy in its entirety. Allen Covert does make a marginally good lead, Linda Cardellini is cute enough for her role as the just-one-of-the-nerds office consultant Samantha, and a few scenes do manage to squirt out a chuckle or two but none of that makes Grandma's boy worth much of anyone's time. Most of the supposed funny "jokes" or "gags" or whatever you want to call them are nothing but "humor" that would make anyone at National Lampoons embarrassed to watch, Joel Moore is incredibly unfunny in his role as video game mastermind J.P., and the entire film actually manages to be boring on top of not funny or substantial. Well, at least Grandma's Boy did something for someone: Adam Sandler was able to get a few paychecks to his out-of-work friends David Spade, Kevin Nealon, and Rob Schneider. | negative |
Cat Soup at first seems to be a very random animated film. The best way I've been able to explain it is that it's quite acidic. Though it's not totally random. The story is about Nyatta, a young cat boy and his sister Nyaako. Nyaako is very ill and dies, however, Nyatta sees her soul being taken away by death and is able to retrieve half of it. The story is about their quest to bring Nyaako fully back to life.<br /><br />Though a lot of the content in this movie seems completely random, it is not. Most of it is symbolism for life, death and rebirth. You can also see references from other tales, such as Hansel and Gretal. This strangely cute short film has an interesting story, packed with a deeper meaning than what you see on the surface of the screen. | positive |
This very strange movie is unlike anything made in the west at the time. With its tumultuous emotions and net of visions, dreams, and startling images, its effect is both beautiful and unsettling. The actors are choreographed more like dance than acting. It contains the only dream sequence I know of that actually resembles a real nightmare (sorry, Dali fans). | positive |
This movie could have been summed up in about 10 minutes. I don't know what everyone else was smoking calling this a beatiful film. I feel that a couple hours of my life were stolen from me and I want them back. I would put this in the category of a Battlefield Earth. Yes folks it is that bad. You would do just as well to watch a two minute clip of this movie over and over it would have the same effect. DO NOT WASTE YOUR TIME!!! | negative |
I admit I go more for the traditional vampire tale, but this one is a real winner. Lots of way out graphics and good story to go with them made for an interesting 2 hours. There was loads of gore with vicious blood suckers attacking mortals and even each other for control of the world. A good one for all us vampire lovers. | positive |
Three delinquents disturb the tomb of an ancient warlock who after summoning Jack-O (a less then menacing pumpkin-headed figure) to dispatch said hoodlums, continues on his sworn vengeance to kill every decedents of the family that offed him. That includes young Sean Kelly and his horror-loving family. Of course it's up to Sean to find a way to save the day.<br /><br />Such a stupid low-budget B-movie. The acting's atrocious and the plot isn't much better. Throw in a extremely lame killer, a possible pedophile who laughs way too much & a couple of stereotypical cardboard cutout 'conservative' couple and you have this film in a nutshell. Not really worth your time save to see how superbly well Linnea is aging. <br /><br />Eye Candy: Linnea Quigley is always good for some T&A and she doesn't disappoint here with a lengthy shower scene; Rachel Carter also gets topless (although it could be a body double)<br /><br />My Grade: D- | negative |
This Movie as the 1st KSA's movie should be active to their people and show the good thing on them. Otherwise, we see in this as Rotana's cast want show religion's people in Saudi Arabia as Terrorist and stupid in fact their not they are very peaceful and smart. About the director is not even less good. The Grandfather in movie is very younger than the father, everyone notes that. And the girls who not Saudi by the way show our girls as pitches looking to man to satisfy their needs. Hasham was just another part of furniture at act he did nothing to imagine only when he said to his lover I love you and yell to his friend don't talk to strange girls >>>>>>> really funny or really stupid<br /><br />The Father was so not moving only set their and he watch this movie as not one of cast and only word he said "A5zo Al Shai6an". The Weird Thing in this movie is when the girls were set in restaurant in family's part, there voice in behind young man talk to his girlfriends "kiss me" many times >>>>> Is that happened in Saudi Arabia when the girls and boys grow up good and Muslem not bitches and adulterer. Any Saudi have patriot in his heart will not allow to see this stupid movie | negative |
The Shirley Jackson novel 'The Haunting of Hill House' is an atmospheric tale of terror, which conveys supernatural phenomena in an old mansion. The atmosphere is well set out, and the chills are staged well. A haunting masterpiece.<br /><br />The 1963 chiller 'The Haunting' stays closely to the book, but also adds its own details to the plot. Fortunately, these are very few, and so the terror of the book and the chills are executed even better on the screen. The black and white photography only adds to the creepiness of the movie. Excellent! <br /><br />And then, Jan de Bont made this. In 1999, the remake of The Haunting hit the cinemas - if you could call this a remake. Why they had to make a remake of the 1963 movie is a mystery in itself, but for the moment, lets look at the film itself.<br /><br />It starts off averagely, as most horror movies do. The set used for Hill House is beautiful, and oddly mysterious, and for a few minutes, it seems as if the film is actually going to be quite a fair re-telling. And then, the first scare comes: a loose harpsichord wire slashes a woman's face (Dr. Marrow's assistant). This is hilarious, and truth be told, it nearly had me in tears.<br /><br />From then on, the film just spirals downwards. The acting seems to become somewhat wooden as the film goes on, with Owen Wilson's character being particularly irritating (so it's such a relief when he's decapitated by the flue).<br /><br />The special effects practically make this movie,, which is a shame, because most of them are incredibly cheesy and look very dated. Examples of these are many, so I won't bother listing them.<br /><br />So, all in all, I, along with hundreds of others, strongly recommend that you watch the original chiller, or, as an alternative, buy the novel by Shirley Jackson. But please, stay away from this. And, if you do decide to watch this, watch it on the TV (as a lot of the channels love to screen this film, and not the original) or rent it cheap, but please don't buy it, whatever you do. Don't waste your money!<br /><br />Final rating: 4/10 | negative |
New York police detective Mark Dixon (Dana Andrews) is a guy who has to deal with his own demons on a daily basis at the same time as coping with the normal ups and downs of everyday life. The strain produced by his internal struggle and his intense hatred of criminals, leads him to make serious errors of judgement and to fail to recognise the need for any code of conduct to be adhered to in his dealings with people on the wrong side of the law. He has a track record of treating suspects and known criminals with gross brutality and this has brought him into conflict with his superior officers who have censured him for the amount of violence he has regularly used. Dixon cannot reconcile these calls for restraint with his own extreme and irrational hatred of all criminals. He is tormented by the fact that his father was a criminal and has been left with a powerful need to live down his father's reputation and to avoid fulfilling the low expectations that many people have of him as a consequence.<br /><br />When a rich Texan is murdered following an evening's gambling run by gangster Tommy Scalise (Gary Merrill), Dixon is assigned to the case. Scalise tells Dixon's superior officer Detective Lieutenant Thomas (Karl Malden) that the victim had been accompanied by Ken Paine (Craig Stevens) and his wife Morgan (Gene Tierney) and that Paine had committed the murder. Dixon goes to Paine's apartment and questions the suspect who is both inebriated and uncooperative and when Paine punches him, Dixon retaliates and Paine collapses and dies. Dixon goes on to dispose of the body in a nearby river. Paine's wife is questioned and after describing what had happened at Scalise's place, adds that her father had gone to Paine's apartment later that night to take issue with him about the fact that she'd returned home with facial bruising. Paine had previously attacked her on a number of occasions and her father, Jiggs Taylor (Tom Tully), had threatened that if it happened again he would beat Paine up. This information leads to Taylor being arrested and charged with murder. Nobody accepts Dixon's explanation that Scalise had killed the Texan and then had Paine killed to eliminate him as a witness.<br /><br />Dixon continues to make various attempts to get Scalise convicted but eventually realises that the only way to successfully achieve his goal is to write a confession about his own role in Paine's death and the cover up. He does this and also records that he is going alone to confront Scalise so that the police can arrest the gangster for Dixon's murder. The confrontation with Scalise and the eventual means by which Dixon achieves his own redemption, provide a tense and fitting conclusion to this gritty thriller.<br /><br />Dana Andrews' strained and preoccupied expressions convey his character's perpetually troubled nature and his anxieties as he deals with a series of misfortunes which include and follow Paine's accidental death. Dixon, however, isn't the only one to experience misfortune as Morgan, a successful model loses her job because of all the trouble surrounding her. Her father, who'd some years earlier been awarded a diploma for assisting the police, unjustly finds himself charged with a crime he did not commit. Ken Paine who'd been a war hero had experienced unemployment and a loss of self esteem which led to alcoholism and wife beating and Scalise who'd been set up in business by Dixon's father also suffers his own misfortunes.<br /><br />"Where The Sidewalk Ends" is a thoroughly engaging tale involving a group of interesting and diverse characters and a main protagonist who is the absolute personification of moral ambiguity. | positive |
I was lying on my bed, with a really bad cold or flu or whatever. I figure maybe I'd kill some time watching some horror movies my mom bought for me a little while ago. I wish I never picked this movie! After I watched it I felt even more sick and I wanted to throw up. Afterwords(when I got better of course) I did some research on Dennis L.Rader and I noticed that the Dennis in the movie was nothing like the real one. I hope that no one ever watches this movie but if they ever do don't eat or you'll feel the way I felt after I first watched it. I think you would have a better time watching The Santa Claus 3. At least that movie had better reviews on this site. | negative |
"Dressed to Kill" is Brian DePalma's best film, an absolute thrill ride of suspense, humor and style that remains unrivaled today. DePalma has a bum rap in Hollywood, as most people claim that he rips off Alfred Hitchcock. He does not. Hitchcock could only dream of what DePalma shows in his thrillers.<br /><br />Sadly, the original uncut version of "Dressed to Kill" is no longer available on video. The current copy released by Goodtimes is the Jack Valenti approved R rated cut. But some copies of DePalma's original cut still exist. It is the one distributed by Warner Home Video, in both a green cardboard box with Angie Dickinson on the cover, or in a black clamshell case with the theatrical poster on silver lining. These are the ones to get, if you can find a copy. I have the green one and it is among my treasured possessions.<br /><br />Anyway, back to the story. Dickinson plays Kate Miller, a sexually frustrated wife who is being treated by Dr. Robert Elliott ( Michael Caine) for her obsessive fantasies. While on a trip to the museum (a real tour-de-force for DePalma in terms of camera work and suspense), <br /><br />Miller is picked up by a stranger. You can pretty much guess what happens to her, since the ads and box art give away the story. But there are a few complications. A hooker (Nancy Allen) is the sole witness to the murder. Kate Miller's son Peter (Keith Gordon) is a teenage genius determined to solve the crime. And Dr. Elliott's answering machine has a certain message on it...about a missing razor...<br /><br />I'm not spoiling the film at all for you since what I have described above takes place within the opening half hour and DePalma's biggest surprises are reserved for the last hour. This film is explicit, however, enough for Valenti (head of the MPAA) to demand cuts in the film. What surprises me is what cuts he wanted. Several cuts in the opening shower scene and one or two slashing scenes and some of Nancy Allen's dialogue (Valenti wanted "cock" changed to "bulge"). This is a film that is very violent and bloody, yet the objections are to sexual content. I'd love to hear Valenti's explaination at how seeing two women in a tender love scene in "Lost and Delirious" is somehow more damaging to a young mind than Arnold Schwarzenegger blowing away people with a chain gun. It just isn't fair.<br /><br />What makes "Dressed to Kill" so good is that not only are the technical credits first rate, but the performances are very good as well. Michael Caine, who was in a lot of crap in this time period, gives one of his best performances as the doctor. Angie Dickinson is better than usual, possibly because she actually has a strong role here. Nancy Allen adds this to her range of performances that has her pegged as one of the most underrated and overlooked actresses in the world. Keith Gordon is wonderful as the genius and i loved all those inventions of his.<br /><br />DePalma is one of our best directors who has never received the recognition he deserved. The recent joke of the AFI 100 Best Thrillers list showed that very few people actually know what a thriller is. If they were to actually open their eyes for once, they would see that DePalma has staked his career in thrillers and is actually the best craftsman. This is even better than "Psycho". It's a shame that very few actually know that.<br /><br />**** out of 4 stars | positive |
First of all, this is a low-budget movie, so my expectations were incredibly low going into it. I assume most people looking at the info for this movie just wanted a bloodfest, and essentially that's all it is.<br /><br />Plot? There really is none. It's basically Saw but in China and a whole hell of a lot worse. Cast? There is none, period. Special Effects? Absolutely awful in my opinion... There were cutaways and the blood was often completely unbelievable because of amounts, splatter, color, texture, etc.<br /><br />I believe the purpose of this movie was supposed to be a brutal, shock film. Now it had some great potential on a bigger budget but poor scripting, poor dialogue, awful acting, what seemed like camcorder video shots, and just plain unbelievable "gore," made this movie truly awful.<br /><br />There are movies worth taking a chance against some reviews, even "b-rate" movies deserve some opportunities (blood trails for example was the most recent I saw against reviews that was worth it), but this was simply awful. I hope that people considering this movie read my comment and decide against it.<br /><br />I'm all for brutality and shock, but the overall unrealism and truly awful acting makes for an awful experience. Save your time/money and chance something else, you won't be disappointed. | negative |
EL MAR is a tough, stark, utterly brilliant, brave work of cinematic art. Director Agustí Villaronga, with an adaptation by Antoni Aloy and Biel Mesquida of Blai Bonet's novel, has created a film that traces the profound effects of war on the minds of children and how that exposure wrecks havoc on adult lives. And though the focus is on war's heinous tattoo on children, the transference to like effects on soldiers and citizens of adult age is clear. This film becomes one of the finest anti-war documents without resorting to pamphleteering: the end result has far greater impact because of its inherent story following children's march toward adulthood.<br /><br />A small group of children are shown in the Spanish Civil War of Spain, threatened with blackouts and invasive nighttime slaughtering of citizens. Ramala (Nilo Mur), Tur (David Lozano), Julia (Sergi Moreno), and Francisca (Victoria Verger) witness the terror of the assassination of men, and the revenge that drives one of them to murder and suicide. These wide-eyed children become adults, carrying all of the psychic disease and trauma repressed in their minds.<br /><br />We then encounter the three who survive into adulthood where they are all confined to a tuberculosis sanitarium. Ramala (Roger Casamajor) has survived as a male prostitute, protected by his 'john' Morell (Juli Mira), and has kept his life style private. Tur (Bruno Bergonzini) has become a frail sexually repressed gay male whose cover is his commitment to Catholicism and the blur of delusional self-mutilation/crucifixion. Francisca (Antònia Torrens) has become a nun and serves the patients in the sanitarium. The three are re-joined by their environment in the sanitarium and slowly each reveals the scars of their childhood experiences with war. Tur longs for Ramala's love, Ramala longs to be free from his Morell, and Francisca must face her own internal needs covered by her white nun's habit.<br /><br />The setting of the sanitarium provides a graphic plane where the thin thread between life and death, between lust and love, and between devotion and destruction is played out. To detail more would destroy the impact of the film on the individual viewer, but suffice it to say that graphic sex and full nudity are involved (in some of the most stunningly raw footage yet captured on film) and the viewer should be prepared to witness every form of brutality imaginable. For this viewer these scenes are of utmost importance and Director Villaronga is to be applauded for his perseverance and bravery in making this story so intense. The actors, both as children and as adults, are splendid: Roger Cassamoor, Bruno Bergonzini and Antònia Torrens are especially fine in inordinately difficult roles. The cinematography by Jaime Peracaula and the haunting musical score by Javier Navarrete serve the director's vision. A tough film, this, but one highly recommended to those who are unafraid to face the horrors of war and its aftermath. In Spanish with English subtitles.<br /><br />Grady Harp | positive |
On the positive, I'll say it's pretty enough to be watchable. On the negative, it's insipid enough to cause regret for another 2 hours of life wasted in front of the screen. Long, whiny and pointless. And I'm not saying this to be mean, I really wanted to like this film, it seemed to have everything going for it, had the so called "buzz", and was a hassle to track down besides. Had a little more effort gone into it on the story side, I believe this would've been amazing. And I expect the team behind it will produce wonderful work in the future, they clearly have the ability. But I recommend waiting for their future efforts, let this one go. | negative |
Joe Buck (Jon Voight) decides he's going to leave his small life in Texas and make it big in the Big City. The women are there for the asking and the men are mainly "tutti-fruttis." Wide-eyed, he comes to New York City, not prepared for the series of humiliating misadventures he experiences, one worse than the other. In the middle of that chaos, he meets and befriends Rico "Ratso" Rizzo (Dustin Hoffmann), a homeless-looking man who lives in an apparently condemned building.<br /><br />There isn't much of a story as MIDNIGHT COWBOY is a series of vignettes destined to bring forth not only Joe Buck's plights in the City, but also inter-cut to his past and show us in shock cuts and semi-psychedelic dream sequences snippets of his past: his failed relationship with his girlfriend Annie (Jennifer Salt) who was gang-raped, his abandonment by his mother, and his apparent abuse by his grandmother, who also had a habit of hustling men for money. An air of pessimism dominates the film almost from the wistful beginning as Nilsson plays throughout the opening credits his deceptively flowery "Everybody's Talking'"; we feel that even while we want Joe to eventually make his mark in the City, the odds are high he won't and will end up working for pennies in a dead-end job -- shown in a masterful shot from his outside point of view later in the film as he watches a man work as a dishwasher in a soup kitchen through a window and sees himself. We know from the look in his eyes he does not want to end like this.<br /><br />A dark story of dashed hopes, John Schlesinger creates haunting images of lost souls at the end of the 60s, and at the center, the prevailing friendship between two men as they struggle to make some sort of meaning to their lives amidst the elusive comfort of a dignified life. There is the implied notion that they may have been lovers -- Ratso's reaching out to hug Joe in the party scene and their the final embrace at the end certainly points at this -- but this is essentially a buddy film, one that manages to survive, literally, to the death, and bring some form of hope to Joe who at the end in Florida seems much changed, older, wiser. | positive |
Following the success of the (awful) Gilligan's Island TV movie reruns, a number of TV movies were made in the 1980's reuniting casts from classic shows. Most of these movies completely missed the boat as far as recapturing the humor that made the shows so special. THE MUNSTERS REVENGE is among the most disappointing because it goes for a Laurel and Hardy-type comedy style that really wasn't in the original series. Yvonne De Carlo, a wonderful comedienne and essential to the series, is completely wasted - she has less time here in this 90 minute movie than she did in any single 30 minute episode. And since the roles of "Eddie" and "Marilyn" in this movie are nothing more than cameos, what was the point of making them younger and recasting them? With very little rewriting, they could have used Butch Patrick and Pat Priest. Although seeing some of the Munsters spooky relatives was a nice touch, I didn't enjoy Sid Caesar as the hammy mad scientist mainly because there's too much of him and not enough of the underused Munsters (ironically that very year, 1981, Caesar's old partner in comedy, Imogene Coca, was also inappropriately cast in a major part in a TV movie reunion RETURN OF THE BEVERLY HILLBILLIES). Another strange inexplicable bit at the beginning of the film has the Munster family represented as wax figures at a local horror wax museum. Why would they be in there when they are supposed to be a "typical" (if strange) American family, not famous monsters? This was the last Munsters project featuring the original cast in their roles, there was an awful revival of the series in the late 1980's with a completely new cast and a 1990's TV movie which featured DeCarlo, Lewis, Priest, and Patrick in cameo roles as a family dining. | negative |
The Great War breaks out and Daddy is a brave pilot who goes off to carry out some unsightly business to put Jerry in his place. Mummy is doing her bit as a nurse, so the five children are evacuated to their barmy uncle in the country, where a secret passageway takes them to a mischievous sand fairy and the beginning of a magical adventure.<br /><br />Based on a book written the best part of a century ago, they don't make stories like this anymore. And there's a reason. The men fly planes and author books; the women change bandages and clean house. The boys lead the way with their compasses and nighttime furloughs; the girls do what they are told and play violin - badly. Fat kids who wear specs are nasty. All the kids speak in those clipped, vowel-flattening accents that are soppy and prim but which a certain economic class of English people cultivate. On top of the snobbery and yearning for Imperial Albion, there are plot holes a five-year-old would not tolerate. I mean that literally - my son was asking why the father disappeared before sunset, why the compass didn't just drop from his hand as he disappeared. The film at least tries to aim strictly for the kids, until a completely inappropriate and unfunny monologue by Eddie Izzard (what a waste of genuine comic talent) plays over the final credits.<br /><br />No doubt the five percent of British schoolkids who go to expensive public schools in the UK will find it all such a jolly wheeze. For the other 95 percent of British families who no longer live in the 19th century, the good news is Wall-E, Ratatouille and Wallace and Gromit are all out on DVD. | negative |
Arg. The shuffling dinosaurs are back to take another bite out of our sanity in this all-awful third film. This time, European terrorists(Irish I'd say) hi-jack an army convoy supposed to be transporting uranium. They pull into a shipyard, open the truck and discover our old friends the carnosaurs. Pandemonium comes visiting then when the rubber dinos chomp the terrorists, the cops and some marines. The whole film seems to be (again) largely inspired from Alien(as Carnosaur 2 was) with the pathetic marines going through the "claustrophobic" shipyard? guns at the ready. This third opus is probably the driest and ungoriest film of the lot, with only one spurt of blood when a rubber dino rips a marine's head off. The dinos are stiff, shuffling creatures as usual and the T-Rex sounds like an enraged elephant when it roars(it also appears to have no eyes). One of the goofiest scenes of the film is when the coppers arrive on the scene: they enter the building where the hijacked truck is kept and hear some weird noise coming from another truck. On opening it, surprise! The Rubber Reptile Gang burst out and devour them. Why were the dinos locked up in the second truck after escaping from the first? How did they get locked in as the truck door could only be locked from the outside? What was the point of filming this scene???? Oh bother, who cares? Both thumbs down for the Over-sized Rubber Iguanas. | negative |
Missed it at the cinema, but was always slightly compelled. Found it in the throw-out bin at my local video shop for a measly two bucks! Will I now give it away to anyone who wants it? Probably! No purposeful plot, one dimensional characters, plastic world ripped off from many far better films, no decent dialogue to speak of. You know that empty feeling when you come down off ecstasy? Its that feeling right here. Sad thing is, the Australia I know is heading in this direction, minus the melodrama and simple answers. Interesting only to see the older Aussie actors (who had to ACT back in their day to get by) vs the newer Aussie actors (who have to LOOK GOOD to get by). Like some horribly garish narrative introduction to a film clip that never actually starts... Poor Kylie, started her career as an actress as well... | negative |
My friends and I rented this movie mistaking it for another one about skateboarding. Watchin Steve Guttenberg as an action hero is hilarious. The movie is so incredibly predictable and over the top that it ended up being a laugh fest. Even though I gave it a 1/10 this movie should be seen especially if u manage to catch it on TV anywhere. | negative |
I recently rented this doc, having remembered hearing about it from IMDb.com and being intrigued by the premise. I knew very little about either of these bands, but I do remember hearing "Not If You Were The Last Junkie On Earth" by The Dandy Warhols ages ago and enjoying it. That being said, this is my perspective on the doc:<br /><br />One thing I found incredible about this film is there is no need to have any prior knowledge of either of these bands. The director (Ondi Timoner) wastes no time in engaging the audience and familiarizing them with the people in this film. I quickly became grooved to the lives both Anton and Courtney as well as their respective bands, The Brian Jonestown Massacre and The Dandy Warhols. I think that is part of what makes this doc so good, and what makes Ondi Timoner such a master documentarian.<br /><br />I also loved how the "story" of these bands was told. Most of what you see is of the bands on tour. Both bands start out playing small venues and struggling to make it in the recording industry. Throughout the film, each band strives to remain unique and uncontrolled by the norm. However it is this that makes the two bands similar, and thus the brilliant perspective on how two bands of a feather can go in such different directions.<br /><br />I would basically recommend this for ANYONE who likes film in general. You do not need to have a particular love for documentaries, or either of the bands. An appreciation for music helps, but the music itself takes a backseat to the love/hate relationship between The Brian Jonestown Massacre and The Dandy Warhols. | positive |
Although I am very familiar with poet Dylan Thomas, I know nothing of his life. Whatever his life and specifically his marriage involved, I would imagine that The Edge of Love (based on the novel) manipulates things a bit, but unless you are a historian or a poet, who cares.<br /><br />The movie is less about Thomas and more focused on the two most important women in his life. One is his wife Kathrine, and the other is Vera who was his first love. One romantic night on the beach as youths is something that both have tried to put behind them but cannot, now grown up they are good friends. I forgot to mention that this is set during the war. Vera becomes engaged to Captain Will Killing who he gets her pregnant and leaves for war. While he is away, Vera starts to fall for Thomas again, and Kathrine has fallen out of love with him. She is also carrying another man's child. Things get even more emotionally complex when Capt Killig returns<br /><br />As you can see, it is a very soap operatic plot, and it takes shape in a fairy drab slow manner, with perhaps one too many sequences of sappy dialogue. But all is not lost yet. For a non- Hollywood production, I think that the Edge of Love is about as stylish a picture as one can get. It is certainly more dimensional and intelligent than about 90% of contemporary romances, Hollywood production or not. Some of it has to do with being set during the war, which sets up emotional conflict that feels more convincing and less artificial, a bit like Atonement. this one features acting and cinematography of equal talent to Joe Wright's Oscar nominee, but it is in far greater need for stable pacing and progression. Things are okay at the start and finish, but the middle section is where your attention span may be tested, unless you are deeply and profoundly rooted in the story. <br /><br />I doubt if The Edge of Love will have that kind of an effect on the viewer, but is a good film to check. it might even make a good date night movie, considering it is so much smarter than the chick flicks that boyfriends are forced to endure today. | positive |
I got Mirror Mirror mainly because Yvonne De Carlo was in it (I thought she was great in American Gothic) but sadly she didn't have a very big role in this film. It starts off OK and the pace moves along nicely...but by the end it starts getting a bit tedious and dull. That's not to say that this is a boring film, but it's just very average and nothing spectacular. I didn't like the "posession" side of it and there were no decent gore scenes. Plus the 'main' story was very confusing and the ending doesn't make much sense at all. I did however like the story surrounding the Gothic girl and how she got revenge on her tormentors.<br /><br />I wouldn't particularly recommend Mirror Mirror to horror fans - it's nothing to wet yourself over. | negative |
'How to Lose Friends and Alienate People' is an entertaining, if loose, adaptation of Toby Young's memoir of the same name. It's also a great title for helping to fill up the line requirement in IMDb reviews! The basic gist is the same as the book with certain incidents dramatised, but a romantic plot is added and the ending is certainly Hollywoodised. Simon Pegg, despite playing an essentially irritating person, is his usual likable and funny self and pretty much carries the film. Strange to think only a few years ago he was just a TV sitcom guy and now he's rubbing shoulders with Hollywood names. There's a good supporting cast and it's an amusing, easy watch - kind of a male 'Ugly Betty', but funnier. | positive |
I was surprised at just how much I enjoyed this most thoughtfully delivered drama, which owing to its rather unimpressive 6.6 rating, I nearly missed; as I rarely give the time of day to any movie rated below 7/10. Having said that, I'm so glad I gave Stone Angel the viewing it so very much deserved. And so should you, if you are one of the increasingly rare sensitive, soulful and thoughtful sorts of person left on this earth in living form.<br /><br />I must say that in many ways (though not all), viz. its themes, execution, style, production etc., Stone Angel very much reminded me of the much praised "The Notebook". I am so surprised that other commentators didn't pick up on the many similarities which repeatedly struck me throughout this movie, so I can only assume that those who've written comments have yet to see the Notebook. They may not share any Alzheimer's theme, yet I can confidently say that if you very much enjoyed "The Notebook" you will certainly find much to engage your time most fruitfully with "The Stone Angel". But even If you've not seen The Notebook, nor read the book on which this move is based, (which, incidentally, I haven't either) you should definitely find much to hold your attention firmly - as long as your favourite genres don't include fast paced action thrillers. This is a movie for thinkers and those who like to reminisce about time's passing, how life changes as the years pass, and what might have happened in one's life as one gazes back through the years.<br /><br />This bizarrely underrated yet great movie really deserves a rating of approximately 8/10. I can only blame its current lowish rating of 6.6/10 on the 11% of idiots who gave it 1/10. After all it has attracted less than 300 votes at the time of my writing this comment. Nonetheless, if those 11% who gave it the lowest ranking possible were really expecting car chases and explosions why didn't they look... for even a few seconds at the movie's premise and promotional lines? Oh dear... Whatever the world is coming to, don't miss this most underrated gem of a movie - but only *if* you have a brain (i.e., your top ten doesn't include Transformers, Fight Club nor The Terminator). | positive |
(This is a review of the later English release by Disney, featuring Alison Lohman, Patrick Stewart, and co.) <br /><br />I really wanted this film to be good. Really, really. I'm a huge fan of Princess Mononoke and Spirited Away, and after seeing all the glowing reviews on this earlier Miyazaki film, I was eager to see it. But I was shocked, shocked I say, at the quality of this film. Those later films boast well-crafted plots, 3-dimensional characters, and the best film music since...well...ever. This film just doesn't come close.<br /><br />Might as well start w/ the positive aspects, though. Like all Miyazaki films, this one is still very imaginative, with a bizarre fantasy/sci-fi setting, in a post-apocalyptic world where insects are the dominant species. Nausicaa can also boast some far superior animation to other films from its time. (though not as beautiful and fluid as Miyazaki's later films) And the English voice acting is quite well done.<br /><br />But this film...just...isn't...good... The characters are all cardboard - from saccharine sweet little Nausicaa, to the ruthlessly evil Tolmekians, to everyone in between. Once you've seen each of them for 30 seconds, you've seen all there is. And the fact that the plot just ambles along doesn't help.<br /><br />Then there's the music... Now, Hisaichi is hands down my favorite film composer, but Nausicaa doesn't do him justice. Half the music is 80's keyboards on overdrive, and it usually enters and leaves so abruptly that it distracts the visuals rather than helping them. I highly suspect that Hisaichi was told to compose a lot of the music before he even saw the picture.<br /><br />But wait! There's a great message with this film, right?! Let's all save the environment! Too bad that this film hits you over the head with it like a sledgehammer. There is a scene in which Nausicaa hugs a tree. No, really. I ain't kidding.<br /><br />It makes me a little sad to talk about how lame this film is. But for some reason all the other reviews on IMDb seem to adore it. And when the characters have to talk to themselves in extended sentences to tell you what's going on, that's lame.<br /><br />If you're the kind of person who worships anime, enjoys 80's music, and plants a tree every Arbor day, you will probably like this film. Otherwise, save your money for his later films, because they rock big time. | negative |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.