review stringlengths 32 13.7k | sentiment stringclasses 2 values |
|---|---|
Closet land is not at happy movie. Neither is it connected to any kind of social realism. This is perhaps its strength. The distance from specific time and nations strengthens the message, makes it more powerful and rips away the burden of nationalism and propaganda you often sense in movies made to criticize nations in opposit of ones own (I am of course primarily speaking of the USA propaganda in some commercial film).<br /><br />Bit closet land is so much more than a message. It is a film of pure, surrealistic beauty, filled with the same clean, clinical form you find in work such as 1984 and it's equals.<br /><br />I am of old a big fan of Alan Rickman, the man with the golden sarcasm (and, I might add, the uncomparable sex-appeal ;-)). The outplay between him and Madeleine Stowe is brilliant. Everytime I see him, he seems to play a character even nastier than the last one...<br /><br />But, enough sweettalk. The film lacks in action. I dont want any crashing cars, but I want something to happen, except pure talk. After an hour I got really tired of the interrogationroom, the predictable actions and more than anything I wanted a more complex view of it all, the world, the former lives of the characters and all the rest of the framework that was missing. For some people a nice touch. For me something less positive.<br /><br />Anyway, Closet Land is a movie worth it's time if you are ready to make a trip into the abyss of the human nature.<br /><br />And of course for us who really loves the Always Evil Alan Rickman. | positive |
I watched this film a long time ago (aprox 10 years or so) and liked it then. I remembered it the other day and decided to watch it again. The second time around was not pleasant. The acting is 'so,so', the plot is illogical, unreasonable and predictable.<br /><br />The acting...I'm sure it wasn't a stretch for those actresses to play those characters. The plot...there's no way in hell those women would have gotten away with the first robbery much less the 2nd. (side note: Why did TT not realise that even if she came up with a load of money for her court date they would ask where she got it and she would have no logical answer! Ding, Ding...we have a crook!). It horribly stereotyped black women in saying basically that the only way black women can 'beat the system' or obtain a large amount of money was to steal it and not use their intelligence or other resources. It plays too much on sympathy b/c all of them die in the end (bar Jada) but it's not sad (you're thinking 'They were so stupid; they deserve to die). You just don't really care about the characters unless you're a shallow person.<br /><br />I can't believe this film rates over a 5. | negative |
Rosario Dawson stars as a girl who is date raped and then begins a decent into darkness until given a chance at revenge. While its clear why Dawson took the role, its a chance to show her acting chops and to make a small independent, decidedly un-Hollywood film, its also clear that aside from stunning good looks, Dawson seems out of place in the role. Forgive me I simply couldn't find her. Thats not a mistake, thats how I felt, I had no idea where she was. Yes I know she's on the screen but even though I spent the better part of two hours looking at her she left no impression on me whats so ever. I blame the script for this since other than the ending, not a whole heck of a lot that happened on screen seemed to make any real sense. The people seemed to be more posture than real and what happens didn't seem to fit together. Forgive me for being vague but nothing in this film, other than the end (which I would love to talk about but can't cause it would spoil it), and the image of Rosario Dawson as nothing more than an image, stayed with me.What can I say, this may click with you, it may not, for me it's time I can't get back. For Rosario Dawson fans only, though be warned there's several real reasons why this is NC17. (And Rosario- please, you're a better actress, pick better scripts) | negative |
This is the worst imaginable crap. The novel by H. Rider Haggard is very entertaining and dramatic. The makers of this worthless movie don't follow it closely. Well, old novels aren't sacred and making free versions of them is fine with me if one has ideas of one's own. If all one can do is changing things and replace them with uninteresting and watered-down clichés one should stick to the original. If they had done that this film would have been at least twice as good even with worse actors and if filmed inside a studio with huts made of cardboard. BUt there's no imagination at all only tiredness. This should be bought or watched only by collectors of Victorian novels made into movies.<br /><br />Just a hint, and not a spoiler I think, to make those of you who have read the novel understand what has taken place and what you may expect if you decide to watch this on TV or - God forbid - waste money on buying this. Gagool an old baddie witch in the book and some precursor to Gollum has been turned into a nice gal! | negative |
The most attractive factor that lies in this masterpiece of a film is not the beautiful lead actors. It isn't their outstanding acting and sizzling chemistry either.<br /><br />To me, it is the mis-en-scene of the entire movie. The settings, the lighting, the props... all add to the mood for love between the main characters. A whiff of smoke from Chow's cigarette tells us his state of mind, the ever-changing tight-fitting cheongsams of Lizhen reflects the constraints of decision-making, the ruins of Angkor Wat ties in with the deteriorating relationship of the two leads.<br /><br />The excellent use of mis-en-scene gives the film just the right amount of feel needed to flesh out the complicated nature of the characters' relationship. The film leaves the audience fruitlessly yearning for more. | positive |
One of the worst films ever. Not funny, poor TV style cinematography, bad acting. Sad to see so many famous old actors barely able to walk, let alone act. Lead female Nancy Young can't act. Terrible direction. Sub-par with bad TV movies. Occasional weak jokes fall flat. Even the basic premise of the movie makes no sense. Somehow they are supposed to stop a wedding from happening but there's no logic behind their actions. Slow pacing made my wife stop watching but I suffered through it. The old men are supposed to be acting like they are young and horny, but it comes off as pathetic instead of funny. How did they even get the money to make this? | negative |
This is a poem on film, wonderfully presented and photographed with sensitive artistry. It captures the atmosphere of the time and place perfectly. (Italy's lake district in the twenties.) It's a love story with a twist. The characters are unique and believable. The settings are deliciously exotic. Some of the scenes --- the funeral boat in the fog --- the high long shot of the chess table in the centre of an intricately patterned tile floor --- are beautiful images. And rather than the mandatory happy ending, this story has a bitter sweet one. If film is an art, this is close to a masterpiece.<br /><br /> | positive |
This is truly one of the worst films I have ever seen in my life. Rod Steiger who stars as the ornery grandfather, Charlie, is in full overacting mode hoping that the more flashy he is, the better his performance (Cue buzzer sound). Rod Steiger is one of the last true film legends and to see him in this film (although End of Days is the 2nd worst film I've ever seen) is really heartbreaking. From the bad storyline to the nonexistent direction, it becomes abudantly clear that the only reason this film was made was that the producer's last name ended in DeLaurentis. The only good thing about this film is that it is so bad, it's truly hysterical. Look for the flashback scene where Rod where's a Jor-El wig from Superman and a big black porno mustache. One only hopes that his follow up film, I Believe in America, from Uber-producer Kevin Arbouet will redeem him and leave a good taste in everyone's mouths. | negative |
What a movie! I have always liked the Asian style of shooting, and this movie does not disappoint at all! Photography is breath-taking, ranging from amazing landscapes to whirls of colours. The main actor is really realistic in representing the painter (whose paintings are astonishing). The ending is also very well chosen, very poetic. The only remark is that they should have maybe shown a bit more deeply the connection between his inspiration and his abuse of alcohol and women. But altogether this is an excellent film! | positive |
I remember seeing this years ago, It had a reasonably promising start, with an interesting premise, but then it degenerated into nonsense quite quickly. Uninteresting characters, failed attempts to add drama and tension, and a bit of simplistic philosophy thrown in too, all culminating in a terrible ending. <br /><br />Simply, it's trash. <br /><br />Before I saw this TV film, I didn't think I would ever have any film that I thought was the "worst" I had seen, but after I finished watching this, I knew that from then on, if anyone asked me what the worst film I had ever seen was, I could say without hesitation - "The Second Coming".<br /><br />Avoid. | negative |
First off I want to say most of the people who give this a poor review don't like this kind of comedy, the movie is great if you have an open mind and aren't afraid to laugh at some stupid things.<br /><br />This movie is shot just like the TV show with a lot of short clips compiled into one long movie. Some of the scenes don't even have dialog someone will just come out and do something unexpected and it is funny!! The only negative I had is I felt like I wasted money on my Popcorn and Icee, there was no way I could eat or drink anything during this movie I was constantly laughing. I was honestly nervous of drinking some Icee and seeing something that caused me to laugh and shoot it everywhere.<br /><br />If you don't mind some male nudity, and you enjoy Jackass the movie, jackass the TV show, and viva la bam, then for YOUR SAKE go see this movie.<br /><br />And if you DON'T like the first movie, or the TV show. Don't see it, and if you do see it don't post a bad review about it. Hardcore christians who see this and bash it just doesn't seem right to me. | positive |
Having read the novel before seeing this film, I was enormously disappointed by the wooden acting and the arrogance of the producers in their blatant disregard of the plot. I feel this film in no way reflects the brilliance of Bronte's work, and rather gave the impression of a shallow love story. In the condensing of the film to a short 2hours, the film lost many of the key features which make the book comprehendable and progressional, thus resulting in a somewhat jumpy plot with little grounding. There is no build up to the romance between Rochester and Jane Eyre, so this appears rather abrupt and unfounded since the two characters have such infrequent interaction you cannot help but imagine their 'love' is superficial. This is such an injustice to Bronte's novel;you are given no impression of Jane's quirky cheek and boldness which attracts Rochester to her, and his arrogance which attracts Jane to him.<br /><br />Despite to poor scripting, I think that a few of the characters were portrayed very astutely, namely Mrs Fairfax and Grace Poole, however overall the production was poor. Given a better scripting, perhaps the film would have been more successful. See "Jane Eyre" (1970) with Zelah Clarke and Timothy Dalton for an outstanding production. | negative |
I saw this film at the 2005 Toronto International Film Festival. Based on a novella by science- fiction author Brian Aldiss, this film attempts to tell the story of Tom and Barry Howe, conjoined twins who are plucked from their family by an impresario in order to form a rock band.<br /><br />Almost deliberately gimmicky, the film is also too clever by half (if you'll pardon the pun). By mixing genres, styles and moods, the directors (whose previous film was the excellent documentary Lost In La Mancha) lose their way pretty quickly. I was never sure whether I was meant to take it all seriously or not. Flashbacks, dream sequences, it was all just a bit much. Plus, the promised rock and roll just didn't move me. I was reminded a bit too much at times of Hedwig and the Angry Inch, a film I found original and moving. But in this case, the songs just weren't as good, nor were the main characters sympathetic. A more unfavourable comparison would be the similarly disappointing Velvet Goldmine. | negative |
Didn't Mystic Pizza win the Oscar for that year? This movie never had a chance, due to the casting, but perhaps by now people can see why I felt that way upon leaving the theater. Only "Wargames" left me feeling similarly disturbed after leaving the theater, with the feeling I was getting a glimpse of our future. History has shown that this is exactly what happened.<br /><br />The casting is a pop-culture Cuisinart of the 1980s: you get Arnold as Ben Richards, the framed fugitive offered a chance to "run" for his freedom on the game show with the same title as the movie; Richard Dawson as Damon Killian, treating his role as if he were the host of Family Feud with the contestants using real guns; Jesse Ventura as "Captain Freedom" and co-wrestler Professor Tanaka as "Subzero," both "stalkers" who kill the "running men." Even Mick Fleetwood (Mic) and Dweezil Zappa (Stevie) show up, while the "dancers of the future" are none other than the Laker Girls. This movie SCREAMS "80s." The plot is a good excuse for the action: Ben Richards is determined to prove his innocence, but agrees to be the Running Man when he is told that his buddies would be set free; instead, they join him as "contestants." Maria Conchita Alonzo as Amber Mendez is the standard by which one can properly judge Salma Hayek in the 1990s.<br /><br />The production value on the film was a bit poor, the lines were cheesy, and (at the time), the plot seemed a bit far-fetched. I remember thinking when I was leaving the theater that we were definitely heading in the direction of the film, but who could have seen how far we'd go there and how fast? If The Running Man were listed in TV Guide, most people would assume it were just another reality show pushing the envelope today. The government influences on the media have only gotten worse, and the dumbed-down American public of the future that surrenders all of its freedoms for "national security" is downright chilling. Ben Richards is played brilliantly by Arnold as one of the few remaining holdouts against a government tyranny that the rest of America is all too willing to accept in return for good television and some parting gifts for the audience.<br /><br />The movie was way over the top, maybe even off the cliff for its time, but as with Back to the Future III, the "ravine" it appeared to be sinking itself into in 1987 was replaced by completed tracks in 2006 and beyond, and this movie will sail into the future as one of the more prophetic films of our time. It is tragic that, as with Wargames, the academy did not give this brilliant screenplay the recognition it deserved. "Serious" actors acting seriously while being so pretentious that you want to throw up may win more Oscars, but that doesn't make them better films than their "common man" counterparts, such as this one.<br /><br />An absolute must-see. | positive |
Formulaic slasher film, only this one stars three ten year olds (all born during a lunar eclipse) as the killers. Nice, huh? A little bit of gore and a nice nude scene may make this worthwhile for diehard fans of the genre, others beware.<br /><br />*1/2 out of **** | negative |
A good cast (with one major exception) pushes its way through Epstein's smart light satire. Mansfield was never better, or funnier, than she is here paired with Walston, who's a veteran who's determined to become a congressman to get out of the war. He and his buddies -- including suave con-artist Grant -- head to San Francisco on leave and start the city's swinginest party while conniving to escape the service altogether through industrial speaking tours. The only thing about this movie that's not delightful is Suzy Parker's one-note performance as Grant's love interest, which takes up too much of the film's time and slows down the pace in the second half. Walston and Mansfield have good chemistry; the gimmick is that she's set on making love to every serviceman (to do her duty for the war effort, of course) but he's a married man who, nonetheless, loves his wife. They steal the movie with little trouble from Grant (who's amusing here in the first part of the film, when not paired with his non-actor co-star. | negative |
This was a decent movie for the first half. Too many cheap BOO! moments but the tension builds, the bad guys are creepy and everything seems to be setting itself up nicely. The kids are not particularly deep but hey, that works for teens. <br /><br />Then it just gets ridiculous and tries way too hard- the "why in the world would he/they do that?" moments overwhelm anyone's capacity for suspension of disbelief, the twist involves too many ridiculous coincidences, and the title comes from a late attempt to philosophize some meaning into the film that goes nowhere and is quickly dropped. There was laughter in the theater at moments that were in no way supposed to be funny. <br /><br />Great premise but just badly written and doesn't hold together. Some very nice shots but they're hard to enjoy while you're rolling your eyes. | negative |
I saw Bandit Queen in 2005, over a decade after it was made amidst widespread controversy in India. The language, the stark treatment and the natural acting (by a relatively unknown cast for that time) might have been even more shocking at that time for an Indian populace more familiar with fantasy cinema. The film, the cast, and Shekhar Kapoor, deserve accolades for the breakthrough effort.<br /><br />The plot is not very different from a typical revenge drama made in various forms in India. In fact, there have been several fictional accounts of this particular story itself. The reason why this stands out is that it's supposed to be a first person account of someone who actually went through all this, and a lot else that doesn't find place on the screen, and survived to tell the tale. Survived long enough to see her story made into a movie at least. Phoolan Devi didn't live very long after being released from prison in 1994.<br /><br />The film scores on several counts. The cinematography is brilliant. The music is apt. The cast, many of whom became more familiar names later, is very good. But the screenplay is patchy. Things move too fast and in jerks at times. It's understandable though, because there are just too many strands that need to be tied together to make it all cohesive. Or maybe I felt that because I have read Mala Sen's book, which is a more detailed and better, though obviously not as shocking as the visual, account of Phoolan Devi's travails, and which is purported to be one of the main sources for the film.<br /><br />There are some factual ambiguities too. According to Phoolan Devi, she wasn't present when the Behmai massacre took place, and despite claiming to be the dictated account of Phoolan herself, she is shown to participate, and in fact initiate, the massacre. Then the final scene where Phoolan surrenders shows her touching the feet of the Chief Minister, while in reality she had surrendered to a portrait of Mahatma Gandhi. Symbolic value only, but shows that Phoolan didn't want to show servitude to a living, ordinary person. It would have been nice to show the Chief Minister to have some resemblance to Arjun Singh, who many remember was the CM of Madhya Pradesh then.<br /><br />But these are small chinks in this eminently well-made movie, a rare gem to come out from the mainstream Indian film industry, made by a man who before this was known best for the ultimate masala movie of the late 80s - Mr India. | positive |
The first two-thirds of this biopic of fetish model Betty Page are very interesting. Betty, as portrayed with enormous sincerity by Gretchen Mol, comes across as a pleasant, girl-next-door type, who saw nothing wrong with what she did (and there certainly wasn't anything "wrong" with it). Director Mary Harron, who also made "I Shot Andy Warhol" and "American Psycho", recreates Betty's America by mixing old black and white stock footage with new, degraded, black and white footage. Once Betty lands in Florida and starts working with Bunny Yeager, color is introduced. Betty's notoriety was mostly the result of her work with Paula and Irving Klaw (Lili Taylor, in a great performance, and Chris Bauer), as well as John Willie (Jared Harris). The scenes where Harron recreates Betty's bondage photography sessions are fascinating and adroitly executed. The early purveyors of fetish material are not portrayed too condescendingly and we get a sense that these folks were part of a tight "community". Betty never had too much of a problem with her notoriety, although we get the impression that her reputation prevented her from gaining legitimacy in the straight acting world. Because the film's third act is virtually non-existent, we are left with the impression that we have been watching a feature length documentary on Betty Page rather than a structured drama. Flaws aside, it's a film well worth catching and represents yet another fine feather in the cap of producer Christine Vachon. | positive |
As a young boy, I always sort of hated "Cinderella," since I was outvoted by my two sisters when my parents were considering what Disney movie to buy. I wanted "Dumbo," but my sisters won out, and we got "Cinderella." They thoroughly enjoyed the movie while I sulked in the back of the room playing with my Star Wars action figures.<br /><br />A lot has changed since then. My love of the Disney theme parks landed me an internship at Walt Disney World, and I now have two young nieces. I like to showcase Disney to them as much as I can, and we recently watched "Cinderella" together. With my newfound appreciation for all that is Disney, I watched "Cinderella" with a new perspective and was impressed with what I saw.<br /><br />From the beginning of the movie, though, I didn't quite understand why Cinderella was trapped in such a horrible predicament. Why was she such a slave to her stepfamily, and why couldn't she just run away? I wasn't too sympathetic to Cinderella, but as the story progressed, I found myself becoming immersed in the story. Maybe the eye-catching animation or the fun-loving characters drew me in, or maybe it was the timeless songs. Listening to songs like "Bibbidy-Bobbidy-Boo" and "A Dream is a Wish Your Heart Makes" sort of whisked me back to the theme parks. I can picture myself in that carefree and fun atmosphere while looking at the awe-inspiring Cinderella Castle.<br /><br />Something about this movie just evokes the magic of Disney. That may make many people scoff, but go to the Magic Kingdom and see all the little girls dressed up like Cinderella that are excited to be in this fantasy world, and you'll know what I'm talking about. The images of Cinderella and the glass slipper - as well as Mickey Mouse, Winnie the Pooh, and Tinkerbell - embody why Disney is one of the most beloved companies in the entire world.<br /><br />While "Cinderella" may not be the strongest story, it is sort of iconic in Disney and movie history. It represents that fun, idealistic, and fantasy-like wonderment we held when we were kids. I imagine this movie holds a lot of meaning to many, many people out there. It may not be my favorite Disney movie, but it does represent all that I love and admire about the Company.<br /><br />My IMDb Rating: 10/10. My Yahoo! Grade: A (Outstanding) | positive |
This is the last of four swashbucklers from France I've scheduled for viewing during this Christmas season: the others (in order of viewing) were the uninspired THE BLACK TULIP (1964; from the same director as this one but not nearly as good), the surprisingly effective LADY Oscar (1979; which had originated as a Japanese manga!) and the splendid CARTOUCHE (1962). Actually, I had watched this one not too long ago on late-night Italian TV and recall not being especially bowled over by it, so that I was genuinely surprised by how much I enjoyed it this time around (also bearing in mind the baffling lack of enthusiasm shown towards the film here and elsewhere when it was first announced as an upcoming DVD release from Criterion).<br /><br />Incidentally, FANFAN LA TULIPE has quite a bit in common with the afore-mentioned CARTOUCHE: not just cast and crew members (producers Georges Dancigers and Alexandre Mnouchkine, cinematographer Christian Matras, actor Noel Roquevert) but plot-wise as well in fact, the hero is a womanizing soldier (Jean-Paul Belmondo's Cartouche had also had a brief military spell) who's loved by a fiery girl (in this case, gypsy Gina Lollobrigida) while he's himself obsessed by an impossible love (here, it's none other than the king's daughter)! As in the later film, too, Fanfan (an ideally cast Gerard Philipe who, ironically, is so full of life here that one finds it hard to believe that he would be stricken down by cancer within 7 years' time) is flanked by two fun-loving yet cowardly men (one of them is actually his superior officer and the heroine's own father) and opposed by an unscrupulous figure within his own ranks (the ageing Roquevert, with whom the hero eventually engages in a rooftop duel since he too has amorous designs on the gypsy girl)!; for the record, Lollobrigida will rejoin Philippe in her next film, Rene Clair's delightful romantic fantasy LES BELLES DE NUIT (1952).<br /><br />FANFAN proved to be a big box-office hit on its home-ground and even copped a surprising (but well-deserved) Best Direction award at Cannes over more renowned films like AN American IN Paris (1951), DETECTIVE STORY (1951), OTHELLO, UMBERTO D. and VIVA ZAPATA! In fact, its popularity ensured its re-release in a computer-colored version (presumably for the benefit of viewers who wouldn't touch a black-and-white product with a ten-foot pole) and the Criterion DVD itself contains a sample from this variant; being obviously a foreign-language title, there's also the dubious choice of an English-dubbed soundtrack but, even if these proved not especially painful to sit through considering, when all is said and done, there's simply no substitute for the original! <br /><br />FANFAN LA TULIPE (a nickname given the hero by a young Genevieve Page as the celebrated Madame De Pompadour) contains about as much comedy as (the expected) action and romance; while some may find this overwhelming, I don't agree myself as I enjoyed the sharply satirical narration and, on the whole, this combination is comparable with Jerzy Skolimowski's equally droll THE ADVENTURES OF GERARD (1970). That said, the swordfights here are remarkably forceful for an essentially lighthearted enterprise (particularly a scuffle in the woods and the ambush at a convent) and the film itself rather adult at times (with numerous allusions to sexuality as well as coarse language adopted throughout) when viewed back-to-back with vintage Hollywood fare as I did now; the climax, then is quite ingenious: the enemy forces (who, amusingly, are made to speak in speeded-up gibberish!) are depleted by our heroic trio alone, much to the king's amazement who, as portrayed by Marcel Herrand best-known for his role of leader of the Parisian underworld in Marcel Carne''s CHILDREN OF PARADISE (1945) is himself something of a lecher.<br /><br />P.S. An Italian TV channel has been threatening to screen Christian-Jaque's promising CHAMPAGNE FOR SAVAGES (1964) for months now but, despite programming it three times already (with a tentative fourth one slated for next week), they have yet to show it; even so, I do have three more films of his in my unwatched VHS pile (equally culled from late-night Italian TV screenings): the three-hour epic LA CHARTREUSE DE PARME (1948; also starring Gerard Philippe), THE SECOND TWIN (1967) and THE LEGEND OF FRENCHIE KING (1971; with Brigitte Bardot and Claudia Cardinale). | positive |
Still Crazy has been compared to the Spinal Tap since both are comedies about wash-up R&R groups. Actually, here the similarity ends because Still Crazy is much better written and acted out, whereas Spinal Tap script deteriorates from the mildly amusing first 10 min into a drivel that makes Beavis and Butthead to appear sophisticated in comparison. Still Crazy is formulaic but the likability of the characters and the unexpectedly high quality of some musical numbers for me managed to offset the a priori predictability of the movie. People who expect Spinal Tap-like attempt on satire would be disappointed by the light-hearted nature of the movie, but I'd take a successful self-ironic romp of Still Crazy over a pompous but failed shot at satire which is Spinal Tap. | positive |
I was quite excited when I saw this film in competition at the Montreal Film Festival. Along with Elephant and a few others, I thought the issue of American gun violence/culture would be treated intelligently and in a fashion compelling for film-goers. The press-release promised (in not so many words) a `Red Violin' for the gun-violence crowd, something to make us ponder our NRA-shoot-em-up mindset in this country.<br /><br />After waiting until after 9:15 to be seated for a 9AM screening (what technical difficulties they would have encountered is beyond me), we were finally let into the venue to see the film on DV (where did the advertised 35MM print go?). I think I just answered my first question.<br /><br />The result is an abhorrent mess. We get the "gun", in a vignette with the most unrealistic "biker' I have ever seen (and I do know more than a few). The film then lapses into irrelevant "character development" only because the characters are either a. stereotyped, b. losers, c. stereotyped losers, and/or d. racial caricatures. It takes another 30 minutes to get to the plot movement, and once we are there, we wish for the inane conversations between the couples and/or the bikers and pawn brokers.<br /><br />The film finds it's conclusion, but not without leaving any cliché untried. I didn't care for the white-trash characters who came in contact with the gun, and the depiction of the minority characters should have the NAACP crying foul immediately. All these people WOULD chase after a gun, because they are at the bottom of the societal trash-heap, and would look for an opportunity wherever it was found. Placing the action a level up would have at least provided some soul-searching on the part of the characters.<br /><br />The biggest problem is the promise unfulfilled. The plot outline was great. In the hands of a P.T. Anderson or Gus Van Zandt, it could have been a powerful piece. But due either to bad screenplay, direction or both, the thing is an unmitigated mess that needs to be ignored at all costs.<br /><br />My bigger question is who at the MFF thought this was competition material. Better bury this on Showtime at 3AM.<br /><br />Art Blose | negative |
After Loomis gives a quick recap of Micheal Myers we flashback to 1989 where Jamie is kidnapped by the Man in Black before the burning police station explodes. Micheal returns to Haddonfeild once again to find Jamie and his baby. In this version the Loomis character gets more scenes and seems much more pro-active than he is in the final cut. The Score is much better, more in line with parts 4 and 5, none of the electric guitar BS. And the ending makes a tad more sense. For these reasons coupled with the fact that this cut has more characterization and suspense, and cuts back on the gore factor (Halloween, unlike say the "Friday the 13th" Franschise, was never about blatant gore) is why I prefer this bootleg Producer's cut. Not to say that the cut magically turns a turd into gold, it just polishes the turd a little bit and makes it more comprehensible. The whole cult plot is still very stupid, as is Micheal fathering a kid <br /><br />My Producer's Cut Grade: C- <br /><br />My Theatrical Cut Grade: D- | negative |
A great story, although one we are certainly familiar with. Meryl Streep proves that she is truly the best actress in film today. Very entertaining, and just what I expected. Don't go see this film unless you are prepared to be used and manipulated emotionally, but if you have that expectation, then you will enjoy the ride..... | positive |
I had read up on the film and thought it would be cute, a feel good Saturday night movie. I wasn't expecting anything great, figured it would be mostly fluff but hopefully not a totally bad experience. I have to admit I was pleasantly surprised.<br /><br />The dialogue was pitch perfect, most of the actors were exceptionally good and it flowed nicely. Ash Christian was perfect, his ability to turn an awkward moment into something touching was nice to see. He could have turned this character into something we've all seen before but instead strayed away from stereotypes and focused on the wittiness of the character. It was wonderful to see Jonathan Caouette again, I didn't know what he would do after Tarnation. Ashley Fink is gem, a great young character actress that hopefully will get more work.<br /><br />There are moments in the film that could have used some work, but all in all not a bad time at the cinema. My friend described it as a gay Angus/Napoleon Dynamite but it's something more than that. It's a character study into what it's like to grow up gay in a small town, the pain is there but the humor behind that pain (that only age can make clearer) is magnified. I look forward to seeing more of Ash Christian, Ashley Fink and Jonathan Caouette soon. | positive |
What you saw in BULLITT and THE FRENCH CONNECTION is nothing compared to what you have here. The chase goes on for nearly 15 minutes and is the best you'll ever see. This movie has become a classic crime drama from the heyday of 70's film-making. It's a gritty and realistic portrayal of the mean streets of New York City. Featuring one of the slickest wise guys ever put on screen, Tony Lo Bianco's behavior in this movie is cool as ice. He's ripping off his own associates and making it look like the police are responsible. His childhood friend, Roy Scheider, is a street detective who becomes puzzled by the disappearances of the mobsters. You can tell that Lo Bianco's enjoying the game throughout the movie. At times though, the film gets dull, but then right when you feel like giving up on it, something big happens and it pulls you back in. The score by Don Ellis sets the tone of the cold, gray wintertime in New York City and to top it all off, my man Joe Spinell shows up in an early role as Toredano the garage man.<br /><br />Score, 7 out of 10 Stars | positive |
This the the final feature film that Michelangelo Antonioni directed, with the help of Wim Wenders, and adapts from his short story collection "That Bowling Alley on the Tiber". Beyond the Clouds contain 4 short stories with familiar themes that we've come to be accustomed to from his earlier works, and sums up those themes in vignettes which are weaved together via Wenders' directed scenes involving John Malkovich's The Director character. However, most of the stories seemed to offer little or no depth that we're used to from an Antonioni movie, while Malkovich's narration of supposed depth rattled on with unclear diction that sounded a tad pretentious and out of place.<br /><br />Nonetheless, all four stories seem to touch on chance encounters, and extremely quick romances that played out more like lust at first sight, perhaps due to the lack of time (since they're short stories anyway) to allow for a more layered approach to carefully define and craft the characters as we know from a typical Antonioni movie. And the obsessive approach here is for the characters to disrobe to showcase a lack of deeper connection sacrificed for the immediate satisfaction of the flesh. Maybe this is the point to want to bring across with an observation of the more modern relationship?<br /><br />The first story, Story of a Love Affair That Never Existed, tells the romance between Silvano (Kim Rossi Stuart) and Carmen (Ines Sastre), who meet when one asks the other for directions to a hotel, and later meet at a cafe. It's as if Fate is playing games on them when they meet, but part and meet again much later, but like the games people play, it's almost like a L'Avventura or a La Notte with the lack of communication, and of the expectations from the man.<br /><br />John Malkovich's director character takes central role in the next short, who exhibited some really lecherous looks toward a girl working at a shop, played by Sophie Marceau. She is deeply disturbed and made to feel uncomfortable, but somehow plucked up the courage to approach him, and in what I thought was to scare him off, tells him her background that she murdered her father by stabbing him 12 times. But in a flash these two are off toward bedroom gymnastics.<br /><br />The next short, Don't Look for Me, is the longest of the lot, with Peter Weller playing a cheating husband who has to choose between his mistress (Chiara Caselli) or his wife, played by Fanny Ardant. Perhaps the more star studded of the lot, with Jean Reno also stepping in for a coda at the end of it, which sort of expands the little universe in which this short exists. But unfortunately Reno's involvement also got relegated to some stifle of laughter as it goes into the implausible domain with laser quick romantic tanglements. There was a key element adapted from L'Eclisse with a kiss between a couple through a glass panel too, while the introductory tale about the story of souls was quite interesting. If there's a negative theme here this short wants to play upon, it'll be the duplicity of man.<br /><br />In between this short and the next was a small scene which reunited our couple from La Notte, Marcello Mastroianni and Jeanne Moreau, where the former was painting a landscape which was reminiscent of that in Red Desert. Finally, we have the final shot This Body of Dirt, with Vincent Perez as a young man going after a girl (Irene Jacob) whom he just met, and falling in love with her, only to realize that it is a love that is too late. It's a relatively talkie piece, just like the first story, with the characters engaging in conversation while walking the streets of the city they're in, which sort of brings to mind Richard Linklater's Before Sunrise.<br /><br />While on the whole the movie may have succeeded as individual pieces, they never quite measure up as a combined effort given the "excuse" to link them up was a film director's exploration of possible stories and a look for inspiration for his next film. | positive |
Vulpine Massacre should have been this movies actual title. And the tag-line should have read "Guaranteed to make your kids CRY!" This is a nature drama telling the story of a family of wild foxes in a remote region. Starting with the meeting and pairing of two young foxes and the eventual birth of a large family and the trials of raising them. The only speaking is done in narrative by a tree that stands over the den, giving insight into the animals loves and lives... Lovely scenery and gorgeous filming of the animals. Sounds good huh? Well from there things go straight to hell and then start drilling towards the core...<br /><br />*** Spoilers Below - Or they it may be a Warning!***<br /><br />Almost first off we learn one of the foxes is born blind. But seems to get along well enough and there's a beautifully cheerful musical score to accompany him... And then he dies... Next we have one of the siblings adventures. And then he dies... One of the sisters gets her screen-time... and then she dies...And so it goes like some horrific slasher movie as one fox after another is killed off by nature, in traps, just up and vanish, and even by a bunch of snowmobiles! By the end of the movie almost all the foxes have been massacred. Though mercifully no deaths are shown on screen. (Least not in the version we saw.) Unlike say "Tarka the Otter" the deaths in this movie are almost all pointless and border on the sadistic in the way hopes are built up and then snuffed out. One or two losses would have been acceptable. It is a nature film after all. But not nearly the whole family.<br /><br />Do not go to see this film deceived by the cheery box into thinking its safe for the kids. Watch it with some foreknowledge that things are *not* going to go well at all and that you or your kids may be left feeling very badly depending on how sensitive you or they are. You may enjoy it. Or you may not... | negative |
I saw it on video. Predictable, horrid acting, film flubs. What more can be said, this movie sucks. The actors are annoying to say the least. This was suppose to be a comedy, but there was only one funny moment, other than that is was painful to watch for me.<br /><br />1 out of 10. PASS! | negative |
Obvious tailored vehicle for Ryan Philippe. It seem the studios were hoping he could play a lead tough cop and not look like he's eternally 16 (he can't).<br /><br />Heavyweights Jason Statham and Welsey Snipes serve as bookends to Phillippe, but when they're not on the screen Phillippe flounders; his shallow acting style has nothing to bounce off of.<br /><br />The script is a typical late 20th century potboiler good cop/bad cop with a ridiculously predictable plot and dialogue lifted out of 1970s TV cop shows, such as "The Streets of San Francisco." Snipes reprises his role as the eternal black-hat villain, playing a slightly less crazed madman than his Demolition Man role. However, there wasn't much for Snipes and Statham to chew on. Statham's character announces he'd given up nicotine and caffeine - something this movie badly needed injections of.<br /><br />Truly forgettable moment: Ryan Phillippe expounding on Buddhist dogma: Galloway: Are you a Buddhist? Dekker: No. It's just something I picked up along the way. | negative |
So I rented "Still Crazy" instead. When I described Hardcore Logo to the guy at the video store, he said that sounded kind of like Still Crazy. So I rented it. Was I disappointed? Well, yes, as Still Crazy focuses on a classic rock band rather than a punk band, but that's OK. Still Crazy tells the story of the Strange Fruit, a rock band that broke up in the 70s at the peak of their popularity at a large rock festival. Twenty years later, the band members are all struggling to make a living, and are offered the opportunity to play a concert at the twenty year anniversary of this festival. They take up the offer and decide to reform on a permanent basis, touring Europe in the process. Some quite funny hijinks ensue, and all the characters go through subtle changes. Watching this movie, you feel more like a viewer of a carefully edited documentary than a participant. And that's not bad at all. | positive |
This movie has some of the worst acting I've ever seen. Dennis Quaid's performance was high school caliber. While it's difficult to portray an off-the-wall character like Jerry Lee Lewis, it can be done. Just ask Jamie Foxx (although Ray Charles had more depth to his personality and musicianship than Lewis ever dreamed of possessing). The Phillips brothers portrayal belonged in The Dukes of Hazzard, and Alec Baldwin playing Jimmy Swaggart is a bit like Donald Duck performing Shakespeare. When Robert Duvall played a country preacher, I bought it. Baldwin never made me believe a single word. Wynona Ryder's part was the best, and she was mediocre. (And can anyone figure out how she was 13 when Lewis met her and still 13 more than a year later?) Some checking on the Internet reveals the essential facts presented by the film were true, at least no more fouled-up than most Hollywood bio pics. This film did badly at the box office, and it should have. | negative |
"Problem Child 2" was a complete waste of my time. The original film wasn't very good but its a classic compared to this film. The first film went over the top with its scenes of a devilish child wrecking major havoc in the lives of everyone he's around. Here, it goes even further over the top. And one scene in this movie proves that theory. That carnival ride sequence was too much for me to stomach. It's awful. This movie shouldn't have been made.<br /><br />1/2* (out of four) | negative |
I read the above comment and cannot believe it! Of course its a children's movie, its an adaptation of a children's book!! This film IS easy to get a hold of, try play.com or amazon and its very easy to gain a copy! The jokes are hilarious for kids and adults alike, and the adventure is clean with no violence! Its completely suitable for children of all ages! The songs are fab, and yes, a little repetitive but thats what children need and whilst watching it my little ones were heard singing "hi hi cocalorum" all night! They loved it, a story of innocence and friendship! Very lovely and well worth watching for kids and adults of all ages! | positive |
Anyone interested in pop music, and not familiar with British music trends of the late-seventies, should be sure to watch Breaking Glass at least once. The movie, about a young woman's quest to make her mark in the music world, captures the times perfectly, from the overt sexism, rough economic times, social upheaval, to the shift in pop culture from rough-and-tumble punk to terribly fey and pretentious Futurism/New Romanticism. The music and fashion styles created daily in Britain in the late-seventies are still being rediscovered and recycled (there really has been nothing new since 1980). This was a dazzling time, and Breaking Glass both tells a very personal story and surveys the cultural landscape, and does both extremely well. | positive |
What a movie! I never imagined Richard Attenborough could have such a movie in him. Gandhi has always left me indifferent, apart from Ben Kingsley's performance, and I never considered Attenborough a particularly good filmmaker. But Cry Freedom held my interest like few movies have in recent times. It's an exciting, mesmerizing political movie with great performances by Kevin Kline and a young Denzel Washington.<br /><br />Kline plays Donald Woods, a South Africa newspaper editor who befriends the civil rights activist Steve Biko. It starts as a difficult friendship, for Woods sees Biko as a black supremacist preaching hatred against whites. But Biko, with his kind words, upbeat attitude and complete transparency, wins over Woods and introduces him to a reality about Apartheid that Woods knew nothing about.<br /><br />Biko is a decent, law-abiding citizen who altruistically stands up against all prejudice and the system that keeps down his people. One night, coming from an illegal meeting, he's arrested and beaten to death. The authorities try to hush up the matter because Biko has become a huge personality in South Africa. But through the efforts of Woods the truth comes out. But what should be a triumph only becomes a nightmare as Woods and his family become targets for the secret police.<br /><br />This movie has an interesting structure. It has in fact two narratives: first it narrates the life and death of Biko. It's an amazing first half, completely dominated by the charisma of Washington in what may be his greatest performance yet.<br /><br />The second half, no less interesting, narrates Woods attempt to escape from South Africa to publish a book about Biko. Woods has become an enemy of state, a banned person, which means he can't meet people or leave his country. Plus he's constantly spied by the police. Kevin Kline gives a great performance in this second half too.<br /><br />Although the first half is quite straightforward, the second does interesting things with editing, by giving flashbacks of Biko and of events that show the repression against the black South Africans. Some may argue this is to make it more interesting, but for me the second half just as captivating, as Woods and his family devise a bold plan to escape South Africa.<br /><br />The last minutes were so heartbreaking I was in tears. George Fenton and Jonas Gwangwa's score certainly had something to do with it. Although I've never been much of a fan of Fenton (cannot stand his Gandhi score), I do think the score for Cry Freedom is one of the most beautiful ever composed for cinema. The movie, thanks to the music married to the powerful images, at times reached incredible peaks of emotion.<br /><br />Cry Freedom is definitely not a movie just to watch because of Denzel Washington. This is a movie to be cherished in its entirety. Acting, writing, music, editing, cinematography come together in a perfect synthesis to create an ode to the power of the human spirit. This movie deserve a place alongside movies like The Pianist, Life Is beautiful and The Shawshank Redemption. | positive |
This was Gene Kelly's breakthrough, and that alone makes it memorable. Throw in Rita Hayworth as his love interest and comedian Phil Silvers of all people as his sidekick and you have the ingredients for a real crowd pleaser, which is exactly how it turned out.<br /><br />Kelly plays Danny McGuire, a nightclub owner in Brooklyn (Brooklyn is always the "wrong side of the tracks" in '40s films) whose star attraction and love interest is Rusty Parker (Rita Hayworth). Rita is lovely, and even plays a dual role as Rusty and Rusty's grandmother. Rusty has a chance at the big time through the machinations of John Coudair (Otto Kruger), who romanced and lost Rusty's grandmother.<br /><br />The plot revolves around Danny cutting Rusty loose, to the detriment of his club, because she has a chance at success that he can't give her. But, naturally, that's not what Rusty ultimately wants, because, as usual in films of that time, the right guy is the only thing on the girl's mind. There are no surprises, but everybody does their thing well.<br /><br />Kelly does the first of his amazing trick dances, this time with himself as a reflection from a glass window. He was the master at that sort of dance, and one still has to wonder how they timed everything so precisely so that he really does seem to be in two places at once. The melodrama gets a bit thick, and there are some gratuitous war references thrown in that do little but provide the opportunity for a song or two, but Kelly takes this film to the next level. This was before he became a mega-star and too smooth perhaps for his own good. An underlying edge of rawness to his character lends it a believable and almost wistful air.<br /><br />Kelly's character in the 1980 "Xanadu" also was named Danny McGuire. This film was the beginning, that film the end, of a terrific run for a dancing genius. Clearly, this film meant a lot to him. Highly recommended. | positive |
While in her deathbed, Ann Lord (Vanessa Redgrave) repeats the name "Harris" and recalls the day on the 50's when she was an aspirant singer and traveled from New York to be the maid of honor of her wealthy friend Lila Wittenborn (Mamie Gummer) in Newport. Ann Grant (Claire Danes) is welcomed by Lila's alcoholic and reckless brother Buddy (Hugh Dancy) in the Wittenborn's cottage at seaside and he tells her that his sister is in love actually for their friend and servant Harris Arden (Patrick Wilson), who fought in the war and has graduated in medicine. Later the bride-to-be confesses her true feelings about Harris to Ann. However, when Ann meets Harris, she has a crush on him and they have a brief affair during one night stand while a tragedy happens with Buddy. Meanwhile Ann's daughters, the insecure and unstable Nina Mars (Toni Collette) and the happy wife and mother Constance Haverford (Natasha Richardson), are worried with their mother and have differences to be resolved.<br /><br />"Evening" has one of the best feminine casts I have ever seen in a movie, with magnificent performances. The resemblance of the stunning Mamie Gummer with her mother Meryl Streep is amazing and she has a performance that honors the name of her mother. The locations, costumes, set decoration, cinematography and soundtrack are also awesome. Unfortunately the plot is confused and I have not clearly understood the message of this film. Why motherhood is so important in the story? Was Constance engendered in the night stand of Ann and Harris and he would be her father? Why Ann and Harris have not stayed together, if the guy really loved her like he confesses in their occasional encounter in New York? Which issues Ann Lord has resolved after the visit of Lila Ross? Was Buddy Wittenborn bisexual or his love for Harris was a fraternal love? Why Nina Mars changed her thoughts about motherhood in the end? It seems that the screenplay writers or the director failed since they were not able to make sense and fulfillment to the beautiful love story. My vote is seven.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Ao Entardecer" ("In the Eventide") | positive |
my friend bought the movie for 5 (its is not even 1 cent worth), because they wrote it was like American pie. but we would soon find out that there is a long way from American pie to that piece of crap. it is not even a comedy, its more like a really really really bad documentary. not only the story is bad, the picture and sound also sucks to. they put in some alcohol, chicks, dwarfs and drunken teens. and the result is a disaster. if you see this movie don't buy it, rather spend your money on something else, and better. if you are gonna torture yourself, then don't invite your friend/s, unless you hate really much and you want to get rid of them. | negative |
Okay, sure, this film will never win an oscar. Citizen cane this film is not... BUT why does every film have to be scrutinized? when was the last time you saw a film that was funny not becuase it was good, but because it was goofy? doesn't anyone remember roger corman, king of exploitation?<br /><br />well, I had fun. I liked the cheese. just go in not expecting to think, and prepare to throw popcorn at the screen. | negative |
A bickering, American family, vacationing in the west, discover a strange ghost town in the middle of the desert. Little do they know that this ghost town was once a test site for nuclear bombs, and a deadly presence is stalking them. I generally love mystery-horror films like this. "Cube", Spielberg's "Duel" and "The Birds" are all great examples of movies that give no answers but nonetheless leave us intrigued and wanting more. Apparently, "Disappearance" writer/director Walter Klenhard was trying to make just that kind of film, and whether or not he succeeded is up to the viewer. I personally think he got about half way there, then the film just sunk.<br /><br />The actors are all kind of just "ho-hum". Their not especially bad but we as an audience never really feel their fear and they react to situations in unrealistic ways. Is anyone else absolutely SICK of characters just walking out off to investigate strange sounds?!?!? At least give them SOME kind of justification for doing so!?!?!?<br /><br />As far as made-for-TV films go it's an above average fair for sure. Director Klenhard Should be commended for really milking the desert environment for everything it offered and some of the setting were striking. There's a really cool scene where two characters find an old nuclear test ground were the sand had been completely melted to glass for as far as the eye could see. I wonder if that was real
<br /><br />No gore to speak of, and the 'creatures'
or what ever the hell it is that's after these people
are never shown, not to mention that we are never even given a real clue as to what they are (Mutants, aliens, ghosts or ancient evil Indian spirits
Oh, that really narrows it down for us!) or where the come from. <br /><br />There are lots of clichés here, too. Why is it that towns-folk in these kinds of films are always really, really dumb? Why is there always an old guy everyone thinks is crazy that turns out to be correct? Why? Why? Why? How 'bout a NEW scenario, folks! <br /><br />"Disappearance" tries to be different and intelligent but ultimately fails in that in many ways it's too familiar to us fans of direct-to-video horror fodder. Hey, I've seen much worse films, and disappearance ain't bad, it's just too
Average.<br /><br />4/10. | negative |
"Glen or Glenda" was Edward D. Wood Jr's first attempt at directing a feature film. For this he chose a topic near and dear to his heart...transvestism, the "art" of a man wanting to dress in women's clothes. To his credit, Wood tried to deal with subject matter that was largely taboo in 1953. Unfortunately, Wood had neither the budget nor the know how to make the film.<br /><br />The story opens with a prologue by Bela Lugosi that makes little sense and then moves to the discovery of a dead transvestite Glen/Glenda (Daniel Davis aka Ed Wood). Inspector Warren (Lyle Talbot) with the help of psychiatrist Dr. Alton (Timothy Farrell) tries to understand why a man would want to live (and die) this way.<br /><br />Glen is engaged to Barbara (Dolores Fuller) and is reluctant to tell her of his obsession. And that's it. We see endless stock footage shots of anything from freeway traffic to soldiers landing on the beach, interspersed with shots of Wood walking down the same street dressed as either Glen or Glenda and looking longingly at women's clothes in a store window. Poor old Bela, who was down on his luck and befriended by Wood, keeps popping in throughout the story. I'm not 100% sure but I think Bela's scenes were added for his name value after the body of the movie was completed.<br /><br />To add to the confusion of Lugosi's narration, Farrell as Dr. Alton also provides off screen narration. Lugosi keeps saying, bevare, bevare...take care, take care, as well as, some gibberish about snakes and snails and puppy dog's tails.<br /><br />The story also deals with a transvestite who has a successful sex change operation and tries to explain the difference between that person and Wood's character(s). The dream sequences are laughable. A wedding sequence in which someone dressed as the devil appears is a good example. Wood also gives us an apparent rape scene with the actors(?) fully clothed but leaving little to the imagination, risqué for 1953.<br /><br />This film along with Wood's other "classics" were so bad that they became embraced by the public as cult classics over the years. For that reason, they have survived to this day. | negative |
Another horror flick in which a goof-ball teenager battles a madman and his supernatural sidekick who want to take over?! Yes, but the fact that this one was from Canada gives it a slightly different feel. "The Brain" has troublesome teenager Jim Majelewski getting put into a treatment whose leader turns out to be a cult leader aided by a big ugly "brain". Can Jim stop him? I guess that since our northern neighbor has accomplished all that they have accomplished, they're entitled to make at least one ridiculous horror movie. But still, they'll probably want to be known for having national health care and all.<br /><br />The bad guy had a brain. Why didn't the people who made this movie? | negative |
All right, I'll grant you that some of the science in "Doppelganger" (or "Journey To The Far Side Of The Sun") is kind of dopey.The idea of an entire planet existing undetected (because we can't see it on the other side of our sun) doesn't hold up at all - any Astronomy 101 student knows that another planet the size of Earth would cause gravitational perturbances in the motions of other planets. That's how astronomers deduced the existence of Pluto, after all, and that's how they find comets and asteroids and moons on a regular basis.<br /><br />And the idea that a mirror image Earth somehow evolved in almost perfect parallel to our Earth, down to English speaking scientists and human counterparts for each human born on our Earth...that takes things out of 'hard science' fiction and into "Twilight Zone" territory. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it requires a major suspension of critical thinking to accept and enjoy. <br /><br />But man, this movie knocked my socks off as an adolescent. I was still used to fairly cheerful, upbeat science fiction films when the hero won through in the end - even "2001" could be interpreted as having an 'upbeat' ending. <br /><br />But in this case: Thinnes attempted to dock with his orbiting mothership so he could return to his own Earth, only to be bounced back out of his docking berth (Something about 'the polarities not being reversed because his 'doppelganger' wasn't doing the same thing. Apparently Thinnes' 'doppelganger' had decided he was happy in his new home.) Thinnes' ship started the descent back to the CounterEarth launch site, and I was certain that he would somehow get the damaged craft to land safely and try again, armed with the new info that would let him and his backers succeed. He was The Hero after all, and the Hero always wins through in the end. <br /><br />Instead, Thinnes couldn't maintain control of the crippled craft, and the ship's subsequent crash into the launch site was so horrible and devastating that it killed everyone (except for the chief project leader) and destroyed all records of the project and Thinnes' existence. Thinnes never got to go home, and he perished uselessly, his secrets never revealed. <br /><br />Except for the Planet Of the Apes series, I had never seen such a sad and downbeat ending, and it always stuck in my mind - especially the ferocious devastation of the crash scene near the beginning of the move (you knew that spaceship was NEVER going to fly again!) and the one at the very end. <br /><br />I'd love to see this movie again, and see how well it held up over the years. | positive |
I saw this film opening weekend in Australia, anticipating with an excellent cast of Ledger, Edgerton, Bloom, Watts and Rush that the definitive story of Ned Kelly would unfold before me. Unfortunately, despite an outstanding performance by Heath Ledger in the lead role, the plot was paper thin....which doesn't inspire me to read "Our Sunshine". There were some other plus points, the support acting from Edgerton in particular, assured direction from Jordan (confirming his talent on show in Buffalo Soldiers as well), and production design that gave a real feel of harshness to the Australian bush, much as the Irish immigrants of the early 19th century must have seen it. But I can't help feeling that another opportunity has been missed to tell the real story of an Australian folk hero (or was he?)....in what I suspect is a concession to Hollywood and selling the picture in the US. Oh well, at least Jordan and the producers didn't agree to lose the beards just to please Universal...<br /><br />Guess I will just have to content myself with Peter Carey's excellent "Secret History of the Kelly Gang". 4/10 | negative |
Bela Lugosi is not typecast in this fantastic twelve-part adventure serial, playing the lead as Frank Chandler/Chandu the Magician, enjoying his role as a representative of the forces of White Magic pushed against those of Black, while displaying vigourous fighting skill, successfully wooing a young Egyptian princess, and cutting a lean and dashing figure in yachting gear, complete with nautical cap. The somewhat lumpy plot engages Chandler/Chandu in an ongoing series of escapades pointed at achieving the rescue of his fiancee, Princess Nadji(Maria Alba) and others from the clutches of the idol-worshipping sect of Ubasti, which covets Nadji's blood in order to revivify an ancient mummified princess entombed upon the mysterious island of Lemuria. Director Ray Taylor, an old hand at such entertainments keeps events moving briskly, but repeated scenes and footage, a good deal of which is to be found in the previous year's Skull Island setting from KING KONG, and the port locale from SON OF KONG, reduces original action to less than 60 minutes from the serial's running length of over two and one-half hours and, if viewed at one sitting, becomes lacking in effect to most viewers, unless insomniac. | negative |
The fact that I watched this entire movie says something about it...or me. It is not a good movie. Terrible in fact. But terrible in the way that kept my attention in that perverse manner that is akin to watching a tragedy and not being able to look away. It would have made a great MST3K subject!<br /><br />Most of the things that make a terrible movie enjoyable are here: bad dialogue, inappropriate music, contrived plot sequences, ridiculous pseudoscience. You'll thrill to slo-mo death sequences, the poor victims with mouths agape and waaaaaaaay too much time to contemplate their impending doom, facing the outrageously contrived deliverer of their deaths. Your heart will be warmed by old action scene cliches like when two women struggle for a gun and it goes off, but WHO'S SHOT? Both look at themselves, then the other, then themselves, then (seemingly 15 minutes later), one finally goes down. You'll sing along (in latin of course) with the street carolers that turn into a ghastly death's-choir that, for a moment, threatened to turn the movie into a twisted musical.<br /><br />So if you believe like I do that as movies get worse they get better, then this might be a decent choice for you. It's not as funny as my current sci-fi schlock favorite, "They Live" featuring Rowdy Roddy Piper, but it's more fun to watch than luke-warm movies like Omen II or III.<br /><br />I give it 4 out of 10. | negative |
It's a shame. There's an interesting idea here, but it gets completely lost in a confusion of Commodore 64 style computer effects and bad storytelling. The plot, such as it is, concerns a bounty hunter of souls. It should be a fairly straightforward hunter/hunted kind of story, but the director and/or the writer seem like they forgot what the movie was supposed to be when they were about three days into shooting. Things aren't helped by the fact that the main baddie looks like he's wearing a cheap Darth Maul mask, which they tried to disguise with flowing CG colors. Not much to recommend here, even the title seems to propel it into obscurity. | negative |
i just saw this film, i first saw it when i was 7 and could just about remember the end. so i watched it like, 10 minutes ago, and (i may seem like a baby as i am 12 ha-ha) i started to cry at the ending, i forgotten how sad it was. i think i was mainly sad for Anne-Marie because she said: 'i love you Charlie' and also: 'i'll miss you Charlie', just made me really cry ha-ha. it has to be one of me favourite movies of all time, it is just a film well worth watching. WATCH IT ha-ha, thats all i can say XD<br /><br />but, i love this film, its a true classic.<br /><br />xx Maverick xx 10/10 | positive |
Nagra comes from conservative Indian family that isn't exactly into girls playing competitive soccer. But our attractive young star CAN play some serious soccer. Rhys-Meyers coaches Nagra and encourages her to perform, while Knightley is supportive teammate and friend. When sis' wedding is scheduled for the same day as the ultimate soccer match, what's a girl to do? Similar in its own unique way to BFGW as Nagra tries to push the envelope on traditional family ways. Here it's dad (well-played by Kher) who can see both sides of the issue. Docked an entire point for a hokey late sexual preference non-crisis, if they needed filler they could have gone elsewhere. Nice final wrap up to the whole deal. | positive |
There are some films that every Horror fan owes himself (or herself) to see, and Emilio Miraglia's "La Dama Rossa Uccide Sette Volte" aka. "The Red Queen Kills Seven Times" (1972) is definitely one of them. With Gialli and Gothic Tales being my two favorite sub-genres in Horror, I was looking forward to seeing this film for quite a while, and even though my expectations were high, this masterpiece surpassed my greatest hopes. Miraglia's earlier Giallo, "The Night Evelyn Came Out of the Grave" (1971) was already a creepy and highly atmospheric film which successfully mixed Giallo with Gothic Horror, but it couldn't possibly compare to this instant personal favorite. "The Red Queen Kills Seven Times" is, hands down, one of the most unique and overwhelming Italian Horror films ever made, and no lover of the genre could possibly consider missing it. An incredibly mesmerizing Giallo with strong Gothic elements, "The Red Queen" delivers everything one could hope for in either sub-genre: An inventive and incredibly compelling plot, spine-chilling suspense, a sublimely uncanny setting and a genuinely creepy atmosphere, eerily lush colors, stylish murders, a brilliant score, and, not least, a ravishing female cast lead by the stunningly beautiful Barbara Bouchet - this film simply is one of the most outstanding combinations of elegant beauty and pure terror.<br /><br />The film starts out incredibly in a beautiful Gothic castle in Germany. As little girls, Kitty Wildenbrück and her sister Evelyn have been fighting when their grandfather tells them the story behind an incredibly uncanny painting: Legend has it that a fiendish Red Lady is to return to the castle every hundred years and kill seven people. Fourteen years later, Kitty (Barbara Bouchet) has become a successful fashion photographer. Suddenly, people begin to get murdered... Director Miraglia had already proved his incredible talent for style, atmosphere and colorful creepiness with "The Night Evelyn Came Out of the Grave" and he makes use of these elements even far more effectively in this gem. "The Red Queen Kills Seven Times" is a feast for the eyes indeed, and one of the most overwhelming Italian Horror films both visually and plot-wise. The haunting painting in the Grandfather's castle alone is capable of giving the viewer the goosebumps. The Red Lady (or Red Queen, as she is called in the English title) is arguably the most fiendish figure ever in a Giallo, the spine-chilling laughter that the murders are accompanied by would even be frightening on its own. <br /><br />A sexy female cast is always appreciated, especially in a Giallo, and this one is a prime example for that. The ravishing Barbara Bouchet (one of my favorite actresses) must be one of the most stunningly beautiful ladies ever to appear on screen, and she is a great actress too. Bouchet's presence has graded up many Italian flicks, among other appearances she starred in three of the greatest Cult-masterpieces of Italian 70s cinema within one year (1972): Fernando Di Leo's "Milano Calibro 9", Lucio Fulci's Giallo-highlight "Don't Torture a Duckling" and this unforgettable gem. Apart from the wonderful Miss Bouchet, the film's gorgeous female cast includes sexy young Sybil Danning, Marina Malfatti ("The Night Evelyn Came Out of the Grave"), and other beauties who are not afraid to bare it for the camera. <br /><br />As the whole film, the murders are stylish and extremely elegant, yet frightening and macabre, and some of them are quite gory. Bruno Nicolai's mesmerizing score is as memorable as it gets, and makes the film's intensely eerie atmosphere even more haunting. The plot is ingeniously convoluted and full of red herrings, the tension-level increses with each passing minute. "The Red Queen..." begins creepy and it stays stunning to the last second. Overall, this is one of the films that I cannot find enough words of praise for. "The Red Queen Kills Seven Times" is an absolute masterpiece that easily ranks among the finest Gialli ever made, and a top-priority for every fan of Horror and/or Italian cinema to see. 10/10 | positive |
This movie was slower then Molasses in January... in Alaska. The man who put togeather the preview should get an award for managing to put every one of the 30 seconds that were interisting into the preview. I had to wake up the people I was watching it with, several times. After it was over, I felt bad for having woken them up. <br /><br />Most of the film is taken up with hoping something will actually happen, but nothing ever does. It was easy to loose track of people's motives, and the characters were flat and uninteristing. By the end of the movie, you just hoped everyone would died. Everyone runs around either being contemptible, petty, or pitiful, and usually all three. <br /><br />And worse, we watched a minute or two of the added features, just for kicks and giggles you understand, and all that we saw was people being smug about how socially aware they are. If they had spend the time on the movie that they did patting themselves on the back, it might have been worth watching. <br /><br />I was brought in expecting the excitement of '24.' I got a lecture on social awareness through the blery eyes of the sandman. | negative |
The 1963 version of "The Haunting" has been one of my favorite horror films for years, so I anticipated the release of this 1999 remake with a good deal of trepidation. It hardly seemed that any follow-up could exceed or even equal the original masterpiece. Unfortunately my worries were well-founded: This movie stinks.<br /><br />I don't know what the people involved in this film were thinking. Jan De Bont, who seemed to have had a fluke when he directed the excellent "Speed," does as poorly here (or perhaps even worse) as he did with the much-hyped duds "Twister" and "Speed 2: Cruise Control." Hey Jan, stick to cinematography, would ya? Liam Neeson is adequate in his role as the doctor-pretending-to-be-a-sleep-psychologist -- I don't think he is capable of turning in a truly bad performance -- but even he cannot save a lame script and weak story. Catherine Zeta Jones proves once again (as she did in "Entrapment") that she lacks the acting ability to rise above the material that is handed to her. The female lead, who did great in an episode of "The X-Files," looks lost here as Eleanor, an insomniac hovering on the edge of sanity. And that blond guy, whoever he is, is more wooden than the laughably strange statuettes of children carved into the woodwork around the house. I don't think he changes expression once during the entire film.<br /><br />(SPOILERS AHEAD)<br /><br />The reason the first movie worked so well is because we were never sure whether the house was truly haunted or whether the manifestations were a result of Eleanor's precarious mental state. No spirits are actually seen in the original, leaving much up to the imagination--a hallmark of other great horror films like "The Changeling" and "The Blair Witch Project." In this updated version, we of course get tons of CGI ghosts, which basically (in the face of the weak script/plot) make the movie totally unscary. The f/x aren't even that great, considering they were done by ILM. The frozen breath looks particularly fake. The effects in the underrated Peter Jackson film "The Frighteners," which I saw just before this one, were a lot better. The wooden carvings of the children, which are supposed to look creepy, just look silly (especially when they scream), and the CGI monsters are nothing to write home about. Rather than providing a relief from the bad acting, bad direction, and bad writing, the effects only add to this mess of a film.<br /><br />Some particularly dumb scenes: When the three other characters break into Eleanor's bedroom, and none of them seem at all surprised to find a huge scowling demon hovering over the bed. The scene where Eleanor "sees" the former lady of the house hanging from the rafters... the acting here is particularly bad. And last, but not least, the unintentionally hilarious bit where Wooden Blond Guy utters an uninspired shout of what is supposed to be anguish, leaps up on a piece of furniture, and starts slashing away at the painting of the old, evil guy who built the house. We actually get some satisfaction in this scene, as seconds after his attack, Blond Guy is dragged over to the fireplace by the ghost of the old guy and promptly gets his head cut off by the flue. It was the only part of the movie I enjoyed.<br /><br />In sum, stick to the original 1963 "The Haunting." 3/10 stars. | negative |
I like Money! I stumbled on this brilliant film in a local video store last week. Wasn't sure what to expect. Brought it home, set up the player and then my journey in to stupidity began. The first viewing I did a lot of chuckling, no laughing out loud really. It wasn't until the second viewing the movie really started to take a hold on me and the humor was that much funnier. It reminded me of Austin Powers, first viewing it was all right, then the real fun began telling people about it, just talking about each scene and the set up. I'm making all my friends watch this movie, everyone I know. This movie may very well be one of the most accurate "Future" movies ever made. This movie is more then just 84 minutes of entertainment, it's a warning to the future of our civilization. Mike Judge, the fantastic mind who brought us Office Space has brought us a vision of life in the automated future. Luke Wilson's dead pan humor as "Average" Joe enhanced the movie that much more. Watch this movie then once you're done, READ more! WRITE more! THINK more! For the futures sake if not for your own! | positive |
This film was so unfocused, rambling and uneven that it was an effort to watch the whole thing. (I actually thought some interesting plot elements might develop.) This was nothing more than a "coming-of-age" film for the thirty-something generation. Total crap and I have no idea what Julianne Moore was doing in this since it was the only reason I picked it off the shelf at the rental store. | negative |
Many neglect that this isn't just a classic due to the fact that it's the first 3D game, or even the first shoot-'em-up. It's also one of the first stealth games, one of the only(and definitely the first) truly claustrophobic games, and just a pretty well-rounded gaming experience in general. With graphics that are terribly dated today, the game thrusts you into the role of B.J.(don't even *think* I'm going to attempt spelling his last name!), an American P.O.W. caught in an underground bunker. You fight and search your way through tunnels in order to achieve different objectives for the six episodes(but, let's face it, most of them are just an excuse to hand you a weapon, surround you with Nazis and send you out to waste one of the Nazi leaders). The graphics are, as I mentioned before, quite dated and very simple. The least detailed of basically any 3D game released by a professional team of creators. If you can get over that, however(and some would suggest that this simplicity only adds to the effect the game has on you), then you've got one heck of a good shooter/sneaking game. The game play consists of searching for keys, health and ammo, blasting enemies(aforementioned Nazis, and a "boss enemy" per chapter) of varying difficulty(which, of course, grows as you move further in the game), unlocking doors and looking for secret rooms. There is a bonus count after each level is beaten... it goes by how fast you were(basically, if you beat the 'par time', which is the time it took a tester to go through the same level; this can be quite fun to try and beat, and with how difficult the levels are to find your way in, they are even challenging after many play-throughs), how much Nazi gold(treasure) you collected and how many bad guys you killed. Basically, if you got 100% of any of aforementioned, you get a bonus, helping you reach the coveted high score placings. The game (mostly, but not always) allows for two contrastingly different methods of playing... stealthily or gunning down anything and everything you see. You can either run or walk, and amongst your weapons is also a knife... running is heard instantly the moment you enter the same room as the guard, as is gunshots. Many guards are found standing with their backs turned to you, meaning that you can walk up behind them and stab them... nearly silently. In your inventory, you can get no less than four weapons and two keys... more about the weapons later. The keys unlock certain doors. Most doors in the game aren't locked... only two kinds need keys, and these keys are only introduced in later levels(you restart in levels, resetting weaponry, health, score and lives in each chapter). Much of the later game is spent looking for them. Now, as I just alluded to, this game, like many of the period(late 80's, early 90's), is based on collecting extra lives... personally, I think it's completely and utterly useless(it was mercifully dropped from here on end... I think(?), from the next 3D shooter and onwards), since you can save anytime you want and 'using a life' resets weaponry, health and ammo, like starting on a new chapter(which is a real pain in later levels, where you *need* heavier artillery). Now, I shall beat around the bush no longer... moving on to the guns! You start with aforementioned knife(which is silent but only effective up close) and a pistol... nothing special, but good for conserving ammo, unlike the next two bad boys. Your third weapon is a German SMG... a sub-machine-gun. It's faster and automatic, and some later enemies use it. And the last one... is nothing short of a Gatling gun! Oh yeah! Think T2. Think Predator. Think about unloading massive amounts of lead into Nazi fiends with such a gun. It's every bit as entertaining as it sounds. Most of the boss enemies use this, though, so be prepared. I won't reveal the identities of these boss enemies, however... that's for each player to discover for him(or her)self. The sound is excellent... very crisp and realistic. As you hear the tear of a machine-gun firing, the deafening metallic clank of a door slamming shut behind you or a Nazi yelling surprised or a warning in German, you truly feel like you are there, trapped in these dark and depressing bunker systems. That segues me nicely into the level design... as you run through seemingly countless, nearly identical hallways towards the next elevator leading you further, you are grasped by the claustrophobic mood. I almost got motion sickness more than once(though that might also have something to do with little sleep, lots of humidity and unusual warmth...) from playing. Though the level of detail isn't terribly high, what there is is great. Remains of victims, guards' quarters and countless Nazi symbols... the list goes on. The game also features quite a bit of gore... for it's limited graphics engine, John Romero and crew certainly put in all the blood and guts that they could for the game. What is there left to say... the first of its kind, and it's no wonder this spawned countless others 3D shooters. Sure, weapon bobbing and different height levels(stairs and such) didn't come around until the next entry into the genre... Doom... and it was Duke Nukem 3D that introduced the feature of switching your view(so it goes beyond simply left and right, adding vertical dimensions to it), and jumping didn't come around until a third, later title(the first Quake, possibly? Fellow gamers, help me out here)... but all of those games, as well as the rest of the genre, owe their existence to this one. So load up the Luger, open the door to enter the bunker and step into B.J.'s shoes... he deserves the recognition, even(or maybe even especially?) nearly fifteen years after he first appeared. I recommended this to all fans of 3D games. 8/10 | positive |
What a fun movie! If you're a Giallo fan, Red Queen Kills 7 Times is a real winner. To begin with, it's hard to go wrong with Barbara Bouchet and Marina Malfatti in the same Giallo. Both are wonderful - especially the wide-eyed innocent Bouchet as the guilt ridden woman fearing for her life. The kill scenes in Red Queen Kills 7 Times are especially nice and feature enough blood to make most fans happy. One of the first murders comes rather unexpectedly and really gets the movie off to a good start. The killer, The Red Queen, is one of the most over-the-top and interesting looking murderers I've seen in an Italian movie. The 70s sets and fashions are wonderful. In fact, all the visuals are interesting with the laughing Red Queen running across the bridge at night being one of my favorite moments in the film. The convoluted plot held my interest throughout. Finally, Bruno Nicolai's score may be the best I've heard from the composer. The main theme is so memorable I haven't been able to get it out of my head for two days.<br /><br />The only two issues I have with Red Queen Kills 7 Times come in the film's finale. First, the person responsible for the murders is far too easy to spot. If you've seen more than a couple Gialli, you won't have any problem determining who is behind the killings. Second, the ending feels a little too rushed and, as a result, is a bit confusing. I'm definitely not one who needs every plot point spelled out to me, but I'll admit to being at a loss to explain it all. A second viewing might just clear this up. | positive |
Perspective is a good thing. Since the release of "Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace", claims and counter-claims of just how Episode's II and III will eventuate has taken the spotlight off the 'original' Star Wars films, making them part of a cohesive whole, rather than segregating the older and new films into separate trilogies. What the new films have done is allow fresh perspectives to be placed on the older films. This new outlook allows us to greater appreciate what has often been viewed as the weakest of the original trilogy: "Return of the Jedi". Often derided for its overly 'cute' factor, ROTJ is in a sense as strong as the original and only slightly less impressive than the nearly perfect "The Empire Strikes Back". Indeed the 'cute' element of ROTJ, namely the Ewoks, remains a weak link in the entire series. Did George Lucas place the furry midgets in the film purely for the merchandising possibilities? Only he can answer that question.<br /><br />This cute factor aside, the film is a brilliant full circle AND evolution of the saga. Following on from the conclusion of "The Empire Strikes Back", Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill) follows his Rebel Alliance friends to Tatooine, his home planet, to rescue Han Solo (Harrison Ford), the space pirate turned Rebel hero who was captured by Jabba the Hutt for overdue debts.<br /><br />Skywalker is a changed man since leaving Tatooine with Ben 'Obi Wan' Kenobi (Alec Guiness) to fight the evil Empire. Now swathed all in black, Luke's discovery of his origins have left him confused and torn. His psychological make up is not as strong as his outward appearance would suggest. While he might aim to always assist his Rebel friends, he yearns for another chance to confront the evil Darth Vader again, despite his unassuredness as to whether he will destroy him or eventually turn to the Dark Side and join Vader at the Emperor's side.<br /><br />Early scenes in Tatooine are impressive, from Jabba's lair, to his floating palace and the 'almighty Sarlac' - an intenstine that lives in the sand. Lucas' CGI enhancements to the film in 1997 actually worsened the overall effect of the Sarlac, making it look fake and overdone.<br /><br />The battle scene on Tatooine is outstanding, and is one of the more memorable of the saga. Luke almost singlehandedly anihiliates Jabba and his cronies, proving his prowess as a Jedi is now almost complete.<br /><br />When Luke returns to the Degobah system to visit the ailing Yoda one more time, the viewer is let down by Yoda's distinct lack of screentime. Undoubtably the star of "The Empire Strikes Back", Yoda is all but erased from the story as the progression of Luke's destiny is played out on screen.<br /><br />ROTJ really is Luke's film, perhaps even more so than the original. His journey carries the movie as he moves closer to his confrontation with Darth Vader and his fate. The other Rebel characters certainly work in his shadow. The romance between Leia (Carrie Fisher) and Solo is all but non-existant, unlike in "Empire". In fact only Leia's character is developed in ROTJ, Solo's character seems to fade as the facets of his personality have become too familiar in the first two films.<br /><br />Their roles are consigned to working alongside the Rebels to destroy an all new Death Star that nears completion. This time the Emperor himself is overseeing the final stages of construction. The Empire intends to crush the Rebellion once and for all, while the Emperor himself schemes to bring the now powerful Skywalker to his side to work alongside (or is that replace?) Darth Vader. The Emperor is a different kind of evil for this film, less cunning than Governor Tarkin (Peter Cushing) from "Star Wars", more deeply psychologically dark than anything else. Played brilliantly by Ian McDiarmid, the Emperor is just one of those characters you love to hate.<br /><br />All the other actors are well entrenched in their roles. Hamill surprises as the more wisened Luke, making his character's progression from whiny teenager, impatient student to enlightened warrior one of the few real character developments of the series. Ford's role is waring thin, as all his charm and charisma was spent in the first two films -- he was the REAL star of the first film after all. Fisher's Leia is more of a prop, at least unti the end of the film where she learns things about herself that she was never sure about... Add in favourites like Alec Guiness as Kenobi, Yoda and the loveable Chewbacca, C-3PO and R2D2 and the series resembles a family more than a cast.<br /><br />Despite the film's corny forest battle involving the Ewoks and the Empire, it ends well and includes a three way battle sequence: on Endor, in space and on the Death Star, each with very impressive special effects. The music, as always, is brilliant and captures the mood perfectly in every instance. Just as the 'Blue Danube' worked perfectly for "2001: A Space Odyssey", John Williams' score is as much a part of "Star Wars" folklore as light sabers and the Force.<br /><br />Lucas left the ending open to interpretation, meaning there could have been more episodes made. Indeed sci-fi fans have created their own versions of Episodes VII, VIII and IX in their heads over and over again. ROTJ works when given a chance, and furry cute animals aside is a good finish to the series.<br /><br />When all six episodes get to be viewed together, this saga could well be the best ever made. Is it already? The addition of Episode I changed the landscape of the series. This is why "Return of the Jedi" can now be viewed in a different light and be given a whole new appreciation nearly 20 years after its release. | positive |
It amazes me that production companies will sue because of reproductions they will not supply. I've been looking for this movie on DVD for a while and VHS for years. One can get all sorts of movies on line...old movies, new movies... but it all targets a particular group. This movie is very nostalgic for many. I'm not sure why I can't get a copy. Maybe if enough people will write in, the copyright holder will get a clue. It's about time for this to happen. Yes, it's date, but so is The Wizard of OZ. It doesn't seem like this should be so difficult. So, for now, I'll keep seeing those illegal copies on search engines like many others. | positive |
I would like to know the real name of the Lodge where scenes from the movie were filmed. It is truly beautiful and hearkens back to 20's and 30's architecture like the Hotel Del Coronado. I know it was on either Big Bear Lake or Lake Arrowhead and would like to hear if it is still in existence. As for the movie itself, it is truly amazing that Jane Wyman was even nominated for an Academy Award. This must have been a period when she was well liked by her Academy peers. It really would have been interesting to get a true impression from Wyman and the other actors in this movie regarding the script. The script of this movie, like the recent Kevin Costner movie with a message in a bottle, is so unbelievable that it it limits the credibility that the actors can bring to their parts. Rock Hudson can be forgiven. He was never a great actor, was able to get by mostly on his looks and didn't get credible roles until later in his career (Pretty Maids is the exception). But Wyman must have been forced to take this movie through contractual requirements or the studio system. | negative |
Mockney comes to Brighton; despite a poor reception in the British press and state-funded-British-cinema written all over it I rather hoped that we'd get a bit of the grimy, hard-nosed London-by-the-sea of Graham Greene.<br /><br />It doesn't even aspire to this. Characters straight out of their clone 'n crimp trailers reproduce Guy Ritchie's types. The format looks more like a British TV series than a film (Brighton is a backdrop goldmine, wasted with plastic studio work).<br /><br />I watched this film in pursuit of a good performance from Famke Janssen... she's a bit slick for this company, her brand of big screen impertability belonging more to blockbusters such as Deep Rising. As for acting (a role even!) the search continues. Circus is boring. 3/10 | negative |
Doll Master is an example of a lousy horror film, fallen somewhere in the space with it's two not so well established genres, a horror film and an emotional drama film. Seems like The Doll Master tries very hard to be a very scary horror film, but it fails. The noise of the dolls while moving is like taken from the croak of Kayako in Ju-On, and the crawls are like sadako esquire. The killing dolls will remember you a cute version of "Chucky". But compared to Child's Play, this film is more superb. But the story seems a nothing, the brilliant camera shots and the brilliance of acting was taken away cause of the plot.<br /><br />Don' watch this if you are expecting great shocks. | negative |
When you first sit down to watch this movie, keep in mind that you are about to see something you've probably never seen before. Keep in mind that this is a movie where they obviously spent INSANE amounts of cash on explosions and not enough on acting or anything else for that matter. The crazy thing I noticed is that every character is completely over-portrayed, and it seems (most of the time anyhow) that the film had been 'sped-up' to make the characters move faster! (I wonder if the Hong Kong version was dubbed too?) I understand the cartoon had this, but it doesn't work for live-action. It just looks odd... as if the camera crew decided to act because they couldn't afford real actors.<br /><br />The English version is horribly dubbed, and the character's words do not match the mouths at all. I would have preffered subtitles, but since this is a kids movie, and since some kids cannot read well, I'll let it go. But there is something extremely odd about this movie. It's supposedly a kids movie, but there's a lot of material about SEX, RAPE, and STRIPPING which isn't exactly for young Western audiences. (In the Orient, they have different laws and sexuality in children's movies is much more accepted). But parents be warned! There is a scene where two characters talk about rape, multiple scenes where people say 'sex maniac' and a scene where this insanely young japanese girl does a sexy dance for one of the 'sex maniacs' and shows him her breasts! Who was this movie made for anyway?<br /><br />Oh, and the special effects are laughable. You can tell the spaceship-like things that bomb the village are cardboard cutouts (or animation, I wasn't sure) that look unconvincing, even to a kid. The makers of this movie left out a lot of cool things from the cartoon, simply because they couldn't budget the kind of money they'd need. I didn't like how the names of all the characters were changed... it made me wonder if this movie was made by the same people as Dragon Ball Z.<br /><br />I don't really recommed this movie to anyone. Kids, adults, or Dragon Ball Z fans. It's just a poor representation of the cartoon, and obviously, one will be able to tell that this movie was rushed and no care whatsoever was put into it. I won't even get into the camerawork... just wait until the end credits at the still picture that sits there for 2 minutes... most of the shots are not framed correctly AT ALL and the movie just seems made by amateurs. Grainy film quality too.<br /><br />Just all around horrible!!!!<br /><br /> | negative |
The film tackles the here and now horror of "rendition" with a multi-cast trans-global account of all involved. No-one gets off lightly because we see the blindness of the players as they carve out their own slice of the worldwide game piling hatred and misery on their "enemies" and themselves in equal measure.<br /><br />The interplay between the sympathetic Senator's Aide (played in scintillating style by Peter Sarsgaard) and the real Washington power-mongers is electrifying. Meanwhile out in the field, new CIA man (Jake Gyllenhaal) goes through a sea change in his attitude to the USA's new found cosiness with torture. Sudden though his rejection of what he initially tacitly condoned is, one has to ask why on earth would anyone who calls him or herself civilized stand and watch anyone be humiliated and abused in this way? The film has few heroes - perhaps Gyllenhaal's flawed and vacillating CIA man is the exception and a necessary indulgence to make the film offer a sliver of hope.<br /><br />The sad fact of course is that this film isn't fiction at all, but a wake up call to those with a shred of decency left in them. The awful truth is that we in the UK and USA have lost the moral plot and this film shows how low we are prepared to go. All this in the name of freedom! There's a wonderful line in the script that says that torture is a sure way to swell the numbers of our enemies. This is already happening in real life and we should listen to the message that this film delivers and start using our might and money much more intelligently!! The message seems to be that any of us who claim that rendition, torture and the abuse of basic human rights are necessary to protect our way of life are as wrong-headed and stultifyingly stupid as the Jihadists and suicide bombers.<br /><br />All praise to the sensibilities of a talented South African director with a eye on the gross unfairness of how power is exercised, and a cast of principled mainstream actors from the US and beyond. Oh, and by the way, the film has a sting in its tail with the ending a clever and thought provoking surprise (which I won't give away).<br /><br />I saw the film in an early London preview so it has not yet been widely written up but I'm glad to say that the tide of less than glowing reviews seems to be turning. The BBC review has been very strongly in support and they (and I) suspect that much of the negative comments come from those who see the world through the simple specs of Hollywood - where the good guys and the bad guys are cardboard cut-outs. Hence the reason that many of the truly great films of the year are increasingly indie and/or non-US pix. | positive |
Never realized that Charles Boyer, (Luis Denard) appeared with Lauren Bacall,(Rose Cullen) in a film together and enjoyed their great acting together. Even Peter Lorre, (Contreras) had a role in this film and had a bad misfortune in his bathroom that caused him to faint. This story deals with a Republican Courier, Luis Denard who visits England during the Spanish Civil War and tries to disrupt a coal mining contract that will cause great harm to other nations. Lauren Bacall, (Rose Cullen) comes to the aid of Luis Denard by picking him up and at the same time falling in love with him and then proceeds to help him escape from an angry crowd of English Mine Workers who threaten his life. The real bad guy in this film is Victor Francen, (Licata) "Beast with Five Fingers" who gives an outstanding performance. Great Classic 1945 film without Humphrey Bogart. | positive |
Terry Gilliam gives a stunning movie, which I thoroughly enjoyed. Bruce Willis, Madeline Stowe, Brad Pitt and even the small appearance of Christover Plummer makes the movie absolutely brilliant! This is the only Terry Gilliam film I've seen, and Twelve Monkeys is definitely in my top 10. I think this is one of the four best Bruce Willis movies; and Brad Pitt's best. Brad Pitt delivers a perfect performance. Possibly one of the ten best actor's performance that I've ever seen. He played his role (Geoffrey) very convincingly. Bruce Willis' role (James Cole) was also quite convincing. Both Bruce Willis and Brad Pitt acted extraordinarily well. With the brilliant story to back the great performances; and to back that up, Terry Gilliam's superb directing. | positive |
This series adds new information and background to the book and includes personal appearances by the author and by archaeologists and other anthropologists. It brings the book to life and makes even more sense of the author's subsequent opus, *Collapse*.<br /><br />Diamond himself comes off as personable and caring, not just a disinterested or disengaged academic. This series makes it clear that his book was not just a response to a need to "publish or perish," as the saying goes about academe, but a deeply considered answer to a question from someone he respects, "Why you white people got so much cargo, and we have so little?" Because he respected the intelligence of the questioner and his community, Diamond looked for an answer that didn't insult that intelligence or that community. I like to think of his answer in a very simple way, in the same spirit as "South Park's" "Blame Canada": "Blame wheat!" | positive |
Yes, it's "Flipper". But writer/director Alan Shapiro has put together a gem of a version. Spectacular above and underwater photography from "Jaws" veteran Bill Butler and haunting music by Joel McNeely and Crosby, Stills & Nash make this truly memorable family entertainment. Shapiro, whose last film was improbably "The Crush", shows himself once again to be an extremely talented -- and versatile -- filmmaker. Rent it! | positive |
Normally I wouldn't feel qualified to review something I only saw a half hour of, but I'll make an exception for this one.<br /><br />Let the dialogue speak for itself! Here's some of the bad guy's lines: "I smell...teacher!" "Sorry, teacher! You get an 'F!'"<br /><br />Bad guy and bad girl ( right after killing 2 cops and stealing a van full of drugs, they're getting hot and heavy):<br /><br />Him -"So how do you feel about shooting some innocent bystanders?"<br /><br />Her- (purrs) "You sure know how to show a girl a good time..." One generic kid who ran for his life instead of helping someone, gets to sum up his life and personality in this line -"I AM a CHICKEN-TWIT! (this was the USA network version) My old man was right! No wonder he left us..." Boo-hoo.<br /><br />(Not actually a spoiler ) Bad guy (on fire) screams "Aargh! Fire!" | negative |
Jane Austen's Emma is an extremely enjoyable story at the worst of times and this production of the story is the best I have ever seen. Kake Beckinsale's Emma is irreproachable. Gwyneth Paltrow, (with the help of a good screenplay and excellent cinematography) is able to bring out the comedy effectively, she fails to make Emma likeable. Paltrow is not aided by the fact that her hairstyles are simply 'wrong' for the part (and I believe the era) and she looks positively ill in the empire line dresses. Kate Beckinsale, on the other hand, manages the comedy effortlessly and is still able to show what Mr Knightly (the most romantic of Jane Austen's heroes) actually sees in her. Mark Strong is a splendid Mr Knightly with the right mix of handsome looks, an appropriate age, chivalry, compassion and gentlemanly behaviour. Emma and Mr Knightly are supported by a cast of good actors and the production as a whole is quite delightful. | positive |
I saw this film in my cinema class. I am glad that I did not pay to see it. I came into it with an open mind, and was even a little excited. I really enjoy Ed Norton and Evan Rachel Wood, and the rest of the cast was interesting. I just never connected with this movie. The acting was great, the cinematography was interesting, but the storyline, or rather, lack thereof, was a problem. There was no central, connecting theme to the movie. Was it a romance between Norton and Wood? Well, no, not really. Was it a western? Kind of, but no. I'm all for twists in movies, I recently saw "Brick" and loved it, but the place that this movie went was just too out there. It was so weird, and if I weren't required to have sat through the whole film, I would have walked out. The writing wasn't terrible, but it was just all over the place. By the time this movie ended, I was just left terribly confused and wishing that it had ended sooner. There was just something about this film that didn't resonate, I understand more offbeat films like "Fight Club", but I just did not care about the characters at all. | negative |
This is a really fun movie. One of those you can sit and mindlessly watch as the plot gets more and more twisted; more and more funny. Sally Field, Teri Hatcher (in her hey-day), Kevin Klein, Elisabeth Shue, Robert Downey, Jr...It's all these well-known, quality actors acting as if they are soap opera stars/producers. If you have ever watched a soap opera and thought, "How on earth did they come up with THIS idea??", you will LOVE this movie. I have seen it multiple times; and each time I watch it, the more I appreciate the humor, the more I realize just how well-acted it really is. Don't expect Oscar quality. This is a fun movie to entertain, not some artsy attempt at finding "man's inner man", etc. Sit back, relax, and laugh. | positive |
sure this movie may have had its funny moments with the sat question people and i know the movie is not supposed to be totally believable the movie made it too outrageous for example a girl like that would never in a million years go out wit ha guy like that also people in movie had lackluster performances there acting was so bad. Also the plot bad they could have don e a better job on the scripting at least and focused more on the comedy the comedy was also a little dry and got really boring after the first few jokes, it was like 10mins was laughter then the old when is this gonna end started to kick in The bottom line if u want a a lackluster of acting mixed in with a stupid plot and a romance go ahead and watch this movie. | negative |
First things first, Edison Chen did a fantastic, believable job as a Cambodian hit-man, born and bred in the dumps and a gladiatorial ring, where he honed his craft of savage battery in order to survive, living on the mantra of kill or be killed. In a role that had little dialogue, or at least a few lines in Cambodian/Thai, his performance is compelling, probably what should have been in the Jet Li vehicle Danny the Dog, where a man is bred for the sole purpose of fighting, and on someone else's leash.<br /><br />Like Danny the Dog, the much talked about bare knuckle fight sequences are not choreographed stylistically, but rather designed as normal, brutal fisticuffs, where everything goes. This probably brought a sense of realism and grit when you see the characters slug it out at each other's throats, in defending their own lives while taking it away from others. It's a grim, gritty and dark movie both literally and figuratively, and this sets it apart from the usual run off the mill cop thriller production.<br /><br />Edison plays a hired gun from Cambodia, who becomes a fugitive in Hong Kong, on the run from the cops as his pickup had gone awry. Leading the chase is the team led by Cheung Siu-Fai, who has to contend with maverick member Inspector Ti (Sam Lee), who's inclusion and acceptance in the team had to do with the sins of his father. So begins a cat and mouse game in the dark shades and shadows of the seedier looking side of Hong Kong.<br /><br />The story itself works on multiple levels, especially in the character studies of the hit-man, and the cop. On opposite sides of the law, we see within each character not the black and white, but the shades of grey. With the hit-man, we see his caring side when he got hooked up and developed feelings of love for a girl (Pei Pei), bringing about a sense of maturity, tenderness, and revealing a heart of gold. The cop, with questionable tactics and attitudes, makes you wonder how one would buckle when willing to do anything it takes to get the job done. There are many interesting moments of moral questioning, on how anti-hero, despicable strategies are adopted. You'll ask, what makes a man, and what makes a beast, and if we have the tendency to switch sides depending on circumstances - do we have that dark inner streak in all of us, transforming from man to dog, and dog to man? Dog Bite Dog grips you from the start and never lets go until the end, though there are points mid way through that seemed to drag, especially on its tender moments, and it suffered too from not knowing when to end. If I should pick a favourite scene, then it must be the one in the market food centre - extremely well controlled and delivered, a suspenseful edge of your seat moment. Listen out for the musical score too, and you're not dreaming if you hear growls of dogs.<br /><br />Highly recommended, especially if you think that you've seen about almost everything from the cop thriller genre. | positive |
I thought Harvey Keitel, a young, fresh from the Sex Pistols John Lydon, then as a bonus, the music by Ennio Morricone. I expected an old-school, edgy, Italian cop thriller that was made in America. Istead, I got a mishmash story that never made sense and a movie that left me saying: WTF!!! Too many unanswered questions, and not enough action. The result: a potential cult classic got flushed down the toilet. Keitel and Lydon work well together, so maybe Quentin Tarantino can reunite these guys with better script. Oh, and the Morricone score: OK, but not memorable.<br /><br />Overall, not a waste of time, but not a "must see", unless you are a hardcore Keitel fan. | negative |
I SELL THE DEAD (2009) **1/2 Dominic Monaghan, Larry Fessenden, Ron Perlman, Angus Scrimm, John Speredakos, Eileen Colgan, Brenda Cooney. Uneven blend of horror and comedy that poses as a valentine to the '60s horror films by Roger Corman and Hammer Studios, with two cretinous grave robbers (Monaghan and Fessenden) facing final punishments for the crimes via the guillotine but not before their tales of the occult can be recalled in flashbacks. Amusing and a few well sprinkled jolts but really a mess of a B-movie trying in vein to be a cult classic largely thanks to the casting of genre vets Perlman and Scrimm to no avail; a good rental for Halloween. (Dir: Glenn McQuaid) | positive |
Michelle Rodriguez plays Diana, a high school girl with an insolent scowl and 2 x 4 on her shoulder. She's ready to battle anyone, especially her father who is paying for her brother's boxing lessons. Diana decides boxing would be a good way of focusing her anger.<br /><br />I liked the relationship between Diana and Adrian. Santiago Douglas as Adrian is excellent. Watch how their emotions towards each other are shaped by the squared circle. | positive |
Uggh! Hanna-Barbera of the 60s and 70s! What lousy and unwatchable cartoons that were thrust upon us by these hacks! It's a shame really, as in the 1940s and 1950s "Hanna-Barbera" meant quality--because they produced so many wonderful Tom and Jerry cartoons. However, with the major cost-cutting efforts of the late 1950s, cartoons in general began to look pretty poor and budgets were slashed. In fact, William Hanna and Joseph Barbera were fired by MGM and replaced by a team of Czech animators who had never even seen the original cartoons! So, in the late 50s, the team was out of work and decided "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em"--and began producing horrid little cartoons themselves--with horrible animation, backgrounds and writing.<br /><br />It's unfortunate, but the team's production of crappy cartoons worked too well---making them rich and the most successful producers of cartoons of the 60s and 70s. During this time, again and again, bad production values was their norm and a long list of VERY forgettable cartoons were created. In this case, the amazingly bad INCH HIGH PRIVATE EYE--a completely unfunny and stupid idea. If you want to know what the show was about, the title says it all.<br /><br />Rotten to the core and strong evidence that the production team had total contempt for us kids! | negative |
35 years after this was made, Castro still reigns. Unfortunately, we're left scratching our heads wondering how the dim-witted maniac played by scenery-chewing Jack Palance made it as far as 1960. I stumbled back across this recently, and was amused at noticing the incomparable Sid Haig and "B" movie favorite Paul (Untouchables) Picerni among the rebels. Fleischer was obviously well past his prime when he directed this foolishness. Some of the lines are classic in a "Did he really say that kind of way?' The other thing I just noticed is that the score and the sound (NOT the dialog) are actually excellent -- the only first-rate elements of the entire production. So, don't watch this to learn anything about history or acting, but if you feel like watching this as a goof, bring the beers and have some fun. | negative |
George Carlin is probably my favorite comedian. I have seen so many of his specials and even had the opportunity to see him perform live. He had a certain cynicism that always appealed to me. His last 2 specials (Life is Worth Losing especially and Complaints and Grievances) have lacked a certain spirit and content. George appeared overweight, old and tired (not to mention coming out of rehab). "I SAID NOT TO MENTION IT"! Anyway. Life is Worth Losing was especially tragic as he was overweight, disgruntled, coming off of rehab (there we go again...) and extremely unfunny. If there was a way to feel sorry for a comedian without heckling him off stage, George achieved it with Life is Worth Losing. It is as if the New Millennium and Post 9/11 America was trampling George's spirit. The bs had become too large to manage.<br /><br />The comeback is partially successful with It's Bad for Ya! This special is the transmutation completed. George is no longer trying to rekindle his glory days. He is in full acceptance of his age, being old and dealing with the looming prospects of death. He has accepted being a crusty old SOB and is relishing in it. This is better than his previous specials, yet far from Jammin' in New York. It is a little tragic. His observations are not cutting edge anymore and seem more Andy Rooney than Lenny Bruce. George isn't George anymore. He is no longer criticizing us but is the man in the high castle pointing out how things were and how dissimilar modern life is. <br /><br />This is an improvement over the previous two specials, but George does not, as of yet, recoup his old glory (if ever). He has been reduced from critical social and political stinging commentary to mostly personal peeves. When he goes political, he still has something to say. It is heavily derived (especially if you have seen any of his previous work), but it still works somehow, as opposed to his random rantings which lack a certain relevance outside of the baby boom generation. The last 25 minutes is the best this special has to offer.<br /><br />For now I will worship the Sun and pray to Joe Pesci that George can recreate himself as a cutting edge septuagenarian. It's a 50/50 chance. Life seems to have become more tedious for George and his "art" is now his life. This is a step in the right direction from his previous 2 specials, but is far from his old self. Where does he go from here? He may never recoup but maybe he can further metamorphosing/refine this new ornery old man routine. Heres to hoping for 7 more words you can't say on TV or at least a windmill he can handle. | positive |
KING KONG VS. GODZILLA (1963; which I recall having rated BOMB) had been my introduction to cult director Honda's work; this one isn't necessarily better it's just that I've learned to be more tolerant towards such intrinsically lowbrow fare! <br /><br />Here, we actually get two Kongs for the price of one: an ugly and dopey-looking giant ape and a robot variation of it which looks even worse! The simian creature lives on the island of Mondo(!) where it's shown fighting a couple of other monsters, and befriends a trio of humans. Naturally, it falls for the blonde (and bland) heroine; in fact, more intriguing is a femme fatale in cahoots with the film's villainous mad genius called Dr. Who and sporting the anemic look and cape usually associated with a vampire!!<br /><br />He kidnaps King Kong and hypnotizes it in order to retrieve the Element X, which is embedded in the icy wastes of the North Pole; apparently, the giant ape is more impervious to radiation than its mechanical counterpart (and, to ensure its full co-operation, Who even captures its three 'companions')! The female agent then has a change of heart, helps the heroes (one of whom, typically, is a nondescript American) and is killed by Who. Kong eventually escapes and makes it to Tokyo, where it has a final showdown with the robot. The doctor flees the ensuing mayhem in his sub which, on a request by Kong's dreamgirl, is summarily trashed by the giant ape. | negative |
Lucio Fulci, a director not exactly renowned for his subtlety, ill-advisedly tries his hand at black humour in Touch of Death, a made for TV movie about Lester Parsons (Brett Halsey), a psycho who seduces and murders rich widows in order to pay his gambling debts.<br /><br />Starting off with a wonderfully gory scene in which the lethal lothario disposes of his latest victim via chainsaw, mincing machine and hungry hogs, Touch of Death starts promisingly enough, but Fulci soon loses control of proceedings, introducing a weird sub-plot involving a mysterious copycat killer and some heavy handed 'comedic' scenes. There are several more graphic murders which, in true Fulci fashion, are extremely violent and gruesome, but even the high level of bloodletting doesn't stop this from being one of Fulci's poorer efforts.<br /><br />As I have found with many of his other movies, a comprehensible storyline is not exactly high on the agenda when Lucio is behind the camera. This film has many peculiarities which left me more than little perplexed: why didn't Lester dispose all of his victims using the dismemberment method seen at the beginning? Why are all of his victims either hairy or disfigured? What the hell is that ending all about?<br /><br />Fulci is considered by many to be one of the 'greats' of horror cinema; I don't understand his popularity, finding the majority of the films of his that I have seen so far to be generally lacking both decent narratives and technical proficiency. Touch of Death certainly does nothing to change my opinion. | negative |
The Stepford Children is the second best Stepford movie in the Stepford series.I saw the original The Stepford Wives in the theater when it came out in 1975.I was absolutely blown away,it was terrific.I have seen all of the Stepford movies, and I like all of them.I think that The Stepford Children is such a campy and fun movie.I just watched it again recently on tape, and I enjoyed it immensely.The cast in this movie was real good to watch. Barbara Eden did a bang up job as usual.Every role that she has ever played has been very good.Barbara Eden is very good at playing roles where she is a kind and nurturing type of person.Don Murray as the husband and father was just perfect in this movie.He was particularly effective at being the irritated father to his two teenage children.I made sure that I have all of the Stepford movie on tape to enjoy.If you get a chance to see this movie you should. | positive |
This is Jonas Quastel debut as a director and to be honest, it shows. It looks like he threw in every type of camera trick that he learned in film school to try and add some style to a badly written script, which he helped write! Film has Lance Henriksen and a group of others searching the pacific northwest for a plane that crashed that his daughter was on and also a special machine his company has built that he wants to also retrieve. The first 5 minutes of the film is either blurry or shaky or out of focus! Quastel tries to capture the "Blair Witch" mode with these type of shots and they grow tiresome very quickly. And there is also the POV shots that are right from "Wolfen" and "Predator". These shots are from the point of view (POV) of the Sasquatch. The editing is very choppy at times as a scene seems to shift right in the middle. I have heard this film was shot in about 12 days and I suppose instead of "Starting back to one" they just restarted without stopping and edited the scene together. And the rest of the film is fade-outs from one scene to another. They're are so many scenes that fade-out that I lost count. Now, the nude scene with Andrea Roth. Its not her. you can easily see its a body double. And you know your watching a bad "B" movie when in the middle of the pacific northwest a hot chick decides to go to the nearest hot spring and bathe! ********SPOILER ALERT********<br /><br />And the Sasquatch himself is not bad when you don't really see him and he's just a blurry image behind some trees or bushes but when you finally see him at the end your of course disappointed. First of all, he's not that tall. The actor who is playing Sasquatch is only hairy in certain spots on his body. Its a partial suit! And he's bald! I have heard that a make-up person died during filming and maybe that explains why the costume looks hastily made. Some of the sound effects that are coming from the Sasquatch are nothing more than the familiar lion roars that we have all heard in other films. I do have to admit that Henriksen is not to bad. Yes, he's working with bad material but he has one of those interesting faces that can actually enhance certain moments of the film. People keep saying that a good Bigfoot film has never been made but I disagree. I have always said that "The Creature From Black Lake" is a good film and I highly recommend that one. I'm a sucker for a Sasquatch film but this one is just to amateurish. | negative |
The book is fantastic, this film is not. There is no reason this film could not have embraced a futuristic technological vision of the book. Hell, total recall was released a few years later and that did a good job of it, even a clockwork orange released in the 70s did a good job of trying to make a futuristic world. The bleak German expressionistic colours, the black and white footage from the vision screens, there is no reason for this approach for when the film was made in 1984. The main character is in a white collar writing job yet he dresses like he works with oil and grease in a garage. This film decides to take a mock-communistic approach to set design, atmosphere and theme, yet the novel did not necessarily dictate a communist, worship-the-humble-worker theme itself. This book seriously needs to be adapted in a modern context as this book is more relevant today than ever before. I could not watch more than 20 minutes of this crap. The soundtrack is annoying, the lack of foresight is annoying, this film seems to have been made to deny a sense of realism or believability when that is exactly what is required to hammer the novel's messages to the viewer. | negative |
I tivo'd this on Turner Classic just because it was pre-code and sounded interesting. When I got around to watching, I noticed that the "critique" gave it one and a half stars on a four-star scale. I started watching with trepidation -- even old movies can be bad movies -- but I quickly got engaged in the story and Mary Astor's performance as the business brains behind a simple salesman's rise to success. Not a truly great movie -- too predictable -- but certainly better than advertised. And I would have liked to have seen more of Ricardo Cortez as the man who appreciates Mary but won't give up his wealthy wife. I'd recommend giving it a look just to appreciate Astor and what a long way we've come, baby. | positive |
This was probably one of the most well-made films of the 40's - Warner Bros. at the very height of their style. The photography by Sol Polito is arguably his finest achievement - gorgeous compositions and lighting with delicate shadowing. Max Steiner contributes one of his most complex and beautiful scores - the epitome of his classical leit motif method. The music adds great emotion and excitement to the plot and is exquisite and memorable. It's interesting to note that the same production team that made this movie went right on to make "Now, Voyager" later that year - a fine film which won honors and awards and went down as a historical favorite, ciefly because it starred Bette Davis. IN my opinion, "The Gay Sisters" is a much better film - better made in all departments, and more interesting, complex and enjoyable. A most unusual film which entertains those who take it for what it is, rather than project their own modern creative sensibilities or their advanced and demanding standards of hyper-critical perfection. Each thing has to be judged in it's own time reference and for what it is trying to achieve on its own terms. Most of the complaints I've read in these reviews are so childish and totally missing the point. If you're hungry for a perfect filet mignon, don't go to the bakery counter and start whining and complaining about the fluff pastry. The art of film criticism is truly lost on a large segment of the population. Sorry folks - maybe if this movie had had a score by the Rolling Stones and a hundred intricate and soul searching subplots, you'd all be gleefully gratified. I'll take an old movie without modern intellectual pretensions an day of the week! | positive |
When my six-year-old fell asleep at the theater during this movie, that was all the confirmation I needed that this film is a stinker. It was boring. The scary parts were boring. The maudlin parts were boring. Even the funny parts -- with two minor exceptions -- were boring. And predictable. And did I mention predictable? Examples: 1) The gruff but loving Dad indulging his brat of a kid. 2) The gruff but loving Dad buying the farm (while singing a song?!). 3) The brat of a kid deciding to cut and run, but, thanks to his friends, sticking things out because they need him. 4) The brat of a kid winning against incredible odds. 5) And a sassy character voiced by an African-American actress. Gotta credit these filmmakers for that bit of originality and for perpetuating that stereotype. I did mention two funny bits. In both cases, contributed by minor characters. The mouse bouncing on the farmer's pulse was funny. The farm dog falling victim to his doggy weaknesses while vying for leadership was funny. But the rest? Painful. Someone tried to make a Hipness-Thru-Committee movie and make it even hipper by making it a computer-animated film, and this was the result. And why make the coyotes Batman-villain dumb by monologuing with their victims, rather than just eating them? Oh yeah. No blood needed in this film for kids, already concentrating on mock alcohol consumption, destructive behavior and potty humor. And the fuzzy thing-in-a-box? Just what exactly was it? A porcupine? Tasmanian Devil? What, besides a really stupid plot device to help Otis the Cow win the Mother of All Battles? Barnyard is a bomb. And I didn't even need to mention the udders. | negative |
I'm amazed that Memento (which is an excellent flick) is so well-regarded in the Top 250 and this one doesn't even appear!! What the hell is that?? To be honest - when this movie ended my knee-jerk reaction was that this movie is better than Memento. After the euphoria of the fabulous ending wore off, I concluded that they are equal in their excellence. I am just confused about why its not in the Top 50 along with Memento. I'm going to venture a guess that (sadly) it's because it's in black and white or because (again sadly)that the characters all have British accents ...sadly because that is no reason to not appreciate a great movie like this.<br /><br />I'm telling you that if you loved Memento, you will love Following as well. Brilliant! | positive |
Chen Kaige gives us magnificent depth of atmosphere. Yes, it's a 'period piece', but Chen's artistic use of imagery makes it something more. The actors often behave like players using the stylized diction, postures and facial expressions of Peking Opera. All the actors in a scene play to the 'back wall' even when addressing each other. They are like spirits of the past enunciating with powerful clarity a story with urgent meaning for those in the present. Combined with close attention to scale and masterful cinematography indoors and out, "Jing ke ci qin wang" is a stunning tale told with great reverence in its own idiom that captivates completely. | positive |
This was in short a terrible disappointment. By far the worst adaptation of one of my favourite novels. The dialogue was horribly clumsy; I could sense no feeling behind the words expressed by the characters. The lines were delivered too hastily and felt rather out of place. They could just as well have been cited by statues. The chemistry between George C. Scott and Susannah York was non-existent and watching an American Rochester felt strange. He could have at least tried to do a British accent. I like George C. Scott as an actor, but this simply did not work. I felt like I was watching highlights from Jane Eyre, where the main pieces of the story had been randomly put together with no regard to the flow of the story. The scenery and music were all very nice, but I could feel none of the passion and love that is supposed to be between Jane and Rochester and the movie left me totally unmoved.<br /><br />If you want to see a good version of Jane Eyre I suggest you watch the 1983 BBC version with Timothy Dalton and Zelah Clarke or the 1997 version with Ciarán Hinds and Samantha Morton. Now these two are brilliant adaptations. | negative |
I liked Batman: Dead End. A dark edgy film-noir setting for Batman was perfect. Batman: Dead End is good. This is not.<br /><br />First of all let me start off with the acting. None of it is really that good. The best would probably be Clark Bartram as Batman. But that isn't saying much. He is good at first glance, and then you realize he is what he is, a body-builder who happens to be a tolerable actor. But mainly the problem is that Batman doesn't belong in the daylight, he looks like a freak running around in a Bat suit. Instead of a horribly scarred man trying to make up for past mistakes. The daylight also reveals an irritating dorky scowl on Bartram's face which never leaves and unoticeable in Batman: Dead End, probably because of the darkness of short which is so desired in this trailer. Bartram seems to think that scowling and stubbornly shaking his head is acting, it's not, it's quite the opposite. It's called posing, something real actors avoid like the plague.<br /><br />Something I never understood why Collora casted body-builders as the leads. It makes much more sense to give the role to an actor who can manage it, instead of a bodybuilder who can kinda manage it but HEY HE LOOKS SO MUCH LIKE THE COMIC! Of course, they might have done better if Collora's dialouge didn't leave much to be desired.<br /><br />The entire trailer (yes, trailer. There will not be a full-length film) is more centered around Superman then Batman. But everything on the Superman side is corny, cloying and amateur. Michael O'Hearn (Superman) is one of the worst actors I've ever seen. He stands around, smiles, says his lines. That's about it. Although I'm not surprised since he is just a bodybuilder they hired and possibly received a few acting lessons. Once again I say to Collora, cast ACTORS. Not bodybuilders. Actors will be so much more compelling that we will forgive the fact they don't look exactly like the comic book.<br /><br />The costume is what you would expect Superman to wear. As for the Batman suit. Well, I guess it only looks good in the dark. I say this because in some shots the suit looks like something you would buy from a Halloween gift shop.<br /><br />Superman flies in this movie. But that isn't a good thing. These shots look especially amateur. This and a lot of the entire "film" looks like it was shot in their backyard with a VHS camera.<br /><br />The best shots are a shot of Superman catching a car in his hands. And the final shot of Two-Face and Batman at the very end. For those of you who have seen the trailer. You know what I'm talking about. Now if only he could have stretched that shot through the entire trailer.<br /><br />Finally I ask. Why if you're trying to show your ability as a director, would you make a trailer as a short film? This proves nothing when it comes to being an actual director handling story. My only piece of advice for Collora here is, there is a difference between the ability to tell a story and being able to work in marketing.<br /><br />Batman: Dead End didn't feel amateur. I can't figure out where this went wrong. | negative |
Allegedly the "true story" of Juana de Castilla, the eldest daughter of the Catholic Queen Isabella (yes, the same who funded Columbus's expedition), the film charts the progress and degeneration of her morbid obsession with her husband, the Archduke Philip of Austria, known as "The Handsome" (and played in a rather unispired manner by Italian hunk Daniele Liotti, at his most buttery and beefy here). This is a groan-inducingly familiar story of late 15th c., early 16th c. intrigue, betrayal and bodice-ripping. It drips destructive lust from start to finish. But while La Reine Margot succeeds in making cruel sensuality and ruthless, cut-throat intrigue entertaining to watch, Juana La Loca just doesn't pull off. It just ends up feeling like a big-budgeted soap opera, with below-average, lazy or over-keen acting. Liotti looks positively bored and Pilar López de Ayala in the title role though to be fair she may mature into a proper talent just seems to be trying too hard, switching back and fourth from two-dimensional horny-looking to spoilt teenage hysterics all the way through. Some of the supporting cast are OK, with the exception of Manuela Arcuri, another Italian pin-up, voluptuous and beautiful but really no "actress" to speak of. I couldn't in fact bring myself to feel any concern towards any character, nor for that matter did I feel strongly in a negative way against any of the supposed villains. What a waste of a substantial film budget! This one, sadly, is just so rhetorical and deja-vu, nodding to other films in the genre rather than to its source material - history - for inspiration. It seems to me that such a fascinating and complex historic era deserved a far superior film-maker to evoke it. | negative |
OK. So it can be done! We have here the perfect vampire movie. Gothic, beautiful. With all the ingredients. A realistic vampire. A wonderful story. Take note - I am from Transylvania and I assure you, this movie respects the vampire lore! It's exactly like the tales I heard in my childhood. For a transylvanian, it is quite... believable. You must see it, if you are interested by real vampires, as they were depicted in medieval chronicles and not how are they done in recent Hollywood movies (as far as I can guess, the Hollywood problem is they mix vampires with the incubus - which is pretty hilarious for me. Vampires are never good-looking or attractive, they can inspire only horror and repulsion. The incubus - called in my country The Night Flier, is the one beautiful demon which kills his victims by loving them.) I strongly recommend this for any Gothic person out there! See also the sequels, they are all 4 very good! And of course, don't miss DArk shadows! Something similar is Nosferatu In Venice with Klaus Kinski. I recommend that one to. | positive |
I was seriously looking forward to seeing this film because it seemed truly promising from the coming attractions: Jim Carrey with Godlike powers was an idea that most definitely worked for me. As a huge fan, I was sure he'd be supremely in his element with such a promising premise, and what could go wrong? Yesterday, my bubble got burst big-time, boys and girls, because I saw the movie. <br /><br />The first act (where it's set up that he hates his life, he's a disgruntled employee and a majorly unhappy camper with an ax to grind against God) is serviceable, the second act (where he's summoned by God via telephone and receives Powers Almighty) is GREAT - Carrey gets to have fun with his new 'toys' and it's a pleasure to watch, really funny. But the third act is wretched beyond belief.<br /><br />The rot starts setting in after the dinner scene between Bruce and his girlfriend Grace (Jennifer Aniston, who comes off EXCEEDINGLY well in this movie considering her part is merely a plot device; even her NAME reeks of unsubtlety) - she thinks he's gonna pop 'the question' but instead, he tells her (on bended knee, yet) that he's finally getting his news anchor job, and isn't it so exciting?<br /><br />She doesn't think so. She wants him to marry her, see, so she winds up leaving him, see, even though she still LOVES him very much, see, and the rest of the film is spent banging us over the head with one pathetic, beyond-heavy-handed spiritual-sounding cliche after the next, until by the end I was praying, too. . .for it to be over. <br /><br />I didn't mind the lack of subtlety in the first two acts (one example - in the 2nd act, after he gets his powers, Bruce prances into the room singing "What if God were one of us, just a slob like one of us", blah blah blah), and I was even willing to overlook the amazing amount of contradictions being hurled at us (for openers, Morgan Freeman - a/k/a GOD - tells Bruce he can't violate anyone's free will but he does this, a lot). Those choices were forgivable - this is a Jim Carrey comedy, directed by Tom Shadyac - it aint The Remains of the Day. <br /><br />Or rather it was SUPPOSED to be a comedy. When the script writers lose track of that (in the dreaded act 3) and try to turn the proceedings into some sort of (gag) Message Movie, what we get instead is hell on earth. Bruce realizes the error of his selfish ways, he realizes that GRACE is his saving - have to say it - grace, and that his priorities in life had been severely misconstrued. All this could have been conveyed in a far less heavy-handed way, however. The film didn't have to go into the dumper to make these points. Unfortunately, the writers and Shadyac apparently had no idea how to resolve the story in any sort of clever, light-handed way, so they went the bang-'em-over-the-heads route in hopes that we wouldn't notice. They even tacked some surprisingly unfunny out-takes at the end, in the further hope that this would lessen the bad taste. It didn't work for me. | negative |
I like a good novelty song. No, I take that back. I love a good novelty song. I absolutely despise GGROBAR on the other hand, and have from the first note I ever heard. When I found out someone had made a cartoon based on it, my head almost exploded. Now that I have seen it because my kids begged me, I wish my head had exploded. It would have saved me from the excruciating misery that was this cr@pfest. First of all, making an hour long show based on a three minute novelty song is a ridiculous idea. To stretch a song like this, which had to pad like crazy just to be that long, into an entire hour, is even more ludicrous. This was poorly written, cheaply animated, poorly acted...the list goes on and on. Dear God, is this ever bad. | negative |
All of the trials and tribulations of making a no budget movie right from the mouths of those involved. You feel all of the sweat, guts, determination and dedication Stuie put into this labor of love and the frustration of being left hanging after all his work. The clips of interviews with all involved provides a great flowing narrative and conveys the balls-out, hardcore punk, almost anarchic attitude it took to film "Waldo" and subsequently the documentary. Stuie and company deserve all the props in the world for not giving up when the going got tough and getting "A Texas Tale of Treason" out so we can see what it's like for the budding filmmaker on the street! | positive |
Extremely funny. More gags in each one of these episodes than in ten years of Friends. And with a good (ie. funny) Nordberg, not the fab-only-casted OJ Simpson in the movies. When will these episodes emerge on DVD?... | positive |
If this film had been made in the 50's or 60's, critics and fans alike would have praised it. I myself, enjoyed the film from beginning to end. It's not a timeless piece, and has not aged well over the years, but it is enjoyable to watch, nonetheless. As for Mrs. Ritchie's acting in the film? Not the best on the planet -- but it adds to the film's unique slapstick comedy-aspirations, and showcases Madonna's (often underrated) sense of comedic timing. Madonna plays Nikki Finn, an ex-convict who was framed for a crime she didn't commit. Griffin Dunne plays the hapless future groom/puppet who is sent to escort her from prison to the bus station, where a series of unfortunate events occurs, thus creating the plot. (And there *is* one, folks!) Give the film a shot. You might be pleasantly surprised at how funny it really is. | positive |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.