review stringlengths 32 13.7k | sentiment stringclasses 2 values |
|---|---|
Brilliant adaptation of the novel that made famous the relatives of Chilean President Salvador Allende killed. In the environment of a large estate that arises from the ruins, becoming a force to abuse and exploitation of outrage, a luxury estate for the benefit of the upstart Esteban Trueba and his undeserved family, the brilliant Danish director Bille August recreates, in micro, which at the time would be the process leading to the greatest infamy of his story to the hardened Chilean nation, and whose main character would Augusto Pinochet (Stephen similarities with it are inevitable: recall, as an example, that image of the senator with dark glasses that makes him the wink to the general to begin making the palace).<br /><br />Bille August attends an exceptional cast in the Jeremy protruding Irons, whose character changes from arrogance and extreme cruelty, the hard lesson that life always brings us to almost force us to change. In Esteban fully applies the law of resonance, with great wisdom, Solomon describes in these words:"The things that freckles are the same punishment that will serve you." <br /><br />Unforgettable Glenn Close playing splint, the tainted sister of Stephen, whose sin, driven by loneliness, spiritual and platonic love was the wife of his cruel snowy brother. Meryl Streep also brilliant, a woman whose name came to him like a glove Clara. With telekinetic powers, cognitive and mediumistic, this hardened woman, loyal to his blunt, conservative husband, is an indicator of character and self-control that we wish for ourselves and for all human beings. <br /><br />Every character is a portrait of virtuosity (as Blanca worthy rebel leader Pedro Segundo unhappy ...) or a portrait of humiliation, like Stephen Jr., the bastard child of Senator, who serves as an instrument for the return of the boomerang. <br /><br />The film moves the bowels, we recreated some facts that should not ever be repeated, but that absurdly still happen (Colombia is a sad example) and another reminder that, against all, life is wonderful because there are always people like Isabel Allende and immortalize just Bille August. | positive |
Zatoichi The Outlaw was the first film made by its hero's (Shintaro Katsu) own production company, this is perhaps why this is a slightly lesser entry in the series, though it is by no means weak overall. It tells of our hero coming across two towns, rival bosses and a mysterious ronin helping the poor and from this set up spins a tale encompassing tragedy, violence and no little interest, all served up with lashings of the unshowy but inspired swordplay that is one of the series trademarks. It is a fairly predictable plot and it mounts in unsurprising fashion, but it zips along with style and is interesting stuff. The helpful ronin for example is a nobly inscrutable revolutionary character, upsetting the established order without being painted as a truly likable or heroic figure, Zatoichi himself makes one or two mistakes and causes harm by his actions, whilst the ruling system fuels the exploitation of the poor. Its a harsh world, with one or two more visceral than expected moments in the fighting, though things aren't as rousing as they could be. Shintaro Katsu turns in a typical bravura performance as Zatoichi, mixing wisdom, deadly skill and worldliness with a subtly sad sense of vulnerability, while solid work comes also from Rentarô Mikuni and an effectively baleful Kô Nishimura (later to appear as Katsu's superior "Snake" Magobei in the Hanzo trilogy) as the two main bosses in the film. There is also a good emotional turn from Yuko Hamada as a wronged woman. The film loses out through shaky pacing and a not so well constructed sequence of events, there is at least one slightly jarring time jump and the power of the plot becomes a little lost, meaning that when things heat up towards the end the film isn't as exciting as it could be, emotional impact is lost also. The action or scenes of Zatoichi using his ingenious skills are well handled by director Satsuo Yamamoto, though some of the gambling is less interesting and the film builds up in a workmanlike rather than really inspired way, without the lively characters or strong verve of some other installments. Still, I enjoyed this one, it has its flaws and isn't one of the best of the series but it still packs a sweetly satisfying dose of entertainment, a good story and decent doses of Zatoichi's trademark ingenious and quirky cool. Recommended for fans of the series, and a reasonable entry point, classy stuff though not a true great. | positive |
This was not a very good movie, the acting pretty much stunk and the effects were bad most of the time. But there were some funny moments but most of those were not meant to be funny. The most hilarious part of the movie to me was the part were a little kid in wheelchair falls out (thats not the funny part What kind of person do you think I am)anyway the kid falls out and starts screaming for his big brother, well the brother comes running and the way the kid runs is so funny he's all stumbling and really over acting I had to rewind it several times so I could laugh some more. so if your looking for something to rent but just can't seem to find anything check this one out and watch for the running part. | negative |
'Loulou' delights in the same way an expensive, high quality French wine does. It leaves you with a very fine aftertaste.<br /><br />'Loulou's theme isn't new. The film doesn't carry an original plot either. Its colored picturing shows fine, but not extraordinary. Its setting is serious. Its elegant styling never and nowhere puts any weight on your mind.<br /><br />Whatever one further may say about 'Loulou', it's beyond doubt that this very French film stands out for its excellent acting. The three leads convincingly reflect all numerous doubts and tenses sparkling between them, making the plot alive. Their acting fully invites you to participate, to make friends.<br /><br />For those around at the time, 'Loulou' also provides an extra bonus: its perfectly captured mood of 1980. | positive |
Diane and I saw this fabulous film today in Fremantle and we both agreed that of the pastiche movies it was head and shoulders above the rest. I say that because we were entranced by the brief, five to ten minute segments that composed the film and the fact that this film had a theme around which each piece was composed and of course that theme was love in its many forms.<br /><br />Ostensibly the film took place in the various Parisian arrondisments thus giving a particular flavour to each segment. Having only been in Paris several times, I was not knowledgeable enough to readily recognize the locations but I am sure Europeans and particularly French people could easily recognize the city's locations. In any event, the viewer is immediately pulled into each story because of their production excellence so these city locations fade into in-consequence.<br /><br />The film moves quickly and the viewer is left absorbing one scenario while the new one is on the screen. The stories themselves are not graphic like some pulp Hollywood nonsense, they are subtle and thought provoking and gentle as with most of life without the media swath that buries so much of life's beauty under the nearest dung heap just to sell, sell. sell ...<br /><br />Go with someone you care for and allow this magical little film to bathe you like a spa treatment and when you leave my guess is you will feel renewed. | positive |
I didn't want to write this movie off on the reviews and critics in the western world, I mean how wrong have they been about Asian cinema that has now become a staple diet of the Hollywood remake monster? Plus Jet L is pretty damn cool, and he's made some interesting movies in Asia. So with an open mind I was surprisingly averaged out by this movie.<br /><br />There are good points. The story is very clever, using M-Theory as a base to bring forward the plot that there are multiple universes each with their own versions of worlds, and most likely you. Each time one of you is destroyed the rest share the energy and power amongst them. The idea that someone might try and purposely become the only version of themselves in all the Universes to find out if they become a God.<br /><br />There's also Jet Li, and he's not a bad actor and pretty nimble as a martial artist, plus Jason Statham who is an all round good actor. As for the special effects, some of them are really cool, a mixing of bullet time, and slow motion with normal speed, very cool to watch in places.<br /><br />The bad points? Well Statham's accent is appalling, and some of the effects aren't as comparable as others, so it's quite apparent that money was spent on some of the main shots and not on others that were probably deemed as too short on screen or they just plain ran out of budget.<br /><br />A big sore point for me is the close cropped camera action that Hollywood has long favoured, something that Jackie Chan has often talked about. Filming fight scenes close up serves two purpose. It gives greater emphasis on a single punch or movement, making it look harder and more real than it really is, and it also hides what is going on around the camera lens. For example people holding a fake arm or the face of a stunt double, etc.<br /><br />What Chan always said was that he tried to open out the camera and show the audience what was going on, let them see the people fighting properly rather than a close up of a face and a fist, cutting to someone falling into frame. Showing the whole picture is more effective, and it's more impressive.<br /><br />So the close cropped shots were just more annoying than anything, you failed to see the impressiveness of Li's fighting skills, and you found it hard to see some of the action. Slow the cuts down and pan out the camera Hollywood Directors! The biggest problem was the story though, despite having such a strong base on which to build, they seemed to loose the sense of the plot and concentrate on the action scenes. There are some serious plot building and explanatory moments that are just totally overlooked and covered in the space of a few sentences, yet these could have formed some excellent and complex character development.<br /><br />It just all held together too weakly, and not enough was made of the story. All in all, not a great movie and it's potential was badly spoiled. | negative |
My boss at the time and showed it to us at a Halloween party at our office. He is the Chris Huntley that co-wrote and acted in it. He knows it's bad, we know it's bad and we all agree that the monster looks WAY too much like a vagina to be coincidence. Maybe it was from a gynocological experiment gone wrong.<br /><br />It was a VERY low budget and the actors were all friends so what you have here is a case of "hey gang, lets' put on a show".<br /><br />Nobody got hurt and it was a first attempt. Nothing wrong with that. It gave us all a good laugh and it's a great film to watch with friends and make fun of. :-) | negative |
May Contain Spoilers.<br /><br />An innocent trailer park or maybe 'Compton' LA white kid witnesses a terrible childhood tragedy relating to drugs and violence. An unprofessional but dedicated police partners try to take down a 'sophisticated' high end club drug ring only to be fired and chewed out by the the drug lords high priced attorneys. The plot thickens as more people come back to seek vengeance and justice with a predictable ending. The only memorable part was a walk-on by Ron Jeremy.<br /><br />If I was in a movie theater I would have asked for a refund. I feel sorry for the poor actors in this movie. It was just awful and painful to watch. The worst part was the cinematography were the director kept flashing back within the same scene so the sound would not quite match. And NO it was not a codec nor DVD problem but an intentional technique. Ughh. Two Stars. | negative |
Three zany couples, all SIX OF A KIND, become entangled in a madcap search for stolen bank loot.<br /><br />This is a lively, hilarious comedy, with the six stars - Charlie Ruggles & Mary Boland, W. C. Fields & Alison Skipworth, George Burns & Gracie Allen - all heartily engaged in doing what they did best: getting laughs.<br /><br />Ruggles & Boland make another of their film appearances as husband & wife - this time rather more amorous than usual. They were a perfect team - she the strident lioness, he the nervous rabbit - and they dominate most of the screen time here. From beginning to end, they are a delight.<br /><br />Burns & Allen continue the patter they originated in Vaudeville, perfected on radio & would eventually take to television, with George the perpetual straight man & Gracie the eternal fool. At times in the film she tends to go a bit over the top, but it's difficult to dislike her. Her heart was obviously made of solid gold.<br /><br />While Skipworth is given rather short shrift - only fragments of her formidable personality flash through - Fields is in his element as the disreputable sheriff of Nuggetville, Nevada. Whether explaining how he got the nickname Honest John' or skulking about at night looking for the missing moola, he is never less than wonderful. Best of all, he gets to perform his entire classic pool routine, preserving it forever for a grateful posterity. Finally, he executes the near miraculous - he gets Gracie to shut up.<br /><br />Paramount was so pleased with the success of SIX OF A KIND that they wanted to hurry the principle players into another comedy. Only Fields demurred. He felt he had now arrived at the point where he no longer needed to share a movie with other celebrity comics. The Studio finally agreed and began preparation of Fields' first solo starring feature, YOU'RE TELLING ME (1934). | positive |
I loved this show growing up and I still watch the first season DVD at age 19 today. What can I say? I grew up in a house much like the one on Full House. I had a dad, two sisters, and a dog. I guess the only difference was that I did not live with my uncle and my dad's best friend. Also, I grew up with my mom in the house. I don't know what I would have done without Full House on television. I think that Stephanie (played by Jodie Sweetin), D.J. (played by Kirk Cameron's sister Candace), and Michelle (Played by Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen) are my favorite characters. I can relate to each of them because I am the middle child of my family like Steph, I am a younger sister like Michelle, and I am an older sister like D.J. I really like how the show always has moral values because I don't really like any of the O.C.-like shows today. I like the comedy of Full House, too. Uncle Jesse (John Stamos), Joey (Dave Coulier), and Danny (Bob Saget) are hilarious as the girls' uncle, dad's friend, and dad, respectively. The story goes that, after the girls' mom dies, Danny's best friend Joey and his brother-in-law, Jesse move in to help raise the kids. Three men trying to raise three young girls=hilarious. Each character on Full House is full of heart, funny, and genuinely believable. Joey is an aspiring comedian with a kid's heart and soul. Jesse is the cool, motorcycle riding, tough-guy uncle who is softened by his three nieces, and later, his wife Becky (Laurie Laughlin, from Summerville). Both kids and adults will love this show. Guaranteed. | positive |
This is a hard movie to come by in the US, but if you can find it -- and you're interested in the life and music of Percy Aldridge Grainger, you're in for a treat. It's quite historically accurate. Richard Roxborough's Grainger looks astoundingly like Grainger at this period in time. Emily Woof's Karen Holten is quite a bit prettier than the real Karen, but that was an inaccuracy I was happy to discover (!). I think what really struck me though, was how well Roxborough captured Grainger's outrageous personality. Barbara Hershey's Rose was also a treasure. If she looks considerably younger than Rose did at that period, it is more than made up for in how well she captured Rose's obsession with Percy. It's an easy film to recommend. (I should note that when she saw "Passion" my wife had no particular affinity for (or knowledge of) Grainger and his music, but she was totally captivated by the film. | positive |
I usually really enjoy Steven Seagal movies. They are usually highly entertaining and being somewhat of an adept of Aikido, I usually like the way Steven incorporates these martial art techniques in the fight sequences.<br /><br />However this film is a really bad movie making effort and it seems obvious to me that the blame lies with the director and the producers who obviously have no idea how to make an action movie, let alone direct someone like Steven Seagal and to take advantage of his knowledge and competence.<br /><br />I never saw the end of this movie. I walked out before the end simply because I couldn't stand watching anymore of this bad movie. I am sure that many people also share my feelings. | negative |
Dirty Harry goes to Atlanta is what Burt called this fantastic, first-rate detective thriller that borrows some of its plot from the venerable Dana Andrews movie "Laura." Not only does Burt Reynolds star in this superb saga but he also helmed it and he doesn't make a single mistake either staging the action or with his casting of characters. Not a bad performance in the movie and Reynolds does an outstanding job of directing it. Henry Silva is truly icy as a hit-man.<br /><br />Detective Tom Sharky (Burt Reynolds) is on a narcotics case in underground Atlanta when everything goes wrong. He winds up chasing a suspect and shooting it out with the gunman on a bus. During the melee, an innocent bystander dies. John Woo's "The Killer" replicates this scene. Anyway, the Atlanta Police Department busts Burt down to Vice and he takes orders from a new boss, Frisco (Charles Durning of "Oh, Brother, Where Art Thou?") in the basement. Sharky winds up in a real cesspool of crime. Sharky and his fellow detectives Arch (Bernie Casey) and Papa (Brian Keith) set up surveillance on a high-priced call girl Dominoe (Rachel Ward of "After Dark, My Sweet")who has a luxurious apartment that she shares with another girl.<br /><br />Dominoe is seeing a local politician Hotchkins (Earl Holliman of "Police Woman") on the side who is campaigning for governor but the chief villain, Victor (Vittorio Gassman of "The Dirty Game") wants him to end the affair. Hotchkins is reluctant to accommodate Victor, so Victor has cocaine snorting Billy Score (Henry Silva of "Wipeout")terminate Dominoe. Billy blasts a hole the size of a twelve inch pizza in the door of Dominoe's apartment and kills her.<br /><br />Sharky has done the unthinkable. During the surveillance, he has grown fond of Dominoe to the point that he becomes hopelessly infatuated with her. Sharky's mission in life now is to bust Victor, but he learns that Victor has an informant inside the Atlanta Police Department. The plot really heats up when Sharky discovers later that Billy shot the wrong girl and that Dominoe is still alive! Sharky takes her into protective custody and things grow even more complicated. He assembles his "Machine" of the title to deal with Victor and his hoods.<br /><br />William Fraker's widescreen lensing of the action is immaculate. Unfortunately, this vastly underrated classic is available only as a full-frame film. Fraker definitely contributes to the atmosphere of the picture, especially during the mutilation scene on the boat when the villain's cut off one of Sharky's fingers. This is a rather gruesome scene.<br /><br />Burt never made a movie that surpassed "Sharky's Machine." | positive |
John Huston made many remarkable and memorable films. Those most often and easily recalled were released long before his passing in 1987. It was that year, however, that reminded us that Huston was still at the top of his game as evinced by his faithful adaptation of James Joyce's acclaimed novella "The Dead." <br /><br />Once long ago, a very wise man called Doc asked me, "Doesn't "The Dead" seem remarkably more vivid and bright than any of the other stories in Dubliners?" I tend to think that it is. The story and film both contain some of Joyce's societal comments and criticisms, but for the most part, paint a warm and loving portrait of an Ireland Joyce himself so often railed against and would shortly leave. <br /><br />Huston's handling of protagonist Gabriel Conroy, who realizes the world as he sees it is nothing more than an illusion, is simply remarkable. To claim that the film lacks plot is to miss the point. As with any of Joyce's Dubliners, plot--while most certainly present--is not the focus. Plot is merely a tool for the conveyance of the protagonist's epiphany. In addition to a seeming lack in action, there is quite frankly little dialogue in Joyce's short story for the director to lean on. Huston's ability to translate what Joyce puts in words into visuals is quite possibly the movie's greatest triumph. Feelings, thoughts...Gabriel's discomfort during the dance...all these intangibles leap to life and come within the viewer's grasp in Huston's portrayal. <br /><br />To claim that Huston has softened his writer's criticism of society again misses the mark. While "The Dead" may be painted with a cheerful hue, the complacency and pretense of the film's characters is but a comment on society on a smaller scale: we are the toddling old aunts; the embarrassing drunk; the tenor with the sore throat; the wife with the sad, rain soaked secret; even the self-deluded middle-aged man. <br /><br />But "The Dead" belies its title. It is not a dark story. Nor is it really that bleak. Forget for a moment the snow falling on the living and the dead and the inherent symbolism in it; forget the shambles of a life Gabriel awakes to at the film's end: it is only with the destruction of the illusions Gabriel has of himself and of his world that he can truly go forward. Such is the central point of the film. Such is the central point of our lives. | positive |
I admit I've only seen about three of Shakespeare's plays (Romeo & Juliet, Macbeth, & of course Hamlet) one I liked, the other I found so-so (Macbeth), and Hamlet I just found a masterpiece. I'm pleased to tell you that this adaptation is every bit as good as the intense and dramatic play. The acting is extremely strong (With a cast that features Kenneth Branagh, Robin Williams, and Billy Crystal how can you lose?) and the change in time period (Looks like somewhere between the 17 and 1800's) plays off beautifully as the characters move about and say their infamous lines straight from the script itself that any fan of the Shakespearean play will get chills from. If you're into this popular drama I highly urge you to watch this powerful 1996 adaptation from Shakespearean admirer Kenneth Branagh. | positive |
It's not often that a TV series grabs me right off the bat; a recent chance download of the pilot for Surface had me glued to my seat for the entirety of the episode, after which I immediately set out on a fevered search to learn everything I could about this wonderful series. To my chagrin, I found out it had been canceled after a mere 15 episodes, despite its strong ratings and extremely favorable reviews. Such a shame.<br /><br />Since then, I've acquired the remaining episodes, and found the first 5 or 6 to be among the best television I've EVER watched. Just fantastic from start to finish, and as another reviewer commented, I LOVED how they ended every episode with a huge finish. I imagine watching it each week I would've been screaming with tension and just captivated, desperately waiting for the next episode to be released. Growing up, I always heard that was how early serial movies used to do it, ending with a huge cliffhanger to get the crowds back into the theater for the next episode.<br /><br />Well, it seems for some reason or another the suits decided to kill this off, and apparently the people behind the show must've seen the writing on the wall, because after episode 6 things definitely take a turn for the worse. I wouldn't say the episodes actually become BORING but a lot of the plot elements become a bit more clichéd, and I've got to say, the final episode really left me feeling cheated. I just wish the show's creators were given a fair chance. The *ONLY* other show that left me feeling like that was the first season of Stargate SG-1, which just resonated tremendously, feeling very "true", soulful and made from the heart. Surface was a great series, and maybe one day, some well-heeled TV lover will see all the outpouring of emotion about the show's cancellation, and bring back this show. One can hope, at least. :) | positive |
First off let me say that this has to be on the top of my list of boring movies. Nothing, and I mean nothing in this movie is even remotely thrilling. Most of it is very confusing and as it progresses you just wish it would end!! Some people want a movie that makes them "think" through the entire thing, to which I say..."More power to you"!! I on the other hand just want to be entertained. Which brings me back to this stinker, entertainment it is not. This movie is stupid and a complete waste of time. Seems that most here agree also. Most of this didn't make any sense, and by the time you think you have one scene figured out another lame scene comes around and....well I guess you see where this is going. Avoid, this one sucks....bad!! | negative |
] Haven't seen this film? Haven't even heard of this film? It wouldn't surprise me. One of the few truly "independent" films produced in the last ten years, no studio had faith in the picture and it was never picked up for major distribution. The independent company Kino Films, gave BOESMAN AND LENA a very limited run with virtually no promotion, and the majority of major film critics didn't even bother reviewing it. I guess a movie based on a one act, one set play about the apartheid and its affect on two individuals never really had a chance in today's market - and it's the intelligent film-lover's loss.<br /><br />For the record, both Angela Bassett and Danny Glover deserved Ocsar nominations (as did the cinematographer) but the film received such little fanfare that I can't even blame the academy on that one. This is a film that is challenging, thought-provoking, and heartbreaking, and it actually requires the audience to meet it on it's own terms. Taking that into consideration, it is definitely not a movie for mindless entertainment. Director John Berry wisely does not attempt to dress-up Athol Fugard's play. Sure, we're given a few fractured flashbacks and some breathtaking scenic shots, but the film version of BOESMAN AND LENA remains, on the whole, a story of two people living in inhumane conditions.<br /><br />Stripped of their basic human rights, Boesman (Glover) and Lena (Bassett) have no one left to attack but each other. A third character joins them for awhile (Willie Jonah, amazing in a largely silent role), but the film's focus never strays from the title characters and what they've become. Bassett and Glover give brave performances as the broken couple, performances that simply could not be improved upon. Vigorously and brutally stimulating, both intellectually and emotionally, BOESMAN AND LENA deserves to be rediscovered of home video. Hands down, the best film of the year 2000. | positive |
A truly scary film. Happening across curmudgeon James Kunstler's rants led me to recently-formed web logs like Life After the Oil Crash (LATOC), Energy Bulletin, and The Oil Drum, and the data behind the theory of Hubbert's Peak. Like this film, LATOC and Kunstler paint a grim picture of die-off or die-back. I hope they're premature, but in mid-2005 rising gasoline prices, rising oil prices, Chevron's Will You Join Us campaign, BP becoming Beyond Petroleum and even T Boone Pickens lend credence to the idea that we are at or near a peak of oil production.<br /><br />After copious research of limited data, oil investment banker Matt Simmons has suggested that the Saudis may no longer be able to increase production in their immense, but aging fields. In the face of increased demand (primarily from the US and China), the Saudis have not responded with higher production, despite previous assurances. Stated world production from 2000 and 2004 indicates that light, sweet crude has indeed peaked. which means that refining will become more costly.<br /><br />The film seems aimed at baby boomers, but younger people, our children, also need to understand the implications of an energy-depleted future. | positive |
exquisite!! in simple words... both Aparna Sen and Konkona Sen seem to understand each other quite well or maybe they both are just too good.this might just be her best performance as an actor and Aparna's best as a director. yeah maybe better than Mr and Mrs Iyer. Konkona plays the role of a schizophrenic. Shabana Azmi plays the role of Anjali,Mithi's(Konkona Sen's) elder sister. Shabana Azmi made the best out of Anjali's character for she had to play a strong,responsible,arrogant role of an elder sister who had the full responsibility of her family. Aparna Sen has beautifully crafted Anjali's character,a strong woman who had to sacrifice her personal life,her love for her family.<br /><br />Mithi's behavior was'not juvenile at all,for you can expect this from most of Indian directors for this role.looks like a lot of research has been done to understand the role of Mithi,a schizophrenic. When at times Mithi is a normal,sweet college going girl,she also scares you when she is shown ill..both the sides have been beautifully judged and played..believe me it at times reminds you of the girl in Exorcist..not that scary though.. Overall..Marvellous piece of work by Aparna Sen,Konkona Sen and Shabana Azmi... | positive |
So lame it isn't even funny. A zombie infection overtakes a small college campus and a government squad of secret operatives back up a couple of scientists sent to find the origin of the outbreak. Collecting zombie DNA damn sure is not easy. Once bitten you're one of "them". The entire university has been completely infected by the run amok undead.<br /><br />This sequel does not even redeem the awful original HOUSE OF THE DEAD(2003). Senseless entertainment is accomplished though. A few glimpses of female nakedness added to a gaggle of gore and exploding heads should keep any zombie freak happy. Credited cast members: Emmanuelle Vaugier, Victoria Pratt, Ed Quinn, Sid Haig and Nadine Velazquez. The "F" word holds together an unimaginative script. | negative |
What gives Anthony Minghella the right to ruin two extraordinary works of fiction?? First, he destroyed The English Patient, which was bad enough, but now I discover he's butchered Cold Mountain - butchered!!!<br /><br />I had such a strange reaction to The English Patient. My son and I went to see it the first weekend it was released, and I was so disappointed, but told my son I felt like I needed to read the book. I drove straight to Barnes and Noble, bought it, read it, and tried to figure out what in the world the critics were talking about when they said Minghella had trusted enough in the intelligence of the movie-going public to give them a great film. That is what he most surely did not do. <br /><br />I do not ordinarily read a great deal of fiction, but Cold Mountain was so highly recommended by friends that I felt compelled to read it. I did not see Cold Mountain, the movie, when it played in theaters, and it was because of what Minghella had done to The English Patient. But like a fool, I rented it today, and I'm so upset, I had to vent my frustration and, most of all, my sadness, that someone could have taken this beautiful story and crafted it into something almost as beautiful on the screen, and now they never will. <br /><br />READ THE BOOK AND LET THE MOVIE ROT ON THE SHELF. I will never be taken in by a Minghella project again. I think he may be one of the worst directors working today, and I'm tired of the praise Hollywood heaps upon his head. It must be that no one in Hollywood reads anymore. This movie bears no resemblance to the book, except for the names of the characters. Minghella's ego must know no bounds, and if he didn't like the book, then why didn't he write an original screenplay and leave the book alone. Even if I hadn't read the book, I would still consider this movie one of the worst I've seen from 2003; and I've seen almost everything that's been released for viewing in the USA.<br /><br />Elaine, you aren't going to like this one either. | negative |
The film was made in 1942 and with World War 11 around, the movie industry decided to capitalize on the fact that spies were around.<br /><br />The film is fun to watch due to the fabulous dancing of Eleanor Powell. The late Miss Powell was certainly a great hoofer in every sense of the word. She is again paired with a very young looking Red Skelton here. The two of them also starred in "I Dood It."<br /><br />Moroni Olsen, who 3 years later, was superb as the interrogating police officer in "Mildred Pierce" again appears as an officer asking Powell to deliver an item. Trouble is that Olsen and his rogues are really the Japanese spies.<br /><br />Bert Lahr is his usual brilliant self here and he gets ample support from Virginia O'Brien. | negative |
This one is one of those classic B movie following the exploits of 2 hobos. It's done really cheesily and Big Stupid running off one-liners like a cardboard cassanova. But Jack Elam steals every scene he's in as the creepazoid Jesse (now Jerome!). My favorite scene is the lynch mob and the dad's voice going up 10 octaves ("You loved her?"). Danny, Big Stupid's protege, is surprisingly stupider, but not as loathsome as our lead star. There's also a quaint scene of a guy pimping at the diner. Joyce Meadows is the sweet, naive nice gal and probably the least annoying. And those yellow ruffles (RAWR!). Oh, and booze is evil according to Mr. Stupid.<br /><br />This movie's a hoot. Watch the MST cover of this and Crow's terrific Elam homage! | negative |
While not for everyone, Crackerjack is a delight to watch, with tongue planted firmly in cheek. The likeable character of Jack Simpson, played by Mick Molloy, is scamming the local "bowlo" for free parking and making a couple of dollars on the side, selling the parking space to work colleagues. When the Bowling Club members need to raise some money to save their club, they call upon Jack to join their bowling team and play competition bowls.<br /><br />Filled with Aussie Charm, the laconic wit of Mick Molloy is showing through (he also co-wrote the script) reminding this viewer of his earlier work in Radio. Perfect Aussie casting with Bill Hunter as Jack's bowling mentor Stan Coombes, John Clarke (of The Games fame) as the ruthless businessman and rival bowls club owner Bernie Fowler, with Samuel Johnson as Jack's flatmate Dave, and Judith Lucy as the jaded Journalist, Nancy.<br /><br />Initially, I figured only fans of Molloy would like this flick but judging by the number of the blue rinse set exiting the cinema chuckling, this is a film for everyone. | positive |
This trashy B movie attempts to masquerade as a study of sexual addiction, but it is really a poor excuse for a sexploitation flick. The story revolves around Sammy Horn (subtle name) played by Michael Des Barres. Sammy is a restaurant owner with a clueless wife Grace (Rosanna Arquette) and a young child. He has a sexual addiction and must have meaningless sex every five minutes with any woman in his field of vision who will agree (and of course every woman on the planet finds him irresistible despite the fact that he looks old enough to be collecting Social Security).<br /><br />The story is centered on a conversation with his therapist (Nastassja Kinski) where he is describing each of his sexual exploits via flashback. This is nothing more than a convenient launching point for a parade of serial sex acts, which consumes at least 75% of the screen time.<br /><br />It is hard to know where to begin criticizing a film this bad. The production values are abysmal. The movie is shot on video with a look somewhere between a TV soap opera (at best) and an amateur porn flick shot in someone's garage. The direction by Joseph Brutsman is horrible with bad lighting, uninspired framing and poor actor direction. The script is vapid and the dialogue mindless and vulgar.<br /><br />Women are generally portrayed as sex obsessed nymphomaniacs just waiting for an addict like Sammy to come along and rough them up while feeding their insatiable appetites with some impersonal copulation. As an example, Grace's sister comes over to indignantly inform Sammy that she knows he's been sleeping around and that she is going to tell his wife. His response to that is to throw her up against the wall and begin raping her. About three seconds into it she has an epiphany and is instantly converted to one of his sex disciples begging him to give her more. Just as they finish Grace walks in and sis says to her, `Oh, great to see you, gotta run to pick up Timmy' and mum's the word about Sammy's indiscretions. The bond of loyalty has been sealed with a good ravishment. No spoiler here because it is so typical of the obvious nature of the film that anyone who had seen the first fifteen minutes could have predicted it.<br /><br />The sex depictions are all overdone, mechanical, and so poorly simulated that they are more comical than erotic. Most of them are done with both participants fully clothed. The acting is wretched. Michael Des Barres presents all the depth of a rain puddle. He really seems to get into the thrusting and profanity of the sex parts, but when it comes to actually acting with Arquette and Kinski, he is adrift. Rosanna Arquette is the closest thing to an actor in this film, giving a bearable performance and looking genuinely hurt when she finally discovers that her perfect husband is a lecherous animal. Nastassja Kinski is far too compassionate as the therapist, but at least we have some acting happening here. The rest of the cast is just a collection of elevated body doubles to whom they give thought provoking lines like `hit me harder, is that the best you can do?' and `Oh, God
YES'.<br /><br />This movie is among the worst I have ever seen, a dubious distinction given the thousands of films I have viewed. I have given it the extremely rare dishonor of rating it 1/10. Not to be seen within three hours of any meal. | negative |
I love the book, "Jane Eyre" and have seen many versions of it. All have their strong points and their faults. However, this was one of the worst I have seen. I didn't care about Jane or Mr. Rochester. Charlotte Gainsbourg (Jane) was almost tolerable and certainly looked the plain part, but she had no emotion in any of her lines. I couldn't imagine what Mr. Rochester saw in her. <br /><br />That brings us to Mr. Rochester. William Hurt had even less emotion than Jane, if that were possible. How two such insipid people could fall in love is a mystery, but it certainly didn't hold my attention. Perhaps the director (Zeffrelli) fell asleep during the production.<br /><br />The Timothy Dalton (too handsome for Mr. Rochester!) version is far more faithful to the book, but Ciaran Hinds plays the perfect Mr. Rochester in the 1997 A/E version (which is NOT all that true to the book).<br /><br />Trying to find something positive about this movie: Geraldine Chaplain was perfect in her role. | negative |
We know that firefighters and rescue workers are heroes: an idée reçue few would challenge. Friends and family of these and others who perished in the attacks on the World Trade Center might well be moved by this vapid play turned film. A sweet, earnest, though tongue-tied fireman recalls what he can of lost colleagues to a benumbed journalist who converts his fragments into a eulogy. They ponder the results. He mumbles some more, she composes another eulogy, etc., etc.<br /><br />The dreadful events that provoked the need for several thousand eulogies is overwhelmingly sad, but this plodding insipid dramatization is distressingly boring. | negative |
I had the misfortune to watch this rubbish on Sky Cinema Max in a cold winter night. I am not a big fan of horror movies, because most of them are just trash. This one is even worse: it is one of the dumbest pieces of crap i've ever seen in my whole life. Horror movie? Yes, there are horrible things in this: the acting, the script and the special effects - Gosh, i laughed at this ludicrous attempt to make a flick for 90 minutes. Actually, had it been a comic movie i would've given it a 5. Don't you even think about renting this unless you want to mock at the producers.<br /><br />Vote: 2 out of 10 - didn't vote one because it made me laugh all the time ;-) | negative |
imagine if you took the Christ myth, mixed it with a healthy dose of porn, against a backdrop of bad sci-fi blackxploitation(brotha from another planet like) throw in a dash of after school special, and lots of really bad kung fu fighting. oh and some decent break dancing. with an awesome casio keyboard soundtrack.<br /><br />and some how they make this even worse than you could imagine. there are at least 4 rape scenes, at least one great car explosion, a buff black guy running around in his undies with an Uzi.<br /><br />add alcohol and this is the perfect movie.<br /><br />i mean lots and lots and lots of alcohol | negative |
See Dick work.<br /><br />See Jane work.<br /><br />Dick and Jane are married.<br /><br />They are successful.<br /><br />They have a son. <br /><br />They have a nice house.<br /><br />They have a Latino housekeeper.<br /><br />The housekeeper teaches Spanish to the son.<br /><br />The son speaks Spanish.<br /><br />Ha-ha.<br /><br />See Dick get promoted.<br /><br />The pompous CEO is a crook.<br /><br />See Dick take the fall for the pompous CEO.<br /><br />Jane quits her job.<br /><br />Oops.<br /><br />See Dick and Jane out of work.<br /><br />Dick & Jane turn to crime.<br /><br />As a plot device, they decide to rob the CEO.<br /><br />See the robbery get botched.<br /><br />See Dick & Jane fund the company's pension plan with the money from the robbery.<br /><br />Yay. See the end credits.<br /><br />Okay, so you've got the plot. Beyond that, Dick and Jane careens from one scene to the next. One barely connecting with the last one or the next one. The whole thing is terribly episodic in nature. <br /><br />Jim Carrey didn't bother to bring his "A" material, he just seems bored and slightly ashamed of the whole thing. But heck, when you're getting paid $20 million plus, why bother. Tea Leoni is frantic. I guess I would be frantic not to get blamed for this flop.<br /><br />There's just something sort of off about Dick & Jane. Carrey and Leoni aren't funny and have little chemistry. The script isn't funny. And it's not well-plotted.<br /><br />But it may be bigger than that. The reality of Dick and Jane is, perhaps, a little too real. Maybe it's just not funny for people to lose their jobs in an Enron-like situation, when real-life still lacks a happy ending. | negative |
4 realz son my game iz mad tite yo I cant wait 2 get on dis show and roll up in da club n do it real 905 style wit mad models n bottles, son!<br /><br />No, I'm just kidding. This is a sad show, created by, and for the enjoyment of, sad men. Men who are so neutered by modern existence that they channel their frustration into the clubs, where they eke out fleeting self-validation preying on chicks in hopes of getting their little wieners touched to try and dull the sting of loneliness and make them feel, even if just for one night, as though their seat on the Board of the Sausage Party of Toronto is a little less permanent. <br /><br />I read some comments on here saying that this show represents Canadian TV's finally stepping up to stand on a par with American TV or somethingorother. Well, that's not aiming short at all. It's like, Yes! Pat yourself on the back, Canada -- you've finally cracked the elusive formula for such groundbreaking American content as "Studs", "Change of Heart", "Elimidate" and "The Fifth Wheel". See, the real brainchild here is tacking "...meets Candid Camera" onto the pitch. Genius. And there's nothing that straddles that thin line between fratboy camaraderie and latent homosexuality like a group of grown men taping each other on hidden camera, admiring each other's "game" up in the club. The man-love on display here is so palpable they should really consider rechristening it "Keys to the Steam Bath".<br /><br />On a side note, how interesting that the folks who gave this show such glowing reviews seem to have registered an IMDb account for the express purpose of doing so (I guess I'm guilty of employing the same means to do the opposite here.) My personal favorite is the one enthusiastic reviewer that claims to hail from the "United States" who gushes that "Now it's clear that the talent in Canada has the ability to produce American quality television." <br /><br />Smooth. <br /><br />But why even bother manufacturing online buzz? You can't really get cancelled, after all -- you're on the Comedy Network in Canada, baby! The viewing public will go on ignoring your show for years to come. In all likelihood you'll be just fine, coasting comfortably along that proverbial plain of mediocrity with the majority of the Comedy Network's original programming. | negative |
Okay first of all, I didn't sit down to watch the premier of a "Star Trek" Series to see a cowboy flying around in space. this is how a normal Enterprise episode works<br /><br />1 Archer finds a nebula or something aloung the lines of that and wants to take a closer look but it might destroy the ship.<br /><br />2 he sends a shuttle into the nebula and and the shuttle get damaged...<br /><br />in all of the episodes I have seen, all of the problems are happening because of Archer's stupid mistakes. Oh and did you see the preview of one episode showing Archer and T'pol kissing?!?!?!?!?!?!? I was planning to watch that episode but after that I totally gave up on Enterprise and turned to TV right off. Come on!!!! This is star trek!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!<br /><br />Also what was with the banana slug?? In one episode, Hoshi had a banana slug but had to leave it behind for some stupid reason. Okay fine, little dumb to bring you pet slug in space but whatever. Okay that was what I thought until they left it on a desert planet!!!!! A BANANA SLUG CANNOT LEAVE IN A DESERT!!!!!!!!!!!! How dumb are these writers<br /><br />Any ways, just saying if Enterprise is on DON'T WATCH IT!!!!! | negative |
Even with it's low budget this movie could have been worth watching if there was a story to tell here. It started out pretty good, and fairly engaging and believable. The actors and characters were interesting although there wasn't much character development. My favorite scene was when they were all eating their rations. Some seemed to hate it, and some seemed to think it wasn't too bad. The story starts out very airtight. And then... <br /><br />And then it dipped into a little horror which is usually a death sentence for most sci fi. Suddenly no scientific basis for any of the goings on. No real believable end game for the villain? No real explanation of what's going on. Generally if a movie has to use the F word for every other word it usually spirals down from there too. I still get offended believe it or not. I often wonder what inspires people to make bad sci fi? Isn't there a universe of fantastically good stories out there? Don't people feel like they are wasting their time and everyone else's when they put out stuff like this. Why do we get so much mediocre sci fi like this? No female actors/characters either? None at all? This had the makings to be another "Predator" but alas fell far far short. <br /><br />My final comment - poor editing and finally too low a budget to build a real campfire? What gives? <br /><br />My advice for any low budget sci fi movie production companies out there. Make sure you got a good story before you start, and edit out bad special effects - it's better we see nothing than something that looks fake or ridiculously fuzzy. | negative |
But, lets face it... it got a few nostalgic sighs out of me.<br /><br />The show is just so consistently great that it is allowed to have a few hiccups. I get a new season, and just power through them like I have 2-days to live. I like the idea of wrapping it up, but it was much more of an end of season episode which would explain the following:<br /><br />Dr.Cox isn't supposed to be bald for a couple more episodes, only explanation I can think of is they changed the rotation of the episodes or had to re-shoot the beginning.<br /><br />and that my friends, is why the hell cox is bald.<br /><br />Anyways, the show is awesome...bring on the 7th season. | negative |
"Chinese Ghost Story" is one of the most amazing Hong Kong films I have ever seen.It's a brilliant mix of fantasy,comedy,romance,horror and martial arts.The film has some wonderful visuals and amazing fights.I love especially the fight scene between Wu Ma and the tree demon tongue.Truly original and refreshing film and another Embalmer's fine recommendation. | positive |
I am generally more willing to be open minded about rom coms than many, but this was simply not a very good attempt. Its got nothing to do with comparisons with the British original -- have not seen, and doubt I will. It has a whole lot to do with a meandering plot, lack of chemistry between the leads and a godawful performance/character from its supposed male lead (Jimmy Fallon).<br /><br />Fallon walks onto the screen wearing the clothes and hairdo of a 15 year old and acting a decade younger than that. He's supposed to be a teacher you see, and of course its well known that school districts the world over love to hire individuals less mature than the children they purport to teach. The character is so extremely disturbed and irrational that I have my doubts whether any actor could have made him likable, but old reliables like John Cusack or Adam Sandler might have been able to give it a shot. Not Fallon, who is neither funny, nor an actor, but appears to think he is both. Not once in the entire course of the movie do you either believe Fallon in his role, or believe that there is any way these two people should, or would be together. Near the end of the movie there is a scene where Barrymore (who was cute as usual but could not carry this one alone -- its hard to have a one person romance) tells Fallon that its over, too much has happened, and she's moving on. And rather than feeling bad about the scene, or sorry for Fallon, you are actively cheering her on -- finally she does what she should have done months ago. But of course the plot mechanics won't allow that to be the end of it (an end which actually might have made a statement out of this mess), and instead we get to see the rational career girl throwing it all away to chase after this childish idiot and encourage his delusions. Its of course meant to be gooey and satisfying, but it actually made me more disgusted than anything else. | negative |
The whole shorthand for supposedly being more aware in this weird time is that you are "Blue". The Blue State mentality. This is supposed to get us off the hook for what is/was happening during the last few years in our country (The USA). It doesn't get anyone off the hook but it makes us feel better, as though we aren't benefiting in any way from living here and getting all the good stuff that a US citizen gets just by being a US citizen. <br /><br />But I'm so sick of bitching about this. It doesn't do any good. I haven't taken much action lately and I wonder how many people have. Maybe I'm just down because my job was "outsourced" last month and now I'm looking for work in the shrinking tech support field where most of the jobs are quickly going to India and other places overseas. I'm thinking that soon it's not going to pay off to be a citizen here with the screwed up infrastructure and the shrinking job market and the obsession with war. These days it seems like anyone who speaks out gets jumped and questioned about there "patriotism". Anyway, back to this review: USA The Movie is an obscure DVD that makes me realize that some people have taken action, whether it's through politics, protesting or arts or media. The filmmaker is obviously passionate, knowledgeable, willing to go outside the norm, frustrated, unique, astute etc. <br /><br />I looked through the whole site that's linked to the DVD and got lost in all the articles, essays etc.that are there. The DVD does that too, has references to different times, views and historical points. Sometimes someone does something out there. | positive |
This is a small film , few characters ,theatrical.And yet it says something about Ireland that you won't find elsewhere.This film IS IRELAND. In all it's grubiness, it's sadness,it's self-delusion.The Boys , Master Doyle , SP O'Donell, The Cannon , Senator Doogan's daughter , Gar and above all Madge.I know them.I'm in the pub with them or kneeling to pray with them. They are our sad history and they are our present. | positive |
This certainly is one of the best western movies produced in the new Millennium. It's an homage to all the stars of the great TV western classics, and it is the ultimate revival of the western movie. The story of two brothers who meet after the War between the States and end up on different sides of the law isn't new but interesting nonetheless, and the shootouts and the atmosphere are great. There is some graphic violence like bad guys getting chopped to death with an axe or women being shot down in cold blood, and Lee Majors doesn't take part in the action until the very end, that's why I gave it 9 out of 10 points. But it still is one of the best new western productions I've ever seen. I've had the honor and pleasure to meet Chris McIntyre at the Festival of the West and have a nice chat with him, and I've had the chance to meet Buck Taylor who performs the role of town doctor. In my opinion, we ought to be much obliged to Chris McIntyre for his efforts to gather that many stars of the classic TV westerns and SASS around him to perform in a new western such as this. Chris has an outstanding talent for choosing the right actors for the main characters, too. Both are young and promising, and I think we should see more of them in future western productions. I sincerely enjoyed this western movie - it was worth every minute. I hope that Chris McIntyre will continue to work on other western movies and present us with some more great productions such as this one. Great work, Chris! Jasper P. Morgan (Pete) | positive |
As other reviewers have noted, this is an unjustly neglected Depression-era film. Directed by Frank Borzage (two Oscars) and written by Jo Swerling (Leave Her to Heaven, The Westerner, Lifeboat, etc.), it is a tough-minded, well-structured and -realized move about denizens of a New York City shantytown. They're grifters, beggars, and women forced into prostitution, but they're a community of people both good and bad, with loyalties as complex as any group's.<br /><br />Perhaps primary among this movie's many admirable qualities is the contrast between Spencer Tracy's character, Bill, and Loretta Young's Trina. He tough-talking, physically aggressive, and evidently fearless-- but Bill is not the character who gives this film its steely sense of survival. While he blusters, Trina actually hangs tough (if that term can be applied to a character so ladylike). Her devotion to him is obvious, and complete. When she becomes pregnant, she says she will raise it herself if he wants to leave, or "I'll even give up the kid if you'll only be happy." Such is the dignity of Loretta Young's performance (at age 20) as a quite simple character, that she seems neither weak or dependent, but rather a woman who recognizes happiness when she finds it, and wants nothing more. | positive |
This movie is nothing like "Office Space" except in the premise. Office Space was hilarious. I would not recommend this movie to anyone, as I laughed not once during the entire film. Mr. Cornbluth's self-indulgent tirades quickly become more annoying than 15 Jason Alexanders in the same room. If you decide to see this movie, use a free rental or watch it at someone else's house so you can leave if necessary. | negative |
Put the film down and back slowly away. The acting rivals a highschool play, the plot is treadworn, and the production values are slightly higher than community theater. The goofs are so plentiful that it becomes a laugher. Rooms are switched around, the dead move, dogs are used for wolves, men shot point blank with .45 caliber pistols are able to walk and ride snowmobiles, blouses button and unbutton without human touch... this is a baaaaaaaaaddddddd movie. I nearly passed out when I saw the average rating. There is no accounting for taste. BTW, there is no nudity. | negative |
a timeless classic, wonderfully acted with perfect location settings, conjuring a marvelous atmospheric movie. a simple story mingled with humor and suspense. i wish that a video was available in Britain. i have seen this film on many occasions and it remains one of my favorites along with Oh Mr Porter. | positive |
I saw this at my city's independent cinema - no surprise, because no mainstream theatre would want its fingerprints on this train wreck.<br /><br />The camera work is very distracting. The constant shifting, refocusing, and zooms could induce a sensitive person to have motion sickness. It looks more like a film student's project than a serious movie.<br /><br />Though well-acted, the characters are unlikeable. Josh is devious, always trying to manipulate situations and people to his advantage. Without any context to Emily and Josh's relationship, she comes off as a whiny, insecure girl who's desperate to get married. Rhett is an emotional infant, incapable of understanding the complexities of human interaction. Without any redeeming qualities, I didn't care about what happened to any of them.<br /><br />Obviously some people liked this movie, as the couple sitting behind me were laughing hysterically. Of course, they could have just making fun of it. I could hardly blame them for it. | negative |
I couldn't have been more thrilled; Just eight years old back in 1983, I was going to see a Star Wars movie at the theater! The best day of my life was about to happen. To that time, my only Star Wars experience had been a few HBO showings of Star Wars. I hadn't even seen The Empire Strikes Back yet.<br /><br />And boy, did that day deliver for my less critical eyes. Jabba. Big Rebel spaceships. The Emporer. A green-bladed lightsaber!! Wow! Since that magical day, I must have watched this movie hundreds of times. I can't even form an accurate estimate at this point. With those multiple viewings, I have of course observed that this movie - the REAL Episode III - does have its flaws.<br /><br />Of course in the context of a Star Wars movie, those "flaws" are more like "quirks".<br /><br />Millions had had their magical day in 1977 and 1980. In May of 1983, I had mine. And this was my Star Wars movie. | positive |
This is not a movie. This is a collection of random shots taken in a fascinating part of the world, dubbed over with some random text. The footage is not that great and the text is not that great either. The end product is excruciatingly dull.<br /><br />On the DVD, turning the commentary on can provide some entertainment value, as the director makes a rather deranged argument that this is a sci-fi movie. It's also fascinating to read about the extraordinary risks and hardship that the crew endured to collect this footage. Too bad it's rubbish. But I think "The Making of Fata Morgana" would be a fascinating film, sort-of like 'Ed Wood" was. | negative |
This film easily rivals the emotional strength, the dramatic impact and the top-notch performances of "12 Angry Men". I rented it on a whim and was amazed that I had not heard of it before.<br /><br />I do not know if this was Emilio Estevez's directorial debut, but the pacing, the interplay and development of the characters as well as the some clever camera work surrounding the character Estevez plays all suggest a natural eye.<br /><br />The interplay between Martin and Emilio contains the same wonderful chemistry we saw in Wall Street with Martin and Charlie. Kathy Bates is wonderful in her characters subtle desperation and escapism; a variation on her characters in "At Play In The Fields Of The Lord". She is irritating and yet one can empathize with her at the same time.<br /><br />There are some moments where I feel the plot slows a touch and the moments between Estevez and his ex-girlfriend almost seem written for another film, Estevez comes off as another character all together. But those are minor complaints.<br /><br />This film must be based on a true story or must have been written by someone who lived these experiences. I rate it 8 out of a difficult 10.<br /><br /> | positive |
Savaged when it came out, this film now looks handsome and sounds great. A feast of intelligent thoughtful acting, from Gielgud, Kenneth Haigh, Harry Andrews and especially Anton Walbrook,and a moving central performance from the beautiful and incredibly young Jean Seberg. Preminger doesn't jump around and show off- his long slow takes encourage you to listen and reflect, and Graham Greene's script condenses Shaw without sacrificing complexity.The piece has the look of a made for TV movie, and is certainly studio bound but none the worse for that. Too many contemporary movies on 'historical' themes cannot resist dumbing down. What would Mel Gibson have made of the Maid? Many drooling shots of her on the rack probably, then crisping up on the BBQ as the flames take hold. Preminger does none of this. The burning is shown mainly through a guilt-stricken reaction. There are a few weak performances, but not enough to cause any serious damage. I caught this movie on TV and was not expecting to watch it through, but I was gripped . In our age of religious fundamentalism and sacrifice, Joan's story has unexpected resonance. | positive |
When I found out there was a movie that had both my favorite actresses Meryl Streep and Wynona Ryder, I went through the roof!But I had a hard fall after watching this lame movie and I still have the bruise.First of all the character that Jeremy Irons (an actor I still admire even after this disappointment)plays was just awful. He treated his family like crap, especially his sister, played by Glenn Close. I could not get close or sympathize with any of the characters and I'm no prude, but the sex scenes were really unnecessary or they could have been toned down. Wynona and Antonio's characters could have been developed a lot more and their romance could have been much more passionate. And what was with Meryl's character and her "mystical powers"? Why didn't they go into this more? This film had a lot of dead ends and the bottom line is that this is a really lousy movie and there was a lot of wasted talent here. | negative |
loved the story of a guy that tries to get his girl back....been there, done that, so i can relate...any way, i love the camera work, how occasionally the camera gets "left on", and they are just sitting there talking about the scene, or other stuff...or how the camera follows him around to find the cast and what not...i watched this on IFC sometime last year and i loved it, so i told a few of my friends about it, and some of them watched it, and they too loved it...check it out if you can, kinda girly, but its still a good film...I gave it a 10/10 because of two reasons...one: i can relate...but anyone that has ever fallen in love and made a mistake can relate... two: its a really creative way to make a film, its like you are constantly there, right in the middle of filming...like i said, great film | positive |
THE DEVIL'S PLAYTHING is my second attempt at a Joseph Sarno production - and although I will say it is far more enjoyable than the painfully dull and unerotic Swedish WILDCATS, it is still a little slow and un-explicit for my taste.<br /><br />This one centers around a group of vampire girls who live in a castle, that want to resurrect their previously murdered "leader". In order to do so, the girls have to dance around naked and kiss each other and chant weird stuff - and of course drink some blood, too. When a doctor and her brother's car breaks down and they have to stop at the castle for lodging - they provide the ideal bloodbank for the horny vampires...but they may not be as helpless as they seem...<br /><br />THE DEVIL'S PLAYTHING is a pretty good example of early 70's exploit sleaze. Lots of nudity - including some full-frontal, some sleazy undertones - including incest and of course, lesbo-bloodsucking...but these scenes are still pretty tame by today's standards. Some pretty hot women in this one, would have benefited from some more explicit sex, but I guess ya can't have it all. Also would have benefited from some heavier violence/gore, being that it IS a vampire film, but I think the purpose of THE DEVIL'S PLAYTHING was more to showcase skin, not blood. Still a little slow - and the acting for the most part is absolutely wooden - but that's to be expected from something from this era and of this budget. Worth a look to exploit fans - others may find it a little too dull for their liking. 7/10 | positive |
I have never felt the need to add a review to this website until now, but having just sat through the film I felt it necessary to warn parents who may be thinking of showing it to their children. Please don't! This is no Disney film. This film tells us 'life is cruel' and if you show it to your children, in my opinion, you are too. <br /><br />The video box describes the film as a 'delight for all ages' and the IMDb plot outline describes it as a 'family film'. I just had to find a definition of 'family film' and came across the following: "Usually consisting of comedies or adventures, these films are often based on children's literature and can involve any number of helpful animals, friendly supernatural beings and fantasy worlds, all geared to stimulate and appeal to the imagination. Whatever the situation, there is little or no offensive material and generally a lesson is learned on the way." Not an apt description of Tarka The Otter, which contains some thoroughly unpleasant scenes, totally unsuitable for young children, and an ending that qualifies the film as a 'feel bad' movie. The lesson learned? As I said: life is cruel. Family entertainment? I don't think so. Unless you hate your family, that is. <br /><br />Another review, more revealing than this but worth reading, can be found by following the 'external reviews' link. | negative |
This is probably the best documentary I have seen in a very long time. Jonny Kennedy was and is still is a tragically beautiful inspiration. Not only was he a survivor of one of the most painful diseases out there, but he used his beauty to show the world that there is life after death and never to give up reaching people and spreading his love. Watching minutes of his life long struggle was heart-wrenching. Listening to his smart ass remarks and seeing his adorable gestures was heartwarming. And seeing him smile was indescribable. I feel blessed to have been able to be touched by this tiny giant. Please, if you ever have a chance to watch this film - consider yourself lucky to have met Jonny Kennedy. | positive |
-love is hard to find in this fast food society that we live in so man called Hitch makes it duty to help men find love with women that they are beyond madly in love with. his rules are that he only helps you find love and not just some casual sex which seems like a great deal but soon word begins to spread around and people begin to get the wrong idea about what he does which begins to complicate the relationship with woman he just met that he is madly in love with.<br /><br />-I have to say it's really nice to see Will Smith in a movie that doesn't have him trying to save the world from aliens or robots. There are no jaw dropping effects nor is he showing off his beefed up body. He's just a normal human being in this movie which was really nice. He doesn't necessarily stretch his acting muscles in this movie but then again the story doesn't call for that but all the same it was nice to see him relaxed and not showing off his ripped body to make those of us without six packs jealous. His character here is as with all his characters likable, witty and very charming which is something that almost all the characters in this odd love tale seem to share. The Kevin James character is just a regular guy that needs help hooking up with the girl of his dreams which really makes you feel for the guy and root for him every step of the way. the only character that was a sore spot for me was the Mendez character because she's so cold and calculated that it's hard to believe that Smith could fall for her. He must love a challenge I guess.<br /><br />-now this is the part of the review in which I'll make a joke about how I would never need Hitch because I'm such a player but I just got through writing about 16 reviews for another web site plus I'm still working on a little project so I'm a little jaded right now. whiles the movie is packed with enough charm and likable characters with funny lines it slowly but surely falls into the sea of formulaic romantic movies in which after the big scene where the terrible secret comes out everyone is forgiven and the relationship is even better than before. But hey there's like 4000 movies about the underdog overcoming adversity so I guess one more movie having a predictable ending that's been done to almost death doesn't cause much harm. I really like the message of the movie as well because in the end you don't need a formula to get the right girl, just be yourself and all will fall into play which is theme of the movie and why it works so well. I'm sure if it had turned out that the James character gets the girl after following everything that the Smith character said then it would have being a pretty empty movie but as it stands it works really well.<br /><br />-despite being predictable this is a PERFECT date movie. It's sweet, it's funny, and it's romantic so anyone that watches this movie on a date should be getting some after it's over. and by some I mean sex | positive |
Another silent love triangle film from Hitchcock, not a mystery, but very English, very well-paced and photographed. Smooth boxer Bob Corby (Ian Hunter) recruits circus boxer "One Round" Jack Sander (Carl Brisson) to be his sparring partner, partly to keep the pretty but fickle Mabel (Lilian Hall-Davis) nearby. There are lots of character actors and grotesquesat Jack and Mabel's wedding the verger, standing in the aisle of the church, registers shock at the sight of the very tall and the very short men, the fat lady, the conjoined twins who, of course, argue about which side of the aisle to sit, and the wedding feast is amusing. The rest of the movie has Jack losing Mabel and boxing his way back to her heart, or something like that. It was another era altogether, with the audience in evening dress, and the boxers dressing up, too, when out of the ring. The camera angles, the pace, the use of symbols, the cuttingall very stylish and masterful. The camera-work and editing of the last boxing match is very gripping. Brisson's good looks are well-used in this one; his smiling is not so oblivious of what's going on around him as he is in Hitchcock's The Manxman, and so is not annoying. But can boxers have such dimples? | positive |
I saw the second part of this beautiful period piece set on a ship sometime in the 19th century. Golding's book must be responsible for some of the superb dialogue but everything else was good too! I especially liked the way they created the period and feeling of being on the ship so well. For me this had a feeling of completeness about it which I know I won't be able to convey in words... Perhaps it was the way they mixed in technical and historical details about sailing in the eighteen hundreds to the story without messing it up. Benedict Cumberbatch was excellent, as was the rest of the cast. It's not often a mini-series sends me to the "zone", but this one did. | positive |
There seems to have been some money behind this film, but it would be impossible to imagine a film this badly planned and executed if I hadn't actually started watching it.<br /><br />To begin with, once we are in the cavern with the characters (the usual young adult stereotypes we've been meeting in horror films since the early '80s), the film is shot almost entirely in close-up. Since the actors are wearing helmet lights, this means all we see are glaring lights alternating with utter darkness - we never get to see what the characters see; so when they shout out "Look there!" we are left to beg "What?! Where?!". Ultimately the film has a nauseating, confusing strobe-light effect, with no sense to it until we get to the end.<br /><br />And I won't tell you what 'the end' means - but you will recognize it if you've ever seen the old early '60s Arch Hall laugh fest"Eegah!" with Richard Kiel.<br /><br />But what crazy person would ever want to make a variation on a theme like "Eegah!"'s, long remembered as one of the worst films ever made?! But that's what we have here, folks. Except that, unlike "Eegah!", "The Cavern" is not anyone's idea of goofy fun. It is unwatchable. (I ran it at x2 the normal speed, just to get it over with, hoping I would actually be able to see something by the end of the film; but when I did, it was just stupid.) This film did provide me with one satisfying moment, though; since it only cost a couple bucks, after I got it out of the DVD player, I was able to smash it with my own hands - what a relief! | negative |
First of all, just let me say this... Ghost Story....hello!?!<br /><br />If any of the other people who trashed this movie from beginning to end realized this fact, their reviews would have been very different. The fact that characters kept disappearing whenever the protagonist turned back to look, should have been a dead giveaway. This movie was not billed as a ghost story when you went to rent it in the video store, not even a hint, and that is the BIGGEST mistake that was made by the studio who marketed it. It was deliberate on their part not to market it as a ghost story in order to confuse you like the main character is confused as you try to make sense of it. The problem in this is that they lost too many viewers; the ghosts appeared "too human and real" without any of the usual telltale signs, imagery or special effects that Hollywood usually uses to let you know you are now seeing a ghost...and that, is what they were trying to do. The main character does not know she is seeing ghosts and neither does the viewer. Now do you get it? As long as you understand that the main character is seeing ghosts, then you'll understand the movie and not be so irritated by what is perceived as major oversights in continuity or plot flaws.<br /><br />I admit, this being said, it still was not a good movie, just not as bad a just about everyone else made it out to be. Just understand, if you plan on watching this movie, everything you see, "ain't" always what what you think it is. 4 out of 10 for acting, 3 for originality, 5 for plot and 5 for scare factor, though there was some gore and spooky moments. Still not a good movie, just way misunderstood. | negative |
*** Spoilers*<br /><br />My dad had taped this movie for me when I was 3. By age 5, I had watched it over 400 times. I just watched it and watched it. And I still do today! It has a grim storyline, a lamb's mother is killed by a wolf--a very emotional scene--and wants to become a wolf, like him. After years of training, the lamb is made into a really REALLY evil looking thing. He and the wolf travel to his old barn, but he cannot kill the lambs, no matter how much he wishes to. He ends up killing the wolf, but is no longer seen as a lamb by his former friends, and can't return to his previous way of life.<br /><br />The art is beautiful, the songs are..well, okay, and the voice acting is better than some things today.<br /><br />All in all, you just *have* to see this movie, it is a great masterpiece. Although, it's very hard to find today.<br /><br /> | positive |
'Dead Letter Office' is a low-budget film about a couple of employees of the Australian postal service, struggling to rebuild their damaged lives. Unfortunately, the acting is poor and the links between the characters' past misfortunes and present mindsets are clumsily and over-schematically represented. What's most disappointing of all, however, is the portrayal is life in the office of the film's title: there's no mechanisation whatsoever, and it's quite impossible to ascertain what any of the staff really do for a living. Granted, part of the plot is that the office is threatened with closure, but this sort of office surely closed in the 1930s, if it ever truly existed. It's a shame, as the film's overall tone is poignant and wry, and there's some promise in the scenario: but few of the details convince. Overall, it feels the work of someone who hasn't actually experienced much of real life; a student film, with a concept and an outline, but sadly little else. | negative |
What a thrill ride! Twisted and thought provoking. Once again, Sharon Stone pulls off her drop dead gorgeous, spellbinding character of author Catherine Tramell impeccably. The original Basic Instinct takes place in San Francisco. The sequel takes place in London, where Catherine has now relocated. Both bustling cities known for excitement, haute couture ~ and a perfect place for someone like Catherine Trammel to take residency. David Morrisey, ("Derailed"), plays the smooth role of psychiatrist Dr. Michael Glass. The character David Thewlis plays as Roy Washburn with Scotland Yard, is a refreshing departure from his role as Lupin in the Harry Potter series. Flashy cars, designer clothes, sex, drama, humor,tension, - all of the "basic instincts." Mind bending throughout. Great screenplay. From the climactic opening scene to the surprise ending, this film is anything but boring! Everyone in the theater was glued to the screen. | positive |
'Felony' is a B-movie. No doubt about it.<br /><br />Of course, if you take a look at the cast lineup you might have some high hopes for its entertainment potential. This film is stuffed with all of those wonderful character actors that you grew up with, the ones with the faces you immediately recognize even though you probably don't know their names. It's amazing that the filmmakers were able to get all of these people together on one project, almost like they decided to do a B-movie actor reunion. The cast even includes a couple of really first-rate actors: David Warner, who most people will recognize from 'Titanic' (although my favorite of his roles is Jack the Ripper in 'Time After Time') and Lance Henriksen, who many will remember as Bishop in 'Aliens'. These two actors have done some excellent work in their long careers and made some very fine films.<br /><br />However, as impressive as this collection of actors is, their talent is never fully manifested on the screen. The writers of 'Felony' spent a lot of money to assemble a dream-team cast and then missed their golden opportunity because of one important factor, the common denominator of all B-movies: a silly script.<br /><br />We start with a silly premise. The bad guys are caught on tape committing a gruesome murder and they relentlessly pursue the film crew in order to acquire the videotape and destroy the evidence. But honestly, why bother? In the time it takes them to track down the film crew, a thousand copies of that tape could be made and circulated to every law enforcement agency and media outlet. The criminals don't seem to realize how futile their effort is, and they talk as if stealing and destroying the one original videotape is going to solve the whole problem. Silly...but I suppose if the bad guys were so logical there would be no movie.<br /><br />Then there is the dialogue. It is at times silly, at times cliché, and at times unbelievable...everything you have come to expect from a B-movie. Of course, I have always believed that strong performances can overcome a lot of weaknesses in the material. This cast includes actors who are definitely capable of strong performances, and although a number of the cast members are not good actors at all and have achieved B-movie status quite deservedly, one still might be hopeful that the stronger part of the cast would be able to infuse some life into their parts. However, it's disappointing to see that few of the actors in this film really seem to take the movie seriously enough to give it their best shot. There's not much inspiration evident in these performances, but then again it's an uninspiring script. Now, I'll admit that some of the more colorful actors in the cast do manage to add a certain amount of pizazz into the delivery of their lines, but honestly, even the very fine actors I mentioned earlier seem mostly disinterested and uninvolved with the story.<br /><br />Speaking of the story...even if the acting had been of a high enough caliber that it made the dialogue seem a little less cheesy, it still would not redeem 'Felony' from the fact that its writer commits the ultimate faux pas of low budget action movie scripts: a plot with as many holes as a block of Swiss cheese. You can watch this movie a hundred times and you still won't figure out how everything adds up. In an effort to create suspense and always keep the viewer guessing, the writer throws in all kinds of surprises and unexpected twists into his script and ends up with a jigsaw puzzle, but when you get to the end you find there are a bunch of pieces that just don't fit anywhere and others that are missing. I admire a good thriller that keeps me guessing, but creating plot twists that exist just to confuse you and which are not consistent with the rest of the story is amateurish. There was so much that was never explained that I felt extremely frustrated at the end. If you decide to watch it, be prepared to be confused.<br /><br />I haven't even mentioned all kinds of other silly things about this movie, but I won't bother. The funny thing is that despite everything I've said, I have to admit that I can't give 'Felony' 1/10 stars. Although I can't exactly put my finger on why, I actually found this film to be somewhat likable. The silliness can actually be fun at times if you are in the mood for it. Plus, I really like some of these character actors, and even though their performances are somewhat lackluster considering their talents, I still got a kick out of seeing them.<br /><br />Now, I realize I have been rating this film from the standpoint of a serious moviegoer. It's entirely possible I have completely missed the point. It could be that the filmmakers' intention all along was to make a B-movie. Maybe the silliness is all completely intentional. If that's the case, and if I were to rate it on those terms, I would have to say that 'Felony' is a classic in the genre of tongue-in-cheek action flicks. B-movie fans will love seeing all of their favorite actors together in one film, will get some chuckles from the script, and will be entertained by the healthy dose of guns, explosions, and chases. | negative |
Just like wine, "Johnny Dangerously" gets better and better with every day. This clever, witty, well-acted film could very well stand on its own - but as a parody of the gangster genre, it's truly outstanding. In fact, it's quite obviously the best film of its kind... the funniest spoof of mob movies and even the respective period - although, admittedly, this position is probably easier to achieve when its main competitors are such primitive, vulgar and dull pseudocomedies as "Jane Austen's Mafia". | positive |
You would have thought, given how much this overblown pile of rubbish must have cost, that the budget could have stretched to a decent scriptwriter. Instead, they seemed to have opted for a bog standard Hollywood 'Paint by Numbers' disaster movie plot and dialog. The only cliché they seem to have missed was the Cute Kid. But every other one is there. There's the sullen hero, flung together by fate with both his ex wife and estranged father. There's the doting Dad and the rebellious teenager.There's the 'Professor that everyone thought was wrong until it turned out he wasn't'(Played appallingly by the normally excellent Tom Courtney seemingly in the grip of some powerful drugs), plus the comic duo wandering about in the deserted underground railway.<br /><br />I sat down to watch this full of anticipation. The cast is, as noted, amazing. Yet within minutes it became clear how bad this was going to be. Stuff this useless should come with a warning. Something along the lines of;<br /><br />'This film may have been made in Britain but was aimed at the American market. It therefore contains tired clichés, stock characters, stilted dialogue and a plot so lame brained and simplistic that even George W Bush could understand it.'<br /><br />Avoid. | negative |
For a TV movie this was definately worth seeing. All the acting was very well done and the story itself had a touching universal theme. I have not read/seen the original and as a rule I can't stand Shakespeare, but I enjoyed this movie(the civil war setting was very well done as well). Dont expect to see an epic, however you should find it moving enough to enjoy. By the way (on a side note) don't compare this (or any other movie for that matter) to the original work. Movies aren't supposed to transfer a book to the screen, but rather take the general idea of it a then adapt a story from it. When people say "the book was so much better" (they're usually wrong anyway) what they are really trying to say is the book was so different. | positive |
I thought that this movies was a letdown I expected it to be so much better than it was. I am so glad I didn't pay to see this movie and that I didn't sit in a movie theater for this one. Where to begin on this movie, the acting in this movie was average, the humor was terrible and just the overall storyline of this movie wasn't special. I thought that this movie was suppose to be great, but it wasn't more than a cheesy waste of time. I think that the acting in this movie was terrible no of the actors in this movie had chemistry, it just wasn't there. I think that if maybe we had a different actor play Kirk than Jay Baruchel it might have been better but the entire time I watched this movie he looked high and I didn't get the feeling that he wasn't acting in this movie. Now, Alice Eve did a great job as an actress but, there was no chemistry between her and Jay. All the actors in this movie were no names and had very little affect in this movie. The humor in this movie was not funny at all, there were a few one liners in this movie that were OK but nothing worth saying to your friends that they would understand. I think that Jim Field Smith had a hard time with this because he couldn't decide if he wanted a romance or a comedy. I honestly think he needs to stick with the Burger King commercials. I think that this movie could have been better if the writers would have gone to a different director. The storyline of this movie is just like every other hot girl just OK guy love story
boring I think that it would have been better if it had more originality, but what a letdown nothing. I honesty would not recommend anyone go see this movie. I think that you would have more entertainment at the dentist than at this movie. So save yourself the agony and just don't see it. | negative |
Really, when it comes down to it, this movie is just not funny. Josh Kornbluth is the antithesis of funny, and yet he thinks he's hilarious. The plot about mailing the 17 letters was fine at first, until Josh's "look at me, I'm wacky" approach began infesting each and every scene. The Judas Priest joke may have been the least funny thing I have ever been privy to, and that is saying quite a bit, since it does have stiff competition from all the other jokes in the movie. And as for the incredible overuse of the Pixies' "Debaser," I have just one thing to say: What did the Pixies ever do to deserve a fate like this? What did anyone do to Josh Kornbluth to cause him to write/direct/produce/star in such a terrible movie? | negative |
I was really looking forward to watching this, being that I love Danny Dyer and I think Gillian Anderson is a gifted actress. The beginning was interesting. I liked the relationship between the two stars. It then quickly jumps to the main plot, which is they get attacked by a group of strangers and Dyer gets beaten extremely bad while Anderson gets raped. They then decide to go for some revenge. Sounds good, right? Well, it's not. The story gets boring and side-tracked, and certain things get really weird. I won't give out any details, but things happen that I, for one, have no desire to see. I like to give all movies the benefit of the doubt, and I really wanted to like this one. It just didn't work out. I give it a 3 out of 10, mainly for the acting. | negative |
I'd heard this Japanese flick is edgy, creatively interesting, a "cool new thang" on the Asian movie-making scene ... maybe even something as innovative as Hideo Nakata's "Ringu" or Chan-wook Park's "Oldboy", especially the latter.<br /><br />You can imagine my disappointment when, instead, I found the movie disjointed both narratively and cinematically (though not in a way that a film aficionado appreciates), cliché-ridden, even sadly silly instead of funny --- on the whole, a very bad knock- off of the "Pulp Fiction" style.<br /><br />I stopped watching after 30 minutes, when I gave up on it becoming something more than it is. | negative |
It's been a long time since I last saw a movie this bad.. The acting is very average, the story is horribly boring, and I'm at a loss for words as to the execution. It was completely unoriginal. O, and this is as much a comedy as Clint Eastwood's a pregnant Schwarzenegger! <br /><br />One of the first scenes (the one with the television show - where the hell are you?) got it right - the cast was 80% of let's face it - forgotten actors. If they were hoping for a career relaunch, then I think it might never happen with this on their CV! The script had the potential, but neither 80% of the actors nor the director (who's an actor and clearly should stick to being an actor) pulled it off. Fred Durst was the only one who seemed better than any of the rest.<br /><br />I'm sorry, but if you ever consider watching this - I highly recommend you turn to something less traumatic, because not only it's a total loss of time, but also a weak example of what bad cinema looks like. | negative |
I bought this movie and after I watched it I decided that I did not care for it. The acting was BAD. Was the principal a robot? He had no personality and his facial expression didn't change through the whole movie. At times the voices didn't match up. People talking and their lips didn't even move. | negative |
I would watch this movie every time it was on cable and it never got old. Who can forget some of the best lines in film history? --- JOHNNY'S FAT BOY BURGERS!! JOHNNY'S FAT BOY BURGERS!! and LOOK BETWEEN THE GIANT MELONS! I used to wish I could run all over the city in a treasure hunt as fun as this. It's an all-time fave and I'm happy to hear that it's out on video! I'm positive that this is where MTV got its original premise for the Road Rules series. | positive |
Ashanti is a very 70s sort of film (1979, to be precise). It reminded me of The Wild Geese in a way (Richard Burton, Richard Harris and Roger Moore on a mission in Africa). It's a very good film too, and I enjoyed it a lot.<br /><br />David (Michael Caine) is a doctor working in Africa and is married to a beautiful Ashanti woman called Anansa (Beverley Johnson) who has trained in medicine in America and is also a doctor. While they're doctoring, one day she is snatched by slavers working for an Arabic slave trader called Suleiman (played perfectly by Peter Ustinov, of all people). The rest of the film is David trying to get her back.<br /><br />Michael Caine is a brilliant actor, of course, and plays a character who is very determined and prepared to do anything to get his wife back, but rather hopeless with a gun and action stuff. He's helped out first by a Englishman campaigning against the slave trade that no one acknowledges is going on (Rex Harrison!), then briefly by a helicopter pilot (William Holden), and then by an Arab called Malik (Kabir Bedi). Malik has a score to settle with Suleiman (he is very intense throughout, a very engaging character), and so rides off with David to find him and get Anansa back - this involves a wonderful scene in which David fails miserably to get on his camel.<br /><br />Then there's lots of adventure. There's also lots of morality-questioning. The progress of the story is a little predictable from this point, and there are a few liberties taken with plotting to move things along faster, but it's all pretty forgivable. The question is, will David get to Anansa before Peter Ustinov sells her on to Omar Sharif (yes, of course Omar Sharif is in it!)? | positive |
After "Central City" loses its mob boss to murder, partner-in-crime Robert Armstrong (as "Doc" Rogers) decides to take drastic measures To preserve criminal continuity, he recruits the dead mobster's milquetoast son, Richard Cromwell (as Edward "Baby Face" Morgan), to run the family business. The naive Mr. Cromwell is taken to the city, and installed as President of his father's "Acme Protection Agency", a front for gangsters. While Cromwell sells innocently sells insurance, his "employees" run an extortion racket. Cromwell falls for pretty client Mary Carlisle (as Virginia Clark); and, the duo find themselves in great danger
"Baby Face Morgan" catches star Cromwell and Ms. Carlisle nearing the end of their once "promising" film careers. It's a quick, light, and inoffensive little crime drama.<br /><br />**** Baby Face Morgan (1942) Arthur Dreifuss ~ Richard Cromwell, Mary Carlisle, Robert Armstrong | negative |
I just watched this film, and I have to say it surprised me. It was very well done, with good acting and a deep look at high school students from Japan, in adolescent love.<br /><br />The look and feel is a lot different from many movies, and you can easily get into the film. Much of the emphasis seems to be in the story itself, which is extremely subtle. The main theme and relations with other characters are a bit complex. But the the overall sense of realism and dimensions still pulls you in.<br /><br />A main draw back is of course, those who like something simple. Which is not here. You have to be open to many things, including a new culture, to get more into the film.<br /><br />I did enjoy this film though. It is worth watching. | positive |
Junior and his dad start a new life in a new town. It's the same life because Junior hasn't changed one bit. He is still the same rotten brat as before only he's gotten bigger. This time he has a pal named Trixie and she is only slightly worse. Junior doesn't like his dad dating and messes up every opportunity that he has. Then grandpa moves in and the dog comes along. I thought that the two of them would have made it a good movie but they didn't even become buddies until the end. This is a movie for the most immature people. It has diapers, farts, doggy do do, and toilet humor in it. Only someone under the age of twelve would find this to be super hilarious. I hope when I have a son, he is exactly like Junior. | negative |
My brother is an avid DVD collector. He took one look at the cover (two models on toilets) and had to add it to his collection. I stayed up with him to watch what turned out to be likely the most cringeable movie (I use that term loosely) I've felt obligated to sit through. I dared not make eye contact with my brother, quite certain he must have been cursing the receipt in his clenched fist. The biggest name in the whole movie is Michael Clark Duncan who appears in one scene, which the "filmmaker" decided to show every take of (about four total) throughout the movie. In fact, the whole movie pretty much follows this suit. The fact that the DVD contained deleted footage was a shock. (I went to bed without viewing it, however). To no surprise at all, I found this disc without its case behind the TV about a week later. | negative |
Another gray, horrible bit of schlockiness from the family Corman. The first space capsule into outer space crash lands back on Earth(with some of the worst special effects ever), and the pilot appears to be dead. But appearances can be deceiving. He's actually more alive than the rest of the cast, including a patronizing misogynist old doctor(who'd also really, REALLY boring), a greasy guy who looks like he's cornered the market on hair oil, another guy so dull he doesn't even make much of an impression, a female scientist who never seems to be hurt or angry over the old guy's patronizing, and a female photographer with a Farah Fawcett haircut(pre-Farah, of course) and about as much liveliness as a dead duck.<br /><br />What are any of these people's names? I think it was Steve. Apparently, everyone in the cast, including the women, were called Steve. Anyway, the dead pilot Steve turns out to not only be alive, but to be incubating baby aliens(or seahorses, or shrimp, or whatever) inside his torso. The Momma beast that implanted these little critters looks like a giant bald parrot with claws. Once again, I am impressed by the laugh-ability factor of the monsters created by the House of Corman. The space carrot from Venus in It Conquered the World is still officially the worst, most laughable monster I've ever seen grace the screen, but the Cormans always manage to deliver when it comes to bad, cheesy looking monsters.<br /><br />They also managed to deliver on their other trademarks as well; i.e. a boring, confusing plot, long gray shots(thank God Corman did most of his films in black and white, since his color stuff still manages to look somehow gray)two or three locations max, stupid and lame props and special effects, and lots and lots of dull dialog. There's only two deaths in the film(if you don't counted the roasted parrot..err..alien blood beast being offed at the end of the film). Cheers rang out through the land, I'm sure, when the alien rips the old doctor's head off and(apparently) eats it. Now it can talk in English and has the doctor's memories. It can also move the pregnant astronaut around as though he were Pinnochio. <br /><br />The monster's apparent intent is to rebuild its race using human beings as food and giant wombs. There's a confusing bit at the end(well, more confusing than usual, anyway) in which the creature tries to explain why it is doing this, but it makes no sense whatsoever. Something about how humanity is about to follow in its race's footsteps and destroy themselves by something they'll soon create. It never really said what that was. It could have been anything from toaster ovens to digital watches, who knows. Its baby minder stabs himself rather than let the alien shrimp crawl out of his body, and the oily guy(and the other guy) burn the parrot-alien to death with a Molotov cocktail. Ahh,the smell of roasting chicken..err.. alien. End of story, in which the rest of the characters wander off and leave their dead comrade laying on the ground to rot. Oh, Hell, why not save yourself the expense of a funeral? I'm sure that was what Corman was thinking, when he was trying to cut corners and make his scenes as cheaply as possible. | negative |
This Is one of my favourite westerns. What a cast! Glenn Ford plays his role In his usual mild, controlled but firm manner. Ford plays one of the smaller ranchers In the shadow of the mighty anchor ranch that wants to swallow up the whole territory. Edward G Robinson plays the crippled patriarch of the anchor ranch and Barbera Stanwyck plays his sly scheming wife. There Is plenty of action In this western that Is quite Impressive, the scenery Is delicious and the letterbox scope photography Is breath taking and the soundtrack Is stereo! I would say that this western had a size-able budget It looks expensive. One of a series of great Glenn Ford westerns. | positive |
I wandered into this movie after watching the 82-minute "Borat" tonight, and left quite disappointed. I was a huge fan of Wallace and Gromit, and routinely go to see animated films. That being said, I found myself nodding off and at one point nearly walked out, but stayed waiting for this film to get better. Never happened.<br /><br />The visuals are stunning and the voice work is top notch, especially in my opinion, that of Kate Winslet and Ian McKellen (I had to remind myself a few times the bulbous headed lizard villain was Gandalf and Magneto). The problem with this movie for me is it's one of those animated features for the ADD-set. It registers after the fact as one zany slapstick routine after another, weighed down by a treacle filled plot that pulls out every stop in an attempt to convey an "Important Message." It looks a lot like busted Oscar bait for the animated category, and considering the way it's scoring with critics, I wouldn't be surprised if the Academy gets it wrong and offers up its hardware. But if you're looking for an enjoyable animated feature about rats, take my advice and wait for Ratatouille. | negative |
River's Edge is more than just the story of a murder. It's an indictment of the wave of apathy that has plagued pockets of youth for decades now. Our main characters are a group of what my high school would have referred to as "stoners". One of them just decided to strangle his girlfriend because she apparently had the nerve to "talk sh*t" to him. This dangerous young man played by Daniel Roebuck has an intensity that will startle you. He takes the other kids in the group out to show them his girlfriend's body, and strangely enough, nobody seems really freaked out about it. The balance of the film punctuates the desperate circumstances in which these people live, and how guilt is eventually able to worm its way inside even these apathetic kids.<br /><br />River's Edge is certainly not condoning or championing the behavior of its characters. We clearly see the dangers presented by such unchecked apathy and having only the desire to get drunk or high. We are shown the dysfunctional home lives these kids have, and perhaps this is meant to explain their awful behavior. But could it only be unstable homes that lead to this type of destructive living? Crispin Glover is his usual whacked-out self. He drives around town in a state of complete paranoia after the murder. He tries to sympathize with why his friend had to commit the crime, but clearly he does not understand what could have made the young man do it. Dennis Hopper plays an older man these kids get their dope from. Though he is certainly a rebellious figure, he cannot relate to the apathy and rage of the younger generation. Witness his confused reaction as Roebuck describes how killing his girlfriend made him feel. As wild as Hopper's character is, even he knows this young man should not be walking the face of the earth.<br /><br />What will you think of these kids? Well, there is really no way to like their characters. Some are less despicable than others, but you cannot help either hating or feeling sorry for them. Twenty years later, there is still an apathy alive and well in a great many young people out there. When do these kids get lost? What makes so many of them want to act anti-social? This film, and the questions it poses about teenagers will stick with you for a while. That's a fact.<br /><br />8 of 10 stars.<br /><br />The Hound. | positive |
In all the episodes, I never saw any real action or drama or comedy.<br /><br />The plot is so repetitive.<br /><br />****Somebody gets something old and then somebody else tells them a little bit about it and how much it's worth and who made it and where it comes from and how much it could sell for and if there was any work done to it.<br /><br />Sowhile I watched about 30 of these, i realized...there is no drama....nobody ever loses a limb or life or gets divorced or hit by a car or air-plane.<br /><br />There are no car chases or explosions- not even a horse race with old carriages.<br /><br />All those guns and swords and nobody goes on a violent killing spree...what gives? No pshycos, no axe-murders, no-gun-totting old Englishmen in bad suits...just yap yap yap...you have an old tea set and it came from the country of Germany back in 1602 - blah blah blah...<br /><br />I'm still waiting for somebody with a time machine to go on screen and ask about it, but no...it never comes to be and the only thing that happens is that some stuffy Englishman or woman serves up some crap about something old being sold in Boston or China during the Ming Dynasty - big EFFIN deal.<br /><br />Can't anybody ever kidnap one of the leads and hold them for ransom? Is there no alien spacecraft that will obliterate the entire floor? Who the hell writes this stuff as a series and expects us to stay awake? This is about as entertaining as watching paint dry - only with commentary.<br /><br />There's no sex, there's no comedy or romance, no action, no suspense, no action, no drama, no mystery or martial arts.<br /><br />This show sucks! What ever happened to supermodels wearing thongs and spewing lasers from a futuristic weapon? Antiques Roadshow - More like grab a blanket and pillow and go to sleep show... | negative |
Caught this movie on DD while flipping channels...And thank heavens, that too when it just started.. Having studied in Pune, this film touched off many happy memories of the city...that apart, one wonders why more movies like this aren't made...Every character is so well etched-the grandpa, the kid, the doc...except for the social worker who grates a tad, the rest of the movie hardly has a flaw...a deserving entry for the Oscars, even if it wasn't nominated...definitely leaves a lump in the throat...who sez u need mush to tickle ur lacrimals ? And to think that this movie needed Sachin Tendulkar to propagate it. Inspite of being in Marathi, there was hardly a moment where I wasn't able to follow the movie...the subtitles were good.. A must watch for any fan of good cinema. | positive |
"Fame" had been one of my favorite movies for years! It is not just an 80's musical movie of "that" high school in NYC, it is LEGENDARY- people no longer refer to the High School of Performing Arts but "the Fame school"!!<br /><br />The characters are real, they are not "Hollywood" and their stories are real. The film follows them through the four years of school, starting with a powerful monologue by one student at Auditions and finishing with a spectacular graduation show.<br /><br />Apparently some find the broadway show better, however it is my opinion that you should definitely see this movie anyway, and then have your own view. For anyone who enjoys movie watching and would like to have the "classics" down, this is surely one of them. It is an example of one of those movies that was really great, with actors that we loved for those 2 hours, and then never saw them again... they are classic "Fame students".<br /><br />make FAME live forever. | positive |
I want to warn you that there is a very bittersweet quality to this comment. Also, this comment will be much more meaningful to you after you have seen the movie.<br /><br />Although it is tragically sad to say, that movie bears a resemblance to my life that is so striking that it is truly scary. The rest of you will never know how accurately that movie depicts how persons who have been in situations like that act and react in their later lives.<br /><br />This could not have been a work of fiction; it had to be based on personal experience.<br /><br />My testament to the how good the movie was is shown by the fact that, although it was one of the best movies I've ever seen, watching my life portrayed on the silver screen was such a searingly painful experience that I will never be able to see it again.<br /><br />But I endorse it heartily to all others as a chance to peer into the soul of another human being to the extent that you probably never experienced before or will ever again. I know that for a fact, because that's my soul you will be observing. | positive |
Rather than move linearly from beginning to end, this story line of a gay couple impacted by AIDS "orbits" in time around their "perfect day." The film is organized as a life remembered in asynchronous fragments rather than in a sequential flow as one directly experienced.<br /><br />The narration has its lyrical moments, particularly in describing the impact of loss anticipated or experienced. The dialog unfortunately lacks such grace. The script frequently compels the actors to say startlingly stupid or insensitive things that seem utterly out of character at the moment. On their second accidental encounter, clearly smitten with each other, sensitive Phillip encourages a reluctant Guy to tell him about his difficult week. But the moment Guy begins to open up, Phillip, an English Major, blurts out "You're not a Crisis Fairy, are you?" Later, watching his lover's naked, chiseled body stride across the bedroom toward him, our young Shakespeare in love begins to render the beauty of the moment in words, "The way you cut through space....I can't even describe it"--but lacks the verbal skills to complete his thought. This kind of drivel continues through the AIDS Hospice scenes, bejeweled with lines like, "What made me think death would be all neat and tied up with ribbons?" and "You make Florence Nightingale look like Nurse Ratchet." <br /><br />The film often suffers from a bruising lack of subtlety. Unlikable characters are far more jarring and steamroller-flattened than they need to be. Phillip's thoroughly annoying friends--an arrogant trust fund brat and a whining, needy dweeb--maintain a running caustic diatribe about every one crossing their path. Such patter could offer a writer a wealth of opportunities for clever social commentary, but sadly, their remarks are merely unpleasant, ungraced by wit or insight. It's hard to know if our scriptwriter intentionally crafted intellectually limited characters or if he was simply running his tether's perimeter.<br /><br />The plot may be what most appeals to and resonates with those who praise this film. It does seriously explore 1980's US middle class gay life: first encounters, courting, coupling, nesting, the complexity of open relationships, friction and fracturing, dissolution, physical abuse, rapprochement, forgiveness, terminal illness, death and survival. Leads Phelan and Spirtas give fair to good performances rendering complex characters over time. Their fetching good looks help explain both the chemistry that held these two together through insensitivity and selfishness as well as the chemistry that helped some some viewers overlook this film's painful weaknesses. The decision to chop the plot arc into tidbits and present them in out-of-sequence flashbacks added complexity without any evident dramatic utility, and in several cases left the sequence and thus the implications of a given event unclear.<br /><br />Could I recommend the film? To sticklers for literary and technical quality, absolutely not! For easy going viewers in serious need of an AIDS survivor catharsis or in the mood for a guilty-pleasure tearjerker with a little eye candy thrown in, maybe. But better written alternatives exploring the impact of AIDS on relationships of that era include: Philadelphia, And the band played on, Longtime companion, Angels in America, An early frost, Parting glances, Love! Valour! Compassion! and even Jeffrey. | negative |
Canadians are too polite to boo but the audience at the Toronto Film Festival left the theater muttering that they would rate this film 0 or 1 on their voting sheets. The premise is that a modern filmmaker is interpreting a 17th century fable about the loves of shepherds and shepherdesses set in the distant past when Druids were the spiritual leaders. Working in three epochs presents many opportunities to introduce anachronisms including silly and impractical clothing and peculiar spiritual rites that involve really bad poetry. Lovers are divided by jealousy and their rigid adherence to idiotic codes of conduct from which cross-dressing and assorted farcical situations arise. The film could have been hilarious as a Monty Python piece, which it too closely resembles, but Rohmer's effort falls very flat. The audience laughed at the sight jokes but otherwise bemoaned the slow pace. The ending comes all in a rush and is truly awful. This is a trivial film and a waste of your movie going time. | negative |
This series, produced at probably the most propitious time following the events of the second World War, is on a scale of value that stands far above any individual's presumption to criticize.<br /><br />The timing of World at War's production in 1974, amounting to some three decades after the events of the war, permits an accurate relating of events in a manner uncoloured by residual propaganda and slant. The passage of thirty years allows the telling to be backed up by an impressive and fascinating panoply of the very individuals involved, ranging from some of the highest military and political figures down to the field soldiers, civilians, and such survivors of the death camps as have remained to bear witness to the unimaginable inhumanities of which civilized humans are capable. Most approaching or well into their senior years, the interviewed subjects have had enough time to reflect on their experiences and in most instances have had enough time for whatever propaganda and fervor may have affected them in the past to have receded away, leaving only the memories of what they saw and what they did.<br /><br />The information that these survivors give, strikingly reinforced by the postures and expressions they display while telling their part, give their stories all the more impact. Such names as Ira Eaker, Adolph Galland, Louis Mountbatten, Albert Speer, Gertrude Junge (Hitler's personal secretary)... the list is far too long to relate. <br /><br />Today, within the lifetime of the survivors of this enormous lesson in the hideous price of political ambition, are young people who chant the same sort of militaristic and nationalistic war promotion as led to WW2. The DVD series we discuss here ought to comprise the core of a mandatory history subject in schools, that the lessons bought at such a horrible cost in those days should not have been wasted but should be taken to heart by those who did not see firsthand the terrible price.<br /><br />I am almost done watching the 11 disk set, having seen most of the series when a local TV channel aired it more than 10 years ago. It has lost none of its poignancy to me, indeed has become even more of a magnificent chronicle of some of the very darkest days of human times.<br /><br />The highest possible rating seems unworthy of being applied to this presentation. I think the value of this series is beyond counting. | positive |
Before writing this review, I went back and reread the reviews of others. This movie was a particular disappointment to me, since it features two of my favorite dancers, Gene Kelly and George Chakiris, boasts a score by the often wonderous Michel LeGrand ("Wuthering Heights," "Ice Station Zebra," "The Thomas Crowne Affair"). The dancing was stilted, unmotivated and unoriginal, the songs forgettable, the story a joke. Even the costuming was not particularly flattering. Only the photography correctly captured the proper mood and spirit. I'm glad other people enjoyed "The Young Girls of Rochefort," though I most certainly did not. | negative |
Screened at the San Francisco International Film Festival under the title ' Come Undone', April 25, 26, & 27, 2001. The cinematographer uses techniques that add to the storytelling. Even with fall/winter backgrounds for the 'present' and spring summer for the 'flashbacks' there can be some difficulty following the continuity.<br /><br />Whether either lead is gay, the actors well-portray the budding relationship in real life terms; from physical violence toward each other to their passionate lovemaking. The story pulls you into the characters a bit slowly in the beginning. But as the end approaches, you really care about where these guys will be next summer! You, too, will want a sequel to find out. | positive |
Nana Patekar once again proves that he is the best actor working in Bombay without a doubt. His recent movies involved shouting his lines that does not bode well for the theater trained thespian. One wonders why he is always not given his accolades during awards season.<br /><br />"Shakti-The Power" was one of his flicks that was an utter disapointment along with Kohram (a missed oppurtunity to create screen magic with Amitabh Bachchan).<br /><br />But Patekar exudes a cool calm in this film playing a cop on a sort of social justice journey. Ridding the streets of Bombay of underworld dons in fake encounters, Patekars character takes control of the screen (and the viewers attention) and never lets go. The editing is tightly paced and there are no annoying songs to distract from the story.<br /><br />Along the same lines as the modern day cult classic "Company", the movie is well acted, directed and should have a long shelf life on DVD.<br /><br />The final ten minutes that see Nana and the main villain talk at his offshore haven are bound to be part of Hindi cinema classics. Won't be dissapointed with this cops and robbers flick. | positive |
I tried twice to get through this film, succeeding the first time - and it was like pulling teeth - and failing the second time despite a great DVD transfer. The problem? It's simply too boring.<br /><br />If you can get to the dramatic courtroom scene, which takes up most of the second half of the film, you have it made, but it's tough getting to that point. There are some interesting talks by "Abraham Lincoln" (Henry Fonda) during the trial. The ending is touching as Lincoln walks off and they superimpose his Memoral statue over the screen.<br /><br />It's a nice story, well-acted and such....but it lacks spark in the first half and discourages the viewer from hanging in there. I suspect the real Abe Lincoln was a lot more interesting than this film. | negative |
Just exactly HOW director John Madden come to settle with Nicolas Cage and Penelope Cruz playing the roles of an Italian Officer and a Greek Villager in an honourable story: "Captain Correli´s Mandolin", just escapes me! Witness: a wobbly, inconsistent accent by Cage amid horrendous over-acting, with Cruz -- more adequately cast as a spoiled Latino opposite Johnny Depp in "Blow" -- in basically a repeat performance under the guise of a Greek nurse... ay, it was painful. But there were saving graces.<br /><br />The story itself is thrilling-to-tragic, and Cage does have some (-- redeeming, this is !--) musical ability. Next, a superb performance by John Hurt (Cruz´s father, the village doctor) of Oscar Callibre, as well as by Irene Papas, each as village elders, as well as by Christian Bale (Papas´ son) among the village freedom fighters, go far towards counter-balancing awkward performances (especially at the beginning) by Cruz and Cage. Nicely, the last two seem to grow into their respective roles as the film progresses, but it´s teeth-gnashing early on. Finally, the scenery itself and the photography could garner a technical award, and such provides pleasant distractions when most needed. <br /><br />John Hurt already has two Oscar nominations and this would be a third; I hope he gets it as his performance as the Doctor makes this film worth seeing. The true test of a supporting actor/actress is whether or not the film would be the same without the personage in question, and in this case, it would most certainly not be... not even close.<br /><br />Entertainment value but for the aformentioned plus factors which do help raise the bar. See it if you haven´t. Rating = 3.5 stars (of five). | positive |
Renee Zellweger is radiant, but the rest of this movie just does not work. It's like a hamburger-jello-mold salad--interesting idea, but who ever thought it would actually work on film? I like director LaBute's two previous films--they were mercilessly honest and chillingly funny. This film manages only to be merciless and chilling--with jumbo dollops of the cutes. (As high concept, think: the Doris Day-Rock Hudson movie Sam Peckinpah might have made--now reduce your expectations to match the present, mass-produced state of Hollywood.) That actors as talented as Freeman, Kinnear, Eckhart, Vince, and Janney ALMOST make their scenes come alive is a testament to the immensity of their talents to rise above material that just does not cohere. I would have found Freeman's corny, feel-good-about-yourself speech at the end of the movie funny (in a Lynchean way) if it weren't for the nagging suspicion that this unconvincingly tacked-on moral is meant to be accepted seriously. | negative |
I felt sorry enough that this film is not popular at all even in Hong Kong. However, for all die hard Chow's fan, this will be a masterpiece that shud not b left out. This is "Mo Lei Tou" (a comedy style that based on unrealistic and ridiculous plot pioneered by Chow) at its peak. The plot is totally absolutely ultimately 1000 times more ridiculous than any film that u can imagine. The dialog is awesome. No single part of the film cool down for u to stop laughing.<br /><br />The plot look simple but crazy enuf for u to start laughing. It begin with Chow starring a junior magistrate (a corrupted one of course)caught into jail when helping an innocent married woman he love at first sight to clear her from a murder charge that plot by evil minister whose son was actually the real convict. Chow escape from jail and run away as a refugee. He intend to go to the capital to see the Emperor and report the conviction. On his way, he manage to pick up 2 lovely women, one from circus, another one a prostitute while in the mean time mastering supreme skill to quarrel and bad mouth from the thin Mama-san (who happen to be his future in law). Finally, he able to force the Emperor to re-open the case by black mail the Emperor whom he meet him in the brothel. The Emperor made him a highest level judge to judge the case tgt with the evil minister. He manage to setup some brilliant but hilarious plots to force the convict to commit the crime, execute him while thrown the evil minister to jail.<br /><br />The plots are really hilarious and ridiculously brilliant. Also not to forget the tremendous dialog that include some brilliant bad mouth quarrel between Chow and the Mama-san, quarrel between the fat Mama-san and thin Mama-san to inspire Chow to learn the quarrel skill later and also quarrel between Chow and the evil eunuch Lee near the ending. Beside that, some of the scenes are brilliant too.<br /><br />One thing that need to mention is that to really understand the film and catch up 100 % of all the elements correctly, this will be a must to master Cantonese really well. Which may be the reason why early age Chow movie receive moderate response only from Asian world. However, when Chow film began to spread his influence around the globe, hardcore fans like me found that his film is no more that funny like the old time. | positive |
Picked up the movie at the flea market for 4 bucks, sure did get my moneys worth!. Could care-less about the hot babes but the animation just blew me away after a steady diet of Simpsons (Sorry Mr. Groening). The best part, facial expressions. Recommend multiple viewings with some cool tunes, good friends and a couple of cold ones! | positive |
With a Bo Derek movie, the audience get just what they expect. A paper thin plot and a few shots of Mrs. Derek in no clothes. 'Ghosts can't do it' is just that. The first fifteen minutes is ordinary TV drama, as long as Scott [Anthony Quinn] is still alive. He is a very good actor with long experience in a lot of different roles, but it seems as even a famous actor need to work just for money sometimes. Bo Derek is the opposite, always playing a strikingly handsome young woman with or without clothes. The movie is a complete waste of time. If you want to see Quinn, rent Lawrence of Arabia or La Strada. If you want to see nude women or bad acting, rent any porno movie. | negative |
Storyline: The film spanning 4-odd hours covers in adequate details the happenings at the Kargil sector near the LOC in 1999 when the Pakistani infiltrators had crossed the LOC and had entered deep into the Indian territory and the Indian Retaliation. To know more about the story, I would suggest readers to read the news-items pertaining to Kargil.<br /><br />Comment: If one is looking for a formula story in this movie, then one can be sure that it is absent. LOC is a story of Pure sacrifice, patriotism, courage and lots and lots of bullets and Blood. The movie hall where I saw this film was full of whistles and cheers when the Film shows Indian Bravery. Movie audience seemed similar to Audiences like in an India vs Pak cricket match.<br /><br />Watch the movie as a tribute to the Army's sacrifice and for the characterization of the real-life war heroes (4 PVC honoured heroes) who have sacrificed their lives so that we could see this day. The movie has made a brilliant portrayal of the Army who have battled all odds in rough weather conditions. The film's negatives are that it is too stretched and the songs are extremely boring. | negative |
I think this movie more than any other shows what a great actress Drew Barrymore is because she plays a ugly duckling in high school which is something I never imagined her being. A great flick with lots of laughs . I don't usually go for those feel good movies but I really enjoyed this one. | positive |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.