review
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| sentiment
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
There's something strange about the antisocial sentiment you can find in some Cheech And Chong material. One of the songs in Up In Smoke, well, I often wish more songs these days began that way. But in this excuse for a video, the stoner duo are showing us the videos for four songs from their album of the moment, also titled Get Out Of My Room. You hear a voice-over during the opening credits in which some anonymous producer describes the record as being a novelty recording that will just take up room on the charts. Unfortunately, this opening voice-over hits the nail right on the head.<br /><br />Most music recordings endorsed by the RIAA seem to keep to a rule of putting the best material early in the album. Often, when one gets past that first song, the discerning listener notices that the recording has little, if anything, to hold their attention. Bands that defied mainstream convention, on the other hand, often saved their best material for last, or at least spread it evenly throughout the disc. In this case, Cheech And Chong appear to have decided to hedge their bets. The opening piece, Get Out Of My Room, is a hilariously-themed song with an incredibly bad video. Many a viewer of a 1980s music video will find the sloppy direction somewhat nostalgic. Cheech's conception of British punk is also incredibly funny.<br /><br />Where it all goes downhill is the second number, I'm Not Home Right Now. Nothing kills interest in a song quite like repetition, and it's tough to get more repetitive than this aural turd. Honestly, one feels the urge to slap Cheech in the face and tell him that we get the idea, he isn't home right now, so please move on. The next song, along the theme of love being a strange thing, is the absolute rock bottom not only for this collection, but for Cheech And Chong in general. It's almost as if this song was made for the sole reason of padding out the album's running time.<br /><br />Fortunately, the stoner duo saved the best for last, but it is also curious to note that Chong is completely absent from this cut. Born In East L.A. is a simple number based upon the old Bruce Springsteen number that mocks Reagan's view of multiculturalism. As one is regaled by Cheech's tale, one has to wonder how many poor schleps who couldn't speak a word of Spanish were deported to Mexico simply because their skin wasn't bedsheet-white. Racism was an integral part of America's culture in 1985, and it remains so today. If anything, it has gotten worse, so one has to wonder what Born In East L.A. would be like if it were written in the current era.<br /><br />Unfortunately, two cuts does not an album make, especially when there is so much boring filler between them. The interviews before Get Out Of My Room, for example, are quite funny. Not side-splitting like much of Up In Smoke, but funny enough to justify their existence. Unfortunately, the two middle songs are reflected in their making-of footage. Boring song makes boring filler. If you cut out the middle half-hour of material from this video, you'd have something substantially better.<br /><br />I gave Get Out Of My Room a three out of ten. They are earned by the first and last video. I'm pretty certain that the stars look at material like this today and wonder what they were thinking.
|
negative
|
My wife and I met doing a professional production of "The Merry Widow" in 1982 -- in English, but a straight translation.<br /><br />Only the very basic skeleton of the original plot is visible in this "adaptation". Most of the characters have been deleted, along with the entire B plot, and all but one of the characters remaining have been renamed. Most of the characters in the movie aren't in the operetta, either. The action has been moved from Paris to, at first, Washington, DC, and then to the fictional country of Pontevedro, which the movie has renamed "Marshovia", and only later to Paris. The net result is that we don't reach the beginning of the original play until about 45 minutes in.<br /><br />And the main source of tension in the plot is deleted, too. In the original, years before, Count Danilo and the heroine were very much in love, but his family refused to allow them to marry because she was poor; it's his broken heart that has rendered him a careless playboy. Now that, as a widow, she's the richest woman in the world, she still loves him, and he still loves her, but his pride won't let him admit it to anyone, even himself, and she must spend three acts playing mind games to break him down. The trope of the aristocrat with money problems who won't admit that he's in love with a rich woman for fear of what people will think supplied the main plots of a substantial fraction of Viennese operettas for decades after the 1906 "Widow". In this movie, they've never met before, which rips out not only the heart of the whole thing, but nearly all the comedy.<br /><br />Lamas does a pretty decent job, though.<br /><br />An interesting musical point is that several times we hear a snippet or so of "Trés Parisien", an extra song written (in English, despite the title) for the London première, which was not, as far as I know, usually found in American productions until the 1980s or so.
|
negative
|
Buffs of the adult western that flourished in the 1950s try and trace its origins to the film that kicked off the syndrome. Of course, we can go back to Howard Hawks's Red River (1948) or further still to John Ford's My Darling Clementine (1946), but if we want to stick with this single decade, then it has to be one of a couple of films made in that era's initial year. One is "The Gunfighter," an exquisitely grim tale of a famed gunslinger (Ringo) facing his last shootout. Another from that same year is "Winchester '73," and it's worth noting that Millard Mitchell appears in both as grim, mustached, highly realistic range riders. In The Gunfighter, he's the town marshal expected to arrest Ringo but once rode with him in an outlaw gang. In Winchester, he's the sidekick to Jimmy Stewart, a kind of Horatio to Stewart's Hamlet in this epic/tragic tale. The plot is simple enough: Stewart's lonesome cowpoke wins a remarkable Winchester in a shooting match, beating the meanest man in the west (Stephen McNally), who is actually his own brother and caused the death of their father. When the brother steals the gun, Stewart and Mitchell go after him in a cowboy odyssey that takes them all across the frontier, meeting up with both outlaws and Indians. (In one wonderful bit, two future stars - Rock Hudson and Tony Curtis - play an Indian chief and a U.S. cavalry soldier - during a well staged pitched-battle. Dan Duryea steals the whole show as a giggling outlaw leader, while Shelly Winters, just before she began to gain weight, is fine as the shady lady who ties all the plots together. Today, filmmakers would go on for about four hours to bring such an ambitious idea to the screen, but Anthony Mann does so in an extremely economical amount of time, with not a minute wasted. Such western legends as Bat Masterson and Wyatt Earp (terrifically played by Will Geer) make brief appearances, adding to the historicity as well as the epic nature. The final battle between good and bad brothers, high atop a series of jutting rock canyons, is now legendary among western buffs. It's also worth noting that Stewart, however much associated he became with western films, does what is actually his first western leading man role here - yes, he was in Destry Rides Again eleven years earlier, but was cast in that comedy spoof because he seemed so WRONG for westerns!
|
positive
|
Wow what a great premise for a film : Set it around a film maker with writer`s block who decides to take up tango lessons . Hey and what an even better idea cast the central role to a film maker who`s interested in tango. Gosh I wish I had that knack for genius . Yes I`m being sarcastic.<br /><br />It amazes me that these type of zero potential for making money movies are made . Come on unless you`re a rabid tango fan ( I do concede they do exist judging by the comments ) or a die hard member of the Sally Potter fan club ( ? ) there`s nothing in this film that will make you rush off to the cinema to see it . Even if you`re into tango much of the film is taken up with meaningless scenes like a house getting renovated or a man in wheelchair going along a road <br /><br />Coming soon THE REVIEW LESSON where a failed screenwriter from Scotland sits in front of a computer writing very sarcastic but highly entertaining reviews of films he`s seen . Gasp in shock as Theo Robertson puts the boot into the latest Hollywood blockbusters , weep in sympathy as he gets yet another rejection letter from a film company , fall in lust as he takes a bath and rubs soap over his well toned body . THE REVIEW LESSON coming soon to a cinema near you if anyone is stupid enough to fund the movie<br /><br />PS Sally Potter is unrelated to Harry Potter
|
negative
|
Something does not work in this movie. There are absolutely no energies between the actors. In fact, their very acting seems frozen, sometimes amateur. Also, the script is not convincing and not reliable.
|
negative
|
While listening to an audio book, Cambpell Scott is the reader. I was so excited to hear his voice and that brought back my disappointment that "Six Degrees" was canceled. They never seem to keep the good shows on air long enough to capture an audience that can connect with the shows story. What a shame, and shame on th network for not giving this show a full seasons chance. This was an excellent show to watch with a great cast. The network gave "Men in Trees" a second chance witch is also a great show , but they took "Invasion" off and that also was something totally different to watch, not the same old-same old themes. Why can't the networks get it right.
|
positive
|
When I first heard about "Greek," I figured I would watch it because it sounded ridiculous. Another of ABC Family's so-bad-they're-almost-good shows. But tuning in with a friend from college found us both enjoying the pilot episode a lot more than we had expected.<br /><br />As a member of a Greek society, I can say that a lot of the stereotypes that are brought up here are ones that come up almost every time someone starts talking about the sororities and fraternities on a campus. And are also very fun to play with just on are own, let alone to watch on a TV screen. The opening scene harkened to an only-slightly-dramatized version of preparing for an actual formal rush in some sororities and it continued on from there.<br /><br />This isn't a show for over-sensitive Greeks. If you get offended even at jokes about things that aren't-so-great about Greek life, then you'll spend the entire first episode, and probably many other, cringing and yelling. But everyone else should have a ton of fun watching it. It's nothing new, but when it comes to college, nothing ever is.
|
positive
|
Saw this at Sundance one of the first years I attended the festival - blew me away...<br /><br />It went by much too fast, and I've never been able to find it again. I figured it would show up on a compilation somewhere, but still no joy. My memory's foggy on the details - I just remember being surprised over and over again, and on the edge of my seat.<br /><br />Anyone reading this have any leads? Online, DVD, beat-up VHS copy - I'd try to make it worth your while...<br /><br />Over the years, I've probably seen over 200 short films (used to live near Aspen where they have an incredible Shorts Fest in April). This definitely ranks among my favorites, and I hope to see it again!<br /><br />Many thanks to anyone with leads on how to see it :)
|
positive
|
This movie was just down right bad. I love war movies and can normally come away from most movies and find something that I liked,but this was not one of them. This movie lacked substance and intensity.OK I get it, the Finns put up one hell of a fight and thats great, but the story is poorly told. You don't have any real connection with any of the characters and there's no real story line to follow. You just go from one random scene to another, nothing flows to form the story that is trying to be conveyed. If you want a war movie that will keep you riveted, and amazingly enough without battles scenes, then I would suggest "Downfall" (WWII German film). Or if you prefer a great story line and a lot of action then I would suggest "Brotherhood of War" (Korean war/Korean film). These two movies will not let you down as Winter War will.
|
negative
|
This movie was a waste of 3 hours of my precious time..in the first 10 minutes i was already annoyed as i am familiar with the real version on the story according to the torah (5 books of moses)...but i decided to watch it to get my moneys worth and too see how bad it sucked. Well it sucked..way more then i thought it would. First and for most lets start with the script and characters the skeleton that makes up the body of a movie. If you study torah at all you'll see that the story is all wrong here are some of the distasful mistakes: moses doesn't do slave work because he was in the tribe of levi, moses doesn't kill anybody at mount sinai.. but yet the movie depicts moses being whipped and aaron and himself killing people...reeeealllly not!. When moses speaks to the burning bush he knows who hes speaking too but the movie makes moses look like an idiot, he states that he doesn't know who the g-d in the bush is... whatever|Aaron knews his brother well regardless of their distance growing up, aaron was known for his calm, composed peaceful nature but yet he is depicted as angry and arrogant in this movie. Moses looks like Jesus in this movie.. how ridiculous....pharoah the real one was actually and ugly dwarf who sat upon a pyramid of stairs so he could appear bigger then he was and moses was more then 10 feet and in the movie pharoah is taller then him and hes hot with light eyes! The woman of Am Israel (nation of Israel) covered themselves meaning their hair and bodies and they didn't dance or sing in front of men, they did not participate in the golden calf so they would definitely not dance with a man in public as the movie depicts. Moses's wife Tzipora was married to moses and she therefore covered herself and being as humble as they were did not cuddle or hold hands in public. Batia Pharoahs daughter ( the one who adopts him and saves him from the water) actual converted to Judaism and therefore would have been proud of Moses when he said he was going to go free his people.fast fwd to mount sinai moses comes down the 2nd time with two sets of tablets...with gibberish writing on it..at least put the writing in the holy tongue, hebrew or English and put it on one tablet not two sets.. Bottom line is the movie is horribly written, directed and the characters are all wrong..basically EVERYTHING is wrong about the movie... The old one is inaccurate as well but its more realistic, and they actors are believable. Am Israel Chai!
|
negative
|
The first von Trier movie i've ever seen was breaking the waves. Sure a nice movie but it definitely stands in the shadow of europa. Europa tells a story of a young German-American who wants to experience Germany just after the second world war. He takes a job that his uncle has arranged for him as a purser on a luxues train. Because of his job, he travels all through an almost totally destroyed germany, meeting with the killing of traitors, and hunt for former nazi party members. The society is suffering from corruption. His uncle has narrowed his conciousness by focussing on the job he has also as a purser on the train. By coincidence the main character get involved in bombing and terrorism by a group called 'werewolves' they put pressure on him to help them placing bombs on trains. The atmosphere is astounding. The viewer is taken from scene to scene by a man attempting to put the viewer under hypnosis and then counting to wake you up in a new scene. Just when you think you've seen a lot!!!!!!! europe!!
|
positive
|
Of course, "Flatley" is already not exactly the ideal name for a dancer, but I think Michael is really pushing the irony envelope with this new title: "Feet of Flames" <br /><br />One really can't resist recommending Desenex Foot Spray to the retiring (and clearly, ailing) Flatley.<br /><br />I might add that, much like that cheering London crowd (per review below), I too am enthusiastic about this being his last live performance.<br /><br />"Hinting that it may be his last live performance, Flatley is cheered on by an enthusiastic London crowd." ~ Perry Seibert, All Movie Guide
|
negative
|
This is definitely one of Jet's best efforts. Few actors are able to play the stoic as Jet Li can. The action is rapid-fire, and special-effects boosted for intensity purposes. As a result, it may take Americans a little off-guard. A little suspension of disbelief goes a long way in a Jet Li film. I feel that it is an excellent introduction to Jet's work and look forward to further masterpieces (especially Fist of Legend) making it into the US market. A nice mixture of gunplay and physical conflict will satisfy most action flick enthusiasts.
|
positive
|
If you've ever wondered why they don't make porn with a plot, watch Dream Quest. On the one hand, you have to give the Armstrong credit both for making the effort to capitalize on this idea and for using such a strong adult cast to put some name power behind it. On the other hand, it also quickly becomes apparent why most porns never have more than 15 or 20 seconds of dialog connecting sex scenes together. These people simply cannot act (and the story is, unfortunately, lame to a ridiculous degree).<br /><br />Still, I gave it a 7 because it was a nice try and there didn't seem to be much of an effort to cut corners. Also, I'd like to see more attempts like this one. Maybe someday I will see the perfect combination of porn and plot.
|
positive
|
This movie wasn't awful but it wasn't very good. I am a big fan Toni Collette I think she is a very beautiful and talented actress. The movie starts off about Robin Williams who is a writer and gets a book from a 14 year old kid. The book is great and he cant't believe a kid wrote it. Toni Collette plays the kids guardian who you don't know if this kid really exists or if she's making it all up. I am not gonna ruin the movie but I will say this the movie is not scary.<br /><br />The acting is pretty good and Toni Collette's performance was awesome as well as Robin Williams. <br /><br />The movie was a huge disappointment in my opinion I would wait for it to come to DVD.
|
negative
|
Pixote is directed with barely a shred of sentimentality. And yet I more than imagine Hector Babenco owes some of his film-making chops with this film to Vittorio De Sica's neo-realist style, in particular Shoeshine (that film, as with Pixote, takes place mostly inside a children's prison). And yet while I might still prefer De Sica's film if it came down to deciding between the two it's so close because it is, no pun intended, like choosing between two children. They're both marvelous works of raw drama, and with Pixote Babenco has an extra edge and harrowing quality to deal with in that this isn't filmed in conditions brought on after a world war. This is how it was in Brazil- one would see it with slightly more flair and awe in City of God, perhaps in some of the same locations- and these children were on the streets before and after the film was made. Some aren't alive some 20+ years later, for all anyone knows.<br /><br />The "star", pre-teen street kid Fernando Ramos da Silva, plays the title character, a youth without a father or really any family who will look out for him, and placed among dozens of other street kids and delinquents in a reformatory for boys. The conditions couldn't be much worse, and are made even more unbearable as two children are killed one after the other by some cause of the guard duty. There's a riot, and an escape, and halfway through the film we find Pixote with a few other youths, including Lilica a practical transvestite not even 18, and they become pickpockets, drug dealers, whatever to get by. None of this, I should repeat, is shown with a kind of ham-fisted earnestness- certainly you would never in a million years see Ron Howard or Paul Haggis direct this kind of picture- and yet there's an emotional honesty to everything exactly because nothing is trivialized.<br /><br />Nearly every scene is significant to showing how fragile life is for Pixote, and how he could be killed or die some way at any turn, and so without even reaching puberty yet he has to be on the level of those around him who are a little older (though not by much at all) and become things that will haunt this person forever. Despite Babenco's usage of a tender and mournful musical score and one or two scenes with people crying a lot, nothing feels forced. As with De Sica, maybe more-so given the consistent conditions of San Paolo and Rio street kids, he's a natural director of children, and coax's out of Ramos da Silva and Jorge Julião and others some really fine work that provides just the right touches of "cinematic" drama (that is not so real that it becomes documentary, which isn't a bad thing per-say) and even subtlety in some scenes.<br /><br />Pixote may not be as well known as it's later 21st century Brazilian films that look back on the horrors of Rio, or even neo-realist films, but it should be. Anyone wanting to get a good, hard glimpse at what it was like should seek it out at a library or other and soak in what is the best foreign film of 1981.
|
positive
|
I'm not sure how I can make ten lines out of this question, but I'll try.<br /><br />When Julie went to the dance and they were dancing to slow music. What was the name of the song that was playing and who played it? <br /><br />I love that song! And I watch the movie over and over just to hear that one song.<br /><br />I did several searches online and even looked up the soundtrack but I sill can't find the song.<br /><br />It might be because the song they were dancing to wasn't a complete song and just partial.<br /><br />I would appreciate if anyone out there who knows what the name of the song and the group who sung it.<br /><br />Thank you.<br /><br />Frank
|
positive
|
"I didn't want this to get complicated, Leese. I have to assume she's gonna read that." Fear takes flight at 30,000 feet in this taut, action thriller. An overnight flight to Miami quickly becomes a battle for survival when Lisa ( Rachel McAdams) realizes her seatmate ( Cillian Murphy) is planning to use her as part of a chilling assassination plot. As the minutes tick by, she's in a race against time to warn the potential victims before its to late.<br /><br />One of the many reasons I love this movie, is because of the chemistry between the two stars, McAdams and Murphy, who are also two of my top favorite actors. For example, the early scenes at the airport play more like a romantic comedy: two people keep running into each other.... I got to hand it to the two as well, for making a film like this work. Especially, Murphy's character.. Jackson who really seems to be sort of complicated in that way that he acts charming and innocent, yet he's trying to do his job and make Lisa feel trapped physically and mentally. I mean, in certain parts he really seems to be concerned for Lisa.<br /><br />A great thrill ride all the way through. A lot of films I would hate to see a prequel or a sequel about, but actually I wouldn't mind a prequel to this one, which would take place with Jackson surveilling Lisa. Favorite scene is probably that headbutt scene, because it was so unexpected. There was also that nice buildup to the famous 'pen' scene. When is she going to make her move? There was also that nice change in McAdam's Lisa, where she changed herself from being a victim into fighting back. I also loved the scene where she sits down in the food court and pretends to ask some ladies a survey about the food court. How great was Murphy with his whole weezing.....
|
positive
|
When it comes to movies I can be pretty picky, and I'll complain about anything and everything that is done wrong. While every movie has its flaws, The Night Listener had an exceptionally low count.<br /><br />If you read the last review (it was hard, since half of it was written in caps and it contained no actual information about the movie), you may have been led to believe that this movie was not too well done. Unfortunately, if you read more than 3 lines into that same review, you discovered the poster's reason for disdain: he/she does not like the fact that the director is gay (or that the production team smokes crack...apparently).<br /><br />So, despite the fact that I have never written a review before, I thought this movie deserved one based on its merits, not the sexual orientation of its director. Let's go over a quick checklist first: 1. Great plot? Absolutely. I won't give a shred of it away, but the plot is highly compelling and definitely not what one would expect based on the commercials. This is a thriller, not a horror, and it should be approached as such. The story really will amaze you, even more so because it's true (and the plot did stay quite faithful to the actual events).<br /><br />2. Wonderful Acting? Oh Yes. Robin Williams long ago broke free from the chains of the comedy type-cast, and he has since flourished in serious roles for which many people would have wrote him off just a decade ago. He once again achieves high form in his role in The Night Listener, playing a radio host who becomes increasingly troubled by and entangled in a case of...well, I'll let you see for yourself.<br /><br />3. Excellent direction? Certainly. Now, unlike the other poster to which I referred, I actually know something about direction. I've been sutdying the art of direction at school now for 3 years. Of course I really don't think that makes a lick of difference (the only thing that matters is if YOU like the direction), but I thought I should simply establish once again that I'm basing my opinions here on something both substantial and relevant...for example: not the sexual orientation of the director (or the alleged drug habits of the production team, LOL).<br /><br />Patrick Stettner's direction was moody and dark, and he allowed the angles and lighting to help create those so-sought-after feelings of "tension and release" rather than the messy, fast-paced camera-work and quick cuts we're so often subjected to today. Some people can truly show you a story through their camera, while other's feel as if they have to make the story with the camera. I really appreciate when someone these days has the courage to just use the camera as its supposed to be utilized, which is as an eyeball through which we all see.<br /><br />4. Lighting, cinematography, and editing? Great all around. I've already wrote so much, and I could go on about these last three things for another ten paragraphs, so I'll just wrap it up.<br /><br />In short, go see this movie. Don't listen to people who have alterior motives for trashing it, especially if they're so stupid that they unknowingly reveal that motive 1/4 of the way through their post. Enjoy the show! -Ben
|
positive
|
This is one of those movies that apparently was trying to ride the martial arts wave craze. Kind of like Billy Jack I guess. However, whereas Billy Jack did have one notable martial arts scene there are none in this one unless you consider some gentlemanly grappling and roughhousing as such. We are introduced to the star who is described as having learned Judo in the marines. I was in the marines and while they are pretty established in boxing, I really don't remember any emphasis on Judo. As a result the antagonist, James Macarthur, makes reference to the Judo when he offers an excuse for why he, a state champion wrestler was so easily defeated. Lame.
|
negative
|
My impression, having seen this documentary, is that Nathaniel Kahn ended up with more questions than he had before he made the film. <br /><br />He took five years to make it, a labour of love and longing. I can only imagine the turmoil of the editing process, what to leave in, what to take out. <br /><br />His father, the renowned architect Louis Kahn,comes across as a man too selfish and self-absorbed to be emotionally available to even one wife not alone three. But like many men of his character, he attracted women who were spellbound by the remoteness and entranced by the creativity. <br /><br />One of his mistresses said he was "accessible" but that is never explored. Other comments by people who knew him well suffer the same fate. A pity. <br /><br />The tension between the three half-siblings in the room of a home Louis designed is also palpable. The unsaid hovers over the conversation. The only tracks that his father left were in the buildings he left behind, some great, some not so great. <br /><br />I was captivated by the music ship and the Salk Institute. Saddened by the baby mothers who got caught forever by his callous impregnations never more exemplified than what he said to the director's mother upon being told of her pregnancy - "not again!" <br /><br />8 out of 10, beautifully filmed, genuine. <br /><br />It appears, in this case at least, the son is not the father of the man.
|
positive
|
I watched this movie for the first time around 1990 as a young kid and it scared the Jesus out of me. I loved it so much and I was dying to get my hands on it.<br /><br />In 2002, I remembered that this movie existed but I had no idea what it was called, so, I went to the I Need To Know section on IMDb and explained what the movie was about and tried to get the name of it. Anyway, eventually someone on IMDb told me, so I researched and tried to buy the movie. So eventually i got a hold of it on DVD, and I now keep this movie as one of my most valuable horror movies. I really love it, and I think anyone who watches it, will be very scared in the woods the next time they go. 9/10.
|
positive
|
I can't think of much to say about this film. <br /><br />This was an awful movie...I can't even tell you what made me decide to view it. It had SO few redeeming qualities that I don't even know where to begin.<br /><br />The plot moved from implausible to downright absurd. My entire body was tense throughout the duration of the movie because I could not wait for the awful thing to be over and done. By the end of the movie, I found myself feeling beyond relieved. <br /><br />The editing was poor, the acting was sub-par, and the storyline was weak. Francoise Robinson was cast as a Native American, even though she does not even closely resemble someone of Native American heritage. <br /><br />If a movie is going to be this idiotic, it should be laughably stupid -- at the very least. It wasn't. It was just pathetic.
|
negative
|
I read the book in a summer book club, and all of us there loved it. My friends from that club agreed not to watch the movie, lest the book be ruined. I didn't agree, and watched it recently with my younger brother and my parents.<br /><br />I was pleasantly surprised. The movie was very true to the book, without losing it's own spirit. The 'new kid' theme was shown just enough so that we get a feel of it, but that's not what the story's about.<br /><br />The acting wasn't the best I've ever seen, but it was still good, and the kids especially had a lot of energy. The characters were interesting, and the plot was cute and not too overstated. It was a kids movie that works just fine for adults or teenagers, too.<br /><br />I wish there had been a bit more tough-girl attitude from Beatrice, but she was still a great character. Mullet Fingers was quite a bit like I had imagined him, except his hair was a little obviously dyed, with blonde hair and dark eyebrows. Roy worked very well as the little guy and the new kid, especially interactions with his parents and friends.<br /><br />The message and the ending (which I won't discuss other than I liked it) teamed up to make a great cheer-up movie for a rainy day. All in all, this was a great film that you can watch again and again whenever you need reminding that the world isn't a horrible place after all.
|
positive
|
I was surprised as I watched this movie, how much it had 'encaptured' me. No the actors didn't act like typical 'Hollywood' actors, but that's not always bad either, as this film proves. Quite different from the Disney standard, it is a refreshing turn none-the-less! They also give you a taste of what it was probably like without being 'educational'. A movie everyone should both see and enjoy. Many people love arguing over 'accuracies' in any movie of this type, but just getting the basic idea has plenty to offer. Mild gripe; East and West Germany, viewed on any map, would have West Germany on the left side, East to the right. The movie at times, sets you back slightly, because about half of the scenes have West Germany on the right side of the screen, and other times on the left side. Even during the same events, they shift back and forth. Perhaps, just a little more consistency would have avoided this mild distraction. Go See It!
|
positive
|
This is a story about a journey made by a man who once had a dream and guts. Donald Crowhurst was an English businessman and amateur sailor who competed in the Sunday Times Golden Globe Race, a single-handed, round-the-world yacht race.<br /><br />I was very intrigued by the story after listening to a radio interview from the producer John Smithson, who is also the producer of "Touching the Void", one of the first documentaries that made a commercial success in 2003. I had gone to the cinema with great hope and not much previous knowledge on the historic event, and I'm relieved that it didn't let me down. For 92 minutes I was led through a haunting story and came out with much to think about.<br /><br />Without any reenactment, this film made great use of the limited audio and video archive footage they found and turned it into a compelling story which allowed the audience to understand Crowhurst from a personal level. The story unveiled itself as people who had direct links to the events including his wife and his son, and the eventual winner, also the only one who made it back out of the 9 competitors, Robin Knox-Johnston gave their own accounts of what happened almost 40 years ago.<br /><br />Crowhurst's logs(journals) that he kept during the 243 days at sea are so haunting that it made it much easier for me to come to understand what being in total isolation can do to a man. While Crowhurst's body was never found, the other competitor Nigel Tetley whose yacht sank just weeks before claiming the prize for fastest passage committed suicide three years later after unsuccessful attempts at properly completing a circumnavigation.<br /><br />Everything could take its toll, especially the sea.<br /><br />The director Louise Osmond was also at the Q&A session after the showing together with producer John Smithson. I had no idea that it's a female director and that just came as a very nice surprise. The film is getting a limited release in the UK (a couple of days in certain cinemas). Catch it in cinema while you can, unless you have a state of the art sound system that can recreate the sound of the bashing Southern Ocean.. then I'm sure they'll soon have it on DVDs too.
|
positive
|
The actresses are cute and the sets, while simple, quite OK. Apart from this, there is nothing to save from this movie. Incredibly bad acted, dumb to tears dialogues, all-too-expected plot, a lot of goofs and inconsistencies (for instance, a pretty young girl gets hits in the head by a morning star and not only she survives, but barely with a scratch !)... To make it short because it does not worth more, even the fans of the genre can avoid it.
|
negative
|
It was only on my second viewing, years later, that I realized two things about this movie: 1) I enjoyed it immensely, and 2) that because its execution is decidedly sharper than the premise itself warrants. I had laughed my way through the movie before it occurred to me to renew my initial protests--valleyspeak and loogies and airheadedness (even *good*-natured airheadedness) just aren't inherently funny, especially when drawn out to feature length. But though the movie's momentum does begin to sputter out towards the end, Reeves and Winter and Sadler (and Hal Landon Jr. in an unforgettable scene) display such a remarkable sense of comic timing throughout that even the more clumsily-scripted jokes (e.g. Ted failing to recognize a certain inhabitant of Hell) work as effortlessly as the witter ones (e.g. the challenge). And the teaming of Winter and Reeves clicks so well that the teaming of Bill and Ted (who spend only one scene separated in the entire movie, disaster if they're not well-matched) appears utterly unstrained.<br /><br />(Side note: I found the first movie to be only sporadically entertaining--sightly different comic sensibilities there, it seems.)<br /><br />I give it a 7.75. Surprisingly good fun.
|
positive
|
Having read the comments on the site I feel compelled to write in for the first time. It seems this movie is like Marmite and has split the audience. I have to say that while I agree films don't have to make sense to be enjoyable (see MULHOLLAND DRIVE) they still have to engage you with the characters. Now while I was totally absorbed by the murderous lesbian affair in Lynch's opus, I have to say I couldn't give a turd about Mr Green or the other cardboard gangsters that inhabited this dayglo world. <br /><br />Also, while so many people seem to try and say you didn't enjoy because you didn't get it I would have to disagree - I didn't enjoy because I was bored. I wanted the film to end and constantly listening to those quotes over and over again did not help. Call it clever if you will - I think it's repetitious.<br /><br />However, my main reason for writing is to ask all the other reviewers a question - there were no end credits on the print of the film I saw. Just music over black. Did I watch a dud print or is this evidence of GR's pretentiousness? Or, did everyone involved in the movie watch the rough cut and have their name removed???
|
negative
|
MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS For about the last four years I've been a keen fan of Ali G. Sacha Baron Cohen is undoubtedly a very funny and intelligent guy and, in my view, his best creation is Borat who's as funny as Hell and quite shameless in what he does and says to people.<br /><br />Anyway, to the movie. I didn't bother paying money to see this in the cinema; I suppose because I didn't expect a lot but when I hired the DVD recently, I found the whole thing pretty sad. The best part of Ali's taking the mickey out of others was largely missing and the script an plot was pretty damned awful; hooking all the car batteries together to blow a safe - REALLY!!?? <br /><br />This movie goes to show I think that some things can run for too long and definitely don't translate to the big screen. The movie also had that syrupy sweet ending that I've come to expect from British films. Where have all the good British movie making ideals gone to? That said, there were the odd very funny moments such as the dog in Ali's bed and Ali's audience with HM the Q with the "Shaven haven - RESPECT" remark.<br /><br />So, in summary, I am an Ali G and Borat fan and I have enjoyed many of his interviews (notably the one with Anita Roddick of the Body Shop) but this movie fell really flat with me. If there's to be another movie, I hope it's a whole lot better than this lot of old tripe.<br /><br />Weasel100 <br /><br />Canberra, Australia
|
negative
|
Kate Gulden, played by one of the most nominated actresses of the last decade of this century, and also one of the most talented actresses Meryl Streep(Out of Africa). She is wonderful is every part that she plays. The Yale graduate is the pride and joy of the American Cinema.<br /><br />Kate's health is deteriorating and her husband, George, role well developed by brilliant actor and also Oscar winner, William Hurt (Smoke, Kiss of the Spider Woman) has a hard time with the deteriorating health of his one true thing, and seeks his daughter's help. The poor daughter, Ellen Gulden, Renée Zellweger (Jerry Maguire) has way too much expected of her. No breaks! The story takes a very realistic view on the illness of a parent. In this movie the only daughter has to put her life on hold to care for the needs of others. There is always one in every family who faces that kind of responsibility. Ellen is angry the beginning of the movie, but as time passes she ends up understanding her mothers' life time dedication to her family. She even asks her mom: How do you do his, every day, in and out and nobody notices it? That is what women do, a lot of what I call invisible work. Moreover we clean, we fix, we mend, we stretch, we celebrate, we are the best friends, we are confidants, the mistress, outreachers, disciplinarians, sensitive. Some of us, like both women in this movie, have the perfect education, are the psychological pillar for the entire family and also do all that invisible work! That is Kate Ellen, and many women in our society. Many of us have already gone through that stage of life when our parents age and died. I have been there. They just went too young. I have given my parents my thanks, but I never understood them as well as when I had to play their roles, and had to walk in their shoes. This movie mirrors the reality of life. Perhaps it is sad, but that is how life is, at times. George a Professor at Harvard is complicated person, who appears to think that his work is more important than everybody else, and has a very "master/servant" mentality toward the women in his life. He is not strong enough to cope. If you want to see good acting and the reality of life do not miss this movie. Favorite Scenes: The restaurant coming to Kate, violins and all. The making of a table out of broken china. That I so symbolic! We are all broken vessels! Favorite Quotes: George: "It is only by going uphill, that you realize that you are really going downhill." George "You have a Harvard education but where is your heart?" <br /><br />
|
positive
|
This is one of those made-for-TV B movies that is so awful it kind of endears.<br /><br />Bad acting, predictable script and cheesy special effects that were pretty much some of the cheapest tat seen make you have to keep watching to see if it gets any better.<br /><br />It doesn't!
|
negative
|
Even Sophie Marceau's presence and the few (very few) good French gags are unable to save this otherwise slow and boring movie! A disappointment. The story is weak and so is acting. This movie was advertised as the French version of The Mummy, but the Mummy has at least spectacular and enjoyable effects...
|
negative
|
I loved this movie!<br /><br />Movies and plays fulfill their purpose when they expose social, political, and other problems that affect the majority. This movie served that purpose.<br /><br />I identify with the plot and know people to whom this has happened. At the time this movie was made, concepts presented in this flick were advanced for the public, yet had already happened to friends of mine by way of people in powerful positions. And, I know what it is like when people do to you what they did to Angela Bennett, because they have done it to me.<br /><br />I greatly enjoyed Sandra Bullock's portrayal of Angela Bennett/Ruth Marx. She portrays a pretty, intelligent, and witty young woman who has the courage to avoid giving up to overwhelming odds, fight hard to keep her sanity and restore her life, and try to protect those whom she loves. Losing her self-concept and succumbing to that age-old attempt to bolster a sagging self esteem by indulging in sex with a stranger added a poignant touch of reality.<br /><br />The climax of the plot reveals the only real solution to this kind problem.
|
positive
|
"Distant" is a slice-of-Turkish-life flick which follows the mundane activities of two adult male cousins; one a photographer and the other an unemployed underachiever. There's little doubt that auteur Nuri Bilge Ceylan is a work in progress with considerable talent. However, this little foreign minimalistic arty dramady is so full of empty filler and so devoid of story or anything engaging or provocative that it will likely appeal to only the most avid devotees of cinema and mainstream audiences should look elsewhere. I personally grew quickly bored with the slow pace of the film and found myself fast-forwarding through the empty spaces - and there are many - between dialogue, plot development, and denouement. "Distant" is a very nicely done bit of esoterica. (B-)
|
positive
|
The Intruder (L'Intrus), a film directed by French director Clair Denis, is the liberation of film. It follows its own spirit across time, space, and character. There may be a plot, but what I understood of that I picked up from the description on the Netflix DVD sleeve. Honestly, it's probably better to know nothing about the film before watching it, because then the viewer can set aside any and all expectations. The film demands that the viewer think, but also taunts the fact that he or she will not gain full understanding.<br /><br />The human heart is the film's enigma. Every image questions its role, its nature, and its form. The heart is the intruder, that of the viewer and that of Louis. Louis' character is played by Michel Subor with the peace and mystery required by such a character. Honestly, anyone could've played Louis' character, if he or she possessed a wandering, willing, and comfortable heart. Yet Subor is the one featured here; he becomes the film, his identity is inseparable from it. Many of the film's images lingering in my mind revolve around his expressions, vocal but mainly physical.<br /><br />The Intruder is poetic in its ability to capture the stillness and fullness of movement, but more fluid than any literature in the shape it refuses to take. "Surrealistic" has been a term used in describing this film, but perhaps "quasirealistic" is a more adequate term. Nothing in the film exists outside of the possibilities of reality; the simple omnipresent score confirms that by imagining in music the connection between heartbeat and dim light.<br /><br />Watch the trailer a few times if you're attracted to visual imagery; see the film to see the consequences of the combination of verse and a grasping for freedom.
|
positive
|
This one is considered a key Pre-Code film from the director who later made the musical biopic THE JOLSON STORY (1946), but also the paranoid sci-fi INVASION U.S.A. (1952)! and features one of Barbara Stanwyck's best early roles.<br /><br />She's supported by a fine cast which includes popular actors and valued character performers of the day George Brent, Douglass Dumbrille, Edward van Sloan, Nat Pendleton and John Wayne (at one point addressing Stanwyck with the titular nickname, derived from a popular song which is heard constantly throughout) in the former category and, in the latter, Robert Barrat (as Stanwyck's father), Donald Cook (as her most tragic conquest), Alphonse Ethier (as her elderly mentor more on this later), Arthur Hohl (as a lecherous politician) and Henry Kolker (as Cook's boss and father-in-law, whom Stanwyck also seduces). Curiously, scenes in which Walter Brennan appeared were subsequently deleted at his own request when the film ran into trouble with the censors!<br /><br />Abetted by crackling i.e. typically hard-boiled dialogue and realistic Anton Grot sets, the narrative contains unexpected overtones of Nietzschean philosophy fed to our small-town heroine by the intellectual Ethier (Stanwyck complains to him early on that she's no "ball of fire" which, of course, contradicts her later comedy directed by Howard Hawks and co-starring Gary Cooper of that name!). Under Ethier's auspices, she quickly blooms into an essentially heartless character determined that nothing shall stand in her path to success; the symbolic depiction of her rise in stature at the New York firm she's eventually employed with is reminiscent of a similarly sardonic one relating to an ambitious statesman's lust for power in Sergei Eisenstein's October (1927)! Sociologically, it's also interesting that Stanwyck is constantly seen sticking her neck out for her black maid/companion.<br /><br />The first two-thirds of the film are simply terrific; at first, I found the latter stages somewhat disappointing because I was expecting to see Stanwyck get her comeuppance by falling for the belatedly-introduced George Brent character while he ignores her
but, just like the others, he's soon under her spell! On second viewing, however, this aspect felt less jarring as it's evident that Stanwyck has been affected by the two deaths her selfish behavior has caused, and that her tenure in Paris has softened her (even if she tries to cling to her hard-earned wealth for as long as it's possible).<br /><br />Released on DVD by Warners as part of their FORBIDDEN Hollywood VOLUME 1 COLLECTION, the film is presented in two strikingly different edits a recently unearthed Pre-Release version and the tamer Theatrical Release print. Among the considerable footage cut from the latter is dialogue pertaining to Stanwyck's life as a tramp from the age of 14 (though it's heard in the accompanying trailer!), while many other scenes have been shortened (i.e. censored for content): the violent fisticuff which develops between Stanwyck and Hohl after she resists his advances; the seduction at the railroad car; the scene in which Dumbrille is surprised with Stanwyck by Cook; the shooting, followed by a suicide (only shots are heard in the shorter version); Stanwyck thinking about her conquests while the phonograph is playing (again, only Brent appears in the version released to theaters), etc. Tha latter, then, utilizes alternate takes for some scenes and includes an establishing shot of the city which is missing from the longer version; however, we also get an obviously tacked-on happy ending (the Pre-Release version concludes abruptly on a very effective open-ended note) and an equally unconvincing cautionary letter sent by Ethier to Stanwyck in New York which, basically, has the function of substituting all references to Nietzsche!
|
positive
|
In Tweety's S.O.S, Sylvester goes from picking garbage cans to being a stowaway on a cruise ship that happens to carry a certain canary bird-and Granny, his owner. Uh-Oh! Once again, Tweety and Granny provide many obstacles to the cat's attempts to get the bird. Sylvester also gets seasick quite a few times, too. And the second time the red-nosed feline goes to the place on the ship that has something that cures his ailments, Tweety replaces it with nitroglycerin. So now Sylvester can blow fire! I'll stop here and say this is another excellent cartoon directed by Friz Freling starring the popular cat-and-bird duo. Tweety's S.O.S is most highly recommended.
|
positive
|
Salvage is the worst so called horror film I've ever seen. There is nothing remotely horrific about it. It doesn't deserve to be in a genre so fine. First of all i don't see how so many people can think this piece of crap such a great movie. If I wrote something as boring and utterly ridiculous as this i would be laughed at and too embarrassed to subject others to the stupidity of it. Second: the acting is terrible and the lead actress is excruciatingly ugly. Third: the story sucks, its been used before, and the excuse that its a cheap movie is no excuse. Read the summery on the back of the case, it reveals the whole story. I do not recommend that you watch this movie unless you have 80 minutes to waste on something that will leave you regretting that you watched it. I feel really bad for those Crooks and the irony of their name. All hail Anthony Perkins!!!!!!!!!
|
negative
|
A group of teens decide to take their slumber party to an abandoned school where, 27 years prior, a horrible massacre took place. Unfortunately for them, the person responsible for the slaughter still lurks the halls of the derelict school and he is not happy with their presence.<br /><br />This film is not like most modern teen slashers we've seen. It's much darker, much more suspenseful, no wise-cracking murderer, etc., and I liked it for those reasons. From a film-making point-of-view, it's not great. The acting is below average. The writing was pretty bad and quite full of clichés, containing randomly tossed-in references to American horror films, some that didn't even make sense (like. . . "Have you seen Scream 3?", a girl asks. Yes, I have, and it had nothing to do with walking through the doors of an old school so it in no way relates to this film). But, hey, it's a slasher flick, those are part of the fun. Also, the underutilization of characters was heavily exhibited in this film. There were six main characters (not including The Security Guard) and, to be honest, only three or four were really used. Two characters (the token black guy and some other girl that wasn't important enough to get a label) barely spoke: Between them, I'd estimate about five or six lines total. Also, the girls (other than one) weren't formed well enough to differentiate them from one another. They could've replaced each of the girls with one another repeatedly throughout the film and I wouldn't have noticed the difference. The pacing, however, works well as the horror begins right from the start and rarely ceases. The atmosphere is utilized well and the direction reveals some truly chilling moments. . . although, the overall appearance is a bit cheap-looking due to, what I assume is, low-grade camera equipment (and operation). The ending, though I liked the idea they were going for, was fairly poorly done. It felt rushed and without explanation enough to make it effective. With the amount of time they spent running around looking for nothing, they could've spent a little bit more time on the conclusion to make sure it didn't feel like some random event thrown in for no good reason (which is a flaw many modern horror films are afflicted with). However, ignoring a few irksome issues and trying to focus on the first 98% of the film rather than the ending, this is actually a rather good modern slasher that should be checked out, especially if you're a fan of Spanish and/or atmospheric horror.<br /><br />Obligatory Slasher Elements:<br /><br />- Violence/Gore: There's a good bit of blood and gore, realistically done, but not buckets. The violence is extremely well done, not to excess, but pretty brutal at points.<br /><br />- Sex/Nudity: Little bit, and with the hottest girl in the film.<br /><br />- Cool Killer: Well, security guards are hardly considered 'cool,' but this guy is pretty wicked. His creepy smile was chilling.<br /><br />- Scares/Suspense: The suspense is top-notch. . . very tense, very well done. There are also some extremely creepy moments that fused jump scares and the spooky atmosphere.<br /><br />- Mystery: None at all, really.<br /><br />- Awkward Dance Scene: Of course: between a couple of guys and a half-unwilling female in the flashback.<br /><br />- Classic Quote of the Film: 'One more trophy.' <br /><br />Final verdict: 7/10. This may be stretching it, but fans of Session 9 might want to check it out simply for the similar tone and atmosphere.<br /><br />-AP3-
|
positive
|
Yes, why? Among the filmmakers that came out in the 80's and 90's Gus Van Sant is one of my idols. There are others, a few. Steven Sodebergh, PT Anderson, Tim Hunter, Danny Boyle, Martin Donovan, Harmony Korine, Wes Anderson. Idiosyncratic, infuriating some times, but consistent, surprising, unpredictable. Their names make me switch on the TV, go to a video store or even buy a ticket and go to a movie theater. Van Sant's "Psycho" however, gives me pause. Why? I wonder. A shot by shot massacre of one of the perennial classics. The color was jarring, the performances, atrocious. What was Vince Vaughn doing? Was it a parody? A bad joke? What the hell was it? Anne Heche as Janet Leigh? Who dressed her? Viggo Mortensen with a cowboy hat. Viggo is a superb actor but in this case he couldn't make us forget John Gavin and if Julianne Moore had been introduced to the world through this performance there wouldn't have been any "The Hours" for her, "The Minutes" maybe. So, here I am, bad mouthing the work of one of my idols. The crashing question remains: Why, Mr. Van Sant? Maybe, in the words of President Clinton, because he could. I'm afraid that's no excuse.
|
negative
|
On Humphrey Bogart's first trip to Hollywood, he got his first leading man role in this B picture Love Affair. The first thing you ought to realize is that this film has absolutely nothing to do with the classic Love Affair later in the decade with Charles Boyer and Irene Dunne or the two remakes that followed. It's not half as good any of those films.<br /><br />In fact Bogey is second billed to Dorothy Mackaill as a spoiled heiress who finds out she's been living her extravagant lifestyle courtesy of her late father's best friend and financial adviser Hale Hamilton. It comes as quite a shock to Mackaill. She considers a show business career as a way for an income.<br /><br />Bogart is a test pilot who is also an aeronautical engineer and he's designing an ultimate airplane motor and is looking for investors. Mackaill is willing to do it, besides she likes what she sees in Bogey.<br /><br />Considering the cynical roles that Bogart later made a specialty, it's a bit disconcerting to see him as this highly moral and self righteous character in Love Affair. The part doesn't wear well on him.<br /><br />Love Affair is your average B program second feature, nothing terribly special about it.
|
negative
|
A reporter, Craig Milford, who works for The James Keller Public Telecommunication Center, has an interview with a German professor of a Floridian university, who made an unknown creature based upon some substance of meteor(s). But then a man named Anderson, who is trying to control the whole planet with the creature, and his man kill the professor and his assistants and plunder the creature. So Craig and his new female psychic partner, Joanna Fitzgerald, who can communicate not only with human being but also with alien friend(s) of the creature, begin to find the creature and try to send it to an alien spaceship... This film has some great casts and staffs. For instance, it has the actor, David Warbeck of THE BEYOND, the actress, Laura Trotter of NIGHTMARE CITY, the special visual effects creator, Sergio Stivaletti of Dario Argento's masterpieces, and the director (and also the story- writer), Alberto De Martino of THE MAN WITH ICY EYES and THE KILLER IS ON THE PHONE. And these talented people make an incredibly bad film, named, nothing but this MIAMI GOLEM which is essentially a confusedly combined film of CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND with E.T.THE EXTRA-TERRESTRIAL. And this not-only-confused-but-also-crammed film has something worth; genetic engineering with psychical research. Consequently the film has at least one scientific and/or technical flaw; genetic engineering and psychical research are never compatible. (Strangely enough, regarding this strangely childish combination of genetic engineering and psychical research, the leading character, Craig, himself says THERE MUST BE A BETTER EXPLANATION to the short-haired psychic, Joanna. But, after all, the whole story of the film doesn't and can't present any kind of BETTER EXPLANATION.) In addition, this film has something more laughable; its problematic music. What the composer, who is credited as Robert Marry, provides is nothing but the strangely insistent BEVERLY-HILLS-COP-tasted music. I don't want to say this Italianised theme of BEVERLY HILLS COP per se is particularly bad music, but I have to say it seems to be manifestly clear the music does not have the fitness for this film per se at all. Indeed just who can think BEVERLY HILLS COP has the compatibility with genetic engineering and/or psychical research?
|
negative
|
This movie was so bad! It was terrible! It was awful! I cannot stress it enough! The acting, directing, story, characters and everything about it was bad! It was so corny and clichéd. Don't be fooled by the cover, or the tag line "The 'texas massacre' is nothing to laugh at." Are you frogging' kidding me! It was ridiculous.<br /><br />The first 2 minutes of the film is good until it gets to the main character Brendan, OK now turn it off. What I got from the film was, A bunch of ugly, annoying and immature people go to a cabin in the middle of the woods and a clown that sings nursery rhymes kills them in unoriginal and fake ways.<br /><br />This movie was a waste of my time and money, and it would be a waste of your money and time too! I fast forward through most of the movie because it was so terrible, I just wanted to see how each bad actor died, and it STILL wasn't worth it! Just looking at the cover is a waste of time. This IS seriously THE worst movie EVER! Rating: doesn't deserve one.
|
negative
|
There have been many excellent comments about this movie and I want to add my voice to the praise. Yul Brynner has never been more powerfully attractive. His Major Surov was riveting. Your eyes just cannot leave the screen when he's on it. This is his movie. This is not to slight the rest of the cast which was also exemplary, especially Deborah Kerr and Anne Jackson. As they were mostly stage actors, they brought many nuances to their performances. For example, I have seen this movie at least 4 times, but this is the first time I noticed the reaction of the German girl when she came face-to-face with a Russian soldier. Even though he was not threatening, her absolutely hysterical reaction made me realize that she must have been in Germany after WWII and was most likely gang-raped by the Red Army. The possibility of discovering deeper layers of story that may lie just beneath the surface makes me want to see this fascinating film again and again. Please put it on DVD.
|
positive
|
I watched this years ago on television when I was sick (I don't know, I tend to be more complacent with my TV viewing when I'm sick; too much effort to use the remote control, I guess).<br /><br />From what I can recall, every aspect of the movie--casting, acting, writing, directing, etc.--was ill-advised at best. I could have forgiven the historical inaccuracies if this film had created a sense of what it was like to work on Trinity; but it didn't. There were attempts to humanize the scientists, but they were insufficient and never transcended caricature.<br /><br />I didn't know very much about the people involved in the Manhattan Project at the time, but the portrayals in the movie were so cartoonish that I became interested in learning about the real personalities. And I did. So I guess this horrible film has done a very small amount of good, after all.<br /><br />This is not an in-depth review, but FMLB neither deserves nor requires one. You might enjoy it if you're a fan of bad movies.
|
negative
|
I thought that Zombie Flesh Eaters 2 was quite a good horror film When a terrorist's body, infected with a stolen chemical, is recovered by the US military, the corpse is then cremated, releasing the virus into the atmosphere over a small island. Soon the infected locals turn into flesh-hungry zombies, and a group of soldiers on leave must team up with a group of tourists and board themselves up in a abandoned hotel as they try to fight off the aggressive living dead. I did not find this film to be as good as the original film, Zombie Flesh Eaters. But it was still an OK horror film with some good action. I did not think that it was one of the best in the series. 4/10
|
negative
|
What can i say about the first film ever?<br /><br />You can't rate this, because it's not supposed to be entertaining. But if you HAVE to rate it, you should give it a 10. It is stunning to see moving images from the year 1895. This was one of the most important movies in history. I wonder how it was to be one of the people who saw the first movie ever!<br /><br />
|
positive
|
This is a film that was very well done. I had heard mixed reviews while it was in production and have been waiting for its release! Cheers to the director and all the actors. The supporting cast gave Eva Mendez what she needed to take this to the top. As everyone else here states, the latter portion of the film is riveting. Katie Cassidy did an amazing job with her character, being she had not done a lot of work when this film was made. She has quite the career ahead of her. I was amazed at her performance. I completely enjoyed the film, questioned my values in life and priorities, and am a better person for it! A great message lies within the film. Release it so all can enjoy!
|
positive
|
I first saw this movie as a teenager when it came out in theaters, way back when. Seeing it again, nearly 30 years later, I was surprised at how well it has held up. The gags are still funny, the interaction between characters works great, and the cameos come off better than ever. (Steve Martin's has to be the best one.) <br /><br />My kids (9, 11, and 14) all loved it, and the music is good enough that they are still humming the tunes many days later.<br /><br />I would suggest that before seeing the movie, you should view at least a half-dozen episodes of the Muppet Show, to get a sense of the back-story behind the characters, otherwise the movie won't make all that much sense.
|
positive
|
Now this is one of Big's Best, Jack Hulbert's single role in 1931 split into two for the Band Waggon radio team Askey & Murdoch. It boasts a great stalwart cast, who ham the play up for all they're worth, especially Askey of course. Histrionics were provided by Linden Travers, melodramatics by Herbert Lomas, and pragmatics by Richard Murdoch.<br /><br />The group of rail passengers stranded at the lonely country station for the night find more than they bargained for, ghostly trains, spectral porters, hairy sausage rolls and Arthur trying to entertain them all. His repartee with everyone falls between side-splitting and ghastly dull. When the formula works it's very good, but it sometimes gets very contrived and forced making the film seem more dated than it is. But those damn treacherous fifth columnists - thank any God Britain hasn't got any nowadays!<br /><br />Ultimately a nice harmless film, to welcome back to the TV screen as an old friend, but if you were expecting to be shivered out of your timbers you'll probably be very disappointed!
|
positive
|
Perhaps being a former Moscovite myself and having an elastic sense of humor prevents me from tossing this movie into the 'arthouse/festival crap' trashcan. It's not the greatest film of 2005, nor is it complete garbage. It just has a lot of problems. I also sincerely doubt this movie was banned due to any 'ideological fears', or 'conservative taboos' or any other reason this movie might conversely be called 'courageous' and 'uncompromising' abroad. It was banned because the censors knew 99% of the Russian film-goers would find it offensive because of the bad taste exercised during the shooting and editing of this otherwise dull film.<br /><br />So we have a strong opening shot. Wonderful sound design, excellent premise - laden with meaning and symbolism. The usage and placement of symbols will consistently be of the film's strongest aspects (not that the number 4 is a daunting visual challenge). Over the next 40 minutes we have an equally strong setup. An amusing and well-written bar conversation among the 3 (main?) characters, and we feel pathos for these people, the great country of Russia, the human condition and all that. Then the movie starts slowing down. We begin to wonder what -yawn- lies ahead.<br /><br />The rest is quite boring, simply put. Sure, the guy in the village tugs the heartstrings, and there are some slightly amusing moments. Nice sound, sure. But the enjoyment of this movie, not to mention the plot, are seriously compromised by the pacing problems. And this, this lack of a payoff for sitting through all the (nicely-shot) abject misery and bleakness, is what ultimately will make people angry at the 'offensive' stuff (personally, the main offensive scene bordered on being endearing, in that pathetic way harmless drunks can appear).<br /><br />If you want to watch an enjoyable movie where Russians get wasted for prolonged periods of time (the entire film), watch Particulars of the National Hunt. Much more rewarding post-Soviet stuff. So yeah, a 4 out of 10 for 4, nice and symbolic of my post-mediocre-film condition.
|
negative
|
I had the misfortune to sit through the full 102 minutes of what, in my opinion, is this shockingly bad film. It fails on pretty much all levels; the cast is awful, the acting - ham at best and the plot lacks any depth, leaving me feeling violently apathetic as to the outcome of any of the convoluted story lines.<br /><br />Plan B has none of the charm this genre has the scope to convey and I found myself physically cringing at the various points where the script makes its regular misjudged meanderings anywhere towards the region of comedy.<br /><br />A bona fide saccharine coated turd of a movie.
|
negative
|
Once again, Bugs Bunny sacred home is violated by careless people. This time the traveling circus put a lion's cage right over the rabbit's hole. So Bug's has to come out of the hole and face Nero (that's the name of the lion), which he does in his usual hilarious style. After a slow and rocky beginning to the cart, it keeps getting better and better and winds up being quite hilarious. Nero the lion turns out to be a pretty good foil for Bugs and that turns this short into a highly memorable one, if still shorn of a classic. This animated short can be found on Disk 1 of the Looney Tunes Golden Collection Volume 3.<br /><br />My Grade: A-
|
positive
|
Pokemon 3 is little more than three or four episodes of the TV series, strung together without the usual commercials. The story is typical of Pokemon (conflict, fighting, and a resolution where all are happy in the end), and there is nothing original or unusual in the animation. Some of the holes in the plot are filled in (over the closing credits!) without explanation, and everything is just a bit too sweet.<br /><br />Why see it on the big screen? The only reason is to be a part of your child's world. Both of my sons enjoy Pokemon, and by my showing an interest in what they like, we are closer. Seeing a film in a theatre is still different than seeing it on the tube, and my sons enjoy the full movie-going experience. I gave the movie a 4, mostly from my children's point of view.<br /><br />
|
negative
|
I can pretend no knowledge of cinematography or Mr. Angelopoulos. But I know Greece and I love her people. In July my 14 year old son and I traveled to Cappadocia, Turkey in search of some remains of the neighborhood where his great grandfather Iordanis lived until the great exodus of Anatolian Greeks in 1923. Reading the summary of the film (refugees from Odessa) I thought that perhaps I might learn something more about the forced migrations of modern Greeks. If I did not have a home in Rhodes, had I not been to Greece 28 times in as many years, were I not familiar with dozens of islands and cities in Greece and if I had never enjoyed the friendship of these ebullient, life-intoxicated people, I might have believed that this lamentation had something to do with modern Greece. As a professor at a New Jersey State college, let me assure you that I am familiar with the history of the period covered in the film. Indeed, my wife's uncle was murdered by the communists during the communist grab for power. My mother-in-law lived through the Italian invasion and German occupation...barely. These characters on the screen speak Greek, they listen to Greek music but who are they? No, they are not even vaguely Greek. Of course they are not people at all but simply allegories. They are that which the artist invents when life does not entirely fit or is inadequate to his perception of how it was or should have been. All represent some aspect of post WWI Greece that greater outside forces consigned to a fate they didn't deserve. As we joked in the late 70's in America: "The Revolution didn't happen." For an ideologue/artist, this is no joke. It's in fact grounds to put us through two and a half hours of torment. And it's all because the various Powers (Eleni's soliloquy of "guards" in different colored uniforms) didn't allow the generation after the "aristocrats" of 1919 (Spyros) to follow the call of peace and freedom (the music of Nikos and his fellow musicians, i.e., the Movement, the Cause). This dark, surreal revisionism smears the true and heroic efforts of the Greek people to sustain their lust for life through the tragedies of the 20th century, to achieve more than any of their Balkan neighbors, to have become so politically evolved and globally integrated.
|
negative
|
20 years ago Dr Chopper(yes, he is driving a chopper as well as chopping people up) disappeared when the police found dead bodies at his clinic. Since then people have been disappearing around Lake Tanoka(or something) and dead bodies/parts of bodies has been found all over the place. Turns out Dr Chopper needs body parts to stay alive and has been taking them from strangers, like pair of lesbians and 5 sorority girls on their initiation(you get the picture) traveling through Lake Tanoka. When a bunch of teenagers decide to go camping they are bound to clash with the doctor.....<br /><br />Well, if you wanna waste some time this is the right choice. Acting varies from really bad to mediocre with the girls tripping and falling all the time for no apparent reason. Every chance of showing skin is taken but without actually showing anything at all. The same goes for the special effects who are pretty pathetic with every slash filmed in an angle so you cant see it but there are a lot of body parts in the movie all drenched in blood(probably to cover up how sad they really look ). The plot is pretty faulty and dialog rather sad. Only time I laughed was when Dr Chopper said: "Howdy!" when trying to be scary. Don't watch this one if your not a hack'n'slash freak. Even then I would recommend you to watch something better.
|
negative
|
Wow! The sort of movie you could watch ten times and still delight in its nuances. Absolutely incredible! If this was Visconti's debut film, i shudder to think what would happen if he got any better from film to film. The only other one of his i've seen (at time of writing) is Death in Venice - which was absolutely incredible: more dazzling visually than Ossessione (Obsession). One of the most beautiful films i've ever seen, but its story was not as involving as Ossessione. If you click on "miscellaneous" on this page's links, there are stills from the movie on those websites. They won't really do justice to the experience of the movie: such graceful camera movements, such beautiful composition, such wonderful faces, such terrific characters, such a great story development, the first movie adapted from James M Cain's "The Postman Always Rings Twice."<br /><br />I can't believe this was made in 43, eight years before Brando was supposed to have introduced realistic acting to the world with Streetcar Named Desire (1951). The actors in this may not have used the method technique, ie they may not have truly felt everything themselves (i don't know anything about it) - but they're some of the best, most genuine and realistic performances up to this date in cinema. Also, eight years before Streetcar Named Desire brought a new sensuality to the screen, Ossessione was electrifyingly sensual! The most sensual thing since the beginning of cinema! Yes, i'm being superlative, but Ossessione was just that terrific.<br /><br />The reason Ossessione didn't cause the impact Streetcar did was that it was made in fascist Italy and banned by Mussolini, and re-cut in America. American audiences didn't see its full glory till 59, eight years AFTER Streetcar.<br /><br />I won't say any more about it - just writing to tell you its one of the best, most beautiful and exciting movies i've ever seen, and tell you to go out and see it! Like another reviewer, i'm going to buy it as soon as i can find it!
|
positive
|
I saw the trailer for this film before watching Titanic, and I must admit that it whetted my appetite. Volcano seemed to be quite spectacular and full of promise. But what a damp squib. Corny is not the word for the script, and the characterizations are often ludicrous. The stupid daughter is just beyond belief - she is supposed to be 13 not 4. But then the scientists,firemen and peripheral characters don't offer any more. This movie ranks just in front of Cruise II and Twister, but only because those 2 films are completely appalling. This does have some reasonable effects, but overall its a 1 out of 10. Don't waste your time
|
negative
|
There have been numerous productions that tell of the development of the atomic bomb. The Robert Taylor film ABOVE AND BEYOND (flag waving interservice propaganda really; if you believe this one you think that the Army Air Corps, in the person of Paul W. Tibbits, ran the entire show!), the NBC produced ENOLA GAY (probably A LOT closer to the mark), and the BBC-TV series, OPPENHEIMER, with Sam Waterston in the title role.<br /><br />FAT MAN AND LITTLE BOY takes the same approach that the BBC series did but widens it; it avoids the "Gee Whiz" technology of the Manhattan Project and focuses on human aspects; the personalities involved in the work. Instead of focusing on Oppie, it covers a wide swath of mythical but pretty typical people who were part of it.<br /><br />With reservations, Dwight Schultz did a good job as Oppie, presenting a dreamy, Ivory Tower academic who struggles to relate his contributions as a physicist to his inclinations to view the world in a wider social and moral context... only to have that struggle won by an overriding lust for personal power and glory. In THE DAY AFTER TRINITY it was made clear that Oppenheimer viewed himself as a "superior being" by virtue of his vast, wide ranging intellectual prowess. In the end that was Robert Oppenheimer's downfall; he saw himself as a sort of "Philosopher/King", a moral and intellectual superior who could (and rightfully SHOULD) "wisely" prescribe what was best for the rest of the world re. nuclear weapons development and deployment. <br /><br />Unfortunately, wisdom doesn't dictate the actions of nations or direction of events on a global scale. Wisdom doesn't bestow temporal power. When it tries to exercise such nonexistent power (as Oppie found when he opposed the development of "The Super", the hydrogen bomb), wisdom is ignored and banished by those who REALLY have the power.<br /><br />I found myself faulting Schultz character in one way; his Oppie exposes himself TOO closely and personally to the Manhattan Project, despite the doubts and fears that tore at his intellectual basis. The real Oppenheimer would have had to take a different approach; at the beginning he would have had to come to the firm resolution that the project would result in ultimate good. The ugliness it produced along the way would be an incidental price that must be paid to attain that ultimate good, and it must be ignored... at least until the end of the project when there was leisure to assess the gains and losses. Oppie clearly did that, and it resulted in his controversial postwar statements to the effect that science had now known sin, and that was a knowledge it could never lose. <br /><br />While the project went on, such considerations HAD to be pushed aside if he was to maintain his sanity.<br /><br />Because of this ambiguity, Schultz character comes off as a weak, frightened little boy who could NEVER have served as "Coordinator of Rapid Rupture", as Oppenheimer unofficially dubbed his post.<br /><br />Paul Newman's take on Gen. Leslie R. Groves is fascinating, and a bravura performance, if possibly a LITTLE BIT over the top.<br /><br />Groves was a civil engineer by training, but first and foremost he was a SOLDIER, and a general to boot! He's accustomed to DEMANDING that things go HIS way... intensely driven, a foul mouthed, spoiled child who has tantrums at the drop of a hat, who reveres his country and isn't too proud to fall on his knees and pray. In other words, very much like REAL (ie, NON civil engineer) soldiers, aka George Patton! Grove's MISSION not only comes first, it is his ONLY consideration... feelings and egos be damned, except for his OWN, of course! <br /><br />Groves couldn't admit it, but he knew full well that he NEEDED Oppenheimer; military rank meant NOTHING in the world of theoretical physicists. Oppie was a necessary interface between the two worlds he had to straddle.<br /><br />Again... I have to fault the script on this, and for the same reason.<br /><br />In reality, Groves already OWNED Oppie; if he didn't, Oppie would never have been chosen for the post in the first place. History tells of MANY cases where other scientists, some as stellar as Oppenheimer, simply walked away from Groves recruitment efforts. At one point Groves was so desperate that he proposed DRAFTING the physicists he needed!<br /><br />Groves attempts in the film to maneuver and control Oppie were UNNECESSARY... they only exist here as a dramatic device which indeed helps make the atmosphere of the film quite ugly.<br /><br />Kusak's "Michael Merriman" is a composite of several real characters, but they're from a different time frame. Several research accidents similar to the one depicted happened in POSTWAR weapons research. <br /><br />Merriman's radiation overdose creates another ugliness in the film, but one which is, IMHO, necessary, and pretty accurate. People with weak stomachs will have a hard time handling the hospital sequences; they're all TOO real.<br /><br />The main idea that comes across, but not strongly enough IMHO, is the big truth of the Los Alamos experience. The scientists who signed on were young, idealistic and naive as well as talented. Most were on their first excursion out of the shelter of the campus. To them the project was a patriotic adventure that allowed them to practice experimental physics on a large scale without the constraints of budgets or "excessive" bureaucratic oversight. <br /><br />It was not only their brilliance, but their youthful exuberance that produced the atomic bomb. <br /><br />There's plenty here to make the thoughtful viewer intensely uncomfortable about this movie. Just the same, if you filter out the Hollywood BS (there isn't that much of it really), this is probably a pretty accurate view of the inside of Manhattan Project.
|
positive
|
Steven Spielberg (at 24) had already directed two superb episodes of a 1971 series called "The Psychiatrist", starring Roy Thinnes. One episode had been about an emotionally troubled 12-year old boy and the other was about a vibrant young man (Clu Gulager in his best performance) who is dying of cancer. Both episodes were stunning, visually unlike anything else on TV, and emotionally complex and adult. The creators of "The Psychiatrist" were Richard Levinson and William Link, who created "Columbo" and also produced its first season.<br /><br />Peter Falk insisted on first rank, experienced TV directors for the first season of "Columbo", like Bernard Kowalski and Jack Smight. But Falk agreed to Spielberg after watching part of the Clu Gulagher episode of "The Psychiatrist".<br /><br />Spielberg says on the DVD of "Duel" that he loved Steven Bochco's "Murder by the Book" script (based on a Levinson/Link story), and he tried to make the production look like a million dollar feature, even thought he had a lot less money to work with.<br /><br />This episode of "Columbo" is far more visually stylish and makes better use of the sound track and background music than almost any other "Columbo" episode, even though the series always used top directors. Spielberg manages to keep the great Falk and Cassidy from hamming it up too much, but both actors are still a lot of fun. Spielberg also gets fine supporting work from Martin Milner, Rosemary Forsyth and Barbara Colby. All the performances have a freshness and vitality about them. The only "Columbo" episode that was close to being as well directed is the "By Dawn's Early Light" episode with Patrick McGoohan (directed by Harvey Hart).<br /><br />I think the two episodes of "The Psychiatrist" and this episode of "Columbo" suggest Spielberg hasn't developed technically all that much as a director. He was great from the beginning. In a "Combat!" DVD commentary of a 1962 episode guest starring Albert Salmi, Robert Altman says that episode was pretty much as good as he ever got as a director. Maybe the same is true of Spielberg.
|
positive
|
Some TV programs continue into embarrassment (my beloved 'X-Files' comes to mind.) I've been a fan of Dennis Farina since 'Crime Story,' another late, lamented show. 'Buddy Faro' never had a chance. The series had a good premise and great actors. It's really, really a shame.
|
positive
|
Brainy, cross-dressing little boy finds success on the Spelling Bee circuit despite an unconventional and dysfunctional upbringing. Shirley MacLaine directed and stars as the child's grandmother, and it is always fascinating to see long-time actors getting their chance at directing a film, the material that they're drawn to and the actors they choose to work with. Here, the only person well-cast in "Bruno" is MacLaine. The child actors seem to have been picked for their twinkle and cuteness, and squishy-hearted MacLaine holds their close-ups for excruciatingly long periods; nothing about these cherubs seems natural, not the lines that fall without consciousness out of their mouths or the interaction they have with adults or even each other. As the boy's disgruntled father, poor Gary Sinise hovers around the edges, in mock shame, always with a pained look on his face. Towards the end of the film, MacLaine turns the whole thing into a passel of hugging scenes, and even concludes with the kid hugging the Pope in Rome! Another ungodly treatise from a talented actress-turned-director who, much like Sally Field and her film "Beautiful", cannot seem to stop winking at and nudging the audience. Shirley uses ethnicity for shtick, and childhood innocence as a punchline. The children in this cast roll their eyes, crack wise with mature comments, use big words--but when one mealy-mouthed boy calls our pint-sized hero "gay", MacLaine's granny instructs him to go over and punch the kid out (in front the media!). How's that for progression? * from ****
|
negative
|
Jackie Chan's classic directorial feature POLICE STORY (1985) is among the most influential and over-the-top modern day police actioners ever to come out from Hong Kong. Jackie wanted simply to make a movie which would include the usual kung fu and also fierce gun play and other "urban" action which would later become very popular and typical among HK directors like John Woo and Ringo Lam. POLICE STORY mixes these two action elements and styles and the result is as wild as it sounds.<br /><br />Jackie plays Chan Ka-Kui, a police who gets to protect an important witness (Brigitte Lin) who would soon testify against a powerful gangster boss and his ring of criminal activity. Jackie's girlfriend is played by young and sweet Maggie Cheung, who isn't as wild here as she would be in her subsequent roles like Heroic Trio (and the sequel) by Johnnie To, Savior of the Soul by Corey Yuen and David Lai and many many others. The plot in POLICE STORY is very simple but it is the action why this film was made in the first place.<br /><br />Jackie did of course all the stunts of his character by himself and also hurt himself pretty badly in couple of scenes, some of which are also in the completed movie like at the end in which Jackie hits his head (near the eye) through a very nasty looking sharp piece of glass. Also Jackie's stunt team members almost got themselves killed during filming of this film. The scene in which a bus stops right before Jackie, spitting the kidnappers through the windshield, went really bad as the bus stopped too early and the stuntmen didn't fly as they were supposed to. They were supposed to fly on the car parked in the front of the bus but their flight was too short and they hit through the asphalt with hospital level injuries. During the end credits, there is a behind the scenes imagery and images of these injured actors and it all looks really bad and almost tasteless, but fortunately no one got killed or injured too severely.<br /><br />The action is more than plentiful and imaginative as can be expected by (action) director Chan. The now legendary bus scene and shopping mall scene at then end are most likely among the wildest scenes any action film has been able to deliver. Jackie always tells how important editing is (which is true) and it really shows in his action scenes and their timing which is perfect and makes the films look so ultra kinetic when compared to Hollywood efforts, for instance. There's hardly any slow moments here and also those moments are interesting and the film never becomes boring or hard to watch.<br /><br />But there is again one negative point which I cannot stand in HK action comedies, which is this comedy itself. The comedy isn't funny especially when the errors and amateurish elements in the screenplay aren't there by accident but because of the writer wanted to add them there, without necessarily understanding that they are signs of bad script and stupid dialogue. I mean those scenes like the stabbing murder attempt at the beginning when the murderer just shouts and screams and makes faces and acts like a drunken clown from some slapstick nightmare, and he is there to "murder" that girl. This kind of acting is stupid and inept and I wouldn't like to see it in a film which is otherwise very great in its own genre. Characters also speak their thoughts which is also a sign of bad script because those "loud thoughts" are there just to make things clear even for the stupidest viewer and thus making things way too simple and "light." Even if the film is comic and not so serious, these kind of stupidities should not be there and they cannot be forgiven too easily.<br /><br />POLICE STORY is a fast speed, full impact, balls to the walls action adventure miracle from Hong Kong and from the time when Jackie was very sad because of the bad result he got with the US produced The Protector as he didn't have the same thoughts about the film as director James Glickenhaus had and thus the result didn't please audiences and Jackie and he returned to Hong Kong to make more personal and inventive film. That he definitely did and the result is as wild today as it was back then in the 80's. This is among the most insane action films ever, and it would be somewhat perfect without the flaws I mentioned. 7/10
|
positive
|
The story is about the life of common people from Antwerp, living their lives. So I said it, and there is nothing more actually to tell about the story. The movie is fast, like an MTV-flick, and well photographed and we feel that the director is talented and should do more films. So let's forget about this one and hope for the best with the next Deus-Barman picture.
|
negative
|
In the European TV industry, movies like this one are called "stickers". TV stations buy them and air them because when they wanted to buy broadcast rights to, let's say, Titanic, some not-really-blockbusters were a part of the deal.<br /><br />14 Hours is a story of a hospital, its employees and patients who have to face the worst flood slash storm ever. Unfortunately almost from every scene or shot one can tell that is was a low-budget film.<br /><br />Newborn babies are very obviously not real, there is no background action and probably the worst thing is the doctor-acting. The actors are not believable in their roles: their lines, when spoken, sound way too memorized, as if this was a read-out camera test.
|
negative
|
This movie had very little good points, the special effects and acting was horrible for sure. But it was a movie made on a low budget so you dont expect much from it, it does have some laughs (I doubt they are intended though :) ). The scene where the old woman bends down and touches dung that was on the floor, then puts it to her nose and goes CHUPACABRA! in a really stupid raspy voice was priceless. All in all if you have nothing else to watch and just want to laugh at a really crappy flick trying to cash in on the Blair Witch Project's success, then grab it other then that dont bother.
|
negative
|
Sweet romantic drama/comedy about Stewart and Sullavan writing love letters to each other without either one knowing who the other is. Naturally, they work together and can't stand each other. You can guess the rest. It's beautifully acted by the entire cast (especially Sullavan, Stewart and Frank Morgan), has a witty, intelligent script and looks absolutely stunning. It takes place in Budapest and was shot in Hollywood, but I found myself believing I was seeing Budapest! Everything looks so perfect and dream-like. A one of a kind film. Don't miss it!
|
positive
|
All of those who voted less than 5 are obviously not fans of clean, tongue-in-cheek humor. Keaton is brilliant in this - as in most of his work. This is not a blockbuster, bigger-than-life affair. This is campy, slapstick humor played out by some of Hollywood's best (and very versatile) actors. Piscopo was equally on the mark as the top dog wannabee, once.<br /><br />If you want to see the funniest attempt at not really cussing ever filmed, you gotta see Dimitri do his piece as Morone.<br /><br />I gave it a 7.
|
positive
|
Now, I won't deny that when I purchased this off eBay, I had high expectations. This was an incredible out-of-print work from the master of comedy that I so enjoy. However, I was soon to be disappointed. Apologies to those who enjoyed it, but I just found the Compleat Al to be very difficult to watch. I got a few smiles, sure, but the majority of the funny came from the music videos (which I've got on DVD) and the rest was basically filler. You could tell that this was not Al's greatest video achievement (that honor goes to UHF). Honestly, I doubt if this will ever make the jump to DVD, so if you're an ultra-hardcore Al fan and just HAVE to own everything, buy the tape off eBay. Just don't pay too much for it.
|
negative
|
Extraordinary Rendition is a frightening practice authorized, surprisingly, under Clinton, that allows the U.S. government to seize and hold anyone suspected, seemingly for any reason, of being a terrorist against the United States. This is a touchy issue, especially after 9/11, because supporters of the practice will always criticize the opposition as withholding vital power from the U.S. that it needs to effectively fight terror. Fanatic supporters will label the opposition as terrorists in themselves. <br /><br />But like a recent film that lent a similar level of humanity to the death penalty, The Life of David Gale, Rendition shows us a story of the misuse of extraordinary rendition, or at least the ease with which it can be exploited and falsely applied. The story involves Anwar El- Abrahimi, an American chemical engineer born in Egypt who is seized on his way back to America from giving a lecture in Egypt. The cause given is that he made phone calls to a known terrorist. No proof is ever given (or needed) that it was Anwar that made the calls, that his phone was never lost of stolen. <br /><br />Meanwhile, Anwar's extremely pregnant wife, Isabella, is back in the states frantically trying to find her husband, who got onto a plane to Chicago but apparently never got off. The flimsy explanation that he was never there evaporates when she discovers that he made an in-flight purchase using his credit card. <br /><br />Lately I have been researching modern Chinese history, particularly that of the astonishingly selfish and brutal dictatorship set up by Mao Tse-tung, and it is more than a little frightening to see the similarities between extraordinary rendition and some of Mao's brutal scare tactics, including his public executions (which the people were forced to watch), and extensive use of torture specifically used to extract "confessions." <br /><br />It is pretty disturbing to notice that Mao specifically did these things to create an environment of fear in order to achieve obedience from the Chinese people. To say that the Bush administration has not created an environment of fear and continues to milk it for everything it's worth would be naïve in the extreme, and although extraordinary rendition was not created under Bush, it is clear that it does more harm than good.<br /><br />Adding to the thickness of the film is Douglas Freeman (Jake Gyllenhaal), who works behind a desk for the CIA and has little field experience, until his boss is assassinated and he suddenly finds himself supervising the torture of a man that he quickly comes to doubt has anything to reveal. Fatima's (Freeman's boss) daughter also plays a pivotal role, as does a senatorial aide played by Peter Sarsgaard, who might have the most satisfying role in the movie. Meryl Streep is also suitably cold and clinical as a chilly senator with a dogmatic support of the necessity and practice of rendition. <br /><br />As a political thriller, the movie is remarkably well-crafted and paced. But the scariest thing about it is that this is all real. The movie's goal is to get people to really think about the things done in America's name, especially when they claim to be done to prevent those same things. Conducting terror in the name of preventing terror will win no sympathy for us, nor will extracting confessions through brutal torture, which is the basest form of criminal investigation. <br /><br />Unfortunately, we are gradually heading in that direction, of doing these things more rather than less. The frightening question is what is the event that is going to take place at some point in the future to convince us to stop and head the other way, toward civilization and peace, or will we just keep heading toward a military dictatorship until we finally get there?
|
positive
|
The Man with the Golden Arm, Otto Preminger's controversial, panoramic crime drama, plays itself out among the mental descriptions of its living and architectural occupants, in rhythmic, lashing arrangement. Opening the film, a closeup from within a bar of Frankie looking in through the window, already tells us to the prominence that the protagonist's subjective experience will grasp. Pulled in the direction of increasingly slighter spaces, the film shuts itself off, as the local gangster's long-drawn-out poker game shuts itself from the daylight, bolts itself in, as Sinatra's Frankie Machine has himself locked in a room in the celebrated scene of his harrowing struggle to overcome his habit. In delving into the shapes and faces of its jazzy urban haven, the visual traffic in The Man with the Golden Arm characterizes skewed psychological circumstances, forming an overpowering environment, as maintained by the recurring tracking shots into closeups of Frankie's eyes.<br /><br />The grace of this fiery drama, striking as early as the exciting opening crane shot, displays the command over the perceptible world that studio production allows. The wonderfully dilapidated urban sets define an independent place with no beginnings or ends, an indeterminate state, the sort that in reality hardly last as long as this skid row seems to before being gentrified or leveled. The flair of certain performances, particularly Robert Strauss's as the wonderfully named underworld gambling boss Schwiefka and Arnold Stang as Frankie's trusty four-eyed lapdog, becomes this fiery surreal feature pleasingly. The premise of drug addiction, Sinatra's powerhouse performance, Elmer Bernstein's infectious, forceful jazz score and Saul Bass's famous, influential and controversial opening sequence centering on the animated paper cut-out of a heroin addict's arm ensured that, in its era, The Man with the Golden Arm presses forward upon the cause for realism in the still reticent Hollywood. It is impressionistic and subjective, as I say, but its intent, its force and its spirit are much closer to home.<br /><br />What absorbs me the most in this film is its aspect as a gangster film. It has the illegal card games, short cons, the fights, the guns, the double-crosses, characters on the lam, a femme fatale, a stunningly sexy gun moll, the shady nightclubs and urban landscape, but it does more than exploit this environment for entertainment. Really, it is the perfect environment, and genre, in which to tell this story, a crime-ridden urban borough where it's all too comfortable to escape through a bottle or two, or three, or four, or drugs, a transient dose that really just functions to keep one in obscurity from any enlightenment and all the clear scenarios the world could bid.
|
positive
|
A man and his wife get in a horrible car accident. When the wife is left in a persistent vegetative state, the man must choose between pulling the plug and letting her live. The decision is made even harder when he realizes her ghost wants to extract revenge on him and those around him.<br /><br />This comes to us from director Rob Schmidt, who made "Wrong Turn" (a film I have not seen). With only one horror film under his belt, and not a particularly notorious one at that, I was a bit reluctant to watch this episode, expecting Schmidt to be a "Master of Horror" in only the most liberal sense. My apologies to him for my underestimation. As of episode 10 in a 13 episode season, this was actually the best one yet.<br /><br />The issue of the "right to die" is dealt with and covered in enough detail to be a solid plot device. However, this is only the foundation on which the story revolves. Once the horror elements show up, the film goes from "decent" to "spectacular". Great acting, great plot, great dialogue, great suspense. I was a little creeped out at times (which is good) and most of all: the gore is in extreme abundance! I read a review of this episode prior to watching it, where the reviewer said there is a strong hint of "Hellraiser" in this. Through the first part of the show, I had no idea what they were talking about. Then there is a bit later where some images do remind me of "Hellraiser 2". However, I in no way wish to say that this takes away from the film. I can see no other way to create the effect that was created, and in my opinion this looks remarkably better than "Hellraiser 2".<br /><br />Some plot twists show up later on, and might invite the viewer to give the film a second look. I didn't watch it a second time, but I think the beginning would make more sense if I had (not that it's confusing). The subplot with the dental hygienist is also nice, and I found myself going back and forth about whether I disliked the main character for his relationship with her or if I felt bad for him. He's somewhat of an anti-hero to the whole story, if you will. I feel inclined to cheer for him as the protagonist, but he's completely unlovable.<br /><br />While the Stuart Gordon episode may be better and I'm excited about the "Washingtonians" episode, I think I could safely bet that this is the key episode of the season and by far the saving grace of what was otherwise lackluster and routine. When legends like John Carpenter let me down (again) I get a bit worried about the genre's future, but then a fresh face like Rob Schmidt comes along and gives me hope. This one is a keeper, and please bring Schmidt back for season 3!
|
positive
|
Nahhh! Leila (Grace Mills) is a teenager turned on to Satan (and LSD) by her archaeologist fiancé Richard. There's a neighborhood hippie demon cult hanging out at the local decrepit ancient castle, where Leila and Richard drink blood, drop drugs, join in sex orgies, dance to lame psychedelic rock and participate in black mass ceremonies where the guys wear pants, masks and capes and the women don't wear anything at all. Unfortunately, these kind of extracurricular activities have left Leila open to demonic possession from the dreaded "spirit of evil." Leila also comes from a screwed up family, which doesn't help either. Her older brother John is a recluse who seems to be in love with her. Her mother Patricia (Maria Perschy) is depressed because she thinks she was responsible for the father's death. To top it off, her sister (Maria Kosti) is a slutty semi pro golfer named (gasp!) Debbie Gibson. There's plenty of hired help around also to waste more time. Two maids (a young one who takes her clothes off a lot and an old one who spies on everyone), plus Udo (Luis Induni), a bald voyeuristic handyman who spies on Leila changing clothes, takes nude pictures of her and sneaks into the pool house to take a sniff of her freshly used bathing suit. Oh yeah and Borg, the pet German Shepherd.<br /><br />Paul Naschy is Father Adrian Dunning, the doubting priest (zzzzz) who starts snooping around after John and Richard both have their heads twisted around backwards. Leila tells him "They say I am perverse and I'm going to prove it is true!" During her birthday party, she tells her guests "You make me sick! I hate you all!" and when mom suggests having a doctor come over she she screeches "I don't want to see that fat ass!" Debbie suggests they commit Leila to a "sanitory," but Leila runs off and joins the cult again. She is rescued (again) and brought back home (for the third time).<br /><br />By this point in the movie, there's only about ten minutes left to go and all we've basically seen is some very boring scenes of characters talking and whining about how terrible and f-ed up their lives are and how Leila is acting weird. It's almost as agonizing to sit through as an Andy Milligan movie, minus the gore and laughs. But finally during the last few minutes we get the movie the title implies - an EXORCIST-like possession flick. Unfortunately, the best part of it are the contact lenses Leila gets to wear. Some cheap time-lapse slashes appear on her arms, legs and face, she gets scabby lips and her eyes take on the appearance of blue and white marbles. She begins reeking of rotted flesh, spits up some clear gunk, starts speaking in her dead dad's voice, sneaks into her mom's bedroom, slaps her around a bit and calls her a "filthy bitch of a whore." In comes Father Adrian, who now finally believes she is indeed possessed, fends off her attempts at seduction, hallucinates frogs and eels are in the kitchen and douses Leila with holy water. Doors open and close, a mirror breaks, there's sudden thunder and her bed rises up off the floor. After she tackles Dunning and the two roll down the stairs, the spirit is out of her and into - guess who? Why, Borg the family pooch! The demon dog then turns on Adrian and chews him up a little before he impales it on a fire poker. Then we get one of the most irritating final shots ever committed to film. It's Leila on the floor going from her hideous appearance back to her normal sexy self. But then there's ANOTHER time-lapse effect that sort of seems to suggest that the demon has possibly reentered her body. It's so badly done, you really have no clue what to make of it, which is the final slap in the face to anyone who has just realized they've wasted an hour and a half on this worthless POS.<br /><br />Screw the contacts, 1 out of 10 it is.
|
negative
|
This wasn't the major disaster that I was expecting, but that is about as positive as I can be in my description of the movie. I'm not sure what was meant to be funny about this movie, but I suppose it's all a matter of taste. Personally, I don't find it funny to watch morons living their idiotic lives or making fools of themselves on television, but then again, I'm not a fan of Jerry Springer's pathetic daytime talk show. I didn't get too bored watching this, but I was definitely never enjoying it, either. If you're in the mood to see a bad movie, but one that isn't too painful to sit through, this is a good choice.
|
negative
|
Don Wilson stars as Jack Cutter (Ooh real tough name!)a vampire slayer who goes up against a vampire army, you see the story is a little different because vampires can't be killed with silver, crosses or sunlight but rather through snapping their necks (How convenient as it cuts down on the budget) and it's here Cutter runs into a reporter (Melanie Smith of Trancers III fame) Night Hunter's action sequences shake for no reason during the fight sequences and although it's meant to emphasize the mood, it just makes the movie more jarring. What is worse is that these fight sequences are botched beyond belief as Wilson's martial artistry is disguised by disjointed editing. Of course the most interest comes from the fact that indeed this predates Blade, however the problem is that this was done on a small budget and that it had Don Wilson in it. It's from Roger Corman and basically this turkey is a movie most people would pay NOT to see. I unfortunately am a bottom feeder and I cater to the section of the store looking for gems, in this line of work you always run into turds. With Night Hunter, I just may have the world's stinkiest turd.<br /><br />1/2* out of 4-(Awful)
|
negative
|
Okul is the first of its kind in Turkish cinema, and it's way better than I expected. Those people who say it's neither scary nor funny have a point, it's not all that great indeed. But it must be kept in mind that everyone involved with the movie is rather amateur, so it's basically a maiden voyage. And comparing this one to Sinan Çetin's other films such as the 1st class garbage "Propaganda", this movie is pretty damn good.<br /><br />One thing that MUST be said: It deals with the highschool students' life in Turkey VERY realistically! That's exactly how it goes! The scenes that are meant to scare are somewhat cheap, and Hollywoodish. Most of them even if not all. But that religion lesson scene made me laugh in tears, and Emre Kýnay performs the best acting of this flick as a religion teacher.<br /><br />It's NOT a waste of your time, go and watch it! You'll find it rather amusing especially if you know Turkey enough to relate to Turkish youngsters' school lives.
|
positive
|
I recently waisted 8 by going and see this movie in the cinema. It was a waste of time and the only feeling you get going out of the theater is a slightly nauseous of all the disgusting social pornography. <br /><br />It could have been interesting if it had a quite absurd twist but it hadn't so it was just plain awful with maybe one or two scenes which could have been taken out and made to very nice short movies.<br /><br />Another thing I thought about is the way the director uses all the Finish stereotypes as characters. It is quite extraordinary how you as a Finish director can make a movie with the worst stereotypes of your own nationality. It was sad to sit and and hear the audience sitting and laughing at things that they thought was typical Finish but in general just is making fun of people.
|
negative
|
I have watched this movie well over 100-200 times, and I love it each and every time I watched it. Yes, it can be very corny but it is also very funny and enjoyable. The camp shown in the movie is a real camp that I actually attended for 7 years and is portrayed as camp really is, a great place to spend the summer. Everyone who has ever gone to camp, wanted to go to camp, or has sent a child to camp should see this movie because it'll bring back wonderful memories for you and for your kids.
|
positive
|
A resurrected wrapped monster goes on a murdering binge. A lunatic is seeking revenge against living members of a previous expedition. Universal seems to be running out of wrapping as well as new ideas. Most of the budget was probably spent on Lon Chaney Jr. to star as Kharis, the Mummy.<br /><br />Other players are George Zucco, Wallace Ford, Turhan Bey, Dick Foran and Elyse Knox.<br /><br />How much longer can this madness continue?
|
negative
|
I usually like movies about animals or reptiles turning against the mean old humans who threaten their environment, but I have to say Snake Island was a major letdown.<br /><br />The premise is interesting, a group of people, including a writer numbly played by William Katt, goes to an island called, duh, you guessed it "Snake Island", and quess what the island lives up to it's name. That is one thing I will give this movie, there are snakes, LOTS and LOTS of snakes of all sizes and kinds. So that part of the movie in fairness lives up to its name, but the writing, acting and directing is SOOOOOOOO lame it is almost painful to sit through.<br /><br />The characters are so unlikeable I was begging for the snakes to finish these horrible people off to put us all out of our misery. There are a couple of scenes that are so surreal and ridiculous they have be seen to be believed---snakes gyrating to really horrible disco music while 2 women dance seminude together and a scene with a snake holding some inane dialogue with one of the actors, it's beyond absurd. I think the writer was trying to be funny but this just came off like some weird LSD trip...<br /><br />I remember William Katt years ago back when he starred in "Carrie", what a hunk he was..not that he was ever a major star, but to be reduced to this garbage, I feel for him.<br /><br />Avoid this movie like the plague unless you are really into movies that feature lots and lots of snakes and really horrible humans.
|
negative
|
One of my favorites non-MGM musicals, it's a classic!> Rita Hayworth is in top form, her beauty leaps out of the screen. Gene Kelly shows off his dancing skills and introduces to musicals his edgy and innovative choreography that eventually would change the way musicals are choreograph. Phil Silvers is the perfect second bananas, and Eve Arden injects this movie with a lot of class.<br /><br /> The structure is so theatrical that one has to wonder why, in this era where major Broadway shows come from the movies, Cover Girl hasn't been adapted to theatre.
|
positive
|
If you're a fan of Gothic horror, then you're definitely absolutely guaranteed to LOVE this wondrous Italian 60's film "Castle of Blood". We're really talking about creepily creaking doors, eerie portraits that appear to be moving, spontaneously dying candles although there's no wind and smoke coming from underneath heavy wooden chamber doors. Speaking in terms of atmosphere and style, this masterful piece of Gothic film-making is one of the best out there; just one tiny league below landmarks such as "Black Sunday", "The Three Faces of Fear" and "Curse of the Crying Woman". The prominent directors duo Sergio Corbucci ("The Great Silence", "Django") and Antonio Margheriti ("Cannibal Apocalypse", "Killer Fish") are successful in all areas, including a powerful plot (one that is genuinely nightmare inducing), ultra-sinister scenery and filming locations, stylish black and white photography, spine-chilling music and a brilliant gathering of talented performers. Barbara Steele, starlet of the aforementioned "Black Sunday" and Italian goth-muse number one, shines brightly again as a spiritually tormented character and she's literally surrounded by excellent co-players. One of them, Silvano Tranquilli, even gives away a fairly credential depiction of author Edgar Allan Poe. The story involves him and another wealthy visitor of a countryside tavern challenging a brutal young journalist to accept a morbid wager. If he Alan Foster would survive spending one night in the infamous Blackwood Castle, he receives the astonishing reward of $10 and a newspaper interview with Poe. Needless to say the ordeal is much more dangerous than it sounds, even for somebody like Alan Foster who's a firm non-believer in ghosts and vampires. The night starts out great for him, as he even meets up with the stunningly beautiful woman of his dreams, but gradually he learns that Blackwood Castle is a hellish place where the ghosts of the previously deceased visitors are trapped for all eternity. I don't know about you, but this is seriously one of my favorite horror movie premises of all time. Co-director Antonio Margheriti clearly was proud of this film as well, because he remade it himself a couple of years later as "Web of the Spider". That movie had a handful of trumps, like for example the casting of no less than Klaus Kinski in the role of Edgar Allan Poe, but in general this original is vastly superior. "Castle of Blood" literally oozes with atmosphere and maintains a thoroughly unsettling ambiance throughout. This truly is one of the rare films that can make the hair on your arms and back of the neck rise with fear if you watch it in the right circumstances. Watch it late at night, preferably alone and in a candle lit room, and you'll get an idea about the true definition of horror.
|
positive
|
I just saw it at the Toronto International Film Festival. Director Neal Slavin's impressive starring cast includes William Macy (seen in The Contender at last year's TIFF), Meat Loaf (AKA Meat Loaf Aday, AKA Michael Lee Aday), David Paymer, and Laura Dern (also starring in Novocaine, also at this year's Festival).<br /><br />Based on the Arthur Miller novel by the same name, Focus follows Christian but "Jewish-looking" Lawrence Newman (Macy) as he struggles among the hatred and anti-Semitism in his neighbourhood. Pitted between the Jewish store-owner down the street (Paymer) and his card-carrying anti-Semite next door neighbour (Meat Loaf) Newman faces difficulty in dealing with inner conflict and conflict around him. Guilt over knowing what's right but not doing anything battles with wanting to blend in and keep peace with the neighbours. Things gets more complex when he meets and marries Gertrude (Dern) who everyone thinks is Jewish. Gertrude teaches her husband a few things about judging books by covers.<br /><br />Will Newman stick up for the Jewish man in the end or will he flee? Go see it to find out.<br /><br />The acting was fabulous. The writing was incredible. The cinematography was excellent. The sound was well done. Technically amazing, the movie was disturbing. Chilling. Emotionally intense. I found myself bringing my knees up into the fetal position a couple of times. I have great admiration for everyone who worked on it. I have not seen a film this good in a long time. It touched me.<br /><br />Wow.
|
positive
|
You looking for a comic drama with suspense and an ensemble cast? Well locate this little sleeper. John Lithgow and Billy Bob Thorton are great in this little plot twister. Don't forget the cameo by Jamie Lee Curtis. A touch of the 60's, a touch of "the Prince and the Pauper", and dash of that homegrown gold makes for a greast little story.
|
positive
|
This Chinese movie made me feel so many similarities with members of a culture I don't belong and are far from. In an almost Buddhist approach, the film helps one to relate to each character, and to the happiness of doing the simple routine things.<br /><br /> All actors are brilliant, and Xu Hzu exudes kindness and wisdom, yet also vulnerable and mean. Er Min, the retarded brother, shows us that intelligence and wisdom are not equal, and that wisdom comes to and from the most disparate persons in this universe. A different China, this is far from the Chinese realism, yet, it has lots of humanity and realism of a different kind.<br /><br />Get it. You won't be disappointed.
|
positive
|
Oh my GOD this was so bad! The story was weak - at best - and the animation was flat and lifeless - even childish. This film takes itself far too seriously...unless of course they meant to be funny. I saw this last week at the London Sci-Fi Festival and the entire audience was laughing at every scene. I think my favourite was 'shouldn't you be studying medicine at Oopsalof'! And I also think they were trying to see how many times they could cram in the character Nicalo's only line 'we will be together...it is our destiny.' I'm sorry but after the first time, the words lost all meaning.<br /><br />And what was with the apple?<br /><br />I recommend this as a lesson to Americans: You cannot animate, so please don't try. You only embarrass yourselves.
|
negative
|
The pros of this film are the astonishing fighting scenes - absolutely incredible sword-moves and martial art show off. A true John Woo masterpiece. The story tends to be a bit week though, but it never overshadows the overwhelming display of acrobatic martial art action. If you are into martial art movies, you are going to LOVE this one!
|
positive
|
Other than John Krasinski, this movie was absolutely terrible. The Lacey Chabert and Andrew Keegan love story was as clichéd as possible, full of unbelievably bad lines about how her parents wouldn't ever let them be together and super-hammy longing looks. None of the "emotion" had any depth or reality whatsoever. The two accented-characters (Dean Edwards as Rupert and whoever it was playing the gun expert)....once they saw how bad the accents were, couldn't they have decided to just drop them and rewrite a couple of lines to avoid giving the audience headaches? Apparently not. I don't even know where to start with the editing, particularly the sound editing. If you hate obvious over-dubbing as much as I do, don't watch this. That being said, Krasinski was great. Off the bat I'll admit that I'm a huge Office fan and that's why I rented this. But he's quite entertaining as the "off-the-wall friend with crazy ideas". He's got a clichéd role, but he still manages to make it as entertaining as possible. The ending was awful. Just flat out terrible. The idea of the robbery gone awry had potential, but Keegan floundering around after being shot, all the way to his studio to fall ontop of a painting of Chabert (which looks nothing like her) is the most cringe-worthy scene.
|
negative
|
This late-ish effort from Freda plays as a modern day (70's that is) Gothic thriller, but comes out short of thrills. Certainly it's not a dreadfully bad film, it's jut got that feeling which many of Freda's later films have of someone who has given up when he's seen the first daily's. It starts out good enough, almost giallo like in tone, then takes a turn into Gothic territories with a decent (albeit terribly cliché) set up. Then suddenly Freda seems to have lost interest in the film and all we get is prolonged shots of Camille Keaton and burning candles. Then circa an hour into the film we get some sort of violent climax with decent-to-poor special effects. This is followed by a slow paced outro with a very obvious twist ending (If it's even intended to be a twist?). And throw a few very halfhearted explanatory scenes along the way and you got Tragic Ceremony. Thus in parts it's got its qualities. But then suddenly stumbles and collapses in front of you. A pity.<br /><br />btw stay away from the SHAROMA DVD, a useless murky pan& scan edition which kills of what could be a good visual experience.
|
negative
|
I watched it last night and again this morning - that's how much I liked it. There is something about this movie... When the movie was almost over, I was about to cry. I would strongly recommend "Latter Days" to my friends - it's definitely worth seeing! I agree with those who say that some parts of the movie do not look very realistic. For example, both main characters are totally cute and in perfect physical shape (although, round is also a type of shape:) ). I rarely meet people like this as singles and I have never met any in couples. Other parts of the movie, including all those "coincidences", do not look very realistic as well. BUT, after all it is A MOVIE, not a life story.
|
positive
|
Boring, long, pretentious, repetitive, self-involved this move felt like a bad date. Worse, the tedious art-school direction -- with a heavy-handed use of the whirling shot that gets so overdone it almost made me throw up - is constantly screaming to be noticed. Add the thinnest of plots and virtually no dialogue, and the film begins to feel like a four hour epic about 30 minutes in. It gets worse: instead of dialogue there are poorly written voice-overs AND quotes and songs that comment all too obviously on the characters. Really loud opera music too. Blame it all on the director.<br /><br />The actors are all quite good. The lead actor Miguel Angel Hoppe is particularly suited for film stardom. He and the other actors have some tender erotic moments. Even these start to get boring after 5 minutes however, and one wonders if the director is auditioning for a Bel Ami porn job. The stunning college campus architecture as a location in Mexico City is inspiring. How come universities in the US are so bland (SFSU, UC, etc.)? But wait for the DVD on this film. You'll want to use the fast scan button a lot.
|
negative
|
I have recently watched this film, and have decided to comment on it. <br /><br />the best way to watch this film is to not expect what you have seen in the past by Miyazaki. Miyazaki is well known for his work on on Spirited away and Howl's moving castle. well for western viewers anyway. both of them films were kind of similar to each other but at the same time completely different. However Ponyo is a whole different type of story and animation all together. <br /><br />The story follows "Ponyo" a fish that has the face a girl. After Ponyo runs away from her home at the bottom of the sea, she find a whole new world she never knew was out there, and new trouble as well, when she almost caught by a fishing boat, she was rescued by a five year old boy known as Sousuke. <br /><br />the story then follows the two of them and the pure friendship between a boy and a fish. can Ponyo really stay with Sousuke forever ? <br /><br />I feel the movie was inspired by "The little mermaid" and at the same time similar to "Tonari no Totoro" <br /><br />the movie is very short and you have very little time to learn about the characters in this movie. But the Characters a fish and a little boy so how much are you expecting to learn about them? the film is set over about what seems to be 3 days, I think this is why the movie is so short. <br /><br />I really enjoyed watching this movie and I hope you all enjoy this movie as well
|
positive
|
My son was 7 years old when he saw this movie, he is now on a Russian Fishing vessel and said that the movie he was most impressed with and that has lingered in his mind all of these 39 years is the movie of The Legend of the Boy and the Eagle. He has asked if it were possible for me to get this for him. I am sure that a lot of things go through his head as he has only 3 hours of daylight and he has been on this ship for 3 months and will have 3 more months before his contract expires. Since we have Indian blood he connects to this movie. On January 27th he will turn 47 years old and I would like to be able to obtain this movie for him. He lives in Thailand and has been a commercial fisherman for the past 17 years and as we all know this is one of the most dangerous jobs. Can you help me obtain this movie? Thanking you in advance, Dolly Crout-Soto, Deerfield Beach, FL
|
positive
|
I found the movie very real just as much as Saving Private Ryan and gave an upfront account from the German perspective. The graphic action and individual characters gave this movie much to keep me interested through the whole movie. Stalingrad was very brutal battle and the scenes gave this movie that stark reality of this battle. I recommend this for anyone who is interested in military history. This was my second viewing of this movie in a few years and was captivated by it's realism again. The weapons, uniforms, and hearing it German while reading the subtitles gave it much credit for a good military movie. In fact, this being a German perspective of the battle, I was rooting for the Germans, even though they were the agressor and ultimate loser of the war.
|
positive
|
"L'appartement" has to be among the best French films I have ever seen (along with "Hatred", also starring Vincent Cassel, and those great Gerard Dépardieu/Pierre Richard movies). Cassel and Bellucci are amazing in the leading roles. Aside from "Brotherhood Of The Wolves" and "Dobermann" I have not yet seen a bad movie with this couple. "L'appartement" sucks you in from the beginning and the twists and turns keep you thrilled until the very end. Fragment storytelling really hasn't worked this well since "Pulp Fiction". Let's just hope there won't be a godawful American remake of this unique romance/mystery-thriller. (EDIT: Guess what! A godawful American remake has been made!)!
|
positive
|
Carlos Mencia continually, violently, hatefully screaming "B**ch!" at women is like screaming "N**ger!" at black people, except it's worse. Remember, the B word, unlike the N word, is the only pejorative term that is still associated on a daily basis with violence. "B**ch!" is the last thing women hear before they are raped, beaten, or murdered. This guy is perpetuating violence by hatefully using the language of violence. Sounds like he may be a gay guy trying to cover by woman-bashing, so that he will sound like a hetero. And how about all the Nazi white guys in his audience giving the fascist salutes while their stupid little bimbo white women whimper tee hee hee at their side, clearly terrified to protest this tidal wave of woman-hating. Tee hee hee. Bet Mencia doesn't believe or support free speech for THEM! Come on, Carlos do you want women to have the free speech to b**ch-slap you as loudly and violently and big-mouthed as you do, or do you think "free speech" is only for men to crap on women???
|
negative
|
I went into this movie knowing nothing about it, and ended up really enjoying it. It lacked authenticity and believability- Some of the things that the characters said and did were completely bizarre, and a lot of the script seemed like it was ad-libbed (perhaps this is typical of Woody Allen? Excuse my ignorance) but the whole audience in the theater was laughing so hard. It wasn't even at the jokes in the movie per se, but at the whole movie itself. The acting reminded me of Seinfeld's acting, where he tries not to laugh at his own jokes- they are corny, but if you don't take the movie too seriously, you can really appreciate the humour of the ACTORS, not the CHARACTERS. If you're looking for a random movie, and you like Woody Allen, I'd definitely recommend it!
|
positive
|
Ooof! This one was a stinker. It does not fall 'somewhere in between Star Wars and Thriller', thats for sure. In all actuality, it falls somewhere between the cracks of a Wham! video and Captain EO, only with not as big of a budget, and a lot more close ups of ugly teenagers crying. Simon Le Bon preens front and center, while the rest of the band gamely tries to hide the fact that they stole their whole career from Roxy Music's last 3 albums. Brief clips from Barbarella add nothing. Avoid at all costs. (However, I liked the part when they played 'Hungry Like The Wolf' but why was there a tiger lurking in the audience changing into a woman painted with tiger stripes? I mean, they aren't singing 'Eye of the Tiger' or 'Hungry like the Tiger' it's a Wolf! Whatever.) A DVD of Duran Duran's '80s videos is probably worth a look for nostalgia's sake
|
negative
|
Crossfire is a fantastic film noir that is both a product of it's time and a timeless classic. This film achieves this by addressing issues that haven't been brought to the screen before its 1947 release, and by being a high quality film that holds up to this day with a good script, great look, and fantastic performances from it's actors. The first American film to take the issue of anti-Semitism head on, Crossfire is cemented in classic standing. Set in post-World War II America, a lurid whodunit develops after a Jewish man is found murdered.<br /><br />The story is great, its anti-hatred theme wrapped up in a dark multiple-character crime thriller, and along side the anti-Semitism angle is some great post-World War II dialogue and themes as well. Unlike other mystery thrillers, the audience is alerted to who the perpetrator is almost immediately. However, the film's story is still engrossing because of the struggle of all the great characters involved are going through while trying to make sense of the situation. Outside the great overall story and themes, the entire script is simply smart, complete with meaningful messages and razor-sharp exchanges between characters.<br /><br />The film's captivating story is played out wonderfully by the its excellent cast. Robert Young is fantastic as Capt. Finlay, the leading investigator of the murder case. Finlay's my favorite character of the film, he's just a cool character - dry as bone and tough as a two-by-four and stopping at nothing to bring the killer to justice. Robert Mitchum is also great in the film, very vivid in his soft-spoken army sergeant character due to his superb screen-presence. Gloria Grahame gives a memorable performance in her small Oscar-nominated role; George Cooper also does a good job as the sick and distressed Corporal Mitchell; Paul Kelly gives an eerie portrayal of a bizarre character; and Steve Brodie, Sam Levene, Jacqueline White, and William Phipps also give strong supporting performances. Robert Ryan ends up being the most talked about performer of the film, giving a chilling performance as Montgomery and also being nominated for an Oscar.<br /><br />Crossfire has a terrific look. Director Edward Dmytryk does an extraordinary job with the film's execution and cinematographer J. Roy Hunt does a masterful job with its black and white picture. Crossfire's picture is as dark and dank as its themes, covered in shadow with an almost glossy overtone, yet also very raw in parts. Ironically, the film's great look was not the result of hard work - or even intention. Dmytryk wanted to spend more time and money on the actors rather than the lighting - so that's what he did. Less lights, less preparation (around a 6 hour work day), and it resulted in a fantastic looking film. Not just a well done piece of cinematic art, Crossfire is also a great example of a cheap film that ends up a rich classic.
|
positive
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.