review
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| sentiment
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
White man + progress + industrialization = BAD. First nations + nature + animals = GOOD. Simple formula. Actually, in past days the same kind of propaganda was used to defend the status quo; now it is used to attack it. However, that being said, I think the movie does succeed in overcoming hackneyed politicization because it plays to the themes of freedom and original nature in a way that appeals to everyone. You may not be onside with the movie's rubbishy revisionism of how the West was won, er lost. But anyone can feel a sense of longing for the days when horses could run free on the Western plains. (The movie also conveniently sidesteps the fact that there were no horses in America before the evil white man brought them there). Anyway, I liked it. The quality of the animation - especially the opening shot - is incredible.
|
positive
|
Sports movies have never been my thing, but a small handful of them work for me. The best are the those which focus less on the sport and more on the character, such as Raging Bull, the Wrestler and Girlfight. This is a great directorial debut for Karyn Kusama, and an outstanding first performance for Michelle Rodriguez. Girlfight feels is both realistic and involving, that is enough so to make it a memorable film.<br /><br />The plot is strait forward enough. Diana Guzman, is in her fourth year of high school, but due to her picking fights in the hallway she is close to expulsion. As a possible means of unleashing her anger, she signs up for Boxing lessons at the club where her brother is training (at the wishes of there father).<br /><br />In the course of ninety minutes, we the viewers see something extraordinary. Diana almost literally changes from a girl to a woman. We see it in her body as well as her behaviour, especially when one of the boys at the club finds himself drawn to her, and she gets into it. There is not a bad scene or a lame/contrived moment in the film. The only error that I would say could be corrected is that one of the subplots ends on what feels like an unfinished note. Aside from that, Girlfight is a great movie.
|
positive
|
The film that gave us John Waters is one of the funniest films ever. Yes it may be gross but it's filled with hysterical moments that nobody has done since. The infamous dog-scene has to be one of the highlights of cinema. not a film for the easily offended it's one of those movies where you always see something new. Divine's performance is worth the reputation. Mink Stole is hysterical. This is the film responsible for the Farrely brothers and the entire Gross-out comedy genre. I know that sounds a bit extreme but think about it. Before this comedies were very run of the mill and almost identical. After this movie comedies became strange and weird, but in a good way. I'd give it 15 out of 10 if I could.
|
positive
|
Four young grade-school girls witness the murder of one of their classmates during what they thought was just an innocent game. The killer is a strange young boy named Milo Jeeder. Sixteen years later, the four survivors of the event re-unite under happier circumstances in the same town where it happened. They believe that Milo drowned in a river shortly after the murder, but soon learn that the demonic killer Milo has also returned, still a young boy, unchanged even after almost two decades.<br /><br />The cover for this movie makes it look really cool (yet I still expected a bad movie to come out of it). When I pop in the DVD into my player, the menu comes up and makes the film still look cool. Sadly, this movie isn't all that it got my excited about. The movie is your average attempt at a slasher film and when I say average, I mean just like all those other small-budget slasher movies that have never been welcomed with open arms into most members of the horror community (I'm talking about you, the horror fan). In other words, you could walk up to any horror fan and the majority of responses would be "this sucks".<br /><br />What mistakes did the movie make? First of all, the DVD cover art makes Milo look really dark but they blow it all by showing his face in the movie in many different scenes. He had the potential of being a very freaky character. Secondly, the back of the cover art tells Freddy, Jason, Chucky etc to pack their bags and move on out because Milo is so much better... why in the hell would you want to say something like that when it comes to a no-name, low-budget slasher film that has obviously failed? I mean, it just raises your expectations of the movie, making it harder to impress itself upon you. In a last ditch effort to attract attention, it says (in very big letters) "From the creator of Anaconda". Just shows you how low they're going to get as much attention as possible for the movie.<br /><br />The gore in the movie sucks, the director gives you some hideous angles when Milo attacks someone. The music isn't all that bad and I never once fell asleep during the movie (congratulations). I'm still trying to figure out what Milo actually is. My best bet would be that he is a zombie, if anyone else knows, tell me. Rest assured, I won't be losing any sleep over thinking about it.
|
negative
|
Call it manipulative drivel if you will, but I fell for it. Sure, there could have been more character development. Yeah, there could have been better cinematography and less of a constant "movie of the week" score, but Ed Harris was impeccable, Cuba Gooding adorable and touching, and let's face it people, in real life, how many of us really get to know the motivation of others. Not many. We did get a little glimpse into the coach's motivation (a very provocative dialog in my opinion, not to be soon forgotten) so in my opinion, this was a lovely tribute to one human being who broke out of his "comfort zone" to reach out to another human being, and in the mean time, touched the lives hundreds more. A lesson we all need to me reminded of. Why is it that the right thing to do is so often the hardest thing to do? I recommend this beautiful little movie to anyone with a heart. You won't be disappointed. And bring your Kleenex. 8/10
|
positive
|
This movie is visually stunning. Who cares if she can act or not. Each scene is a work of art composed and captured by John Derek. The locations, set designs, and costumes function perfectly to convey what is found in a love story comprised of beauty, youth and wealth. In some ways I would like to see this movie as a tribute to John and Bo Derek's story. And...this commentary would not be complete without mentioning Anthony Quinn's role as father, mentor, lover, and his portrayal of a man, of men, lost to a bygone era when men were men. There are some of us who find value in strength and direction wrapped in a confidence that contributes to a sense of confidence, containment, and security. Yes, they do not make men like that anymore! But, then how often do you find women who are made like Bo Derek.
|
positive
|
For me an unsatisfactory, unconvincing heist movie. With an A-List cast, particularly the three leads and an experienced maverick director like Spike Lee I was expecting far more and in the end felt that what was delivered added little to this movie sub-genre. For a start I didn't like the pacing of the film, starting off with mastermind Clive Owen's raison d'etre piece to camera, unnecessarily repeated at the conclusion, then finding the narrative peppered with confusing, not to say unreal-seeming witness interviews, then finding yourself jumped into scenes you sense had begun earlier. Of course the camera work is fluid throughout, constantly on the move and incorporating hand-camera shots a-plenty, but director Lee fails to deliver thrills or suspense, falling down fundamentally by not making anything of the key protagonists in the film. Denzel Washington is weighed down with the clothes and bad-ass jive talk of a "Shaft" movie thirty - five years earlier (he even has that "no-one understands him but his woman" thing going on, replete with his "hot" girlfriend, baiting her with some downright crude and inappropriate "dirty-talk") and his mild "In The Heat Of The Night" riff with Willem Defoe (in almost a bit-part) raises barely a ripple. Clive Owens plays his character with a resolutely English accent even as we're given to believe the gang is Arab-based, also hindered by having to play 90% of the film with a mask over his face. Jodie Foster delivers another of her patented tight-lipped, ice maiden, sub-Clarice Starling turns as a well connected financial bounty-hunter, if you will, to little effect. Overall it's a real mish-mash of a film, with a light but obvious twist at the end, in fact the title gives it away from the start, spoiler fans. Worst scene (of many) is undoubtedly Washington's witness-interview, unbelievably, with an 8 year old street-kid, although Owen's dialogue with the same child minutes earlier runs it close in the embarrassment stakes. During the film in-joke references are made by characters to classic heist films like "Serpico" and "Dog Day Afternoon" - but there's no honour in self-praise. More like "The Hot Rock" instead...and even that was good for a few laughs.
|
negative
|
La Sanguisuga Conduce la Danza, or The Bloodsucker Leads the Dance as I believe is it's common English title, is set on 'Ireland' in '1902' where the mysterious Count Richard Marnack (Giacomo Rossi-Stuart) invites soon-to-be out of work theatre actress Evelyn (Patrizia Webley as Patrizia De Rossi) & three more of her fellow soon-to-be out of work actress friends Cora (Krista Nell), Penny (Lidia Olizzi) & Rosalind (Marzia Damon as Caterina Chiani) to his castle situated on a small island just off the coast. At first Evelyn is reluctant but is persuaded when it is agreed stage hand Samuel (Leo Valeriano) goes along as well. Once there Count Marnack tells his guests that his Father & Grandfather both cut the heads off their cheating wives using a ceremonial knife & there's a feeling of unease when it turns out that Evelyn looks EXACTLY the same as the current Count's wife who ran away not too long ago... Along with having to worry about weirdo servants it turns out that someone wants to use the knife themselves to chop a few heads off...<br /><br />This Italian production was written & directed by Alfredo Rizzo & is total, complete & utter crap from start to finish. First things first lets start the criticism with the title The Bloodsucker Leads the Dance, lets examine that title because when I do I feel somewhat cheated that there aren't any Vampires or any form of bloodsucking whatsoever, no-one 'leads' anything at anytime & there most certainly isn't any dance or dancing so don't expect any of these things. What you should expect though is a tedious, dull, boring pointless little 'giallo' that takes over an hour before anyone is killed & any sort of murder mystery starts to take shape, the first hour of La Sanguisuga Conduce la Danza is as plot less & uninteresting as anything out there. The best way to imagine it is to think of the most boring soft-core porn film you've ever seen, then cut most of the soft-core porn out & that just leaves bad actors, bad dubbing, bad dialogue, a tiny bit of soft-core sex & lesbianism & absolutely nothing else. Yep, it really is that bad. The mystery elements are crap, people do illogical things for no apparent reason & the overly complicated 'twist' ending is as bad as the rest of it, The Sixth Sense (1999) this ain't!<br /><br />Director Rozzi does an OK job & La Sanguisga Conduce la Danza actually has a nice look & feel to it despite it's obvious low budget, I mean there are scenes where he shows a 'storm' raging outside the castle however the stock footage used is in black & white! So the film jumps from bright colour to black & white whenever it cuts to the storm & back to colour again! There is one absolutely hilarious scene where a maid & her friend discuss her breasts & she lets her friend feel them who is then full of compliments, this scene is so funny & just so unnatural that it's priceless & easily the films best moment even if a bad 70's porno would be embarrassed by the dialogue! There is minimal nudity & the sex/lesbian scenes are very tame. Forget about any blood or gore as there isn't any apart from a decapitated head.<br /><br />Technically the films pretty good, the period setting & production design are actually quite impressive although it's not massive in scope it does the job effectively enough. The film has a nice sense of colour & the cinematography is fine. The film is dubbed so it's hard to give an opinion on the original performances but the voice actors are terrible & the dialogue is even worse than usual.<br /><br />La Sanguisuga Conduce la Danza is a terrible film, it makes no sense, it has virtually no story for over an hour, it has possibly the most misleading title ever & is really dull & boring with a confused stupid 'twist' ending. As far as Euro horror fans go there are plenty of much better films than this so please don't waste your time, as for anyone else this is definitely one to avoid. Trivia Note: the notorious (& banned in the UK) Nazi exploitation/horror film Horrifying Experiments of the S.S Last Days (1977) AKA SS Hell Camp & The Beast in Heat was directed by Luigi Batzella & he has a fairly substantial role as a police detective in La Sanguisuga Conduce la Danza.
|
negative
|
A repressed housewife (an annoying lisping Angie Dickinson, whose body double treats/horrifies us with an extreme closeup of her delicates) is sexually bored by her husband and decides to branch-out. This directly results in a string of murders that soon involve a high-class prostitute (Nancy Allen, clearly I am in the wrong business if SHE can bring home $600 a night) and her psychologist (Michael Caine). If you are going to watch De Palma rip off (excuse me, "pay homage to") Hitchcock, watch "Sisters" instead of this. "Dressed to Kill," while loaded with style and technical skill, is one of the tackiest thrillers I have had the displeasure of sitting through. The plot is absurd and tired. It does feature some surprisingly effective jump scares and nasty graphic murder sequences that should please any horror fan, as long as they can get past the silly story line, that must have been dated even in 1980.
|
negative
|
THE STAR PACKER is one of about 152,000,000 westerns that John Wayne acted in during the 1930s. Well, the number is a bit exaggerated, but it seemed almost like this many. This is because these B-movies were quickly made with very low budgets in order to be the second, or lesser, feature in a theater. Most Bs were pretty cheap and tended to cut corners to keep down costs and THE STAR PACKER is no exception. To save on costs, incidental music is not used, running times were kept to under an hour, the writing was often rather derivative and the actors are mostly lesser talents--and Wayne himself was definitely far from being a household name at this time. Some of these Wayne features are pretty good, while others, like this one, are watchable but also rather silly and inconsequential. I enjoyed this film and most of the others, but it's probably because I cut Bs a lot of slack.<br /><br />Wayne stars as John Travers--a US Marshall investigating the actions of a local gang out to chase locals out and steal from the stage. This is odd, as the film was apparently set in the modern time or close to it, as they used telephones and modern machine guns--things you just wouldn't expect to find in the Old West. Such anachronisms are actually pretty common in B Westerns--as Gene Autry films (for example) abound with them. Wayne's sidekick is Yak--played by stuntman and real life friend of Wayne, Yakima Canutt.<br /><br />The bad guy is an unknown figure referred to as "The Shadow" and he dispenses his instructions through a black screen that hides his face! This sounds exactly like a character from a movie serial--the sort of baddie that kids loved but grownups groaned at because they were so silly and at bit like Blofeld or Dr. Evil! The problem is, if you listen to his voice AND pay any attention at all, it becomes obvious early in the film that this "Shadow" is George Hayes. Now speaking of Hayes, this is the same guy who later in films was known as Gabby Hayes, but here and in several other of Wayne's early films, he looks and acts NOTHING like Gabby. In THE STAR PACKER, he was well dressed, articulate and clean-shaven--imagine that! In real life, apparently this was more the real George Hayes--though I doubt that he was evil! Now as you can tell from the last paragraph that there really is no mystery in this film. You are left with acting (passable and nothing more) and stunts--which were actually pretty amazing. Again and again, one amazing stunt after another occurred--such as men jumping from horse to horse and some great fight scenes--all done, by the way, by Canutt and his friends. Canutt was often John Wayne's double in films--and this went on for decades. The problem with some of the stunts, however, is that it appears that the film makers actually killed a few horses to get those great "stumbling horses" bits seen later in the film. Up until about 1940, film makers often strung thin metal wire and ran horses across it at full gallop! In the process, the horses' legs were usually broken and the horses were subsequently euthanized! One of the worst examples of this was the film JESSE JAMES--where several horses were brutally killed--leading to the American Humane Association insisting that a representative of the organization be on film shoots to certify that animals are NOT hurt in the production. So, since about 1940, films bear this little disclaimer. THE STAR PACKER was made well before the disclaimer and I can't see how the horses did these "tricks" without being killed.<br /><br />Overall, this is at best a time-passer due to a poor plot, occasionally poor acting and an unbelievable cruel attitude towards the horses. I am no bleeding heart, but just can't understand this disregard for a poor old animal.
|
negative
|
I had never heard of this one before it turned up on Cable TV. It's very typical of late 50s sci-fi: sober, depressing and not a little paranoid! Despite the equally typical inclusion of a romantic couple, the film is pretty much put across in a documentary style - which is perhaps a cheap way of leaving a lot of the exposition to narration and an excuse to insert as much stock footage as is humanly possibly for what is unmistakably an extremely low-budget venture! While not uninteresting in itself (the-apocalypse-via-renegade-missile angle later utilized, with far greater aplomb, for both DR. STRANGELOVE [1964] and FAIL-SAFE [1964]) and mercifully short, the film's single-minded approach to its subject matter results in a good deal of unintentional laughter - particularly in the scenes involving an imminent childbirth and a gang of clueless juvenile delinquents!
|
negative
|
A nicely evoked 1930s setting provides much interest for a viewer in the early 21st century; unfortunately, "London Belongs to Me" has little else to recommend it besides lashings of quaint English charm. All of the problems rest with the deeply unfocused story. The main plot concerns the actions of young lad Richard Attenborough, the problems he gets into and how the community in which he lives bands together to save him from society's laws. Or something. The main issue here is that Attenborough's character brings everything upon himself and, quite frankly, is guilty of almost every accusation brought against him, so it's baffling why the film (and all the characters) have so much sympathy for him. He's treated as a victim of circumstance when he really, really isn't; and what's more he isn't shown to have very much remorse for his actions, only caring about getting away with things he didn't mean to do. Alastair Sim gets a lot of screen time in a subplot that has absolutely nothing to do with the main plot line and you wonder what he's doing there (though Sim is, as always, superb). You know there's a problem with the structure when the main plot impacts constantly against the subplot but not vice-versa. And, following a sedate pace and a careful build up, the plot completely falls apart in the last 20 minutes with a deeply unsatisfying and unexplained conclusion which doesn't even show us if Attenborough's character has developed at all from the previous proceedings. The film doesn't end, it just stops.<br /><br />The acting, direction and the general feel of the film can all be commended but unfortunately the story and structure of the piece jars constantly. A last point of trivia: Alec Guinness based his performance in the vastly superior film "The Ladykillers" on Alastair Sim's performance in this film, right down to both the characters having almost identical first scenes.
|
negative
|
The 63 year reign of Queen Victoria is perhaps one of the most documented and popularly known historical reigns in British history. On the one hand, her story lacks the theatrics of earlier royals thanks to a change in social climate and attitudes, and on the other her story is one that perpetuates because it is notably human. Taking on the earlier years of her life where the budding romance between herself and the German Prince Albert was taking forefront, director Jean-Marc Vallée who has only until recently remained in the unbeknownst shadows of the industry here takes Victoria's story and captures that human element so vital to her legacy. It's a story that feels extremely humble considering its exuberant background, and yet that's partly what gives it a distinct edge here that separates it from the usual fare.<br /><br />Taking a very direct and focused approach that centres in on a brief five or so year period between her ascension and marriage to Albert, The Young Victoria does what so little period pieces of this nature offer. Instead of attempting a sprawling encapsulation of such a figure's entire life, Vallée instead opts to show one of the lesser known intricacies of Victoria's early years which are easily overlooked in favour of the more publicly known accolades. The result is a feature that may disgruntle historians thanks to its relatively flippant regards to facts and the like, yet never to let document get in the way of extracting a compelling story, writer Julian Fellowes sticks to his guns and delivers a slightly romanticised yet convincing portrayal. Vallée takes this and runs, making sure to fully capitalise on those elements with enough restraint to maintain integrity in regards to both the history involved and the viewer watching.<br /><br />A major part in the joy of watching The Young Victoria play out however simply lies in the production values granted here that bring early 1800's Regal Britain to life with a vigorous realism so rarely achieved quite so strikingly by genre films. Everything from the costume designs, sets, hair styles, lighting and photography accentuates the grandiose background inherent to Victoria's story without ever over-encumbering it. Indeed, while watching Vallée's interpretation come to life here it is very hard not to be sucked in solely through the aesthetics that permeates the visual element; and then there's the film's score also which works tremendously to further the very elegant yet personal tones that dominate Fellowes' script. Entwining the works of Schubert and Strauss into Victoria and Albert's story not only works as a point of reference for the characters to play with, but also melds to the work with an elegance and refrain that echoes composer Ilan Eshkeri's original work just as well.<br /><br />Yet for all the poignant compositions, lush backdrops and immaculate costumes that punctuate every scene, the single most important factor hereand indeed to most period dramasare the performances of the cast and how they help bring the world they exist in to life. Thankfully The Young Victoria is blessed with an equally immaculate ensemble of thespians both young and old that do a fantastic job of doing just that. Between the sweet, budding romance of Victoria (Emily Blunt) and Albert (Rupert Friend) and the somewhat antagonistic struggles of her advisors and the like (spearheaded by a terrific Mark Strong and Paul Bettany), the conflicts and warmth so prevalent to Fellowe's screenplay are conveyed perfectly here by all involved which helps keep the movie from being a plastic "nice to look at but dim underneath" affair so common with these outings.<br /><br />In the end, it's hard to fault a work such as The Young Victoria. It's got a perfectly touching and human sense of affection within its perfectly paced romance, plus some historical significance that plays as an intriguing source of interest for those in the audience keen on such details. Of course, it may not take the cinematic world by storm and there lacks a certain significance to its overall presence that stops it from ever becoming more than just a poignantly restrained romantic period drama; yet in a sense this is what makes it enjoyable. Vallée never seems to be striving for grandeur, nor does he seem content at making a run-of-the-mill escapist piece for aficionados. Somewhere within this gray middle-ground lies The Young Victoria, sure to cater to genre fans and those a little more disillusioned by the usual productions; beautiful, memorable but most of all, human.<br /><br />- A review by Jamie Robert Ward (http://www.invocus.net)
|
positive
|
There has been a lot of love that has been put into Wes Anderson's "Fantastic Mr Fox", unfortunately all the love is for himself. Granted, there has been a lot of time and effort been put into making this ever so self-consciously quirky universe but if only the same time and effort had been put into the script to try and make it funny. The worrying thing is that I think it was, and this is the best that Wes Anderson could come up with.<br /><br />The animation is good in the close-up shots of the animals, however when the camera is further away everything becomes really harsh on the eyes and to be perfectly honest looks like a bit of a mess. There wasn't really anything special about the acting either, with Wes opting to choose his buddies and big names over more specialised voice actors that could have probably made the film better. I'm pretty sure George Clooney's voice acting resume consists of two cameo appearances in South Park, one of them where he played a dog.<br /><br />The film is too smug and trying way too hard to be clever and different and is typically, despite the film being set in England, all the good animals are typical Americans playing baseball, whilst the bad guys are stereotypical English with the most insulting English accents. I cannot stress how much of a waste of time this film is. I didn't laugh once.
|
negative
|
I watched this movie on TCM last night, all excited expectation, having last seen it (twice) in its memorable 1957 release in Toronto. I told my wife, who hadn't seen it before, to watch for the thrilling long tracking shot, no cuts, where Veronika is seen on a bus on her way to find her Boris. In a hand-held frame that certainly predates the modern Steadicam, the shot then pulls back up and cranes (pun unintended) over the street as she exits the bus, and darts among the tanks to cross the road. THEN I remember that, no cuts, we follow her up close to the fence as she peers through, anxiously looking for him, but does not find him. But we do continue to follow Veronika as she searches the faces of harried recruits and their emotionally racked women, all extras, and each one a gem of riveting Stanislavskian behavior. How, one wonders, did Kalatozov and his cameraman Urusevsky set up this extraordinary sequence. But what did I see in this version? After crossing the street dodging the tanks, the scene abruptly ended, and cut back to scenes at the apartment, before continuing to the soldiers and their families at the fence. Seems to me that this film was not only restored, but also re-edited. What a downer!
|
positive
|
*****Spoiler Ahead*****<br /><br />I suppose that you shouldn't expect much of a made for TV movie, but this one was especially bad, the plot was a good idea, but badly done, the acting wasn't especially good. And the ending of the film was just terrible. The main character was perfectly normal all the way through the film, and then suddenly when we find out that she was the killer she just turns into a mentally challenged psychopath. It's completely pathetic.<br /><br />There is only one reason really to watch this film, Yasmin Bleeth, although haven't we all seen her in a swimsuit before ? Don't bother even watching this waste of time, if you want a film about the world of beauty contest then watch "Drop Dead Gorgeous" instead, it's only an infinite number of times better.
|
negative
|
At initial thought, the concept of this show seemed to be a joke and a gag, just for Stan Lee's amusement. I expected nothing more than a sleazy, animated version of Barb Wire with low production values, much like those short pieces of crap you see on Adult Swim for short term amusement, but can never taken too seriously. Boy was I wrong!<br /><br />Stripperella has even better production values than similar Marvel Toons. The animation is very good and it seems that they've taken this series very seriously and given it a full effort to make it a professional production as possible.<br /><br />The humor is good too, on the sexy, suggestive and sleazy side. It is very similar if not exactly like the Simpsons style. You may encounter clichés and a lot of predictable humor but its still fun nevertheless. If this were running today, I'd surely see it regularly. Its surprisingly one of the better toons ever made.
|
positive
|
The only film I've ever walked out on. Amazing, since I paid for myself and my date and I'm really cheap. But my brain couldn't stand any more of the dreck being piled on, particularly since I could have written funnier material while tie up and gagged.<br /><br />From the beginning to the end this film offends. Worse, it ain't funny. It wasn't funny then, and it sure ain't funny now. But even worse, is that this film represents the beginning of the end of really smart, sophisticated comedy. It's juvenile, really sophomoric script and ideas began an era (which continues to this day) where cheap laughs, and sexual innuendo dominate the culture of comedy in film.<br /><br />Sexual Olympics? What High School kid hasn't thought of that? The beginning of the end.
|
negative
|
Watch this movie .....only to truly appreciate how good the original is. I'm not real hard to please, but this was one of the worst movies I have ever seen. <br /><br />It hurt me deeply, because I like Chevy Chase, Jackie Mason, and Dyan Cannon. The writing was just terrible! I thought Chevy would have at least ad libbed some better stuff than he did. There was hardly anything to laugh at in this movie. I went into it wanting to enjoy it. I wanted to laugh but nearly cried. <br /><br />In the beginning credits it read Special Appearance by Chevy Chase. This worried me from the start. Chevy is actually in more than I thought he would be. It's more than a "special appearance". Too bad the appearance wasn't special. Mason's character would have been a good secondary character but got old as a main. I would rather have seen more (much more)of Dyan Cannon. At least her character was fun, if not well written. I also missed the gratuatis teen sex scene. Mr. Gopher went from being cute and innocent to a pesky rodent that deserved to be blown up. Jonathan Silverman is the only character that interested me and we didn't see enough of him.<br /><br />I take it back. Try..to watch half of this movie, then...remember the Alamo, the Maine, and CaddyShack I.
|
negative
|
I tried to love this movie. I really did. Kevin Bacon plays a cerebral palsy victim who is befriended by a 10-year-old girl whose fantasies of digging to China, flying away in a balloon, and so on, are her way of coping with a dreary existence. I admit I did fast-forward through one of the scenes in which the two of them share friendship and simple pleasures while soulful piano music plays in the background. Okay, three or four of those type scenes. Maybe nine or ten. Okay, okay, it was fourteen. But I did sit and watch most of them.
|
negative
|
Jack Frost is Really a Cool Movie. I Mean....Its Funny. Its Violent. and Very Enjoyable. Most People Say that it Is B Rated, But That Couldn't be Farther from the truth. It has Great Special Effects and Good Acting. The Only Weird thing is of Course, The Killer Snowman. I Think this Movie was Actually one of The Best Films of the Late-Nineties. Most Films these Days lack the Criteria of A Clive Barker Master Piece. That is, Be Original and Give the Viewer What they Do not Expect. Jack Frost is Very Cool. 10 out of 10. Grade: A+. Ed Also Recommends The Movie Uncle Sam to Fans of Jack Frost.
|
positive
|
In the twilight years of his career, Charles Bronson forged long-running partnerships with several directors, most notably J. Lee Thompson and Michael Winner. He did two films for one-time Bond director Peter Hunt too - the first being the decent 1981 actioner Death Hunt, the second being this indifferent political chase thriller. Assassination is pretty dull if truth be known, and come the end you'll find yourself longing for something with a bit more passion and pace, like The Wilby Conspiracy for instance (which, plotwise, this film resembles).<br /><br /> Bronson sleepwalks through his role as bodyguard Jay Killian, whose assignment is to protect the American President's wife, Lara Royce Craig (Jill Ireland, real-life wife of Bronson). Killian believes that Mrs Craig has been targetted by assassins; she thinks he's an over-protective, paranoid pessimist. Turns out - surprise, surprise - that Killian was right all along and someone is indeed out to eradicate her. The pair of them go on the run, pursued by the assassins.<br /><br /> Everyone knows that the wife of an American President is known as The First Lady. For some reason, in this film they have renamed her "One Mama"! Quite what the point of this is is anybody's guess, but it's indicative of the film's pointlessness as a whole. Most of the film's performances are lazy, and the script takes a heck of a long time to get to where it's going. If I had to label Assassination within a specific genre, I'd say it is supposed to be a "thriller". I'd say that with some reservations, however, as to say that it's a thriller it has precious few thrills.
|
negative
|
I saw this movie with my girlfriend. It was a total disaster. You can really see it was cheaply made. Badly scripted and with very bad acting. I have read several versions of the book by different authors and also listened to one version on audio book. We couldn't take the movie seriously because of the lacking elements it should have contained. The experience of watching this was like The Blair Witch visits Green Acres. Then there were parts that were vulgar. They show this little boy using a bed pan and they actually show the contents of it. The witch throws the contents of it on the boy and the whole family laughs. I thought it was nasty and very strange. I really can't understand why someone would think that would be entertaining. It shows another scene where Dr. Mize arrives and Betsy Bell is urinating in her dress on the steps of their house in front of her mother and brothers. Instead of the mother leading her off it is the brother. How sick? The little boy in the first scene of the many scenes dealing with how your body disposes of wastes begs for toilet paper and goes to the out house and makes these sickening faces of joy with sound effects. I think they should have left all of that out. The makeup on the Reverend James Johnston as a older man didn't really make you assume he was older. It made you think he was dipped in fish batter. The blood on Joshua Gardner when he falls from the ladder is even worse. The John Bell death scene looks like they got out flour and tried to do something with it to make him look as a serious sick man. To me to much sickening comedy with bathroom problems and inexperienced people involved was the downfall of this picture. These people would do better if they film commercials for local TV Stations for bathroom products. They chose a good subject and were unable to produce it in a correct manner. I rate this film Capital F minus.
|
negative
|
The British claymation series putting "witty" conversations taped from "average" people in the mouths of "cute" fanciful creatures at least had the advantage for non-British viewers of seeming droll and the kind of rarefied cultured humor you couldn't get on U.S. television. Someone made the mistake of PUTTING it on U.S. television.<br /><br />Sort of like the sadly miscast American version of the sublime Brit-com COUPLING which died in a month on NBC when the same basic scripts didn't "translate" from British English to American English, what seemed droll and cultured (and just a BIT dull) in England, comes across in CREATURE COMFORTS, the American Version, as simply boredom with puppets. There's no through plot-line, no characters and after one and a half episodes watched (of the three ultimately aired), no reason to suffer through more.<br /><br />The only positive thing to be said about the new summer series and the mercifully brief run it had is that the claymation is at least professionally done and coming as a set-up for the single worst show on the CBS schedule, The New Adventures of Old Christine (or "how to be a HORRIBLE mother - or person - in one interminable, unfunny lesson"), kids who wanted to stay up past their bedtime happily ran to bed rather than sit through this show, and the adults could wait to tune in until 9pm when "Two and A Half Men" (guilty pleasure) and "How I Met Your Mother" (actual quality writing) come on.
|
negative
|
Caught this on IFC yesterday, and can't believe the positive reviews! Am I the only one who thought these "ladies" were anything but? Kate tells Jed she could get fired because she's supposed to be a pillar of the community, but puts out for him! Then they suddenly decide they're in love? And she's SO devastated over his death, she doesn't go to his funeral, much less, tell his family the "good news"! By the way, how did an American get to be the headmistress of a very proper British school? Janine should have been kicked off the force for her inexcusable abuse of power, but nothing happens! And she winds up boffing a con she brought in for questioning! And the less said about Molly, the better!<br /><br />As for the guilt Janine and Molly feel over Jed, please! It's the punk's own damn fault he got turned into roadkill! Where's the guilt over poor Gerald, who gets puked on? If only I could do the same to the bozos behind this "movie"!
|
negative
|
Kingdom County, Vermont, 1927. Noel Lord (Rip Torn) lives with his Indian mate, Bangor (Tantoo Cardinal) in the area where a large dam is to be built; Noel, however, is not willing to give up on his land, and he'll have to fight the dam company in order to prevent the County from any possible destruction.<br /><br />"Where the Rivers Flow North" is a gripping, contemplative story powered by the memorable performances of Rip Torn (recently seen in the small but juicy role of Louis XV in Sofia Coppola's underrated "Marie Antoinette") and Tantoo Cardinal ("Dances With Wolves", "Smoke Signals"). Director Jay Craven (who also co-wrote the script with Don Bredes, based on Howard Frank Mosher's novel) and cinematographer Paul Ryan crafted this powerful story with unique, contemplative pace/visuals, which remind me of Terrence Malick's and John Huston's best moments. It's an underrated independent period piece of the first (electric) half of the 90's, usually regarded as the rise of Quentin Tarantino's burlesque ("Pulp Fiction" is a masterpiece indeed, but the man suffers from Orson Welles' Syndrome), Todd Solondz's disturbing suburbia, Danny Boyle's dark vision of the UK (let's not mention that "Beach" flick with DiCaprio, though)... Jay Craven should be more regarded on the lists of great indie filmmakers as well. He's been leading a respectful, discreet career and it's always a pleasure to see a constant talent like his.<br /><br />My vote: 8/10.
|
positive
|
This movie is very good. The screenplay is enchanting. But Meryl Streep is most impressive. Her performance is excellent. She brings me to go into the heart of her role.
|
positive
|
WWII veterans return home and find it hard to adjust to civilian life. This superb drama is expertly directed by Wyler and beautifully filmed by famed cinematographer Toland. Despite its near three-hour length, it does not drag for a minute. The script by Sherwood features very human characters and great dialog. Andrews has perhaps his best role as a man struggling to make ends meet. Also good are Wright as a love-sick young woman, Mayo as Andrews' trampy wife, and real-life veteran Russell as a man who lost both his hands. However, top honors go to March and Loy as a long-married couple facing challenges while getting reacquainted with each other.
|
positive
|
Please, for the love of God, don't watch it. Now saying that, I know what you're thinking, it can't be that bad can it? If everyone says it as bad as they say, I have to watch it! Don't do it! It'll be like looking at a horrible accident involving little babies and a gasoline tanker! You'll be scarred for life...the image will never leave you! I could only watch a half hour of this before becoming violently sick. The acting is the worst I've ever seen, and I've seen Barbwire!!! If you do risk ripping your eyes out and rent this movie...don't say I haven't warned you! The cover and storyline are a trap!! Zombies? Satire? Shaun of the Dead was great! This movie must be the same....right? NO!! The writing = crap directing = garbage acting = there was no acting. Still not convinced? Then forever your soul will be tormented!!!
|
negative
|
I watched this film because I'm a big fan of River Phoenix and Joaquin Phoenix. I thought I would give their sister a try, Rain Phoenix. I regret checking it out. She was embarrasing and the film just has this weird plot if thats what you want to call it. Sissy was just weird and Jellybean just sits on a toilet who both sleep with this old man in the mountains, whats going on? I have never been so unsatisfied in my life. It was just total rubbish. I can't believe that the actors agreed to do such a waste of film, money, time and space. Have Sissy being 'beautiful' didnt get to me. I thought she was everything but that. Those thumbs were just stupid, and why do we care if she can hitchhike? WHATS THE POINT??? 0 out of 10, shame the poll doesnt have a 0, doesnt even deserve a 1. Hopefully, Rain is better in other films, I forgive her for this one performance, I mean I wouldnt do much better with that film.
|
negative
|
30 years after the original film, "Goodbye, Mr. Chips" was made over as a musical. Peter O'Toole and Petula Clarke starred in this wonderful remake of the beloved schoolteacher, Chippington, who is referred to as Chips by his beloved wife.<br /><br />O'Toole was excellent here and received another Oscar nomination. You have to wonder what Peter O'Toole has to do to win an Oscar. He has lost the coveted award 8 times now. You also have to wonder that he lost in 1969 to John Wayne for "True Grit," which was really a testament to Mr. Wayne's long career and popularity. This year was also marked by great performances by Richard Burton, "Anne of the Thousand Days," as well as Dustin Hoffman and Jon Voight for "Midnight Cowboy."<br /><br />Surprised to see Petula Clarke cast as Mrs. Chippington. However, as this was a musical, a beautiful voice came well through and she did a nice piece of acting as well.<br /><br />Who can forget the scene when Chips carries on in the class despite the news that his beloved has been killed in a bombing. He never got to tell her the wonderful news of his pending promotion.<br /><br />The beautiful cinematography and music only enhanced a truly memorable experience.
|
positive
|
I was told about this film from a friend who saw it late night during the week He told me it was so bad that I had to see it! So I went on an auction site and bought the film. This is probably the worst film I have EVER seen. It makes you laugh when it really shouldn't. Terrible acting and terrible storyline. Plus he looks nothing like Michael Jackson?!<br /><br />I still recommend buying this film as its one of the funniest things you will ever see. Van Peebles is a joke in this film.<br /><br />Robots cant bluff... PSYCHE!<br /><br />I have to say though the special effects are actually amazing... PSYCHE! DVDs were probably even out when this film came out but if I had my way it would be a straight to VHS release yes people it is THAT bad!
|
negative
|
This is an embarrassing nth rehashing of the same plot in the nth bunch-of-idiots-young-adult-in-peril-because-they-are-idiots slasher movie of the early millennium: this time we get the story of a crazy miner who comes back from the dead to retake his gold from the hands of the usurpers. We have almost no thrills, almost no bare flesh (even if the girls are really hot only one of them goes showing her bare ass for a few seconds), the usual bunch of sunset boulevard horror stars in cameo roles (this time Karen Black, Richard Lynch, John Philip Law, Jeff Conaway), lots of fake blood, only the crazy miner resurrected as a zombie is cool enough to leave you stuck - well not exactly - to the screen till the end. Don't waste your time if you are not a completist.
|
negative
|
At 20 years old, Francis Ouimet (Shia Lebouf) as his whole life ahead of him - in a way. The son of an immigrant family living in the late-19th to early-20th Century-era United States, class was a very limiting fact of life. If one is born poor, one stays poor; if one is born into the bourgeoisie, one has a tiny bit of opportunity; if one is born into the wealthy class, they essentially have it made in the shade. British gold champion Harry Vardon and Francis' golf idol (played by the criminally underrated Stephen Dillane) is the exception that proves the rule. Born and raised in a poor British family, his accomplished skill at golf allowed him to rise from the dirty mess of the poorest slums to the lush greens of the English country clubs. He has not forgotten this life lesson. Francis wishes to follow in Vardon's footsteps and similarly uses his great skill at golf to get into the 1913 US Open at age 20. But a tough course and formidable opponents (including Francis' idol Harry Vardon) are not all that Francis must deal with as a less-than-understanding father and cruel societal framework stand in his way of living his own dream.<br /><br />I know what you are thinking - I thought it too - a Walt Disney produced film about the 1913 US Open starring the irritable Shia LaBeouf holds the possibility of being entertaining but it cannot possibly be a great film. Well, I am here to encourage you to think again. Despite what it may look to some on paper, The Greatest Game Ever Played is one of the best sport films in creation.<br /><br />As with every great sport film, The Greatest Game Ever Played includes many exciting sport scenes but it is not a film *about* golf - it is a character centered film about using one's talents, following one's dreams, and breaking out of class barriers. Where The Greatest Game Ever Played works excellently as a themed sport film it also works just as well as a period film - the film's featured costumes and sets being the next best thing to actual time travel. The film also simply *looks* great and virtually unknown music composer Brian Tyler set the film to a wonderful piece of music. The cast is great as well with a subtle but powerful Stephen Dillane as British golfing champion Harry Vardon, a hilarious Stephen Marcus as man's man golfer Ted Ray, a hammy Josh Flitter as Francis' pre-teenaged caddy Eddie, and a surprisingly good Shia LaBeouf in the lead role as Francis. Actor Bill Paxton (Apollo 13, Titanic) turns director here for the second time (directing a full-length feature) in The Greatest Game Ever Played. He produces a fine product - incorporating plenty of heart, ingenuity, and an attention to detail in the making of the film.
|
positive
|
and I still don't know where the hell this movie is going? I mean really, what is this movie about? Is it about demonstrating Sean Connery's complete lack of Arabic? Is it about showing that if he could play the role of a Moroccan warlord then he was a natural to play the role of Ramirez in highlander? Why was Teddy Roosevelt even in this movie? Why was there so much sand that was put to so little use? Where was there so much table slapping? Why did Teddy ignore the Japanese guy who he was shooting archery with? Did he realize the man was Japanese? Why was no no credible excuse given for Connery's accent? At least Jean Claude Van Damme has an excuse for his French accent, whether it be being raised by French nuns in Hong Kong (Double Impact), being raised on the bayou in Louisiana (Universal Soldier), or having a French mother and being raised in Indochina (I cannot even remember the name of that movie)? Can anyone explain this?
|
negative
|
A chilling and gory tale of a couple inheriting a 150 room Italian castle while still grieving the loss of their young son. The couples marriage seems to be on the rocks due to the car accident that took the life of their son and left their daughter blind. Upon taking inventory of the castle for a future sale a hideous, tortured and misshapen creature breaks lose from the bowels of the 12th century castle. Pretty gory with great horror atmosphere and some sexual overtones. Starring Jeffrey Combs, Barbara Crampton, Jessica Dollarhide and Elisabeth Kaza .
|
negative
|
This film should have been fun. A young Lea Thompson, a young Joaquin Phoenix... and Terry O'Quinn. In space. But it dragged on, had unlovable characters and had no target audience.<br /><br />Some kids go to a space camp and are accidentally launched into space by a robot friend of theirs (named, appropriately, Jinx). The space scenes are then long, repetitive (the same accident happens twice) and either cheesy or frightening depending on your point of view. Adults will be bored and cheesed out, kids might be scared as the way this was filmed really leaves an eerie sense about it.<br /><br />There is a budding romance, but unlike the shuttle -- this never takes off. Why it is included in the first place is unclear, except maybe to add extra tension between the characters - but it failed if that was the idea.<br /><br />A young Lea Thompson should be quirky and attractive, right? I mean, "Back to the Future" is great. But no, she was irritating and average-looking. Not someone you'd want to date, have as a friend or even consider as a role model. Joaquin Phoenix? He's really lucky he ever appeared in movies again this performance. Maybe he can act like Mikey in the Life Cereal commercials, but he doesn't seem to know how to be a normal boy. He doesn't fit in on screen and I don't think we can identify with him at home. I actually would have been happier if he had never returned to Earth.<br /><br />I don't recommend this film to anyone.
|
negative
|
A very weak movie, mainly because of a poor story, but also poor acting in the case of Robert Downey Jr., and irrational behaviour by many of the characters. If you are someone who likes to switch your mind off and simply watch a movie for it's creativity or acting criteria, then you may like this movie. Personally I can't do that with a drama and found this too far-fetched.<br /><br />I'm particularly annoyed when a main character, that is supposed to be an intelligent person, continually acts like a complete imbecile. In this movie, if the main character acted the way a person would normally act in these situations, there would be no movie.<br /><br />The first highly unlikely act is when the main character, a successful attorney named Magruder, played by Kenneth Branagh, is leaving a party and happens upon a girl, Mallory Doss played by Embeth Davidtz, who is screaming that her car has been stolen. They are standing around in a tropical rainstorm as he badgers her into accepting a ride home.<br /><br />She tells him about her weird father who belongs to some kind of weird sect and does crazy things. When they arrive at her dilapidated shack in the poorer part of town, they notice that her car is in the driveway. Also the house lights are on and some objects in the house have been broken.<br /><br />Things are very odd, she's weird (looking like a tramp, she undresses in front of him until she's completely naked
oh yeah!). Also, the father's strange, the house is a wreck -- everything should have told Magruder, "hey this is too weird for me, I'm out of here!' But not Magruder, he sleeps with her and then, motivated by her story and sex, takes up the case of trying to have her father committed. It all screams set-up!<br /><br />Then, being the top-flight attorney that he is, he arrives late at the office wearing the same shirt he had on the night before, (a fact that all of the women in the office notice). Is it likely that a successful attorney would act like a 16-year-old? Magruder has upset the police in some of his cases so when he goes to the police claiming, with ample evidence, that the father is terrorising them, the police ignore him. I could have believed begrudging assistance. But no help at all -- not likely!<br /><br />It's just too unlikely.
|
negative
|
I vowed some time ago to never get another Joe Castro film (perhaps after "Near Death") but I sort of ended up with this one by accident, since it was a Troma release & I didn't read the cover carefully. Oops. Well, I watched it, and it's by no means good, but it's, I guess, sort of "tongue in cheek"....if it's not, it sure seemed that way. Some intrepid folks from the University of the Rio Grande set out to find if the Chupacabra exists, because of surveillance camera footage from someone's GOAT BARN that shows this weird thing hopping across the field of vision. And also because the person that this thing supposedly killed was the uncle of the leader of the expedition. There's a couple of camera men, one of whom whines the whole time, and there some ex-Marine named "Army" (?!), who is some kind of munitions expert or something. At any rate, the do find the Chupacabra on some guy's ranch & set out to find it, getting involved with two supposed witches along the way. The creature itself is rather ridiculous-looking, with spines on its back & a great big long tongue that Gene Simmons would die for. Eventually, after a bunch of folks done get killed, so does the Chupacabra, and they take it back to the university for an autopsy. So, is it from another planet? Is it a genetic creation from some lab in Puerto Rico? Uh, they don't tell us, really. Not exactly intriguing but not quite terrible either. Definitely not a wide audience for this one. 4 out of 10.
|
negative
|
S l o w, l o n g, d u l l. . .<br /><br />Oh my god, dull. <br /><br />Characters so annoying - you'll cringe every time you see Jimy Smits, or the guy that played tomtom from now on. They must have never rehearsed or reviewed the film in progress. Mel Gibson was absolutely wooden.<br /><br />This may not be the worst movie ever made, but that it went almost straight to video says it is darn close.<br /><br />
|
negative
|
I wasn`t expecting much with HARLEM NIGHTS but I wasn`t expecting it to be as bad as it was . Without doubt the worst aspect is the obscene language , it really is awful the amount there is in this film and before anyone accuses me of being a wimp let me point out two things...<br /><br />1 ) Amongst my fave films I would include GOODFELLAHS , PLATOON , RAGING BULL while my favourite movie of all time is APOCALYPSE NOW<br /><br />2 ) My all time favourite American television show is the HBO prison drama OZ <br /><br />so you see films and television shows with massive amounts of swearing don`t normally bother me but the problem I had with HARLEM NIGHTS is to do with the fact it`s supposed to be a comedy but it seems the production team came to the conclusion that an audience laugh everytime someone ( Especially if that someone is black ) says a rude word and decided to subsitute funny situations with swearing all the way through the film hoping to get a laugh. Well I thought I`d never start laughing and I didn`t
|
negative
|
The problem with TV today is that people have been spoiled by "lite" TV viewing. This type of television show is the equivalent of elevator music or "easy listening" jazz. The typical viewers idea of "continuity" is remembering who got voted off the island last week and wondering who will be the next to go. Show them a program like surface, Firefly, Dr. Who, or anything with a plot arc of more than three episodes and...well, they'll just flip back to Survivor.<br /><br />95% of the sheep watching TV don't want to rack their brains. They want excuses to not think. They want to make sure the "boob tube" lives up to its name...and they don't want shows that try and go any other route. Because of this, Surface and many other high-quality shows that should have lasted far longer have gotten the axe.<br /><br />TV viewers don't want stories, or morals, or philosophy, or anything over a third grade vocabulary level. They want people eating earthworms, or over-dramatized "real life" series (no such thing! You cannot observe something without changing the very nature of what you observe) or hormonal shows involving groups of people having trysts and then bragging about it to their friends.<br /><br />Today's television is nothing but a wasteland, and the few diamonds you can pick out of the dust are just tossed out because no one even knows what a diamond is anymore. Surface was one of those diamonds.
|
positive
|
This is one of the better comedies that has ever been on television. Season one was hilarious as were most of the following seasons. The only reason that I give this show a 9/10 is because of the unfortunate final season. The only good part of the final season was the finale. My favorite part of this show was the scenes that cut to people's imaginations, often depicting the characters in famous TV shows or movies from the 70's. It is a rare show in that i liked every character (with the exception of the final season...too late to try to develop a new character and fez wasn't nearly as funny). Red's foot in your ass comments never got old, nor did Kelso's stupidity. Bravo to fox for keeping such a good show so long, too long even.
|
positive
|
I'll give it a two for Denis Leary. He had some good lines, but that's it. What was the point? Where was the script? Who was supposed to act? A movie needs more than this one has to offer. Save the hour and a half to watch your hair grow, or fall out, whatever the case.
|
negative
|
There aren't too many times when I see a film and go, "huh, what?", but this was one of them. Maybe after seeing Zabriskie Point I felt much the same way Woody Allen felt after seeing 2001- he only liked the film after seeing it three times over a two year period, realizing the filmmaker was ahead of him in what was going on. Michelangelo Antonioni, in one of his few tries at making films inside of the US (after Red Desert, he did Blow-Up, this film, China, and The Passenger, all filmed outside his native Italy), I could sense he almost tried to learn about the ways of the country through his own mastery of the medium. The results show that he doesn't lack the means to present images, feelings, tones, colors, sounds, and a visual representation of this era. "A director's job is to see", Antonioni once stated. Whatever that means, he doesn't disappoint for the admirer of his post-fifties work (I say post-fifties since I've yet to see any of his films from before L'Avventura).<br /><br />What he does lack is a point, at least the kind of point that he could bring in Blow-Up and The Eclipse. You get the feeling of what is around these characters, what the themes are bringing forth to their consciousness, however in this case the characters and the actors don't bring much conviction or purpose. Antonioni, coming from the school of hard-knocks, neo-realistic film-making, does do what he can with his mostly non-professional cast (those who look most like real actors are subjugated to the roles of the corporate characters), but the two stars Mark Frechette and Daria Halprin seem as if Antonioni's under-directing them. Perhaps that was the point. The story's split into three acts, thankfully not too confusing, as Mark escapes his existence around the boiling, dangerous campus life going on in the circa late 60's LA area, and Daria is sent out from LA to drive to Phoenix for some business meeting. They meet by chance as Mark's plane (how does he know how to drive, maybe a little background info there?) and Daria's car meet up, and they spend some time together in an existential kind of groove out in the desert. Aside from a stylistically mesmerizing if bizarre sex scene, much of this act isn't terribly interesting. <br /><br />The two leads are fair enough to look at, but what exactly draws them to each other outside of curiosity? The ideas that come forth (in part from a screenplay co-written by Sam Shepard) aren't too revealing, except for one brief instant where drugs vs. reality is brought up. Then the film heads towards the third act, as Mark decides to do the right thing, under disastrous circumstances, and Daria arrives at her boss' place, only to be in full disillusionment (not taking into account the infamous last five minutes or so of the film). Although the film took its time telling its story, I didn't have as much of a problem with that as I did that the story only engages a certain kind of viewer. I understand and empathize with the feelings and doubts and fears as well as the self-confidence of the "anti-establishment", but maybe Antonioni isn't entirely fully aware of it himself. In some scenes he as director and editor (and the often astounding cinematography by Alfio Contini) find the scenery and backgrounds more enlightening and fixating than the people in the foreground. Not to say the technical side of Zabriskie Point isn't involving to a degree (this may make some feel drowsy, as Antonioni is probably far greater as a documentary filmmaker as he is a theatrical director like say Francis Ford Coppola is). <br /><br />The deserts, skies, city, and even the faces in close-ups are filmed with the eye of a filmmaker in love with the art of getting things in the frame, bringing us in. The soundtrack is equally compelling, with a master stroke including a sweet Rolling Stones song at one point, and then a crushing, surreal Pink Floyd song (re-titled from 'Careful with that Axe Eugene, one of their best pre-Dark Side) in the explosion sequence. If only the performances weren't so one-sided I might find this to be on par with Blow-Up or The Eclipse. It's an unconventional stroke of genius on one hand, and on the other a boring take on what was the hippie/radical movement of the late 60's. But hey, what may be boring for an American such as myself born in the eighties may not be to others outside the US, such as say, Italy. And it does ask to not be discarded right away after one viewing.
|
positive
|
I bought this movie hoping that it would be another great killer toy movie. I am a big fan of the Child's Play series and was hoping to see the same here. Boy, was I wrong. Most of the movie was not the least bit scary, plus the only time we really see Pinocchio "alive" is the final few scenes of the film. The little girl in the film, her acting is so bad it's almost laughable. Plus, the ending never showed what happened to the puppet or what made them put the little girl in a asylum or wherever she was at the end of the film. So, in my opinion this movie is the worst of the "killer toy" genre. If you want a good killer toy series, stick with the Child's Play franchise. Pinocchio's Revenge is a waste of money and time.
|
negative
|
Do you get it? Like the car. These are the jokes, folks. Softcore Beach Blanket Bingo with aliens answers many of life's important question. What do the relatives of celebrities do for some cash? How does a hot tan alien wash herself? How much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood? Well, maybe not that one. Linnea Quigley, member of the Softcore hall of fame, provides some comic relief. Nikki Fritz, also a member, show her talents. Sarah Bellomo is not as bad as you might expect from a porn star. This is not erotic, except the shower scene, and not funny enough to make up for the rotten plot. The sequel has a couple of pleasant scenes as well with Miss Bellomo.<br /><br />P.S. The title is a good example of alliteration.
|
negative
|
On the pure theatrical side, Last Stand was great, as the reenactments and soundtrack are very entertaining, but there are better accounts of this battle found elsewhere that, while not as long or as flashy, are far more historically comprehensive.<br /><br />Certain little details, such as the misuse of the word "hoplon" for the Greek hoplite shield and the mispronounciations of various names and words, really ate at me.<br /><br />My guess would be, that because "Last Stand of the 300" was aired the eve of the theatrical release of "300", the History Channel was only trying to ride the coattails of the movie's hype.<br /><br />If you're looking for a depiction that's historically accurate in all respects possible, you'd have better luck elsewhere.
|
negative
|
A woman and her aunt go to Scotland to locate her evasive fiancé. This is a much-maligned film because of its denouement, but up to that point, it's interesting, well-acted, eerie, and with fine set design (by William Cameron Menzies, developed for 3-D projection). Veronica Hurst is captivating and genteel, sort of a chic British Marilyn Monroe, still in love with Richard Carlson, who is hiding a family secret in his forbidding castle; there are even bats in the belfry! It moves leisurely until the final extraordinary set-piece, when Hurst and her aunt (Katherine Emery, also the narrator), sneak out of the castle in the night to venture into the maze and find what they're looking for in its center. As a kid, I always remembered this sequence - there's nothing scarier (or claustrophobic) than not finding your way out of a 10-foot high maze of hedges. Naturally, the two women get separated, setting the stage for engrossing suspense with horrific music. The final result is mildly disappointing really, since Carlson's epilogue at the end makes some sense to all the goings-on, even provoking sympathy. Worth seeing.
|
positive
|
Gene Hackman gets himself busted out of prison by a nameless government agency who want him for an assassination. It's a given of course that Hackman has the proficient skills for the job.<br /><br />Nobody tells him anything though, he's given as the audience is given bits and pieces of information. That's supposed to be suspenseful, instead it's annoying and boring. <br /><br />Hackman goes through with the mission, but the getaway is messed up and the guy at the top of this mysterious entity orders everybody dead to cover it up. So everyone in the cast dies and at the end you don't really care.<br /><br />One of the other reviewers pointed out that the film was originally twice as long, almost three hours and got chopped down quite a bit. Maybe something really was lost in the translation, but I tend to think it was a mercy act on the audience.<br /><br />A very talented cast that had people like Richard Widmark, Candice Bergen, Mickey Rooney, Eli Wallach, and Edward Albert is so thoroughly wasted here it's a crime. <br /><br />And we never do find out just what federal agency was doing all this, the FBI, the CIA, the DEA or even the IRS.
|
negative
|
This show demonstrates the depths to which UK TV pre-watershed drama has sunk. With these dull scripts, mediocre acting, poor plots, awful dialog, one is forced to watch a DVD of any old ER episode to see excellent hospital drama.<br /><br />None of the actors employed on this show seem to be able to actually act!<br /><br />If you want low quality but easy to absorb soap opera style TV, this is the show for you. Personally I like something with more meat on the bone. Sadly as with all other UK licence payers, I'm funding this dross.
|
negative
|
I watched this film on ITV and I enjoyed it a lot. It was very watchable and very funny. Julie Walters and Rupert Grint were perfect in their roles. Julie Walters gets a special mention since she creates a wonderful diverse interesting character to watch. Ben's character is kinda shy and Stoic but the changes he goes through are wonderfully acted out by Rupert Grint, I would definitely say he has a future in acting after Harry Potter.<br /><br />Laura Linney is quite good in her role as Ben's over protective mother, the only thing they went wrong with is by making her too....Villain-y. Ben's father was also an interesting contrast to his mother, and in the end he is quite honourable too. The only character i wasn't keen on was Bryony, she was a bit plain and unnecessary i thought.<br /><br />Overall this is a great comedy drama that is very easy to watch. one of my favourite films of the year easily.
|
positive
|
This was one of the worst movies I have ever seen. Branaugh seemed to have so much trouble remembering his accent that he couldn't deliver his lines. The plot was definitely not worthy of John Grisham's name. No wonder it was never published as a book or released in theaters. I didn't even watch the whole thing. I decided I didn't care who done it, then realized there was no "whodunit" to care about!
|
negative
|
Do yourself a favor and stay away from this film. Minus 50 billion out of 10. If you want hard boiled action don`t rent it! If you want a good independent film look elsewhere!<br /><br />I never thought i`d see Burt Reynolds in such a crappy movie. It has the thinnest plot-line ever. Van Damm flicks should win an Academy compared to this one.<br /><br />Rob Lowe once again prove why he is not the hottest actor in the world. Even Hasselhoff would have made a better drug addict than him. I do not want to bore you with more facts about this crappy movie, except to say that you are better off renting anything by Hulk Hogan or Dolph Lundgreen. This should prove my point, if you get my drift.<br /><br />
|
negative
|
For every series that makes it to television, a 100 ideas are formed, 50 scripts are written, 15 pilots are made, and one, just one, actually makes it to production. From such a selection process, we are lead to believe that the final product must be the cream of the crop, for what other reason could so many ideas be rejected to give us a single television series.<br /><br />And so it goes with True Blood; all the stars were in alignment and what started as a series of novels was transformed into an idea, a screen play, a pilot, and finally a series. Unfortunately, it can sometimes be a long journey and along the way there are many turns that ultimately change what was good and pure into and show that production people feel would be best for ratings. Oh how wrong they so often are...<br /><br />True Blood is an example of a creative concept that has developed into one of the poorest story lines, worst acting, and silliest subplots as anything in recent television history. Its international cast of relatively unknown actors struggle to find their voices but keep tripping over their fake southern accents. Alan Ball's not so secret desires for Ryan (Jason Stackhouse) gives us a fresh nude shot each week although it often has nothing to do with the storyline. Tara's angry black woman characterization fails to connect and you find yourself secretly hoping the vamps take her out quickly before she goes into another speech about white suppression while attend a ceremony for the Glorious Dead of the Confedercy. Sam finds suppressed love for Sookie and suddenly we are to believe he needs to watch over her morning, noon, and night despite years of working with her and avoiding any such relationship.<br /><br />As for Bill the Vampire, his moral high ground is quickly surrendered at the first chance to make love with Sookie and has no issue with make a quick snack of her (although she remains somewhat unharmed). We find the other vampires not so mainstream as Bill but greatly desiring to become accepted by a public as they look at the living as Happy Meals with legs.<br /><br />Despite my best efforts of suffering through the first six episodes, I have come to the realization that no matter how long you watch a bad show, its still bad. Somethings die for a reason, even vampires. Maybe this show should to.
|
negative
|
Finally got to see this movie last weekend. What a disappointment..it barely reaches "made for TV" level. Given the list of actors, I would have expected something substantially more sophisticated. The movie lacks a good story, well, actually any story for that matter. It has no credibility, instead lots of predictability. Save yourself the money and the time.
|
negative
|
The dead spots and picture-postcard superficiality of "Out of Africa" just about buried any interest I might have had to read Isak Dinesen. So when my brother bought me "Babette's Feast," and knowing it was based on a Dinesen story, I didn't exactly race to the VCR. But as the titles rolled, it became clear that this was no ordinary movie. Jutland (where it's set) is not Africa; the chill mist that collects on the camera shots is not inviting. The cold, forbidding sea; the heavy, gray clouds; the pale, icy green cliffs--translate to hardships that show on the faces over which director Gabriel Axel draws the curtain. The craggiest is Bodil Kjer's as Philippa; amid the myriad merits of this movie, the most memorable is that face. It stands like a map laying before us the cherished wonder of her minister father's apostolate; like a maze of long-overlooked fjords where the complications of her congregation's perseverance and commitment hang like gleaming escutcheons.<br /><br />I gather it's Dinesen's point how the world is drawn inexplicably to Christian dedication, when Philippa is rejected by her only serious suitor (because he fears he'll never measure up to the rules and rigors of her small religious clique), and he returns to find her mistress of whom he regards as the greatest chef on the continent. I figure it's also her point that Christ answers the doubts and regrets of those who give up worldly success (Philippa's sister Martina rebuffs efforts by a visiting baritone (Jean-Philippe Lafont whose jolliness creates an uplifting counterpoint to the sparsity of spirit that surrounds his discovery) to turn her into an opera star; the title character leaves France and an enviable reputation and seeks sanctuary as the servant of two spinster sisters) to pursue artistic triumphs for only God and those closest to Him to witness. But it's Axel who weaves the asperity of these people's lives with the richness of Martina's voice and Babette Hersant's table and effects a sumptuousness you'd never expect from a movie about sacrifice, faith, and religious conviction.<br /><br />What sets this movie apart from other religious movies is its sly humor. "Babette's Feast," that is, the banquet itself--a posthumous commemoration of the minister's 100th birthday--is a beautifully orchestrated clash of sensibilities that delivers comic moments by an ensemble of actors that are unparalleled in their subtlety. It's just this deft comedy that enriches the solemn sentiments at closing. Together they do something pious movies seldom do. They leave a believer tremulously hopeful and unexpectedly resolute and humbled.
|
positive
|
The only reason anyone remembers this steaming load of fecal matter is because it was scored by Pink Floyd. (Or as they were known then, "The Pink Floyd".) Stefan, a really annoying Eurotrash hitchhiker, hooks up with American model Estelle and they proceed to get high and naked throughout the whole movie...<br /><br />And the point of this is, what exactly? That drugs are bad? Or only heroin (horse) is? The problem becomes that you don't give a crap about the characters, and for that matter, even Pink Floyd wasn't up to their best work. When Steffan overdoses at the end, you are almost glad to be rid of him because he was so annoying.
|
negative
|
A fascinating look at the relationship of a single father in 1998 and a single mother in 1881, tied together by a time-traveling teenager. Reminded me of "Somewhere In Time," Richard Matheson's "Bid Time Return," as rendered by Christopher Reeves and Jane Seymour.
|
positive
|
*****I reveal two 'twists' at the end of the film. Do not read if you want to watch this movie for some reason*****<br /><br />Oh my, this is bad. And for some reason, Sean Bean, one of the greatest present day actors, has sold his soul and appears in it. The only consolation is that the scriptwriters must have realised that someone as ultimately pathetic as Steve Guttenberg could never in his life aspire to kill someone as cool as Sean Bean. Instead, he is killed in what must have seemed like a marvellous twist at the end, by the good guy who was meant to be be killed by Bean, but was actually his boss and faked his own death. Don't worry. I haven't ruined anything for you. The acting itself is spectacularly apalling, with Guttenberg's patented "Hey-look-I-can-pull-a-Chuck-Norris-face" hard man stare dominating most of the two hours of hell on earth. Added to a plot that I could have written whilst being tortured and hung upside down with both hands cut off, there is also a completely nonsensical critical error in the fact that one moment the virus will escape if they so much as look at it wrong, while another moment, Steve Guttenberg is bravely running around with it, throwing, catching bashing and generally abusing this 'virus' which has the distinct look of a collection of those little balls of soap you put in your bath. My final word? If you are suicidally depressed and feel like you want to laugh manically at something that should be a bad comedy but even worse isn't, tape it next time it's on channel 5 at midnight, then burn it when you realise that I am indeed telling the truth.
|
negative
|
When you go at an open air cinema under the Greek summer night you usually don't care what the movie is! Edison started really good with some good effort from the singers-who-want-to-be actors and a once again great Morgan Freeman but... (In a movie there is usually a good start to catch audience,done, a bit boring yet story filling middle of the movie that is more about characters and less about action ,done, and the third part is something really good so that you can remember the movie...) when you see 30 elite police officers (packed with weapons that can demolish a building) shoot at a guy behind a car, fail to hit him even once while he kills all (but 3) and then the guy takes out a flame thrower (to kill the rest 3) ,you realise that the Greek summer sky filled with stars is way too good to be distracted by a movie like this!
|
negative
|
The filmmakers try to paint the influence of the Mondovis and Robert Parker as a travesty on par with the German occupation of France and the reign of Fascism. But they never find a victim in this film. We hear wine makers, critics and distributors bemoan that while the wine industry grows it becomes increasingly homogeneous. But the film never makes a case that this has resulted in the loss of any good wine or exploitation of any person or culture other than naive Wine Spectator readers with lots of cash. If they want to pay hundreds of dollars for a dull wine, so be it.<br /><br />If this were a film about the diamond trade, where the DeBeers corporation's market domination results in human suffering, the muckraking style might have been appropriate. But as it is it just comes off as anti-American, anti-modernization and anti-capitalist. Had the filmmakers been around in the 1870s they most likely would have protested the grafting of American vines in the effort to save French wine.
|
negative
|
As I watched this movie, and I began to see its' characters develop I could feel this would be an excellent picture. When you get that feeling, and the movie indeed fills those expectations the experience is rare. I had that very feeling throughout this movie. Robert DeNiro and Cuba Gooding Junior played riveting and amazingly strong parts which were both Oscar worthy. The supporting cast was equally as strong creating a winning foundation for the picture to grow on. I can say without any hesitation at all, see this movie it will not disappoint.
|
positive
|
This movie is really bad. The hero can't play. You see too much that he learned his walking moves by heart. And believe me, he walks a lot. For 45 min, nothing happens. He only walks to places and gets out..... Like if the story was so short that they had to extend it by adding useless and boring "looks-like-a-suspens" scenes.<br /><br />Dialogues are very poor. I counted around a lots of "hello's" and few "hang on" on the 1st part.<br /><br />Blood is orange like the Mercurochrome you put on kid's blisters. And scenes are not following themselves. A bloody neck on a scene, a clean neck on the following.<br /><br />The story could have been improved. Yeah I mean what the hell is the story? <br /><br />Martial arts? Where? Is that martial arts? Watch how hesitant and slow are the moves!!!!! If giving a kick and receiving a punch is called martial arts, then I am Bruce Lee!!!!<br /><br />The only good point I have found is on fight scenes : They don't play with zoom and fast switching scenes that gives you headache in most of action movies.<br /><br />There are plenty of low budget movies that are great. That one was just to make money. Nothing else.
|
negative
|
...and I Bought A Vampire Motorcycle staggers all over that line like a drunk with his shoelaces tied together. Some 'bad' films are quite enjoyable (like Norman J.Warren's Inseminoid), some 'bad' films are just bad (like Kent Bateman's Headless Eyes), but 'bad' films that try and do the post-modernist thing of being knowingly bad should always be approached with extreme caution. A lot of people think Troma's Terror Firmer is a bad-taste masterpiece, for example, but I'm guessing anyone over the age of nineteen will shrug it off as worthless dreck. Then there's John Carpenter's Dark Star. Yes, it's quaint, and certainly a product of its time, but as a film it's only two notches above worthless. This no-budget British black comedy-horror outing tries to achieve a satirical tone, with its endless references to its fellow shoestring splatter flicks (among them Psychomania, Horror Hospital and pretty much anything by Pete Walker), but due to dismal performances by second-string TV actors (the leading lady looks like Amy Winehouse), a script that appears to have been written on the back of a peeled beermat by two 'lads' with no understanding of how film comedy works, Dean Friedman's (intentionally?) dire elevator-rock soundtrack and production values never rising above mediocre, the net result is a film that can only be laughed AT, rather than WITH. If your idea of whoopee is anthropomorphic turds, Chinese takeaways called Fu King and references to long-forgotten TV ads, you'll enjoy this one, but don't expect too much.
|
negative
|
As their entire career was a pale impersonation of The Beatles, it is no surprise that, shortly after the great fiasco of the Beatles "Magical Mystery Tour," the Monkees would follow up with their own insipid and creative morass of a movie, called "Head." Both movies are not so much a true story with a plot (though MMT attempted to define a plot) as they are a hodge-podge of skits and snippets, interspersed with music and songs and out-takes.<br /><br />"Head" has no plot, other than the pre-fab-four trying to break free of "the box" they are in (i.e. the type-casting of being "Monkees" and the surrounding commercialism) and yet, always finding themselves back in the box. Most skits involve breaks in the "fourth wall" and crossing over into other, seemingly unrelated scenes. Filled with anti-Vietnam war messages and attempts by the group to show their other talents, the film bounces around haphazardly- also to be blamed on the multiple directors.<br /><br />The film, like Magical Mystery Tour, is now excused by some fans as "wonderful symbolism and misunderstood artistic statements." Phooey. Like MMT, it is too many guys with access to too many drugs all trying to make something artsy and making crap.<br /><br />Like MMT, "Head" has some clever moments and offers some relatively unknown Monkees songs that are quite decent. It does develop a bit more charm than MMT and is a bit easier to sit through, but it is not ironic at all that, like everything else the Monkees did, this was just a mimicry of something the Beatles did first... even when it comes to laying an egg.
|
negative
|
Lil Bush is a 30 minute cartoon show comprised of 2 15 minutes episodes shown on Comedy Central. It takes place in a fictional, cartoonish Washington D.C., and centers around the satirical, childish representations of George W. Bush, Condoleeza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheyney. Other politicians are also satirized in the same manner, and act as minor characters.<br /><br />The pilot of little Bush, much to this commentator's expectations, proved to be a rather shallow and esoteric production, which barely delivers on its featured promise: a satirical look at the current presidential administration. While one must admit that premise of the show does have SOME merit, even though it would be hard to imagine a show based almost completely of the denigration of a single political persona would survive to continue to produce episodes after his term of office expired, execution that can only be described as sloppy at best, and downright awful at worst, has marred what little potential the show had.<br /><br />Lil Bush, which may be technically classified as "satire", tends to disregard its actual use of the particular tool of comedy in order to lambaste its targets in exceptionally vulgar (but not particularly original, entertaining, or funny) ways. The show's consistently weak writing often consists of little more than recording Bush/Cheney jokes heard elsewhere ad nauseam and placing them all in a single 30 minute block of television. As such, most of the jokes that presented by the writers were shameless clichés, some of which that been in public circulation for more than 6 years already. Comparing the Vice President to Darth Vader, for example, may have been funny in the first 300 times one has heard it on the Daily Show/Colbert Report/Letterman/Conan O'Brien/Leno monologue/any late-night-talk-show-ever, but it is not funny here. As if that were not enough, the show's plots seem to exist simply as a means to advance the same old, tiresome Bush jokes that the writers have made the center of the program.<br /><br />In the show's defense, when the writers dare to write in a truly original joke (which seems to be a rarity) it is often somewhat humorous. If the show were to expand its depth somewhat, and place its characters into new situations, exotic situations, rather than the same old mistakes and "quagmires" perpetuated by the Bush administration, therefore not having to rely on the same old Bush jokes over and over again, the show might be considered somewhat tolerable, and possibly even innovative.<br /><br />Ultimately, it is difficult to ascertain which shortcoming causes the Lil Bush series the most damage; its clear lack of originality and weak writing quality, or its painfully narrow minded ambitions. It is reasonable to expect that Lil Bush will be able to maintain a small base of left wing fans, that is, if they are able to endure the exceptionally poor writing; so long as the program continues to lampoon the Bush administration thoroughly. Even so, the majority of viewers will soon recognize the program for what it really is, a weak and pointlessly vulgar attempt at satire, and tune out in search of something more intellectually stimulation; The Price is Right, perhaps.
|
negative
|
Well acted, yes. Very well, I must say, even though I don't speak Chezck. Nice cinematography. But the script is lame, really lame. A predictable soap opera, in which you know exactly everything that is going to happen. OK, maybe the ending isn't as predictable, but is it any good? It is one of those films that you have the feeling that have seen already, and forget about the day after.<br /><br />I just got a note from IMDb saying that my comment was not long enough. That's really sad, because I have no idea of what else to say about this movie, which actually says a a lot about it, don't you think? The thing is.. .It has no soul and no originality. Compare this movie with Barrio, or Riff Raff, shot more than ten years ago (or the extraordinary recently shot The Child). It's sad to see that this is a much worse film.
|
negative
|
One word for it. Hilarious. I haven't watched at movie like this in a long time. At points in the movie, I totally forgot it was a movie, I just felt like I was back watching Viva La Bam, or even watching say, my own friend going through something like this. It was realistic and I liked how Bam, Ryan, Raab, Rake, and Brandon and the rest of the guys didn't try to hard too actually act. They, to me, were just acting like their famous idiot selves. There were a few scenes that I adored more than others, like Raab in the shower, holy, I laughed so hard. He honestly was probably my favourite character besides Bam's. He really, in my opinion, made the movie just a bit more hilarious. It's basically a must see for any fans of the CKY crew:]
|
positive
|
Set in a post apocalyptic future, the new highlander is an effeminate little twerp named Quentin MacLeod, who is being mentored by a new Ramirez while his little sister tags along on their quest to thwart an evil immortal overlord. To do so, Quentin must absorb all the knowledge of other immortals before this overlord, Korton, does.<br /><br />In short, this is pure crap, much like the Highlander sequels. Quentin is a fairly stupid character, constantly whining and moaning and bitching in a "woe is me for I am a reluctant hero" kind of way, and he never catches on to the fact that he's an immortal and can't be killed, at least not easily. Ramirez would have done better to ditch him and thwart Korton himself.
|
negative
|
i've discovered that this film gets rented based off of the packaging. the zombie on the front of the DVD looks cool and scary. then you get to the movie and it's women with raccoon masks on. zero special effects...and even the fight scenes you can see them miss punches by 2 feet. the funny thing is that Lommel acts in the movie briefly himself and is worse than the rest of the crap actors in the movie. the only thing i can think is that Lommel is just trying to make such a bad film that people dub it a "cult classic"...however, i can't possibly imagine anyone thinking this is anything but one of the worst movies ever made. the real horror in this film is how bad it is. i'm embarrassed i rented it and vow never to see another Lommel film again!
|
negative
|
Black and White film. Good photography. Believable characters. <br /><br />Just awful.<br /><br />I have wasted another perfect evening watching a film that other rated as "worthy" and "very good." There is some good acting here and the back ground setting for the plot is good (more should have been done with this) but it is very slow to grow and never develops. It is totally bases on sex without much romance with much un needed nudity. More could have been done with the main characters. If you are looking for something to watch with you family this in not the movie and if not you will have trouble sitting through it. Though this film is long its only about 1 inch deep!
|
negative
|
This movie starts off as a college T'n'A flick, but turns pretty ugly after the main character's sister is gang raped by a biker gang driving a van. It has a pretty good pace, and James Van Patten does a pretty good job in this Cannon tax write-off movie. This was the first movie I ever saw at the Parkway Drive-in, here in Toronto. The main feature was "Alphabet City", and "Young Warriors was the added feature. Out of the 2 movies, "Young Warriors" was by far more entertaining and memorable. If you are a fan of blow 'em up, excessively violent movies, this one would make a great addition to any collection.
|
positive
|
I saw this movie thinking that it would be one of those old B movies that are fun to watch. I was so wrong! This movie was boring and obviously aimed at males who like looking at corpulent women. The story was so ridiculous and implausible that it lost my interest altogether. It seemed to be in the same genre as the Ed Wood films - bottom of the barrel.
|
negative
|
this film had a lot of potential - it's a great story and has the potential to be very creepy. but of course tim burton doesn't really do creepy films, he does wacky cartoonish films. and i usually like tim burton's stuff. but i thought this film was really weak. the best thing about the film (and it is actually worth seeing just for this) was the art direction - the film has an amazing intangible quality to it. the script was not good. it was boring in parts and confusing in other parts, and there was no building of characters. i never really cared that people were having their heads lopped off by a headless being. i thought johnny depp had a good thing going with his approach to the character, but given that the script was weak he couldn't go too far with it - and i was very irritated by the attempts at a slight accent on his and christina ricci's parts.<br /><br />anyway, it is sadly not a great film and not worth seeing unless you are interested in the art direction.
|
negative
|
Wow, this is anti-Christian bias big-time! This is based on a Stephen King novel and he written this kind of bias before and then Hollywood exaggerates it even more. In this film, we see a Protestant minister and a Catholic priest BOTH act like fools and be profane at the same time. Of course, the Devil has taken over the town so maybe his influence is into these guys, too, but they are typical Hollywood portrayals. They never show a minister who talks and acts like Billy Graham, or your local minister or priest. And - another "given" - they make the Satan character the most interesting of the film. <br /><br />Max Von Sydow plays the Devil and makes him a likable guy. Ironically, Von Sydow has played a number of these roles after portraying Jesus in the 1964 film, "The Greatest Story Ever Told." You wonder why actors are so screwed up? They don't know if they are God, Satan or anyone in between.<br /><br />Ed Harris, who played a lot of unlikeable roles up until the last few years, is appropriately cast in this story. He and the rest of the mean-spirited characters in this film do NOT make it fun to watch.<br /><br />From what I've heard, King's book is even darker and more sick than this hate-filled movie but better constructed. Frankly, who cares. King and Hollywood deserve each other.
|
negative
|
I had the (mis)fortune to see this film at a showing in the US. Having reluctantly sat through the entire abysmal thing, I am shocked to have seen so many good reviews here on IMDB. <br /><br />The original film was a turkey, but an interesting one. It fitted into that early seventies, post 1969 revolution thing; this film just stinks of....... , well, nothing really. It's that bad.<br /><br />Imagine a badly done perfume commercial - see what I mean ?<br /><br />Madonna never could act, and has been an embarrassment on the big screen for years. She looks worse and worse with every one of those years, increasingly coming to resemble a skinned meerkat.<br /><br />Guy Ritchie, who has built his "reputation" on Lock Stock, could never direct either - his movies are shallow, badly cut, fashion shows. He doesn't disappoint here either; he wisely cast his wife as the star of this debacle.<br /><br />Please people, take little heed of the good reviews this movie has received from other posters below. They are quite obviously business plants.<br /><br />Don't encourage Ritchie to humiliate himself further by giving him money.<br /><br />
|
negative
|
I work at a movie theater and every Thursday night we have an employee screening of one movie that comes out the next day...Today it was The Guardian. I saw the trailers and the ads and never expected much from it, and in no way really did i anticipate seeing this movie. Well turns out this movie was a lot more than I would have thought. It was a great story first of all. Ashton Kutcher and Kevin Costner did amazing acting work in this film. Being a big fan of That 70's Show I always found it hard thinking of Kutcher as anyone but Kelso despite the great acting he did in The Butterfly Effect, but after seeing this movie I think I might be able to finally look at him as a serious actor.<br /><br />It was also a great tribute to the unsung heroes of the U.S. Coast Guard.
|
positive
|
One Stinko of a movie featuring a shopworn plot and, to be kind, acting of less than Oscar caliber. But to me the single worst flaw was the total misrepresentation of a jet aircraft, and especially a 747. Some of the major blunders:<br /><br />1. No Flight Engineer (or even a flight engineer station. 2. Mis-identifying the F-16 interceptors as F-15's (no resmblance whatsoever). 3. Loading passengers into an "aft baggage compartment" supposedly accesible from the cabin - Even if such a compartment existed, placing that much weight that far aft would make the aircraft unflyable. 4. Hollow point bullets that "won't damage the aircraft". 5. The entire landing procedure was so bad I wanted to puke. 6. An SR-71 (of all planes) with a pressure seal hatch 7. Opening a cabin door outward - into the wind - in flight!!<br /><br />Ah nuts, it was just a truly lousy movie. Gotta make the list of bottom 10 of the year.
|
negative
|
Why did I enjoy the show to the last episode? Because of the true talent Melissa Joan Hart and her supporting cast had of demonstrating that whit, comedy, light-hearted humor, and deep thought could actually coexist. What I enjoyed most was the fact that I could come home from a hard day's work, and bust a smile... I was inspired... and why? It was an inspiration to watch as this magical person was so happy while helping others. <br /><br />Sabrina was a hero in my opinion... even though she was vulnerable in ways that were not so different from our own... to very different; she had powers at her fingertip, wishes, and command that could be used for good or bad which may only exist in many of our imaginations. Most everything we see, have, know about, own, or even desire... can be used for good or bad, and how we choose to define that, defines the person we are. <br /><br />She traveled the globe and other realms with these constant and unwaivering ideas in mind... to learn, to live, to laugh, and to love. She was always learning how to improve her skills to the benefit of all around her; she made mistakes as she was living life, going through different journey's of growth, as she, her aunts, and Salem (the underrated, yet imperfect hero) did well to demonstrate that even through mistakes, you can still be noble, gifted, and wonderful. <br /><br />She also demonstrated many selfless, learning, and loving acts as she went along her way. If this isn't reason enough for 10 stars in this war torn world where people are so hostile toward each other, not realizing how differences are the spice of life rather than a reason to kill... then I don't know what is. This show was most certainly a trip to a better world as well as an inspiration to be better ourselves and a gift intended to bust a smile on our chops... I've heard from a doctor before that everything that I've mentioned above leads to a healthy "hart"... and isn't that what we all need? :)
|
positive
|
This centers on unironic notions of coming to grips with guilt. <br /><br />Merrill berates the distraught boy to stop his 'whining' about Rennie's death. Old-style real men in action, here.<br /><br />The crashing model plane and car crash must have been impressive on the big screen.<br /><br />The storytelling itself, despite the flashback sequences, plays it straight -- all the narrators are trusted by us (regardless of the 'truth' or 'untruth' of the dialogue), so there's no game with the viewer about narrative structure. This would become a rough template for future retellings, such as "Fearless".<br /><br />So all we're left with is individual performance, and at that level, it's best for Wynn's bantering, a virtual one-man show.
|
negative
|
....is where I'm assuming this movie came from. I mean, I've watched plenty of B movies over the course of my young life so far, and I wouldn't even classify this as a B movie. I remember seeing films in my high school mass media class that surpass this one.<br /><br />So the premise is...a bunch of dancing numbers and goofy crap happens. Women in bikinis, who aren't even that great looking to begin with, dance in the beginning and sing. Guys with hairy chests show up and girls with fangs who are out in the sunlight. I mean, I can barely put together a cohesive sentence just thinking about this movie. According to most people on this site, Manos the Hands of Fate and Pod People are the worst movies (MST3K classics :-D)...I used to be one of them. Then I saw this movie. Usually I don't try to trash a movie too much, but the people who made this really do deserve it. It is THAT bad and THAT unbearable, and I'm assuming the director or an actor in the movie is the only person who rated this a ten.
|
negative
|
A milestone in cinematic history, 'Bronenosets Potyomkin' is one of the handful of great films out there that richly deserves to be called a classic. It was the picture that made Sergei M. Eisenstein a figurehead of film-making at the time. And today, it is still remembered as the wonderful piece of cinema it always has been.<br /><br />'Potyomkin' is a film that NEEDS to be seen as one entity, not to be picked at. Don't just watch those clip shows where they only present the 'Odessa steps' sequence and then move on to 'Citizen Kane' or 'The Godfather', see it all in it's glorious 75-minute running time to really understand and enjoy it. Don't expect every infinitesimal detail to be perfect though, I mean the acting of the '20s silent era makes 'Scooby Doo' look like a master of understated realism, certain plot points may seem illogical and some of the battle sequences look dated, but it is still an immensely enjoyable movie.<br /><br />The most memorable moments in the film are the mutiny on the battleship, Vakulinchuk's body falling off the ship, the sailor under the tent at the end of the pier, the mother holding her dead child, the baby carriage on the Odessa steps and the lion rising up to roar as further carnage ensues. For each new pair of eyes that look upon it, 'The Battleship Potemkin' comes alive once again.
|
positive
|
This film does not have the outstanding visuals that American Beauty or The Ice Storm offered and because it was made after those films, it cannot be marked as very original either: the music, though subtly brilliant, sounds very much like that of American Beauty. <br /><br />The story has some similarities with The Ice Storm in particular (as well as Sigourney Weaver). Without intent perhaps, the film seems to try to recreate the success of the two aforementioned movies too much. At times, the story tends to stay a bit more shallow than it's bigger, more successful "brothers" by having too much going on, or by not delivering the most effective dialogs. Here, the writing cannot measure with that of American Beauty. But that can be said about most movies ever made, even the best and there is still a lot to like: said music score and (expectable, given the cast) effective performances. Of note is Emile Hirsch who would shine a couple of years later in the outstanding "Into The Wild".<br /><br />Overall I can recommend this film if you like suburban dramas though it's not the first one on a list of must-sees, which would be topped by: 1 American beauty 2 The Ice Storm 3 Little Children.<br /><br />After you've seen and liked those, check out this one.
|
positive
|
While I am not a woman, I can enjoy a chick flick if its good. This one however is beyond bad. You have the by the book story, girl is getting divorced, boy with issues shows up. BOOM magic happens and his demons are banished as she realizes her life has a new purpose.<br /><br />Now while I can believe that kind of thing might happen, I am not an idiot. It wouldn't happen over a weekend of geriatric rumpy-pumpy, it would take time. Yet here the producers know they only have 1 hour and 30 minutes so they force the changes of the two to happen, I suppose a night of getting hammered and a night of gramps and granny going at it like dogs in heat might be enough if you believed romance novels were the gospel... but most people don't.<br /><br />Now, if that isn't enough... the producers remembered that a chick flick needs to make the viewer cry... well they tried to make you cry with the two senior citizens getting jiggy with it by failed... so how could they hit you again? Why I know, lets kill off one of the characters for no good reason at all except that a random death will surely bring a tear to the eye.... and now lets have the teen daughter magically bond with heart broken mom for no reason besides the fact that it would be nice (completely unreal, but who cares).<br /><br />So there you have it... girl find boy, boy find love, death finds boy and mom cries.... what a movie - NOT.
|
negative
|
I had to get this movie, since it didn't come to where I live. I waited patiently and it was worth the wait. I totally fell in love with this movie. The chemistry between Walters and Grint you could see, since they also worked together on the Harry Potter movies.The woman who plays his overbearing, righteous mother really had me convinced all right and how much of a hypocrite she is, I think she did a great job playing the role. I only wish we could of had seen the actually sex scene or more of it. LOL, but of course we just have to use our imagination on how it went down. (snickers) I totally thought the movie was worth the wait and if you want a good movie to watch. Rent this movie. I do have to say that Rupert really did a great job and it's nice to see that he's doing movies outside of Harry Potter,even though I totally love him as Ron Weasley. The whole cast did a great job and I hope Rupert continues to act outside of Harry Potter to broaden his skill!
|
positive
|
This piece of garbage belongs in the basement of some moldy old mansion where it will never see the light of day again. The only thing scary about this junk was the price of admission. I was only amused when the ending credits started rolling and I was free to vacate the auditorium. What an unmitigated bore; a complete waste of 1 and a half hours. When I die, I pray I can come back as a ghost and give a fever to the moron who penned this gibberish.
|
negative
|
I rented this movie roughly 4-5 years ago and was instantly disappointed.<br /><br />I wanted to see a b-movie slasher flick, but ended up with a fecal matter for my eyes. The acting was similar to watching grass dry. I've seen better acting in a softcore film...<br /><br />The idea that a crazy killer comes out of nowhere baffled me. How was this a horror movie?<br /><br />this movie's production value, was laughable at best. There were no scares. It seemed like a high school student got a new video camera for Christmas. The plot was all over the place, if existent. If you are bored looking for a bad horror movie to rent, skip this one. There are much better b-movies out there.
|
negative
|
The Aristocats is really quite charming, and is rated far too low on IMDb. The songs aren't as memorable as the ones in the Jungle Book, but they weren't bad at all. The animation is really lovely, the best sequence being the landscape of Paris in general. It looked beautiful. This is probably Disney's most relaxing animation I think, and as another reviewer quite rightly said, who doesn't love cats? Another great piece of animation was O' Malley looking into Duchess's eyes, as their romance was so believable while not obvious.(a good thing)The plot(about a greedy butler and a fortune, reminds me of Bailey's Billions) was a little unoriginal, but worked very well, and the script was really funny, especially the fights between the kittens. They remind me of me and my brother and 3 sisters, always fighting. My favourite scene was the chase of Edgar with the two dogs, who were always fighting about who was the leader. The voice talents were a delight, most notably Phil Harris, whom I recognised from the Jungle Book, and Eva Gabor, from the Rescuers. The supporting characters, namely Scat Cat, were also well done. In conclusion, a really pleasant film, that is definitely underrated. 8.5/10 Bethany Cox
|
positive
|
As if the world hadn't already got enough cheap Jaws imitations, writer Boaz Davidson decided to make the sequel to his ropey-but-reasonably-enjoyable creature-feature Octopus a complete rip-off of Spielberg's classic, right down to having a concerned cop who no-one believes, and a mayor more worried about his 4th July celebrations than people's lives.<br /><br />Even in the hands of an extremely skilled director, it is unlikely that this derivative rubbish could have been anything other than hokey B-movie garbage, but with Yossi Wein (yes THE Yossi Wein!) calling the shots behind the camera, a man with a fraction of Mr.Spielberg's talent (I estimate about 1/10000th), Octopus 2 is guaranteed to be every bit as bad as one might imagine!<br /><br />The predictable and extremely clichéd plot isn't worth describing in much detail (substitute Jaws' Amity Island with New York, and Bruce the Shark with a giant rubber octopus and you'll get the gist), although several points about the film are definitely worth mentioning, simply because they are so funny: all of the octopus attacks involve the actors struggling to make incredibly fake-looking giant tentacles look real, which is hilarious to behold; Bulgaria's capital, Sofia, unconvincingly stands in for New York, and overuse of stock footage makes the illusion even less convincing; best of all, a silly dream sequence that sees the rubber octopus attacking our hero atop the Statue of Liberty, is not only gut-bustingly stupid but also features some truly dreadful special effects.<br /><br />Davidson's script also doesn't know when to quit: there are several points in this film at which it could've (and probably should've) ended, but the action goes on and on, with the octopus surviving several explosions, and causing a tunnel to collapse (trapping the film's love interest and a bunch of kids), before finally being blown to smithereens by the hero.<br /><br />Sometimes very silly, always awful technically, but never actually scary, this STV stinker may find fans amongst those who actively seek out cinematic trash. Most normal people, however, would be advised to steer well clear.
|
negative
|
Revisiting old films that you thought were average isn't necessarily a good thing. They sometimes get worse. Championed by the Fangoria camp (in Gorezone they labeled it "the scariest film since Texas CHAINSAW"
um, no), LUTHER THE GEEK inexplicably developed a cult following as an "intense" horror picture. Actually, it is just an average stalk and slash
uh, bite film that briefly sets itself aside from the pack by featuring a killer who clucks like a chicken. Yes, clucks like a chicken. To the filmmaker's credit, at least they didn't make the killer sound like a duck a la THE NEW YORK RIPPER. That would just be silly.<br /><br />Narrative logic is completely abandoned in LUTHER THE GEEK. I'm not saying that slasher films are abound with reason, but at least in HALLOWEEN Michael Myers escaped. Luther is actually paroled after a lengthy scene where people argue he is reformed, even though he clucks like a chicken and has razor dentures (which he apparently fashioned in prison). It is the kind of film where a couple sees a bashed in door and the girl dismisses it by saying, "Oh, my mom must have forgotten her keys. She forgets a lot of things since my dad died." The kind of film where the hysterical mother runs into a cop looking for Luther and tells him, "The killer is in my house!" So what does he do? He grabs her and literally drags her back to the house and says, "Just show me where he is and I'll do the rest." Why not call back up? <br /><br />It is too bad the film is filled with such horrible action and dialogue because the Luther character is actually pretty interesting. Most of the credit goes to Ed Terry, a dead ringer for Tom Noonan in MANHUNTER, who gives the clucking Luther a genuine air of menace. In the hands of a right director, LUTHER THE GEEK could be on the same level as SONNY BOY or SANTA SANGRE and be a true cinematic oddity. But Albright is not that director and merely places the fascinating character of Luther in tedious slasher trappings.
|
negative
|
We also found this movie on the discount rack and made the mistake of purchasing it because Sandra Bullock was featured on the cover. The cinematography was terrible and the back of the DVD box told more about the plot than the movie itself. Oh and I love the Uzi cam....NOT.<br /><br />
|
negative
|
This movie is just horrible. It's boring, it's low quality, the actors are just the worst actors I have ever seen and the scenario is so bad that it's hilarious.<br /><br />The "main" actor is supposed to be the hot guy who gets all the girls, but he's ugly, overweight and looks like he's from the early 90's.<br /><br />All the characters are away for the week-end for a get together amongst friends, but nobody are actually friends! The married couple hasn't seen the "main" guy in over 5 years and even back then they weren't really friends. The "date" of the main guy only knows him from work and than there's a girl they pick-up at a bar. Now tell me that you would risk losing your job to spend a week-end at your cabin with people that aren't even your real friends. Because that's what he does at the beginning of the movie!<br /><br />Do not waste even one minute of your time on this lemon. I've made home movies scarier than this!<br /><br />
|
negative
|
it is of course very nice to see improvements on Turkish movie industry, however, i would have expected something more creative from Togan Gokbakar. starting from the script, which i believe it was not a wise written one as some may think. especially the cheesiness of the dialogs, which were putting the audience in a position that, as if they were not smart enough to understand the situations, which, most of the times makes the movie unbearable. it also has an obvious ending; you can easily guess the murderer from the beginning. the weakest part of the scenario is that the impossibility of seriously mentally ill patients to act like normal people, like professionals right away!!!did they ever search for the possibility of patients who are on heavy medicals, to act like professionals and use all the medical terms that even normal people cannot use?????!!!!!!also in the scene where staff was searching for the most dangerous patient, with out any weapon to protect themselves was another weird point of the film. and that scene was so suitable for "Dikkat Sahan Cikabilir" title!! those are not the only weak parts of the movie. there were also a lot of preciosities in the film. the depiction of the most dangerous patient was an exact copy from Hannibal, also appearance of Togan in the very end is obviously the worst mistake that he could have done in his first movie! the fuss about the greatness of the movie and the interviews that actor's gave just made people to be curious and force them to see it. Gen is a total disappointment. i would have wonder, if Sahan was not this famous, would Togan be able to shoot this movie, with this much of budget amount?? i hope Togan would realize that it is not fashionable to play in a role as a director as he said in an interview. it was Hitchcock who did it wisely and Night Shyamalan continued it successfully! he should be aware of the fact that he is not Hitchcock nor Shyamalan yet!!!!hoping him to be more careful and creative next time in this big industry!
|
negative
|
One of the intriguing aspects of this historical drama is the way the "Tories" or British American Loyalists are portrayed, and the sort of gloss given to their ardent support for King George III. In many ways the American Revolution was definitely a family affair, in that some of the wealthier colonial families were split asunder by it. If there is a strong criticism to be made of this film, it is that perhaps the people in this story are made out to be a little bit nicer than they were in real life.<br /><br />In some regards, the actions of the character of Major Boulton, played by Cornel Wilde, make him the least likable member of the cast and the flaw in the storyline. He seems to vary from being a prickly kind of patriot to being a kind of 'anything for the cause,' fellow. This film does concentrate heavily on the notions of personal honor and personal prestige which were a major social 'norm' in that day and age.<br /><br />In its subtext, the fact that about twenty-five percent of the colonial population was decidedly pro-British is glossed over, too. But the strength of the Tory element is not obviously maligned, although the good doctor character is about eighty-five percent upper class twit ( to steal a fine phrase from Monty Python's Flying Circus ). Anne Francis does a whole lot with a rather thin section of the script, and it stands out. She was a good choice for the woman of divided loyalties, a 'gal' who was rather more modern than the social conventions of that day might have allowed -- if there had not been a life and death struggle going on.<br /><br />One good aspect of the film is the way the rivalries of the American revolutionary leaders degenerated into outright jealousies, and how these personal conflicts very nearly sabotaged the entire revolutionary effort. All in all, the leading characters are very well drawn, the minor characters are not just human "props" and the fight scenes are believable enough to carry the dramatic action.<br /><br />This is a great spy movie. It's not quite a great historical drama, but it does satisfy well enough. It rates a seven largely because Cornel Wilde is so deeply immersed in his role, and does it so well, and because Anne Francis makes the most of her supporting effort.<br /><br />The color print used on Turner Classic Movies was very clear, as well, and so it was an enjoyable presentation in that important regard.<br /><br />Hope it runs again soon.
|
positive
|
One of the most disgusting films I have ever seen. I wanted to vomit after watching it. I saw this movie in my American History class and the purpose was to see an incite on the life of a farmer in the West during the late 1800's. What we saw were pigs being shot and then slaughtered, human birth, branding. Oh and at the end there was a live birth of a calf and let me tell you that the birth itself wasn't too bad, but the numerous fluids that came out drove most people in my class to the bathroom. The story itself was OK. The premise of the story is a widow and her daughter and they move to the west to be a house keeper of this cowboy. They live a life of hardship and it is an interesting a pretty accurate view of life in the West during the late 1800's. But if you have a choice, do not see this movie.
|
negative
|
Amateurism best describes the film adaptation of the best-selling philosophical novel "The Celestine Prophecy", which follows the spiritual awakening of an out of work teacher in a mysterious village in Peru. Home video quality actors present so-called characters spewing overwrought exposition and metaphysical hokum, while the film is propelled by the extremely heavy-handed direction of Armand Mastroianni. Even though there are visible attempts at measuring up to and interesting fans of stronger fare in the vain of ABC's "Lost" or Dan Brown's "The Da Vinci Code", the filmmakers are hardly up to the task. This film reeks of ill-conceived mass consumption spiritual propaganda, and the results are so awful few can wade through this mess to spot a real point.
|
negative
|
As someone who was born to a German mother and English father (who spent five years in a prisoner of war camp) I come from unique position. One of having to deal with the various Nazis on one side of the family and the victors of WW2 on the other. This miniseries cannot delve into every single part of Hitler's psyche and must give the viewer a general flavor of the situation at the time and as best as one can Hitler's state of mind. In this the series does quite well. Carlyle is very good as is O'Toole, I would however liked to have got more information on the relationships with others in party Because Hitler did not do anything on his own. He had people around him that followed him to the letter often without question and certainly without question later on in his murderous career. What was going through Goebbels, Goring and Hess's mind? It would have been helpful to see more of these relationships. But I hope it will make people research the subject more. It might also make people understand why someone like Saddam Hussein cannot be allowed to continue in power.
|
positive
|
This is my favorite love story it has every element that a good love story should have. Poetry, jazz, friendships the ups and downs in a relationships. Finally a movie that shows positive aspects of the black community. Larenz Tate was great I can't picture anyone else playing the role of Darius. He recited that poem like he had written it himself and meant every word. I own this movie and if I had the time I would watch it everyday it always makes me feel better and that's what a good movie should do. Also, the character Savon could not had been any better dealing with the subject of marriage. We would all like to find a Darius out there but most of us just settle for watching this movie. My vote is 10/10
|
positive
|
Dani(Reese Witherspoon) has always been very close with her older sister Maureen(Emily Warfield) until they both start falling in love with their neighbor Court(Jason London). But it is not after a terrible tragedy strikes that the two sisters realize that nothing can keep them apart and that their love for each other will never fade away.<br /><br />This was truly a heartbreaking story about first love. Probably the most painful story about young love that I have ever seen. All the acting is amazing and Reese Witherspoon gives a great performance in her first movie. I would give The Man in the Moon 8.5/10
|
positive
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.