review
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| sentiment
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
This effort was like a glitzy TV movie...I don't recall this ever being released in theaters...If so, it must've died a quick death. Watching the DVD, in the comfort of our bedroom, it was obvious this film was meant for not much more...Ed Lauter an art critic with a greed streak? What a fun turn that must've been...I haven't seen Ed since "The Longest Yard"...Everyone else pretty much acted by the numbers, led by Baldwin, except for Pompeo...She had zero charisma and seemed to be sleepwalking thru most of the picture...Pompeo's daughter had one dimension...she played every scene like a lovable little puppy...slowest line delivery of any 3 year old I've seen yet...<br /><br />The chase scenes gave my wife and I headaches...too much quick-cutting and angle-bashing...If you 're going to shoot a chase scene in Barcelona, you might want a few WIDE shots to exploit the beauty of your backdrop, right? The whole story was pretty implausible and far-fetched, but hey, we liked it better than "The Life Aquatic..."
|
negative
|
Watching this movie made me think constantly; why are they making such a problem out of some broken brakes? There are a million options to slow down the car! In the movie Speed the writers a least thought of a good reason why the car wasn't able to stop...<br /><br />There aren't many good things to say about this film; all the usual narrative cliche's make their appearance, the actors are very bad, the story is as leak as a sieve etc. That makes this movie a waste of time and money.<br /><br />
|
negative
|
The Andrew Davies adaptation of the Sarah Waters' novel was excellent. The characters of Nan and and Kitty were superbly portrayed by Rachael Stirling and Kelley Hawes respectively. The whole series was a total joy to watch. It caught the imagination of everyone across the board, whether straight or gay. I wish there could be a sequel!
|
positive
|
Its not Braveheart( thankfully),but it is fine entertainment with engaging characters and good acting all around. I enjoyed this film when it was released and upon viewing it again last week,find it has held up well over time. Not a classic film,but a very fine and watchable movie to enjoy as great entertainment.
|
positive
|
i found it highly intellectual and artistic in every way! i felt that the script was conveying all the things i feel physically and emotionally when i got home from work and watched, it. this is a tribute to cinema in the highest form and format.<br /><br />holy guacamole! how i wish those days would come again. i tried putting a bubble window on the side of my car (honda civic 1984), but the vacuum formed muffin trays didn't quite cut it. also in my civic, sexual positions are limited and are not supported by water bed as is brilliantly depicted in 'the van'.<br /><br />'the van' is of the utmost side splitting hilarity and can even substitute for porn if you watch some scenes privately.<br /><br />i highly anticipate that Sam Grossman (the director) has achieved his opus.<br /><br />Ratings john: ****1/2 Sam: *****
|
positive
|
I grew up with this as my all-time favorite film. The special effects are incredible for the era, and won awards. I can remember the dialogue as if I'd heard it yesterday. It is simply a great, timeless adventure. The music is by Miklos Rosza, who is cinema history's best. Sabu is the Thief. Conrad Veidt is the grand villain. I have a copy within reach, for the next trip down memory lane. Whoa there! Rex Ingram wants out of his genii bottle!
|
positive
|
Humphrey Bogart clearly did not want to be in this film, and be forced to play a part-Mexican or he would have been suspended. Believe me , he made the wrong choice! Presumably, after the success of "Dodge City", Warners tried a follow-up with Errol Flynn and his usual list of buddies, like Alan Hale, Guinn (Big Boy) Williams, Frank Mc Hugh and the ever-present John Litel, but they made the huge mistake of trying to present Miriam Hopkins as a love interest for Flynn v. Randolph Scott, and as a singer to really make things bad, because she proved one thing, and that is she cannot sing. The story was not too bad, but with Bogie clearly miscast also, it turned out to be a poor Western that was overlong, and on a low budget, but in fairness, color would not have helped.
|
negative
|
This film is really bad,so bad that even Christopher Lee cannot save it.A poor story an even poorer script and just plain bad direction makes this a truly outstanding horror film,the outstanding part being that it is the only horror film that i can honestly say i would never ever watch again.This garbage make Plan nine from outerspace look like oscar material.
|
negative
|
It is by far the most definitive film on the police force which I have seen. Although not directed by Ram Gopal Varma, it has all the elements of an RGV film. Dead straight dialogues, blunt treatment of the subject, brilliant direction, and superb performances (even by those with little job to do in the movie). The chemistry between Nana and the Don, even if they are professional rivals, is amazing. And so are the small events like an insider not giving information to Imtiaz even while he is being bashed up in the locker, but only to Nana when he is out. The change in working conditions with the change of the senior is dealt wonderfully. The first half keeps one absolutely engrossed, moving like a documentary with Nana acting like a mentor to Jatin explaining to him the intricacies and philosophy of the work.<br /><br />Overall one of the most brilliant films on cops in Indian cinema. Definitely not to be missed.
|
positive
|
Frantic, somewhat mean spirited, infantile humor abounds in this city boy turned wannabe farmer tale. It is not outrageous enough to appeal to the Will Ferrell crowd, and not interesting enough to carry the feature length. The most I can praise "Son In Law" would be to say that for the most part it avoids toilet humor. The main problem is that all of the characters lack warmth, and Pauly Shore is so abrasive that he is a most unlikable hero. There are a few amusing bits involving farm animals, and that's about it. The story, what there is, is so simplistic and predictable, it makes "Jury Duty" seem like "Gone with the Wind". - MERK
|
negative
|
Having finally been able to get the DVD of this 1997 HBO film, is at down to watch it. By the time I finished it the old saying "those who can not learn from the past are doomed to relive it" was echoing in the mind. First shown four years after the first bombing of the twin towers (and four years before the events of 9/11) Path To Paradise reveals the series of close encounters, blunders and official in-decisions that led to the first bombing of the twin towers and the lessons we should have learned from them.<br /><br />Path To Paradise features a nice cast of believable actors. Peter Gallagher and Marcia Gay Harden lead the cast as FBI agents John Anticev and Nancy Floyd who face not only the threats of terrorism but the lack of official interest from their superiors along with their NYPD counterpart Lou Napoli (Paul Guilfoyle). Art Malik, Andreas Katsulas, Shaun Toub and Tony Gillan are among those who plan and carry out the attack all of whom play their roles not as potential clichés but as real living people and make the film all the better for it. Of special mention is Ned Eisenberg as Emad Salem the man whom, if it had not been for skeptical FBI officials, could have potentially informed on the plot.<br /><br />The film is also well produced. Despite being made for cable this film doesn't feel like a low-budget film at all with its production values particularly in its sets and New York City locations. The film's fascinating cinematography gives the film an almost documentary style at times. When all of these elements are combined with the script it all helps to give the film a sense of reality which makes the events taking place all the more disturbing.<br /><br />The most disturbing thing about he film is its script. The events of the film are true (minus some dramatic license which is always necessary) and in hindsight are made even more shocking then they must have been when the film was first shown twelve years ago. The film reveals just how a group of men were able to smuggle a bomb into the World Trade Center. They did so thanks to the lack of Arabic translators, government agencies failing to pass information to each other, the FBI ignoring leads from a source and police departments being unable to pick up on clues. Worse then investigators inabilities to connect dots is the fact that many of these same things not only allowed the 9.11 attacks to take place but in some cases (such as the lack of translators) are issues that continue even today. Even more chilling is the ending which really did happen and looks all too prophetic today.<br /><br />Path To Paradise is a film that should be essential viewing today. The film is not only well acted and produced but teaches us a lesson we should have learned sooner. The lesson of the film? That those who can not learn from the past are doomed to relive it. If you can find this film then watch it and learn from it.
|
positive
|
(possible spoilers)<br /><br />Someone once asked Dr. Seuss if they could secure the movie rights to his 1957 Christmas classic How the Grinch Stole Christmas. He turned them down, insisting that no one could do better than the marvelous Chuck Jones TV special from 1966 (also in mind, perhaps, was his bitter experience writing the script to 1953's The 5,000 Fingers of Dr. T). When the good Dr. died in 1991, his widow, Audrey Geisel, still obstinately refused to sell the movie rights. But with the commonplace use of CGI effects becoming a reality, Mrs. Geisel had a change of heart. Universal made her a generous offer she accepted; she also accepted the casting of Jim Carrey as the title character. Supposedly she was satisfied with the final result. Well, Mrs. Geisel, that makes one of us.<br /><br />The film was given a $123,000,000 budget (which is more than even Heaven's Gate cost, including the adjustment for inflation), which obviously went towards the very elaborate makeup, set design, and special effects (which are undermined<br /><br />somewhat by the rather hazy cinematography). Unfortunately, it seems that none of that money was set aside to get a better script than what Jeffrey Price and Peter S. Seaman (scribes of Who Framed Roger Rabbit?, which made much better<br /><br />use of a high budget) turned in. Whereas the TV special was a trim 26 minutes without commercials, this film tries to fill a running time of 105 minutes with more background information about the Grinch. It turns out that, as a child, he was the subject of ridicule, including an especially humiliating experience one Christmas at the age of eight. So it turns out that everything that ails our poor Mr. Grinch is directly because of the Whos. Trouble is, it seems like a rather long 105 minutes, with too much dead wood clogging up the story. That might not seem so bad if only the Grinch were a little more...well, Grinchy. The character that Dr. Seuss wrote and Chuck Jones later animated was a sly fox whose slick attempts to hijack the holiday season were undermined by his sudden change (and exponential growth) of heart. Carrey's Grinch is a loud, hyperactive oaf and, at times, a thug who, when made the holiday `Cheermeister,' trashes the Whoville town square in anger<br /><br />(hopefully the scenery tasted as good as it looked). This undermines the script's attempt to make the Grinch more sympathetic, with all the Whos down in Whoville so unsympathetic (at least in this interpretation).<br /><br />The Whoville of Dr. Seuss's vision was a small town populated by honest folk who knew in their hearts the true meaning of Christmas. The Whoville of the movie is a rather noisy and crowded place populated by spoiled, selfish, materialistic ninnies; an obvious attempt to comment on American consumerism. This is offensively<br /><br />hypocritical inasmuch as the film industry has benefitted greatly from American consumerism, and as this film contributed to it with a huge merchandising<br /><br />campaign.<br /><br />The film also expands and redefines the character of Cindy Lou Who, a small but crucial character in the original. The innocent two-year-old waif who walked in on this spurious Santa is now older and wiser, constantly questioning the false values of the Whos and trying to understand the Grinch's point of view (her one major scene from the original is re-enacted, making it seem out of character). She<br /><br />seems to be the only one who would ever know that Christmas is more than just gifts and decorations, thus making her a completely different, and more annoying, character.<br /><br />Those who celebrate Christmas should sooner accept a lump of coal in their<br /><br />stockings on the morning of December 25 than a copy of this overlong, overacted, excruciatingly tedious, ham-handed, crude attempt to turn the children's classic into a feature film. It proves once and for all that darkness, vulgarity,<br /><br />manipulation, and heavy-handedness are inadequate substitutes for charm, wit, sincerity, and heart. The folks at Universal should get down on their collective knees and thank God that this truly bilious $123 million stink bomb grossed $260 million domestically or they'd not be here today. Furthermore it made Mike Myers' The Cat in the Hat possible!
|
negative
|
This show is awful. How is George wanting the death of his mother funny? This show is terrible. The parents are obviously horrible and the children should be taken to child services. The daughter is a witch with a b and the son is just a complete brat. George isn't funny, especially when he speaks his loud and obnoxious brand of Spanglish. Ernie is a loser, but at least I've chuckled at him a few times, but mainly at how pathetic he is. George's mother, Benny, in an awful, despicable character. Sure, her husband left her, but how anyone can laugh at the way she treated George as a baby is beyond me.<br /><br />Can someone explain to me how George's head being big is funny? It's not even that big! I've moved on from characters because they're too awful and it would take hours for me to write and I, frankly, don't care enough. I do care enough to tell anyone looking at this and wondering whether or not they want to watch this show, that this show is an abysmal excuse for a sitcom, and is not worth your time.<br /><br />I give it 2 starts, because the wife is extremely attractive.
|
negative
|
It's a great American martial arts movie. The fighting scenes were pretty impressive for American movie made in 90's. Of course the fighting scenes aren't that good as in Honk Kong movies, actually only few American movies have fighting scenes which are as good as in Honk Kong movies, even nowadays. When you watch American martial arts movie, you are expecting to see less impressive fighting scenes, but still having some nice moves, which can be surprisingly good sometimes, or at least that's what I'm expecting from these movies. I was impressed by this film. Some fighting scenes were really impressive, the acting, direction and the plot were good enough, so it's a really worth watching movie, if you like American martial arts films of the 90's.
|
positive
|
"La Maman et la putain" is the beautifulest film of all time. And what's most moving about it may be the relation between reality and art the movie deals with, which is directly inspired by Proust's "A la Recherche du temps perdu".<br /><br />Indeed, "La Maman et la putain" and "In search of lost time" apparently tell the same story : the one of the failure of love, which repeats itself endlessly. The first woman's name is always Gilberte, and the second woman appears like a twisted and deformed double of Gilberte : Veronika is like a "whore Gilberte", beautiful like the night, whereas Gilberte was pure, and "beautiful like the day". After the failure of the first love, a second love begins, but this one is like already doomed by the first one. Veronika takes the place of Gilberte, in Alexandre's life and in the movie. She progressively eclipses her, first by time to time, Gilberte's still coming when Alexandre waits for Veronika,then totally. That shows it's the same sad story repeating itself, the same "unfaithful woman", like Alexandre says, who appears endlessly - and unfaithful is for Proust the higher point in love, which makes it exist, but which also underlines its illusions.<br /><br />Art is what causes the passage between what's outside - the illusion of love - to what's inside, which is the truth, and is a learning of this truth. For instance, when Veronika notices the strange way Alexandre makes is bed, he answers that he saw it in a movie, and then, that a movie, "it's made for that, to learn how to live, how to make a bed". Alexander wants to live like he was in a film, he wants his life to be art. <br /><br />This conception of art comes from Proust, with whom Eustache shares the same rejection of "political art" and realism in art. "La Maman et la putain" fights against a conception of art "principaly political" - see for example the ironical review of a political movie by Alexandre. Like Proust says : "Art doesn't care for all this proclamations, and only exists in silence." First of all, art is introspection. And that also why realism or naturalism is rejected : art needs to transform reality to exist. Proust writes : "I discover the illusion of realism, which is a lie". That's why "La Maman et la putain" doesn't hide its artificiality, underlines by the way the actors "say" their text : "the more you seem artificial, the higher you go", said Eustache.<br /><br />Eustache and Proust both share this idea that the artist is a "translater" of a inner truth. But, Alexandre failed where Eustache succeed. "La Maman et la putain" tells us the failure of a character to be what he truly is. You can sens the tragedy arise when you go further in the movie, which becomes saddest. You can see it in the face of Alexandre, who looks more and more like a living-dead. You can see it by the fact that the scenes become longer, and that after a while, nothing happens outside. At the end of the movie, when you see Alexandre writing, and Veronika asking if he's writing his life,you can guess that he's not, that even literature failed. The end of the movie shows the symbolic death of Alexander, who is smashes by the heaviness of reality. And in this tiny nurse's room, Alexandre looks more like Albertine than Marcel.<br /><br />To explain this failure, we can say that Alexandre is a Balzac's reader. In "Forme et signification", Jean Rousset explains that, in Proust's, the readers of Balzac, who are Swann and Charlus, are unable of any artistic creation, because they're stuck in reality, which they mistake with art. They see reality in art and "are not aware of the transformations that necessarily exist between the life of an artist and his work, between reality and art". And that's exactly Alexandre. He claims for instance that he "loves a woman for parallel reasons, because she played in a Bresson's for example". He's like Swann, who falls in love with Odette because she looks like a Botticelli's woman.<br /><br />"Life is perhaps not my vocation". This thought is indeed by Eustache, who committed suicide, even if it's said by Alexandre. Nevertheless, there is a difference between Alexandre and Eustache : if Eustache is absolutely Alexandre, Alexandre is like a double without art, a horrible vision of the artist, which crystallizes his fears.<br /><br />By fallowing Veronika at the end of the movie, Alexandre is condemned to illusions. It's death that remind me the last frames of the movie, in the face of Jean-Pierre Léaud as well as in the endless pucking of Veronika. Or maybe it is already hell that describes the end, like in Sarte's "Huit-Clot", and absolutely not like in the final liberation of "Le Temps retrouvé". If Eustache had read Proust, Alexandre could never have finish the book , always perturbed by life and Veronika when he tries to read it at his apartment or in the cafés. "La Maman et la Putain" is like a inverse double of "In search of lost times", which tells how Alexander doesn't become an artist, whereas "A la Recherche du temps perdu" tells how Marcel becomes a writer (Genette).<br /><br />If, like Baudelaire says, an artiste tells "reality at the light of his dream", it is his nightmare that Eustache tells us in "La Maman et la putain".
|
positive
|
This is a really dark movie. Noir indeed. The title character is smallpox, brought into New York City unknowingly by Evelyn Keyes.<br /><br />She is on one mission when she arrives and on a rougher one after she's spoken to her no longer innocent sister. But she herself is not intentionally a killer. This doesn't mean she doesn't kill. It doesn't mean her presence somewhere among eight million other people doesn't throw the city into turmoil.<br /><br />Keyes is excellent. The supporting cast is very good too. There are several little-known people involved in this -- the director included. Don't be put off. It is a movie to be reckoned with! (And how nice to see a Columbia picture. Columbia and Republic turned out wonderful comedies and noirs; yet we hardly ever see them anymore.)
|
positive
|
If you look at Corey Large's information here on IMDb, apparently there's a movie called "Reload" in production (as of June '08) in which he's playing a character named Sebastian Cole.<br /><br />First of all, how does such a crappy movie ever earn a sequel ... and second, didn't Sebastian get killed at the end of "Loaded"?<br /><br />I watched this in the wee hours of the morning when I was battling insomnia, and so I was drifting in and out while it was on. I'm sure I missed some plot points, but overall, it seemed really weak. Large's performance was (for me) one of the stronger parts of the film. I'm also a bit surprised at all the people commenting on the beautiful girls, since I thought the actress playing Brooke was pretty, but not exceptional.
|
negative
|
Charlotte Beal arrives at an isolated country mental hospital to become a full-time nurse there. She is confronted with a motley group of crazies and a seemingly crazier supervisor. Is Dr. Masters all she seems to be?<br /><br />DON'T LOOK IN THE BASEMENT is one of the best low-budget movies in the genre and why people always put it down is beyond me. The acting is excellent, my favorite performance being by Betty Chandler as Allyson the nymphomaniac. The chills just jump right off the screen. You probably won't have to say "It's only a movie, it's only a movie", it isn't that scary, but it should appeal to any horror fan who respects the low-budget horror genre, which I do. It is very hard to make a creepy film on a low budget and few actually succeed. AXE is another cheap film that is looked down upon. Maybe people are so spoiled by the big budgets of recent films that any movie that doesn't have excellent effects and/or isn't considered a classic doesn't have a chance with an audience. But I think that after people see this movie, they will see how important the low-budget horror genre is and this movie is a classic that stands out among the other rubbish.
|
positive
|
Here he is. A new horror icon for the new millennium. Better than Freddy. More dangerous than Jason Vorhees. More evil than Michael Myers. Hard to believe, I know. But his time is here....<br /><br />Ray The Prick.<br /><br />Yep, the antagonist, Ray is a complete Prick. This is partly because of the naughty things he does. Also because he has a scar (oh, scary) on his face. But mainly because Ray The Prick has been milked.<br /><br />Yep, Ray doesn't channel evil. He doesn't even become cursed, not even by a voodoo spell. Nope, Ray The Prick has been milked. As DeNiro once said, "You can milk anything with nipples". And Ray has been milked. Of evil.<br /><br />How do you milk evil you ask? Snake nipples, I reply. Snake nipples.<br /><br />Why Ray you ask? Because he's a Prick, I reply. Capital P.<br /><br />Watch out for the New Line Pictures extravaganza entitled "Freddy Vs. Ray The Prick".<br /><br />Thought your new horror saviour was Jeeper The Creeper? Well not any more, cause Ray The Prick is here. And I'm frightened.<br /><br />Pity about the atmosphere-less, PG-13, unoriginal workmanlike quality of the film though, because Ray's a star.
|
negative
|
Oppenheimer was a GREAT series (it was the first thing I saw Waterston in) and it is too bad copies aren't available. A similar situation exists for "Glory Enough for All", a British series from around the same time, about the discovery of insulin. I would pay a good price for both of these on DVD. Is it really so difficult to get Oppenheimer on a DVD that is able to be played in the US? Another very enjoyable series, again from about the same time, was "Danger UXB". A series about defusing UneXploded Bombs, hence the name. That one you can get from your local library.<br /><br />Pete
|
positive
|
Disappointing comedy-drama with sentimental coating has Michael J. Fox ideally cast as a former child star who now runs a talent agency for thespian tots; Nathan Lane and Cyndi Lauper are his assistants. This all sounds as if it can't miss, however too much of the scenario is given over to strident Christina Vidal as a streetwise tyke whom Fox believes will be the next big thing. They lock quickly lock heads, and the bantering dialogue takes them back and forth to an uninteresting, formula finish. Fox and Lane are both appealing, but the energy of the early scenes gives way to treacle. Slickly produced, but ultimately stale. *1/2 from ****
|
negative
|
I love this episode of Columbo. Maybe it's because Ruth Gordon is in it and she is wonderful as successful mystery writer Abigail Mitchell, an American version of Dame Agatha Christie. She is delicious to watch as the perky, lovable author who suffered a terrible loss when her niece died in a drowning accident. She blames her niece's husband, the nephew. She plans to kill him to avenge her death since the police have abandoned her. I would have loved somebody else than Mariette Hartley to play Veronica. I never really like Hartley in anything personally. And of course with Columbo, there are some laughs like when he questions Veronica at a belly-dancing class. Ruth's Abigail is a smart sleuth herself and she matches wits with Columbo always played wonderfully by Peter Falk.
|
positive
|
It's a strange feeling to sit alone in a theater occupied by parents and their rollicking kids. I felt like instead of a movie ticket, I should have been given a NAMBLA membership.<br /><br />Based upon Thomas Rockwell's respected Book, How To Eat Fried Worms starts like any children's story: moving to a new town. The new kid, fifth grader Billy Forrester was once popular, but has to start anew. Making friends is never easy, especially when the only prospect is Poindexter Adam. Or Erica, who at 4 1/2 feet, is a giant.<br /><br />Further complicating things is Joe the bully. His freckled face and sleeveless shirts are daunting. He antagonizes kids with the Death Ring: a Crackerjack ring that is rumored to kill you if you're punched with it. But not immediately. No, the death ring unleashes a poison that kills you in the eight grade.<br /><br />Joe and his axis of evil welcome Billy by smuggling a handful of slimy worms into his thermos. Once discovered, Billy plays it cool, swearing that he eats worms all the time. Then he throws them at Joe's face. Ewww! To win them over, Billy reluctantly bets that he can eat 10 worms. Fried, boiled, marinated in hot sauce, squashed and spread on a peanut butter sandwich. Each meal is dubbed an exotic name like the "Radioactive Slime Delight," in which the kids finally live out their dream of microwaving a living organism.<br /><br />If you've ever met me, you'll know that I have an uncontrollably hearty laugh. I felt like a creep erupting at a toddler whining that his "dilly dick" hurts. But Fried Worms is wonderfully disgusting. Like a G-rated Farrelly brothers film, it is both vomitous and delightful.<br /><br />Writer/director Bob Dolman is also a savvy storyteller. To raise the stakes the worms must be consumed by 7 pm. In addition Billy holds a dark secret: he has an ultra-sensitive stomach.<br /><br />Dolman also has a keen sense of perspective. With such accuracy, he draws on children's insecurities and tendency to exaggerate mundane dilemmas.<br /><br />If you were to hyperbolize this movie the way kids do their quandaries, you will see that it is essentially about war. Freedom-fighter and freedom-hater use pubescent boys as pawns in proxy wars, only to learn a valuable lesson in unity. International leaders can learn a thing or two about global peacekeeping from Fried Worms.<br /><br />At the end of the film, I was comforted when two chaperoning mothers behind me, looked at each other with befuddlement and agreed, "That was a great movie." Great, now I won't have to register myself in any lawful databases.
|
positive
|
John Hughes wrote a lot of great comedies in the '80s. "European Vacation" is not one of them. The follow-up to Hughes' first big hit "Vacation" (1983), is about as predictable, unfunny and annoying as they come -- no matter how much you love the dumb but romantic Clark and Ellen Griswold (Chase and D'Angelo).<br /><br />I greatly enjoyed "Vacation" as well as the third film, 1989's "Christmas Vacation," but the Griswold's trip to Europe is bland and forced. Perhaps because this was Hughes' first attempt at a sequel that he didn't get it, but it's really dumbfounding how uninspired and devoid of a story "European Vacation" is. There is no through story: the Griswolds win a game show for being "greedy little pigs" and go on a tour of Europe through England, France, Germany and Italy. Even the screwball physical humor that is the trademark of the first loses all effect because you see it coming, which is part director Amy Heckerling's fault. The "Fast Times at Ridgemont High" director sets everything up too predictably.<br /><br />Maybe it was Hughes taking a cheap shot because he was put up to the sequel. "European Vacation" takes great pride in insulting Americans (recall the greedy little pig game show they win), especially tourists, represented by the cornball Griswold family. It also pats itself on the back implicitly saying "oh us Griswolds, we're always getting into something because our dad is an idiot." Then in nearly comic fashion it ends with a tribute to America and how grateful the Griswolds are to return to such a better country. If Hughes was going for satire and meant to do it in the form of a bad movie, well maybe I should award this 8/10 stars.<br /><br />It's not just the unfunniness, but "European Vacation" boasts the two worst actors to play kids Rusty and Audrey (Jason Lively and Dana Hill). They're both annoying and obnoxious, with the unattractive and loud-mouthed Audrey blubbering about the boyfriend she's left behind nearly the entire film. Hughes even goes as far as to have her comment about missing him right as she observes a giant bratwurst. Quite tasteful. Speaking of, breasts are flashed in two different scenes for no good reason (unless it was to comment on Americans' love of gratuitous nipples in their comedies).<br /><br />I will give the film one of its two stars thanks to Eric Idle of the Monty Python crew, whose cameo at a few different points in the film where he recites lines directly from "Holy Grail" is about the funniest part. If Hughes intended for us to find one of the film's only non- American actors as the only funny part, then another tip of the hat to him for ripping open the underbelly of Hollywood comedy in the '80s. Still, would it have hurt for him to do that while making it entertaining?
|
negative
|
Where to even start? The horrendous acting? The nonsensical plot? The bargain basement effects? The completely loathsome characters? The choppy editing? The headache-inducing Casio keyboard score??? The embarrassingly racist remarks ("Watch it, Charlie!", "Back off, Jackie Chan!!"??? The constant misogyny??? I am a lifelong horror fan, and I have no problem at all with the current "torture-thon" trend of movies. However, this is a poorly-made piece of garbage. I think I suffered more pain watching this than the characters did dying in it! If you like girls being forced to eat stir-fried penis, really poor soft core porn and think lines like "I'm gonna find that b**** and staple her c*** shut!!" are clever, LIVE FEED is for you.<br /><br />As for me, I feel the need to go wash my eyes out with oven cleaner to prevent from ever seeing this movie again!
|
negative
|
<br /><br />I would highly recommend seeing this movie. After viewing it, you will be able to walk out of every other bad movie EVER saying "at least it wasn't The Omega Code."<br /><br />Forget my money, I want my TIME back!
|
negative
|
I first saw this when it premiered more than ten years ago. I saw it again today and it still had a big impact on me. She Fought Alone is about a girl, Caitlin (played by Tiffani Thiessen), who is raped by Jace (played by David Lipper), a classmate who enjoys hurting girls. Caitlin is in a popular high school clique, but when she reveals she is raped the clique turns against her, led by Ethan (played by Brian Austin Green).<br /><br />This movie chronicles Caitlin's struggle against an entire town, including a high school that essentially lets athletes determine the social environment, allowing them to get away with whatever they wish.<br /><br />Thiessen and Green are the top performers, and there is real chemistry between the two of the them throughout the entire film. All of the actors in this film, which was inspired by actual events, did a great job. She Fought Alone really captures the essence of what it is like to be in high school (at least in 1995), and having one's self-esteem and reputation at stake. Recommended. 10/10
|
positive
|
The first question that springs to mind after watching this rubbish is who on earth gave these idiots the right to use the Omen name on this movie? It is a shambolic , embarrassing, pathetic atempt to carry on the Omen franchise. When the film starts the backing music sounds like it has been lifted straight from a Bugs Bunny Cartoon and from then on the film gets worse! I dont know who wrote the script but i bet they got a E - for it when they took it back to show their teacher! It is difficult after a while to tell if this is a comedy because what happens is so funny and so un true to the original Omen it beggers belief. The acting is laughable , especially from the leading lady Faye Grant. she keeps pulling silly faces or is she finding it difficult not to laugh? It's hard to tell. THE worst sequal i have ever had the misfortune to witness. 1 out of 10.
|
negative
|
We have reached the ceiling of implausibility with this movie. Basically, Dinosaurs come aboard this ship piloted by some weird old fart named Neweyes(which I needed after I watched this movie). Apparently, Neweyes hears the wishes of children everywhere and decides that he should grant the wish of children that Dinosaurs be brought into modern times to be seen by everybody for shameless exploitation. The dinosaurs eat this stuff that makes them smarter(Too bad the screenwriters didn't have it). By the way, does it seem weird that out of ALL the wishes of the children in the world, Neweyes grants the wish of bringing Dinosaurs to modern times? Why not grant the wishes of kids to stop famine? Disease? War? I mean come on! Doesn't Neweyes have anything better to do with all this power he has??? Finally, when the Dinosaurs get to modern times they start singing, dancing and wrecking havoc(basically the kind of thing you might see on a bad LSD trip, I mean where else could you see a T-Rex playing golf and jumping on a balloon of Spider-man?). They end up in the circus and Neweyes Brother Screweyes(???) makes the kids that have befriended the dinosaurs sign a blank contract. Why? Why would kids sign a blank contract??? Screweyes says that if the dinosaurs take some..."Brain-Drain" That he will let the children go. The dinosaurs instead of tearing apart the evil Screweyes limb from limb, give in and agree to his terms. What?! This is stupid! They could have just menaced him, made him drop the contract, eaten it then walked off with the kids. I think the filmmakers were trying to show that violence is bad, which is a moot point when finally the dinosaurs escape and a bunch of crows envelop Screweyes and apparently completely eat him. Oh yeah, that's not violent at all! We're back makes no sense, it's not fun, it's goofy, it's stupid, poorly written and contains some of the biggest plot holes ever committed to film. Even for a kid's film... this is BAD.
|
negative
|
I was at first disgusted with director Sun-Woo Jang because I had felt that he cheated me. Jang had the potential to create a strong, deeply emotional film about sex and its effects on people, but instead chose to focus his strength on the pornography element more than the actual human element. I couldn't see the characters at first and his sloppy introduction which blended both realism and cinema together was amateurish at best
yet this film remained in my mind for days after I viewed it. What stayed with me wasn't the story, it wasn't the characters, nor was it the apparent pornographic nature of the film, but the transition that Jang demonstrated between Y and J. If you watch this film carefully, you will see that both begin in an exploration phase of their relationship, eager to jump into the unknown, but not quite certain the next step. As they continue to meet, exploring new avenues of pleasure, they continually jump between the aggressor and the aggressed. Jang initially explores the idea that J is the one that in control of the situation, then hauntingly, the reversal happens when J becomes obsessed with Y. It is a very small change, and due to the graphic content of this film, it can easily be missed, but it is there. It becomes apparently clear near the end when J cannot live with Y, as their meetings become less frequent, and J attempts to become a part of normal society. This was a huge and very exciting element to this film to see right before your eyes, but alas, it was the only element of this film worth viewing.<br /><br />I will ignore those that speak of this film as nothing more than pornographic, because there are human elements at the core of this film, as underdeveloped as they are, they are there. It is a film about a facet of our lives that is very rarely explored in cinema or talked about in the papers. What happens behind closed doors is never known
or so we should believe. While the act itself does becomes repetitive after a bit, director Jang tries to change it up a bit with some constantly changing scenery. Our characters are continually moving from hotel room to hotel room to best quench their thirst for each other's flesh. This is fun at first, but again, Jang's repetitive streak seems to make it feel boring than exciting. This leads me to the biggest issue that I had with this film. Jang had a great story with Gojitmal, but where he failed (outside of the obvious choice to focus directly on the pornographic side) was that he took scenes, repeated them time and again, without changing in front of us to allow us to get to know the characters. Where was Jang going with this movie? Did he want the sex to tell the stories, or did he believe the characters would? He failed in this sense because by the end of the film we know so little about Y and J that we could care less how they resolve themselves. The ending seems almost random at best as Jang attempts to create a final resolution for our two, absolute unknowns, of this film. I have to give Jang some credit for trying, but not much. He attempted to create some sub-stories that would create the personal element that we were lacking, but they just couldn't congeal well together. Y's brother and J's wife were those plot points, but again, due to him focusing so strongly on the sexual element, these stronger sub-stories became un-rememberable and down-right dull. Maybe it was just how I viewed this film, but outside of the sexual scenes, nothing else worked together. We knew nothing about J and Y and that is why Gojitmal failed.<br /><br />Finally, I would like to say that this film could have benefited from having a strong score or a daftly remote music genre element to it to bring us, the viewers, closer to the emotions being felt by J and Y. From what I can remember, and I am trying to push this film far from my mind, I don't remember any musical undertones. Gojitmal may have been a stronger film if Jang either stylized it with music or done something to allude towards our character's beings. While I understand that he wanted the sex to speak for itself, there was just a technical element missing from this film that may have quenched a stronger desire for more. Technically, this was a poor film. Obviously an independent film in nature, it felt more like director Jang was trying to make symbolic references out of nothing instead of your typical independent of this nature. I didn't see as much of a social message or human element like mentioned above, I just felt like he threw this film together over the course of two weeks and understood that the sex would sell it enough. This was no Larry Clark production; this was sub-par and definitely needed some further technical clicks to develop it stronger than the final release! <br /><br />Overall, I think I could have liked this film and there were smaller elements that I did enjoy, but I felt this film was rushed, repetitive, and played too much towards the taboos instead of breaking them. The obvious pitfalls of this film can be seen by the last scene of this film when we are privy to how the title of this film was conceived. Our characters were uneventful, our story was underdeveloped, and we could have used something memorable to make what was happening between Y and J into something more symbolic than sex. To me, Jang was trying too much to capture art house meets pornographic
and it failed miserably. This was not a film worth the time and effort that it took to make.<br /><br />Grade: ** out of *****
|
negative
|
Being a wrestling fan, movies about wrestling generally suck (Backyard Dogs, Bodyslam, Jesse Ventura story) but this one isn't the worst I've ever seen. Yes its bad but its better than some of the others I've mentioned.<br /><br />Hulk Hogan stars as basically himself and for some reason, a rival network wants to beat him up because he doesn't want to be on that network. Let me explain it so everyone can understand....picture USA Network having Rip...and TNT will go to any lengths to get him.<br /><br />Does this make sense...no? Well don't feel bad because it doesn't make sense. Nor does it make sense to have a legit ex con have a REAL fight with Rip at the end of the movie.<br /><br />None of this movie makes much sense but compared to other wrestling movies and later Hogan films its not so bad.<br /><br />4 out of 10
|
negative
|
"They All Laughed" is one of those little movies I am always recommending to friends seeking something out of the ordinary. It is firmly rooted in the screwball romance traditions of the past, but seems more contemporary. Even the decidedly early 80s atmosphere doesn't date it too much. Bogdanovich wisely keeps the whole enterprise so light on its feet, that reality never brings it crashing down to earth. But, that said, this sort of sweet little movie absolutely relies on the actors to keep it going, and "TAL" is blessed with a dream cast who understand the requirements of this sort of tale. It is a movie that wouldn't linger so long in the memory if it weren't for the little moments provided by the excellent cast: Colleen Camp's simultaneously shouting orders at John Ritter and her dog; Blaine Novak unleashing all that hair from under his hat; and especially the moment Dorothy Stratten falls for John Ritter and says, "How...weird." It's such a piece of fluff one doesn't want to lay too much on it for fear of crushing it, but it is certainly does leave one with a light heart and a smile on one's face.
|
positive
|
i'm not sure if it is available worldwide - but if anyone who's deciding what is supposed to be put on videotapes and distributed in video clubs - is reading this - please , please buy it! (if I wasn't clear: GET THE MOVIE INTO VIDEOSTORES!)<br /><br />can't be explained - must see!
|
positive
|
The numbers don't lie, 109 people have voted for this film. That says a great deal about the standing of one of the most intuitively insightful comedians of the late 20th century. And for those of you who know the work of Bill Hicks, if he were alive today, imagine what he would have to say about the boy president from his home state? That his short career remains unrecognized is a sad situation and this film, or rather these two films explain why. First, you see how his talent was obvious from the start, again and again, those who knew Bill Hicks always say he was not only funny, he was also unique. The film also shows how the quality of his material was too challenging for many in the entertainment industry. His drinking also contributed to his career problems, but that is less evident in this film. And then the second film is a complete performance. If you have never seen or heard Bill Hicks, this is a wonderful introduction to the person and his dark but intelligent humor. Especially due to the fact that the topics are now almost 14 years old, yet remain ironically up to date is underlined by the fact that many of the events took place under the first President Bush.<br /><br />Watching them together - first the biography and then the performance - makes you aware of how greatly talented this young man was, how quickly his life passed and how the American media can sometimes act as the great big homogenizer. Let's make sure nothing is too provocative, nothing will be too interesting And the result? Well, as the man himself said, go to sleep America, your government is in control........... In his lifetime, at least in Great Britian this artist was recognized for his talent and was successful there. 11 years after his death, 109 people at IMDb can say something about the film. After you've seen them both, I hope you understand why more people should be listening to Bill Hicks.
|
positive
|
(This might have a spoiler)<br /><br />When I first started watching this movie, I thought it was OK. The music was good and that bizarro dream sequence I was willing to forgive, but the lack of looks in the main character and all of the other characters for that matter made me uninterested in watching the rest of this film. (I know, totally vain.)The music at the beginning was spirited and fitting I thought for a mock Gothic novel. But, come on! Saxophone music for an early 19th century film? It totally didn't fit. This movie was totally boring and if you're looking to watch a good period film or an Austen don't rent Northanger Abbey! I give it a 30%. 30% = a failing grade!
|
negative
|
For all the Homicide junkies out there, this movie was great! Every single character that ever was on the show made an appearance in the movie. It helped to resolve some (but not all) issues from the series. Unfortunately, unless you actually did watch the series, most of the enjoyment would be lost, as the movie made heavy references to every season of the show's existence. This probably would have been appropriate as a series finale as opposed to being a separate movie, but we gotta take what we can get. I hope they make more movies, and continue to feature Homicide characters on Law and Order.
|
positive
|
Sublime--perfect--profound--a true lesson on the idealized meaning of life. We get completely caught up in the life journeys of Martina and Phillipa and<br /><br />Babette. Their yearnings, desires, sacrifices resonant long after the movie has ended. Seeing it years ago--as it was gaining a great deal of notoriety at the audaciousness of its subject matter--half the movie being a single dinner--the audience was "oohing and aahing" as some of the courses took their final<br /><br />glorious shape, laughing at the reaction of the diners, as they became totally seduced by the gustatorial pleasures being introduced to them by Babette, and being totally surprised at the turn of events at the end of the film. Subsequently seeing the film years later after my own twists and turns of life, I realized just how profound the film is. On this viewing tears flowed freely. The film's<br /><br />meditation on the passage of time and the way it uses a seemingly simple story to comment on life and love and art and generosity is truly something to<br /><br />cherish.
|
positive
|
A nice, humorous mix of music hall (in the first third mostly) and police procedural mystery as the various suspects' stories start to collapse. The final exposure of the murder may come as a surprise if you don't watch closely. A gritty look at Paris of the time. You can ignore the final scene (the Hollywood ending). Louis Jouvet is best as the police inspector who seems to be just passing through, but is really on top of things.
|
positive
|
I've seen tons of HK actioners, and this one is right at the top of the genre. The action scenes are as exciting and kinetic as anything you've ever seen in any action movie. The kung fu is spectacular, the pyrotechnics eye-popping, the stunt work heartstopping. The editing is perfectly paced, heightening the tension and complimenting the fluid camera work. This film is directed by old pro Corey Yuen, whose resume is stuffed with some of the best work of the genre, including the Jet Li vehicle The Legend of Fong Sai-Yuk. If there is one thing lacking in this film it is the presence of a three-dimensional character, though Martin, the male lead, comes closest to it. This movie is full of archetypes rather than characters--the sexy killer, the goofy thief and his bitchy girlfriend, the cackling villains. That said, Shannon Lee has a terrific screen presence; she's great with the fighting, the stunts, and the guns. When she's onscreen it's hard to take your eyes off her. She's that good. Why isn't this woman a major star?
|
positive
|
This is a very amusing and sometimes quite creepy anthology, that if a bit short in the screenwriting department, more than makes up for the shortcoming in the acting, location work and overall exuberance. The best episodes of this are the first with Denholm Elliot playing a horror writer stalked by a character from his novel in the works ( a perfect example of the acting pulling this out of the merely pedestrian); the third, with Christopher Lee as a man terrified of his own daughter and the final episode with the late great Jon Pertwee as a pompous horror film star who gets more than just a new role on his latest project. The dialogue between Pertwee and Ingrid Pitt is sparkling and inspired, both obviously relishing the opportunity to really ham it up! Cushing is typically good in the weakest segment, which certainly isn't helped by the fact that the wax figure of the woman he's obsessed with down at the local wax museum, is anything but "beautiful" as we are told to believe she is! Someone of shocking beauty was needed and instead we're given a woman with a jaw of a turtle. Minor quibbles aside this movie and it's wonderful country house setting is one to catch when you can.
|
positive
|
What was this supposed to be? A remake of Fisher King? Why do we care about Sandler's character? What a slow, dreary, boring, who-gives-a-damn-about-these-people movie!!! Just simply painful to sit through, I turned it off before it was over. It's so obvious that Cheadle needs help as much as Sandler; like I said: can you say "Fisher King"? And how does this psychotic character function in his daily life? We aren't supposed to think that deeply, I guess. Why does Cheadle continue to give Sandler a chance to turn violent on him? If they were such good friends, how did they grow apart? If Cheadle is so in control, why does he keep seeking the advice of the shrink on the street? We are never told. That's why Fisher King was a better film on so many levels and why this just sucks. Nearly 8 out of 10 average score? I don't agree. At all. Even the top films are lucky to get such a high average rating, and this crap doesn't deserve to be in the same universe with them.
|
negative
|
Did anybody succeed in getting in this movie?<br /><br />It's a total mess to me: a vague historical/sentimental context instead of a plot, a pretentious imagery as mise en scene and it lasts two hours!<br /><br />Shame on those who wasted money here.
|
negative
|
There have been some funny movies about spirits to come out of Hollywood. Cary Grant was an angel in "The Bishop's Wife" (1947). Of course the best were the Topper movies in the late '30s-early '40s. And, more recently, Warren Beatty's "Heaven Can Wait" (1978), which was a remake of 1941's "Here Comes Mr. Jordan." These were well-written, funny, entertaining comedies, all of which centered around supernatural creatures like ghosts and angels.<br /><br />Now comes writer-director Jeff Lowell, making his feature film debut with a story of an unlikable, bitchy young woman, Kate (Eva Longoria Parker), who gets killed on her wedding day and then comes back to harass the fledgling spiritualist, Ashley (Lake Bell) who is falling for Kate's fiancé, Henry (Paul Rudd). One thing that is clear at the outset: Longoria Parker is no Constance Bennett (Marion Kerby in the first two "Topper" films), who is the standard against whom all female ghosts are measured.<br /><br />There is a line right at the beginning when Henry's sister, Chloe (Lindsay Sloane) tells Henry, "You don't smile." That aptly described my situation throughout this film.<br /><br />The main problem with the film is that the script just isn't very funny. But it's made worse by Longoria Parker's presence that just rubbed me the wrong way every time she appeared on the screen. Just to start out with, compounding her lack of comedic talent, she is covered with so much pancake makeup, who knows what she really looks like? Kate gets killed while setting up for her wedding by a falling frozen statue. She's so unreasonable that the angel who instructs her about what her afterlife is about walks out on her (well, she actually just fades out), so Kate finds herself back on earth as a ghost without knowing what her mission is.<br /><br />Chloe wants Henry to snap out of the funk into which he has naturally descended after Kate's death (from what I saw of Kate, he should have felt a wonderful relief), so she introduces him to Ashley, who really doesn't know what she's doing as a spiritualist (she is also a cateress to make ends meet), to see if she can get Henry back in touch with Kate. There's a lot of meshugaas that goes on.<br /><br />The vacuity of the film is epitomized by a "B" story revolving around Ashley's assistant, Dan (Jason Biggs). This is thrown in near the end, but the way Ashley handles it indicates that she's as much of a boob as Kate. Since Dan is apparently attracted to both of these severely flawed women, he deserves whatever he gets.<br /><br />Eventually Kate appears to Ashley and the fun should begin. It doesn't, and more's the pity because in other hands this could have been pretty funny. As it is, Norman Z. McLeod, Constance Bennett, Roland Young, Alan Mowbray, and Co. must be turning over in their graves to see this is what their brilliance in the first two "Topper" films has wrought.
|
negative
|
When George Sluizer was told he could direct an American version of the book "Het Gouden Ei"/the movie "Spoorloos"(outside Holland, this movie has the name "the Vanishing" too), he was told that this would only go through if the ending was changed - He was told that 'the American Audience' wouldn't approve the original ending. Of course, the original ending is much better, and without it, the movie loses its impact. Because I have already put this in the trivia section, I won't give the original ending and keep my comment spoiler-free. If you want to know the original ending, watch "Spoorloos" or read the book. This movie is absolute rubbish, and the first Kiefer Sutherland movie I don't like. Watch the original Dutch movie, which is one of the best thrillers in the world.
|
negative
|
This agreeably perverse and oddball early 80's teen body count flick may never reach the astonishingly bent pinnacle of the deeply unsettling and criminally underrated murderous moppets movie "Devil Times Five," but it's still an above average killer kid opus nonetheless.<br /><br />The slim, but serviceable plot centers on a trio of misfit tykes -- two bratty boys and one creepily twinkle-eyed, albeit angelic-looking little girl -- who are all born during a solar eclipse on June 9th, 1970. When the strange antisocial trio, who stick together in a tightly self-contained and exclusive circle, reach ten years of age they suddenly go homicidally bonkers and declare open season on the hapless, unsuspecting local yokels of the heretofore sleepy and peaceful California suburb of Meadowvale. Writer/director Ed Hunt, the usually incompetent unsung hack responsible for such wonderfully wretched clunkers as the delightfully dopey "Starship Invasions," the uproariously inane Jesus Christ vigilante parable (!) "Alien Warrior," and the stunningly silly "The Brain," does a pretty solid and capable job here: the kill scenes are abundant and reasonably brutal (the arrow-through-the-eye gag is especially nasty), there's a sizable smattering of gratuitous nudity and soft-core sex, a goodly amount of tension is neatly created and maintained, some nice dollops of dark humor punctuate the arrestingly warped mayhem, and the surprise grim ending manages to be truly jolting.<br /><br />Moreover, the top-drawer cast further elevates the proceedings to the perfectly watchable and absorbing: Jose Ferror as a small-town doctor, future "Jake and the Fatman" TV series star Joe Penny as an amateur astrologer, "The Prey" 's Lori Lethin as the plucky babysitter heroine, Susan Strasberg as a bitchy school teacher, "American Ninja" 's Michael Dudikoff as a chowderhead jock, and Cyril O'Reilly (the lonely misanthrope vampire in the hauntingly melancholy "Dance of the Damned") as a libidinous teen dude who gets bagged while doing just what you think with some naked hot chick in back of a parked van. Billy Jacoby (who went on to star in such late 80's direct-to-video dross as "Dr. Alien" and "Demonwarp"), Andy Freeman, and especially the eerily adorable Elizabeth Hoy are genuinely creepy and convincing as the terrible troika of chillingly evil and amoral rugrats. And, yes, that's none other than Julie Brown, the brassy comedienne who scored a surprise Top 40 hit with the hilarious novelty tune "The Homecoming Queen's Gotta Gun," as the lovely, vacuous, full-breasted redhead bimbo who does a great lengthy, totally extraneous, yet still sizzling and much-appreciated nude striptease while dancing in her bedroom to a cheesy blaring rock song! All in all, this baby sizes up as a sturdy and satisfying slasher item.
|
positive
|
I am not one of those people that will walk out of a movie that was based on source material and automatically say, "The book was better." I know better than to demote the value of a movie just because it wasn't a faithful adaptation. There is a lengthy process and lots of decisions that go into making a movie that are sometimes out of the director's/editor's/cinematographer's/producer's control and certainly out of the original author's control. Therefore, it is unreasonable to expect a movie to be exactly the same, word for word, as a book or play or video game or Disneyland Ride, or whatever! A movie should be judged on its own standard and how it fits in society. Moreover, a successful movie should be made because the material is relevant to the society which it belongs and, if it is based on source material, its relevance needs to be reexamined and enhanced by the filmmakers. <br /><br />Films like There Will Be Blood follow this paradigm because while it was based on a novel written at the turn of the century, Oil!, it feels relevant because of things like the Iraq war and energy concerns that the film's country of origin, the US, was and is experiencing. Even King Kong, based on the original film, benefits from using new technology and concerns of animal rights that people have.<br /><br />With that said, I just don't understand why they even bothered to make this movie? Besides the great performances, guaranteed Oscar nods and Shanley's director/writers fee and royalties he will get, this movie seems to come from nowhere. It should have simply stayed as a play. The movie (which is essentially the same as the play) says nothing new about the reprehensible sexual atrocities committed and in many cases covered up by the Catholic church here and abroad. It says nothing new or different than the original play. I can't help but compare this movie to another movie that came out at around the same time: Frost/Nixon, which was also based on a play. Frost/Nixon, while about Nixon's regrets, seems relevant because it seems to have come at a time when President Bush was about to leave office. The regrets that Nixon had, as depicted in the play/movie, about the war and his presidency could just as easily reflected on Bush and his presidency. In that respect Frost/Nixon seemed more relevant and actually benefited from a wider distribution via film because it got people talking and reflecting about the political status quo in the country at the time. In contrast, Doubt felt like it was yesterday's news and didn't seem to offer anything that the play didn't offer.<br /><br />Of course the movie is "good," the performances are outstanding, and the screenplay adaptation is apt, but so what? Why didn't it just stay as a play? Why, besides marketing and financial reasons, make it into a movie? It gave audiences nothing new to discus about the awful subject.
|
negative
|
I have always wanted to see this because I love cheesy horror movies and with a title like this, I was sure "The Incredible Melting Man" would be a lot of fun.<br /><br />It really wasn't. I mean, the acting was entertainingly bad, the script contained some classic bad lines and the special effects looked like someone had sneezed all over the lead actor, so I should have loved it. Unfortunately it's really draggy between these highlights. I decided to watch the last half of the movie while doing my tax return. That's how boring this film is.<br /><br />Nevertheless, if you love bad movies you will enjoy the dramatic exit of the Fat Nurse, and the stellar acting of the guy who plays Dr. Ted. To be fair to the poor man, he does have to deliver some amazingly inept lines with straight face - like the conversation he has with his wife on tracking down the I M Man:<br /><br />"I'll find him with a geiger counter." "Is he radioactive?" "Just a little bit." <br /><br />Yes, the plot has Dr. Ted wandering about trying to find a superstrong zombie killing machine armed only with what looks like a mini-Dyson. He's a brave man. Unfortunately his plan fails when he finds a big lot of goop on a tree. "Oh god - it's his ear!" says Dr. Ted to the audience. I'm so glad he cleared that up. <br /><br />I realise I'm making this movie sound rather fun. It would be if it were only 10 minutes long, but unfortunately it goes on and on, and the Incredible Melting Dude just dangles about making a sticky mess when he should be eating more people in my opinion. I think if you were truly stoned you would probably love it, just don't have pop-tarts during the movie, because the lead actor really does resemble one near the end.
|
negative
|
Latcho Drom, or Safe Journey, is the second film in Tony Gatlif's trilogy of the Romany people. The film is a visual depiction and historical record of Romany life in European and Middle Eastern countries. Even though the scenes are mostly planned, rehearsed, and staged there is not a conventional story line and the dialog does not explain activities from scene to scene. Instead, the film allows the viewer to have sometimes a glimpse, sometimes a more in-depth view of these people during different eras and in different countries, ranging from India, Egypt, Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, France, and Spain.<br /><br />The importance of music in Romany culture is clearly expressed throughout the film. It is a vital part of every event and an important means of communication. Everything they do is expressed with music. Dance is another important activity. Like Romany music, it is specialized and deeply personal, something they alone know how to do correctly. We are provided glimpses into their everyday activities, but the film is not a detailed study of their lives. Rather, it is a testament to their culture, focusing on the music and dance they have created and which have made them unique.<br /><br />Mr. Gatlif portrays the nomadic groups in a positive way. However, we also witness the rejection, distrust, and alienation they receive from the non-Romany population. It seems that the culture they have developed over countless generations, and inspired from diverse countries, will fade into oblivion because conventional society has no place for nomadic ways.<br /><br />The other films in the trilogy are Les Princes (1983) and Gadjo Dilo (1998).
|
positive
|
This is a romantic, albeit cheesy movie that is one of my all time favorites. It is one of the many CLASSICS of the 80's genre like "Pretty in Pink" or "Some kind of Wonderful".<br /><br />Nic plays the traditional punk guy in love with the traditional valley, preppy girl Julie. It is a heartwarming love story that makes you root for him to win the girl in the end.<br /><br />True, most of the acting sucks but ...<br /><br />I have been in love with Nic since seeing this in the theaters and have seen nearly every movie he's been in since. He's really grown as an actor but it is obvious in this early movie of his that he had a LOT of potential.<br /><br />If you love 80's movies, you will LOVE this classic.<br /><br />Go rent it!!!!!
|
positive
|
Sadness was the emotion I felt, after the screen went dark. Puzzled, was another. Why would two seasoned screen vets like Matthau and Lemmon sign on to this putrid project? I'm under the impression they didn't read the script, before the cameras started rolling. All the cast is wasted, in this unfunny, uninteresting and unimpressive movie. Sadly enough, this was one of elegant Edward Mulhare's last projects, here as the heavy. Dyan Cannon tries, Hal Linden looks bored, Donald O'connor reciting a few lines laden with profanity. (??!!). I'm not with the "Legion of Decency." My point is they were spouted purely for the strangeness of hearing him use off-color language. That is a desperate attempt to infuse "humor" into a picture. He actually did deliver the film's only morsel of entertainment, when he pattered about on the dancefloor, though. I save my harshest criticism for the leads. Walter Matthau should have known better. He still delivers great solo performances (IQ, Dennis The Menace, etc.). His character, although affable, is rather dull and one dimensional. Seen him once, seen him all. Jack Lemmon gives another one of his trademark, weepy, "just too darn sensitive" male portrayals. When he starts that mode, I vicariously want to hand him a box of tissues. OUT TO SEA is painfully unfunny, and whoever produced this mess should be made to walk the plank.
|
negative
|
Reading the other user comments, the review by A666333 has articulated most of what I was feeling throughout this film- predictable storyline, cliché versions of lesbians/heterosexuals (i.e. straight woman becomes a lesbian while concluding that her husband is abusive and aggressive). <br /><br />Also, the score was severely disappointing. It was bland, soft, sentimental elevator music- another common cliché in movies about lesbians. The movie would have had a few interesting dramatic moments if they had not been destroyed by the music.<br /><br />A few scenes concerning sex and eroticism also struck me as attempts to titillate and raise shock value, including parts of the final performance scene. The conventional "hot and steamy" moments were as boring as the overly sentimental score. For example during the pool scene, the women are kissing, and then the camera pans along the abandoned wine glass, the flowing water, the sound of their heavy breathing over the soft crashing of waves.<br /><br />The only elements I liked were the costuming and arobatics. They are well-choreographed, and the development of attraction between the two characters felt very natural during the training scenes. I genuinely smiled during those, and during the last scene with the police officer. But they were not enough to balance out the negatives or make me enjoy this film.
|
negative
|
It's a bit difficult to believe that this came from the same director that gave us HELLRAISER. Where's the style, the foreboding, and the charm? I mean, HELLRAISER is not a great horror film, but at least it had something. NIGHTBREED is like a large ball of bad ideas poorly executed. From the opening there is a problem with subtlety: the monsters are shown in the first shot! The opening dream sequence shows too much for too long. Our hero doesn't display professional acting skills (but no one expected that from this bastard genre). There are killings that one wishes were more interesting. Then we have David Cronenberg. The man was never really meant to be an actor. He fills the role of the creepy psychiatrist adequately, but what he should have done was step behind the camera and save this disaster. Then we come to Midian, a creepy fake graveyard with an over-creepy fake gate. This thing is not a huge improvement over the cemetery in PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE. It gets worse when we meet the creatures in it. There is nothing really wrong with the character design and make-up effects here (well... except for the guy with no scalp, the guy with a pointy chin and forehead, and the fat guy with dark circles around his eyes), the problem is the way they act and the terrible dialogue that is given them. Barker's photography of the subterranean city is tired and this part of the story could have been made much better. Some might call what follows SPOILERS. After our hero dies and becomes "nightbreed" we wait around to see what he'll turn into (there's talk of things that fly and werewolves), but when the time comes for him to change they appearantly thought their hero too pretty to give a decent creature design. With the turn in Cronenberg's "character" the story just gets less interesting until the battle of freaks vs. norms (which is just bad). Barker's mythology failed him here. There is no genius and little originality behind any of NIGHTBREED. The picture could have used a larger budget, a serious script, and character design that doesn't leave you saying "oh...oh, how lame." What a waste. Not scary, not cool, not even very dark, just weak.
|
negative
|
Oh, dear lord.... They've turned what was a fairly thought provoking movie into a swaggering testosterone fest.<br /><br />The original 1971 version of this movie was beautifully vague about our hero Kowalski. He was a man trying to drive from Denver to San Fransisco to win a bet. Why was he willing to risk his life for the price of a handful of uppers? We're not really sure.<br /><br />We had a few flashbacks that gave us the picture that he was an adrenaline junkie, and presumably he had led his entire life trying to make it to the vanishing point. That point you see off in the distance where the left and right shoulders of the road come together, and the road itself vanishes. He lives only to be free, and means no ill on anyone. We saw several times when there were accidents he stopped to make sure the other driver was okay before moving on, even the cops that were chasing him.<br /><br />When he saw the futility of his quest he took his life rather than be arrested and live a life of captivity. He died like he lived, running wide open.<br /><br />In the remake Kowalski has a whole history (including a first name, even.) He's trying to get to the hospital where his wife is suffering from complications to her pregnancy. He is a devoted husband, and excited expectant father. He comes to the decision to take his life after hearing his wife died in delivery, but they even leave THAT in question when they suggest that he may have jumped out of the car before it ran into the bulldozers. They even gave the part of "super soul," the blind DJ (brilliantly portrayed by Clevon Little in the original) to JASON PRIESTLY?!?!?!?!?!? Give me a break.
|
negative
|
James Joyce, arguably, could write some of the best sentences in the English language, and his short story, "The Dead," which ends his collection The Dubliners, containsin its finaleperhaps the most perfect paragraph in the English language. It's fitting that John Huston, who held back in attempting to film this story, ended his career with it. As with The Red Badge of Courage and The Man Who Would Be King, Huston revered the literary source but made the adaptation cinematic. And with "The Dead" (which was completed after Huston's death by his son, Tony Huston) we get something nearly perfect in the marriage of literature and cinema.<br /><br />Valuing all that cinema can do, as one of the commentators points out "this isn't The African Queen" (nor does it need to be), this is the kind of movie that is uncompromising for an audience. All of us slogged through Portrait of an Artist in school, and one needs to bring the maturity of appreciating how words and images in and of themselves can touch us. As with silent films, Huston seeks something pure here, and he works with the confidence of his many years and leaves the world a masterpiece that equals Joyce's original.<br /><br />Many veterans of the Irish theater world are recruited to bring the story of a man filled with self-importance (and mock self-doubt) that's reinforced by the hosts of an annual party on the eve of the Feast of the Epiphany. What's in store for Gabriel Conroy is an evening of celebration, song, dance, poetry where he's asked to give the annual toast to the two sisters and their niece who host the party. He's distracted by the task wanting to rise to the occasion, and this distraction leaves him vulnerable for an earth-shattering experience, handed to him by his wife. While his ego is shaken when he hears a story from his wife's past, it's also a gift where all that seems to have mattered throughout the evening is swept away by the realization of impending mortality for all who are living.<br /><br />And rather than trying to make the last famous paragraph of the story "cinematic," Huston brings in a voice over and we hear those incredible words recited as we watch "the snow falling faintly through the universe and faintly falling." It's the perfect solution to a filmmaker's adaptation.<br /><br />The cast is all we would hope. Since this is basically a testament to the power of the written word and how it brings us together through common experience each performer seems elevated by their role. Anjelica Huston as Gretta Conroy has a wide range to play, and her account of a young boy who once loved her sears not only Gabriel Conroy, but the audience as well.<br /><br />When I think of Anjelica Huston, it's the transformation she makes in this film; and when I think of her father, it's this film I remember first.
|
positive
|
Saw in on TV late last night. Yeah, I can hear what y'all say about this one. It IS likely to be categorized as one of those stereo- typical TV soap series. In all fairness, the story line does have a fine twist to it, and you might nod saying, "Well, that's not what I expected." But, as a film, well it is not easy to spot a redeeming element. Casting, acting, camera work, cars, costume, setting, script, no, there's nothing to congratulate. Rated R?? Oh, that scene. Did we need it? This is a film that you can watch it and then forget that you even watched. And what was the title again?
|
negative
|
This film is replete with sentimentality, unprofessional flying that makes a pilot like me cringe, and irrelevant material. Why introduce Rachel, for instance? She has absolutely nothing to do with the film except to permit her "Follow Me" truck to run wild and crash into Dorinda's fence. That has got to be one of the stupider sequences among many in the film. Another is at the end when the aircraft (was it a B-26 or an A-26? --both designations are used in the film) is left with props whirling and no chocks in place. That serves the plot, of course, but to reveal it would be to commit a dreaded spoiler. As it is, the aircraft would have begun to taxi sans control. The ending (again, avoiding spoilers) involves much too much talk -- as at the beginning of sound films in the 30s with all those final speeches. Here, Dreyfuss just babbles on and on. The ending also incorporates other radical violations of aircraft protocol and a couple of improbabilities/impossibilities that I won't describe. What a dull and disjointed effort!
|
negative
|
This is one of the few movies released about a "what if" type of situation that made me think. It was amazing to hear them speak to each other, and reminisce about all the wonderful (and not so wonderful) things that happened between them. I actually think that there is a very good possibility this occurred like the movie implies, and they actually made peace with each other. Those are good memories for every fan to hang onto, and to ask what actually happened between them would be selfish. What an AMAZING movie this was. The comedic aspects of the movie were wonderful. To think that they were together to patch things up between them in such a way is a comforting thought to people who wish they had a chance to clear the air with someone they didn't get to. To see John as such a caring, laid back character was refreshing from hearing all of the trash that was spoken about him...
|
positive
|
Where this movies differs from traditional Hollywood movie is that it shows a true depth of feelings. In Europe for example we've had years of war and though one nation could never eradicate the other, the old enemies always ended living next to each other or WITH each other at the end of the conflict. In the US, the immigrants white population exterminated the aboriginal population to near extinction. the US citizen never had to live with its enemy. This explains in my view the often simplistic nature of Hollywood movie when they try and explain a foreign country's strife. But in this movie, the director and screenplay did not fall into this cliché. It turns out everyone in the story has some right and some wrong. it's a great story of morality, hidden truth and compromise.
|
positive
|
This is a sad movie about this woman who thought her ex who she loved so much was probably dead, but really his scientist dad had just put a spell on him to turn him into this really cute shark-guy. Kind of like in Beauty and the Beast. It could probably use a ballroom dance scene and maybe some singing candlesticks, but there are some pretty gross plants instead. They make this one girl really itchy, so she lets herself get eaten by the shark-guy instead of scratching through the whole movie. The scientist guy is a good dad who tries to reunite his fishy shark son with the woman he was engaged to, he even arranges for them to have private time for s-e-x, but the woman in this is a really shallow snob and thinks the shark-guy is an ugly, icky monster and wants nothing to do with him. She gave up on love! Just because he was a shark! I thought it was pretty sad how all she had to do was kiss him and he'd turn back to normal and they'd live happily ever after, but it's not that kind of movie.
|
negative
|
On the eighth day God created Georges. But the same as an eighth day doesn't fit into the week, Georges doesn't fit into the modern world: He has Down syndrome and is therefore marginalized by society, shunted off to an asylum after his mother's death four years ago. She was the only one who loved him.<br /><br />Harry is another man that isn't loved anymore. His wife has left him, for reasons that she is unable to explain. He loses the love of his daughters, too, when he arrives too late at the railway station to collect the two kids, who wanted to spend the weekend with their father.<br /><br />Harry is a highly ranked businessman. He knows all the rules that enable us to succeed in our modern meritocracy. But he has entered a state of crisis, which reaches a climax after the loss of the love of his daughters. He questions the sense of his life, without obtaining any definite results.<br /><br />Harry and Georges meet. At first Harry tries to get rid of Georges, the same as all the others do. But Georges can't be shaken off. And it gradually dawns on Harry, how much he needs Georges, if he wants to get over his identity crisis. It is Georges who opens a new access to the world for him and who makes him view his life with different eyes. Friendship and human warmth take the place of calculating striving for success. It is no surprise that Harry now cannot avoid failing in his job.<br /><br />Georges helps Harry to regain the recognition of the daughters. Even his wife has to admit that the fireworks which he organized were worth seeing. Nonetheless a reintegration into the old life is no longer possible. And the new one turns out to be nothing more than a dream with a time limit, which unstoppably will reach its end. The camera watches Harry and Georges from above, for one long minute, as they are both lying down in the grass, just savoring the moment. But the same as this minute will unavoidably go by, the friendship of the two men, which came into being in such a wondrous fashion, will not be long-lasting. Georges is destroyed by the impossibility of love to the opposite sex and can see no other way out but to commit suicide. Harry turns into a city tramp, who asks the car drivers that are waiting in front of the traffic lights for charity.<br /><br />The movie describes modern meritocracy as a disastrous mechanism which devours positive values such as human warmheartedness or friendship. It is Georges, the mongol, who seems to be capable of showing the way out of the dilemma, but unfortunately his plea comes to a bad end. However, his failure does not necessarily have to mean that it is impossible or not desirable to reach the aspired goal. The way he shows us is surely passable, although it requires a huge amount of willpower and, above all, the courage to apply a radical nonconformism.
|
positive
|
You know you're in trouble when John Cassavetes is operating at half-speed instead of full-throttle in a movie, and "The Incubus" is a dreadful, worst-case scenario of a great actor going through the motions to pay the bills. Actually, observing the hammy script and John Hough's 'baroque' art direction, one can hardly blame him. The movie has something to do with a series of rape-murders going on in a small town, with a lot of supernatural hokum mixed in. Somehow, the direction manages to suck tension and interest out of every scene, and Cassavetes seems visibly P.O.'ed at times. The Incubus itself, which doesn't show up until the last scene, is a well-done creation, but it's not worth waiting for.<br /><br />1/10
|
negative
|
Julia Roberts obviously makes a concerted effort to shake off her cotton wool Pretty Woman persona with this spurious spousal abuse thriller, but it's hard to imagine she'd end up putting in a performance as powerful and convincing (and oscar winning) as she did in Erin Brokovich based on the back of this rubbish. And make no bones about it, it's nothing more than a Julia Roberts vehicle, but unfortunately, her performance is not the most lacklustre thing about it.<br /><br />The plot has all the markings of a late night made-for-cable, and don't be under the impression that it will offer any insight into the dark world of domestic abuse because non of the characters are sketched out enough for you to really care. <br /><br />Ultimately disappointing and unsatisfying, without Roberts' name above the title, I'm sure it would have totally flopped, deservedly.
|
negative
|
I was pretty young when this came out in the US, but I recorded it from TV and watched it over and over again until I had the whole thing memorized. To this day I still catch myself quoting it. The show itself was hilarious and had many famous characters, from Frank Sinatra, to Sylvester Stallone, to Mr. T. The voices were great, and sounded just like the characters they were portraying. The puppets were also well done, although a little creepy. I was surprised to find out just recently that it was written by Rob Grant and Doug Naylor of Red Dwarf, a show that I also enjoy very much. Like another person had written in a comment earlier, I too was robbed of this great show by a "friend" who borrowed it and never returned it. I sure wish there was enough demand for this show to warrant a DVD release, but I don't think enough people have heard of it. Oh well, maybe I'll try e-bay...
|
positive
|
This was truly the most painful experience I have had in quite some time in a movie theater. I will forego such facile criticisms as 'maudlin' or 'historically inaccurate' or 'horse's crap's crap' because quite simply our sympathies would then immediately go out to these words. If a director's to make a sweeping grandiose love epic, well for god's sake MAKE A REAL DAMN SWEEPING GRANDIOSE LOVE EPIC! Why bother with such laughably unconvincing second rate harlequin romances and such boring interchanges between characters we could care less about when the most decisive battle on Canadian soil is taking place? And for the pompous people thinking 'oh well, this story must center characters!" well you're wrong, dead wrong.
|
negative
|
It ran from 1959-1973. Its more than its longevity that says a lot for this series. Its also that it survived changes in fashion and taste from the 50's , psychedelic 60's and remained popular in the 70's.<br /><br />I remember repeats of this series. It was a successful combination of all its elements from stories, cast and productions that made it exceptional. Lorne Green had his defining iconic character from this series. Its appeal was across generations. All members of the family could enjoy this. It balanced morality with violence, humour with seriousness. A cartoon series was made as a spin off from this as a result of its impact. The shame is that this series is no longer repeated and many will not know its significance.
|
positive
|
This movie made my face hurt. I don't understand it...things just happened, inexplicably, and they usually resulted in someone bursting into a song and dance number. I don't understand how people can laud this film with praise. There are B-movies, and then there are B-musicals, and then there is Rockula.<br /><br />The songs made me want to run headlong into a wall. The only saving grace is that one of the musical explosions turns out to be a musical video, which eases the pain, yet still fails to justify why it needed to exist. The most frightening section of the film is Toni Basil's creep-dance that accompanies her weird song. But on the bright side, she can manages to find the notes that she is looking for, unlike pop music sensations Rockula (aka Rapula) and Mona...wow, can we say tone deaf. So if you want to question life for about 90 minutes, see this film. If you hate your life, then buy it.
|
negative
|
A very good adaptation of the novel by amrita pritam. Urmila and manoj bajpai have given their best.<br /><br />there is a natural flair in the movie and i felt it right through. It looked like bollywood finally gave away it's glamor and had some quality artists performing on screen.<br /><br />Content wise, the movie depicted very much what exactly happened during partition by showing the sufferings of a particular family and also shows that trust in one's life goes beyond religion.<br /><br />The best part was they did not make it a drama with a lot of tear shedding and melodrama.<br /><br />I simply loved it.
|
positive
|
I thought this to be a pretty good example of a better soft core erotica film. It has a reasonable plot about the madame of a bordello caught up in a police scheme to nab a wealthy crook.<br /><br />Hardcore porn star Chloe Nichole again shows her genuine acting ability. She will occasionally appear in soft core such as "Body of Love" and "Lady Chatterly's Stories. Nicole Hilbig, on the other hand, leaves something to be desired in her role as the female cop.
|
positive
|
When I saw the preview for this movie, I figured to myself, "here's another dumb TV movie that's written with the thought and complexity of a soap opera," but when I saw it I was surprised. Tiffany-Amber Thiessen stars (and proves that she can indeed act if given the chance) as a woman who falls in love with and marries a man (Now and Again's Eric Close) but begins to lose trust in him when a series of rapes begin to take place in her community. At first, she is blinded by his assurances that he is innocent and her love for him, but as time passes she continues to be suspicious of him.<br /><br />While this sounds like the set-up for another boring melodramatic TV-movie, it is really much better than that, because the characters are well-acted by Thiessen and Close, and the movie's script allows them to be much more complicated and intelligent than you'd expect; these aren't just caricatures or cardboard characters that exist only to move the plot along but real, three-dimensional people, and we find ourselves really caring about them. And the movie is smart enough that it is able to provide an exciting, involving climax to the story without resorting to dumb action scenes, mindless cliches or cheap melodrama. Instead we share in the main character's inner conflicts and fears, and are given a realistic portrayal of how she might be able to resolve them and do the right thing.<br /><br />If you get a chance to give this one a look, please do so. It's production values are not exactly top-notch (it is a TV movie, after all), but if you can look past that, there is an excellent story to enjoy.
|
positive
|
What a fine film! Unfortunately, being 1947, the movie script couldn't have followed the book from which it was adapted, but the murder of a homosexual would have been too hot to handle in that era.<br /><br />I thought all of the performances were outstanding, as well as the script, direction, brilliant black and white cinematography, music and film noir atmosphere.<br /><br />I do understand that in 1947 the film couldn't portray racism against blacks or prejudice against homosexuals. (Robert Young's account of prejudice against his grandfather who was Irish and who endured this racism 100 years ago was pretty lame, but the times dictated that the film avoid a further examination of racism.) <br /><br />I do have one observation and one question to ask the viewer: 1. Did you notice that Robert Young didn't aim his gun when he shot and killed Robert Ryan who was running fast in the dark and Young shot from an upper story window into the dark without aiming? 2. If Robert Young's grandfather was killed 100 years ago in 1847 (the film was made in 1947) and Young was 40 years old, the time line would not be logical. If the grandfather had been killed 50 years ago then the time frame would be realistic.
|
positive
|
Turner and friends are closing in on HBO for the top spot among made-for-TV movie producers. This is a nicely paced, contemplative thriller of sorts. William Macy is stellar, as always, and Adam Arkin offers one of his better performances. A bit more lively than classic Hitchcock but not as in-your-face as typical movies of its type, A Slight Case of Murder eases you in and never lets go. (Note: I saw a preview copy, which means I didn't have to wait through commercials. Those interruptions may hurt the pacing, but you know this will be available on video sometime
|
positive
|
After seeing A Texas Tale of Treason, the measly correspondence efforts by Cox could not even afford the massive collusion Stu directed with no budget. It tells a story about dedication, sweat, whiz, fire and punk rock. I love it! My favorite parts are the interviews with Marci (she's such a hot baby babe and she digs me but she just doesn't know it yet). The Japanese clerk muffing his lines, that cracked me up. The sex scene was really cool. I am going to see if Stu will come over sometime and do the box light wave thing when i'm doing it with my woman. The intro and of course my 5 seconds during closing credits. I know thats going to get me some chicks. I hope to see more from Antstuie because I know I can expect the unexpected.
|
positive
|
I loved this movie!!! The characters were people that you could feel for. The young man back from the service still in love with the girl he left behind. Tom Drake is always perfect in the romantic lead as well as Donna Reed as the love of his life. The looks he gives her as if he has been starved for the sight of her as well as her hesitation and confusion as too her feelings for him were played very well. The rest of the quirky characters at the store were perfect as they tried to bring them together. The most touching scene however, was the young couple at his great grandfather's house. I laughed in parts, cried in some and thoroughly enjoyed watching this movie. In fact I've re-watched it about 5 times. A definite must see for total romantics.
|
positive
|
This relic of a short film starts with a teen going through the process of attempting to get a driver's license. It quickly becomes sidetracked with just about every imaginable topic relating to cars.<br /><br />Such things as dune buggies, drag racing, custom paint jobs and car shows are discussed. It often attempts to be humorous but instead the film is dull, drawn out and even sexist at times. None of the people in the film are actually heard. Instead, everything is done in narration and voiceovers. Sorry, but I can't stand that.<br /><br />There is nothing educational or interesting about "Dad, Can I Borrow The Car?". It's just another piece of mindless filler to take up time on their "Wonderful World Of Disney" TV show. 1/10
|
negative
|
Although my exposure to world cultures is limited, I do try. This was a film that I tried and hated. Worst of all, after hearing so many people decry the shallowness of typical Hollywood fare and its stereotypical caricatures, I saw characters too outrageous for "Eastenders" being paraded as realistic.<br /><br />Clint wants out of the drug life and to do this he aspires to be a waiter. Aim high, I always say. Brad Dorif, or a faxed photo of him, or quite possibly a curly wig on a stick, it was hard to tell, offers to hire Clint if he gets a pair of shoes.<br /><br />Clint, and a huge entourage, apparently wander the whole of England trying to get him some shoes. Eventually, they end up at a suburban home. Whose isn't clear. Mum helps a girl shoot up. Oh, now THERE'S some realism for you! Mrs. Brady may have been a ridiculous stereotype of American housewives, but she never helped Marsha tie off and find a vein. Good God! Dad comes home and sings some Elvis tunes and then chases the kids away.<br /><br />Why didn't Clint borrow some money and buy shoes at a second hand store? Why didn't he go to a church and ask a kindly nun for some help? Why didn't he hang out in front of a shoe store and panhandle? I just don't know! None of these things seemed to be beneath him. Benevolent groups, like Goodwill and the Salvation Army have stores to help people. I know people who work there! If someone with no money showed up and needed shoes, the staff would give the person some shoes. Maybe not Prada or Gucci, but some form of foot covering. Not many of these groups hand out cell phones to the underprivileged, but shoes are usually no problem. What a dumb concept. The world, or at least the western part of it, simply isn't that cruel. In England, maybe it's from "The Queen's Royal Charity" rather than Goodwill, but people who need shoes do get them.<br /><br />Aside from the quest for shoes, there was no discernable plot to get in the way of the action. Not that it made the movie any quicker or more bearable, mind you. Despite checking the tape jacket several times, I was not watching the 20-hour extended version, it only seemed that way.<br /><br />Did Clint get his shoes? Did the cardboard cutout of Brad Dourif hire him at the restaurant? Did I ever watch anything else foreign ever again?<br /><br />[spoiler] Yes, yes, and yes.<br /><br />As for the fate of this particular film, I decided to end it all. I took out my S&W .45 and shot a half-inch hole through the cassette. Blammo! (I made sure to rewind it first.) I put it back in the tape sleeve, returned it to the rental store, and amazingly NO ONE EVER CALLED TO ASK ABOUT IT!!! Meaning, of course, that no one else rented it for at least the remaining three years I lived in that city. Others knew something that I didn't. Live and learn.<br /><br />BTW, if you rent something you've never seen before and someone has actually put a bullet through it, take it as a sign. And if you work at the Kroger video department, I'm just kidding.<br /><br />Footnote: this classic has yet to see the light of day on DVD, for which we should be eternally thankful to the digital gods.
|
negative
|
This is about as good as gone with the wind was.I love this movie I could watch it over and over again.Scarlett always gets what she wants no matter what the cost.She tries real hard to forget Rhett but she just can't do it. She loves him so much. This is a story of real true love.It started in gone with the wind and ended up in this movie.The only real way to end this movie for real true love.Was to have Scarlett and Rhett back together at the end.And thats the way it ended with them back together with their daughter.What more could you ask for. There's not a better ending to this great love story than this.What else can i say about this great movie.
|
positive
|
the most "spiritual" film I have seen in a long long time. maybe ever. also one scene around the dining room table a piece of comic perfection. I understand a release date is coming up in the fall. if it comes to your town and you want to see a movie that makes you think this is it. Aviva is great in it and she is most certainly a future star - (Superbad is out now which she is in) - also all the actors seem perfectly calibrated. There is a tone set by this movie that is used to surprise through out. i would not know what to call it - it is comedy but the undergirding message is so fierce and direct that "comedy" is not a big enough word for it. I love this film. It is a thinking man's comedy. but even that phrase is not really good enough. FTF does have a message and that message needs to be heard right now
|
positive
|
A beautiful film, touching profoundly up the simple, yet divine aspects of humanity. <br /><br />This movie was almost perfect, and seeing as nothing in this world can be truly perfect, that is pretty good. The only minor thing I subjectively object to, is the pacing at some points in the middle of the story. The acting is also very good, and all the actors easily top actors in high-profile films. The actual directing seems to have been well thought through, and the script must have been amazing. There are some truly breathtaking moments of foreshadowing, and a quite gorgeous continuing circular composition of the story.<br /><br />The moment in the movie, when the main character achieves that feeling of being in heaven is the perfect ending to a truly brilliant yarn.
|
positive
|
Veteran director and producer Allan Dwan, whose huge string of films includes both the utterly forgettable and the recurrently shown (for example, John Wayne in "Sands of Iwo Jima") tried his hand at a big musical with "I Dream of Jeanie." Harnessing a lead cast of singers with little past film experience and, as it turned out, virtually no future, he spun a fictional and in no small part offensive story about the great American songwriter, Stephen Foster.<br /><br />Bill Shirley is the young, lovestruck Foster whose kindness to slaves includes giving the money saved for an engagement ring to pay the hospital cost for an injured little black boy. His intended is Inez McDowell (Muriel Lawrence) whose pesky younger sister, Jeanie (Eileen Christy), is slowly realizing she's in love with the nearly impecunious song-smith. Foster is in love with Inez who is revolted by the composer's Number 1 on the Levee Hit Parade Tune, "O Susannah." Enter minstrel Edwin P.Christy (Ray Middleton) to help launch the profit-making phase of Foster's career.<br /><br />This is, by the musical-film standards of the early Fifties, a big production. The sets are lavish in that special Hollywood way that portrayed fakes with all the trimmings. The singers aren't half bad and the Foster songs are almost impossible to ruin.<br /><br />But this is also a literal whitewash of the antebellum South. The biggest number features black-face for all on stage, an historical anomaly and a contemporary piece of unthinking racism. Were these portrayals of blacks anywhere near reality, the abolitionists would be rightly condemned for interfering with so beneficent an institution.<br /><br />"I Dream of Jeanie" apparently sank into the studio's vault with barely a death whisper. Now revived by Alpha Video for a mere $4.99 it's a period piece with charming songs and repulsive sentimentalizing about the victims of America's great crime, slavery.<br /><br />This was what Hollywood was putting out two years before Brown v. Board of Education. Must have warmed the hearts of some moviegoers who wore their bed linen to the theater.
|
negative
|
We saw this at one of the local art movie theaters in the Montrose area of Houston, TX. It was a total surprise compared to the write-up in the theater's newsletter but we were both blown away by the artistry. It was beautifully done and (apparently) photographed in a schloss (German name for château) somewhere in the Munich area. It is a very explicit exploration of the sexual relationships of a group of twentyish men and women isolated from the day-to-day constraints. It is fantastic on more levels than I can remember. We came home after the movie and talked and talked until about 4 am the next morning.<br /><br />The version we saw was in English (mostly) so there must be at least two versions since the first reviewer saw the movie in (probably its original) German version. I searched and searched for a video tape version but never came up with anything. Would absolutely love to have a VHS or DVD version of this. It explores relationships at a fundamental level and is also a great tutorial on how to relate to your partner. If anyone knows the writer/director, please convince him to release again, preferably on DVD these days. I cannot even imagine getting tired of watching the candid performance of the actors who are now probably all in their forties. Please, please bring it back.
|
positive
|
<br /><br />Dull Demi, going thru the motions. Ditto Prochnow. Ominous portents that elicit yawns. Michael Biehn trying to be dynamic, which ain't his shtick.<br /><br />To quote Buffy Summers, "If the apocalypse comes...beep me."<br /><br />Going back to sleep now.
|
negative
|
From the start this film was awful! Why was it that bad?? If it isn't the naked women, not only in need of a decent plastic surgeon but also the expertise of a dentist followed by a free hand out of Colgate whitening!! Then it's the 'crazy' old guy at the gas station, who isn't so much crazy, but more "I'm not sure how to act a great deal so I will stare straight ahead and look as stupid as I can while pretending to shout in robotic tones about something in the woods"!! Then back to these naked nymphs in need of a cure for gingivitis.... apparently, without touching you...and this is according to the opening scene.... they can cause a nasty looking red rash on your neck, which I assumed to be a chunk of flesh missing but just looks as though it could do with some TCP to clear it right up. Then you have Sophie Holland who plays Ally, I have never seen such baaaaaad acting, she is more of a "me me me, if I'm not having fun no-one else is, and I don't wanna do this so I won't, and I'm the meanest cow on the planet, I'm sarcastic, petty and if I don't get things my way I will sulk!", kind of person.... reminds me more of a 6 yr old girl's attitude. I don't think it's even worth mentioning the dire camera angles that remind me of Blair Witch, or how low-budget the film actually was that when Judd was hacking at the 'locked' door it was in fact open before he reached to unlock it from the other side!! This film is completely laughable! If it were a spoof then it would have been successful...only just though, but, as a horror film is was just plain wrong!!! I can't even being to describe everything that went t!ts up in this movie I would run out of room! Although it was funny to watch Andrew drip raspberry juice in his ear every time he opened his mouth while Tom Savini's character was completely blind to the two hiding under the table directly in his line of vision!! It was even funnier when these two thought they could escape on a god damn tractor, which as we all know is thee number one hated vehicle to get stuck behind since its so god damn slow! So is it any wonder they don't get away with it?? And how many people do you know that can slice open their wrist and then run around for hours as if nothing ever happened! No pain, no weakening from blood loss, nothing!? But the silliest part is when all of a sudden (and i mean that literally) it's one YEAR later and Molly is still wandering the woods after having escaped the nymphs, and then lo and behold, Shaun Hutson picks her up...of course not without a line to promote his books!! (altho admittedly he is one of my fav authors) but suddenly, and with absolutely no hint of an xplanation as to how and why... she's evil herself and lures Hutson to his death, then we cut to the crazy dude from the beginning suddenly wandering round the woods with a petrol can, even after his 'dazzling' performance on why no-one should ever venture there for whatever reason...cue the nymphs stupidly slappin each other around a bit for fun while Crazy pours petrol everywhere....and here endeth the film....finally! My conclusion....if you hadn't already guessed by now....absolute rubbish! There was no proper thought went into it at all, whoever was aiming the camera needed firing...and come to think of it so did 99% of the cast! If the right director, actors, and budget got behind this it could have been decent. But, once again, low-budget English horror films but the rest of the genre, the country, and the English film-making industry to shame!! (And I'm English so I'm allowed to say that)! In fact the only decent and exciting part of the movie is in the first 15-20 mins when we watch it turn from night to day over a field type area. All I kept thinking throughout this was "Jesus Christ in heaven why oh why did you allow someone to make this, its absolute cow's testicles!!" But I can't turn a film off after I've started watching it unfortunately. I had to watch From Dusk Til Dawn afterwards just to remind myself that Tom Savini does have it in him to act well! If there was an option for 0/10 then believe me I woulda chose that, cuz this film isn't even worth the one point I did give it! <br /><br />But this is just my opinion, watch it and decide for yourself.
|
negative
|
If you r in mood for fun...and want to just relax and enjoy...bade Miyan Chote Miyan is one of the movies to watch. Amitabh started off pretty good...but it is Govinda who steals the show from his hands... awesome timing for and good dialog delivery.....its inspired from Bad boys... but it has Indian Masala to it... people think it might be confusing and stupid...but the fact that David Dhavan is directing and Govinda is acting... should not raise any questions....other recommended movies in the same genre(David Dhavan/Govinda combo)...are Shola Aur Shabnam, Aankhen, Raja Babu, Saajan Chale Sasural, Deewana Mastana, Collie no. 1, Jodi no. 1, Hero no.1, Haseena Manjayegi, Ek Aur Ek Gyarah.
|
positive
|
There is simply no use in trying to glorify any part of this film.<br /><br />It was straight up trash. At the very beginning you might think that you are in for a visually stunning piece of cinematography... and then shortly thereafter you are hit with a large sack (burlap) of FAIL! The fighting is barely martial, the acting is teetering on the edge of par, and the music is not worth describing. There is only enough of a story to have created an excuse for this film to have been made. The decisions that the characters make and the way that they deal with the situations is weak, and did nothing but frustrate me. I think that the only reason this film came about was to act as a bit of fan service by using Yumiko Shaku.
|
negative
|
Lazy movie made by a lazy director. The characters are grotesque. Despite the tragic of this war, there is no emotion at all in the movie. Symbolism is artificial and inefficient (and old Bosnian woman giving a photo of her son to Arbour will "concretize" her willingness, will awake the super-mother sleeping inside her, a corpse eaten by worms to show the horror of genocide... too much is sometimes worst than not enough).<br /><br />This movie is only an advertisement, an empty elegy to a woman who is not a hero. She worked for United Nations. Remember UN failed to protect civilians at Srebrenica. Who are the true heroes of this war? A Canadian judge leading post-mortem trial for atrocities that happened mostly because her organization failed to prevent them? Where is the criticism in this movie?
|
negative
|
While I don't claim to be any sort of expert in marine life, I must say anyone with a modicum of intelligence could not possibly buy in to this notion of a whale (and not even the mother!) having a clue about revenge because it witnessed his dead mate having a forced abortion by humans! I mean, really! This is basically the whole plot. Richard Harris must have been extremely hard up for roles to have accepted this junk. This is the kind of movie that is so bad that if you paid 50 cents to see it, you would feel like demanding your money back.
|
negative
|
I'll make this brief. This was a joy to watch. It may or may not have been more effective if the characters had resembled their real life counterparts, but aside from this minor observation I found the fantasy animal characters to be most enjoyable. The visuals were most stunning except for the second-rate CG scenes, which could have been left out. I dislike computer generated animation anyways, it defeats the purpose of a biopic such as this one. Watch it, you will appreciate it too!
|
positive
|
A very strange, disturbing but intriguing film. I don't think I ever needed to see what a human being can do with his butt, and I doubt if I'll ever want to see it again. That said, there is much to be amused by, like Divine's take on Jayne Mansfield's classic walk in "The Girl Can't Help It" and putting slabs of meat between her legs in a grocery store. A gritty feel very much like a Russ Meyer film. Generally poor acting, with the notable exception of Divine.
|
positive
|
I have seen all the film interpretations of Hamlet, from Sir Lawrence Olivier to Mel Gibson (gasp). Derek Jacobi captures the true essence of the character, from the beginning to the brutal climax. Superb acting all around. This one should not be missed.
|
positive
|
This Game is a good looking First Person Shooter. -----------Hang on......<br /><br />But of course a story must be put around this genre, so a quite innovative plot about soldiers now driven by drugs to save the world and kill the terrorist, Nectar is the drug of choice which creates a super soldier. <br /><br />Great, now just give us some fun, challenging missions, throw in some great new weapons and free terrain vehicles that can be driven at our leisure and I will be quite content.<br /><br />NO!!!!<br /><br />The maker's of this game decide to create a propagandish, military driven game, that tries to make sense of our fears of terrorism and embracing democracy. The game has twisted ideals that just re-enforce morals that we learned when we were in primary school, nothing new is told to us, but "Drugs are bad...mmmkay". Then pushed in a type of ....Yvan eht Nnnioooojjjjj! (join the navy) of how standing up for the common good, given rants on normality and abnormality, right and wrong....GOOOOOOOOOOD WE GET IT! LET's KILL SOMETHING!!!!<br /><br />NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!<br /><br />You can't, You are forced to endure extremely long gaps of completing BULLSH!T objectives such as "Run to Helicopter"......."Go to group of Troops" .....Then once this is completed.........CINEMATIC takes over.........You sit there for at least half of the game watching little scenario's played out by the characters, one's you CANNOT skip, but sit and wait, sometimes when people aren't even talking, we sit and wait for a helicopter to land! <br /><br />Bad game, by a laughable group of programmers! Don't bother making another because I will rather see the movie!
|
negative
|
Cosimo (Luis Guzman) ends up in prison for car burglary and there he's given the plan for the perfect heist from a lifer in prison; so he has to get out of jail, fast. He tells his girlfriend Rosalind (Patricia Clarkson) to find a man who will do his time in prison for some money. But no one wants to do the time for Cosimo's crime and yet everybody seems to know a guy who will do that. Soon bad boxer Pero Mahalovic (Sam Rockwell) founds out the details of this so called "perfect job".<br /><br />First of all, I think this movie was very funny and from my point of view I would recommend it to everyone. This movie is remake of Italian comedy "I Soliti Ignoti". I didn't watch the Italian original so I cannot judge or compare those two movies. But "Welcome to Collinwood" is great comedy for itself, about four people trying to rob the money from the vault in one house. Everyone gave their part of brilliance from this movie cast. Really excellent movie for these actors: Sam Rockwell, William H. Macy (great), Isaiah Washington, Michael Jeter (great), Luis Guzmán, Patricia Clarkson, Jennifer Esposito and finally George Clooney gave their share in this project. <br /><br />Maybe to say that this movie is only comedy, isn't fair. This is more then that. Because of one difference. All of thieves in this movie have very small wishes when they are asked: what will they do with their money? It is mostly securing their future in very humble way. This fact goes beyond comedy into the soul of that criminals. And not only them but also cop Babitch, who is presented like corrupted one; so here directors Russo presents us fact that criminals and cop are the same. Actually all in Collinwood are; and not only in Collinwood, cause all people chase money, on legal or illegal way. I don't like all movies were audience eventually likes and cheers for thieves. But, this one is exception. You have to love them all. Riley with his little baby and wife in jail. Toto with his pants. Cosimo with his line: "Your mother's a whore!" and all others. They are just like characters in my favorite comic, Alan Ford. They all trying to make some money, but simply they are out of luck. But they all did one good deed: they gave money to Riley, so he can get his wife out of prison. They are all heroes in my eyes, cause lots of "honest" people wouldn't do that.
|
positive
|
I loved this movie, and I am one of the older people who is not supposed to enjoy it, or so it seems. No, this movie is not deep -- who cares? These kinds of movies never are. But strangely, there is a message in it. It's that we each have the potential to be whatever we want to be.<br /><br />Parker Posey is great in this movie. I've always thought that she bears some resemblance facially to Katharine Hepburn. So, it's great to see that both Hepburn and Posey made movies about librarians (Hepburn's is The Desk Set). All librarians, especially those with a sense of humor, should see Party Girl.<br /><br />I gave this movie an 8. It is not by any means a great film by cinematic standards, although there are some nice shots in it. But it is incredibly charming and entertaining.
|
positive
|
Seeing that this movie was on the IMDB Bottom 20, I simply had to rent it.<br /><br />SUPRISE! SUPRISE! I have no regret of seeing this movie at all. In fact, I really enjoyed it. There's a level of camp in this movie that puts cult classics of the 80's to shame. Is it stupid? yes, but Jim Wynorski proves that stupid is not necessarily bad after all.<br /><br />Rent it for a laugh that seems unintended but is actually meant to be funny. Wynorski is a genius. Hope he directs the next ninja turtles movie
|
positive
|
First let me say I'm not someone who usually cringe at the fact of having to think while seeing movies, I love Tarkowsky movies for example, Berghman is also a favorite.....but this? The positive points can be summed up easily: the photography is splendid, and the music is perfect....does it make a good movie? I used to think so, but this one is a perfect example of one that (for me) doesn't make it.... maybe it's because I'm too dumb? possible, but I don't think so.... Tarkwosky for example also used very long shots, but what he never did was filming 5 minutes of the exact same image of two people walking (and I mean just their heads, because in this movie there are a lot of those shots, but sometimes it IS effective), the general result is plainly boring, even with the intelligent undertones (which are done in a way that, while intelligent, is above all very pedantic)<br /><br />you also always feel that the director is making some of the long shots not for the aesthetic, or symbolic effect, but just to spare on budget....<br /><br />I'm very disappointed in this film, because I really liked the first 30 minutes or so, but it just went on and on, without even keeping the same level as in the first scenes....<br /><br />While reading the very praising comments on this page, I also get the feeling some people just try to see much more in the movie than there is to it...when a movie is slow and arty, it doesn't necessarily mean it is very profound....yes it is an allegory on musical theory placed in the context of a small town, which is quite interesting on itself, but it does NOT make a profound movie....except for people who absolutely want to make some sort of intellectual masturbation out of it, but then it's not what you find in the movie, but what you find in yourself....an exercise that, in my opinion can be made much more effectively while watching "Stalker" or "Solyaris" than Werckmeister Harmonies, that owes much to Tarkowsky, but cab never equal it's level....
|
negative
|
I have seen most of John Waters' films. With the exception of several of his very early ones which are not available, I have actually seen just about all of them, so it's obvious I am a big fan and it's certain that I have a high tolerance for the gross and irreverent in his films. While way over the top and disgusting, I adored FEMALE TROUBLE and POLYESTER--two monumental tributes to bad taste and excess that are seriously funny films. So I am certainly NOT squeamish and can take most of what Waters has to offer. However, in PINK FLAMINGOS he has created a film so repellent, so unfunny and so offensive that I couldn't even stand it. In his other films he made before he became more mainstream, they were funny. Yet here, the humor just isn't there as it seems the intent is to shock the viewers and not entertain them in any way. I am glad that after making this film, Waters' sense of humor improved, as Divine consuming dog feces (as in this film) is shocking but not the least bit entertaining. My advice is to skip this film and just pretend it never happened and then watch his infinitely better films of the 70s and 80s.
|
negative
|
I actually saw China O'Brien II before I ever saw the original China O'Brien. And I have to say that the first incarnation is actually worse. But: worse = funnier! And funnier = better. If you're a bad movie fan like I am, this is great material. If, however, you are looking for any sort of meaningful plot, acting ability, or movie-making skill, this is best avoided. The best part is how they filmed all the fighting sequences in stuttering fast-forward. Hilariously bad. See it for a laugh, see it for mindless entertainment, but whatever you do, see it for free on TV.
|
negative
|
This...thing. oh god this thing. i can't even call it a movie. a movie is something that does something. goes somewhere. has some semblance of a plot or SOMETHING. i don't know how i'm doing it. i really don't. first i say dark fields is the worst movie ever. and i thought it was. then pirates of ghost island proved me wrong. and now, third time in a row, another film goes above and beyond the call of duty to prove me wrong.<br /><br />(sighs) OK. Dark Harvest II: The Maize. lord this is awful. Let me break it down for you. Man senses daughters are in danger through some magical psychic powers he got from his Act II popcorn apparently and races to find them in a corn field. Of course this is the hugest cornfield in all of existence, being the size of the cornfields from Jeepers Creepers, Children of the Corn, and Signs combined. the main character, whose name is Shy (awesome name btw) then runs through a corn field....finds some ghost girls, talks to them, and...runs through a corn field. digs a while...and runs through a corn field. and the incredibly sad thing? i'm really not leaving anything out. That pretty much IS the entire movie. The only thing i may be leaving out is how he gets chased by two policemen who want to arrest him for... i don't know. pretending to be an actor. i didn't care by this point. He gets away and the police are -somethinged- by the killer offscreen. holy crap there's a killer? apparently yes there is as he's introduced nearly 4/5 into the movie. but wait! then he runs away for a while and there's, you guessed it, more running through the corn field and digging. Then there's the ending where he saves his daughters. huzzah.<br /><br />The biggest problem with this movie is, it's boring. it's INCREDIBLY, INHUMANLY, TREMENDOUSLY boring. I can't explain how atrociously dull this thing is. nothing happens, the characters are as appealing as a root canal, and it's just an hour and a half of NOTHING. the ONLY good thing that came out of this movie was that me and my friend may have found enlightenment due to the near nirvana state this movie put us into after the effects of the drugs in our brain had to kick into overdrive to keep us alive. During the ensuing insanity, i found hugging a wall much more enjoyable and my friend found a new passion for laughing hysterically while flopping all over the floor as if he having a seizure. This is the sort of insanity this movie brings. it's not just bad. it's bad for your health. The cover looks awesome with a picture of an AWESOME scarecrow killer that i would totally consider dressing up as for a horror con, but this was THE most misleading box ever. DON'T LET IT FOOL YOU TOO! do NOT watch this movie. watch a better corn movie. ANY movie about corn is better. just don't let it get you! don't! a 0 out of 10
|
negative
|
I like this presentation - I have read Bleak House and I know it is so difficult to present the entire book as it should be, and even others like Little Dorrit - I have to admit they did a very good show with the staged Nicholas Nickelby. I love Diana Rigg and I could see the pain of Lady Dedlock, even through the expected arrogance of the aristocracy. I am sorry, I think she is the best Lady Dedlock... I am not sure who could have made a better Jarndyce, but I am OK with Mr. Elliott. It is not easy to present these long Dickens' books - Oliver Twist would be easier - this is a long, and if you don't care for all the legal situations can be dreary or boring. I think this presentation is entertaining enough not to be boring. I just LOVED Mr. Smallweed - it can be entertaining. There is always a child - Jo will break your heart here... I think we should be given a chance to judge for ourselves...<br /><br />I have to say I loved the show. Maybe if I read the book again, as I usually do, after seeing the movie, maybe I can be more critical. In the meantime - I think it is a good presentation.
|
positive
|
As most other reviewers seem to agree, this adaptation of 'After The Funeral' is very good indeed. Always one of my favourite Poirot stories I was worried that it might be 'messed about with'. Well, it was a little bit but ONLY a little bit and the end the result was thoroughly entertaining. David Suchet continues to be well nigh faultless as Poirot and (as others have pointed out) the other star of this show is Monica Dolan who surely could not be bettered as Miss Gilchrist. I also really enjoyed Fiona Glasscott who was spot on as the cutting Rosamund Shane but really, the casting was quite impeccable throughout! <br /><br />One point is knocked off for the adaptors not being able to resist cramming too many revelations into the final fifteen minutes. The business with the will and house deeds was all a bit unnecessary although I didn't mind how they tightened up the structure of the Abernethie family (in the book the family tree IS really quite complicated). The final moments when the murderer is revealed however are really incredibly well done and I found the very end, when they all leave Enderby, quite touching. This is really one of the very best of the Poirot series so far.
|
positive
|
Women will like this movie better than men. Of course, women like all romantic comedies more than men - on average. I generally like romantic comedies quite a bit, however I considered this a 5.5 for the first 50% of the movie and about a 6.5 for the next 40% and about a 9 for the last 10%. So, begrudgingly, I will rate it a 7. I tape and keep all movies rated a 7 or better and none that are a 6 or worse - at least that's my objective. I have over 1200 movies, so why keep the dogs.<br /><br />My wife liked this movie quite a bit more than me, though I'm not sure why. I am a bigger Drew Barrymore fan than she is.<br /><br />The whole point of this movie was about a young woman who goes back to high school (undercover) to write a story about the high school experience nowadays. She was a dork in high school the first time around and has to learn how to be cool the second time around. Her journey toward cooldom, as well as her falling in love with a teacher, is the story.<br /><br />What drove me nuts for the first half the movie was just how mangy she looked. I wondered why they would pick her for this role until I realized how capable she is at looking like a dog. So much so that I truly don't think I want to see her in 15 years when she gets up in the morning. ARGH! Naturally, she transformed into a rather attractive (cute) woman by the end and she became very popular.<br /><br />The ending is about a 9.9 on the very sweet scale, so you sappers out there will like that. Otherwise, it isn't very memorable and easily missable.
|
positive
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.