review
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| sentiment
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
Carla Gugino literally melts the screen in this crime caper. Her sex appeal, ample assets and sexy southern accent more than make this film rewatchable. But the film has so many "other" things to make it almost a modern classic. Simon Baker's performance for one thing. Truly that of a great actor. Til Schweiger is so perfectly cast it makes me wonder why he's not a huge "crossover" star. Gil Bellows rounds out this motely crew and literally steals this show. Other Gugino's cleavage easily the best performance in the movie. Emma Thompson and Alan Rickman are so utterly brilliant...I cannot even describe it. Great chemistry.<br /><br />The music is so powerfully eclectic that it was a character in and of itself. Wonderous to behold.<br /><br />People may say it's Tarantino influenced...I disagree. It's clearly unique and clever in it's own right. Sebastian Gutierrez does a wonderful job at directing this tightly woven film and underplaying a lot of scenes that left me reeling. The ending is perfectly sinister and you never see it coming. All in all a lovely film that, to me, is the very definition of what a good movie should be.
|
positive
|
question: how do you steal a scene from the expert of expert scene stealers Walther Mathau in full, furious and brilliant Grumpy Old Man mode? answer: quietly, deadpan, and with perfect timing as George Burns does here.<br /><br />I know nothing of Vaudeville but this remains a favourite film, the two leads are hilarious, the script funny, the direction and pacing very fine. Richard Benjamin is very funny as straight man - trying to get at Burns through the window etc. Even the small parts are great.<br /><br />There are so many funny scenes, Mathau messing up the commercial, Burns repeating his answers as if senile...<br /><br />A delight.<br /><br />Enterrrrrr!
|
positive
|
The first half hour of the movie had a steady pace and introduced the characters. however all of a sudden everything was happening too quick, a lame reason for Akshey Kumar to date 3 girls, very loud over acting by both Akshey and John Abraham. Neha Dupia was the highlight of the movie, Paresh Rawal did well but not as good as his performance in Hera Pheri. overall this movie was the biggest disappointment the film does no justice to its trailer. save your money and don't watch this movie, watch Hera Pheri and Hungama again!<br /><br />summarising it: a cheap stage show performance and appearance to the film no story or substance, the plot was extraordinarily non-sense good music by Preetam the man who bought us Dhoom! keep it up! movie shot all in one room, new comers (female cast) were okay as it was their first film but established actors like Akshey and John totally disappointed an established director like Priyadarshan gives his worst movie ever!
|
negative
|
First the premise stinks...little boy likes to dress in girls clothes. It reminded me of Norman Bates in PSYCHO or Ed Wood in ED WOOD. The jokes are lame and old, You've seen 'em in a dozen 50's & 60's films. The whole cast is wasted. I bet people signed on just to be in a Shirley MacLaine vehicle. Please, Would somebody tell Shirley she did her best comedy in TWO MULES FOR SISTER SARA. See it...if there's no reruns of Andy Griffith on.
|
negative
|
My friends and I have often joked about movies being in real-time. But this movie really is... They will literally show 4 minutes strait of nothing but a guy digging in the dirt with his hands. It has no-plot, and an incredible amount of gratuitous screaming. I honestly don't believe that it won an award for it's alleged suspense. If you are like me and saw the first film and loved it for it's horrible acting, accidentally hilarious one liners, and all-around low budget"ness", it won't matter; this is so bad it's bad memories might even rub off and taint any good memories you have of the original. You would be more entertained if you were staring at a blank screen.
|
negative
|
I wish kids movies were still made this way; dark and deep. There was (get this) character development (and Charlie is the epitome of the dynamic character), plot development, superb animation, emotional involvement, and a rational, relatable, and consistent theme. If not for the handful of song-and-dance routines, you would never have thought this was a kids movie, and this is why I give it such a high rating. This movie is an excellent film, let alone for a kids' movie. Which brings me to my second point: this has got to be the darkest "kids'" movie I've seen in quite some time, this coming from a 22-year-old. I'd be shocked to see any child under the age of 8 not completely terrified throughout a great deal of the latter half and some of the first half of the movie, and it all ends with one of the saddest endings you could ever come across (ala "Jurassic Bark", for those of you who are 'Futurama' fans), and this is what makes this movie so good. Just because the movie universally evokes emotions we don't normally like to feel and assume are bad does not make the movie itself bad; in fact, it means it succeeded. Good funny movies are supposed to make us laugh; good horror movies are supposed to make us scared; good sad movies are supposed to make us sad. My point is, good movies are supposed to MOVE you, not simply entertain; this movie moved me.<br /><br />Also, this movie is incredibly violent by today's standards for a kids' movie and contains subject matter that, by today's standards, may not be suitable for some children. Parents, I'd say watch it first. I'm not usually one to say anything about this kind of thing, but I just saw this yesterday and it came as a surprise even to me.
|
positive
|
I find I enjoy this show, but the format needs some work. First off, the good attributes. I like how this show will take us through the day-to-day life of an addict because the producers have a knack at getting the addict to show us how bad they've allowed their lives to become. This is followed by an intervention which is then followed by an outcome. Intervention doesn't candy-coat things and sometimes the outcome (often short term due to the constraints of time between filming and airing) is a negative outcome. This makes the positive outcomes all the better.<br /><br />Another thing I like about the show is the quality of the camera work. Given the reality that these cameramen have to squeeze anywhere and don't have the benefit of re shooting scenes the photography is surprisingly good and stable. It's actually superior to scripted shows like "The Shield" where the photography is so bad it can induce nausea.<br /><br />Now for the bad. An episode will sometimes contain two completely different and unrelated cases that will be mixed together during the show. You'll get caught up in the story of one addict then suddenly you're thrown into the story of another. Get caught up in that story then suddenly you're back to the first addict...or are you? By now you may have forgotten which case the individual currently on screen belong to. This constant flip-flopping between addicts really gets disruptive during the intervention scenes because the show will even mix together the two completely unrelated interventions! I once heard the marketing B.S. reason for this poor design: "The show can get so intense that switching to another addict allows the viewer time to absorb what they're watching." Oh please. Clearly the reason this is done is because they have two cases that aren't big enough for an hour show so they mix two together. By mixing them instead of giving each a half hour block, like they should, it forces the viewer to watch the entire thing (and the commercials) if they are interested in one case but not the other.<br /><br />I used to find these "blender" episodes so annoying that I'd only tell my TiVo to record episodes containing one addict, but then it became easier just to record all of them.
|
positive
|
I dunno what the hype around this is... This is really a bad movie...it did nothing to me, the only descent scene is where everyone comes together at the party, and a nice song is playing, uplifting beat and nice cinematic shots that make you move....that was the best part of the movie... Otherwise this film lacks everything to suck the viewer in There's no story, there's nothing to think about like some people say, there's no cohesion between the different stories...it was more of an attempt to re-do Anderson's 'Magnolia' which was brilliant, but it fails blatantly... Okay it's light and easy to watch, but that are movieclips too. Maybe first write a story before you make a movie... 4/10 One of the worst Belgian movies I've seen
|
negative
|
Not even Timothy Hutton or David Duchovny could save this dead fish of a film. For starters, the script was definitely written to be made into a B-film, but somehow Duchovny (looking for a star vehicle to elevate himself out of television) and Hutton (looking for the "two" of a "one-two punch" he had hoped would define his career after "Ordinary People") became attached to the picture. Cheesy lines, big bad wipes from scene to scene (Come on--who uses wipes after 12th Grade Telecommunications class?), and plain old bad acting sink this film. Even Duchovny is not immune to the bad acting plague that is this film. Only Timothy Hutton rises above the material at all. I must admit feeling Duchovny's pain as he read the lines that are the voice-over. While I found myself laughing when I'm sure the director wanted me to feel terrified, nothing prepared me for the closing line of Duchonvey's voice-over: "if you ever need a doctor, be sure to call 911." If only the studio had called 911, this dog of a motion picture would never have been made. Avoid at all costs. <br /><br />
|
negative
|
Supreme Sanction is a movie about a female assassin who works for the U.S. government. She has to kill a known TV reporter, but spares his life when she sees that he has a little daughter. Because she hasn't killed him, she becomes the next target of her employers.<br /><br />The script isn't good although I've seen worse B-movies. A hit-man with remorse, the government killing innocent people in the name of fighting terror,... What's next? Aliens rescuing the victim??? No, Supreme Sanction will never win any award because of the script. And the acting isn't any better I'm afraid. A few better known actors (Michael Madsen and Kristy Swanson), who clearly had a lot of bills to pay and therefor accepted to play in this movie, together with some other actors who probably don't even know what a camera really looks like don't do any good to the movie either.<br /><br />So why should you watch this movie? Well, if you haven't got anything better to do but to watch some action flick and you are tired of the 10,531st rerun of Mc Gyver or the A-team, than this might be the movie you want to see. Otherwise you better leave it alone. I give it a 3/10.
|
negative
|
This rip off of the 1984 hit "Gremlins" is quite possibly the biggest train wreck of a movie ever made. Even for a 'B' grade movie, all other cheap horror movies on the same platform completely dwarf this movie in terms of plot, acting, and goodness.<br /><br />It begins with a random old security guard and the younger punky security guard whose name is of no importance. Why? Because a few minutes into the film he walks into the 'forbidden' safe, and is killed whilst living out his fantasy of being a rock star in a cheap pub.<br /><br />This is just an appetizer for the scat-filled main course. The main character, KEVIN, struggles various times to prove himself as more than a total pussy. Perhaps he succeeds within the film, but to the audience he proves himself as nothing more than a bad actor. Kevin gets himself a job with the old security guard, and is guided through his security shift in the (wait for it) abandoned studio lot. Yes why bother making a set when you can just use the studio itself. Back to the film. Kevin somehow opens the forbidden safe and releases the Hobgoblins. The Hobgoblins force people to live out their wildest fantasies and then kill them for some reason. They must be returned before sunrise or else...or else what? Exactly.<br /><br />Other characters include Kevin's 'macho' army friend NICK, Nick's 'woman' DAPHNE whose character has no more substance than a bitch-slut attitude and prostitute worthy outfits. There is Kevin's manipulative and 'reserved' girlfriend AMY, whose deepest desire is apparently to be a badly portrayed Cher look-alike with fishnet stockings with a pair of blue grandma underpants on top.. Don't ask me how that works. Quite possibly the most entertaining character of all is KYLE. How such groups of friends are made is up for question. Kyle is a perverted creep who can't go an hour without self-stimulating. His hobbies include calling up sex-chat lines from other people's houses and most likely sniffing underwear.<br /><br />The story unfolds as the heroes search for the Hobgoblins: knee-high creatures (aka. hand puppets) which, for some reason, attempt to travel no further than the borders of the local neighborhood. Each of the characters eventually lives out their wildest fantasy which never has anything to do with having millions of dollars... or the film having a big budget.<br /><br />WARNING SPOILERS AHEAD: The twist at the end of this movie will leave the watcher wondering "What?". The Hobgoblins are returned to the safe by...their own free will. Perhaps they lost patience waiting for sunrise to wreak havoc, or perhaps the story-writers got writer's cramp and decided not to worry about the ending. Upon returning to the safe, the old security guard reveals "What he learned in the military" and detonates explosives which destroys the safe, signaling the end of the evil Hobgoblins and the end of this roller coaster ride; better fitted to a ride on an escalator.<br /><br />The sheer badness of this film is enough to send someone to tears. If you plan to watch it, I recommend a few alcoholic drinks beforehand to take any serious consideration of the film out of mind.
|
negative
|
I usually like period films but this one just seemed to drag and drag. I'd perk up during Rupert Graves' scenes, but Vanessa Redgrave just put me to sleep.<br /><br />I was disappointed in the film. It lacked a little "punch" at the end that I'd hoped it would have.
|
negative
|
I wanted so much to enjoy this movie. It moved very slowly and was just boring. If it had been on TV, it would have lasted 15 to 20 minutes, maybe. What happened to the story? A great cast and photographer were working on a faulty foundation. If this is loosely based on the life of the director, why didn't he get someone to see that the writing itself was "loose". Then he directed it at a snail's pace which may have been the source of a few people nodding off during the movie. The music soars, but for a different film, not this one....for soap opera saga possibly. There were times when the dialogue was not understandable when Armin Meuller Stahl was speaking. I was not alone, because I heard a few rumblings about who said what to whom. Why can't Hollywood make better movies? This one had the nugget of a great story, but was just poorly executed.
|
negative
|
Many of the American people would say...What??? to my opening comment. Yes I know that my comparison is without doubts an insult for the fans of the Master Akira Kurosawa, but if you analyze this movie, my comment is right. We have the peasant who goes to the town searching for help against a band of grasshoppers who wants to steal the harvest of the village. The great difference is the way that the story takes. Our samurais, a band of circus performers as in the original are a very complex mixture of personalities but at the end are what the village needs, HEROES. Please watch again this incredible movie (the Seven Samurai, obviously) and find another movies who has stolen the story and tried to get the same magic effect than the Masterpiece of Akira Kurosawa. A tip is The 13th Warrior with Antonio Banderas, Michael Crichton copied the story to wrote his Best seller's, but he didn't found the third foot of the cat.
|
positive
|
From the pen of Richard Condon (The Manchurian Candidate 1962) comes this muddled tale of political intrigue and assassination. The story, told in almost comic book fashion is difficult to swallow. All-star cast considered, this poor effort is not entirely the fault of the cast and crew: the novel was replete with the same short-comings. It seems as though at times the story is actually mocking the more sincere effort put forth in "Manchurian Candidate." A disappointment on all counts.
|
negative
|
One of the most common entries in the 'goofs' category is anachronism. Though I'm beginning to believe that anachronism and other goofs are more acceptable, even ignored, in very good films, but are found front and center in rotten films. KISS THEM FOR ME is a rotten film and reeks of anachronism, yet when watching it closely, I found almost nothing specifically anachronistic.<br /><br />The shots of aircraft which bookend the film are certainly out of place. The big 4 engine transport seen after the title "Honolulu 1944" appears to be the post war C-97 Stratofreighter (in MATS colors). The combat planes seen taking off from the carrier at the end are Douglas Skyraiders which entered service after WW2 and were made famous by their service in Vietnam.<br /><br />But excepting these two pieces of film and, of course, the hairstyles, everything else is very possibly period authentic. It just 'feels' so wrong. I'm an admirer of Stanley Donen, we share the same birthday. In his co directed ON THE TOWN (1949) there is a car chase at the end with the police driving 1949/50 Ford's yet there isn't the slightest feeling that this is out of place in a WW2 period film. In fact, as I reflected later, there isn't anything which says that this is supposed to be a WW2 period film. It just feels that way. Based on a wartime Broadway musical which was based on a ballet (Fancy Free) which may have been based on the work of artist Paul Cadmus (The Fleet's In! 1934) its a great film about sailors on a 24 hour pass in New York and, so heavy with wartime associations, its merely assumed it takes place during the war and yet these contemporary cars do nothing to break the spell.<br /><br />The first problem is old Cary Grant. Though far too old to represent a Navy SBD dive bomber pilot, it is a Hollywood tradition for stars like Grant, Gary Cooper (Lou Gehrig), Jimmy Stewart (Charles Lindbergh) to play younger. It was the role which he is miscast in, not his age. He plays an operator, as they used to call them. A guy who gets things done and breaks all the rules while doing it yet remains admired and loved for it. A hustler. A wheeler dealer. A de rigueur character in a service comedy. Grant is the comic center of what is after all supposed to be a service comedy which is contra to his comedy style.<br /><br />Thinking back on the great Grant comic performances like BRINGING UP BABY (1938) or ARSENIC AND OLD LACE (1944) and he is the great reactor whose comedy is to be reduced by his context from dignity to a befuddled puddle of inert jelly. IN KISS THEM he is expected to be the comic spark plug which just isn't him. People had already been exposed to the type, most recently to comic Phil Silvers as Sgt. Bilko on television. The role would be perfected later by James Garner but here Grant just isn't funny and appears to be a bully getting his way by aggressively pushing his Cary Grantness rather than cajoling and finessing.<br /><br />But the thing which really stinks the place up with anachronism is the lead women. There can be no more echt 50s women than Suzy Parker and Jayne Mansfield. They are unique to the decade. Marilyn Monroe can be placed in a continuum with Carole Lombard and Marie Wilson and any number of dumb blonds, and Grace Kelly was another high class dame (think of Mary Astor), but there never could have been an anatomically exaggerated woman in films like Mansfield. Sure there were the 'sweater girls' (e.g. Lana Turner) of WW2, but Mansfield was stretching the point. Suzy Parker was THE model who revolutionized the model business, who changed the mannequin like poses to become the first natural girl who moved and whose personality was captured by the camera (see FUNNY FACE (1957) also by Stanley Donen).<br /><br />Of course in high 50s style, there seems to be a lot of gender mixing at 'wild' parties but never even a hint of sex (think of the 50s TV shows Bachelor Father or The Bob Cummings Show where dinner jacketed men returned from 'dates' alone). The original book, which I haven't read, was published during the war and appeared as a play on Broadway at the end of the war and the nuances of the situation must have been inescapable for contemporary readers and audiences, but broken down, bowdlerized and reconstituted a dozen years later and fatally miscast, it remains a once forgotten stain on otherwise exemplary careers until the invention of the VCR and cable television resurrected this petrified turkey.<br /><br />So the lesson here is whatever the 'goof' it will be ignored in a great film like CITIZEN KANE (who actually hears Charles Foster Kane say 'Rosebud'?), and tolerated in fun dreck like WESTWORLD ( why were the robots given live ammunition in the first place?) but absolutely despised in a rotten film, even if the goofs are really non existent.
|
negative
|
They prove that the cops, when they can't find the REAL perpetrators, always blame the parents and accuse them of sexual abuse of their kids. These movies always depict the press as a bunch of animals and have the parents coming out of court to feed the press' hunger to humiliate the grief-stricken. Hasn't anybody ever heard of a courthouse back door in these movies? Here, you have a psychic who tells them exactly what happened and WHERE the body can be found, but the police are not told and nobody heeds his findings.<br /><br />The police are portrayed as blockheads who don't know what they are doing and there's always an outside detective, like Ed Asner, who comes in late on the case, believes in the parents and solves the mystery.<br /><br />Also, after the parents are cleared, they don't spit in the faces of the dumb cops who put them in jail, took their kid away and accused them of killing their own child.<br /><br />It looked as if I've see this film MANY times before.
|
negative
|
i'm not even sure what to say about this film. it's one of only a handful of movies ever made that i would consider romantic. to try to talk plot or performance or technical details about this film would be in the words of frank zappa "like dancing about architecture". it absolutely hits the nail right on the head in the way it captures those fleeting moments in life that move us and then run away from us never to be experienced again. this seems like the movie the character version of charlie kaufman in the movie Adaptation wanted to write. the ending is left open and ambiguous, no happy ending here, just mystery. no profound life lessons, just a couple of horny and intelligent kids exploring the ability to feel the most irrational and unrealistic of feelings...... romantic love.<br /><br />10 out of 10 watch it with your special lady and recommend it to a stranger................
|
positive
|
Jack, Sawyer and Sayid swim to the boat and find a completely wasted Desmond. His traumatic past experience before sailing to the island is disclosed through flashbacks. Sayid plots a plan with Jack to surprise "The Others" in case Michael is double-crossing the group. John Locke convinces Desmond to invade the hatch, which is protected by Mr. Eko, and not press the button of the computer to see what will happen.<br /><br />This episode is one of the best of the Second Season. Unfortunately, we lovers of "Lost" can see the lack of respect the producers of this stunning series have with the fans. In the USA, the air date of this episode was 24 May 2006. Therefore, along this period, fans have to wait for the Third Season in a very suspenseful situation, with Jack and his group surrounded by "The Others" and finding the truth about Michael and the death of Ana Lucia and Libby; John locked inside the hatch without the intention of pushing the button and Mr. Eko in despair outside the hatch. I hope the fate of "Lost" be better than "Angel" and its very disappointing conclusion (or lack of conclusion) after five seasons. My vote is ten.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): Not Available
|
positive
|
I generally won't review movies I haven't seen in awhile, so I'll pop them in or rent them to give a full and fresh take on the film. In the case of 'A Sound of Thunder,' I remembered my vow of never seeing this movie ever again, so I'll just go on memory. In fact, I haven't thought of how badly made this movie was until I read someone else's review and remembered the experience I had back in 2005, when I actually saw this in the theater. My movie buddy forced me to see it, though I wasn't interested, and wow. (Later on, I forced him to see 'Basic Instinct 2' in the theater, reminding him he made me see this crap. So, I guess that made us even.) I certainly had my share of deep laughs (at the movie's expense, of course,) which didn't make him happy as he really wanted to see it. The time-travel/butterfly effect film had so many bad graphics, the loudest chuckles from me was whenever they showed the dinosaur (God, I loved seeing that dino and them actually being scared of it it was hilarious!) or just simply, Ben Kingsley. It's great, Kingsley can remind us on how human actors can be: going from 'Gandhi' and 'Schindler's List' to, uh, this. (Even a Meryl Streep can do a 'She-Devil' from time to time, so they're forgiven.) For months, I pulled an MST3k with my buddy, consistently referencing this movie to any low-rent sci-fi film or Kingsley flick. Yes, the movie would be a great movie to see drunk (or otherwise inebriated): horrible over-the-top acting, "special" FX that even the Nintendo64 would turn away and ridiculous plot twists. The biggest disappointment was that the Razzies didn't even nominate this film for any award.
|
negative
|
Death Camp Opera: Right Here, Right Now!<br /><br />Ten years ago, I read that a very special movie had been directed about the polarization of our society. A certain Peter Watkins was the author. His picture was acted by some non-professional actors, citizens like you and me
and others. The violence of the atmosphere was described as extremely realistic. Was it a movie, a documentary? Both actually.<br /><br />Over the years, I realized how hard it was to find it. Maybe I would, by coincidence? Anyway, it's yet an old story. I saw it a short while ago. Totally impressing. My very favourite peace of art: Punishment Park is its name. I love this "docu-fiction", this "truecastmovie", this "realityshowfictionnal", what ever. After all the shock movies I saw, I reach the best with this strong and intense cinematography'experience. I found a masterpiece. There is enough on the net to know many things about the movie. It is even to buy on DVD, with additional stuff. The only words I want to add is about my own experience with this film. I can only trust such a sincere and engaged peace of art about people and for people, those who direct, act or watch. A cinema which is simply a real human experience within an art adventure
or the opposite. <br /><br />So, I'm not talking about all the 'mucs' we can see on TV, especially the 'real'shity-show' whom the concepts of people playing them-selves are interesting, but used in a stupid and perverse way. In Punishment Park, we can see some real individuals living as they are. We only put them in a very specific context, with a few lines to follow, and we let them be what they want to be. It's a kind of therapy, a way of 'individuation' for those inside the movie and also for the active spectators in front of screens. Then, to end, the director's touch edits a short and sweet apocalypse movie, a desperate scream, a 'Death Camp Opera', where some folks are on the run after virulent trials. Punishment Park is for those who want to grow. See this film and have the opportunity to choose your own morality. Grow up and harmonize yourself with it! If you can feel it! If you can see it!! In my case, Punishment Park is stuck in me for ever, with all my love, consciousness and will.
|
positive
|
(David H. Steinberg)'s script seemed initially having some real smart points that could've made good romantic comedy, BUT BUT BUT, oh dear ! What did ever happen in the way ???!!!! <br /><br />I'll tell you what happened. Originally it's (Animal House - 1978) and (Porky's - 1982). Although that was long time ago, but those are the pioneers, the godfathers of the new genre : the crude teen comedy. Then the 1990s came. After important instances that became smash hits (repulsive ones am I add) such as (Problem Child - 1990), (Dumb and Dumber - 1994), (The Nutty Professor - 1996), and (There's Something About Mary - 1998) which I think slackers is affected by, there was the top of the era and the prophet of the next era, the one and only : (American Pie - 1999) which's undoubtedly and incomparably a genre's icon. After that I think every comedy of that kind got to be that highly filthy, cum laude nasty, to be admired by the youth otherwise it might be out of fashion !<br /><br />I believe that (Slackers) had a smart plot first as a script, then its makers got to add some real big amount of : rudeness, filthiness, strangely shameless sex to be made - at those days - as easy as pie ! Like they had to fill every scene with freely elements such as : masturbation, oral sex, urination.. etc just to look a la' mode. They're wholly unnecessary elements to the story but surely THEY ARE so necessary to make the profits, and to catch the latest vogue in making teen comedies. The problem is in how all of that has replaced already any possible comedy in it.<br /><br />Some of its moments looked literally horrible, and that as you see is the point. It's all in (Jason Schwartzman)'s looks and performance; memorably disgusting to the utmost. So the ambition transformed from being that romantic comedy into making what wasn't done before of pure skinning images. To be more like a horror where you're asking all the time; what nastier would happen ? (vomiting, farting,.. etc); these are the easiest combination to create a comedy nowadays.<br /><br />Though even if you hated it you've got to love something (mostly for being bold), for me it was only Gina Gershon cameo's scene. Anyhow they designed it as a whole to achieve being outrages-for-outrageousness, like an adolescent's naughty dream. Though the majority of it was near to anybody's nightmare.<br /><br />What made me sad is that this one at its core was a real potential work, and not another cheap, another stupid comedy as it eventually managed to be. Remember well the details of stealing the exam (the first 2 minutes), so the movie's main plot (weirdo trying to reach a girl by blackmailing cool guys) through the pattern of (boy loves girl, and girl loves another boy) because save that, it's nothing but a candidly schlock. It dealt with its material the tacky way bunch of dirty college boys, who got nothing to do but making mawkish quip out of anything, would do. It ended up as being, and I'm sorry to say it, a smiling sh*t !<br /><br />At its end it said something (can you imagine !) about how it's the time and the place too for the impostor or the slack to win, totally like this comedy itself. It sounds good ending yet for totally another better movie; which could assure my opinion about this one as smart one.. Once ! And it doesn't need much to understand that this movie's makers were the real slackers ! Maybe being stupid is a way to be smart in Hollywood, but even if.. The final result here wasn't at least witty by any sense of the word. <br /><br />P.S : Its scriptwriter (David H. Steinberg), who wrote the story of (American Pie 2) as well, has a main page at the IMDb where you'll find under the "Additional Details" his usual "Plot Keywords" which are : Sex / Vulgarity / Crude Humor /... They just forgot to write Urineing while Showering or Baring 70 Year Old Women !
|
negative
|
It's hard to tell if Noonan and Marshall are trying to ape Abbott & Costello, Martin & Lewis, Curley & Larry, or some other comedy team, but whoever it was they were trying to imitate, they failed miserably. There's barely one weak laugh in this whole incredibly stupid picture. Noonan (who helped write the alleged "script") and Marshall have no chemistry whatsoever; Marshall seems to be trying for a Dean Martin type of devil-may-care coolness, but he doesn't come even remotely close. God knows what Noonan thought he was doing, but being funny sure wasn't it. He seems to think that flapping his arms and legs a lot and staring dumbly at everyone and everything is the height of screen comedy; maybe for him it is, but not for the audience. I remember seeing this in the theaters when it came out. It was on the bottom of a double bill with a three-year-old Jeff Chandler western ("Pillars of the Sky," which was pretty good) and a Three Stooges short ("Sappy Bullfighters", which wasn't), and about 20 minutes into this thing all the kids in the audience were throwing stuff at the screen; it was so staggeringly unfunny that it didn't even measure up to the worst of the Three Stooges shorts. I stayed around for the end of it (not that I wanted to, but my folks weren't due to pick me up until after the movie ended), and by the time this mess was over, I was the only one in the theater. I saw it again about 15 or so years ago on cable one night, and stuck around to watch it to see if it was as bad as I remembered. It was worse. The only thing it had going for it was Julie Newmar, who was as smokingly hot as ever; other than her, this thing has absolutely NOTHING to recommend it. The two of them also play Japanese soldiers, and the way they do it makes Jerry Lewis' infamous playing of Japanese characters as thick-lensed, buck-toothed, gibbering mental defectives look benign by comparison. Marshall went on to host "Hollywood Squares," and Noonan kept trying his hand at making movies, but most of them were almost as bad as this. Not quite, though, as I don't think ANYTHING could be quite as bad as this. A truly pathetic waste of film. Don't waste your time on it.
|
negative
|
I cant help it but i seem to like films that are meant to be scary and are just plain bad. I have personally listed it in my own top 10 worst movies right under creatures of the abyss!. Watch this film and have a laugh just don't expect to see any academy awards for acting. More chance of understanding the film its self. In all honesty though i have seen much worse than this. Plus some maniac cruising round the desert wiping the same people out that just died is that unbelievable that its got to be original. i think its one of those love or hate movies. you can make up your own mind yes its awful but it pulls it off somehow thats why i love it
|
negative
|
Unless you're interested in seeing 2 hours worth of scenic mountain footage featuring hysterical characters, lots of histrionics and cheap 70s gore (not much of it either), I would advise to avoid this movie. It is long winded, overlong and has a rather annoying amateurish feel to it. Masterpiece? No, an average thriller, shot in an average fashion, in a gorgeous Italian landscape. <br /><br />I'm a huge fan of slow paced 1970 movies, when there is a plot to delight and entertain you. In this case, it didn't work out for me. The plot is trite, interlaced with superficial and stereotypical characters, backed by hilarious angry mobs and your typical Italian widow dressed all in black, sobbing.<br /><br />If you are not acquainted and familiar with the Italy country side, the movie might be worth seeing as the scenery itself is spectacular and rather breathtaking. This movie isn't however, nothing out of the ordinary, there are much better Italian horror flicks than this. Not much else than a yawn fest. 5/10
|
negative
|
With awful movies like this one being even considered let alone being made, it's very easy to see why Hollywood is in such serious trouble with bad plots and worse remakes all the time.<br /><br />I guess the viewer is supposed to be laughing their rear ends off over the 'black' in-jokes, the 'pimped up' look and the 'Bling'. It's so incredible 'over the top' and so bad that is even past the 'So bad it's funny again' mark and have plummeted right into 'totally embarrassing for anyone involved'.<br /><br />I'm very, very sorry for every single minute I wasted on this one. I want my time back !<br /><br />Save yourself the agony, do NOT watch this. The only reason for me to give even 1 point in the rating is that 0 wasn't an option.
|
negative
|
I saw this film on True Movies (which automatically made me sceptical) but actually - it was good. Why? Not because of the amazing plot twists or breathtaking dialogue (of which there is little) but because actually, despite what people say I thought the film was accurate in it's depiction of teenagers dealing with pregnancy.<br /><br />It's NOT Dawson's Creek, they're not graceful, cool witty characters who breeze through sexuality with effortless knowledge. They're kids and they act like kids would. <br /><br />They're blunt, awkward and annoyingly confused about everything. Yes, this could be by accident and they could just be bad actors but I don't think so. Dermot Mulroney gives (when not trying to be cool) a very believable performance and I loved him for it. Patricia Arquette IS whiny and annoying, but she was pregnant and a teenagers? The combination of the two isn't exactly lavender on your pillow. The plot was VERY predictable and but so what? I believed them, his stress and inability to cope - her brave, yet slightly misguided attempts to bring them closer together. I think the characters, acted by anyone else, WOULD indeed have been annoying and unbelievable but they weren't. It reflects the surreality of the situation they're in, that he's sitting in class and she walks on campus with the baby. I felt angry at her for that, I felt angry at him for being such a child and for blaming her. I felt it all.<br /><br />In the end, I loved it and would recommend it.<br /><br />Watch out for the scene where Dermot Mulroney runs from the disastrous counselling session - career performance.
|
positive
|
In this Dream-Come-True, I found myself loving what was going on. It's a good movie, and should not be passed off as a corny fantasy movie. It's too smart for that. It's definitely a feel good movie, but with a nice message to leave you with. 7/10, B, **1/2 out of ****
|
positive
|
While many people found this film simply too slow and simplistic I really connected with it. There is no plot as such, rather the film takes the form of a human survival story about three people trapped up a tree with a man eating crocodile lurking somewhere in the water beneath them.<br /><br />Personally, I thought the acting was mostly very good, despite the roles being quite demanding at times, and I felt a sense of warmth for the characters. The situation they were in was quite terrifying and I really felt nervous for them. I found the whole film quite nerve wracking because of the sheer helplessness of their situation and the constant threat to their survival.<br /><br />The crocodile effects were handled surprisingly well for such a low budget film, and believe me, I have seen my fair share of dodgy croc movies. The creature moved well and had real menace and, although the audience I was with didn't seem too keen on the film as a whole, they still jumped and gasped whenever the crocodile appeared.<br /><br />Script-wise, I would have made a few changes, particularly towards the end, but this was not a major problem. For fans of slow-burning survival horror set within the realms of reality this will be an engaging film but unfortunately I think for many audiences seeking a thrill ride and higher production values from their cinema experience the point will simply be missed.
|
positive
|
This is one of the first and best Columbos, starring Robert Culp and Ray Milland. Robert Culp appeared on another Columbo, as did several other villains, including Patrick McGoohan, William Shatner, and Jack Cassidy. Ray Milland also made a later appearance.<br /><br />In this one, Ray Milland is convinced his beautiful wife, played by Patricia Crowley, is having an affair, so he hires Culp to investigate. Culp has a blackmailing business on the side, so he gives Milland a fake report and threatens Crowley with the real one if she doesn't pay up. They get into a huge fight in Culp's home, and she winds up murdered. Enter Columbo.<br /><br />Culp does everything he can to get Columbo off the case, including offering him a job, but Columbo is on to him from the beginning.<br /><br />Excellent episode.
|
positive
|
I have bought the DVD of this version to compare against the current BBC 2005 version (which is brilliant). The 1985 was adapted by Arthur Hopcraft, who adapted Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy for TV and who died this year (2005). I remember great acting, especially from Rigg and Elliott, and moving music. (Music in the 2005 version is far more understated, but very telling.) Just to pick up other commentators on a couple of points: Richard Carstone is Ada Claire's boyfriend, not Esther's. Esther had no uncle. Charlie Drake never played Krook in either version, nor did he play Toby Esterhase in TTSS! Krook is played by comedian Johnny Vegas in the 2005 version. Toby was played by Bernard Hepton.<br /><br />Both versions are honourable and admirable adaptations of Dickens' great novel. Now read the book! It's not perfect, and the sentimentality may make you wince at times, but I defy you not to cry - and laugh!
|
positive
|
An overblown melodrama typical of its period (mid-1950s) and appropriate matinée food. Rock Hudson, the hulk everyone always falls in love with, plays his usual stereotype role, but whereas in Giant, made the same year, when his material and co-stars (Taylor & Dean) were above average, in this movie he is just not good enough to raise the calibre beyond a mushy tale of how difficult it is to be both rich and happy. The self-destructive brother and sister (Robert Stack, reeling his way through the film in a drunken stupor, and Dorothy Malone, playing a vampish poor little rich girl totally over the top) end up the losers and Hudson gets Bacall - who is rather wooden in this part which does not have enough character or wit to get her going. To paraphrase Oscar Wilde, the good end happily and the bad unhappily, that is the meaning of fiction. However, I was interested to read that the film is based on a true story which vindicated the plot. Like other films of the period, homosexuality is disguised in heterosexual terms. Maybe the film could be remade: Stack's character would ring truer if he was hiding homosexual feelings for Mitch by marrying. Todd Haynes's Far From Heaven greatly improved on All That Heaven Allows , also directed by Sirk. Perhaps Haynes could remake Written on the Wind and give us a truly memorable film.
|
positive
|
As a study of the frailties of human nature in the context of old age, this film is without parallel. It is, quite simply, brilliant. Full marks to everyone - from the scriptwriter to all involved in the finished product. You can only marvel at the perceptions inherent in the characterisation of the two ageing performers.
|
positive
|
Incredible documentary captured all the frenzied chaos and misery which loomed over NYC on that fateful morning of September 11th. Intense, personal, and completely riveting, 9/11 is perhaps the greatest documentary ever made by accident, which kind of gives it an even greater appeal. Up until that morning, filmmakers Gideon and Jules Naudet had been following around a New York firefighter team, concentrating specifically on one new recruit in a little piece they were shooting dealing with the rigorous training to become a fireman. Out with the team that morning filming yet another simple routine cleanup, Jules lifts his camera up to the sky just in time to record one of the only known images of the first plane hitting the World Trade Center, and from there a simple documentary was no more.<br /><br />Viewers are given a first hand account of what it was like to be in and around ground zero, as the amazing group of fire-fighters and one profoundly bewildered cameraman attempt to navigate this disaster. Without hesitation, Naudet follows these automatically programmed heroes into the tower while it's entire support crumbles around them. The raw fear of an unknown, impending doom lurks with more viability then any fictional production could ever fathom as we watch less and less become audible and visible for those trapped inside. Nearly as memorable is older brother Gideon's candid capturing of an entire city in the throngs of a larger and more palpable fear then anything they had collectively witnessed. By the time we get to see the second tower collapse, as the cameraman shields himself from apocalyptic debris, we should all but be rinsing the dirt off ourselves from the amazingly up-close footage captured.<br /><br />Obviously the filmmakers deserve only as much credit as being in the right place at the right time to document such an extraordinary event, though one can only admire the two brothers in their extraordinary adaptation to such an event; in a few desperate minutes we witness them become like the firemen they document- only instead of saving lives they knew they had to save footage, even if it cost them their own safety.<br /><br />After viewing 9/11, and seeing that it came out in 2002, I feel much more resentment towards Oliver Stone's recent rendition, the big budgeted World Trade Center. Many had criticized the film for ignorantly narrowing down the focus to those two survivors trapped in rubble, and although I enjoyed the movie just fine for the small and sentimental Hollywood focus it brought, 9/11 all but renders his film completely obsolete. Not only will this utterly gripping footage remain the only definitive collection from that day, but the sublime transfer of motives midway ensures that this documentary has all the heart and character needed to never sensationalize the event again.
|
positive
|
This film, released in 1951, has the usual elements typical of the westerns released during the 50's; the cavalry needing to protect the territory from a murderous band of Indians, an officer determined to see that task through, and the men with him with various character flaws that he has to merge together into a cohesive unit. This small band must hold on to a fort located close to the Indian village until reinforcements arrive. The Indians know, all to well, that the small band is undermanned, and could be wiped out before the help comes. One major difference for this film, "Only the Valiant", is that it attempts to play out the usual storyline, but at the same time, deliver the message that duty is a paramount concern to be shared by all, even if they don't accept that charge.<br /><br />Gregory Peck embodies the tight-lipped captain of the troop that has to prevent the Indians from breaking out into the territory. The troopers that he takes with him to the small outpost are the dregs of the troop at the fort; they, in turn, have gripes or weaknesses that cause them to wonder if the captain hasn't taken them out because of their general lack of devotion to a cause. Eventually, the captain and the small band confront the hostiles, and at the same time, each confronts his own flaw. The cast includes western stalwarts such as Ward Bond, Gig Young, Neville Brand, Lon Chaney, Jr., and Warner Anderson. <br /><br />A sleeper of a film, and a good solid western for fans of this genre.
|
positive
|
I liked this movie very much because it is a true story set in the Amazon, a part of the world that always has intrigued me. I believe a condensed form of the book was published in "Reader's Digest" soon after the actual event occurred.<br /><br />Because I am a "baby boomer," the character and the actress are my contemporaries, and for this reason I related to the film. I also believe the movie is valuable for teaching survival skills if the viewer observes the character's following the streams that lead to the river and to the coastal settlements where she can get help, as well as other survival techniques. Most important was her will to survive and to maintain a positive attitude. In conclusion, I hope viewers learn something from it, in addition seeing it for entertainment.<br /><br />I do wish the movie would be released in VHS and DVD soon as I should like to add it to my video collection. It also should be shown more often on the satellite movie channels.
|
positive
|
I seriously can't believe Tim Burton and Timur Bekmambetov, two people I LOVE, signed on to produce this crap. Tim Burton is a brilliant director, but to be honest I've been losing interest in him for a while since his last few movies were either remakes or adaptations. He did produce the brilliant "Nightmare Before Christmas", which is one I've watched multiple times, and directed movies like "Beetlejuice" and "Sleepy Hollow", which are awesome films. Bekmambetov directed 3 films that I LOVE: Night Watch, Day Watch, and Wanted. I've only seen those three of his, but they prove he's an awesome director.<br /><br />Those two people producing one of the many reasons I was excited to see 9. So today I went to go see it at the theatre. I was so excited to finally have seen it. I had waited 7 months for the movie to come out.<br /><br />This movie is the first time I've walked out of a Tim Burton-related movie and said "I enjoyed almost NONE of that". I felt heartbroken to even have felt that way. I mean, with him and Bekmambetov at the production helm you'd have expected this movie to be a good watch. Right now I still can't get over how let down I was by this movie. I hadn't even heard of the original short film before seeing it but now, I can successfully say that this movie should have remained a short movie. Hell, Neil Blomkamp made an AWESOME full length remake of Alive in Joburg entitled District 9, what was so hard to get right about 9??? I really wanted to think this movie was awesome. I really did. But no, it failed on so many levels.<br /><br />The plot was extremely confusing and disjointed. I had no idea what was going on, let alone what it was about. Basically it's about a bunch of rag doll robots trying to save the earth. Well, OK, that's what I got from it. But the writing here is extremely poor. The whole film jumps around like a 6 year old with A.D.D. telling a story. There's this big, giant clanky monster robot that 9 awakens, causing destruction and stuff. That's the main villain. However, what else is wrong with this movie is that EVERYTHING COMES OUT OF NOWHERE. There were too many monster robots, most of which have no logical explanation behind them. They have 0 development whatsoever. I mean, that flying pterodactyl like monster just rips out of nowhere, we have no idea where it comes out of and Acker just expects us to know what it is. What was even more retarded was that snake-like creature with the strobing eyes that hypnotize. I dare you to give that description to someone else out loud and expect them not to laugh. All of the 3 people I told about it burst out laughing. Oh and it wraps victims up and sews them inside it. I'M. NOT. KIDDING.<br /><br />The twist in Act III is the most retarded aspect of the whole movie. So basically 9 goes back to the room he woke up in, finds this box with a hologram from the scientist in it for 9, and he tells him that the big scary machine robot was designed to bring robot life to earth, but then evil humans use it for war, and it was supposed to help protect the earth, but then the scientist gave his life to 9 so that it could help protect the world with it. And HE ONLY MENTIONS GIVING HIS LIFE TO 9. But what about the other robots? WHO GAVE THEIR LIVES TO THEM???????? This is the perfect example of poor, rushed writing. There's only one of the life taking device thingy that exists so how did the other 8 get life given to them??????? The characters are not likable at all either. They risk their lives for no reason at all. The only good character is 7. 6 annoyed me with his "GO BACK TO THE SOURCE!!!!!!" ramblings, 1 is an overpowering idiot, 2 we don't know ANYTHING about, 5 kept annoying me with his "Are you sure..." or "Can I stay here instead...?" questions. And that ending? UGH. I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks that the ending was a huge WTF moment.<br /><br />There's nothing redeeming about this turd except for its beautiful animation. Everything looks realistic and beautiful, I love the gloomy and depressing look of everything. However, beauty can't save a good movie.<br /><br />While it's true that this movie is very pretty looking, pretty is as pretty does, and 9 does squat. I'm sure Burton fans will be flocking to the theatre to see this movie without a doubt, in fact with his and Bekmambetov's names being thrown around the promos, people will be flocking to the theatre to see this movie. I know I may be making a big deal out of nothing, but watching this movie made me realize how much I hate movies with unlikeable characters, nonexistent plot and just pure style over content. And this movie is one of those movies.
|
negative
|
This movie maked me cry at the end! I watch at least 3-4 movies a week. I seen loads of great movies, even more crap - ones. But when ending scene - catharsic at it's core - came I Cried! And if you didn't - you have serious problems! The story is archetypal - nothing new or original. But it's real - because that sort of things really happened and that people really exist. Glam isn't my sort of music but I really admire all that they went through in early 70's... At some point this directed me toward Velvet Goldmine! Docudramas never really work very good. But this movie really meked us believe it all...Because they don't try to make it as a path full of glorious concerts, present musicians that are superheroes, groupie girls that are stupid and emotionally numb, they don't glorify drugs and alcohol, they promote rehabilitation and redemption that comes even 20 years late... Once again great movie. Since "Leaving Las Vegas" I was never so moved by a movie.
|
positive
|
I sympathized with the plight of the first man, Schmitter, we see killed in this episode. He reminded me of the trepidation associated with being a lone security guard at night somewhere - the type of work I did briefly about 20 years ago. Of course, I was never in danger of being burned to a crisp, as the colony chief (Lynch) is fond of describing. The monster in the dark here, murdering members of a deep mining colony, creates a scary impression in the first act. We don't really see it in the early scenes and, as many of us realize, the best monsters are sometimes left to the imagination. 'Big and shaggy' is one voiced description, but it actually turns out to resemble a big, lumpy pepperoni pizza, skittering along the ground like a silicon centipede - a limitation of the show's budget, unfortunately. This also shows in the latest matte painting, famous to Trek fans, the only way to convey a long shot of the mining operations.<br /><br />But, the whole theme of this episode is about what's on the inside, rather than outward appearances, anyway. Sure, this Horta, a newly-discovered silicon-based life-form, looks like a mindless monster at first glance. Thanks to Spock's telepathic ability (probably the best use of a Vulcan mind meld for plot purposes), we learn it's a highly intelligent, even sophisticated creature. Besides Spock's instrumental use of his talent, McCoy gets to supersede his usual medical routine - healing a creature resembling rocks or asbestos. He also gets to utter one of his most famous lines, "I'm a doctor, not a bricklayer!" I found it very true-to-life in his scene where he exults in his success, though he's unable to get Kirk to share in his enthusiasm - Kirk's too busy organizing results. The episode throws unexpected turns in character & motivation at the audience as the story progresses; Spock champions the need to possibly preserve this discovered life as Kirk takes his usual stand on preventing the deaths of any red-shirts (no half measures, as in "The Man Trap"). But later, it's Kirk who, for some reason, holds back on firing a killing blast, as if the heat of the hunt had worn off and he'd had time to reflect on Spock's point (I believe it was during this episode's filming that Shatner learned his father had died). Uncharacteristic for most of the first season, this has a happy ending. The conflict stems from the needs of basic capitalism, such as meeting standard quotas, versus protecting the natural environment and its inhabitants - a space age version of protecting owls from the tractors of modern advancement. Somehow, despite many killings and a sense that everything could go to hell at any moment with one raised phaser, Kirk and Spock manage to broker an agreement which satisfies everyone. I guess people and silicates are more reasonable in the 23rd century.
|
positive
|
THE SCREAMING SKULL (1 outta 5 stars) This movie boasts some pretty cool opening credits (an offscreen narrator warning that movie patrons will be offered a free burial if they die of fright watching this movie, a scary shot of a skull emerging from a placid pool and the ubiquitous scary music) but, sadly, the movie is all downhill from there. A widowed man takes his new bride to his secluded mansion... admonishing his servants and friends that the new Mrs. has a very fragile disposition due to a tragedy in her past. Well, in no time at all she begins to see and hear mysterious things that no one else can. Her husband assures her that it's all merely in her mind and... well, you can probably see where this all is going. You will have figured out what's going on long before our hapless heroine... because you have probably seen the exact same plot in hundreds of other movies and TV shows (and done better, too). To add to the movie's myriad transgressions, most cuts of this movie (on numerous cheap DVD compilations) seem to be missing a few key scenes. You see the heroine slowly walking towards the window... she goes to open it... you know she is going to see something scary... and then... suddenly the scene cuts to her sobbing in her husband's arms. So what did she see??? I guess we'll never know.
|
negative
|
Just imagine what school would have been like in a world like this: the kids are one big gang who have really good taste in music and unite against bad headmasters and teachers. "Rock 'N' Roll High School" is taking place in that world. It's like a Ramones record coming to life. The characters are all as silly, innocent and charming as the Ramones' songs, and the music itself is, of course, fantastic. High school comedies have really changed over the years, if you compare a movie like "American Pie" with this late 70's classic, where no tasteless sex jokes are made at all. Since a remake is apparently in the works, it can probably be expected that the charm of the original will get lost along the way and will get replaced by vulgar, half-funny dick jokes, as Bill Hicks used to call them. However, the main problem will be that the Ramones CANNOT be replaced. They were the perfect band for this movie and no one else could even come close to taking their place. So, the best thing to do would be to leave the original alone, as quirky and charming as it is. Gabba-gabba hey!
|
positive
|
"Committed", as in Heather Graham being COMMITTED to saving her husband/marriage, and then being COMMITTED to a psychiatric ward in failure to do so: what a clever, clever use of words.<br /><br />One of those meaningless wanna-be philosophical films in which narration is a series of oh-so wise observations that verge on poetry (90s chique club-poetry, better known as "chit-chique poetry"). Oh, it's so je-ne-sais-quoi... Written/directed (or "auteured") by a woman (Lisa Krueger, whoever the hell you are), this is a pointless, lethargically directed road-movie full of New Age spiritualistic nonsense and characters that are meant to be interesting but are merely seen-before or just plain dull. The Latinos in this movie, as part of the poor urban minority, are typically glorified in all their mysticism-obsessed primitivism as a "spiritually superior" people, which is the "highlight" of this film's political correctness.<br /><br />The whole affair is lifeless, and ceases to be so only when occasional good cast members appear (Kay Place, Baker, Wilson). On the other hand we have Casey Affleck, who is one of the very best examples of why nepotism is on par with first-degree murder as a crime. I have rarely seen a more apathetic "actor"; a skinny, ugly moron who goes through his lines in a sleepy manner, almost as if he were uttering them in a half-awake quasi-dream, plus that weak voice, one of the weakest male voices I've heard in my life. (He must have gone to the Tobey Maguire Lethargy School Of Acting.) To cast this idiot in ANYTHING speaks volumes about ANY movie, i.e. about ANY director or producer. Hence, Lisa Krueger is a talentless waste of space. We've also got that moron who had the lead role in the MST3K-spoofed "Werewolf"; I think his name is Goran Vishnjic, but I'm not sure. Check out his ridiculous accent and the dumb speech.
|
negative
|
A couple of friends and myself visited the video shop a few years back and we were in one of those moods to rent some cheesy non seen flicks. My friend grabbed Head of the Family and we were greeted by a head sitting in a wheelchair. Well that set us off laughing and we decided to have a bet to see who would be the one who had to go to the desk and pay for the movie. Well you guessed it, it was me!!!!!!!! I have never been so embarrised in all my life. We got home and put it on and we rolled about the floor laughing for about 45mins because this was the funniest film in the world. I cant remember much about it but one thing i do remember was the blonde girl getting it on with some guy in the back of a shop every 5 mins. That head made me laugh and when i look at other peoples comments aboout this movie it makes me laugh even more. Head of the family is so good and the head is funny and im still laughing ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
|
negative
|
Hybrid starts as water treatment planet security guard Aaron Scates (Cory Monteith) is involved in an accident which leaves him blind. Luckily it just so happens that brilliant scientist Dr. Andrea Hewitt (Justine Bateman) who works for Olaris has developed an operation to transplant organs from one species to another, Hewitt decides Aaron would be perfect for her first human experiment. Hewitt & her team transplant the eyes of a Wolf into Aaron & he miraculously regains his sight. Brilliant, right? Well, no not really since Aaron starts to go mad as he sees random images of Wolves & starts to develop a lust for blood. Aaron escapes the Olaris building & goes on the run but he is too valuable to just let go & a full scale search is mounted to capture him...<br /><br />Directed by Yelena Lanskaya this is yet another Sci-Fi Channel offering that is quite simply put terrible in every possible way, I think it probably started out life as a straight 'Creature Feature' but ended up as one of the most boring & dull Sci-Fi Channel films I have seen that doesn't even feature any sort of monster or creature. Hybrid is awful, the script is terrible & I am not even sure who it was meant to appeal to. The initial set-up is OK with Aaron getting Wolf eyes but then Hybrid ditches the sci-fi elements & becomes some sort of horrible drama as it focuses entirely on Aaron's mental state as he wonders around doing nothing in particular with some Native American woman. Yep, you don't think the Sci-Fi Channel could make a film about Wolves & put loads of rubbish about Native American mythology in there as well do you? The dynamics of the character's is bizarre, Aaron is shown as the persecuted hero yet he is the only character to kill anyone in the film & is a fairly unlikable, ungrateful & annoying person while Dr. Hewitt is shown as the evil scientist yet she gives Aaron back his sight & does nothing but try to help him. I mean Aaron is given back the gift of sight yet Hewitt is the villain? Also the regular Sci-Fi Channel staple of US military intervention is present, the problem is why do they want Aaron so badly? He isn't a soldier & while he has Wolves eyes to help him see in the dark he's utterly unremarkable. The script can't make it's mind up whether it's all in Aaron's mind or it's real, the ending is hilariously bad with a half naked (rememeber this was made for telly) Aaron running through a forest with a pack of Wolves set to some horrible music that I think is supposed to be emotional but makes it even more funny. There are so many things wrong with Hybrid, it's slower than hell, there's virtually no action, there's no Werewolves & the film goes round in circles trying to get into Aaron's mind yet it's all so ridiculous, silly & boring you won't care one bit & there's never any explanation as to why despite just having Wolves eyes transplanted Aaron starts to develop other Wolf senses.<br /><br />As a diabetic I have problems with my eyes, hell I have had major surgery on my right eye & I can guarantee you that after an operation your eye would be puffed up, you wouldn't be able to open it & it would hurt like hell yet despite having eye transplants as soon as Aaron wakes up in bed his eyes are perfect with no swelling or even redness. There are no special effects, no blood or gore or violence & nothing to excite you. In fact now I think about it there's nothing even remotely horror or sci-fi feeling about this, it feels like a drab film of the week.<br /><br />Filmed in Manitoba in Canada the film looks OK but is bland & forgettable. The acting is poor from all involved none of whom I have seen before & hopefully never again.<br /><br />Hybrid is a terrible film that is obviously marketed as some Werewolve 'Creature Feature' but is far from that & most people will really struggle to get to the awful ending which will probably have you in stitches.
|
negative
|
This is one of the best looking films of the past few years. The fact that it was done on a virtual shoestring ($1.8 million or so they say on the DVD:they infer that they ended up with even less financing) makes it all the more impressive. Not simply the photography, but the design and particularly the locations (Eastern Montana) which are at once authentically American and otherworldly.<br /><br />Too bad there isn't a coherent movie to go with it. An extremely promising setup of the last 48 hours of clearing out a rural town in 1955 before it will be flooded for a dam is washed away with pretentious mumbo jumbo alluding to angels and a dying child. And what is presented as the "real world" is hopelessly arch. Note to the Polish Brothers:the Coen Brothers are funny-you are not.<br /><br />No doubt many cineastes will find "Northfork"'s abundant symbolism and inscrutability as marks of some sort of profundity, the sort that sophisticated types wrestle the night away with in coffeehouses while the braindead masses watch "Charlie's Angels" or something. (Sigh) If you insist....<br /><br />In the meantime, recommended only as a case study for filmmakers for its' impeccable technical credits and photographic beauty.
|
negative
|
I want to say that I went to this movie with my expectations way too high. I thought it was going to be funny because it's the sequel to Bruce Almighty which was really funny and it stars Steve Carell who is an excellent comedic actor but boy, did it sucked.<br /><br />The movie is advertised as a sequel but it really has nothing to do with the original since the only people reprising their roles are Morgan Freeman and Steve Carell but Steve's character is completely different, he is no longer the jerk he was in the first one here he is a nice guy. The story is different and the actors are different and it's not funny.<br /><br />All the actors involved(Steve Carell, Morgan Freeman, Wanda Sykes, John Goodman, Ed Helms and even Jon Stewart in a very crappy cameo) have talent but none of them seems to use it and it looks that there in the movie just for the money.<br /><br />Now the plot is obviously shaped after Noah's story but there are so many wrong things with it, I don't know where to start. I guess the big problem is that in the everyone around Evan thinks that he is crazy despite all the things that are happening to him, he grows a huge white beard in two days, he gets help from animals from all around the world, he builds a giant arc in a few weeks, in real life people wouldn't be mocking these guy after that, they would be saying he is the new Noah.<br /><br />Also the special effects are good but what the hell is the greatest movie flood ever filmed doing in Evan Almighty? Did they really had to waste such good special effects as filler for this crappy movie.<br /><br />Jim Carrey seems to be a smart guy since he has stayed away of three of the worst sequels ever made, Son of the Mask, Dumb and Dumbered and now Evan Almighty.<br /><br />This was a giant disappointment and Tom Shyadac should be ashamed of himself.
|
negative
|
I'm actually surprised at the amount of good ratings this anti-Christian pseudo-documentary got. Now, I respect the guy's opinion and faith, I myself am not, at this state, believer of the taught Christian doctrine. However, anti-Christian propaganda is somewhat of a different issue.<br /><br />This film has valid points, but they are very few and represented in a very biased context. I'm not recommending against seeing it. In fact, I think everyone should see it and decide on their own whether they believe it or not. And this is actually more of a chance than the one the director gives to Christian teachings. Rather than an inquiring approach on the subject, it looks like a personal vendetta on the Christian school that affected his childhood. It also misrepresents the Christians most of the times as either incredibly naive or fundamentalists, no moderation in between.<br /><br />The director uses movie scenes from Passion of Christ without permission, sets up an interview with the headmaster of his former school and presents almost solely anti-Christian historians and writers. I actually found the headmaster to be the most down-to-earth person and think that his attitude was fully justified. I also strongly doubt that any of the Christian believers who were interviewed were consulted afterwords or even told before the interview the purpose of the inquiry.<br /><br />With this being said, there are certainly new and interesting facts to be found here and some very original thoughts on the question of Christianity. But the way in which this whole think is produced is often offensive, highly unprofessional and dreadfully biased.
|
negative
|
The directors cut version, which was the one I saw, was very long for this type of movie. Almost two hours is way too long. If you have the choice, definitely go for the non-directors cut.<br /><br />The main plot is almost not taken up at all, the movie consists to the main part of several murder scenes, which are connected but the feeling is that they're only shown in order to fill the movie with splatterish violence. The connection is not revealed until the latter part and the lack of context bored me out long before I was there.<br /><br />As a horror movie it doesn't work. You never get the required feel for the characters due to mediocre acting and the general disposition (character is presented, 15 minutes later character is dead). This pictures strong side lies in the splatter part.
|
negative
|
First off, I'm in the U.S.<br /><br />When I first saw this, I thought it was an obvious - and loathsome - rip off of "The Office" (UK). I would have thus awarded it zero stars, but lo and behold, it came out long before the Ricky Gervais series.<br /><br />Still, it's hard to watch this or any other show with a similar dynamic (including the American "Office") without comparison. It just isn't even close to being the same thing.<br /><br />I will give it some credit for being original, and ahead of its time. I'll also say that it - and the U.S. "Office" and "Larry Sanders" - are actual satires. The UK "Office" is something grander and more transcendent, as if populated with real people in events that felt like they actually happened. However, unlike this or the shrill Christopher Guest "mockumentaries", it isn't really a satire, while "The Newsroom" definitely is.<br /><br />Be that as it may, "The Newsroom" still isn't very funny. It's aloof, and self-aware, but with a cast and crew not nearly smart or talented enough to heft the goods. It's weighty comedy being carried on weak shoulders. Commendable, but ultimately not recommended.<br /><br />--- And what's with the lack of an anamorphic DVD?! I know it was shot in anamorphic widescreen, because I saw the pilot episode on one of our HD channels. CBC, get with the programme. ; )
|
negative
|
Bromwell High is nothing short of brilliant. Expertly scripted and perfectly delivered, this searing parody of a students and teachers at a South London Public School leaves you literally rolling with laughter. It's vulgar, provocative, witty and sharp. The characters are a superbly caricatured cross section of British society (or to be more accurate, of any society). Following the escapades of Keisha, Latrina and Natella, our three "protagonists" for want of a better term, the show doesn't shy away from parodying every imaginable subject. Political correctness flies out the window in every episode. If you enjoy shows that aren't afraid to poke fun of every taboo subject imaginable, then Bromwell High will not disappoint!
|
positive
|
"I fear you speak upon the rack, where men enforced do speak anything." This Shakespearean line from The Merchant of Venice is echoed again in the new film Rendition which introduces the viewer to the "enhanced methods of interrogation", renditions, which began in the Clinton Administration and have become more commonplace since the terror attacks of September 11, 2001.<br /><br />The film features an all-star cast, with Oscar winners Meryl Streep, Alan Arkin, and Reese Witherspoon, as well as Peter Sarsgaard, Jake Gyllenhaal, and Omar Metwally. Supporting roles filled by unfamiliar actors deliver as well, sucking the audience into the plot, and showing how many people can be affected by overseas terror attacks, and our means of investigating them.<br /><br />Rendition follows an Egyptian born terrorism suspect (Metwally) who is taken by U.S. officials following his flight from South Africa to Washington DC to an undisclosed prison overseas. His pregnant wife (Witherspoon) ventures to Washington DC to find out about his disappearance through a family friend and Senator's employee (Sarsgaard). Gyllenhaal plays a young CIA analyst at the overseas detention facility who monitors the violent interrogation.<br /><br />This film follows the emotional plights of the torture victim (Metwally), and those involved in obtaining the supposed information from him. Some, like the CIA analyst (Gyllenhaal), are visibly shaken and horrified by the methods exercised, while others, the stern Senator (Streep) and foreign interrogator (Yigal Naor), see it as necessary and effective.<br /><br />The film may be described by some as a political piece, but is ultimately an emotional one. Metwally's performance as the tortured prisoner is Oscar-worthy. The film does not intend to preach, but rather to question and inform the audience on a topic that does not often have a human face put on it. Renditions have been known to work, but have also been known to produce false information from innocent prisoners. The film simply depicts the emotional struggles of those involved in such grave business, and does so in a way that will affect every viewer differently. The film will keep your interest, and have you engaged in each of the character's plights.
|
positive
|
The directing behind this film was fantastic for a comedy. Many of the scenes appear to be out of a comic book and much darker (visually -- not story wise) than what I expected. Granted, this may not be the funniest movie ever made, especially if you are into very crude sexist jokes as this has very little of that (compared to others like Something About Mary or American Pie). As you rewatch it, several jokes stand out and get funnier. If you have ever read a comic book or watched a comic book-type movie (Batman, X-Men, etc.) and liked them, you will probably enjoy the subtle humor that continues throughout the movie. If you didn't like them, you may like the respectful ridicule that this film has for those. If you did like this movie, the dvd has some cool extras. (8/10)
|
positive
|
I'd love to give Kolchak a higher rating but the show quickly went from scary/suspenseful to silly. ABC's fault. They moved the show to Friday nights at 8:00 p.m., then known as the "family hour". Never should have been on Fridays in the first place. I was a sophomore in high school and loved the early episodes! It was first up against Police Woman on NBC. ABC had huge problems with Friday nights. Bad season for them overall until Barney Miller, Baretta, and SWAT debuted in January of '75. Kolchak should have been a hit. Darren McGavin begged to get out of his contract to end the show. Too bad the writing wasn't up to Richard Matheson's in the original TV movies. Still, McGavin made Kolchak his own, as actors can do. Jackie Gleason as Ralph Kramden and Caroll O'Connor as Archie Bunker come to mind. That INS set with the manual typewriters and clacking teletypes seems quaint and ancient today, yet that was part of the appeal. They were very lucky to have Simon Oakland reprise "Vincenzo" from the TV films.
|
positive
|
In fact, these young people were so distasteful that I couldn't wait for all of 'em to get slaughtered, and that includes Clarissa (Joanna Canton) since I considered her the most annoying of the bunch.<br /><br />But I knew it was gonna be a mess from the opening minutes when a teen Christine opened fired on the priest and the nuns with the Leslie Gore music playing in the background. It had nowhere to go but down.<br /><br />Even the prosthetics looked fake and the "blood" looked suspiciously like Hawaiian Punch, although later on it took on red day-glo look to match the silly halloween makeup they were all wearing. I'm sure all the GOTH morons out there will appreciate this bullsh-t since it'll appeal to that bunch. It sure didn't appeal to me. Blah...<br /><br />And not even my favorite horror babe Adrienne Barbeau can save this stupid teen horror flick from itself. She still looks hot, though. I'm glad she takes care of herself since we don't get to see too much of her nowadays.<br /><br />However, it is a step up from Dante Tomaselli's meandering HORROR (2002) in that it has a somewhat coherent plot, so I'll give it that much. That and the little Boston terrier named Boozer also brings it up a notch. I like what Boozer does to Clarissa in the end. It was the only good scene in an otherwise silly film.<br /><br />Lion's Gate Films sure must have been desperate when they picked this one up.<br /><br />2 out of 10
|
negative
|
I stumbled across this film while channel surfing, and was blown away. It was being broadcast on a lesser known short films program here in Australia.<br /><br />It has been a long time since I have been so impressed by a film, especially one so short. <br /><br />The power of the story, the quality of the acting and the stunning cinematography... wow. If it were available, it would make a very worthy addition to my DVD collection.<br /><br />I am undoubtedly impressed, and I will look forward to Joshua Leonards' next film.<br /><br />An exceptional experience 10/10
|
positive
|
I had a VERY hard time sitting through this film. Unless you really are very pro-adultery and like to hear people ENDLESSLY talking about their sexual exploits, I can't see how you could enjoy this film. Geez--most of the main characters behaved like rutting weasels and their bragging about their MANY infidelities grew tiresome. About the only element of this I appreciated was the DISGUSTING scene where the one character was urinating and blood was splattering everywhere because he'd picked up an STD---BIG SURPRISE!?! Hmm.<br /><br />If you want a GOOD film, watch the sequel, Barbarian Invasions. Despite the general unlikable nature of many of the characters, the sequel is VERY involving and more realistic--well worth your time.
|
negative
|
While the movie has its flaws, it brings to light some of the problems that come with living in a country that has no democracy. It makes you empathize with the people under such a government and makes you want to learn more about their lives, their struggles and a potential leader Aung San Suu Kyi. It makes one wonder why our government will interfere places we are not wanted yet ignore those who ask our help.
|
positive
|
In fact, parts of it I liked a lot. It had some interesting twists. But it just left me with a been there, seen that feeling after all of the SAW movies. Granted the ending was different from a typical Saw, but let's face it...a group of guys, unknown to each other (or so they believe) tossed together in an abandoned chemical factory....<br /><br />But then it loses something. There's no intensity, there's poor group dynamic, there's no sense of urgency.<br /><br />Some nice twists at the end, and definitely worth a watch if there's nothing else on your plate, but it just left me empty...it passed the time, but it didn't satisfy.
|
negative
|
Ed Wood is rolling over in his grave. He could have made a hundred cult classics for the price of this waste-hole. The worst script in memory (it makes "X-Men 3" sparkle like "Citizen Kane"); the most amateur directing; pre-K cinematography; the cheesiest "special effects" (I'm talking about "Friday The 13th" sequel territory); and throw in a pointless, revolting, deeply disturbed, maternity ward sequence. The lack of any talent or sensibility that put this garbage on-screen is astounding. That the "industry" might reward anyone involved in this celluloid cess-pool with future projects ought to be cause for serious alarm.
|
negative
|
a hilariously funny movie! of course u gotta have a sense of humour to be able to appreciate it. the music is excellent, reminded me of 50-60's hindi music which is a rarity nowadays... worth the $$$! go check it out :)
|
positive
|
Wow, pretty amazing that something this bad could actually be made. I am giving this movie a 2 because it is so bad it has a certain "car wreck" kind of appeal. Its so bad its comical and that does have a certain entertainment value. Plus there is a bit of gratuitous nudity and that is always appreciated.<br /><br />So where do I begin. The acting is beyond awful, its like you are watching a high school play being filmed. Theresa Russell must have done something really bad to have been forced to make this movie and her acting reflects how happy she is to be in the middle of this mess.<br /><br />The rest of the cast is simply silly with the casting of Dan Cortese as an FBI agent the cherry on the top of this piece of crap. His acting actually had me laughing at loud.<br /><br />As for the screenplay and the directing C. Courtney Joyner and Mark L. Lester should simply be taken out back and shot.
|
negative
|
This movie was one of those movies where it completely fooled me into thinking that it was a cheesy 80's slasher flick, based on the cover, but it wasn't. It was quite possibly one of the worst slasher films that I have ever seen. The picture on the cover did not match any part or scene in the movie; in fact it didn't involve a chainsaw. Not even the tag line fit the movie. The film is about a group of cheerleaders and two potheads who escape to a desolate cabin, in the cold woods, for a weekend getaway. However, things get extra chilly when they start to get murdered by an unknown killer. At the same time, the local sheriff's department is hunting down a dangerous killer. I'll name the problems in a list.<br /><br />1. The Acting. Boy was it cheap and horribly bad. It felt unnatural and it seemed as thought it was very scripted. None of the actors seemed as though they tried to perform with good intentions and therefore they seemed silly and tired. There was bad acting by all the characters in the movie, so I won't point out specific people, but I wills say that the stoners did a horrible job, as well as the police and the cheerleaders, which is not a surprise.<br /><br />2. The Plot. This story had set up a perfect storyline for good ol' fashion slasher flick, but instead they peppered it with plot-holes, useless and unnecessary scenes and an overall stupid back-story to the killer's intentions. There were major plot-holes including how the killer killed the last victim so quickly and yet still be there in the group of girls when it happened? The ex-con virtually served no purpose in the movie aside from being a useless plot device. There was random and unnecessary sex and nudity sprinkled throughout it, even for a b-movie or my taste it was a bit too much. As for the killer's intentions, lets just say it was stupid and it makes no sense as to why she / he is killing young girls. Plus, there was also some very predictable kills that I saw coming about 30 miles away.<br /><br />3. The Technical Side. The lighting was okay, it certainly wasn't the worse lighting that I've seen in a movie, but there were points where it was supposed to be dark but it looked more like the afternoon. The house seemed darker with the lights on, then with the lights off. The camera work was average, it didn't have any good establishing shots or amazing pans or zooms, thought it did get the job done is building some suspense with it's framing.<br /><br />Overall, this movie, in the sense of plot, character development and performance, was a huge disappointment and a waste of my time. What I thought would have been a great slasher flick turned out to be one of the worse movies that I have ever seen. The acting was really bad and wooden, there was hardly any sense in the plot and there was no emotion to this film. However, the technical aspect of this film saved it for me, because if the camera work or the lighting was bad, then I would have turned off the DVD player and popped in something else. I would recommend this movie to those who enjoy really cheesy b-movies as well as those who follow cult classics, because this movie certainly is. I would partially recommend this film for those who enjoy 80s slasher flicks. But for me, this movie was pitiful and utterly horrible.
|
negative
|
This film fails on every count. For a start it is pretentious, striving to be "significant" and failing miserably. The script was banal in the extreme, nobody at any time said anything remotely interesting. It was impossible to care about any of the characters. Knightly was a self-regarding waste of time whilst Sienna Miller was just a waste of time. The bit about the soldier who went off to war was a cliché even before the film Atonement used it. The use of the Second World War as a backdrop was in itself a cliché...the bombs, the sheltering in tube stations etc...employed to import a bit of much-needed drama. Why anybody thought for a moment that this film was worth making is quite beyond my comprehension. It was yet another case of "let's get the costumes looking authentic, never mind about the story, the script or the acting!"
|
negative
|
I guess if you are into the sci-fi and horror stuff it might be interesting. The acting was okay but not great. The two pregnant girls are supposed to be fifteen but are played by obviously older actresses who turned out to be twenty and twenty-one at the time. The plot is okay, but the story does jump around a bit, leaving one guessing whether you're in Boston or Pennsylvania. The priest seems to use warp speed between the two. The catholic church is portrayed as having a secretive sect for investigating events which only happen to those of that faith. What if the two girls had been protestant? Would the catholics of cared? Therefore some what contrived. Who knows, some day the catholic church might even learn what the Bible teaches. If you miss this one, don't feel you've lost anything.
|
negative
|
I would like to say that unlike many of the people who disliked this film and found it impossible to understand I was fully able to understand it for what it is.. A very incoherent attempt at a plot line.<br /><br />I don't like to toss this word around but in this case it fits very well. The director firstly presents the material in an extremely "arrogant" way and worse, extremely incoherently. It is incoherent in that it presents the material in a messy dislodged order, making us think that the director was too drunk to remember which scenes come first, and arrogant in that at 2 hours long they expect us, the viewer to CARE by the end of it.<br /><br />I respect surrealist cinema for what it is. (creating a story around a more than real world that does not tie to real life) But there is nothing surreal about having a story placed in ordinary modern times, and a modern day earth setting, that is most importantly not able to engage the audience but furthermore, simply a dislodged series of events that barely tie together. The most accurate way to describe the experience of viewing this film is like viewing a story; perhaps even a very GOOD story as it was based on a book, but being frustrated by the fact that the camera doesn't seem to capture the necessary moments and tie together any means of coherence.<br /><br />Let's compare stylistic cinema. Compare Gaspar Noe's "Seul contre tous" to this. He gave us a coherent, extremely engaging and intellectually deep story. This movie offers no intellectual study, and while it is very stylistic in it's fragmented presentation, the director has ultimately abandoned the essential art of good storytelling and all we are left with is a mess of events that barely tie in together.<br /><br />Yes indeed it IS possible to make sense of things.... to a POINT. But as i said earlier the viewer will reach a stage where they simply say "Who cares." It plays out like watching a drab mundane story of a man going to a supermarket and buying groceries in uncronological order. Even with murders it is completely uninteresting and unengaging. Too many people these days will give high marks to something they are unable to understand or make sense of simply for fear of looking foolish, and in every way this film TRIES to make the viewer look foolish.<br /><br />If you have too much time on your hands, then please watch this film, taking into account what I have said of it. It is a story based on a book that could have been presented in a MUCH more effective way and that is my bottom line reasoning.
|
negative
|
From 1996, first i watched this movie, i feel never reach the end of my satisfaction, i feel that i want to watch more and more until now, my god i don't believe it was ten years ago, and i can believe that i almost remember every word of the dialogues. I love this movie and i love this novel, absolutely perfection. i love Willem Defoe, he has a strange voice to spell the words "black night" and i always say it for many times, never being bored. I love the music of Szararem, it's so much spiritualistic, made me come into another world deep in my heart. anyone can feel what i feel and anyone could make the movie like this? i don't believe so. Thanks Ondaatje thanks Mingela.
|
positive
|
When Stanwyck's husband-to-be is murdered on the eve of their wedding, she retreats to a mountain lodge, where she slips (sort of) off a cliff and is rescued by wealthy attorney Morgan. Morgan falls in love with her, leading to a definitely one-sided marriage, spent on a huge estate in Chicago (which appears to be surrounded by mountains!). Stanwyck is tempted by dashing Cortez, but eventually returns to Morgan, in a very subdued and unconvincing story resolution.<br /><br />This film has a great cast (Morgan in particular is one of my favorites) and a great director, but the script is meandering and seems pointless at times. I was so ready to enjoy this movie but I was ultimately disappointed. Still worth watching for the cast, and it's good for anyone who likes 1930s films.
|
negative
|
this movie is such a good movie shah ruck khan does a great job as the crazy mad villain who is totally obsessed with<br /><br />the girl the story is fantastic the acting by all<br /><br />characters like the girl and shah ruck and Sunny are all fabulous and i really love the first song especially how it comes back at the end oh and its so emotional if your a true shah ruck khan fan you have gotta watch this movie because its the best shah ruck khan movie ever he plays an excellent role and i wish he done more crazy man roles but u have to watch this what so ever this is a really good movie this is a really good movie you have to watch it it is truly amazing you have to watch it it is fabulous i can go on and on about this movie because it is a fun funny scary cool and totally fantastic movie in the world
|
positive
|
This movie was the beatliest mormon movie made yet. It made the RM & Sons of Provo look like well done films! It was supposed to be funny from what I was told. The best part was the best actor in the movie-Travis Eberhard-if he wasn't in the movie it probably wouldn't have been made! He ruled!<br /><br />10. It wasn't funny 9. It was beat 8. It had Thurl Big T Bailey, who's character made no sense 7. It was made in Provo 6. It didn't make fun of Brokeback 5. It had Larry H. Miller in it 4. It was the 1st movie Clint Howard wasn't funny in 3. Gary Coleman chose the perfect movie 4 a comeback 2. They should have cast at Surreal Life auditions 1. It was made by Halestorm Entertainment!!
|
negative
|
Do the writers that conjure up these type of "comedies" have such empty lives that they have to embody them in tragic shows like this?.<br /><br />Why the talented and gorgeous Busy Phillips is amongst this trash is beyond me,I cannot stand the Hispanic girl whose accent sounds very fake and is so unfunny and annoying as is the other African-American girl with the shrill voice.<br /><br />The jokes are often stupid, the Jewish guy yells a lot and the show never goes anywhere, one particular episode with the solider looking for love was just terrible.<br /><br />I don't believe there would be that many working in a looking for love office and only one man? Of course all of the Woman are in tight fitting tops and tons of make up to make up for their lack of talent.<br /><br />I actually found Holly funny in her older shows and I have always admired Busy but this show is dumb, empty and had nothing going for it.
|
negative
|
OK first of all the video looks like it was filmed in the 80s I was shocked to find out it was released in 2001. Secondly the plot was all over the place, right off the bat the story is confusing. Had there been some brief prologue or introduction the story would've been better. Also I appreciate fantasy but this film was too much. It was bizarre and badly filmed. The scenes did not flow smoothly and the characters were odd. It was hard to follow and maybe it was the translation but it was even hard to understand. I love Chinese epic films but if you're looking for a Chinese epic fantasy film i would recommend the Promise (visually stunning, the plot is interesting and good character development) not this film. Beware you will be disappointed.
|
negative
|
Salvage: 4 out of 10. Groundhog Day meets a Christian Coalition horror film. Okay maybe it's not that bad. But it is close.<br /><br />Claire (played by Alicia Silverstonesque Lauren Currie Lewis) is stalked and possibly killed by a serial killer (Chris Ferry who is quite menacing and brutal). I say possibly because she wakes up and it was all a dream
.. Or was it? (Cue music)<br /><br />The basic problem with the film is that these fifteen minutes of plot (Done quite well the first time) is repeated over and over again. And since Claire wakes up every time and every scene is clearly a dream or alternate reality I just stopped caring what happened to Claire and started wondering what lame twist at the end was going to pull this together.<br /><br />I was rooting for a séance (which honestly would have made more sense) but instead got one of those too obvious by half surprise endings (Think the Village or Below) Yup the film collapses faster than Donnie Darko's directors cut. All the great twist endings in horror movies The Sixth Sense, the original Invasion of the Body Snatchers, Happy Birthday to Me worked because the audience wasn't expecting a left field explanation. (Heck even the canoe ending in the original Friday the 13th was worth a jolt)<br /><br />Salvage on the other hand screams twist ending with every scene change. Other nagging faults is the one note piano soundtrack (Though the featured songs were decent) the obvious time padding (Claire doing the dishes, Claire's mother's subplots), the way Claire says "hello is anyone there" every time she thinks there is a serial killer around.<br /><br />Also some of the secondary acting roles (In particular Claire's mother played by Maureen Olander who resembles a Mary Kay zombie) shows the first time actor low budget roots.<br /><br />Both too clever by half and not nearly clever enough Salvage keeps your interest if only to see how they are going to fix this mess. Problem is they really don't.
|
negative
|
"Son you must stop the experiments I have started!!" Too bad nobody said this too whoever green lighted this project!! I was almost literally dragged to this movie by a friend of mine for a midnight showing when we were in high-school. Now, a midnight movie in high-school on a Friday night, you are not expecting much, but c'mon!! And upon seeing it again years later I sill stand by my original opinion of it. Great special effects but so what!! Quite possibly one of the worst movies ever made. Unless you enjoy blood and guts and seeing some Hollywood vets (Steiger & Hunter) make fools of themselves for a buck. YUCK!!!
|
negative
|
This trio of 30-minute short films on gay-related themes are all quite respectably executed. Each coming-of-age story is played out with pleasant charm and naturalness. This film deserves to be widely distributed and easily obtainable. However, it isn't. I had to order my video copy; none of the local video stores or even the libraries had it in stock.
|
positive
|
I am a huge Gone With the Wind fan, and I read "Scarlett" before it was a miniseries and loved it. This is a sequel of sorts. Like you didn't expect it with that "Frankly dear, I don't give a damn" ending. Timothy Dalton was great as Rhett, though no one will ever replace Clark Gable. Joann Whaley-Kilmer, on the other hand, could give Vivien Leigh a run for her money (though I feel almost guilty even saying that.) Her attitude and presence in the film fits the character to a tee, making you love and hate her at the same time, which is how most feel about Ms. Leigh's portrayal as well. The film does move slowly, mostly because it follows the book so closely and was not released as a feature film. Excellent choice on the producer's part. I think this movie deserves some recognition for the great storyline, the revival of characters that had been gone for almost 50 years, and for being something that even Margaret Mitchell herself could have been proud of.
|
positive
|
This film is too skeletal. It's a fairly low-budget film (I hope!) which excuses it somewhat, but the lack of a decent cast and a fleshed out plot hurts it too much. Phillips is quite believable in his role as a torn-apart son of a well-off family who's searching for himself (though his family is...er...well, a little too white...), but the rest of the cast is grasping at straws. Every moment that has potential is ruined by excessive melodrama, and there are *way* too many sub-plots (which is an obvious sign of plot-deficiency. They needed filler...) I wouldn't recommend this film to anyone who isn't either a hard-core Phillips fan, or who has absolutely *nothing* to do. 4/10.
|
negative
|
I saw this film on the History Channel today (in 2006). First of all, I realize that this is not a documentary -- that it is a drama. But, one might hope that at least the critical "facts" that the story turns on might be based on actual events. Reagan was shot and the other characters were real people. The movie got that right. From there on, reliance on facts rapidly decays. I had never heard of this movie before seeing it. Having been a TV reporter at the time of these events, I was stunned that I had never heard anything about the bizarre behavior of Secretary Haig as portrayed by Richard Dreyfuss. The whole nation had heard the "I am in control...", etc., but Dreufuss' Haig is bullying a cowered cabinet and totally out of control personally. Having watched the film, I began researching the subject on the Internet and quickly found actual audio tapes and transcripts of most of the Situation Room conversations that this film pretends to reenact. Incredibly, many the the principal "facts" of the film meant to show a White House, Secret Service etc. in total chaos -- and the nation's leadership behaving irrationally and driving the world near the brink of nuclear war -- are demonstrably incorrect. They didn't happen! There is internal conflict, to be sure. Haig makes missteps, his press room performance is historically regrettable and he is "difficult". But there is nothing approaching the scenes depicted in the film. There are too many gross errors to list, but any fair comparison of the recorded and written record and the fantasy of this film begs the question as to what the producers were really trying to accomplish. Enlighten? Inform? Entertain? I believe they failed on all three fronts. It is difficult to ascribe motives to others, but one must seriously question what was behind such shameless invention. And, as for my beloved History Channel's "Reel to Real" follow-on documentary, there was almost no mention of the issues that were the central focus of the film -- namely the events within the Administration on the day of the shooting. So, the viewer was left to research those without much -- if any -- help from the network.
|
negative
|
Looking for proof that real life is more entertaining than fiction? You just found it. This superb documentary about an aspiring feature filmmaker (Mark Bortchart) who refuses to admit defeat is the funniest film I have ever seen -- probably because it's also one of the most tragic. Oddly enough, the more I watch the film the more inspired I become.
|
positive
|
I saw this film when it first came out in 1978, when I was a sophomore in high school. I took a date to see it. I didn't "get any," needless to say, because the film was so bad! Joan Rivers' career never tanked as badly as it deserved after making this awful, unfunny crap. In fact, unfunny isn't a severe enough term: this film is ANTI-FUNNY! You walk out feeling like any laughter that might have occurred was beaten out of you before it could happen. This isn't worth watching out of curiosity, or out of any sense of it being "so-bad-it's-good." Not even the gang at MST3K could've made this worth watching! The fact that Billy Crystal's career survived this early suicide attempt is a miracle.
|
negative
|
First, This movie was made in 1978. So that tells you that the movie is going to be bad anyway.But I am not saying that all old movies are bad . Second, The special effects we're terrible for even that time. Finally, The acting was so bad, Bozo The Clown could have done it better. It makes you wonder how people get the money to make movies this pathetic. This movie sucks!
|
negative
|
Just like most people, I couldn't wait to see this Ocean's 11 sequel but it really stinks, I must say. It stinks because there's simply no good screenplay,it was just cheap. I hope the producers donate all the money this movie has made (or will make) to the tsunami-victims in Asia so this movie will have at least one good reason to exist. It is so bad I even can't write a decent comment about it but....i still advise the creators of this thing to make "Ocean's 13". Ocean's 13 will be about the same thieves who are trying to steal a screenplay well hidden somewhere in Hollywood. The 13th member will be a foreign (maybe,Russian) screenplay-writer who knows all tricks to write a copy of this well hidden screenplay, so they can replace the original they'll have to steal. Or they need to find at least 13 people to write a decent screenplay for a movie in which not only Julia Roberts plays herself but even all other star-members of the Ocean's-films. 13 People because it's the lucky number of Andy Garcia's character.
|
negative
|
This is one of the funniest movies I have seen. I watched it on DVD, and the disc does not have any special features, or even a menu, but that is not necessarily what I care about. <br /><br />I tend to judge movies on a case by case basis, depending on, among other things, if it is a big studio production or a smaller film. This is a smaller film and I am willing to forgive minor things. That said, I believe it has one of the most imaginative and original title sequences that I have seen.<br /><br />I enjoyed the acting of all of the major players. I especially enjoyed Til Schweiger and Alan Arkin. Alan Arkin has most of the funniest lines. The character portrayed by Claire Forlani might come across as unrealistic to some people, but I have personally known real people with emotional problems that very readily look at life's decisions as her character does. That helped me pick up the nuances where her hurts could come out through the veneer of her humor.<br /><br />This is not a movie for children, obviously, but it does NOT engage in gratuitous sex and nudity. There is quite a bit of adult language, though, but it can sometimes be very funny. (In particular, Alan Arkin's character, who can't even swear correctly.)<br /><br />Also watch for the cameos from known character actors.
|
positive
|
Cute and playful, but lame and cheap. 'Munchies' is another Gremlins clone to come out from the 80s. I'm not much of a fan of the imitations.<br /><br />First it was the excellent 'Gremlins'.<br /><br />Then came the very average 'Critters'.<br /><br />Lets not forget the lousy 'Ghoulies'.<br /><br />But the complete pits would have to go to 'Hobgoblins'.<br /><br />Is there more?? <br /><br />Now 'Munchies' for me would have to fall somewhere between 'Ghoulies' and 'Hobgoblins'. Actually I probably found it more entertaining than 'Ghoulies', but I preferred thst one's darker tone. <br /><br />From the get-go it plays up its goofy nature (which it's better for it), but due to that nature the hammy acting (Alix Elias and Charlie Phillips), can get rather overbearing that you rather just see the munchies running amok. That's where the fun occurs. Mostly light-hearted fluff though, as the story mainly centres on the munchies (who are either hungry, horny and destructive) in a whole bunch of supposed comical encounters (some moments do work) in the small desert town as a couple of people are on the chase. It's silly, but strangely engaging thanks to the zippy pacing. The creatures themselves look rather bland and poorly detailed, as they're basic dolls being chucked about. Where their personalities arrived from is that they can actually speak... and with attitude.<br /><br />Charlie Stratton and a feisty Nadine Van der Velde (who was in 'Critters') were fair leads. Harvey Korman was acceptable in two roles. Robert Picardo also pops up.<br /><br />Amusingly low-cut entertainment for the undemanding.
|
negative
|
I happened upon this flick on a rainy Sunday, intending to tune-in to something else. Out of curiosity, I accessed the comments here, and found myself watching it to the end. I really didn't do so with intent -- this was one of those movies where you're "fascinated," and watch it for "another couple of minutes," until you finally just watch to the end. And the indictment of it in most of these comments made it more fascinating to view. The one comment where the person really liked it seems to be solely as a result of liking Ladd and Spano, and their earlier roles. But great isn't anywhere to be found anywhere here - story, performances, and particularly the absurd courtroom hi-jinks. We all know that Perry Mason (before Raymond Burr passed the 300-lb. mark), and Ben Matlock, are granted some leeway in cavorting around the courtroom, instead of being boringly confined to a lectern. And Matlock is especially granted the privilege of entering exhibits often by simply going to the jury and showing them, before the judge and prosecutor have even been informed of, or shown, them. No real-life judge or prosecutor would stand for this.<br /><br />Both Perry and Ben almost always ended the proceedings by wringing a confession of the real killer. Actually Perry nearly always did this, but often Matlock would simply present overwhelming evidence of the true culprit, pronounce it "reasonable doubt," and then leave it to the cops and prosecutors to proceed against the guilty party - sometimes on-camera, sometimes presumed at the end of the show.<br /><br />But that said, Holland Taylor's histrionics and the amount of leeway afforded her, in the courtroom portion of this story, made the actions of Matlock/Mason more-closely resemble the slow, often boring detail such as seen on Court TV and in real-life courtrooms.<br /><br />Every character in this presentation was either insipid, unsympathetic, obnoxious, boring, improbable - or some combination of two or more of these.<br /><br />The ending was the most banal, absurd, even silly conclusion possible - but again, fascinating because of this. Ladd and Spano are attractive individuals, and t.v. movies would appear their best forte - probably best in 2nd-lead (probably better if "3rd-") roles, even in this venue. Taylor could be cast as the aunt or mother of one of them. Give this one 1 star for the story/performances, and 3 additional for the fascination factor.
|
negative
|
I can't really think of any redeeming features of this utterly bad rendering on Asimov than the art direction. Forget the product placement disaster, the unconvincing performance from Will Smith and the gargantuan plot-holes. This wasn't only laughable and but painful to watch. Even the action was boring. A mixture of MTV inspired production values and utterly bad dialogue probably aimed at very small children.<br /><br />What a shame that sci-fi this bad can still be made after we've had Bladerunner, Minority Report or to a lesser extent Dark City (by the same director). This one really belongs in the bottom 100 list. Truly awful.
|
negative
|
I recently watched this movie because I'm a big Kinski Fan. But, oh my god. Don't get me wrong. I love this guy. But in this movie his whole acting is just simply a refusal to work! But fortunately he isn't the only one to blame. First of all the complete storyline is totally weak dealing with a gunmen looking for a murderer while Kinski is stuck up in jail for a crime he did not commit. That's all. All the dialogs and characters are so bad it's making you scream. But maybe that's the fun of it all. If you know the Kinski-Biography it's obvious that Kinski didn't care about those movies at all. Especially all his Italo-Western roles. He just took the money and that was It. again, this whole movie is totally weird. Only for hardcore-Fans of the genre.
|
negative
|
This film is absolutely awful, but nevertheless, it can be hilarious at times, although this humor is entirely unintentional.<br /><br />The plot was beyond ridiculous. I don't even think a 2 year-old would be convinced by the ludicrous idiocy that the film-makers tried to slap together into a story. However, on the positive side, some of the horrifically inane plot twists provide a great deal of humor. For example, "Wow, Lady Hogbottom has a giant missile hidden in her back yard!" It gets worse (and even funnier), but I'll spare you.<br /><br />The acting is generally laughable. Most of the kids' roles are sort of cute, but not very believable. On the other hand, Annie is pretty awful all-around. The adults don't take their roles seriously at all, but this is largely a good thing. If they'd tried to be believable, the film would've been even worse. Which is difficult to imagine.<br /><br />Once you get past the overall crappiness of the movie, there are actually a few standout moments of almost-not-crappiness. The scene where Lady Hogbottom's son runs away with the maid is surprisingly hilarious, though it's an annoying letdown when they get caught by the police. The butler character, while very minor, is a ray of sunlight that almost, but never quite pierces through the gloom.<br /><br />Watching this movie actually caused me physical pain. Nevertheless, there were a few redeeming parts that made it almost watchable without beginning to hemorrhage internally. Judged on its good parts alone, the movie would be about a 5; unfortunately, the rest of the movie hardly deserves a 1. Thus, I give it a 3.<br /><br />That's being pretty generous, I'd say.
|
negative
|
With lots of sunshine, gauzy light and shadow filtering through windows and into rooms, tracking shots moving through crowds with hand-held camera, quick-paced editing and extreme close-ups here and there, the photography is the thing in this interesting, artistically done film.<br /><br />The plot of this film starts out as a bit of fluff about a beauty contest. The film begins on a warm Sunday at the local swimming pool, where we meet the lovely Lucienne aka Lulu (played by Louise Brooks) - a bit of a show-off in front of the gawking men by poolside, she soon decides to enter herself to represent France in the Miss Europe beauty contest, much to the chagrin of her very jealous, stick-in-the-mud fiancé (a pretty annoying fellow, really). Strutting down the runway the ten contestants display themselves in swimsuits, while the winner is chosen as the contestant who receives the longest applause (I was wondering, couldn't the girls just walk slower to prolong their length of time - and thus applause - on the catwalk?!). Lulu is soon being chased by a Prince and a Maharaja, but her hot-headed beau doesn't like the attentions paid to her by other men or her adoring public, for that matter (I guess he just wants her in his house, cooking his meals, and staying out of sight, eh?!).<br /><br />Louise Brooks is beautiful and charming, her presence helps enhance this film, but it's really the way it is photographed that held my interest the most. A bit distracting is the odd dubbed sound, which is a bit off. The print on this version looked very clear and full of nice contrast though. Watching this I just tried to overlook the sound problems and watch the film visually, and I found the movie to be excellent, well worth seeing.
|
positive
|
This movie is one of the worst movie i have ever seen in my life! i waste my time on this. I watched this movie completely as i took it a punishment for me. I wonder how Suneel Darshan could make such a movie? it doesn't have any continutity. It feels he just shoot scenes and then joined them in some editing software!!! Music is of course good but the film doesn't need so many unwanted songs. Kangana Ranaut looks fake and I wonder what role does Celina Jaietly has in the movie? Bobby deol is good. at least he can act! Upen Patel needs to take some acting lessons rather than taking off his shirts in almost all the scenes! The end was the most pathetic!<br /><br />I watched Shakalaka Boom Boom after watching "300" (the movie), you guys can really imagine what i felt about this bollywood movie. <br /><br />I really respect bollywood but please directors and producers, get real, not everything is fantasy!
|
negative
|
Antonioni's movies have aged not well. What always surprised me about them is that, besides an unquestionable plastic beauty, there is a dull and didactic "psychology" of the characters and situations. Remember, for instance, the conversations between Mastroianni and the "wicked capitalistic" that wants sing up him in "La notte", or Monica Vitti laughing at the peasants flirting in the train in "La aventura", or Ferzetti dropping the glass of ink at the end of the same film. <br /><br />I have reviewed yesterday "Zabriskie Point". In this film there are a lot of nice and elaborate shots of the Rod Taylor office, the streets and highways of L.A., the publicity advertisements, the deserts,etc., that show the fascination of the author in his American journey, in the same way than Wim Wenders years later. Unfortunately, there are too a lot of hippie-leftist clichés that spoil the movie: - The boy leaves the meeting, steals an aeroplane and flies over the desert in order to liberate himself and find "something different". - The executives in grey suites speak all the time about speculation. - The girl looks at the "object women" in the swimming pool and leaves because she wants not to be like them. - The couple of fat middle-class in the caravan speak, in front of the beauty of the nature, of building a hotel and earning a lot of money. - Last but not the least, a lot of couples making love in the desert. What a hippie platitude!<br /><br />Sorry, today, half a century after the "revolution" of "La Aventura" we can see that the king is naked, and his films (except "Le amiche" and perhaps "Il grido") are only a handful of aestheticism and commonplaces.
|
negative
|
This is not "direct cinéma", as a matter of fact it is its opposite. Second installment of filmmaker Gatlif's gypsy trilogy, this French work produced by Michèle Ray-Gavras, is a film masterpiece, not pure documentary, no fiction by any means. Instead, Gatlif has chosen different locations of the route from India to Spain, wherever the Rom people have a strong presence, and with the help of art directors he has staged several musical numbers that tell us how the gypsies live, sing, dance, struggle and have survived. The movie may have strong opposition from those who question the hypothesis that the Rom tribe is of Indian origin, mostly challenged by those who see a direct link with the Hebrews (so, in a way, it comes as no surprise that they were also persecuted by the Nazis.) But above any anthropological argument, this is a work of great beauty, strong colors and wonderful singing and dancing.
|
positive
|
Poor Jane Austen. This dog of a production does NOT do her wonderful tongue in cheek novel any justice. Starting at the top ... poorly adapted. The screenwriter deserves extra low marks for trying to -- come to think of it, I don't know WHAT she was trying for, but suffice it to say she missed the mark by light years!! Couple that with all the over-acting and awful production values, this is one adaptation that should never have happened. It would have been far better if they just gave all the money they poured into this flop and donated it to a worthy charity. Do yourself a favor, read the book. It is almost certain that you will enjoy it a thousand times more than trying to sit through this excruciating production!
|
negative
|
This is the definitive movie version of Hamlet. Branagh cuts nothing, but there are no wasted moments.
|
positive
|
The film is a great watch very thoughtful.I believe it is a film about how your like would be if you lived in a world created by catalogues. The scenes are all perfect recreations of an Ikea catalogue they even watch furniture on their TV. When they break into the kitchen they break into another perfect picture of how a kitchen would look like in a catalogue. When he is reborn or whatever you would like to call it he returns to the harsh reality of life. I love the bit when he tells his new love he has left his partner. It pokes fun at commercial bliss by saying you can have it all and whilst it it is nice to have the same things, but some things you do not want to share. A film without children also per Say makes for a perfect ten.
|
positive
|
While watching BLACKWATER VALLEY EXORCISM, I encountered scenarios and dialog so incredibly bad that I was convinced that this was supposed to be a comedy. A few choice bits of dialog worthy of a belly laugh: "I ate a rabbit." "I TOLD you she was possessed!" "Are you telling me the Devil is in my daughter?!"<br /><br />There are many, many more, but you must discover these for yourself - if you dare.<br /><br />The story goes off into all sorts of directions and things happen that probably shouldn't and everyone seems to be a perv or psycho of some sort (even the Priest). And I haven't even gotten to the bad acting. Most notable in this area is the fellow playing Isabelle's father. The director must have just told him to act like he's got a stick up his @$$ because that's the general impression one gets.<br /><br />I don't really want to steer anyone away from BLACKWATER VALLEY EXORCISM because there is entertainment value to be had...for all the wrong reasons, but if you're looking for a decent horror movie that makes sense and is actually scary...well, run don't walk.
|
negative
|
One of those films that I happened across through The Criterion Collection and as usual indulged as a change of pace. That turned out to be a great decision. I was almost mesmerised by the quality of the film, the story it told and the way it was told. The almost minimalist feel to the film with sparse dialogue and almost constant music just added a whole evocative level to the film. This really is a superb film to spend some time with and enjoy.
|
positive
|
This is a little-seen anti-war film that has been ignored for too long. The time is Thanksgiving of 1972. The place is a typical suburban home somewhere in Texas. The oldest son has just comeback from Vietnam and he is having a hell of time readjusting to the life he had left behind. And the family does not know how to handle the problem. I honestly don't think I'm exaggerating when I say this is one the most heart-wrenching war films I've seen. The funny thing is that there are only a handful of combat sequences in the entire movie. Most of the story takes place inside a house over a period of a couple of days. But the kind of war that takes place in this home is as intense as any real battlefield action. The film does something that is difficult to accomplish; somehow, Estevez and his team have created a film that embodies the entire Vietnam experience. And considering the similarities between Vietnam and the current invasion of Iraq, the film is surprisingly relevant. Estevez does a magnificent job with material. He gets a lot of help from a hand-picked cast. Martin Sheen and Kathy Bates in particular are superb as the parents. A truly moving film. Highly recommended
|
positive
|
Just get it. The DVD is cheap and easy to come by, the length is now standard and you've gone long enough without it. (When home video started, there were at LEAST three versions with parts missing..) Everything you've read is true. There is no defending it, and no living without it. The color is lush and wonderful to look at, and the production values are pretty good for a Saturday afternoon kiddie epic. But no question..the whole Santa Vs. Satan angle is so jaw dropping STRANGE it made the movie a hit at the time and a cult fave once home video really got underway. How good/bad/strange/ is it? I only saw the TRAILER as a kid,and remembered IT for nearly 30 years..including Murray's over the top voice over..I told my older sister, and she called me a liar and could not believe it was POSSIBLE for ANYONE to make a movie where Santa vs.Satan.. Add to it stuff like Santa asking for the Virgin Mary's blessing before setting off on Christmas eve, kids wanting to capture him and make him their SLAVE..and an international kiddie sweat shop..and it probably comes close to a lot of nightmares kids had in the 60's.. Like others here, I watch the thing every holiday season now. (My version of choice is The Mystery Science Theatre 3000 edition). But any old way you choose it, the movie is a demented masterpiece and a total must (along with Brianiac, by the way..).It never fails to make me laugh. Better, I think, then SANTA CLAUS CONQUERS THE MARTIANS. Parts of it can still make you cringe or just creep you out.(How many parents do YOU know go out for cocktails on Christmas Eve? "If you get bored, just go downstairs and play the piano." DANG..) Freaky, boring, disturbing, funny, childish, strange..hey, what more can you want?
|
positive
|
Honestly, I was disappointed in "Expiration Date." Super clever title and interesting premise, but I don't think it delivered. What was it about? The main character's desire to reconnect with his Native roots? Or, more likely, it was his need to overcome his fear of death. But, he wasn't set up as someone who has lived his life in fear -- it seems as if his life was going fine, but since doomsday is approaching he should now start worrying. I didn't buy it. Meanwhile, the supporting characters in the film didn't seem to have needs that blended into an overarching story. They were all just doing their thing, running parallel to the main character. Also, what was treated as a "curse" looked more like a coincidence. Who cursed the family? Why? When? Finally, why didn't he just plan on staying in his apartment all day on his birthday? Those are my criticisms, but I did love the shots of Seattle, cinematography was beautiful, acting was good in the times it wasn't outstanding.
|
negative
|
Oh boy! Oh boy! On the cover of worn out VHS has a picture of Sandra Bullock and her name written on top. I think only reason they had chance to sell the movie in nineties, was because of Sandra Bullock's name. Bullock's fans don't have to disappoint. Sandra is only thing to watch in this movie and her performance is the only you can call acting. Rest of the movie
It's fun to watch in first fifteen minutes because it's bad but after that it's going worse. Much worse. Directing is awful. Acting is awful. Script is awful. Dialog is awful. Action is awful. Music is quite good actually. Typical score for eighties action movies. This movie is so bad that it goes close to anything Andy Sidaris has ever produced. It's so bad that there isn't proper word to describe this poor attempt to be a movie. But still, there was Sandra Bullock. And super cool (sarcasm) Jake LaMotta who tried to be Marlon Brando. <br /><br />I think they can now bring the film out on DVD. It could be cool! And they should write on the cover: ACADEMY AWARD WINNER SANDRA BULLOCk IN HANGMEN<br /><br />1 out of 10
|
negative
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.