review
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| sentiment
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
This is a great film Classic from the 40's and well produced. There are very dramatic scenes in this film with John Garfield,(Al Schmid),"Force of Evil",'48 and Dane Clark,(Lee Diamond),"Last Rites",'88, fighting the Japs during WWII being completely surrounded and with only one machine-gun. When Al Schmid was able to go home after being wounded with a horrible injury, his problems just started to begin with his family and engaged girl friend. Dane Clark gave an outstanding supporting role as Lee Diamond, who did everything to help his buddy Al get his life together again. There is never a complete victory to War and lets not forget all the Brave Wounded Military personnel in Veterans Hospitals from All the Wars and our present Iraq Vets!
|
positive
|
A few things to touch on as a response to the earlier person's comment. You just have to pay attention to what is going on in the film.<br /><br />(I guess they are spoilers)<br /><br />The red stuff under David's mouth? Poison ivy, the wife says not to scratch it or else "it will spread".<br /><br />David goes "insane" because the stranger is telling HIM to get out of the house, which probably proves David's theory of an affair happening between the wife and stranger; he runs after the man. <br /><br />David does not lose him in the woods, he simply hits the stranger a couple of times and leaves it to his wife to pick up the pieces.<br /><br />Only the wife eats the mushroom. <br /><br />I must say, after that one point with the wife and stranger, I began to feel disappointed. But the ending made up for the entire film.<br /><br />And for that and the very last scene... this is one of my favorite movies ever. I should have put it together earlier, but let myself get sidetracked. I was really surprised, honestly.<br /><br />This film is interesting, to say the least. But if you are not watching this for the performances that the actors give, I'd say you better let this one go, because that is all that keeps this certain film together.
|
positive
|
Usually when BBC releases a TV series one is used to a certain satisfaction guarantee. Usually the TV series is splendid, even if the story is boring, you can trust the acting will make the it worth while. When I came across, Persuasion, here at the local library, I was looking forward to an enjoyable evening, cause I read the story.<br /><br />I'm glad I read the story first, otherwise I would not think highly of it. Further was I relieved to learn that the production date of this TV series was from 1971, since I thought, until that moment, that BBC had lost it. It is really bad, and should be used in acting schools as a horror movie.<br /><br />The only positive thought I have about this series that the people in this film are not likely to appear or be involved in any BBC or other product this century other than the young Musgroves sisters, who apparently were taking their fist steps in acting, and doing remarkably well under the direction otherwise given.
|
negative
|
Wow, I forgot how great this movie was until I stumbled upon it while looking through the garage. It's a kind of strange combination of a bio of Michael Jackson, a collection of musical vignettes, and a story about a super hero fighting to save some little kids. The vignettes are good (especially Speed Demon), but the best part of this movie is the super hero segment, in which Michael Jackson turns into a car, a robot, and finally a spaceship (and it's just as weird as it sounds). Joe Pesci is hilarious, and has enough cool imagery and great music to entertain throughout!<br /><br />The real gem however is the incredible "Smooth Criminal" video, which makes the movie worth owning for that part alone!
|
positive
|
It seems no matter what I see her in, Christina Ricci seems full of promise but fails to deliver. Sure she can cry and scream, but Prozac Nation sees Ricci totally out of her depth, perhaps I'm being too harsh.... okay, I'm shifting the blame to the director. Jessica Lange is outrageous and almost reaches Faye Dunaway heights of megadramatisation. Unfortunately I think Lange peaked with Frances and it was all downhill from there. There was every chance of this film being slick and witty while tackling depression head on. What we get instead is poorly acted hysteria dressed up with a stereotypical try hard eighties veneer. I really had no sense of the films eighties backdrop, since I was unsatisfied with the lame attempt at making believe it was the eighties just because ms Ricci wears a madonna inspired dress to her "lost my virginity" celebration. Cmon everyone, you are ALL better than this. The filmmakers should hang their heads in shame, and as a result of disappointment, Elizabeth Wurtzel could probably make a bundle if she sued for "irrepairable emotional damages" as a result of the finished product. go on lizzie, sue! I would
|
negative
|
This is the first film of the Horrorfest I have watched and after Im almost thinking I don't need to see any of the others. I was told its a "thinking mans horror movie" and have to say that if this was supposed to make me think I shutter to think what the splatter/gore films in the collection will be like. Don't get me wrong not even the gore in this film is worth sitting through.<br /><br />The plot is very washed out with way too much art for arts sake. The camera effects and music are out of place most of the time and the characters are banal to say the least. Several characters and scenes seem worthless in the end when they start to reveal some of the hooks of "The Hamiltons". I figured out who Lenny was about half hour in when I figured out the movie. I was so visually under whelmed and confused by the Lenny reveal that I completely felt ripped off. I expected what I got but they could have gone so much further, in fact all the gore falls completely flat. With movies out there like "Hostel" and "Saw" you need to come a little better for a film that is "considered to graphic or too disturbing for general audiences".
|
negative
|
I agree with all the accolades, I went through a box of tissues watching this film. It had a gritty authenticity and rang true in every way.<br /><br />The question I'm about to raise represents a current sensibility regarding the treatment of animals. I had a very difficult time with the beginning slaughter of sheep and goats, and the dying deer with its pulsing neck and pooling blood as its life drained away was hideous.<br /><br />This is the age of "no animals were hurt in the production of this move." Iphigenia was made in the late 70's before the advent of computer simulation. Was it possible to fake these animal deaths? Or were these animals slaughtered for art?
|
positive
|
"Zabriskie Point" (1970): This was especially interesting to me on a personal level, since it takes place under identical circumstances, with identical peers, in my own life the Counter Culture movement of the late 60's/early 70's, on and off campus. We follow two unrelated young people in separate stories, who are slowly woven together. One is a young man in Los Angeles, tired of all the endless, pseudo-revolutionary jabber in the classrooms and lunchrooms of his campus, and, the other, a young woman driving to Phoenix to see her father & employer, and take on an "establishment" job. The film is FULL of our Italian director's (Michelangelo Antonioni) visual notations of America, and, the confused, psychedelicrazies of that era's self-righteous, "we know it all, we'll change everything for the better" youth. Just who IS the "revolutionary"? What does that REALLY mean? Do you dress like one and march around chanting? Do you "fly in under the radar" but give advance notice of your arrival? Do you keep your plans to yourself, and go about the business of change, with no need for group approval? "Zabriskie Point" is definitely a "period piece" - full of slang, uniforms, somewhat surreal film moments (after all, this is a film by the man who gave us the amazing "Blow Up" of 1966), and the era's artifacts, but it is more. It presents options for cultural revolution, and going by Antonioni (who DOES seem to be supportive of it), the youth are too self-involved to see what is needed for radical success. Because of this, it becomes a powerful, frightening film that applies to anyone, any time, any place.
|
positive
|
The plot of Corpse Grinders 2 is very much similar to the original Corpse Grinders, what is left that is different from the other film consists of weird aliens.<br /><br />It is my belief that this film would be the #1 worst film on IMDb - if anyone had actually watched it. The plot is disconnected and, in several (way too many) instances, makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. The real wonder here is why in the world was this sequel created to such an unsuccessful and horrendous (but still somewhat better) film.<br /><br />I would highly recommend this film if you enjoy watching terrible movies for a good laugh.
|
negative
|
Anyone who thinks this film has not been appreciated for its comic genius must have been smoking with the two stoners in the film. This film is NOT under-rated...it is a bad movie. <br /><br />There should be no comparisons between this film and The Naked Gun or Airplane since the latter two films are well written and funny. Class Reunion is neither of those things. The sad thing is it had such potential (good cast, good story lines) but the good jokes are few and far between. The scenes that were supposed to be funny came off more annoying than amusing. The stoner guys, the vampire, the blind girl...NOT FUNNY. The only funny character were Delores (the one who sold her soul to the devil).<br /><br />National Lampoon has made some really good films (Animal House, Vacation) but this isn't one of them. I certainly expected more from John Hughes.
|
negative
|
THE HAND OF DEATH most definitely rates a ten on a scale of one to- due, in no small part, to John Woo's masterful direction, coupled with Kat's superb cinematography: some of the leisurely tracking shots alone are worth the price of a rental; there are moments when this one borders on becoming an art-house film. Both James Tien and Sammo Hung make for the kind of villains you can't help but love to hate. Tien is particularly good as the baddest of the bad. It's a role reversal the likes of which I don't think I've ever seen before (Tien normally played a hero and, in fact, with his moustache, I didn't even recognize him at first). Sammo's goofy "buck teeth" only make an already unsavory character seem even more flawed; that he also happens to be a skilled martial artist makes him even less likable- in a villain you love to hate kind of way. His choreography of the fight scenes throughout is fantastic. Jackie Chan appears briefly (early on and late in the going) as a blacksmith, and I believe I actually glimpsed Yuen Biao somewhere along the way. Tan as the lead is nothing less than magnificent.
|
positive
|
===minor spoilers=== <br /><br />I am, like many others, a huge Jerry Bruckheimer fan. So when I saw all the beautiful posters hanging out front, and the trailer coming by before MI:2, expectations were rising. A Jerry Bruckheimer production. Big cars. Nic Cage and fresh from an Oscar- Angelina Jolie. What can possibly go wrong? A lot. <br /><br />The script is neither funny (which it tries really hard to be) nor exciting. You put in a black person who is constantly making racist jokes about himself and Wooh-haa!! you've got comedy? I don't think so. Excitement is totally out of the picture. First of all (and this is probably said many times) there are no sympathetic characters so who cares who gets killed? IF you can stomach the premise that a psycho is gonna kill Nic's brother unless he steals 50 cars in 4 days, next thing you know is that Kip (the brother) is walking with Nic in the streets again. Is this excitement? Think not. Then comes the best bit- the romance between Nic and Angelina. She actually looks bored having to utter all these stupid lines to Nic. 'Do you have a girlfriend?' 'Are you seeing anybody?' 'What went wrong?' etc.<br /><br />Then there's only one sparkle of hope left: the car chases. They're disappointing to say the least, because the trailer made it look like it was full of them, and there's only one. A very long one, caught in irritatingly hectic camera movement. I really had trouble following the action.<br /><br />So is it an action movie? a thriller? a romantic comedy? - there's no need to decide, just avoid this horrible mess. I'll give 3 out of 10 stars, and I feel like I'm being generous.
|
negative
|
No reason to bother renting this flick. From the opening credits on, I knew I was in trouble.<br /><br />It was filmed as though it was a soft porn movie, but there really isn't anything erotic about it. The look into the world of sex addiction is intriguing, but only to a point.<br /><br />Boring sex scenes, bad plot, and cameos by Ed Begley Jr. and Rosanna Arquette aren't enough to save this film.
|
negative
|
I can't believe I actually bought this movie! It sucks! ... Where I live Mexican movies Mexican movies are never advertised, or even available ... you can't find them in the regular rental places... so I had to buy it ... I really like Mexican movies! They bring me closer to my roots, and my people, and they are way different that what your normally used to... but this one was soo predictable!!! Your could guess what was going to happen... I'ts not a horrible movie! It just wasn't worth what I paid for it! jaja... but if you have time and are truly bored then yeah u should watch it.. but if you love Mexican movies, and love theater itself then don't watch it it'll be painful! lol
|
negative
|
Spoilers!! Bruce Willis, the part-time Comic and funny guy plays a Hispanic assassin nicknamed after an African scavenger prairie dog? I guess all the good Hispanic nicknames like Sicatriz (Scar), Scorpion, Viper, Cobra, Snake, Tarantula, Latigo (whip), Navaja (blade), etc. were not available?? And why would some South American assassin be acquainted with a terrorist from the Irish Republican Army?? Last time I checked, the IRA is not looking to open any branch headquarters in South America. And why would some prison-tough, battle-weary Irish terrorist look like a middle-aged Richard Gere? I thought maybe this movie was going to be a spoof of "The Crying Game" when Gere's character was introduced as the person who was going to hunt down "The Jackal." What bad casting! And why would the FBI be hiring depraved terrorists in order to track down assassins?? It seems like a terrorist goes for mass destruction, and an assassin usually hits one target in a non-spectacular manner. But Gere is the only person who has ever seen Willis alive, according to the FBI. I thought this movie was supposed to be a remake of the very great film "Day of The Jackal" but this movie is just a dumber version of "Assassins" with Stallone and Banderas. Both of these movies are really dumb, and part of the dumb-ness is the fact that as the audience we are forced to watch Bruce Willis go through his routines and we should say "Wow! isn't he smart!" THE PROFESSIONAL with Jean Reno was a much better movie about assassins. "The Jackal" is just a movie about two fat middle-aged millionaire actors who could get paid for standing around looking pretty and pretending to be smart! "The Jackal" is so poor, that I expected to see Sly Stallone, Dennis Rodman, Mickey Rourke, and Jean Clod Van Dumme making cameo appearances as "other" hitmen or FBI. Needless to say, "The Jackal" has eluded the FBI for twenty-five years, but as soon as Richard Gere gets on the job, it is only a few days before "The Jackal" is kaput! I guess the positive message of this movie is, "Thanks to terrorists, our streets are safe from assassins." Overall, the "Jackal" has no redeeming qualities.
|
negative
|
I read that "There's a Girl in My Soup" came out during Peter Sellers's low period. Watching the movie, I'm not surprised. Almost nothing happens in the movie. Seemingly, the very presence of Sellers and Goldie Hawn should help the movie; it doesn't. The whole movie seems like they just randomly filmed whatever happened without scripting anything. Maybe I haven't seen every movie about middle-aged to elderly people trying to be hippies, but this one gives such movies a pretty bad name.<br /><br />All in all, both Sellers and Hawn have starred in much better movies than this, so don't waste your time on this. Pretty worthless.
|
negative
|
Being too young to have experienced the Hammer films when they were fresh and new, I am discovering their hallowed horror films as I find them on DVD. I know it was almost a decade and half between them but it's hard to see much of the magic in the original Hammer Dracula in this late entry to the Christopher Lee series. The original Hammer vampire story had lots of atmosphere and a terrific story to get involved in. Lee was a great Dracula, a vibrant vampire if that possible, in the early outing but here he is nothing more than a cardboard character that mostly stands around and looks threatening. The modish young people talk like cartoon characters (even though my aunt lived in England during the 1970s and she says people actually talked with those awful clichés). I had no interest whatsoever in who lived or died amongst the younger crowd. They were all pretty terrible characters anyway. I did enjoy seeing a young and charismatic Caroline Munro; but she leaves the story too early. Lee and his historic nemesis Peter Cushing add an air of authenticity to the film but they can't draw blood from this empty film. It's D.O.A.
|
negative
|
Comment this movie is impossible. Is terrible, very improbable, bad interpretation e direction. Not look!!!!!
|
negative
|
I haven't reviewed anything on here for quite awhile, but after having the misfortune to sit through this rubbish masquarading as entertainment I had to put forward my thoughts.<br /><br />Normally, however bad something is, there is one redeeming part, whether it is an actor who was okay, a scene that was passable, an attractive cast member, or a general feelgood moment. Unfortunately, that isn't true here, as the film starts of atrociously, with a ridiculous shootout, which was so poor, I thought it was a practice, & two halfwits, otherwise known as the boys in blue chatting beside a school.<br /><br />One of these idiots was Daniel Baldwin, who not only starred in this, but also actually Directed this garbage, & unlike his brothers cannot act for toffee. Not that he was on his own here, as everyone in it seemed to belong to the acting school of a trained chimp.<br /><br />Luckily, certainly for me, I only watched an hour of this masterpiece, as the DVD wouldn't work, & was probably made by the same fools who produced this. So if you have nothing to do but watch paint dry do watch this as it is just as boring, & ideal for getting rid of unwanted guests.
|
negative
|
Paul Naschy made a great number of horror films. In terms of quality, they tend to range from fairly good to unwatchable trash; and unfortunately, Horror Rises from the Tomb is closer to the latter. The plot is just your average story of a witch, wizard or (as is the case here) warlock, who is put to death - but not before swearing vengeance on those who did it...etc etc. We then get a séance and one thing leads to another, and pretty soon the executed warlock is up to no good again. The plot is slow, painfully boring and the film constantly feels pointless. The characters string out reams of diatribe and it never serves the film in any way whatsoever. Paul Naschy wrote the script, and if you ask me he should stick to acting because the dialogue is trite in the extreme, and only serves to make the film even more boring than it already is. Carlos Aured, who also directed Naschy in Blue Eyes of the Broken Doll and Curse of the Devil provides dull direction here, which likes the dialogue does nothing to help the film. Sometimes crap films like this have a certain charm about them; but Horror Rises from the Tomb doesn't even have that. This is a painfully boring film that has little or nothing in the way of interest.
|
negative
|
Back in 1997, do I remember that year: Clinton bans cloning research, the unfortunate death of Princess Diana, the Marlins won the world series and a woman gave birth to septuplets. This was also the big year in the release of Titanic, one of the biggest films of all time: a tale about the ship of dreams, about a boy and a girl who fall in love but are torn apart by their social class and at the height of their emotional commitment the ship meets with disaster. I don't think anybody could have expected Titanic to be as HUGE as it was, the movie was bigger than life and had millions of fans, 85% of them being teenage girls, I was 12 years old at the time, and of course saw the movie multiple times. It was the film that made me believe that the love that Jack and Rose shared was so real and beautiful. At the time I felt that Titanic could do no wrong, of course I grew up and didn't watch the film since I was 14, a couple years ago I saw the film on DVD for 5.99 and figured that it was a good price and to see what I thought about the movie now. Was it worth the hype? Was it really the best movie of all time? Was that Leonardo's real nose? OK, I know that's silly to say, but I did re-watch the film. Being completely honest here, Titanic is a great movie, best movie of all time, no, just depends on your idea of a good movie, but Titanic delivered in romance, humor, disaster, emotions and never let us go on this maiden voyage.<br /><br />The film starts with Brock Lovett and his team exploring the wreck of the RMS Titanic, searching for a necklace set with a valuable blue diamond called the Heart of the Ocean. Unsuccessful, they instead discover a drawing of a young woman reclining nude, wearing the Heart of the Ocean, dated the day the Titanic sank. 101-year-old Rose Dawson Calvert learns of the drawing, and contacts Lovett to inform him she is the woman in the drawing. She and her granddaughter Elizabeth "Lizzy" Calvert visit Lovett and his skeptical team on his salvage ship. When asked if she knew the whereabouts of the necklace, Rose Calvert recalls her memories aboard the Titanic, revealing for the first time that she was Rose DeWitt Bukater. In 1912, the upper-class 17-year-old Rose boards the ship with her fiancé, Cal Hockley and her mother, Ruth DeWitt Bukater, both of whom stress the importance of Rose's engagement to Cal since the marriage will mean the eradication of the Dewitt-Bukater debts: while they have the outward appearance of the upper-class, Rose and her mother are financially broke. Distraught and frustrated by her engagement to the controlling Cal and the pressure her mother is putting on her to go through with the marriage, Rose attempts suicide by jumping from the stern. Before she leaps, a drifter and artist named Jack Dawson intervenes. Jack and Rose strike up a tentative friendship as she thanks him for saving her life, and he shares stories of his adventures traveling and sketching; their bond deepens when they leave a stuffy first-class formal dinner of the rapport-building wealthy for a much livelier gathering of Irish dance, music and beer in third-class. But after Cal's servant informs him of Rose's whereabouts', Rose is forbidden from seeing Jack again. However, after witnessing a woman encouraging her seven-year-old daughter to behave like a "proper lady" at tea, Rose defies him and her mother, asking Jack to sketch her nude and wearing only the Heart of the Ocean, an engagement present from Cal. After a beautiful moment together in the very first backseat fun time, they go to the deck of the ship.<br /><br />They then witness the ship's fatal collision with an iceberg. After overhearing the ship's lookouts discussing how serious the collision is, Rose tells Jack they should warn her mother and Cal. Meanwhile, Cal discovers Rose's nude drawing and her taunting note in his safe, so he frames Jack for stealing the Heart of the Ocean by having Lovejoy plant it in Jack's pocket. Upon learning Cal intends to leave Jack to die below deck, Rose runs away from him and her mother to rescue him. Jack and Rose return to the top deck. Cal and Jack, though enemies, both want Rose safe, so they persuade her to board a lifeboat. But after realizing that she cannot leave Jack, Rose jumps back on the ship and reunites with Jack in the ship's first class staircase. Jack and Rose return to the top deck, the lifeboats have gone, and the ship finally goes down into the freezing Atlantic taking Jack and Rose down.<br /><br />So does Titanic live up to it's hype? I still say that this is a great movie to watch, I think that there were and still are quite a few haters that for some reason just want to trash the movie because it had won a ton of awards and everyone was in love with the movie. But it has great acting, amazing effects, a well-written story and still looks flawless. Love it or hate it, you have to admit this movie didn't get a lot of hype just because of Leo's baby face or Kate's amazing ability to cry on sight, this film is something special. It will always hold a special place in my heart, it has too seeing that I saw this film 8 times in the theater when it was released. But all that aside, I do recommend this movie, it's a great one and sure to go down in the classics one day.<br /><br />10/10
|
positive
|
Would someone tell shaq to stick to what he is good at basketball. This movie was not even entertaining on a stupid level. In this movie shaq plays a genie who lives in a boom box is that not orginal a genie in a boom box instead of a lamp. He is supposed to help a little boy played by the equally annoying francais cappra. This movie had the most flimsy storyline since water world, the acting was awful and I think that anyone who likes this flim would be afraid to admit it.
|
negative
|
what a shame our first movie is so bad .............................. hi sham , what did you do in this movie:( . . it is awful! and the director :( .. there is no story in this film . i had sleep when i was watching this film .. It is a disappointment, and the majority of the crew is not from Saudi Arabia. Supposed to be a comedy movie, but it lacks the essential elements in Comedy ,<br /><br />I know it first experience of cinema in Saudi Arabia, but I expect better from Kaif Al Hal !! The only positive in the movie is the presence of some talented actors who did not help much text to explode their talents Finally.., iwant to know your comment about this movie guys... is it bad or what?
|
negative
|
This movie should be retitled: Sex in the 70s In a Part of New York City called Greenwich Village and Chelsea.<br /><br />This movie does little to talk about sex in the 70s except focus on the hypersexual environments of public and private sex spaces in New York City. I doubt that the Manhole bar was symbolic of actual sex in the 70s and that kind of sex is much more prevalent in the film.<br /><br />Don't get me wrong, the time period looks like a blast. And it's rather important to document the scene to which the film refers. But as far as calling this film Sex in the 70s, the title is a bit misleading. Technically it's no Oscar Nominee, but the rawness of it feels appropriate for the subject.<br /><br />Overall, an "eh."
|
negative
|
I go to blockbuster, pick out a random movie, got this, and yeah.<br /><br />This... was a good sexual porno.. the quality kind of sucked, and it kind of gave me a damn headache. To me, this movie was good for its sexual things, but not as much for the horror and suspense. It was ... magical...<br /><br />The suspense.. not as good as I would have expected. I wanted to be at the edge of my seat hoping to jump up in fear, but instead I lay down on the couch and didn't see much.<br /><br />The quality.. not really good at all. I mean, if you pay close attention, during when the people are on the COLD mountains, their barely wearing anything. It doesn't make much sense too.<br /><br />So if your looking for a crap, not really suspenseful, and a pretty much sexual movie, you've got this.
|
negative
|
I live in Salt Lake City and I'm not a Mormon, so why did I rent this movie? Well because I live in Utah and thought it'd be nice to see locations I know in a film. I really knew going into it that I wasn't going to get the inside jokes so I wasn't surprised when I sat with the deer in the headlights stare. What I was surprised at was the ant-non Mormon actions that were placed in this film.<br /><br />I know it's a Mormon film, catered to the members of the LDS Church, but I found it offensive because of the typical stereotype of people that isn't of their faith. Every non Mormon, which wasn't many, drank, smoked and had an amazing selfishness attitude, why?<br /><br />That really ticked me off about this film, they made the Mormons so pure, yet the rest of the state of Utah I guess is filled with punk psychos just because they don't follow the scriptures of the LDS Church.<br /><br />I can understand having the plots revolve around all LDS members, but you'd think Salt Lake City was 100% Mormon, which isn't even close to being the truth. And as I said, the non Mormons in the movie were portrayed as drunken jerks, please!<br /><br />I guess I just don't get it because I don't belong to their faith and I guess I never will.
|
negative
|
Well This was a complete waste of celluloid. The preview was promising but after watching the movie, it looked like the preview *was* the whole movie. No plot, no clear storyline, just some misplaced suspense. It looks like the director tried very hard to create an atmosphere of mystique and fear, but still there are gaps to be filled. Why the drugs? Why the number 11.11? (Btw. As Sarah enteres the library, the clock says 11.14) What's the connection to the murder on the parents? What's the role of this Rayden woman? Is she one of the children or not? Who are those children anyway. There is a lot of material lying around to create the ultimate cult movie like "the Omen" but the director just leaves them lying on the floor without digging into the story. Even "the Blairwitch project" was more scary than this one. All the gaps you hope to be filled like in "The Butterfly effect" stay open as the credits start rolling.. OK. Off to the next movie...
|
negative
|
I don't know how this DVD made its way into my collection - my wife suggested it was one of these "3 for £20" deals at a high street store. The thing isn't worth 66p, let alone £6.66! Having invested heavily in it, I felt duty-bound to watch it to the end, just to make sure it was equally bad all the way through - and it was.<br /><br />The dialog was awful, the story line was impenetrable (I still don't understand what the hell was going on, despite having read the synopsis), the camera work was disjointed and hopeless, the acting was wooden (not helped by the dialogue).<br /><br />In fact there were no redeeming features - no, not even the lovely Sandra Bullock, on whose glittering subsequent career this pile of dross has probably been sold. She should get her agent to buy up all the rights to it and then bury it ASAP.<br /><br />As a final amusing example of the director's ineptitude, there was a scene where the young lead is conversing with his father's ex-army sidekick while driving. This was the clearest bit of dialogue in the film - no engine noise whatsoever! I look forward to the engine-damping technology eventually making its way across the pond into British cars!
|
negative
|
The title says it all. "Tail Gunner Joe" was a tag given to the Senator which relied upon the ignorance of the public about World War II aircraft. The rear facing moving guns relied upon a latch that would prevent the rear gunner from shooting off the tail of the airplane by preventing the gun from firing when it pointed at the tail. When the Senator was practicing on the ground one day, he succeeded in shooting off the tail of the airplane. He couldn't have done that if the gun had been properly aligned. The gunnery officer responsible for that admitted, in public, before a camera, that he was responsible -- he had made the error, not the Senator. The fact that the film did not report that fact, shows how one-sided it is. This film was designed to do one thing, destroy the reputation of a complex person.<br /><br />A much better program was the PBS special done on him. He was a hard working, intelligent, ambitious politician who overcame extraordinary disadvantages to rise to extraordinary heights. He made some mistakes, some serious mistakes, but shooting the tail off an airplane was not one of them.<br /><br />The popularity of this film is due to the fact that the public likes simple stories, one=sided stories, so that they don't have to think.
|
negative
|
I just watched this movie at the Santo Domingo International Film Festival. While watching the movie I had the feeling that I have seen a movie with a similar story before...a movie with Ray Liotta but I can't remember much of it. Of course, this one is a lot more dramatic, especially at the end.<br /><br />This is the story: Emilio's life becomes a lie that he can not longer sustain. After 20 years lying about his entire life to his wife, son and all the people he knows, the truth is chasing him and there is nowhere to go.<br /><br />Watching Emilio make up lies is exiting and funny but after a while you get tired of the same thing...the affair with a young girl was supposed to ad something but it doesn't. Despite that the movie is still funny, exiting and involving. Either it makes you want to help Emilio with his lies or help everybody else catch him. I liked the analogies, photography and the good performances.<br /><br />7.5 out of 10.
|
positive
|
I'm intrigued by the strong sense of favour towards (or sympathy for!) Sinatra in the other reviews here. I've read elsewhere that Sinatra never seems to have forgiven anyone for *not* being cast as Sky Masterson.<br /><br />OK, so who wouldn't want to be cast as Sky Masterson? it's a great part: the charismatic successful gambler who makes a grave mistake when he allows himself to be suckered into a bet, in which he must take Salvation Army Sargeant Sarah Brown on a date to Cuba, or lose. It's not the money it's the pride, but he and she meet their match. Meanwhile Nathan Detroit must juggle his long-suffering fiancée Adelaide with trying to find a spot for a craps game which will make him rich if it doesn't alienate his fiancée forever first.<br /><br />The film started life as a series of short stories by Damon Runyon: that's his unique dialogue you hear, and those are his great character names, and that's his horse-racing/nightclub/late night gambling world. Then it became a musical, and you can't help but feel that in film form it never really left the stage. The camera is unusually static and the sets remarkably and not pleasingly flat and childlike. Fortunately the music is so great, I don't care that much.<br /><br />My absolute favourite thing about this film, though, is the singing and acting of the two non-singers, Brando (as Sky) and Jean Simmons (as Sargeant Sarah Brown). Of course, putting pro singers into these roles would have produced better music; but what surely gets forgotten is that two such excellent actors brought something else to the party instead: what they lacked in vocal talent they more than made up for in gusto, acting ability, and pathos, pathos, pathos. You're with Sky as he argues with Sarah against reason, steadiness, pipes and safety. You enjoy Sarah's loosening up under the influence of Cuban "milk". You feel completely the suddenness and passion of their scene in the courtyard with bells ringing and an hour to go before the plane takes them home. As Sky rightly says, it's "chemistry". Pro singers be they Broadway belters or smooth crooners can't necessarily be relied on to make this happen. (And they certainly didn't.) I read somewhere that Brando criticised Sinatra for not putting all of himself into his role of Nathan Detroit. Sinatra in turn was infuriated by Brando's four-take acting method. As a Brando fan (does it show?!) I'm bound to take the other side, but I can't imagine that this film would have been the much-adored classic it is today if Brando and Simmons hadn't been in it with their wonderful chemistry; Brando's unpredictability; Simmons' face, all pink cheeks and brown hair, drunk and ashamed in a Cuban bar. Beautiful. I'll always want a copy of this film lying around in case I need to feel good again. You'll forgive me if give some of the Nathan (sleep)talking parts the 100% brush-off though, won't you? You won't? Oh, be quiet and have some more of Mindy's cheesecake!
|
positive
|
- The movie opens with a meteor crashing into a lake. Unbeknownst to the locals, a dinosaur egg is also at the bottom of the lake. The meteor heats the lake, turning it into a giant incubator. You guessed it, the egg hatches releasing a dinosaur that proceeds to terrorize the community.<br /><br />- What utter garbage. It's not that I mind the stop-motion clay dinosaur, it's everything else about the movie that bothers me. The acting is atrocious. The dialogue is utterly ridiculous. The comic relief is anything but comic. Logic is non-existent. Any similarity between the "scientists" in this movie and an actual scientist is purely coincidental. I could go on for an eternity on the bad aspects of this movie, but you get the idea. I feel it's fairly safe to call this disaster "MST3K Worthy".
|
negative
|
In the New Year's Eve, the tuberculous sister of the Salvation Army Edit (Astrid Holm) asks her mother and her colleague Maria (Lisa Lundholm) to call David Holm (Victor Sjöström) to visit her in her deathbed. Meanwhile, the alcoholic David is telling to two other drunkards in the cemetery the legend of the Phantom Coach and his coachman: in accordance with the legend, the last sinner to die in the turn of the New Year becomes the soul collector, gathering souls in his coach. When David denies to visit Edit, his friends have an argument with him, they fight and David dies. When the coachman arrives, he recognizes his friend Georges (Tore Svennberg), who died in the end of the last year. George revisits parts of David's obnoxious life and in flashbacks, he shows how mean and selfish David was.<br /><br />"Körkarlen" is an impressive and stylish silent movie, with magnificent special effects (for a 1921 movie). The characters are very well developed; however, the story is dated and there is a weird and unexplained situation, when Sister Edit tells that she loves David Holm. Why should a enlightened woman love such a despicable man that wasted his life corrupting other people? Despite being religiously dated in the present days, it gives a beautiful message of faith and redemption in the end. My vote is nine.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "A Carroça Fantasma" ("The Phantom Coach")
|
positive
|
It starts slowly, showing the dreary lives of the two housewives who decide to rent a castle in Italy for the month of April, but don't give up on it. Nothing much happens, but the time passes exquisitely, and there are numerous sly jokes (my favorite is the carriage ride in the storm, which I find hilarious). The movie is wonderfully romantic in many senses of the word, the scenery is beautiful (as is Polly Walker), and the resolutions in the movie are very satisfying.<br /><br />The movie takes a couple of liberties with the book, the biggest being with the Arbuthnot/Briggs/Dester business, but I actually preferred the movie's version of this (it may be more sentimental, but I felt that it was more consistent with the tone of the story, and anyway I like sentiment when it's well done).<br /><br />An excellent movie, especially as a date movie during lousy weather.
|
positive
|
This, the finest achievement from Georg Wilhelm Pabst's Social Realism period is based upon a tragedy in early 1906 that claimed the lives of nearly 1100 French miners as a coal dust explosion deep in mines at Courrieres in northern France took place after a fire had smouldered for three weeks, eventually releasing deadly pit gas that brought about the fatalities. Estimable designer Erno Metzner creates stark sets that simulate the tragedy, providing a perception of reality, augmented by matchless sound editing, with the only music being produced by integral orchestras during the beginning and ending portions of a work for which aural effects possess equal importance with the eminent director's fascinating visual compositions. Pabst's manner of "invisible editing" that segues action from shot to shot through movements of players proves to be smoothly integrated within this landmark film that also showcases sublime cinematography utilizing cameras mounted upon vehicles, enabling the director to shift amid scenes without having a necessity of cutting. Although the work's cardinal theme relates to Socialist dogma, the unforgettable power of this film is held in its details, born of Pabst's nonpareil skill at weaving numerous plot lines into a cinema tapestry that stirs one to admiration for German rescue squads of whom their Fatherland is greatly proud while no less despairing of disastrous losses to the families of French victims; certainly, a seminal triumph fully as stimulating today to a cineaste as it was at the time of its first release.
|
positive
|
I knew this would be one of the worst movies I could have imagined...but in just 20 short minutes it actually exceeded my low expections by being possibly THE worst movie I have ever seen.<br /><br />I have already wasted too much time typing about it...trust me, it sucks.
|
negative
|
This movie is phoniness incarnate, a straight 11 / 10 on the phoniness scale. The fakeness of the accents as well as the tightness of the cardigan spandex pants are just staggering. Yanks, although the real Scotland may be just as colourful, if you ever go there don't expect to be given much of a the chance to "dance out" controversies with the locals. Also, don't attempt to sway local opinion through the otherwise fine art of tapdancing.<br /><br />There are a couple of infectious singing-and-dancing scenes, but the plot is far too cheesy and linear, and the dialogue is often too weak. I also doubt whether anyone would want to be stuck in a timewarped 18.th-century Scottish village in the boondocks rather than gay New York City. Maybe it wasn't such a big sacrifice for that priest to have left Brigadoon, maybe he was just trying to get the hell out of that dump.<br /><br />Watch it for the fine alternative-reality view of what a Christopher Streed Day-parade in Scotland would look like on LSD. Other than that I'd only recommend it to Hollywood muscial completists.
|
negative
|
This movie had great production values, good lighting, costumes, set, cinematography and acting. But someone, somewhere, took the script, and replaced all the dialogue with grade-school level barely literate writing. I felt my IQ dropping points any time any character spoke.<br /><br />Did they do this on purpose? Was this just an accident of Brain Dead Studio Executives? At this point, we don't know.<br /><br />All I know is, this movie was one great mistake from beginning to end. We don't even get to see how the Squad became cops, so instead of any character development, we get what feels like a bad TV-movie leftover from the 60's. Or whenever.<br /><br />Find the screenwriters, beat them with a sock full of quarters. Everyone else, nice work, but read your scripts next time.<br /><br />3/10
|
negative
|
When the new Outer Limits first started, the episodes were quite optimistic and challenging. As the series began to wind down, most of the episodes became just plain ugly and devoid of any entertainment value. The six episodes here reflect the very best, and worst, of the series.<br /><br />Since The Outer Limits always preaches a moral. I would like to offer my own. Starting with the most entertaining to the flops.<br /><br />1. Afterlife: As an institution, The U.S.A. military-industrial complex is both evil and paranoid, not to mention plain stupid. However, individuals with great integrity do serve our country, and they will obey their conscience even at a mind-boggling cost! In the end, the aliens don't need to say a word. Those without a conscience are fools who are to be held in utter contempt!<br /><br />A truly subversive episode! One that should be shown on prime time television for all to see! This might be a revelation for some, but folks without a conscience should not be allowed to serve in our military! Nor do the ends justify the means! <br /><br />2. Relativity Theory: A good person may be forced to make a split-second decision between good or evil in order to save the lives of defenseless intelligent beings, and at great cost to one's self. What makes this decision all the more difficult is the stark choice: Being marooned with exotic alien strangers who you can't even communicate with except through gestures, or going along with a group of people you think will keep you safe from unknown dangers even if they are ruthless, and devoid of compassion! <br /><br />This episode is brilliant! What fuels this depravity is good old fashioned greed. This episode is one of the most scathing indictments of capitalism, transnational corporations and raping the environment, I have ever seen in my lifetime! Unlike real life, justice here is served - and swiftly! <br /><br />One of the most memorable lines is when the ruthless corporate thug said something to the effect, "We did the same thing in the Amazon Rainforest War." Alluding to the killing of Amazonian Indians who were attempting to protect their rain forests from being strip mined, as justification for killing again literally in the name of the "survival of the fittest." Something Darwin never meant to be taken literally! <br /><br />3. Alien Shop: Tremendous power can be used for good, even from an exotic alien. This power can be used to heal instead of destroy. Mere mortals can learn from their mistakes! Even a criminal can see the light if given enough opportunity to do so.<br /><br />Sometimes it takes strong medicine, but we all can wake-up and change our self-destructive ways! <br /><br />4. The Grell: An alien can be a Christ-like figure! In the distant future, slavery can be justified, once again, in the name of expediency! Basically good people can be corrupted. Sometimes a person needs to be experience great shame in order to see the evil he/she is committing. Children are closer to the truth than adults. Those with political power have tremendous responsibility! Another work of genius! As a species, "Do human beings learn from history?" <br /><br />Flop Number 1: Quality of Mercy: Loose Lips, Sinks Ships! When in war kindly keep your mouth shut about important military plans. Gee, did I really need to watch an hour-long soap opera in order to figure this out?!! I wonder, did the makers of The Outer Limits run out of ideas, or did corporate pull the plug? Dark and ugly, serving no purpose, but despair! <br /><br />Flop Number 2: Beyond The Veil: So bad there is no moral but this: When locked-up in a mental hospital, use some common sense, please! This episode is so bad it disgusts. What an X-Files rip-off! Don't waste your time on this one! You'll thank me later! <br /><br />It's a sad commentary that The Outer Limits went down the tubes toward the end of its run. Subversive episodes, like the first four, could not last forever! It was a miracle they were made at all! Hopefully, someday, other brave souls will follow the subversive Outer Limits tradition into new territory! <br /><br />If you happen to be such a daring person, a good place to start is with one unique book: "Anatomy Of Wonder: A Critical Guide to Science Fiction," edited by Neil Barron! As far as I'm concerned, the most comprehensive book ever written on the subject.
|
positive
|
OK, so the Oscars seem to get hyped just a little more each year. And I was rooting for "Gosford Park" to win (come on, Robert Altman had deserved an Oscar for years!). That said, I guess that it was high time for an African-American to win Best Actress. Contrary to the previous reviewer, Halle Berry's role in "Monster's Ball" was far more original than Nicole Kidman's in "Moulin Rouge"; I never would have thought to nominate the latter for anything, especially in a year that saw "Mulholland Dr.".<br /><br />Among the things that I had predicted was the stuff about the September 11 attacks; I knew that they were going to say something about freedom. Yeah, yeah. Robert Redford should know better. But contrary again to the previous reviewer, Whoopi Goldberg is not the worst host (among the past hosts was Bob Hope, for whom I have no respect); I really liked her jab at John Ashcroft.<br /><br />So, although I wouldn't have given "A Beautiful Mind" Best Picture, "The 74th Annual Academy Awards" still pleased me (I have to admit, I enjoy the Oscars more than my own birthday). And the day after, as my parents and I were hiking around the dwellings in Bandalier, New Mexico - it was spring break - I was thinking to myself that when Jim Broadbent won his Oscar, that most people watching were asking "Jim who?!" I wonder whether or not Woody Allen will ever attend the Oscars again.
|
positive
|
Flatland is one of my favorite books, thus I was looking forward to this film. Unfortunately, the film is absolutely horrible. The dialog is so bad it sounds like improv half the time. The new storyline makes me think they took the book and a couple of newspapers, threw them in a blender and used what came out for the screenplay. It's a disgrace to the book and independent film making. The only reason I even managed to get all the way through the film was my hopes that it'd get better. Unfortunately, it only got worse, climaxing in a really retarded ending.<br /><br />That's not to say EVERYTHING about the movie is bad. The CG is acceptable, in a 1990's "Reboot" sort of way which I assume is what they were going for. And I suppose you can't go wrong with "people" getting chopped in half and gushing blood all over the place.
|
negative
|
Interesting idea and storyline which didn't quite work.<br /><br />When you see the film, maybe you will feel as dissatisfied with the ending as I did. I didn't really know who to root for in the movie, Taye Diggs looked bored as the detective, the rest of the characters seem so one-dimensional and unpleasant.<br /><br />If the victim Alicia(Mia Kirschner) had been more of a nice girl, we might actually have enjoyed seeing the plot unfold and the perpetrator brought to justice. The problem was that she was as bitchy as the other girls, turning from sweet girl to conniving opportunistic cokehead. I can't understand the moral message of this film, and as a detective story and thriller it doesn't work.
|
negative
|
THE ASCENT is a very worthwhile addition to recent re-releases from the Soviet Union. Director Larisa Shepitko's 1977 film examines the moral ramifications of allegiance and honor in German occupied Russia during The Second World War. On foot and in a blizzard, two members of a partisan Soviet group leave to locate supplies, and are captured by Nazi soldiers. The focus of the movie is on how each man handles or internalizes his moral alternatives. One chooses dignity and integrity, while the other opts for collaboration with the enemy. However, in the end, he cannot abide by his selfish decision. The film makes much use of slow, wide-angle pans which shift to extreme closeups, and highlight the spiritual quandary within the souls of each man. This is not a great film, but it does effectively portray an intense moral dilemma against the backdrop of a harsh and frigid Soviet wilderness.
|
positive
|
A nice Shirely Temple short. Child actors screaming their lines seemed to be the norm for that day and time. Perhaps being "seen and not heard" needed to be made up for. Aside from that this is fun. Given the films era there are certain aspects of the thing, from a social viewpoint, that strike me as both very progressive and liberal. I won't go into those here, I'd rather not spoil it for you but let you watch it for yourself and see if you spot those elements. As early on as it was its easy to see from this short the fascination that was already developing for Temple. That makes it worth watching if you're a Temple fan. For others its a cool way to kill ten minutes while you're waiting for your good night glass of milk to warm up on the stove.
|
positive
|
I like to think of myself as a bad movie connoisseur. I like to think that the films most people label as the worst of all time I can easily withstand.<br /><br />But...there are exceptions. I can only recall three movies I have had the misfortune to see that I have repeatedly used the fast-forward button for large chunks of the story. Those movies are The Mighty Gorga, Night of the Seagulls, and this little crap, Deep Blood.<br /><br />In the world of Jaws ripoffs, this falls off the scale. Deep Blood doesn't have the realistic storyline of the original Crocodile, nor the incredible effects of The Sea Serpent, nor the commentary of Tintorera. No, instead we are treated to a handful of teens from any random failed '80s public access sitcom battling bullies and the local sheriff.<br /><br />Shark attacks are realized by quick cuts of documentary footage with actors thrashing about in the water, occasionally with a bit of what appears to be orange-ish paint thrown into the water. Not a minute of original shark footage exists in this celluloid waste dump.<br /><br />Normally, I, or somebody like me, would read a dismal review like this one and say "cool, I gotta find a copy of this!" That's the same thought I had when I read another viewer's review on this very site. How wrong I was.<br /><br />So...from one bad movie fan to another...let this collect dust on the shelf...grab Up From the Depths or The Great Alligator instead to satisfy your need for something evil lurking in the water.
|
negative
|
This is the second and best in the Hunting Trilogy! What makes it the best is the clever dialogue!<br /><br />Bugs: Do you want to shoot me now or wait till you get home?<br /><br />It was kind of funny how they kept that going through out the short!
|
positive
|
This movie is about a man who likes to blow himself up on gas containers.<br /><br />He also loves his mommy. So, to keep the money coming in, he takes his act to Broadway.<br /><br />SEE! CODY POWERS JARRETT BLOW HIMSELF UP ON HIS BIGGEST GAS CONTAINER YET! TONIGHT! 7.30PM! <br /><br />However, one day, his mommy dies and Jarrett goes berserk. He kidnaps the audience in the theatre and makes them all stand on top of a huge gas cylinder.<br /><br />Losing control further, he makes them all scream "MADE IT MA, TOP OF THE CYLINDER!" in unison.<br /><br />The noise is so deafening that it bursts Jarrets eardrums, causing him to topple from the cylinder into a vat of acid.<br /><br />This Warner Bros. movie is not all it's cracked up to be.
|
negative
|
The monster will look very familiar to you. So will the rest of the film, if you've seen a half-dozen of these teenagers-trapped-in-the-woods movies. Okay, so they're not teenagers, this time, but they may as well be. Three couples decide it might be a good idea to check out a nearly-abandoned ghost town, in hopes of finding the gold that people were killed over a scant century-and-a-half before. You'd think that with a title like "Miner's Massacre" some interesting things might happen. They don't. In fact, only about 1/10 of the film actually takes place in the mine. I had envisioned teams of terrified miners scampering for their lives in the cavernous confines of their workplace, praying that Black Lung Disease would get them before The Grim Reaper exacted his grisly revenge, but instead I got terrestrial twenty-somethings fornicating--and, in one case, defecating--in the woods, a gang of morons with a collective I.Q. that would have difficulty pulling a plastic ring out of a box of Cracker Jacks, much less a buried treasure from an abandoned mine. No suspense, no scares, and a couple of embarrassing performances. Somebody forgot to tell the writers that "Fool's Gold" refers to the genuineness of the gold, not the people who are looking for it. 3/10
|
negative
|
The Unseen is done in a style more like old Hollywood mysteries than a horror show. The film is somewhat slow but lots of bizarre imagery keeps it the film alive and watchable. The basic idea of young girls stalked by something in the basement is old, but good acting and production make the movie worth watching. The movie is notable for its emotional impact and certainly not for any explicit action or special effects. I rated it an 8 out of 10.
|
positive
|
Out of these Pokemon films (which are in order of best to least for me): Pokemon The First Movie, Pokemon 4Ever, Pokemon Heroes, Pokemon 200 and Pokemon: Entei and the Unknown, this is probably the one most concerning the environment, arguably the most beautiful and the most calming one. Whether these are good points for you or not, "Pokemon 4Ever," still has entertained many.<br /><br />As well as the three points covered above, this pokemon film includes good humour and good CGI (as well as anime). The time travelling theme of the film is represented in a good way and Team Rocket (the comic reliefs/rubbish baddies) end up with quite good gags and end up being more main characters than sidekicks. <br /><br />The flaws are, as always, the rather unnecessary violence and action and the baddie is pretty uninteresting, even more so than a few Pokemon film baddies. <br /><br />A strange pokemon is being tracked down by a pokemon hunter in a forest. A young boy tries to save the pokemon and it takes him somewhere...<br /><br />Meanwhile, Ash, Brock and Misty are entering a large forest...<br /><br />Curious? Watch the rest...<br /><br />Good for all Pokemon fans and "American" anime movie fans, enjoy "Pokemon 4Ever"! :-)
|
positive
|
Agree that this was one of the best episodes of this show. I remember the series well as I was in the Florida Keys when the show had its debut. I was looking through old VCR tapes that were "keepers" and came across two that had about eight episodes. I ended up spending part of Christmas night (and the next) watching these shows. The singer was Bankie Banx - saw his name come up on the credits. He's from Anguilla and owns a beach front bar called The Dune Preserve. He's a longtime friend of Jimmy Buffett and Bankie's classic song "Still In Paradise" is featured on the latest Buffett CD/DVD combo called "Live In Anguilla" - it is track #12 on CD 1 and #8 on the CD. I too would like to someday see this short lived series come out on DVD. Keep the faith!
|
positive
|
It is first and foremost a chick flick, it is a romantic comedy. There is a fair balance between the two. This particular movie has the addition of some pretty sweet fight scenes, I don't think any wires were used or if they were they weren't flat out blatant. It isn't a terribly complicated movie so it easy on the brain, no need to analyze anything to get the deeper meaning, pretty simple, good chemistry between the leads, and a fun watch. I'd like it if they made brought out the full potential of the girls looks just once cause she can be amazingly cute, but throughout the movie they keep it low key kind of pretty. I'd watch it again...with a girl.
|
positive
|
I think "Rosemary's Baby" is the most overrated horror film out there. Not scary, interesting or much of anything. It's reasonably well-directed and Ruth Gordon was wonderful but that's about it. But this sequel makes it look like "Gone With the Wind"!<br /><br />I caught this on TV back when I was 14. Unfortunately, I still remember it. From what I remember Rosemary's baby Andrew is now grown up and the coven wants him to start taking over (the world that is). But there are forces trying to stop it...and Andrew is having doubts himself...<br /><br />I'm giving this a 2 for a few reasons: Gordon is in this (and still very good); Stephen McHattie was actually pretty good as Andrew and there is one spooky moment at the beginning with Rosemary (Patty Duke) being "kidnapped" by a bus...with no driver.<br /><br />Other than that it's dull, silly and needless. The original didn't NEED a sequel! Ira Levin's book followup in 1999 wasn't much better.<br /><br />Tune in for the beginning with Duke...then tune out. Not worth the effort.
|
negative
|
I was looking forward to watching this movie, and it does contain very interesting perspectives from Iraqis all over the country, not just in major areas.<br /><br />However, as the film went on, and as it seemed to become increasingly more one-sided, I started wondering who had edited the film. To get several hundreds of hours down to just 80 minutes, obviously decisions had to be made.<br /><br />I would have really enjoyed a film that showed how everyday Iraqis felt on all sides of the issues, but with the newspaper headlines in contrast to what people were saying, and with everyone in the movie having the same opinion at the end, I thought it was obvious that the editing was done with a pre-conceived bias.<br /><br />It could have been such a great film.
|
negative
|
Having heard so many people raving about this film I thought I'd give it a go. Apart from being incredibly slow, which I don't mind as long as the wait is worth it, but it just isn't. As many others have said there are so many inconsistencies and so much of this film just doesn't ring true. The reaction of the 4 men switches from shock, horror on finding the body to complete indifference whilst they fish. Surely if they were the type of men that would go on happily fishing, then they would have just reported the body and said they had only discovered it after their fishing trip....why on earth tie the body to a tree, go fishing and then tell everyone you found the body 2 days previously? Its so hard to watch a film knowing that the behaviour of the main characters is so inconsistent. As for the rest of the townsfolk, well you'd think at least one of them might show some curiosity about who actually killed the woman! The body itself, naked except for the knickers....what scenario leads to that? If she was raped then why still the knickers? If she was raped with the clothes on, then why remove them afterwards bar the knickers? If she wasn't raped, then why take all her clothes off bar the knickers....leaving yourself with evidence to dispose of? I truly cant think of any realistic scenario that would lead to that other than killing someone to steal their clothes so you can fill up your jumble sale stall! Oh well its watchable but only just and only because, despite the poor script, the acting is strong.
|
negative
|
I'm just filling this comment out, because I couldn't stand the fact that a positive comment was featured on the "complete information" page. I really think this to be the worst movie ever made in my country. This is not only because of the terrible plot, the crappy English and a tension-curve that is as flat as our country. No, it is because this was a serious attempt to make a good action movie, conform the Hollywood standard. It had to be "The European Action Movie of The Year".For this purpose they even hired Fejda van Huet, actor in the Academy Award- winning picture "Karakter", to do the job. I don't mind bad films, I can even enjoy them if they are pretensiousless b- movies. but I can't stand movies that are terrible, but supposed to be a-type movies.
|
negative
|
"National Lampoon Goes to the Movies" (1981) is absolutely the worst movie ever made, surpassing even the witless "Plan 9 from Outer Space." The Lampoon film unreels in three separate and unconnected vignettes, each featuring different performers. The only common thread is the total lack of any redeeming qualities.<br /><br />Well, maybe there is one. Another reviewer on this site has said that the fleeting nude shots are nice, and he's right. Misses Ganzel and Dusenberry flash their assets prettily, in part one and part two, respectively. But their glamorous displays are, alas, wasted. The directors seem to have forgotten that even T&A needs a credible story to surround it, and there's none in sight.<br /><br />The third segment, starring Robby Benson and Richard Widmark, is the most disgusting of the three, and an unfortunate choice as the windup of this film. Benson plays an eager-beaver young policeman, brightly reporting for his first day of duty, ready to rid the streets of evil. He is paired with an old, cynical cop played by Widmark, and when these oil-and-water partners set out on their first patrol together, we sense a possible redemption of the film's earlier failures. Maybe, just maybe, the cynical old-timer will be reformed by his new partner's stalwart sense of duty and loyalty. Maybe all will end happily after all. But alas, this movie heads straight for the toilet, with no redemption, no happy ending, no coherent story of any kind.<br /><br />Before "National Lampoon Goes to the Movies," I thought I had already seen the worst schlock that Hollywood could possibly turn out. Unfortunately, I hadn't seen the half of it.<br /><br />
|
negative
|
What has hurt this film is everyone and their Aunt Matilda is comparing it to its illustrious predecessor, which is always going to hurt any show. If you take it as a western, it's a darned good show. We discover how our characters in 'Lonesome Dove' wind up in the situations they start up in (Such as: Why do two Texas Rangers, who live on adventure, wind up in a dead town? And how did Gus manage to lose the love of his life?) The performances are very good, and we see the exact same mannerisms the characters will have down the road. The actors did a very good job. The cinematography was superb, and while the music didn't live up to the legendary score of nearly two decades past, that was an impossible task, and it was still fine.<br /><br />It also helped that we had three episodes, which you just don't see in a miniseries anymore. Heck, it's downright impossible to see a two part telefilm these days.<br /><br />Fans of the western, rejoice!
|
positive
|
This is my favourite Indian movie of all time. It is comic genius. Salman Khan is hilarious. But Amir Khan steals the show with his witty dialogue. Karisma Kapoor's outfits tell a story of their own - makes you wonder if the stylist deliberately made her wear some of the clothes just to make the movie funnier (at one point she looks like she's wearing a nappy). Andaz Apna Apna is the only comedy genre movie to make me laugh from the beginning till the very end. There is not one dull moment, every scene is hilarious, even the songs and dance moves will have you in stitches of laughter. I especially loved the scene in which Amar (Amir Khan) 'regains his memory'. I've seen this movie so many times I've lost count. And I'm so glad to say that this time Bollywood can take all the credit for this fantastic movie as far as I know A.A.A it is not a replicate of a Hollywood movie (THANK GOD). Overall I recommend this movie to anyone who understands Hindi/ Urdu and loves good comedy.<br /><br />Watch it you'll love it!!!!!
|
positive
|
"Tale of Two Sisters" has to be one of the creepiest films I've seen recently. In the end there is no actual supernatural element, despite what one is led to expect throughout the film. The story seems to be about two sisters, who, upon returning to their father's home after some sort of absence (later revealed to have been a stay in a mental institution) are forced to deal with not only a seemingly schizophrenic and possibly bi-polar stepmother who lashes out at the younger of the girls when the mood strikes her and cheerfully tells them she's prepared a special dinner at another time., but some presence as yet unexplained. It is later revealed that the younger sister is dead, and exists only in the troubled minds of her older sister, who was unable to save her, and her step-mother, who was callous enough to let her die. Much about the specifics of the strange family is not revealed in the film, but it definitely leaves a viewer with a creepy feeling and a nagging hint of confusion. Definitely not light viewing; watch this one when you really want to think about what you've seen. It's a hell of a puzzler.
|
positive
|
This is one of the worst films I've ever seen. I looked into it mainly out of a morbid curiosity since I loved the novel, and I wish I hadn't. I turned it off after a little less than an hour, though I wanted to turn it off after five minutes. I wish I had. It disregards the novel a lot and changes all sorts of factors. Unless the film managed to redeem itself in the last 50 or so minutes (which would be impossible) I would in no way recommend this. Its an insult to one of the greatest writers of the 20th century. I don't think, as many people say that it is, that "The Bell Jar" is necessarily unfilmable, but this particular rendition could have been done without. I'd almost like to see this one day in the hands of a director and screenwriter who can do it justice.
|
negative
|
That is no criticism of the film, but rather a comment on how blind we are to our own past. <br /><br />I recently watched Winter Soldier, and The Ground Truth was like watching a remake or sequel-- except it was about Iraq rather than Vietnam. Similar to Winter Soldier because of it's one-sided message, both films illustrate how gleefully we rush to engage in conflicts based on false pretenses, and allow our young and brave (and often naive) to bear the brunt of this greedy war profiteering. Both films effectively show that the mentality forced into the minds of the young and willing make them efficient killing machines, but the training falls woefully short of teaching the diplomatic and policing skills necessary to effectively win the hearts and minds of the people they're supposedly fighting for. This is ultimately what lost the war in Vietnam, and will likely lose the war in Iraq as well. <br /><br />My only negative comment is that the film is so one-sided it could be easily passed off as left- wing propaganda. Not by me, mind you, but by those aiming to discredit the film and message. A more balanced point of view would speak to a larger audience.
|
positive
|
Moving beyond words is this heart breaking story of a divorce which results in a tragic custody battle over a seven year old boy.<br /><br />One of "Kramer v. Kramer's" great strengths is its screenwriter director Robert Benton, who has marvellously adapted Avery Corman's novel to the big screen. He keeps things beautifully simple and most realistic, while delivering all the drama straight from the heart. His talent for telling emotional tales like this was to prove itself again with "Places in the Heart", where he showed, as in "Kramer v. Kramer", that he has a natural ability for working with children.<br /><br />The picture's other strong point is the splendid acting which deservedly received four of the film's nine Academy Award nominations, two of them walking away winners. One of those was Dustin Hoffman (Best Actor), who is superb as frustrated business man Ted Kramer, a man who has forgotten that his wife is a person. As said wife Joanne, Meryl Streep claimed the supporting actress Oscar for a strong, sensitive portrayal of a woman who had lost herself in eight years of marriage. Also nominated was Jane Alexander for her fantastic turn as the Kramer's good friend Margaret. Final word in the acting stakes must go to young Justin Henry, whose incredibly moving performance will find you choking back tears again and again, and a thoroughly deserved Oscar nomination came his way.<br /><br />Brilliant also is Nestor Almendros' cinematography and Jerry Greenberg's timely editing, while musically Henry Purcell's classical piece is used to effect.<br /><br />Truly this is a touching story of how a father and son come to depend on each other when their wife and mother leaves. They grow together, come to know each other and form an entirely new and wonderful relationship. Ted finds himself with new responsibilities and a new outlook on life, and slowly comes to realise why Joanne had to go.<br /><br />Certainly if nothing else, "Kramer v. Kramer" demonstrates that nobody wins when it comes to a custody battle over a young child, especially not the child himself.<br /><br />Saturday, June 10, 1995 - T.V.<br /><br />Strong drama from Avery Corman's novel about the heartache of a custody battle between estranged parents who both feel they have the child's best interests at heart. Aside from a superb screenplay and amazingly controlled direction, both from Robert Benton, it's the superlative cast that make this picture such a winner.<br /><br />Hoffman is brilliant as Ted Kramer, the man torn between his toppling career and the son whom he desperately wants to keep. Excellent too is Streep as the woman lost in eight years of marriage who had to get out before she faded to nothing as a person. In support of these two is a very strong Jane Alexander as mutual friend Margaret, an outstanding Justin Henry as the boy caught in the middle, and a top cast of extras.<br /><br />This highly emotional, heart rending drama more than deserved it's 1979 Academy Awards for best film, best actor (Hoffman) and best supporting actress (Streep).<br /><br />Wednesday, February 28, 1996 - T.V.
|
positive
|
When Jurassic Park first came out, it was revolutionary in filmaking and special effects.For the first ever time people cold go to a dinosaur movie and be convinced they were looking at real dinosaurs brought to life.However whilst some dinosaurs were almost perfect examples of what the real creatures could have been like (T.Rex,Brachiosaurus,Triceratops etc)some were altered to fit the movie(Velociraptor,Dilophosaurus)and the film took place n the present on a tropical island where they were not in their natural habitat. Walking With Dinosaurs shows us the real animals in their real habitats all those millions of years ago. The amount of detail and scientific information used in this is great. Now we can view sights such as a grim Triassic desert,a whole herd of Diplodocus, an Icthyosaur give birth, a MASSIVE sea monster, a pterosaurs eye-view,dinosaurs thriving in the South Pole, two Torosaurus lock horns,T.Rex roaring at the camera and the impact of the comet that spelled their doom. These dinosaurs walk,run,feed,fight,breed,hunt and swim. But the series also reveals the other creatures that they shared the world with,two episodes are mainly focused on two different kinds of animals, the flying Pterosaurs and the marine reptiles that lived beneath the waves. The locations and scenery are spectacular and look all the more unique when a CG Dino walks onto screen. And as for the CGI and animatronics, the movements of the CGI dinosaurs look totally and completely natural,the colouring is bright and vivid and the crewmen have taken careful steps to ensure that the CG animals interact with their environments in any way an actual creature would by making splashes in the water,brushing by bushes, kicking up dust and casting shadows on the ground. Admittedly the CG isn't perfect with a few brief instances where the animals look too computery but the rest of the time it looks breathtaking. The puppetry is poor in some cases but it has its moments particularly the scene with the Cynodonts in the first episode. The narration by Kenneth Branagh is pretty good as well giving us vital bits of information and drama at the same time. But of course the true pleasure is seeing a living dinosaur doing what they did all those years ago and also seeing some truly cute moments with Cynodont(mammal/reptile hybrid)pups,Sauropodlets(baby Diplodocus)and T.Rex chicks(Yes even T.Rex can be cute)and then reminds us that nature can be brutal and was even more so back then. All this adds up to a prehistoric nature masterpiece that lets you see a real dinosaur and take your breath away, all from the safety of your living room. If you like nature, Dinosaurs, informative learning, amazing visuals or just to have a truly good viewing and be entertained then Walking With Dinosaurs is definitely for you. Easily recommended.
|
positive
|
Two years ago I watched "The Matador" in cinema and I loved everything about this movie. Obviously, I was totally under impression of Pierce Brosan's magnificent role. Yesterday, I caught this movie again on TV so I looked at it a bit deeper. Now, I can say with certain that this movie isn't that special but you just gotta' love it because of one man. <br /><br />Brosnan lifts its grade up in my opinion with amazing performance of Julian Noble, tired hit-man who has no friends. Soon Julian meets Danny Wright (Greg Kinnear) in Mexico City, man who's got bad luck: his son died in accident, his job isn't going that well and he's not sure that he can keep his wife Bean (Hope Davis).<br /><br />I always liked movies like this; crime movie with big touch of humor. Mostly that humor comes from Brosnan as he tells jokes about dwarfs with big d.... or one of my favorite lines in this movie: "I look like a Bangkok hooker on a Sunday morning, after the navy's left town." Brosnan says it with his charm while he's drinking his margarita as usually. I also like Greg 'typical American face' Kinnear in the role of loser that is very lively made because there are plenty of people like Danny Wright.<br /><br />So I recommend you to watch quite possibly the best role of Brosnan ever. He'll make you smile and admire him at the same time. Great Brosnan in not equally great movie.
|
positive
|
Director Brian Yuzna has had an uneven career in the horror genre, creating masterpieces such as "Return of the Living Dead 3" or "Bride of Re-Animator", but at the same time he has done awful movies such as "Faust: Love for the Damned" or the mediocre "Progeny". He is obviously better in the seat of Producer where his work producing Stuart Gordon's films has been superb.<br /><br />"The Dentist", is one of his lesser works as director, but the low profile it has benefits the film and its lack of pretensions makes it a very enjoyable experience. It tells the story of Dr. Alan Feinstone (played superbly by Corbin Bernsen), a successful dentist who one day discovers that his perfect life is not really as perfect as he thought when he discovers that his beautiful wife (Linda Hoffman)has an affair with the pool boy. This event disturbs his mind and puts him in a killing spree as he takes revenge on the world for being so "filthy".<br /><br />The premise is very well handled by Yuzna, as he takes us on a ride following Feinstone's day of revenge. What makes this movie different from most slashers is that we are not in the victim's perspective, we follow Feinstone because he is the main character. We witness how he goes from respected professional to psycho murder in a day. Yuzna manages to give the movie the exact amount of suspense but adds a good dose of dark humor that really helps the movie.<br /><br />Most of the success of the premise is in Bernsen's performance as Feinstone. He can make you feel sympathy and hate towards him at the same time, and the subtle humor his character has is another aspect that aids the film. The rest of the cast is not as good, and I think that their sub par acting hurts the film more than it should. A notable exception is Ken Foree, as the detective trying to catch Feinstone. While his part is quite small, he makes a great job with it.<br /><br />With a dentist as killer, gory scenes are expected, and Brian Yuzna delivers great SFX in the correct amount. It's good to see that he does not go over-the-top with it as he usually do, and I dare to say that this is a highlight of the film. It has the exact amount of gore that is expected, nothing less and nothing more. Yuzna restrained himself of his common excesses and the result is great.<br /><br />While this is not among Yuzna's most well-known films, I would say that it is one of his best. Sure, it is not classic material as his masterpieces, but it is a movie that entertains and never gets tiresome or boring. It is a low-budget simple film, but for what it is, I think it rocked. 7/10
|
positive
|
I've now seen this one about 10 times, so there must be something about it I like!<br /><br />50's US sci-fi movies were pretty much a mixed bunch: they were either intelligently made and/or thought provoking or cheap and laughable cheese. Forbidden Planet is a bit of both, but in that rarity for the genre, colour.<br /><br />It also had a head start with the script - although Shakespeare might not have recognised it, it was based on his timeless play and thus guaranteed a certain amount of longevity itself if made well.<br /><br />It's the story of one mans murderous id artificially magnified infinitely by machines a dead race left switched on 200,000 years before. Along the way the plot bristles with 50's stereotypes and corn so pure you wonder sometimes why you're watching it, but always do. That love triangle thing...yuk! Disney's cartoonery still holds up well, and the cartoon backgrounds straight off the covers of Galaxy magazine etc look good even after 50 years. Robbie driving the car over the desert in the far distance is a hoot though!<br /><br />All in all, with all faults, the best of its kind and we should be grateful that such a pristine print survives.
|
positive
|
Robert De Niro, Cuba Gooding Jr., Hal Holbrook, and all the rest of the actors and actresses in "Men of Honour" have combined to make this a fine movie. Mark Isham wrote the filmscore, so you know the music is truly fine, too.<br /><br />But: After noticing a slew of goofs, loopholes, and over-dramatic heart-string pluckings right from the start, I had to make a vow to ignore them and sit back to enjoy the film. If you can do that, it _really_is_ good.<br /><br />The story of Carl Brashear, a true-to-life hero, is inspirational enough to last a lifetime. Look him up on the internet... The entire story is more amazing than the film, as the Director admitted in his comments. There were only three African-American U.S. Navy divers in World War II. However, none reached the status of U.S. Navy Master Diver. Carl Brashear was THE first African-American U.S. Navy Master Diver. AND he was the first amputee diver to ever be certified or recertified as a U.S. Navy diver. (Resounding Applause).<br /><br />On the negative side of the movie's ledger: Should I tell you of only one of the many "loopholes"? Yeah, I'll mark this comment as containing "spoilers" and do so... The early, pivotal scene where the helicopter hits the radio mast and sinks into the sea: They'd never have had the time to suit up a full Mark V diver, even if he were the legendary Master Chief Billy Sunday, in time to be only "... a couple of minutes late" saving the pilot.<br /><br />So, for loopholes, goofs, and over-dramatization, I derated "Men of Honor" from a perfect 10 down to a 7.<br /><br />Will Hollywood EVER realize that the unalloyed truth is so much better that their over-dramatic approach to story-telling? I doubt it. Too bad!
|
positive
|
Spoilers will be in this. The movie could have been better if they had just had a different script, director, and CGI provider. Not much right? The movie has a man starting his own theme park...err...zoo on a deserted island where people can see dinosaurs...err...Sabretooths and it is called Jurra...oops...Primal Park. I do not mind rip-offs, because there are no original ideas for these kind of movies, but this one just slaps you in the face with it, R e p e a t e d l y.There is even the "creature's shadowed head on the design" thing. The Sabretooths, that are not sabretooths according to Mr. Primal Park (Just ancient killing cats), Are rather junky but the crowning accomplishment is the one I call "Sloggy". Because, after disposing of one big cat, a hero is relaxing a little because there is only one left. Enter the weird feeding guy who says, Nah, we made three, the third being a monster who pulls itself around with its front feet. Great, groovy. A group of college students are also on the island for a scavenger hunt, there test to get into their cliques frat or sort (Always thought that needed a short nickname). Out of the ones who do live, only one has completed their task, so I got a kick out of that. Oh yeah, the mandatory "Evil Capitalist Must Die" Clique is in force with not one, but two of them! Mr. Primal Park's death is the most laughable thing you will see in one of these movies as a Sabretooth statue's tooth jars loose (Courtesy of Sloggy), shrinks a few sizes, and impales the man through the throat. If I had only gotten away so easy. I like "Sabretooth" better than this spin-off.
|
negative
|
Like most people I love "A Christmas Story". I had never even heard of this film and perhaps for good reason--it is awful. Same locale, same narrator, same director but the warm fuzziness of the original was lacking. Charles Grodin was a poor choice to replace Darrin McGavin but I cannot imagine anyone being able to replace him. The story seems forced and lacks the sweetness of the original. The interaction with the neighbors, the Bumpuses, is ridiculous. In "A Christmas Story" Ralphie's obsession with the BB gun seems cute but his obsession in this movie is boring. Scud Farkus, the original neighborhood bully, is replaced in this film by yet another kid with braces and a weird hat but with little of the Scud Farkus menacing appeal. It would be pretty difficult to equal the original, even if this movie had been made with the original crew.
|
negative
|
A SUPERMAN Cartoon<br /><br />A huge shipment of gold is being sent across country by train. Using ultra-modern techniques, a sophisticated gang of hooded thieves try to waylay the gold. With intrepid reporter Lois Lane as the only passenger on board, it's Superman to the rescue. But now that it's become a runaway train, can even he stop the BILLION DOLLAR LIMITED?<br /><br />This was another in the series of excellent cartoons Max Fleischer produced for Paramount Studio. They feature great animation and taut, fast-moving plots. Meant to be shown in movie theaters, they are miles ahead of their Saturday Morning counterparts.
|
positive
|
I was surprised and impressed to find out this movie was released in 1940, before the United States entered World War II. On the surface, satirizing something as solemn and horrible as Nazi Germany could be misconstrued as rash. But Chaplin's brilliance isn't limited to making a joke out of everything. In fact, the seriousness of his message wouldn't have been nearly as valid if not for the excellent use of humor in this movie along with the moments of stark drama blended in. Drama alone wouldn't have had the bite and resonance that this film did. Laughing at someone (Adenoid Hynkel) can be the best way to attack them, while laughing with someone (the Jewish Barber) can be the best way to love them. In the Jewish Barber's final speech, I forgot for a moment that the war he was talking about happened more than half a century ago. They are words that have meaning now, and in any time of war. For this reason I believe the film did far greater good than harm, as it still has the same profound effect today.
|
positive
|
As a physics student, I've become aware of many idiot professors, and other so-called experts, in the field. As I continue with my studies, I learn more and more about real physics experiments going on, and about the people who are doing things right.<br /><br />Then, my friends tell me of this "physics movie" they want to see. Knowing nothing of it, I'm excited, hoping that the information will be presented well.<br /><br />I've done REAL quantum mechanics; this wasn't it.<br /><br />This movie starts with the basic assumption that anything that occurs to a subatomic particle can, and will, occur to you, if you just open your eyes. Let's think about that, for just a moment.<br /><br />Our bodies are composed of somewhere around 10^30 such subatomic particles. That is a million billion billion billion particles! The more "mysterious" quantum effects of just two particles can have a 50% probability of cancelling each other out completely. As you add more and more particles into the mix, it becomes almost impossible to have a large net quantum result. To tell us to believe that this is a valid assumption, with no rationality behind it...it's just stupid.<br /><br />My friend, also in physics, and I counted 3 facts during the course of this movie. But they were presented in the most misleading manner I've EVER SEEN.<br /><br />I cannot say as much for the neural portion of the movie, as I have not had any kind of medical training. It seemed as though it might have had a slight bit more truth to it, remembering my days in biology, but I cannot say.<br /><br />At least this film had a redeeming quality: the dancing peptides (or whatever they actually were) scene. Not to ruin the invaluable plot that drives this movie, but the main character goes to a wedding, where she sees all different types of personalities "driven" by their peptides*, and then the film cuts to the dance floor, where we are spliced between people dancing, sometimes surrounded by CG peptides, and a fully CG scene, filled with dancing peptides. The film, at that point, was trying to tell us how we're "addicted to emotions," so we're treated to the full song of that smash hit, "Addicted to Love."<br /><br />This scene was redeeming, because anyone who could go through THAT scene, and still take this movie seriously...well, you are the ones that need to "open your eyes."
|
negative
|
"Washington Square" is a flat, shabby adaptation of the short novel by Henry James. Indeed, the novel is very good, but far from the level of James' masterpieces. Moreover its simple, eventless story seems unsuited to make it into a film (although William Wyler, with his "The Heiress", gave in 1949 a beautiful version of the novel). <br /><br />Anyway, the movie completely betrays the spirit of this work of the great American writer. In the novel, the heroine Catherine is shy, not very attractive and somewhat clumsy, but nonetheless she is a sound, intelligent young woman, and she's not as naive as it may seem. Her attachment for her father is dignified and respectful, with no morbid sides in it. Along three quarters of the movie, Catherine (Jennifer Jason Leigh) just seems to be mentally retarded, poor thing. In the last quarter, she suddenly (and incredibly) becomes intelligent, aware of her dignity as a woman, and all that.<br /><br />The director Agnieszka Holland has added two vulgar scenes to the story. The first, when the nervous child Catherine has, well, troubles with her vesica. The second scene, when we see on the background a sort of open-air brothel, with prostitutes taking their customers behind tents, and so on. Nothing could be more contrary to the spirit and artistic ideals of Henry James. It is notorious that the writer was extremely decent and demure even for the standards of the Victorian age. I defy anyone to find any coarseness anywhere in the thousands of pages of James' huge literary production. I really was particularly annoyed by these two scenes.<br /><br />Yes, I know that a director needs reasonable freedom in the screen adaptation of a novel. But if a director utterly ignores or misunderstands the art of an author (here Henry James), I don't see the point of using his work to make a bad movie. <br /><br />The acting is adequate to the movie: poor and flat, in spite of the talent of Albert Finney and Maggie Smith. "Washington Square" is definitely a non-recommendable film.
|
negative
|
Brilliant kung-fu scenes, loads of melodrama, peculiar footwear symbolism and an unhappy (?) end makes Barefoot Kid an unforgettable film.<br /><br />One of the silliest subtitles I've seen...
|
positive
|
He seems to be a control freak. I have heard him comment on "losing control of the show" and tell another guest who brought live animals that he had one rule-"no snakes." He needs to hire a comedy writer because his jokes are lame. The only reason I watch him is because he some some great guests and bands. <br /><br />I watched the Craig Ferguson show for a while but his show is even worse. He likes to bull sh** to burn time.I don't think either man has much of a future in late night talk shows.<br /><br />Daily also has the annoying habit of sticking his tongue out to lick his lips. He must do this at least 10 times a show. I do like the Joe Firstman band. Carson Daily needs to lighten up before it is too late.
|
negative
|
Good grief I can't even begin to describe how poor this film is. Don't get me wrong, I wasn't expecting much to begin with. Let's face it, a PG-13 slasher flick is pre-destined to be missing the ummm... slashing, so no one should be surprised by the lack of gore. But it was the level of incompetence and cliché on display in all the other aspects of this movie is what really blew me away. <br /><br />We have a protagonist who is quite simply so completely useless that you find yourself rooting for the bad guy. And here's a turnup for the books... SHE NEVER CHANGES - hence breaking the cardinal rule of basic screen writing - character development. If you think by the end of this film the poor little girl is going to turn around and finally kick some arse then think again. <br /><br />On top of this, we're handed possibly the least intriguing (and definitely the least scary) killer ever to grace the genre. I'm not joking when I say that Dora the Explorer has scarier villains than this movie.<br /><br />Finally, because all the potential for tension or gratuity is removed by the inept (and apparently thirteen-year-old) director, what could possibly be left to fill up 2 hours of screen time? <br /><br />Closets, that's what. <br /><br />Lots and lots of closets: big closets, small closets, mirrored closets, closets to Narnia, so many damned closets you'll not want to dress yourself for another year. In fact this movie should have just been called "CLOSET", and had a picture of a big scary coathanger on the DVD case. On the back it could have had a photograph of the audience falling asleep and a quote by Roger and Ebert - something to the extent of: "what the f*@! did we just waste our time watching!"
|
negative
|
Welsh poet Dylan Thomas excused from serving in active duty is doing his bit for the war effort producing bits of prose for some propaganda branch of government in Whitehall.<br /><br />Thomas is portrayed as a freethinker believing in free love married to a woman with an equally demanding artistic streak and likewise with a penchant for extramarital romance. Thomas writing and reciting his poetry in systematic domestic mayhem throughout becomes somewhat priggish towards the end, resting somewhat uncomfortably on his society connections and pulling rank on a war veteran, who had shot up his house, and who was incidentally married to the woman he had been having an affair with.<br /><br />The real story of this film is the love of two women, one (Keira Knightley) whose first love was Thomas (Matthew Rhys), the second (Sienna Miller) who is Thomas's wife. At times it reminds of The Singing Detective, as in very good television with slightly sinister overtones laid on top of scenes of surreal camp absurdity.
|
positive
|
This is the most boring worthless piece of crap I've ever wasted an hour of my life on. All I can say is thank God it was only an hour. Over half of this 'movie' is footage from the original "Criminally Insane". At the very least, I was able to see the highlights from that rare exploitation classic, since for some reality-defying reason my video store only has "Criminally Insane II" (as it had it, "Crazy Fat Ethel II"). But the rest of this movie is some of the absolute worst home-video acting and backyard filmmaking you'll ever see. Why is it my video store has this and not the original? Why does stuff like this actually end up in video stores? Why do people rent it and not immediately burn the copy once they've seen its sheer horror? Why - AAUUGGHH - Why, God, why?<br /><br />Unless you enjoy seeing annoying fruits eating an entire candy bar in an excruciatingly slow scene, or said fruit getting hung from the stair railing in an even slower scene, or a character getting stabbed sideways (don't ask) multiple times in the back, or brain cell-murdering monologues about giving poisoned tea to one's wife and then complaining that all the talk has made one's own tea go cold, or the mentally-retarded eating fly soup, or just simply want to see Crazy Fat Ethel dancing with a bloody knife in a garden: Don't watch this movie. Repeat: Do NOT watch this movie. Do not rent this movie. If at all possible, do not walk past a shelf in a video store that has a copy of this movie setting on it. You can still be saved, but it is too late for me now. . .
|
negative
|
Jake Speed is a film that lacks one thing a charismatic lead. Unfortunately that's something that really taints the entire movie and it's a shame because at heart it is an enjoyable action movie with a witty enough script and an interesting, if derivative, premise. Although it's genesis probably can be traced back to the success of the Indiana Jones trilogy the film actually plays a little more like 'Romancing the Stone' albeit in reverse. It's not an author of romantic adventure fiction being led on an adventure by a character very much like one of her creations it is an adventure fiction character (who happens to chronicle his own adventures) leading an ordinary woman on one of his adventures.<br /><br />When a young woman goes missing in Paris, her sister Margaret (played by the appealing Karin Kopins) gets embroiled with pulp hero Jake Speed (Wayne Crawford) and his sidekick Dennis (Dennis Christopher) who both turn out to be real and very flawed individuals in an adventure that takes them into the heart of a civil war torn African state and ultimately into the clutches of two brothers the deliciously evil Sid (John Hurt) and his ridiculously camp sibling Maurice (Roy London). That's the plot it's not labyrinthine and it's not complicated but the story that it tells doesn't require great depth.<br /><br />The action sequences are appealing to begin with and it's certainly true that the heroic trio are put through their paces (whether caught in battles between government and rebel forces or being dropped into a pit full of lions) and there are certainly some quite funny lines. However the film does seem to struggle to find an ending and unfortunately the action sequences that are quite appealing to begin with go nowhere and ultimately become a bit bland and irksome. This, however, may not have been such an issue if it was possible to like Jake Speed but due to Wayne Crawford's performance it becomes harder to really care what happens. Now I don't know if he was stretching himself a little thin as he was also the producer and writer of the movie or whether he's simply not a good actor (as I haven't seen him in much else) but he never really convinces as a roguish mixture of Doc Savage, Indiana Jones and Jack Colton.<br /><br />This is a shame because most of the other characters play their roles well Karen Kopins is funny and convincing and her character shares some nice banter with Jake (unfortunately it never convinces). Dennis Christopher is perfect as the archetypal sidekick and John Hurt plays the part with camp relish almost as if he were in a sixties episode of Batman. He strides about his few scenes growling in a ridiculous cockney accent putting in a performance that almost belongs in another film. Sid is no Moriarty (he is presented as Jake's nemesis from a number of his previous adventures / books) but he is always fun to watch.<br /><br />Jake Speed tries to channel the same fun B movie spirit as 'Night of the Comet' (a film produced by Crawford a few years beforehand) and almost succeeds but misses which is a shame because Jake would have been good to watch in a few more adventures and may have been served better by a television series.<br /><br />I would recommend this out of curiosity appeal but ultimately it leaves a bitter taste because most of the elements were there to make something genuinely good.
|
positive
|
We expected something great when we went to see this bomb. It is basically a Broadway play put on film. The music is plain terrible. There isn't one memorable song in the movie -- heard any hits from this movie? You won't because there aren't any. Some of the musical numbers go on so long that I got up to go to the restroom and get some pop corn and it was still going when I got back! If they were good songs well -- but they suck. The pace is slow, terrible character development. The lead was praised for her singing but sounded like she screamed every song -- it was almost impossible to stand. This movie has NOTHING to offer anyone but die-hard Broadway enthusiasts. This is without a doubt the most over rated movie I've seen in my entire life. A complete waist of time and money. There is nothing memorable about this movie except Danny Glover -- who wasn't on screen enough and whose character wasn't developed enough. Rent the video and you'll agree -- this movie was an expensive, over produced, polished dog do.
|
negative
|
Once again a film classic has been pointlessly remade with predictably disastrous results. The title is false as is everything about this film. The period is not persuasively rendered, and the leads seem way too young and too vapid to even be criminals. Arthur Penn's film had style, humor, a point of view, and was made by talented people. Even if the 1967 version didn't exist this would still be an unnecessary film. The 1967 version strayed from the facts, presented a glamorized version of Bonnie and Clyde, but it was exciting, and innovative for 1967, and it had some outstanding performances that allowed you to care. This 1992 remake seems culled from the original film rather than the truth as known and the actors in this version are callow, unappealing, and not the least bit interesting. By all means skip this one and hope the 2010 version will be better. Could it possibly be worse?
|
negative
|
It infuriates me no end that, now and forever, I will have to identify this movie (which I consider a masterpiece, and I don't use that word lightly) with the qualifier "Not the Michael Douglas movie!" Not only are the titles the same, but they refer to the same thing- the radioactive fallout that rained upon the survivors of the first nuclear bombings. In Imamura's film, this is no cheap metaphor; the whole movie is about the fallout, physical and emotional, from Hiroshima and the war itself. As the deterioration of a couple and their grown niece becomes more grimly clear, the ironic imagery becomes more potent, from the old clock that is reset each night to the stone gods that gradually pile up outside the heroine's door. (These, in turn, are carved by a shellshocked veteran who is compelled, in a series of tragicomic episodes, to attack anything with a motor that approaches the town.) The bombing day itself is shown in piecemeal flashbacks that are coolly horrifying. Yet "Black Rain" ("NtMDm!") can be watched, even repeatedly, because of Imamura's compassion for his characters. I repeat: a masterpiece.
|
positive
|
I had watched this on Italian TV as a kid and recall being fond of it – in view of its mixing live-action with animation; however, it was universally panned at the time…and, catching up with it again after all these years, I have to admit that the critics were right! <br /><br />What must have seemed wondrous to a child's eyes is actually very poorly done, not to mention boring for a fantasy-adventure; fatally, both star (ex-'Angry Young Man' Richard Harris) and director (action expert Hunt) are ill-suited to the material! At least, Michel Legrand's score (with lyrics provided by scriptwriter Don Black) is serviceable – if not exactly inspired. By the way, a number of well-known personalities are featured among the voice artists on this British-Belgian co-production (Julian Glover, Bessie Love, Murray Melvin, Robert Rietty, Vladek Sheybal, Graham Stark and, this being his last film work, Michael Bates).<br /><br />While the essential plot points of Jonathan Swift's classic novel ('giant' Gulliver becomes the pawn in a war between the little people of two neighboring countries and, on escaping, ends up in a land of real giants) do emerge here, it's done on a strictly kiddie level (with stereotyped characters though, thankfully, little intrusion of the comic/romantic variety) – which renders the whole venture somewhat pointless, outside of its intrinsically experimental nature, since Max and Dave Fleischer had already done a splendid feature-length cartoon version of the book way back in 1939!
|
negative
|
The secret is...this movie blows. Sorry, but it just did. <br /><br />****SPOILER****<br /><br />In this bad riff on I KNOW WHAT YOU DID LAST SUMMER and SCREAM, Beth, played admirably by Dorie Barton, joins several friends on a Spring Break trip. The group rents a fancy house and tries to enjoy a fun vacation. Then, the deaths begin. First one then another then another of the friends is murdered, leading to a sad and trite climax with predictable results. <br /><br />One note, Dorie Barton is the poor man's Reese Witherspoonshe looks like Reese, acts like Reese and could pass for Reese in a police lineup. Maybe that's how they cast her? Anyhoo, decent cinematography and fair acting could not quite make up for bad dialog and terrible writing.
|
negative
|
i expected something different:more passion,drama...Again another failed attempt of originality.i'm sorry to say that the film falls into the old cliché of 'cheesiness'.15 year old teens may appreciate it though.The acting was not very convincing and the lines common,lacking any wit.Still, the soundtrack was good and well adapted.I can't say that this movie is a total flop,because people do watch it but it didn't meet the public's expectations and sunk into mediocrity.So,to conclude,the production keeps you in front of the TV for almost an hour and a half,which is an appreciable thing.Thus,I guess its worth seeing if you don't get annoyed
|
positive
|
I'll say this to begin with:...Why, oh why, can't WB do what these short film directors do? Sandy is obviously an amazing Director, and deserves some credit from WB and DC. But I guess they're kinda put on edge when a man with a $12,000 budget can make a super-hero fan drool. The World's Finest is one of the best short films I've ever seen, Trailer or not.<br /><br />I think choosing a Bodybuilder(Mike O'Hearn) to play Superman was a genius choice. Let's face it people, Superman is no super-model. He may be handsome, but a GQ Stud he is not. And I don't know what that guy a few comments above me was on, but Superman is actually pretty beefy(Have you ever actually read a Superman comic?). I Guess that fact alone just floors me...It seems like such an obvious choice to get someone with some actual muscle-mass to play a Super-hero, rather than a pretty-face. Same Thing for Batman, Bartram is in incredible shape, and an excellent Batman...I don't know guys...If given a bigger budget, and his own movie...I think Bale and Bartram would be Neck and Neck. Bottom line, This is one of only a scant few of Super-Hero movies with actors that actually LOOK the part.<br /><br />The Acting is pretty nice as well. I don't know what every one is talking about, O'Hearn isn't that bad. He's damn convincing as Superman, and Bartram...Well, he IS Batman. I mean, come on people, this movie had a $12,000 dollar budget, what were you expecting?. Everyone Else is great too, except Two-Face seems a tad crazier than usual...But hey, we only have Tommy-Lee Jones as a reference. Oh, Lois is pretty hot too.<br /><br />The SFX are flippin' sweet too. I mean, Seeing Superman lift the car up...MAN!, how cool is that. Versus the "Tank" scene in Grayson, I may have to put this one above that, since Mike actually looks like he's flying, and with ease. The Flying sequences left something to be desired, but once again, with a bigger budget...Oh, And he even used a Batmobile!(It was probably a Model, but it looked damned convincing).<br /><br />All in all, this trailer's only downfall was a lack of a serious budget. And WB refuses to admit that Collora is a credible Director, and NEEDS to be apart of some kind a Project...But no, they'll(Like most of the Marvel projects) just keep getting these hack directors who show almost no regard for the fans and what they care about, and keep churning out these gamble movies. Thank god Superman Returns was a hit, or that seriously would've been the end of it. World's Finest is excellent, and in my book, counts as a Superhero Movie.
|
positive
|
So many films are now in a Genre described as "Comedy/Thriller", as was this one. A fine cast, interesting premise, but what an unpleasant film to watch. Into Hemp films? Then either "Saving Grace" or "Lock, Stock..." are far more enjoyable films. Rating: Just 2 out of 10 Roach Clips
|
negative
|
Down To Earth is the best movie!!! It is SO funny, and it's really sweet too. It has a good plot and it's unique. It isn't like those movies that are all the same with the similar story lines, and it's not all comedy and no story. This movie also has a very good ending.
|
positive
|
This movie is a 90 minute Ramones concert with brief periods of stupidity and absolute boredom. What kind of high school is this anyway?<br /><br />Unless you are a major Ramones fan, DO NOT and I repeat DO NOT waste your time like I did. This is utterly unwatchable from start to finish. This movie should be called Ramone Fever. Everyone appears to like them in this movie. There is not a plot to be found in this flick. As far as teen comedies go, you are scraping the bottom of the barrel with this one.
|
negative
|
Today, I visited an Athenean Cinema with my two kids (6 & 8 years old), payed 3 x 12 euros (about 45 US $ total) not to mention gas, popcorn & soda, was asked to return my 3d special glasses after leaving the theater and was "forced" to watch what could have been a great 3d movie masterpiece but only proved to be a sick "cold war like" propaganda movie, like none I have seen during the last 20 years... AND THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE A MOVIE FOR CHILDREN... IN HEAVEN'S NAME! <br /><br />PS 1: The average working Greek makes no more than 850 Euros a month (approxiamtely 1050 US $) <br /><br />PS 2 My kids liked it... but then again they are no more than babies >in Greek: mora, morons > like the one who wrote the script & the others who made this "3d disgrace" happen.<br /><br />PS 3 3D animation is fantastic but who gives a ....!
|
negative
|
Phew--I don't what to say. This is a film that could be really good a with a bunch of stoned viewers. Some of the acting reminded me of John Waters' early offerings. Perhaps I should take that back--I don't want to insult Waters' ability as a director/storyteller.<br /><br />I particularly loved the lawyer taking about the "full faith and credibility" clause. It's "full faith and credit," by the way!<br /><br />This also reminds me of "The Conrad Boys," where the main actor is also the writer, director, film editor, etc. Those sort of multi-involved undertakings such as that are probably best left to very seasoned film professionals who would have the technical ability (albeit a stunt, some might say) to pull something off like that.
|
negative
|
I kept waiting for this film to improve, but, alack, this is the worst kind of escapist movie: a spun-sugar confection that sinks under the weight of its own ponderous self-importance. The pace stumbles on like a legionnaire stranded in the Sahara. The absence of good dialogue leaves the appealing stars with little to do other than look good in white linen. Irons plays yet another moneyed charmer who's had a touch of the sun. Kaas is a pleasing singer but not much of an actress. Luckily, the script does not often call on her to emote away from the jazz club microphone. All the enviably relaxed, pretty, unnecessary characters take turns masticating the scenery with an air of weary sophistication. The whole exercise comes across like an interminably long Ralph Lauren ad. <br /><br />If you're past forty and believe Francophilia is the key to sophistication, you may well mistake this piece of cardboard for a baguette. Well, if you liked this movie you probably felt smart for appreciating Godard's leaden Éloge de l'amour, and you may even have sat through Le Divorce without cringing.
|
negative
|
i checked this one out on DVD for a dollar so I could easily smile as this dreadful movie unfolds. every time that you think it cannot get any worse, it inevitably does. The acting is absolutely horrific. the plot makes no sense at all. The title "cold vengeance" in the US DVD version has absolutely nothing to do with the script. The action scenes are so obviously taken in their first take. There are lots of mistakes during dialogues indicating that there is just no intend to do another take to at least try to make this movie bearable. I cannot remember having seen a worse movie and I do occasionally get bad ones--well, except for unstoppable with Wesley Snipes. No, who am I kidding, while a bad one, Unstoppable deserves Best Picture awards at the Oscars when compared to this piece of crap.
|
negative
|
After reading the book, I loved the story. Watching the movie I was disappointed that so many changes were made. It is understandable that books and movies differ but it was two different stories, only the names and some of the book's story remained. Read the book and you'll have a better understanding of the movie. The book gives you a better development of the characters. These characters are extremely interesting and make you care about them. The locations were indeed in line with the book's descriptions. Some characters not included. Television has microwaved so many great books and stories, this is a perfect example of that. Input from the author doesn't always insure a good movie but it can help sometimes.
|
negative
|
Gymkata is without a doubt one of the worst movies ever made. But not the bad kind of bad movies. This one is so awful it's fun to watch and laugh. Kurt Thomas clearly does not have a lucrative career in acting. He should go back to gymnastics. But who can forget such memorable scenes as the high bar with chalk, the stone pommel horse or the five minute chase scene through the village of the crazies in slow motion. I don't think it was meant to be this bad, but who can tell. It's not art, but if you want something lite and fluffy that will make a good conversation, rent gymakta. Makes for an evening of fun.
|
negative
|
It opens with your cliche overly long ship flying through space. All I could think at this point was "Spaceballs" and hoping there'd be a sticker on back that said "We break for Nobody." The movie then shows some cryogenic freezers with Vin Diesel's narration. I've always thought his voice sounded cool ever since I saw Fast and the Furious. From when I found out he was as criminal, I thought the movie was going to be cliche. It was. It was very cliche and fate seemed to be against them at every turn. Black out every 22 years. Lucky them, they land on that day. Aliens can only be in the darkness, hey it's a solar eclipse. As much as I thought it was too easy and just a cliche, the movie pulled through and kicked major @ss. I even went out and bought a copy of Pitch Black after seeing it. I really can't wait for Chronicles of Riddick.
|
positive
|
In the animated series: <br /><br />Aeon Flux was an amoral rebel that was completely detached from everything and everyone. She was cruel, selfish, loving, unpredictable, witty, caustic, confident, sarcastic, lethal, untamable, ambiguous all at once. The original Aeon had layers upon layers of depth. She almost never allowed her personal emotions to show through. The original plot was deliciously ambiguous and thought provoking. You could never tell what Aeon's motives were. Aeon was a militant anarchist whereas Trevor was a radical idealist, because of this they could never have any semblance of a stable relationship.<br /><br />In the movie:<br /><br />Aeon Flux works for the Monicans and her political motives and personal motives are very clear. She was pretty, loving, vulnerable, easily tamable, emotional and very predictable. The Aeon in the movie had one layer of depth at most. The plot was obvious and contrived. Everything is completely laid out for you from the beginning. There was virtually no conflict between Aeon and Trevor, at least in terms of personal philosophies. The only conflict between them was that they were on different sides.<br /><br />The movie was a horrible disappointment to me. I felt betrayed. They took the idea of one of my favorite animated characters of all time, squeezed all the depth and personality out of her, and pumped her full of Hollywood clichés. The essence of the animated series was completely lost in this movie. <br /><br />The only reason I'm not giving this movie a "1" is because the visuals were incredible. It was neat to see some of the familiar animated scenes like the fly in the eye done with CGI.
|
negative
|
A great movie. The movie was even better then the commercials put on. And believe it or not it was very very inspirational. I really think anyone who walks out of the movie at the end will be inspired one way or another.<br /><br />It was kinda corny at the very beginning, but quickly picks up. I laughed. I laughed very hard on some parts. The acting is basically above average, nothing special, but better then average. I can safely say it was the second funniest movie to come out this summer (1st funniest being CLERKS II). So after all of that I give it a 7/10 (a high seven, but not quite an eight).
|
positive
|
The first review I saw of this on IMDB says that Vince Vaughn is a much better actor than Anthony Perkins was in this role. Makes me wonder if he saw the original. It's tough to review Psycho if you don't have the perspective of how revolutionary the movie was in 1960. You have a heroine who isn't very likable and is killed not far into the movie and a villain who is creepy, but makes you feel for him. Add to that some graphic violence and you have a blue print for some of the slasher films of the 80s and 90s.<br /><br />Where does this film go wrong? Let's start with casting. Anne Heche is fine as a Vivian Crane, but as Norman Bates, Vince Vaughn is all wrong. For one thing, he looks far too young. Secondly, he has no idea how to play the roll. His nervous laugh reminds me of Ron Howard trying to play a tough guy on Happy Days. Everything he does screams I DID IT! The original movie, even to those who know everything about it, still makes you feel uneasy about the influence of mother on Norman, and turns her into a real separate character. How about the shower scene. When I finally saw the 1960 movie on a big screen, I was surprised at its power to scare the heck out of me. Bernard Herrman's score becomes incredibly shrill and loud and goes further toward scaring you than Danny Elfman's synth interpretations during the scene. This shower scene merely serves to show us Anne Heche's naked body and some nice color blood. Which brings us to the choice to film in color. Didn't work.<br /><br />There is something about remaking classic films that hardly ever seems to work. Some may see this as a noble experiment, but honestly, if Gus Van Sant had nothing to add to this film, he should have left it alone
|
negative
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.