review
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| sentiment
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
Worst movie, (with the best reviews given it) I've ever seen. Over the top dialog, acting, and direction. more slasher flick than thriller.With all the great reviews this movie got I'm appalled that it turned out so silly. shame on you martin scorsese
|
negative
|
I can get over the political parody; even if this was SUPPOSE to be a "Masters of Horror" flick.<br /><br />But, what I can't get over is the blatant usage of our war heroes (and their sacrifice) as pawns in some washed up horror maker's political statement.<br /><br />To me it was purely insulting to desecrate Arlington, and our heroes. I have family at Arlington. The idea that this guy (Dante) would even portray the Arlington graves being disturbed just makes me want to puke.<br /><br />I'm done with Dante, and done with MOH.
|
negative
|
This is,in short,the TV comedy series with the best cast ever;and the most likable also.Each one of them is a firsthand comedy actor.I know only one TV series which was better (i.e., "Moonlighting")that one had Willis as a leadyet it had Willis only,while The King of Queens has a pocketful of actors that are as fine as one can enjoy--Kevin James, Leah Remini, Jerry Stiller, Patton Oswalt, Nicole Sullivan, Victor Williams, Gary Valentine,and even all the rest of them
.I spontaneously and continually and promptly liked it.Advancing age didn't spoil the fun,anyway.<br /><br />In a few words,the series is intelligent and original,miraculously spared of the current TV stupidity and garbage. It is politically incorrect and doesn't court the minorities in the usual disgusting way.<br /><br />The comic is very palatable and savory.<br /><br />I read, mostly approvingly, a few IMDb writers, and sometimes they write about their favorite showsyet, though these writers are several, I did not encountered, at any of them, the slightest mention of my favorite TV shows (--but it's true that the critics one likes are not those with whom he finds himself in complete approvalbut those who at least offer a common basis for disapproval)which are, mainly, WILD WILD WEST, MOONLIGHTING, QUEENS, FANTOMAS, the '80s TWILIGHT ZONE, Bradbury's TV show and SANDOKAN. Most of them I have seen when I was 1314 yrs; about a few of them I have written, and execrably.
|
positive
|
In the year 2006, "In Cold Blood"-a riveting thriller from 1967-has two new interesting contexts that it did not previous have. First, and most chillingly, is the fact that it's star, Robert Blake, was recently on trial for murdering his wife. Second, the recent Oscar winning biopic, "Capote" showed the muddled back story of this haunting true crime tale's author, Truman Capote. These two new twists make the film timely for a modern audience.<br /><br />As a stand alone film from it's era, "In Cold Blood" is top notch in every way. Most notable is the stunning black and white cinematography from Conrad Hall (later of "American Beauty" and "Road to Perdition" fame). Many of the stills from this film of the Kansas farm house at night or the tree-lined back country roads could be sold as fine art photography. Combined with the cracker-jack direction from Brooks and superb editing in the early scenes (where we see the mundane daily life of the innocent family about to be senselessly slaughtered beautifully intertwined with the plotting of the two hapless killers), a rich brooding atmosphere is created that sets the stage for riveting suspense (even when everyone knows how this is all going to end due to the fact its all based on real life events). It's also great to see in this day and age how brilliantly staged a harrowing murder scene can be depicted where the graphic nature of the act is transmitted to the viewer subliminally with nary a drop of blood shown on screen.<br /><br />The film is also anchored nicely by Robert Blake's eerie performance as the more sympathetic yet senselessly brutal side of the killing duo. The flashback scenes to his horrible childhood are extremely well done. Then there is the scene towards the end of the film where he is speaking to the reverend before being sent to the gallows and he makes his last "confession" so to speak. It's one of those classic movie moments that is a perfect marriage of gritty acting, superb writing, flawless direction, and haunting photography. I dare you to erase from your mind the stark image of the rain's reflection from the window flowing down Robert Blake's pallid face in lieu of actual tears.<br /><br />The only thing hampering "In Cold Blood" is the slow moving middle act where the killers are on the lam and the forced nature of the social commentary at the end. The tacked-on political message about the death penalty is secondary to its compelling depiction of the mad killers and their prey.
|
positive
|
Ride with the Devil, like Ang Lee's later Brokeback Mountain, is a film of aesthetic and historical importance. Film lovers ought to see it at minimum twice as its artistic nuance is worthy to be over comprehended. <br /><br />A perfect piece of art, surprising depth of humanity. I really don't recall another war film, will so capture you, will change your existing conception of history and politics, will restore your belief in humanity. After seeing so many killings, so many sufferings , you don't feel yourself numb, instead you treasure the bond between human beings more. The actors' performances haunt your heart, the music drives your mind. Some shoots, are not just some pictures, they transcend themselves, becoming the seeing of soul. Such is the true sense of film being a genre of art.<br /><br />A film like this doesn't need long comments or reviews, everything it says by itself. Ovation to the cast which includes Tobey Maguire, Jeffrey Wright and Jewel Kilcher, the cinematographer and the composer of the beautiful and lyrical music, what an achievement!
|
positive
|
I rented "New Best Friend" hoping for a movie similar to enjoyable teen thrillers such as "Gossip" and "The Curve". Instead, "New Best Friend" is much more like "The In Crowd", in which there are no thrills and the acting is incredibly phony. "New Best Friend" is boring, and the events during the movie are the same. Skip this movie...it's a waste of time.
|
negative
|
I attended a screening of "Fierce People" at the 2006 Woodstock Film Festival. I hesitate to label it a "premiere" of any sort, since it was shot in the spring of 2004 and had its world premiere at Tribeca in 2005. It played several festivals that year. Release seemed imminent, then it disappeared. Poof. Vanished. Or so it appeared to the film-going public. Rumors of a theatrical or DVD release have popped up now and then, but all proved unfounded. Then this screening was announced. Perhaps one can call it a "re-premiere?" It certainly felt as if I was witness to a buried treasure. And what a treasure it was.<br /><br />I suppose one could characterize "Fierce People" as a coming-of-age drama. But it also has elements of comedy and tragedy, as well as mystery. And a bit of farce thrown in. In short, real life. That makes it hard to pigeonhole, which puts it more into the category of an indie as opposed to a Hollywood movie. But its high production values, big budget feel, and star caliber cast seem at odds with the indie label. So let's call it a hybrid. And, perhaps, that's why it's been "lost." It defies categorization.<br /><br />Meet Finn Earl (Anton Yelchin), 15, whose father is absent. In fact, Finn has never known him. But he sees him and hears him via the collection of home movies sent from South America. Dad is a renowned anthropologist, and has made a name for himself by setting up shop with the Yanomani, the tribe of "Fierce People" who live to kill and, well, procreate. All their activities are built around those two "tasks," and Finn is captivated by it. Mom Liz (Diane Lane) is also somewhat absent. Although present physically, she is lost in a world of cocaine and alcohol. So Finn becomes an adult in his little solitary world with his reels of film.<br /><br />One summer, Mom decides to drag Finn along with her into the wilds of New Jersey. A massage therapist, Mom has catered to a wealthy client, Ogden C. Osborne (Donald Sutherland, in a tour de force performance) and he has invited her for an extended house call at his palatial estate. Osborne's "tribe" includes an assortment of eccentric rich kids, servants, and village idiots among whom Finn will find himself part of his own anthropological study. Will his experience with Dad's films help him survive life as a visitor to this tribe? Will he be accepted? Or will he be seen as an outsider, concurrently struggling with his own identity as an adolescent? Such is the stuff of fairy tales, and I suppose this would be if not for the dark underbelly which director Griffin Dunne and writer Dirk Wittenborn have infused into this magnificent story.<br /><br />With Anton Yelchin's voice-over, intercutting pieces of Dad's home movies, Finn must learn to go back to being the teenager he never really had a chance to be, stop being the parent to his Mom, allow newly-sober Mom to be parent to him, and learn responsibility on the way to adulthood the way it should have taken place all along. Yet he needs to make this transformation in a dangerous, dark world where playing with fire is folly to this fractured family.<br /><br />This is, first and foremost, a story-driven film and Griffin Dunne emphasized as much in the intro to the film. He bought the rights to Wittenborn's novel even as it was being written, and Wittenborn's own screenplay comes to life in the hands of the masterful Dunne in a way that's a work of wonder.<br /><br />This is also largely a character-driven film, and Sutherland has never been better. His star turn as Osborne stunned those around me and will likely leave you amazed as well. Diane Lane's character ultimately exhibits so many personalities that it's hard to imagine another actor pulling it off so well. She is breathtaking. But more than anything, "Fierce People" is Anton Yelchin's film. He has a long resume as a child actor but preciously little as a teen. Other than the little-known "House of D" (also a gem), he is best known as Byrd on TV's "Huff." In January, he will be seen in "Alpha Dog" (also sitting on the shelf since 2004, a film I saw at Sundance this year and in which he is the "heart and soul"). His performance here goes far beyond what one would expect from someone so young, and is nothing short of spectacular.<br /><br />This complex, quirky film has remained out of sight long enough. "Fierce People" is a treasure filled with light and shadow, comedy and tragedy, joy and pathos, but mostly wonder.
|
positive
|
Intriguing premise should have been a 20 minute short. That's how long it would take his biological parents to think, "Hmm, we lost one son (and never found him) who is about his age, and he looks like our remaining son. Oh, yes, and he's a runaway. Hmm." But no, this is the most clueless family in history. And the conclusion, while trying to jerk tears, manages only to induce more groans of disbelief.
|
negative
|
This movie was really well written and was very entertaining.There was great acting in it too. Luke Perry did a very convincing job. (like he always does)If you are looking for a eventful movie to watch this should be at the top of your list. There is a mixture of comedy, drama, and action. You can literally feel what the actors are feeling at points. I was very impressed by this movie. The special effects were very well done. The whole movie was very convincing. This movie is one of my favorites. What happens is North America could be torn apart and Jack and his team have to try and to stop an eruption by destroying North America. It was a very cool and creative idea. I loved this movie and i know you will too.
|
positive
|
I've seen most of Ryuhei Kitamura's work and I've come to the conclusion that he has a knack for action. Scenes are kinetic and fast often combining elements of martial arts, gun fights and samurai fights with camera work that effectively captures the on screen carnage. With "Versus" and "Aragami" Kitamura demonstrated that creativity and showed that he his more than capable of working with a low budget. So what happened in "Alive" ? To be more blunt, the answer would be - nothing. Nothing happened in "Alive" it was a two hours plus movie with little to no action and little to no characters and plot.<br /><br />Adapted from a comic book by Tsutomu Takahashi "Alive" is an examination of the life of one Tenshu Yashiro (played by Hideo Sasaki) a death row convict who survives his execution. He is then given a choice of either to repeat the execution or to subject himself in a bizarre series of experiments. He chooses the latter and soon after that is placed in a room along with a rapist and later with a girl infected with a strange parasite that in exchange for it's host's humanity grants supernatural powers. Naturaly at some point that parasite moves into Yashiro, the bad thing is that doesn't happen very soon. <br /><br />Similar to "Aragami", "Alive" sets it's first half in establishing the basic exposition. Characters are introduced, their motivations are set and their relations between each other are uncovered. The whole thing even takes place in just one set. The first major problem of that comparison is that while "Aragami" was just a 70 minute movie, "Alive" drags on for more than two hours thus making the first part over one hour long. That length could have been justified had the characters been made a bit more interesting but alas that is not the case. Dialogue is dry, monotonous, delivered without any sense of emotion or depth, characters themselves aren't much interesting. There were some small attempts at making "Alive" a bit more moral ambiguous but in the end it all came down to the classic : evil government people against, super-powered protagonist, whom yes you guessed it, saves the girl in the end. Like I previously said the entire film practically takes place at just one set, and after two hours that does get boring, even worse the set design itself wasn't even interesting to begin with, and doesn't do much to improve on other aspects of the film.<br /><br />Now, after that first part is over, one might think that Kitamura would at least make some entertaining action scenes to make up for the boring beginning. Sadly that is not the case. The two only fights are actually rehashes of similar fights from Hollywood movies, complete with bullet time effects and psychic powers. They're just not interesting or fun, Kitamura's creativity from "Versus" is gone, the small set even limits his often very impressive camera-work and it all boils down into generic and expectable fights, a shame really.<br /><br />Evidently "Aragami" was better on all accounts and "Kitamura" had learned something from "Alive". So it wasn't at least a total loss watching this movie. If only to understand the errors made, how to fix them and create a better more entertaining movie.
|
negative
|
I watched this movie on march 21 this year.Must say disappointment.But much better than "Tridev".Plot is hackneyed.Tells about Prabhat who lives with his father,Wife and his little brother.The movie opens when he saves a bride.Anyway.Azghar Jhurhad makes a plot to kill his young brother.He makes a plan by sending few man.They come to a school pretended to be Prabhats friends.Kill that kid.His father throws him out of the house.Then later comes back.He and Aakash go to Kenya to find him.Sunny gives a good performance,Chunky was annoying at best,Naseerdun is wasted.Divya did good,Sonam was wasted,Jyotsna was wasted but looked cute.The kid which played Sunnys brother in the movie was cute.Too sad he had to get his character killed.The girl was cute but was annoying.The other kid did good.Alok did good.Kiran was adequate.Amrish and Gulshan did good.The cinematography is excellent in both India and Kenya.Script is weak but has a few good dialogs.Also drags .The movie.The music was alright.I only liked one song"Saat Samundar" the lyrics of that song was good.The other songs were forgettable.Don't watch this. Rating-3/10
|
negative
|
If you're looking for an accurate portrayal of Che Guevara, the Cuban revolutionary who helped aid Fidel Castro in his bid for power, you'd better read up on Cuban history or even type in his name on a search engine (you ARE on the Internet, after all).<br /><br />But whatever you do, DO NOT WATCH "CHE!". <br /><br />Unless, of course, you just want a good laugh.<br /><br />All the reviewers of the time (and moviegoers) gave "Che!" their vote for worst film of the decade. And no wonder; have you seen this travesty? Its facts are tenuous at best, Sharif is even unconvincing as a corpse and as for Palance's Fidel Catsro imitation.... <br /><br />Like I said, if you want a good laugh.<br /><br />It's like watching a co-production between The Learning Channel and Mad Magazine.<br /><br />One star. <br /><br />I wonder if Palance can do W. C. Fields, too?
|
negative
|
I really thought this wasn't that bad. Not a great work of art but Dermot M was the stronger performer by far. Patricia Arquette was overacting much of the time. He was actually playing cello which was very impressive, and his lines were never forced. Besides, he is an incredibly Beautiful Man. Really sexy. Add that to the talent, and most anything he's been in is a lot more tolerable. He always gives his all even if some of the projects he's been involved in didn't quite hit the highest mark.. Not the fault of the actor in most cases. He's unfortunately been in some strange films that just didn't resonate at the box office. Always with A-list actors but just not always a "hit". But he is "worth every penny" of any DVD rented or purchased. See The Wedding Date with Debra Messing - one of his best overall films. WORTH EVERY PENNY! ; ) (if you haven't seen it yet, do, then you'll understand that quote!)
|
positive
|
Definitely at the top five of best John Garfield movies has to be Pride of the Marines. It's the true story of Marine private Al Schmid who at the cost of his own sight, while wounded held off a horde of storming Japanese on Guadalcanal. <br /><br />The story nicely segments in three parts, Al Schmid's home life where he's a simple working stiff who's just getting serious with a woman and who likes nothing better than his bowling night. Pearl Harbor is bombed and he's off to war as millions of others were.<br /><br />The second part is at Guadalcanal and we see part of the action where he's in an isolated machine gun nest, holding off Japanese troops. His action prevented Marine positions from being overrun, but a grenade does in his eyesight.<br /><br />And of course the third part is his painful adjustment to civilian life and to reassure himself that people aren't just caring for him out of pity, most of all that girl he was seeing Eleanor Parker.<br /><br />This film was broadcast on TCM on John Garfield's 95th birthday and there was a documentary on Garfield hosted by his daughter. One of the people interviewed said that Garfield was the actor most believable in working class roles in having and holding a union card. <br /><br />In that respect he was lucky in that he did land with Warner Brothers in Hollywood. Though he kept getting typecast in gangster roles in the tradition of that studio, Garfield was terrific in these parts because of his background, because he came from the kind of life Al Schmid had, with the exception of Garfield's Jewish background.<br /><br />In that respect he was perfect to play the part of a working class hero like Al Schmid who accepted the responsibility of defending his country. No super heroics here, just a guy who'd rather have been back in Philadelphia, but doing a job that had to be done.<br /><br />It's a great part for Garfield. It's a film one shouldn't miss. I do wonder though whatever happened to the real Al Schmid.
|
positive
|
I really wanted to like this film for all sorts of reasons -- the subject matter is inherently interesting and is probably the major issue facing the world today and has thrown up fascinating works (e.g. Linda Grant's When I lived in modern times)usually from the Israeli side of the fence. Also, a bloke I like told me he thought it was the best film he'd seen all year, so with such a recommendation...<br /><br />HOWEVER I actually found myself nodding off at points! Admittedly i was tired and the cinema seats comfy but I found it too much hard work trying to identify with the characters. Once I'd got my head round the idea that it was a series of vignettes, I went with it, but this made it disappointingly like a sketch show rather than a film. I liked the concept of a restrained, almost silent mise en scene contrasted to these utopian moments - the sexy girl, the red balloon and the ninja Muslim fighter. But personally i think the film has been over hyped. I'm not saying narrative and plot is everything (it's definitely not) but even a little more dialogue would have helped.
|
negative
|
Wes Craven has been created a most successful killer-thriller movies of all time. After watching he's movies, you will find your new fears. People don't know, which Wes Craven's thriller movie is the best, because they all different.<br /><br />In this movie, Lisa is terrorize by fellow-traveler. He coercible her to kill and if she don't do this, Jack will kill her father. Lisa is in the huge mess, because whatever she choose, she will kill.<br /><br />Acting was unreal. Rachel McAdams and Cillian Murphy acted unbelievable good. The emotions was in right choose. Idea and script of this movie is great too...<br /><br />Sometimes it reminds a "Scream", but he definitely better, than both "Screams" sequels together.<br /><br />And what can I say - this is the best killer-thriller movie in 21's century yet...
|
positive
|
"Marathon" has a very interesting premise, excellent ambient sounds, and good scenery. Unfortunately, the movie, aside from these aspects, falls flat on its face. For a woman trying to complete so many crossword puzzles in a day, she spends an awful lot of time standing around, sulking, and not doing puzzles. I believe there is more walking shown in the movie than her work on these puzzles. Also, while I understand the point of showing so much scenery, there is simply FAR too much of it. The movie is incredibly boring and unfocused. It's not worth buying, renting, watching on television, or viewing in any conceivable way. I lost interest so quickly that I'm not sure why I sat through the entire film in the first place.
|
negative
|
There is a fantastic song in Killjoy 2 that goes on about how clowns are usually really nice and fun but Killjoy is a killer. I don't recall the song in the first movie but when singer Olimpia Fernandez sings 'Killjoy, yeah Killjoy 2' is sounds like the 2 may have been added in for this dire sequel. The film is much worse than the first movie and that was really bad. This time the cast, including the usually excellent Debbie Rochon have given up trying and director Tammi Sutton creates no tension and presents merely a dull and steady film. Full Moon pictures produced this during their 'Urban' phase, none of which was very good but none so bad as here.
|
negative
|
This, unfortunately, is a little-known film.....i say "unfortunately", because it ranks up there with the "classics" of the American silent screen!<br /><br />It's about a legend of a "phantom chariot" that travells all over the world, picking up the souls of those who have died. The legend says tha the last person to die on New Year's Eve is condemned to drive the chariot for the next whole year.<br /><br />It brings to mind the sequence of the "Ghost of Future Yet To Come" in Dicken's famous "Christmas Carol".<br /><br />The double-exposure effects of the ghosts (esp. when they interact with the "live" people) are EXCELLENT! <br /><br />If you love silent films, you MUST see THIS; it will "blow you away"!<br /><br />Norm Vogel<br /><br />Norm's Old Movie Heaven http://www.nvogel.com/film/film.html
|
positive
|
First of all, let me just say that after watching this movie I felt like I'd been sold a bill of goods. Mind you it's not the movie's fault that IMDb has it listen as a comedy first and a horror second (although I don't know how that's entered...maybe some moron from the film's crew put it in). Being a fan of the horror/comedy genre, I checked it out based on that and I'm so, so sorry I did. Where to start? First of all, to touch back on my beginning, there's no comedy in this movie. It tries once or twice, but never gets more than a chuckle at best. My reaction was primarily rolling my eyes and wondering why someone thought such tired material would be funny. Also, there's no horror here. Not a second of tension can be found. You think I'm exaggerating...I am not. No tension, very little blood, and not much violence on screen (sorry, but in a horror flick cutting away just as the good stuff starts is a major foul). Hell...there's even zero nudity. Call me a purist or juvenile...I prefer some in a horror flick if it can't come up with an original plot/premise. And that tired as all hell "reality TV show gone wrong thing"? It's been done before and a lot better. Like Wrong Turn 2 or...ummm....whatever that movie was called with Edward Furlong. That's how bad this movie is. I don't even remember the name of that movie, but it was better than this. I also enjoyed the one comment claiming the timing for this was good because "reality TV is taking over". Did someone from the past post that with a time machine? Are you freaking kidding me? This thing is trash...and not in a fun way.
|
negative
|
I don't believe I've seen a horror movie this bad since...hell, I don't believe I've ever seen a horror movie this bad. The acting alone was enough to make one cringe. The bad acting went way beyond horror film cheesy. It was just plain awful. And did you check out those god awful special effects? When the demon (which looked more like a cheaply constructed puppet) came out of the wall I couldn't tell if I was supposed to be frightened, or laughing my ass off. As a huge fan of the horror genre, this film was more than mildly disappointing. I couldn't help but notice the director is from Portland, OR, which just happens to be my own hometown. I must say I'm deeply ashamed. If I could, I'd give this film a negative 500.
|
negative
|
"What's his name?" "Loudon." "Loudon what?" "Clear."<br /><br />That gag still gets me, TWENTY ONE years after the film was released.<br /><br />I loved the film back then and I love it today. I must have watched this a hundred times back in the day, and when I bought the DVD recently I could still remember some of the dialogue.<br /><br />Madonna plays Nikki Finn, a young woman jailed for a crime she didn't commit. When she gets out she decides to seek revenge.<br /><br />Griffin Dunne (whatever happened to him?), plays an attorney for his fiancée's father (John McMartin). The future father-in-law asks Loudon to take Nikki from prison to the bus station and to make sure she gets on the bus, as part of a supposed new public relations programme. A seemingly easy task, but there are complications aplenty, some funny dialogue, and some admittedly stupid-but-funny scenes along the way.<br /><br />Madonna has a stupid voice in this film, which until I was able to watch with subtitles made one or two lines of dialogue incomprehensible for me (hence only 8/10), but on the other hand I can't imagine her doing it in her normal voice.<br /><br />This film shows Madonna's comic side (too lacking these days, perhaps), and she genuinely is funny in the role. Dunne makes a great foil, while Haviland Morris is perfect as the uppity fiancée.<br /><br />Yes, it's predictable, yes, the jokes could be better, but I think this is a great film and will happily sit down and watch it 100 times more.
|
positive
|
Dr Stephens (Micheal Harvey) runs a mental asylum. He has a different approach to the insane. He conducts unorthodox methods of treatment. He treats everyone like family, there are no locks on the patients doors and he lets some of the inmates act out their twisted fantasies. He lets Sergeant Jaffee (Hugh Feagin) dress and act as a soldier and Harriet (Camilla Carr) be a mother to a doll, including letting her put it to bed in a cot. Dr. Stevens is outside letting Judge Oliver W. Cameron (Gene Ross) chop a log up with an axe, it turns out to be a bad move as once Dr. Stevens back is turned the Judge plants the axe in his shoulder. Soon after Nurse Charlotte Beale (Rosie Holotik) arrives at the Sanitarium having arranged an interview with Dr. Stevens about a possible job. She is met by the head Nurse, Geraldine Masters (Annabelle Weenick as Anne McAdams) and is offered a trail position. She gets to know and becomes well liked among the patients. However things eventually start to turn sour, the phone lines are cut, an old lady named Mrs. Callingham (Rhea MacAdams) has her tongue cut out and she starts to get a strange feeling that things just aren't right somehow. Then, one night all the Sanitariums dark secrets are violently revealed. Produced and directed by S.f. Brownrigg this film has a great central idea which builds into a cool twist ending, but ultimately is a bit of a chore to sit through because of it's low budget restrictions and a rather slow script by Tim Pope. There are just too many long boring stretches of dialogue by the inmates, not a lot really happens until the final twenty odd minutes. The film has no real visual quality as it's set entirely in the Sanitarium and it's grounds which is basically just a big bland house in the middle of nowhere. There's no graphic gore in it, a few splashes of blood here and there and thats yer lot. There's a bit of nudity, but like the gore not much. The acting is pretty strong, especially Holotik and Weenick. The photography is flat and unexciting and I can't even remember what the music was like. The twist ending is great, but it just takes far too long to get to it. A film that had a lot of potential that was probably held back by it's budget. OK I guess, but I think it would have worked a lot better if the story had been turned into a half an hour 'Tales form the Crypt' episode.
|
negative
|
OK this movie was really "unique" shall we say. Carrie Fisher was by far the most talented in the movie, even though it is said she had a coke problem during the movie. but she said that she can't remember to much of it. well thats her excuse but whats everyone else's??? i can't imagine they all had a coke problem.whatever it wasn't all that bad i mean i guess the plot was OK and it had some pretty funny moments. although the part where the guy gets that thing shoved in his head was a little too violent for my taste. oh well i guess i was disappointed cause Carrie fisher is like so awesome and this movie did nothing for her.
|
negative
|
It is one of the best of Stephen Chow. I give it a nine out of ten.<br /><br />I was surprised to see that Shaolin Soccer was rated on top of all singsing's movies. Unbelievable.
|
positive
|
This movie has been promoting in everywhere in Spain with a huge publicity campaign, after watching it, you realise that someone has stolen your money. Paz Vega is horrible as Carmen, she´s not natural at all and she looks like she´s making a fashion magazine cover in all the shots ("the best" is when she as an andalusian woman ...¡can speak basque and fluently¡, Leonardo Sbaraglia is much better than her as Jose, but the story is very slow, the plot don´t work, and the screenplay is really very very bad...I think Penelope Cruz (the film was written for her)would have been a much more credible and sexy Carmen.<br /><br />What a waste of time and money
|
negative
|
I think that Never Been Kissed was a totally awesome movie. The casting was really good and they acted very well. I really like Drew Barrymore and of course for me it was excellent. I was scared at first because it said that it wasn't coming out on video. Boy, am I happy that it is because it's a beyond cool movie. Go see it if you already haven't!
|
positive
|
Being a music student myself, I thought a movie taking place in a conservatory might be fun to watch. Little did I know... (I had no idea this movie was based on a book by Britney Spears) This movie was implausible throughout. It's obvious that whoever wrote the script never set foot in a conservatory and doesn't know a thing about classical music. Let me give you just a few examples: 1) There is NO WAY anyone would be admitted to a classical conservatory with no classical training whatsoever! Just having a nice pop voice isn't enough, besides, that's a different thing altogether - another genre, different technique. It's like playing the violin when applying for a viola class. 2) How come the lady teaching music theory was in the singing jury? If she wasn't a singing professor herself, she would have no say in a situation like that, and if she was a singing professor, why weren't we told so? 3) Being able to read music is a necessity if you're to major in music. 4) How did Angela get a hold of that video tape? That would have been kept confidential, for the jury's eyes only. Now either she got the tape from one of the professors or the script writers just didn't have a clue. I wonder which... 5) The singing professor gave Holly the Carmen song saying she "had the range", which she clearly did NOT. Yes, she was able to sing the notes, but Carmen is a mezzo-soprano, while Holly's voice seemed to be much lighter in timbre, not at all compatible with that song. 6) Worst of all: Not only does the movie show a shocking ignorance when it comes to classical music, but it doesn't even try to hide it. The aria that Angela sings is mutilated beyond recognition, a fact which is painfully blatant at the recital, where it is cut short in a disgraceful way - Mozart would roll over in his grave. The Habanera from Carmen sounded a bit weird at times, too, and the way it was rearranged at the end just shows how little the producers really think of classical music - it's stiff and boring but hey, add some drums and electric guitars and it's almost as good as Britney Spears! I know these are all minor details, but it would have been so easy to avoid them with just a little research. Anyhow, I might have chosen to suspend my disbelief had the characters and the plot been well elaborated. But without that, I really can't find any redeeming qualities in this movie except for one: it's good for a laugh.
|
negative
|
This movie seems as if someone had a cute idea for a movie, thought of two or three funny possibilities, hired a good cast, then turned the whole thing over to a really bad screenwriter and even worse director. The director filmed a screwball romantic comedy as if it were a dark, artsy film---weird camera angles, blue filtered shots, lingering, close up looks at raindrops. Steve Zahn was good, as always. Ben Affleck was charming, sweet, almost shy; he was perfect for a romantic comedy. Sandra Bullock struggled along valiantly with a character who was supposed to be zany, but whose wackiness consisted of things like madly kissing a husband she hated, abandoning her child, going on carnival rides, offering to strip for money, and bumming a ride with a fellow airline passenger. The script had very few funny lines; there was no physical comedy; it was boring. It introduced potentially funny situations, then cut them off before they could develop. To top it all off, the "twist" at the end was a slap in the face to anyone expecting a fun romantic comedy. If you saw the trailer for the movie and liked it, as I did, my advice is: don't go to the movie. It will only spoil a nice trailer.
|
negative
|
Made after QUARTET was, TRIO continued the quality of the earlier film versions of the short stories by Maugham. Here the three stories are THE VERGER, MR. KNOW-IT-ALL, and SANITORIUM. The first two are comic (THE VERGER is like a prolonged joke, but one with a good pay-off), and the last more serious (as health issues are involved). Again the author introduces the film and the stories.<br /><br />James Hayter, soon to have his signature role as Samuel Pickwick, is the hero in THE VERGER. He holds this small custodial-type job in a church, but the new Vicar (Michael Hordern) is an intellectual snob. When he hears Hayter has no schooling he fires him. Hayter has saved some money, so he tells his wife (Kathleen Harrison) he fancies buying a small news and tobacco shop. He has a good eye, and his store thrives. Soon he has a whole chain of stores. When his grandchild is christened by Hordern, the latter is amazed to see how prosperous his ex-Verger. The payoff is when bank manager Felix Aylmer meets with Hayter about diversifying his investments. I'll leave it to you to hear the unintentional but ironic coda of the meeting.<br /><br />According to Maugham he met a man like Max Kelada (Nigel Patrick) on a cruise. In MR. KNOW-IT-ALL Kelada is a splashy, friendly, and slightly overbearing type from the Middle East who is on a business trip (regarding jewelry) by steamship. His state-room mate is Mr. Grey (the ever quiet and proper Wilfred Hyde-White) who is somewhat, silently disapproving of Max. Max likes to enliven things, and soon is heavily involved in the ship's entertainment. At this point the story actually resembles part of the plot of the non-Maugham story and film CHINA SEAS (1935), as Max makes a bet that he can tell a real piece of jewelry from a fake (after insisting that a piece of jewelry he spotted is real). I won't describe the way Max rises to the occasion.<br /><br />SANITORIUM is the longest segment. Roland Culver plays "Ashenden" (the fictional alter-ego of Maugham - a writer and one time spy as in Hitchcock's THE SECRET AGENT). Here he has to use a sanitorium for a couple of months for his health. He finds a remarkable crew of people, including Jean Simmons as a frail but beautiful young woman, Finlay Currie as an irascible Scotsman, John Laurie as a second irascible Scotsman who is "at war" with Currie, Raymond Huntley as a quiet patient who only shows his internal anger at his situation when his wife shows up, and Michael Rennie as a young man who has a serious life threatening illness. Culver watches as three stories among these characters play out to their conclusions. The last, dealing with Simmons and Rennie, is ironic but deeply moving.<br /><br />It was a dandy follow-up to the earlier QUARTET, and well worth watching.
|
positive
|
I wasn't entirely sure what to expect from a Comedy, Drama, Fantasy, Sci-Fi genre, but, given the actors involved I thought I'd give it a spin. The tone of the film felt awkward, going through patches of each of the genres but never quite felt balanced, so eventually I gave up trying, and concentrated on the cinematography and individual performances, which I thought were good on the whole, considering each character had little depth because of the nature of the story (won't give anything away here). I have to say it felt a LOT longer than its 96 minute runtime, and not in a good way. In the end I was looking for closure, some measure of satisfaction but it didn't turn out to be the clever or ingenious piece I had hoped it would be. I think Tony mistakenly thought what he did do at the end of the film gave us that... but it was a tragic mistake to try and validate the previous 95 minutes with the ill-conceived conclusion. Ultimately I feel cheated. IMO it would have been better to let it stand without the "ending" as a piece of Art... just. Or... I may have missed the point completely :)
|
negative
|
The Secret Fury, in many ways a run-of-the-mill romantic suspense drama (directed by Mel Ferrer) boasts top-notch principals in Colbert and Ryan; it stays puzzling if not quite gripping until towards the end, when implausibility conquers suspension of disbelief -- as so often it does in this genre. But for some viewers the film's highlight will be the portrayal of blowsy Leah by Vivian Vance -- the immortal Ethel Mertz on "I Love Lucy." Oddly, Vance had very few film roles; her true home was Broadway, where (among other gigs) she understudied for Ethel Merman. Here she contributes a winning turn as a chambermaid suborned to play a minor part in a nefarious scheme; watch her half-heartedly trying to wave away the smoke when she's puffing a furtive cigarette in the hotel's linen-storage room -- a transgression for which she ultimately pays the supreme penalty.
|
positive
|
As I write this, no user reviews are in yet, but there are 17 votes with a 4.8 average, so apparently some people thought this movie had its moments. I didn't notice any, and even if I had I don't think I could have stopped rolling my eyes for long enough to appreciate them.<br /><br />A common debate among movie buffs is whether major mistakes in science, police tactics, and the like so common in B movies should detract significantly from one's enjoyment. I tend to fall into the "Yes, that's a reasonable reaction" camp -- especially when the mistakes are central to the plot. With this movie, I look forward to reading how anyone can defend this mess. They completely botch pretty much every aspect of military tactics and strategy, police tactics, weapons, science, folklore, common sense, and human behavior (outside of B movies, that is.) In short, I can't think of any non-trivial thing they got right.<br /><br />Any movie would have its work cut out for it when its central premise is a supernatural spirit, impervious to all small arms, able to disappear into another dimension at will, and yet apparently vulnerable to simply a bigger explosion. (They don't make ghosts like they used to.) Combine this premise with every detail being wrong and you have a memorably bad movie.
|
negative
|
Fatal Contact: Bird Flu in America: 3 out of 10: This movie is both funny and sad. The funny part is fairly obvious as this certainly isn't a sober look at a possible impending crisis. This is a modern version of The Swarm. And much like those killer bees (and the so called killer bee crisis that prompted them) Bird Flu has joined a pantheon of media inspired end of the world scenarios (SARS, Y2K, Global Warming) that simply refuse to actually come about.<br /><br />The sad part is the blatant attempt of the filmmakers to inspire panic. Disease pandemics historically were fairly common after all people didn't all die in their forties from heart disease. Even recent pandemics such as AIDS mirrors the old fashioned VD crisis (Think syphilis) that used to kill more soldiers than bullets.<br /><br />The flu pandemic of the early twenties was a nasty business killing millions but honestly life went on. I wonder if our over dramatic media and their power hungry government allies would allow life as normal today.<br /><br />The movie itself swerves wildly from fairly competent scenes (Triage in grand Central Station) to the ridiculous (Rednecks try to ambush national guardsman in Manhattan).<br /><br />The scenarios themselves are fairly useless as the filmmakers can't seem to decide exactly how contagious the bird flu is or for that matter whether the symptoms are an Ebola style crash or simply a long illness. Indeed one scene will show everyone in bio-hazard suits and the next will have nobody even wearing a mask.<br /><br />The film also patently refuses to actually give any practical advice regarding what to do in a Bird Flu crisis. (Outside of wash your hands, what no duct tape?) The acting and directing are competent for a TV movie but the script is all over the map. Last the movie has a strangely non-exponential death total running on the bottom of the screen. Just like the Swarm did.
|
negative
|
Your average garden variety psychotic nutcase (deliciously essayed with unhinged glee by Stephen Sachs) knocks off various dim-witted young "adults" (to use the term very loosely) in Dayton Hall University, which is being closed down for demolition. Featuring dreadful acting by the entire cast (Daphne Zuniga makes her ignominious and inauspicious film debut here as Debbie, a bimbo who has her head crushed by a car!), a hefty corpse tally of 10, okay make-up f/x by Matthew Mungle, a few bloody murders (baseball bat bludgeoning, chicken wire strangulation, your standard drill through the head bit, that sort of gruesome thing), a downbeat surprise twist ending which was later copied in "Intruder," a creepy score by Christopher ("Hellraiser") Young, a slight smidgen of gratuitous female nudity, and endearingly incompetent direction by Jeffrey Obrow and Steve Carpenter (who also blessed us with "The Power" and "The Kindred"), this entertainingly abysmal slice'n'dice atrocity sizes up as a good deal of delectably dopey and drecky low-grade fun.
|
positive
|
I saw the film at the Belgrade Film Festival last week, and I'm still working off the trauma. Essentially my view seems to match a number of others - the first half hour was fresh, sharp, deep, entertaining and promising. Well acted too. Natural. My problem, however, is not simply with the fact that the final hour and a half of the film have nothing to do with the likable beginning, nor the fact that I spent most of this time convulsing in agony at sharp, grating industrial sounds and squinting at drunken, toothless, bread-chewing hags. It's rather with the fact that THEY NEVER WARNED ME!!! The festival brochure synopsis described only the (utterly intriguing-sounding) first half hour - a whore, piano tuner and meat seller chat in a bar, pretending to be an advertising agent, genetic engineer, and petty government administration official, respectively - making no mention whatsoever of the never-ending gum-smacking to come. Serves me right for not reading the reviews, you might say - but to my defense, a number of reviews I looked at post-fact um didn't at all stress the immensity and utter unbearableness of the greater part of the film.<br /><br />The first hint should have been the introductory words by the director (a bashful, tousle-haired Russian youth) who stepped in front of the crammed auditorium (the film seems to be doing incredibly well critically, and tickets were sold out well in advance of the screening, though most of the audience seemed as unaware as I was of the pain to come, judging by the plethora of unearthly moans and groans that utterly permeated the theatre during the last half hour, and many exasperated comments on exit) to say the following: 'Well, I... um, thank you very much for coming to see this film, and I just wanted to say... well, it's a very long film... it took me four years to make it, and... it's.. I suggest that you see it and immediately try to forget about it. It is very long. Thank you for coming.' This is what he said. Alarm bells should have been ringing. 'What's he talking about?' I thought in happy confusion. 'This is gonna be fun!' Of course, by the time his strangely apologetic comments started making sense to me, it was far too late to get out. All I could do is writhe in increasing agony until the lights came on again. And in the end I can't say I feel in any way improved by the experience. Yes, I absolutely loved the first half hour. It was intelligent, new, and had a lot to say. And yes, Russia is probably in a bad state. Yes, every society has many hidden faces. Yes, toothless life in barren wastelands is probably unimaginably hard. Yes yes yes. I get all of this. Really I do. But I see no earthly reason why art and meaning should be so agonisingly drawn out, and so painful to bear. If you want to see a film land somewhere between the extremes of glitzy Hollywood plastic fantastic and hours of muddy vodka swigging, try the Korean-Chinese Bin Jip (3-Iron). It's artsy and surprising, but also to-the-point and fun.
|
negative
|
Martino, a young teacher in the island of Elba, has been formed by Maestro Fontanelli, an excellent educator, to be his own man and to say whatever he thinks, something that gets him in trouble at the school where we first meet him because he is teaching revolutionary ideals. The island is in a frenzy because of the arrival of one of the most influential men in European history of the 19th century. Napoleon is coming to his exile, not exactly a high point in his life.<br /><br />With surprise, Martino is chosen to accompany Napoleon who is writing his memoirs and is in need of help for his own project. The young man comes from a sea merchant family. His brother and sister want him to go on an commercial expedition, but Martino has decided his place belongs in Elba because he will try to assassinate Napoleon. Little deters him after his mentor Fontanelli is tried for treason and condemned to be shot by a firing squad.<br /><br />Martino finds his consolation with the much older Baroness Emilia, a beautiful woman. In his own interaction with the deposed emperor, a different kind of man emerges. Napoleon is seen as a more human person who really enjoys the company of Martino, not suspecting with the plans the young man's own plans for him. Unfortunately, Martino is not able to put his design into action because Napoleon has other plans in mind.<br /><br />Paolo Virzi, the director of "Caterina va in citta", shows why his early promise is still there. Mr. Virzi also collaborated with the screenplay, which is based on a novel by Ernesto Ferrero. The director shows he is as good in intimate drama as well as with this type of spectacle. Alessandro Pesci, the cinematographer, does an excellent job with the images he was able to get.<br /><br />Elio Germano, a young Italian actor is the best thing in the movie. He is playing against more experienced players, yet he manages to convince us he is the idealist youth trying to get justice to what he perceives is a noble cause. The great Daniel Auteuil is a more subdued Napoleon than one would expect from anyone's interpretation of this larger than life man. Monica Belucci is the love interest of Martino, but she has little to do. Omero Antonutti plays Fontanelli.
|
positive
|
Don't waste your time. The plot drags, the characters are wooden and uninteresting, the motivations of their actions are completely indecipherable. Kept waiting for the "romantic" or "comedy" to occur, and nothing happened. Worse yet, the love letter isn't even romantic, but sounds like it was written by someone desperate to make a deadline. Did I mention that the "plot twist" which we saw coming from 15 mins into the movie was "Hollywood clever", meaning it is intended to shock, but given the Hollywood mentality- does nothing of the sort, and instead is vaguely offensive.<br /><br />It's not even worth the $2 to rent. Don't bother seeing it.
|
negative
|
If you can get past the slow start and bad acting it's worth watching. The story line was pretty decent. The father had a wicked temper because he was unemployed and he hardly got to see his kid except in the summer because his ex-wife had custody of him. The father was very angry and frustrated the majority of the time. The monster in the story wasn't too scary. The movie breaks consistency of the monster being so incredibly strong. The one scene that the moviemakers do this in is one of the times when the kid is down in the cellar and the monster goes to attack him. When the monster goes to attack the kid his arm gets caught in a steel trap attached to a chain. The monster is about a foot away from the kid's face. Every other time throughout the movie the monster is strong enough to break through or tear down anything. Yet the steel trap and chain holds him back from getting the kid! More than likely the moviemakers did this for shock factor because no one wants to see one of the main characters die. Moviemakers just wanted to scare us into thinking it may be a possibility that the kid could die. Instead of breaking consistency, the moviemakers should have replaced the kid with someone who they could dispose of!
|
negative
|
For all of us American Deneuve fans, this little gem is a little tough to get ahold of. Fortunately, I found myself so wrapped up in the short bits that I saw previewed on youtube.com that I was willing to go to any lengths. I found it on ebay.com, ordered it directly from France, and changed my laptop so it would play Region 2 DVDs. Let me tell you that it was well worth it. Be warned - there are NO subtitles (unforunately, Pathe shouldn't have released this on DVD, Koch Lorber should've - they're good about the subtitles). I don't speak a word of French. I can utter a syllable here and there, order a drink and whatnot. That having been said, this film was a treat anyway. I couldn't fully appreciate the supposed "bawdy" humor or the witty dialogue. Watching Deneuve and her cohorts was enough for me. I understood what was going on without need of the dialogue. It really says something about a film when those who can't speak the language enjoy it. <br /><br />The cinematography is wonderful. London is adorable as the smitten son-on-law. Loved the lesbian Mom. And, of course, what can I possibly say about our dear Mademoiselle Deneuve. She is one of a kind. Those eyes, that smile. I could watch her films all day. She really goes beyond beauty. People always say she's gorgeous. Well, yes, she is. But she is also VERY talented. I believed her every second of the way. Her conversation about chocolate and vanilla with London is too sweet. Her character even gets arrested for smoking dope with some 15 year old in the street. NOT TO BE MISSED! Fly to France and buy this if you have to. Great. 10
|
positive
|
Dooohhh! My Bwainn Hurrrts! Well it certainly does after this endurance test of a film. How on earth I managed to keep going without hitting the fast forward button lord only knows. <br /><br />Maybe it's me!!Maybe I don't get the premise of the film... or maybe I don't appreciate it's alleged mystical atmosphere. In my humble opinion though the film has about as much mystical atmosphere as a trip to McDonalds.<br /><br />In addition the characters were all dreadful and there is more character development in a Tom & Jerry cartoon. Yaarrrghhh! Why do I do it? why do I watch such tripe? It's enough to make one run away and join a monastery or the Foreign Legion!! YAARGH!! An absolutley dreadful film in just about every respect. Apart from that it's not to bad.
|
negative
|
1st watched 8/7/2004 - 3 out of 10(Dir-Brett Thompson): Silly, juvenile-focused movie about three kids being zapped into their favorite cartoon with their parents experiment. The script left much to be desired in this Hanna-Barbara like rip-off of some Saturday morning 'live-action with people in dinosaur costumes kids show' with some goofy cavemen hanging around. Nothing really to admire about this and nothing much to be said either. I'm just amazed I found this at a Blockbuster video store as bad as it was and the way the stores are ridding themselves of old VHS movies. I guess they couldn't even sell it, so back on the rental rack it went.
|
negative
|
A great look at the 60s through the eyes of four friends from their student days in 1960 to their reunion 10 years later - a Yugoslavian immigrant in love with the American dream and struggling to cope with the often violent reality; a prematurely balding undertaker's son; a soldier; and the crazy hippy girl they all love. Good direction and a strong cast do justice to Steve Tesich's brilliant script; the dialogue isn't as snappy as in "Breaking Away", but the themes of growing up and father-son conflict are dealt with just as well, and there are still a few wonderfully comic moments among the shocks and drama.
|
positive
|
For the life of me I can not understand the blind hype and devotion to this totally unbelievable movie......and I think I have the qualifications to say so.... I am a former Special Operations soldier with 14 years in the "lifestyle" ... This movie was totally totally unreal and obviously written by someone that did very little research into life in the Army, in combat or at a team or platoon level.<br /><br />Three EOD guys trouncing around Bagdad on their own????? Get Real... No chain of command????? Get Real... EOD clearing buildings??? Get Real....EOD/ Military Intelligence / Sniper qualified buck sergeant???? Get Real.... Wait... I shot and killed a bad guy and then let two guys take me without firing another shot or being injured at all???? Get Real....I carjack an Iraqi civilian, while I am only armed with a 9 mil, break into another civilians house, get punked by his wife then make it back to camp on foot in the middle of Bagdad at night without as so much as a scratch or confrontation???? Get Real...<br /><br />There is absolutely no adherence to military protocol {Army} and no resemblance at all to any Army unit that I have even encountered. Totally unbelievable and disrespectful to the men and women of EOD who contrary to this poor film are not wild adrenaline seeking yahoos but extremely qualified professionals doing an incredibly hard job.
|
negative
|
I came across this movie on TV. I hadn't heard of it before and almost changed the channel, but it quickly hooked me.<br /><br />The story of the struggle of the Burmese people against a military dictatorship was provoking. The level of brutality that some are willing to use to hold onto power is hard to believe. It makes me thankful to live in a country where the Government isn't likely to shoot people in the streets.<br /><br />The story of Laura Bowman was a good thread to hold the story of political struggle together.
|
positive
|
My wife and I watched this after DVR'ing it off of Encore action this past week. It has to be the worst horror flick either of us had ever seen. Predictable dialogue ( my wife and I were guessing the lines before they were spoken), hokey special effects, a screenplay that drifted all over the place. I think the part that was the most annoying was the stereotyping of the various characters in the plot, not to mention the gratuitous sex scene between two of the young heroines in the movie, neither of which had any real purpose other than to bare certain parts of their anatomy for the cameras. This movie should be categorized as comedy, not horror as the villains of the movie (spiders) were stop motion animated and not believable in the least. I can't say that I would have done a better job making a film myself, but it was very amateurish and wasn't even a "B" movie, somewhere closer to a "d" movie, or "f" if that is possible. I think even Science Fiction 3000 would have to pass on this one!
|
negative
|
....Rather well done, actually--attack the evil villains in their lair, stop a Little Big Horn style ambush, save the day via the waterboys' bugling, works for me. Stiff Upper British lip and all that.<br /><br />So how does it play on a DVD 66 years later? Struck me as being like a Western, subbing Apaches or Sioux for the Thugs, and the US Cavalry for the Imperial British Army. It's very Colonial in it's outlook, you know? White Man's burden and all that? Kipling certainly would have approved.<br /><br />Cary Grant, Fairbanks and MacLaglen play it as broadly as possible, putting some buddy buddy slapstick into the mix between the shootings and brawlings for good measure. (I had no idea it was Joan Fontaine as the token army wife--did they leave some of her scenes on the cutting room floor? very short-) None of them were aiming for an Oscar here--in fact Grant was not at his best in a few scenes--but sod it, it still works. And where else would Ben Casey wind up as an Indian bugler? Only in Hollywood.<br /><br />Def. check this out if you like adventure and pseudo-Western style antics. It was done by a bunch of pros, well I might add.<br /><br />*** outta ****
|
positive
|
EPSILON, a.k.a. ALIEN VISITOR, is not what I expected. This is a no-budget Australian film with no special effects other than speeded-up film and quick scene cuts. The female alien (who comes over immediately able to speak perfectly accented Australian) can "blip" from place to place or time to time and alter her perception of the flow of time to match the "faster" humans.<br /><br />An elderly grandmother tells her two granddaughters about a story a wandering man told her 40 years before, when an unnamed "She" came to the planet naked and completely disoriented, unable to recognize which star in the sky she came from...She meets a man alone camping in the Australian Outback, apparently bewildering him. She is here by "mistake", and gets angry when she is told she is on Earth. The Earthlings are known as consummate despoilers of the environment and a metaphor for the most insulting thing imaginable to the rest of the universe: those who "breathe the foul air" but do nothing about it, sticking their heads under the sand like an ostrich. In another amusing metaphor, Earthlings are "frogs".<br /><br />From there, it is entirely a film about dialogue, as the perplexed man tries to understand She's peculiar psychology and viewpoints, even as She calls him unintelligent and "quaint". The man begins to realize maybe it's humans who are irrational and not thinking straight. Yet, while waiting to be "beamed up" back home, She sees that this human is not entirely faulty in his thinking and even falls in love with him.<br /><br />The dialogue about perspectives is in spots interesting, but it is all layered with a heavy-handed environmental message and a low-budget feel (there are only two main actors, who blip around various deserted scenes, and the evil despoiling humans on the planet are never seen at all). The environmental message offers no solutions, but paints one or two dire metaphors about what will happen to nature and man if something isn't done. The logic also doesn't hang together: the rest of the universe has "given up" on Earth, yet one space woman caught on Earth by mistake manages to effect some positive change by the conclusion of the movie. What would a battalion of aliens deliberately sent here manage to achieve against pollution and waste?
|
negative
|
This was an excellent movie with good acting and it keeps your attention through to the very end. Maybe people are either tired or uncomfortable with the subject matter and that's why it's being trashing so much. It could also be too deep for many of the viewers out there who give movies like the American Pie series higher ratings.<br /><br />Jake Gyllenhaal is a CIA analyst, not an agent, who is to observe an interrogation of an Egyptian man by Moroccans, not Egyptians. He's not supposed to be a hardened agent and so comes off as naive of the interrogation techniques used. This is more believable than if he were to come across as being an "old hat" at it.<br /><br />The story jumps around a bit and can be confusing, but it also makes you stay focused on whats going on until the end when everything comes together as the puzzle falls into place. The supporting actors did a good job of helping to carry the movie. I found the movie to be powerful and thought provoking.
|
positive
|
Robert Montgomery-Myrna Loy farce about Loy (Irene) and her fiancé, played by Reginald Owen, stranded in Labrador when their plane crashes. (That's really what should have happened to this highly predictable film.) Montgomery lives there while he is waiting for his fiancé.<br /><br />Surprise! Montgomery and Loy are soon attracted to each other. The scene with the bear is so contrived. We knew it was a tamed bear all along.<br /><br />Complications ensue when Clara shows up. Loy wants Montgomery to tell Clara that they should part ways, when he refuses, she wants to leave at once.<br /><br />You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out how this will end. Out with all that snow, it's just too cold for anyone!
|
negative
|
The first thing I wanted to do after watching this film was watch it again (because I'd missed lots with all the laughing I did). I'm European and I've studied abroad and I've as good as lived with Spanish, french, Italian and German people. The film was full of stereotypes, which, more often than not, p*** people off, and reading some of the other reviews I see that it did p*** people off. But, this film gets the stereotypes so right I cannot fault it. Except for maybe the way the french guy became a drunken party animal. The English guy was the perfect "geezer" stereotype. Drunk, annoying, insulting but shines through in the end. As well as the stereotypes the film also got the emotional aspect of studying abroad correct. At first he's shy, doesn't know anybody, misses home, doesn't know his way around. As time progresses it becomes his home and when the time comes to leave, it is extremely difficult. A feeling people can only understand if they've experienced it. I highly recommend this film.
|
positive
|
even though this movie is quite old, no matter how many times i watch it, it still makes me laugh. <br /><br />one particular quote in the movie stands out. <br /><br />when Danny( Joe Piscopo) pulls up to the d.a's office & parks in a disabled spot, Danny's partner says <br /><br />" can't park here, it's for the handicapped". <br /><br />Danny replies " i am handicapped,i'm psychotic".<br /><br />that is one of the many lines in the movie that no matter how many times you watch, it'll make you chuckle.<br /><br />Johnny Dangerously stands in my top 5 comedy/spoof movies of all time.<br /><br />As an added bonus it also includes the legendary actor Peter Boyle in the cast. So watch this movie & like myself & many others who have watched it, you'll be hooked.
|
positive
|
I watched the trailer on the DVD after seeing the film, and I think anyone who saw it before watching the film would be very surprised and possibly disappointed. It made much of the fact that the film was "by the director of Cube" and made it look like a horror film, when in fact it is an Absurdist comedy (IMDB's spell checker doesn't seem to think that Absurdist is a word, but it is), reminiscent of Rosencrantz and Guildernstern are Dead.<br /><br />I love the way the story builds up slowly at first, then gradually escalates. I also enjoy the fact that no explanation is given for what happens in the film. That and the fact that the story plays out mainly in just the one set are the only respects in which this film is similar to Cube. I recommend it.
|
positive
|
This movie was difficult for me to watch. Stan looked very old and ill compared to what I remembered, and Ollie was heavier than I ever recall in another film. Most difficult though were gaps in the script/production where I found myself wondering, "How did they get from here to there???" It took nearly half the film before I could deal with the dubbing of non-American actors -- that was also a distraction.<br /><br />Although I miss great actors such as Laurel and Hardy -- will there ever be great actors like those of the old studio era??? -- this film helps me understand why actors sometimes "bow out" in their prime.
|
negative
|
This Harold Lloyd short wasn't really much; not one of his funnier efforts. Of course, I never see bratty kids as anything hilarious. That's what the bulk of this story is, Harold and his wife, Mildred Davis, babysitting his in-laws two young kids. One is a baby who is constantly crying and the other is a four-year-old terror who does everything but demolish the house. Letting the kid create havoc over and over was not entertaining to me.<br /><br />The best part was the last four or five minutes when the couple thinks that this big goon (Noah Young) is burglarizing their house. Half the time it's the pet cat scaring the couple, but overall, that segment is fun with some good sight gags, reminding me of another Lloyd short, "Haunted Spooks."<br /><br />However, the good ending doesn't save the whole picture, which I probably wouldn't watch again. Lloyd has done too many other good things to waste even 25 minutes on this one again. It just isn't that funny.
|
negative
|
I'm desperately trying to stay awake while watching the movie Solomon Kane. I have about a 20 minutes to go. If it gets any better, I will come back here and let you know, but somehow I doubt that will happen. Solomon Kane looks like it is based on the video game Dark Watch, and it sounds like it is based on the video game Legacy of Kane, but unfortunately neither is true. I hear it is based on some comic book or graphic novel or pulp fiction or something else that I have never heard of, but whatever it is based on, there is nothing original in this excruciatingly boring movie. The atmosphere is stolen from the movie 300, which wasn't that great in the first place. The tedious overacting takes itself so seriously that it's nearly hypnotic, and to be clear I mean that in a bad way. The plot is practically non-existent: violent guy trying to be nonviolent meets friendly family, friendly family is murdered, violent guy becomes violent again. All the characters are stereotypes taken from Waterworld or Book of Eli or The Hills Have Eyes or, whatever, just choose another apocalyptic slash fantasy slash wizardry movie that you have seen and there you have it. Someone, somewhere, said, this is how to make a movie: use a blue filter to make everything look mysterious, add plenty of slow motion shots of horse hooves splashing in murky puddles, add snowflakes hovering around while two boring characters are speaking to each other, and oh yes rain pouring down dramatically to distract from the fact that nothing is really happening, and don't forget the black silhouettes walking toward us with fire blazing behind them, and lots of torches burning, and of course blurry fight scenes during which it's not clear what is actually happening because we don't have the budget for the gory special effects so just throw in the sound of metal clanking, and, oh, by the way, don't let any character live long enough for the audience to understand them, relate to them or sympathize with them, and cross fingers, hope that fans of sword and sorcery films will eat it up, even though it is complete doo doo, and go straight to video, do not pass GO . . .
|
negative
|
I was subjected to this terrible excuse for a made for TV movie. I only watched it because I don't have cable and my only other choices were Golf, College Basketball, or local news. The plot is very generic and has no substance that I could see, not to mention it had a major flaw in my eyes. The main character, Dr. Sorensen, is a washed up astronomer who believes that an asteroid named "Nemesis" will strike Earth, causing all life to cease. He bases his belief on his discovery of cave paintings by an Aboriginee (I'm sure I spelled that one wrong). The paintings show an apparent timeline, showing significant events throughout history, such as the building of the Great Wall of China. All of the events are shown in perfect chronological order, and the very last picture on the timeline is Earth being destroyed. Now to me, if the painting showed things that had indeed happened, why would the great Doctor believe that he could somehow change what was going to happen? All that aside, the movie moved along with extreme formulaic precision. There was nothing in the movie that surprised me at all. The actors were not very good, and on a few occasions I just felt that they didn't even take the movie seriously to put forth enough effort to try to convince me that the characters were worth caring about. The whole movie was cliche ridden and a downright waste of time and money. I'd recommend Armageddon over this piece of crap any day. At least Armageddon has some good acting (compared to this), not to mention the eye candy that is Liv Tyler. Now that I think about it, Golf isn't that bad.......
|
negative
|
Stewart Kane (Gabriel Byrne, VANITY FAIR) heads out with his local Jindabyne, Australia fishing buddies for a weekend of rest, recreation, and relaxation. But when Stewart discovers an aboriginal woman's body floating face-down in a river, things appear to have turned out for the worst. The largest casualty of the weekend is the men's commonsense. They don't hike out of the ravine, and instead finish their fishing weekend with some great catches. Then they head out and report the body.<br /><br />The town and the men's lives quickly turn into a mess. The local media swarms them, and accusations of aboriginal prejudices rear up from the local natives. Stewart's wife Claire (Laura Linney, THE EXORCISM OF EMILY ROSE) senses the deeper meanings of what her husband and his friends did, but has to battle with it through her own mental illness.<br /><br />Amidst all this chaos is the life that was this young woman who is now a media spectacle, splayed out on a morgue slab. Her murder and subsequent dumping into the water are symbolic of what lay beneath the town of Jindabyne: a division of men and women, black and white, social and outcast.<br /><br />The only other people who seem to understand some of what is going on are two young kids: Stewart and Claire's son who is being led around by a half-breed Aussie who's mother was killed also just a few years before. The young girl lives with her grandparents and is trying to let go of her mother the best way she can, and the discovery of a new body seems strangely enough a method in which to accomplish this (again, the underlying current of Jindabyne is surmised).<br /><br />Everything and everyone in this Jindabyne township feels what lurks beneath its surface, yet none of them are willing to dive into the murky waters and take a look around (the symbolism here is seen when a nearby lake that is used for recreation and swimming is said to contain the old town of Jindabyne under its surface). None, that is, until Claire forces them to.<br /><br />The movie is interesting if a bit too convoluted. There are far too many story lines that needed exploring and it just doesn't get done; too many loose threads. The acting was okay, but the filming was terrible. Wobbly cameras, grainy or dark shots, and just a generalized sloppiness hurt the overall production.<br /><br />I enjoy symbolic films, NORTHFORK being one of my all-time favorites in that vein. But Jindabyne needed to peak its head above the turbid water so that it could see its own problems, which simply didn't happen.
|
negative
|
I have to give this movie a 4 because of a couple of things.<br /><br />1. What I'll call the "stupid victim syndrome". If you have the killer on the floor and you have his gun - shoot him please. If you are a cop and you have your shotgun pointed at the killer's back - shoot him please.<br /><br />2. When you are in a high stress situation and you have your finger on the trigger of a gun - your first instinct is to squeeze. This is one of the first things they teach you in handgun training and the reason that you don't put your finger on the trigger until you are ready to fire - ask any hunter or infantryman. If you are electrocuted, your muscles should also contract - making you squeeze your finger.<br /><br />3. It's really hard to lay on the floor completely still for 8 hours without 2 other people - one of them a doctor - not noticing that you aren't dead. Even more so if you are supposedly dying of a brain tumor and were in the hospital just a few months earlier.<br /><br />4. Technically, the killer did kill one of his victims - the guy he injected with poison that had to get the antidote. If you poison someone, that is murder.<br /><br />5. What was Adam's lesson that he was supposed to learn? Yes, the doctor needed to be there, but what was Adam's crime? Maybe I just missed something.<br /><br />Other than those things, I would have given this movie a higher grade. The plot was pretty good, and the ways the killer chose to kill his victims were very inventive. I can even forgive the terrible acting on the doctor's part - the scenes with his family were enough to make me sick. The cinematography and soundtrack were very good, but the ending seemed contrived and just didn't work for me. Thank goodness I didn't have to pay to see this or I would have demanded a refund.
|
negative
|
I could only get through about 25 mins of it. Not one laugh in the 25 minutes I gave it, one of the most painful films I've ever had to endure. Chris Kattan is so nervous on screen that it made me nervous to watch him. Just a horrible movie.
|
negative
|
I, for one, absolutely loved this movie.<br /><br />It is not a "typical Asian horror" where you would see a gruesome looking ghost (usually a woman) that is going around scaring people. You barely see any ghosts for a majority of the film, but the way this movie keeps you interested in the plot and characters is genius. This is not the movie for you if you're into gore (e.g. Saw, Hostel) or "surprise scares" where stuff pops out at you (Hollywood horror, slasher films), but this movie has an underlying "creepy" factor throughout the entire movie which I loved. Noroi is a progressive and somewhat experimental approach to horror amongst the ridiculous remakes and unoriginal crap being released by Hollywood in today's society.<br /><br />Please don't let the documentary-style of filming turn you off (why should it?!). It is far superior to the Blair Witch Project because, for one, the acting in Noroi is brilliant and it really makes you really feel like you're watching something you're not supposed to be seeing.<br /><br />Noroi is definitely one of the best horror movies I have ever seen. Only a few films have made it into my Top 5 horror; and this movie holds a solid #1 spot on my list.
|
positive
|
This one is a real stinker.<br /><br />The story just isn't up to par with most other TZ episodes. It's pretty boring, though seeing Peter Falk made up as a Fidel Castro lookalike is kind of amusing.<br /><br />Whenever Twilight Zone would be aired at an unannounced hour in my hometown, I'd grab a sandwich and a drink and settle in for some quality entertainment. 9 times out of 10, it wound up being THIS episode! Strange thing? This often happened to my mom (another TZ fan like me) as well. There were so many times that one of us would say to the other, "I was all set to watch _The Twilight Zone_ and guess which episode was on? The Cuban Dictator episode!" Obviously some people like this episode, as it gets a 6.7 rating ... how that happened, I have no idea - but THAT in and of itself would make a great Twilight Zone plot!
|
negative
|
A real insult to the original "Spoorloos", which is one of the most genuinely disturbing films (and I intend this as a compliment!) I have seen in the last years.<br /><br />Where the original is chilling and brilliant, the remake is flat and even boring, especially the "happy end" finale takes away what little suspense there was in this film in the first place.<br /><br />While such a distortion (especially grafting a "happy end" which wasn't there previously) is quite frequently the case in "Hollywood" remakes of European art-house movies and could've been expected, the biggest disappointment lies in the fact that this inane mess was created by the very same filmmaker who did the original "Spoorloos"...<br /><br />Why Mr. Sluizer decided to ruin his masterpiece in such a fashion is beyond me.<br /><br />Avoid this abomination at all cost, as it might spoil the original for you even if watched *after* that, let alone the other way round...
|
negative
|
* Firstly, although many say it is the worst of the series, i don't think that it is true,considering this one ideally reflects the 21 century teen mentality .it brings perfect opportunities to make you laugh and remind you of the good teenager times when you would have liked to have same fun as the characters do.<br /><br />* I Agree with the fact that it is a teenager movie but comedy movies nowadays aren't supposed to be for teenagers?i mean... cinemas are mostly the place for teenagers to hang out; plus ,seeing such a movie during a sleepover or something like that is very good for having a very good time.<br /><br />* Many comment about the amount of nudity in this movie. Well...let's get real...doesn't that reflect the thoughts of teen guys like those from the movie? what would you like to see...smart books,romantic stuff? that is not at all what would be in those teenagers' minds ...<br /><br />* To conclude, i think that if you are a teenager, you must absolutely see the movie, and even if you are a real grown up man or a woman, you should see it if you still have a teen mind or you often think about how it was being a teenager,or things like that. Thanks for reading!
|
positive
|
When I sat down to watch 'Largo Winch' I expected nothing more than action scenes and fascinating cars. When I stood up, I've seen both of these; and more.<br /><br />Karl Roden was finally not the antagonist in a movie, to start with. Kristin Scott Thomas played her role well, but the real two stars in my opinion were Tomer Sisley and Miki Manojlovic, both acting superbly. In Radivoje Bukvic portrayed Goran well.<br /><br />The mixed linguistics brought a nice color to the movie, but I understand why people would get bored with it.<br /><br />The scenery of Hong Kong and especially the stunning Croatian seaside both amazed me, and I hardly wanted to take my eyes off the screen when Largo entered the unbelievably beautiful island.<br /><br />Rolls Royce Phantom; Mercedes S500, and BMW 7; if anyone loves expensive limousine - type cars; this is their movie. It is also a movie for people who love action sequences, good acting, landscapes of extremal beauty, and above all, a fast - paced, well written action movie, with dazzling combat and a thoroughly twined inner drama.<br /><br />My vote, as it has enlightened a gloomy day is: 10/10
|
positive
|
The Child's Play series isn't a favourite of mine, but Bride Of Chucky is actually an okay movie. This time we have two dolls Chucky and his former girlfriend (when he was human) Tiffany. Together they go on a journey to find an object. There are a few interesting scenes through the movie like the guy getting hit by the truck and literally exploding, the sex scene between Chucky and Tiffany and the ending which allows for another sequel to take place. Wasn't really a straight forward horror, it mixed a lot of comedy and was a sort of spoof of the horror genre. This made the movie better like comedy does do with many horror movies. All up even if your not a Child's Play fan give this one a go.
|
positive
|
This blaxploitation classic about a kung fu mama who travels to Hong Kong to avenge her brother's death offers everything you learned to expect from the genre. Playmate Jeannie Bell (with a giant afro) really kicks ass and usually loses her clothes very quickly. If you don't take it all too seriously, the movie is great fun to watch. Stan Shaw gives a solid performance, Jeannie Bell is a little less convincing. Pam Grier she ain't.<br /><br />This is where Quentin Tarantino got his idea for the light switch scene in "Jackie Brown" from.<br /><br />The soundtrack by Don Julian is a gem and is frequently used in rap songs.
|
positive
|
What a great film! I never knew much about Buddy Holly, but was familiar with his lively and fun music. This is a wonderful biography of someone who helped change the music in the 1950's. Although I never cared for Gary Bussey, he was fabulous as Buddy Holly! I don't know how accurate the movie is, but assume at least for the most part it is accurate, which makes the movie all the more interesting. The music throughout the movie just adds the pizazz to this biography. I don't think I would change a thing in this film, it was all good! What a difference in the stars from the 50's to todays music stars. How can you compare someone like Buddy Holly to Justin Timberlake? or any of the other popular singers of this generation?
|
positive
|
Intelligent summary, isn't it?<br /><br />If Mad Max was something of a simple, straight forward, nothing special but nothing wrong either kinda film, they totally made up for it with it's sequel, The Road Warrior. So, in theory, with a third great film it would've been a great trilogy... now, it's not!<br /><br />Such a huge disappointment Beyond Thunderdome was! It's main premise is pretty cool, with an 'underworld' (think a mix between Metropolis and The Time Machine), but it all isn't carried out with too much conviction. Add the obnoxious Tina Turner and the no good story-line of the people waiting for a plane, and this is just one huge stinker.<br /><br />Maybe they can brighten things up again with part 4 (although that one is just probably gonna be 1 huge budget-explosion kinda thing), because this just isn't right.<br /><br />3/10.
|
negative
|
Jack Bender's "The Tempest" is an adaption of Shakespeare's play "The Tempest". Bender transports the plot from medieval Italy to Mississippi during the time of the American civil war. He includes the slavery problem and the role of revenge in wartimes.<br /><br />Prospero, re-named Gideon Prosper is not the Duke of Milan but a landowner in Mississippi. He learns voodoo magic from the female slave Mambo Azaleigh. He saves her son Ariel, who thus accompanies him into his exile. The island is not situated on the sea but in a swamp near the banks of the Mississippi. There lives an Alligator hunter, a so-called "Gator-Man", who later tries to rape Prospero's daughter Miranda. During the time of the civil war, Ariel wants to join the Union troops to help fighting against slavery. Prospero does not care about the war. He is only interested in his personal revenge on his brother Antony. When Antony and his bookkeeper Willi Gonzo (Gonzalo) try to cross the river, Prospero raises a storm. The Union soldier Frederick gets lost in the swamp and finally comes to the island. He and Miranda fall in love with each other but Prospero won't accept that. Meanwhile, Ariel transformed into a raven by Prospero, finds out that Antony has feigned to ally with the Union but plans to betray them. Antony and Gonzo meet Gator Man in the swamp and conspire with him against Prospero. They kidnap Miranda and Ariel but Prospero freeze them and helps the Union defeat the Southern army. In the end Ariel is free, Frederick and Miranda are bound to marry, Prospero returns to the plantation and Gator Man gets back the island.<br /><br />Peter Fonda represents Gideon Prosper powerfully and convincingly while the character of Antony stays rather flat. It was no bad idea to perform the Tempest before the background of the civil war but perhaps the director has risked too much. In some parts the story seems constructed or comical. Gator Man for example does just appear without any explanation. That it needs a kidnapping to bring Prospero to his mind and that he loses confidence in his power shows that Bender tried to make Prospero more human but only made him a weak old man without his magic. Prospero's original authority and wisdom is not made clear.<br /><br />-------------End of Part 1----------------------------
|
negative
|
After watching this movie, I have nothing but contempt for any of those who were involved in the making of this abysmal film. For one, as a general comment, the storyline was literally unbelievable and filled with incredible clichés all around. The same obviously goes for the dialogue which panders to the lowest common denominator and manages to offer absolutely zero unpredictable original lines. The acting was terrible as well with Kane showing, throughout the entire movie, at the very most 3 separate and distinct emotions. Even the use of modern special effects failed, as each prop was easily distinguishable from its real life counterpart. Overall, I would not recommend for anyone to even think about viewing this feature, as it will most surely waste 83(not even 90!) minutes of your life.
|
negative
|
Roger Spottiswoode isn't the worst director, and he did a good job on the underrated sci-fi thriller "The Sixth Day" (a.k.a. "The Box Office Downfall of Mr. Schwarzenegger"). However, "Air America" has to be one of his most inept projects.<br /><br />It comes across as an amalgamation between drama, comedy and war film - it's not a very convincing mix. In fact, I found it to be overbearing.<br /><br />Robert Downey, Jr. (during his heyday) stars as a pilot recruited into a top secret CIA organization operating during Laos in the Vietnam era. Mel Gibson plays his co-pilot and he stumbles upon the knowledge that they're trafficking drugs, and what not.<br /><br />The movie was hyped on release because it starred two famous faces and Aerosmith had re-recorded the Doors classic "Love Me Two Times" for the soundtrack.<br /><br />The redo of the song is pretty poor, which suits the film.
|
negative
|
Action & Adventure.Billie Clark is twenty years old, very pretty, and without a care in the world,until a brutal street gang violates her life, and she turns into an ALLEY CAT bent on revenge! When the gang attacks her grandparents house and her car, Billie uses her black belt prowess to fight them off. But at the same time she earns their hatred, and she and her grandparents are marked for vengence.When her grandparents lose their lives to the brutal thugs. Billie becomes like a cat stalking her prey-and no prison,police force,boyfriend,or crooked judge can get in the way of her avenging claws. She's a one-woman vigilante squad,a martial arts queen,a crack shot with no mercy. She's the ALLEY CAT.Watch for the dramatic ending versus the Gang leader! Rated R for Nudity & Violence, Other Films with Karin Mani: Actress - filmography,Avenging Angel (1985) .... Janie Soon Lee , "From Here to Eternity" (1979) (mini) TV Series .... Tawny, Filmography as: Actress, Stunts - filmography,Avenging Angel (1985) (stunts)P.S. She should have been Catwoman in the Batman Movie!<br /><br />
|
positive
|
SO good, the acting, cutting, directing in there may not be the best ever, but the dancing, the moves, the heat and the passion in this movie is definitely the best (well...atleast for me ^^) it really touched me, inspired me to learn dancing. i even especially registered to this site just so i could vote on it and contribute my support for this movie. for this movie, it literally gave me goosebumps when i watched it. i love it. Jennifer Grey is SO pretty! Patrick is so sexy in there!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! the first thing i'll do tomorrow, on my way to university will be to drop by the video store n buy a copy of it, n watch it again n again till i am old n wrinkly n cant dance with the movie any longer. before than I NEED TO LEARN ALL THE DANCE MOVES THERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
positive
|
I, also having endured hundreds of children's movies in the past, consider this to be one of the worst I have ever seen.<br /><br />1) I resent in this day and age having to explain to my children that Russia is not "the bad guys". Also, that mocking Russian names like "Poopchev" is inappropriate.<br /><br />2) The grandfather fly's birthday party scene contained a quasi-sexist joke in which he implied that males drink beer and women talk on the phone. Two other flies also needlessly use the word "crap" twice.<br /><br />3) The whole movie largely smacks of 1950's stereotypes and propaganda that I thought we, as a nation, were proud to have risen above.<br /><br />In all it's just crude, badly animated, even more badly written and not worth wasting the time to view.
|
negative
|
I had no background knowledge of this movie before I bought it, but it sounded cool and I've been wanting to see a really kick-butt Viking movie for awhile now... alas, this film was not what I was looking for. I had hoped for the best, but instead, was delivered a boring Nordic soap-opera that seemed to drag on too long despite its 84 minute running time. The film's premise is intriguing enough: It's about a Viking warlord who defies his God and Odin is so enraged that he curses the warlord's son, named Barek, to death and rebirth as a Berserker. This Barek guy is then forced to live enraged, insane, and violent lifetime after lifetime. The movie is filmed competently enough, with some rich cinematography and quasi-good performances by the actors, but again, I found myself bored and questioning when this dribble would end. The filmmakers had a chance to make something rather entertaining and semi-unique but they dropped the ball. Perhaps it could've been improved with some cheap exploitation tactics thrown in such as gratuitous nudity and lots of gore... I mean, we are talking about "Berserkers" here, aren't we? Vikings were supposed to be BAD enough, what with all the raping and pillaging, so aren't Berserkers supposed to be even more extreme? All in all, unless you're a fan of The Young and Restless (etc...) or, are yourself, in fact, an insane Berserker who likes self torture, I'd probably steer clear of this drab piece of celluloid.
|
negative
|
This was not enjoyable to watch. Frank puts all his dreams on the back burner and gets a normal (boring!) job just so his stepson can go to film school, but his stepson decides that he'll make a humiliating documentary about the man instead. A documentary filmmaker should point the camera and simply shoot, not manipulate and comment with snide captions. The bitterness and resentment of the filmmaker towards his stepfather is obvious. And sad. The goal seems to be to make Frank appear dumb and pathetic, instead he comes across as the most human of the 3 people featured.<br /><br />Essentially a smear campaign all dressed up as something much smarter and edgier than it really is. It left me with an intense dislike for the filmmaker.
|
negative
|
Where to begin? How about with the erroneous synopsis: <br /><br />"X-Men Origins: Wolverine tells the story of Wolverine's epically violent and romantic past, his complex relationship with Victor Creed, and the ominous Weapon X program."<br /><br />His epically violent past turns out to exceptionally non-violent.<br /><br />His relationship with Creed is so glossed over it's difficult to understand how they have any connection at all. We are thrown from one point in the opening scene that shows them as children on the run, to a montage of war scenes that they have fought in throughout their long lifespan, and finally to the present where they are a part of a hardcore government team of assassins.<br /><br />There is nothing by way of showing their relationship as brothers at all. Nothing complex is laid down for us to believe is authentic or even loving. <br /><br />The romantic element of the movie between Silverfox and Wolverine was forced and abrupt. We are thrown into a romance so fast that it's over before you can blink an eye. Having just introduced the character, Silverfox is killed off roughly fifteen minutes later. We are left wondering why we should care about this. Who was she anyway?<br /><br />For a pivotal element of this weak revenge driven story, the romance is surprisingly unexplored. It was rushed in simply because it was required.<br /><br />Oddly enough, when Wolverine finds that his love is dead he leaves her in the woods to rot as he goes off to find Sabertooth. Being the romantic that he is this was out of character for him yet necessary to serve the plot in pulling off a very predictable surprise.<br /><br />As for the weapon X program, lets just say that after the painfully crippling procedure Wolverine is up and running. Eventually he arrives at the home of a conveniently old yet overwhelmingly loving couple. Surprisingly Ma and Pa Kent aren't alarmed when finding a naked sweaty man in their barn. Is it any wonder what fate awaits them?<br /><br />In the previous films and the comic books, the main reason that Wolverines' amnesia plagued him partly hinged on the fact that he was said to have been viciously evil and coldblooded.<br /><br />Knowing this was the case...did he really want to remember such horrors or keep them hidden and continue his current more positive lifestyle of fighting against the villains of the world alongside his team mates?<br /><br />As hinted to in X2: X-men United when Stryker gives up some of his secrets it is said that Wolverine would be disturbed if he had known of the evil works they committed together. This film sets up the team fairly well only they don't really do much of anything. No disturbing violence, no ruthless actions, they merely harass a few natives in foreign lands for the ten or fifteen minutes they are on screen. <br /><br />It seems that Wolverine wasn't an evil man under Stryker at all. Instead he was constantly trying to put a leash on his brother Sabertooth which consequently WAS the violent agent we all thought Wolverine was. Eventually he just leaves all together.<br /><br />No conflict of duality here at all.<br /><br />Idiotically REMOVING that character conflict of good and evil DULLED the story immensely. They may as well have given him rubber claws.<br /><br />There were a ton of other errors in this film that contradicted the X-Men trilogy, including the introduction of one of the lamest Deus Ex Machinas to ever hit a script.<br /><br />Magic memory-erasing bullets. <br /><br />Really?<br /><br />Apparently they are the only thing to bring down Wolverine. Yet this was apparently forgotten when agent after agent was sent to bring him down with bullets and bombs that would surely not work on him at all.<br /><br />Another problem with this film is that it tried to focus on Wolverine while throwing in a ton of other mutants which did little to nothing at all. Interesting characters were mere window dressing and did nothing for the story. Most were in the film for 5-10 minutes max and yet you find yourself wishing we saw more of them and less of Wolverine.<br /><br />Fred Dukes (the Blob but not the comic version) can punch a launched tank missile with little to no physical damage to him at all, but a simple headbutt from Wolverines metal noggin is enough to daze him?<br /><br />Cyclops optic beams (which instead of being concussive force are now more akin to lasers) can burn through buildings but when fired at Sabertooth directly it simply smashes him into the ground without even damaging his clothes. Adamantium trench coats anyone?<br /><br />The (gravity defying) mutant Gambit, instead of utilizing his signature cards, is made into some sort of crazy acrobat. In one poorly edited scene he is knocked unconscious by Wolverine...then amazingly enough a few minutes later he is on a rooftop running TOWARDS Wolverine. How he regained consciousness, ran away a few blocks, climbed up a building, then ran back to Wolverine and Sabertooth in the middle of a scratching match is a mystery yet to be explained.<br /><br />Some have excused this films weakness by claiming it was made from a comic and therefore should be weak on character and heavy on flash. The idea that this movie being a comic film is flimsy and superficial because of that fact is incorrect.<br /><br />The comic book source material, the REAL origin of Wolverine...is a story worth bringing to the screen. It doesn't sugar coat his past nor treat the reader like mindless CGI junkies. It is a well crafted story and although retold and readjusted over time, began with WEAPON X by Barry Windsor-Smith. A much more intense and exciting story.<br /><br />This FOX film should seriously be forgotten. <br /><br />Anyone have that magic gun?<br /><br />4/10
|
negative
|
I still wonder why I watched this movie. Admittedly, before I viewed this film, I knew practicly nothing about the beatles. I didn't even know all their names! All I knew was that they had a ton of fans, they had some albums that some people claim to be the greatest ever, they broke up, John married Yoko Ono, and John was murdered.<br /><br />Also, VH1 isn't even my favorite music station, MTV is. Still, for some reason or another I decided to watch it, not expecting much. Surprisingly, I enjoyed it very much! The dialogue was written and handled very well with the occasion of a slight accent mess up. This is very important, because John and Paul talking is pretty much the whole film, allthough they are taken outside to explore more possibilities, and to keep you watching. Jared Harris and Adien Quinn give good performaces,overall.<br /><br />The ending was also very smart. I enjoyed how the movie gets you excited about the SNL performace, and then slaps you over the head and makes you realize that it would be better if they just let it go, and end it on a good note. My favorite moment is probably the touching rooftop scene.<br /><br />Overall, I recommend this film to almost everyone. It is a very good way of settling your curiosity of what could have happened if 6 years after the break up Paul just showed up on John's doorstep. Which is probably the main reason of my viewing this film, settling my curiosity on who the beatles really were and what could have happened to them after the breakup.
|
positive
|
The movie shocked me. Personally i had herd mostly bad buzz. Well finally after owning the DVD for months now i pooped it in on a sleepless night. though the movie did drag the extra footage was used with purpose the seriousness of his passion and his recovery from addition to the game would have been less realistic if they had left out any scenes. The best thing about the movie is it's consistency with the relationship. There were no ex's popping up or characters threatening the relationship. I mean typically we see the girl meets boy by some amazing twist of fate,they date,something we saw coming breaks them up up and then they get back together in the last five minutes of the movie. but this movie did not follow that mold. We actually experienced the relationship and it's flaws and though the characters did have there moments of anti-love they did not have dramatic pauses were they went off and did a montage every 15 and then reunite in love again. i did not feel the movie was as predictable as the rest of the romance movies. The story was unique and truthful to reality in the way that i felt these people in the film were the most believable that i have seen in a romance film from modern times.And it did not hurt that all the baseball games were real and they were at the actual world series so fate kicked in a little there also. It's no "My fair lady" but it is a spirited and honest film. I'll simply say i like it.
|
positive
|
I second the motion to make this into a movie, it would be great!! I was also amazed at the storyline and character build in this game. I have played it again and again (over 20 times) just to try something different and it gets more interesting every time. Final Fantasy eat your heart out!! THIS SHOULD BE MADE INTO A MOVIE!!!!! If anyone out there wants some help to start a petition to have this made into a movie, please contact me. I would love to help with that project any day. The graphics are great for PS1 and even make you forget it is PS1 most of the time. The multitude of side quests makes it different every time you play.
|
positive
|
End of Days, starts off pretty well, Arnie plays a down and out cop (a very similar character to Riggs in Lethal weapon) and the story looks like a kind of serial killer action thriller that will be good entertainment.<br /><br />Sadly it fails to deliver, Arnie is as good as we we have come to expect, but as for Gabriel Byrne i expect him to chose his roles more carefully than this. cast as the devil; this is probably the weakest portrayal of the lord of darkness ever.<br /><br />This movie gets a little too daft for me, and the end sequence, aside from being very weak, is visually one of the worst i've seen in recent years, CGI is have been better than this since the early nineties.<br /><br />Quite simply not good enough. 4/10 (Watch it if you have too, but don't expect too much, cause it won't deliver)
|
negative
|
There is no doubt that Halloween is by far one of the best films ever not only in its genre but also outside.I love the films creepy atmosphere like the whole it could happen here sort of situation makes it scary to think about.Also to imagine if you were ever in this situation what would you do.This is a movie that i enjoy watching highly, especially around Halloween time.John Carpenter is a very professional directer i love a lot of his other films, but there is no doubt that his best known movie is the film Halloween.Oh and if your thinking about watching the Rob Zombie remake don't.It is pure crap and a true Halloween fan would like the 1978 John Carpenter version better.Michael Myers is one of the coolest slasher killers in any film, and is a very well known one.So by all means go see this masterpiece you will really like it.
|
positive
|
This "film" is the culmination of everything that is bad about modern film. unnecessary slow motion, unnecessary flipping/jumping/somersaults, unnecessary characters, unnecessary dialogue.... basically unnecessity. (is that a word? well, it's just been invented by I, Robot.)<br /><br />What happened to practicality? (i.e. the car garage, the skin spray) the only tool that shows a combination of futuristic and realistic function is the card swipe at the coffee shop.<br /><br />What happened to showing respect for women? (i.e. smith's character does nothing but degrade the doctor for the better part of the film, and yet she still "wants" him. WHERE IS THE TENSION? I'll tell you where, good looks and not admiration or common ground)<br /><br />What happened to a detective that detects? Smith did nothing but sit around and feel sorry for himself, complaining to other people, and when they said something that sparked a thought he was off. this is such a lame way to get the story from point b-c-d-etc... it was OK once, but not several times in a row. (speaking of several times in a row, what was the "I'm snoring and not listening to you joke? Twice In One Scene?)<br /><br />What happened to the small parts in a movie being somewhat meaningful and not just a tool to promote rescue scenes? Shia LaBeouf (the kid) is in the movie for a total of TWO SCENES, we know that A-he degrades women, and B-he knows Smith....... so of COURSE we should care about him and whether or not he comes to harm,<br /><br />What happened to Hero's? let's just forget that there are people, women and children everywhere getting attacked by robots and selfishly save the only person withing my view that I have an acquaintance with. and why did he have to ramp his bike through the air, showing off, while the doctor was somehow able to reach the same distance in a matter of seconds on foot.<br /><br />don't get me wrong, I'm all for spectacle. but I'm also all for a shred of realism and meaning.<br /><br />I have to say I've never laughed quite so hard at a film in a long time. so thanks Alex. <br /><br />I pray for the swing of the social pendulum back to simpler techniques, simpler stories and simpler everything else in films...... but mainly simpler techniques.<br /><br />Big Budget Action films: "you so have to die"
|
negative
|
This is a wonderful family sitcom. Rowan Atkinson has appeared in to other excellent sitcoms, The Thin Blue Line (Better than this) and Blackadder (Not better than this).<br /><br />Mr Bean is a no talking, human disaster. He goes to places and gets himself in absolute mayhem, the mayhem includes: Climbing up to the top diving board and is too frightened to jump off, taking about 20 minutes, until some kids eventually throw him off, ending up inside a washing machine and driving his car while sat on a roof. Bean drives a Mini and has a teddy.<br /><br />This was quite similar to The Baldy Man, a series staring Gregor Fisher who says very little, but gets himself in mayhem Best Episode: Do it Yourself Mr Bean, Episode 9: Bean hosts a New Years Eve party, then gets some stuff for decorating his flat, but has too much stuff and has to drive his car on the roof.
|
positive
|
Okay, so it was never going to change the world, and it bombed at the box office, but Honky Tonk Freeway is one of those films I fell in love with as a child (the BBC showed it a few times during the 1980s and I happened to have a high quality VHS tape in the machine - lucky, that!) and watched endlessly. I watched the DVD last night and sadly, time has not been kind to this would-be blockbuster. Either that or I've just grown out of this kind of broad, dopey humour. Come on, when Schlesinger is so desperate for laughs he gives us close-ups of novelty underpants with 'amusing' slogans, what can you say about the cast or screenplay?<br /><br />Certainly, it's ambitious, interesting, unusual and sprawling, but it's never once laugh-out-loud funny. I'd describe it as a children's film with some 'adult' overtones - you can safely let your youngsters watch this, despite the 15 certificate. They won't get the drug references, so don't worry about it. I had a pleasant surprise when I realized I'd forgotten just how catchy both the title song and the song-writing truck driver's 'Everybody's Going Faster, Faster' song were, not to mention the town of Ticlaw's patriotic anthem. The whole cast give commendable performances, the photography is crisp and captures the mood of the various locations perfectly, and there's a real time capsule feeling about the fashions, the cars, the gadgets (especially the dashboard-mounted drum machine), the interiors and the pop-culture references - I was more than a little surprised to hear the nutty bum in the bank loudly telling everyone "I'm OJ Simpson!", particularly now Simpson's legal tangles have overshadowed his sporting achievements. The snag is, there's almost no plot to speak of, it's way too obvious to be witty and not funny enough to elicit many genuine laughs. I wish I'd left this one as a pleasant memory.
|
negative
|
This movie has always been a favorite of mine since first seeing it as a 12 year old kid in 1962 when it was shown on a Los Angeles television station's "late show". The characters are very engaging from the start of the picture, and it is too bad that the movie has never been released for video tape, nor is it ever shown on television (apparently due to a prohibition by the Estate of Moss Hart, the playwright/producer/director who wrote the story and first presented it on the New York stage during WWII -- the reason for denying its showing is hard to fathom more than 50 years after it was made). I did not see the movie again for over 30 years, when someone who had actually been a major cast member of the movie was able to get me a "bootlegged" copy on VHS (poor video quality, but good audio). My memory of it was correct: it was still an engaging and fascinating movie to watch. An amazing aspect of this film is just how many of its stars, just starting out in their careers at the time 1944), went on to became either major motion picture stars or at least well-known and fully-employed actors (e.g. Judy Holliday, Edmond O'Brien, Jeanne Crain, Barry Nelson, Don Taylor, Karl Malden, Peter Lind Hayes, George "Superman") Reeves, Red Buttons, Lee J. Cobb, Kevin McCarthy, and Gary Merrill). The scenes with the B-24 Liberators are terrific, especially the close-up shots where the details of the giant (for those times) 4-engine bomber (then 18,000+ manufactured, now nearly extinct) can be seen. Good insight into the different levels of training that a pilot-cadet went through on his way to being assigned to a bomber crew (of course, VERY gender-biased as was the trend of the day: only the MEN became pilots, the women just supported them in their roles -- hardly acceptable in today's world). I hope someday it will be released onto video for a new generation to enjoy.
|
positive
|
great mystery, but the film goes down hill from there. The beginning is promising with a car wreck and a woman and her daughter being burned alive in front of a police officer, Edward. He is traumatized over this and is seen popping pills. A mysterious letter turns up from an old girlfriend asking for help in finding her missing daughter. So Ed travels to an island commune of mainly woman. They don't like outsiders. A lot of filler is with Ed shown looking around town for the girl. That made the movie too long. It finally gets a little better toward the end when we learn of the crazy rituals the woman perform and finally of the sinister plan in store for Edward.<br /><br />Overall, not a well written story and too long. <br /><br />FINAL VERDICT: I would skip this.
|
negative
|
I love Claire Danes, and Kate Beckinsale looks amazingly immature in her role. The movie is flawed only because it seems the two accused seem to be in some Monastery, working like monks in the grass and under strict almost martial-arts-like discipline. The acting and filmography and amazing colors of what is supposed-to-be Thailand is eye-catching, but Claire Daines steals the entire movie, and is unexpectedly profound in her learning the hard lesson of life itself to the very end, in an act of amazing unselfishness unheard of and completely unexpected in the real world. The flaws are minute and I recommend the film, which seems buried sadly forever to rare TV showings. I for one want the film for my collection- a collection of only "10" rated films. Watch it, you will be very touched.
|
positive
|
Being a "Wallace and Gromit-fan", I was looking forward for this full-length movie. Surprisingly I saw it at THE world-premiere in Vlissingen (NL), at the Film by the Sea festival. A wonderful feeling to be one of the first to see this very amusing and merry movie. It's about Wallace and Gromit (whom I believe don't need an introduction) having their own pest-control company in the city which is hosting a giant-vegetable contest in a few days. Everyone, including an eccentric baroness, is hoping his or her giant carrot or melon will win the Golden carrot. Unfortunately the town is plagued by lots of hungry rabbits. This is where W&G come in. The have their own cracking contraptions to control these cute creatures in a human way.<br /><br />It's a very funny and colorful story. Anyone who liked the three proceeding short movies of W&G (which are more than great!), will love this full-length movie. Nick Park really delivered a wonderful and original result with a great sense for humor. Like in Chicken Run, it truly amazes me how he can capture so much story and emotions in just a few frames. "Job well done, lad" ;-) Oh yeah: The music was fantastic! It really completes the ride. Enjoy!
|
positive
|
'Northfork' is what is wrong with indie films. For all of their hard-edged commentary and attacking big subjects studios won't, this is the sacrifice we make. For nearly two hours I was subjected to the torture and pain of a film that starts by wandering like a blind man in a new place and ends without covering any new ground and thankfully dies.<br /><br />There are parallel stories that detail a dying town and a dying boy. Two men dressed in black (one of them James Woods) must coerce the remaining inhabitants of Northfork to leave before a dam opens up and floods the town. The other story has a boy returned to the priest (Nick Nolte) that gave him to the parents. He is dying and is visited, I guess, by angels. Among them Anthony Edwards with bizarre spectacles and Daryl Hannah in a bizarre costume reminding me of the pirate shirt from Seinfeld.<br /><br />Though this is the "plot," it is not what the film is about. The film is about nothing. It does nothing, says nothing, goes nowhere, and has nothing interesting to show. Perhaps by design, more likely an after-effect of the pretentious, surreal, David Lynch wannabe - we're an important artsy film can't you see - style of direction. The entire movie is filtered through a gray, bleak backdrop that, I suppose, fits a film about death. Instead, it simply makes the film that much harder to watch.<br /><br />If you want to see a film about men in black, see either 'Men in Black' films, neither too impressive but compared to 'Northfork' they are lifted to 'Citizen Kane' status. If you want to see a film about a boy dying watch 'Lorenzo's Oil.' If you want to see a film that has the destruction of a town through water watch 'O Brother, Where Art Thou?' If you want to watch a film better than 'Northfork,' there are hundreds. If you want to watch a film that is worse, there are only a handful. 0* out of ****
|
negative
|
Dear dear dear dear dear...me! I had the strength to see it through... But why?!<br /><br />The first two films where fun and actually somewhat good. But this is so bad we had problems seeing the whole thing. This was some kind of Tremors for kids. I can't believe this movie was made at all..seems like the props where taken from some bad western series of some kind (for kids) and they just did whatever they could with it.<br /><br />What audience is this movie for? I can only think of 12-14 year olds. If you're older than 14 you'll have serious problems with this movie. It's not only slow, but it's so utterly boring. The characters are overacted (not just a little either) and so stereotyped it's fun for a while..but not long enough to not make you want to fling tomatoes at the screen. You know everything that is going to happen too, cause yes...you've seen it a BILLION times before in any hero series on TV for kids. I picked all the survivors and all the tremor fodder the second the characters got introduced. It's so bad..so wrong..so...crap.<br /><br />But OK, we did get a laugh now and then. Not just at the silly plot holes, but some scenes where worth a replay or two...or one scene that is, where two baby tremors fling themselves at one of the obvious tremor fodder guys..It's really a great scene which made us replay it over and over and laugh wholeheartedly. Still makes me grin when I think about it. But that only happened one more time sadly..and that's when the "badass" gunman shows up and overacts his part wonderfully...that and one comment "They spring from the ground like some DEMONIC TROUT!" At this point we where almost crying with laughter. But after that..nothing could ever top that..(?)..so it's pretty much downhill from there. <br /><br />So tops here are demonic trouts and overacting. If anybody ever tells you this is a good movie...he's either a "plant", vegetable or someone very evil. This movie has got to be the worst of the tremors by far. Looking forward to seeing Tremors 3, it's bound to be box office hit compared to this...this...*goosebumps* no..I'll leave it at that.
|
negative
|
This apocalyptic zombie film tries to be vicious and shocking; but FEEDING THE MASSES comes off lame as some of the stiff-legged zombies stalking the streets. In Rhode Island, a zombie epidemic known as the Lazarus Virus is being played down by the government manipulated newspapers and television stations. A couple of brave, but dumb, souls at Channel 5 TV News feels its audience is being given false hope and no idea of the real danger at hand. An eager reporter(Racheal Morris)and her cameraman(William Garberina), with the aid of a military escort(Patrick Cohen), risk life and limb to present a 'live' broadcast to show the doom at hand. Do yourself a favor and don't watch. This thing is obviously very low budget and comes across with the feel of a high school play gone bad. Acting is atrocious and the flesh-hungry zombies are almost comical. Also appearing are: Michael Propster, William DeCoff and Brenda Hogan. FEEDING THE MASSES should be left to starve.
|
negative
|
Darr (1993) was an incredible movie. In my opinion, it is one of Bollywood's finest. The movie itself triggers feelings of sympathy, fear, confusion, happiness, and sadness. Shahrukh's role was unbelievable, in fact he gave obsession a new face. Juhi Chawla's innocent and girlie character contrasted greatly with Shahrukh's fiery and passionate character. Sunny Deol's role made the "good guy" role seem like the "bad guy" one. The fact that Shahrukh, not Sunny, captivated the audience's attention proves that everyone has that helpless inner drive to pursue something that's not really in their hands. Even though the movie is several years old, it surpasses any recent one. The song "Tu Mere Samne" was full of passion and meaning. His personality fit the role perfectly. He should seriously consider re-starring in a similar film.
|
positive
|
This has been one of my favorite movies for a long time. Recently I was happy to see it on DVD which is a relief from watching the old, grainy VHS versions.<br /><br />I hadn't seen it in years and watched it today to find myself amazed at how well the movie stands up to time. It's one of those rare, perfect storms of comedy where great writing (truly funny line after truly funny line) is paired with great direction and outstanding performances all at the same time.<br /><br />Dudley Moore got an Oscar nomination for "Arthur" but lost (although John Gielgud won for best supporting actor). If Moore's performance in "Arthur" doesn't win a Best Actor Oscar -it's proof that no comedic actor could ever win the title (another example is Gene Wilder in "Young Frankenstein").<br /><br />Steve Gordon crafts the film beautifully keeping true to each of the characters and the warm-hearted tone of the story. Quite simply, IMHO the movie is a rare gem. It's only sad that Steve Gordon passed away just a year after "Arthur" was released.<br /><br />Regarding the DVD that is available as of 1/2007, it's so/so. Although the video quality is a leap over the old VHS copies, there is still no widescreen version available.<br /><br />The DVD has a few extras that are nice but it's just not enough. One example is commentary from the Director stating how he greatly wished how certain deleted takes and scenes could have been included (because they were hysterical), but that he had to make tough choices for a final edit. The DVD, being the perfect format to include such material, certainly should have offered it as well.<br /><br />This, the original "Arthur", is a classic comedy that is one for the books.
|
positive
|
I would bet a month's salary "The Magnificent Seven Returns" (MSR) was made-for-TV. Other reviewers attest that MSR was a theatrical movie, and I'll take their word for it. The logical answer must assume it was originally shot for TV, and after a change-of-studio-heart, it was released theatrically instead. Every actor is primarily a TV actor: Mariette Hartley, Michael Callen, Ralfe Waite, Stephanie Powers... TV performers all. Lee Van Cleef split his time between TV and theater screens. Stephanie Powers has only made 3 or 4 "real" movie appearances in the last thirty years of a very prolific television career - proof positive this was shot for TV. Minor players are veteran small-screen actors who can be seen on old reruns of "Gunsmoke", "Wild Wild West," "Streets of San Francisco," and so on.<br /><br />The ho-hum sets are identical to the Universal Studios Tour sets, often seen in old episodic TV. And the editing betrays the one-or-two-takes-hurriedness of TV, with limited camera movements, positioning, cutting, and lighting. The sound track, exclusive of the original Berstein themes, are straight from seventies television. Yep, I'd bet money it was shot for TV.<br /><br />That's an important point in evaluating MSR. Initially I watched MSR on cable assuming it was an old theatrical release. In comparison to the original "Magnificent Seven", it's a joke, a cartoon, an amateurish attempt at movie making. Acting, lighting, writing, settings, action, cinematography, music (exempting the Berstein themes), editing, pacing,...on and on....all pale in comparison to the classic "Magnificent Seven" which is close to the perfect 60's western, and one of the great action movies of all time. <br /><br />However, viewed as an early 70's made-for-TV movie, as I suspect, the film is actually better than average. Those unfortunate enough to live through the 70's as an adult, know what I'm talking about. MSR would have competed against "Alias Smith and Jones" and similarly bland network shows. During the seventies, "Gunsmoke" was a quality show, concentrating on character development rather than action, deemphasizing gun play to two shootouts a week. The first shooting, usually a murder, sets the hour's plot into motion - the second shootout climaxes the episode by killing the guest star, his nemesis, or otherwise resolving the conflict with Marshal Matt Dillon. MSR has more action than a whole season of "Gunsmoke." In this light - in this frame of reference - MSR is passable entertainment, a cut above the TV fare from that decade.
|
negative
|
This movie is AWFUL. I haven't laughed so hard at a movie that was unintentionally funny in a long time. Leno should've stuck to stand up and late night tv. The cars in the movie were cool, but the movie by itself is the dumbest movie I've ever seen. it's pathetic, the acting is horrible, and the plot could've been written by a 4 year old. don't get me wrong, jay leno is hilarious, but not in this movie!
|
negative
|
First off, I knew nothing about 'Mazes and Monster' before I watched it. I had no knowledge of the Role-playing controversy behind it or the fact that it was a Made-For-TV movie. When I looked at the cover (the updated DVD one) I seriously thought it would be another Fantasy adventure like 'Legend', with Tom Hank as the nerdy hero from 1980s earth entering a mythical world to save a princess from an evil maze filled with monsters. Sounds exciting, right? That is what the cover suggests to you at first glance. I was given this movie as a gift, obviously under the same premise because my aunt knows I'm into action movies with a medieval myth theme. And it has Tom Hanks, one of my favorite actors. So I popped this movie in, expecting a feel good movie with Tom Hanks in a 80s special effects world that would be good for a laugh.<br /><br />No! None of this happens. Now before I continue I will confess, I am a nerd but I have no interest in Role-playing games. That is all this movie is about so my interest in the content is lukewarm at best. And M&M (copyright infringement?) is not even a feel good role-playing based movie with lovable geeks that uses their imagination to enter a world of awesomeness. No! This is an Anti-Role-playing movie that must have been made by some Religious folk (the same people who also think Barney is the work of Satan.) I understand, Satan is a crafty fellow but I don't think he is desperate enough for soul to lull RPG lovers into worship him. This movie is THEE anti-gamer movie. This is what I get from this movie: it hates RPGs and not only does it make fun of the people engaging in Role-playing but it makes poor Tom Hanks a mental patient.<br /><br />Tom had an excuse to talk to a volleyball in 'Castaway', poor guy was alone but Tom somehow made his insanity fun and you literally saw the Volleyball as a lovable character through Tom's good acting. I wish I watched that movie instead of this. In this movie, Tom is attacked by a make believe dragon creature (it looks like a poorly made mascot for a RPG team) and has a split personality that is creepy at best. Tom's acting only exceeds to make you feel bad for his character and nothing else. I get that the poor guy lost his brother and is not right in the head because of it so the movie does win points for being intentionally tragic. I am not one for films that exploit mental illness and the ending to 'M&M' made me feel like cr*p. Luckily I watched 'Hudson Hawk' afterwards and got a good laugh before my soul was crushed any further. Yah, 'HH' surpasses 'M&M' by . . . a LOT! This is not one of Tom's better films. In fact it is thee most depressing movie I've ever seen him in (Even 'Saving Private Ryan' is not this depressing). I walked in hoping to watch a feel good movie and I ended up feeling the exact opposite. If you want to watch a sad (both emotionally and visually) movie then by all means watch this. If this movie is to convey a message, it is this: "Don't play RPGs if you are Cuckoo for Coco-Puffs."
|
negative
|
I learned much from previous viewer reactions. Is there one that does not mention 'propaganda'? Too glib. 'Perception is concept dependent'. I love Fred Astaire musicals, the great, great songs, & Fred's peerless grace. But comrades, if you see idle, brainless, rich parasites dancing on the downtrodden & unemployed, that's a valid criticism of 'capitalist propaganda'. Any movie is steeped in the values of its time & place, not to mention those who fund it the pipers who call the tune. Great art transcends all, as did 'Nevsky', as did 'All Quiet on the Western front'. I confess. I saw it last 40 odd years ago. But the images are burned in my brain. It's the greatest battle scene ever likely to be filmed. And it makes you horrified to be thrilled. 'Plastic ice' did someone say? That's real death you're watching. Real extras died making this. 'Real looking' is now special effects-defined it seems. Likewise 'too long' - for an age of shrunken attention spans? Mozart had 'too many notes'? Propaganda, Catholic Church defamed? The Vatican was STILL at it when they called on ancient favors to get the German Christian democrat gov. to recognize Croatia in the 1990s remember the chaos & genocides? Forget the props, the lighting of Nevsky painted the Medieval world like a Breughel. There's one in Hampton Court Palace showing a massacre. Crude Dutch nationalist propaganda maybe, but it tears at the heart. Stylized acting? So what's Henry V (Olivier movie)? Naturalism? Does anyone believe English medieval knight-killers talked like that? As said, the music of Prokofiev is magnificent. Only Ken Russell & Eisenstein had the balls & genius to match sound & image at this 100 octane level. OK, you want the snaffle & bit. I'll risk the nervy thorobred every time. Eisenstein did not copy Wehrmacht helmets, rather, his model seems to have been those buckets worn by 'Teutonic knights' in nazi pageants of the 1930s. Eisenstein was a genius , but unlike Hollywood directors, he had near unlimited (non-commercial) time & funding. Modern Russian directors are free from political shackles, but have no money. Even Kurasawa had to make a late (great) movie in communist Russia. He was revered but unfunded in his own country (much like Russell). How much propaganda is in the eye of the beholder? Imagine sane people from another, peace-loving world. How would they react to Nevsky? Would the battle, or the grieving for the dead dominate their cognitions? If we didn't know about the gas chambers & SS, what about 'Triumph of the Will'? Where can I get a Nevsky DVD, cheap?
|
positive
|
Recap: Zandalee is a young woman that feels more and more trapped in her marriage with Thierry. Thierry himself is struggling with the death of his father the previous year and has lost his way. He has submerged himself in work, laid of his writing, and Zandalee desperately misses the attraction between them. Into this enters Johnny, and old friend of Thierry's who once were artists in exile together. But Johnny has kept on painting, and just have a day job for the rent. He takes the day as it comes and leaves tomorrow to its destiny. There is an instant raw attraction between Zandalee and Johnny, and they enter into an affair. But Zandalee struggles with her lust to be desired and her conscience and love for her husband. But none of them, not Zandalee, not Johnny and not Thierry can stop the relationships between them to spin totally out of control.<br /><br />Comments: It is set as a thriller. But maybe more a thriller of heart than a normal thriller where it's about life and death, and threat of violence. Not that a thriller of heart can't take on fatal proportions, but the threat comes from a different angle. And it is not really until the second half in Zandalee until the thriller emerges, and even though the foundation for it is laid in the first half, I can't really describe the genre as a thriller then. Much more of a romantic drama than anything else, but with the underlying currents of other genres. The developing thriller is there, but it also has more than a little tint of a sensual erotic kind. Because that is what it is all about, what drives the characters and therefore the entire story. Desire. The need to have, and the need to be.<br /><br />In my opinion it is quite good, definitely a lot better than its current (4.1) rating anyway. It takes its time but it grows a good feeling of suspense, and it handles the erotic part very well, with taste. It is always an integral part of the story, needed to be there to give the story it's needed weight, and I never felt it was an excuse to show a naked breast or anything like that. But unfortunately the climax of the story comes well before the end, and the end itself feels kind of flat, even if in its own way kind of dramatic.<br /><br />The cast is impressive, spearheaded by known actors like Nicholas Cage and Judge Reinhold. But the show is almost completely stolen by Erika Anderson. Beautiful and very adept at acting out the sometimes subtle feelings of desire, she excels were both Cage and Reinhold sometimes goes a bot overboard and become a little rough. Her career afterward is too thin for the talent she shows in Zandalee, I can only hope it is because of her own choices. Also two personal favorites appear in small roles that give some extra edge to the movie, it is Steve Buscemi and Joe Pantoliano.<br /><br />When you're in the right mood this is a very good movie, it could have used another end to get the credit it really deserves.<br /><br />7/10
|
positive
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.