review
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| sentiment
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
this is a terrible, terrible film!!!!!!!!!<br /><br />first of all TOOO long. the longest movie i have ever seen.<br /><br />the stories are all too Damn Over the Top!!!!<br /><br />as a matter of fact there are too many stories that the Story line is Ruined.<br /><br />the comedy wasn't Comedy!!!!! it wasn't funny at all....<br /><br />the story is so repulsive and badly written that it doesnot matter if the characters live or die.......<br /><br />i had some expectations from this movie......... but my expectations were crashed completely in the first few minutes......<br /><br />the only thing good about this movie is the MUSIC...... and obviously Vidya Balan. she gives the best performance and stands out among all the senior actors...... she's just a new comer and yet she shines and makes the rest of the cast look so Pathetic!!!!! Govinda and the Blonde who playes his love interest also help saving this Disastrous movie. Govinda perfectly fits in the role of the Taxi driver. and the Blonde also gives a very subtle and consistent performance....<br /><br />another Talented actress Ayesha Takiya is completely wasted in this movie!!!! so is priyanka!!!!!!!!! Akshay does his role well but it seemed too over the top!!!!! Anil and Juhi are also totally wasted......<br /><br />the only one not wasted is Salman Because he has No Talent what so ever to be wasted!!!!!!!!!<br /><br />all in all this is a very Impossible movie with Mishmashed screenplay and TOOO Masladar that the storyline is shaped according to the stupid comedy scenes. imagine how stupid this movie is!!!!!!<br /><br />3/10 it is four hours long!!!! think and RETHINK before going to the cinemas!!!!! better Avoid it!!!!!
|
negative
|
This film could well have been one of those ordinary "soapies" relating the day to day events of half a dozen families whose lives are intertwined
..broken relationships,building new friendships, street bashings, near accidents, hopes and dreams and even the discovery of a baby discarded under some bushes! What a mixture of events!<br /><br />Fortunately the film maker goes beyond those daily events and poses questions to consider although there are no satisfactory answers. He asks
in this chaotic world do things just happen, is it just luck when things turn out right or , taking a fatalistic view, is a person predestined to be at a certain place at a certain time and thus become involved in the event and his future takes on a new perspective? Most of us have had this uncanny experience.<br /><br />Is it our super ego that makes us believe we are so important? As one character says
he once sat on the edge overlooking the Grand Canyon and came to realize how infinitely small he was.<br /><br />This is not one of my favourite films but is a good study of human relationships. Danny Glover is outstanding in a sympathetic role.
|
positive
|
The film is poorly casted, except for some familiar old Hollywood names. Other performances by unknown names (i.e., Jennifer Gabrielle) are uninspiring. I have seen other films by this director, unfortunately this is one of his worst. Perhaps this is a reflection of the screenplay? <br /><br />In a positive note, Kim Bassinger's and Pat Morita's performance saved the movie from oblivion. I enjoyed Pat more in Karate Kid, though. There are many good movies to see, and in short, this one is not one of them. Save your money and the celluloid. <br /><br />Jason Vanness
|
negative
|
The original "Psycho" (1960) is widely considered as Alfred Hitchcock's best work and certainly, in my opinion, is one of the best movies of all time. The decision to film a shot by shot remake is therefore, a little puzzling.<br /><br />The cast in the original was flawless, so the cast of this remake had a lot to live up to. Vince Vaughn as Norman Bates was not a good choice for the lead. He is too much of a pretty boy hunk and is not very convincing as Bates. I can imagine actors such as Mark Wahlberg or John Turturro doing a much better job in the role. Anne Heche as Marion Crane does a creditable job, but one keeps mentally comparing her to Janet Leigh. Julianne Moore is a much better actress than she shows here and Viggio Mortenson merely walks through his role. The best of this new cast is William H. Macy as the private detective.<br /><br />Although director Gus Van Sant does an acceptable job, he can't build the suspense the way Hitchcock did. And why did he change the scene in the basement of the house? In the original, the atmosphere is dark and damp and closed in, whereas in this version, it takes place in a brightly lit laboratory like setting. And I think the black & white photography of the original has a definite advantage over the color version.<br /><br />Maybe another flaw could be the fact that most moviegoers have seen the original and know what is going to happen and when.<br /><br />All I can say is if it ain't broke, don't fix it.<br /><br />
|
negative
|
This is a better than average silent movie and it's still well worth seeing if you are a fan of the silents. However, if you aren't yet a fan of the genre, I suggest you try a few other films before watching this one. That's because the plot just seems pretty old fashioned and difficult to believe in spots. But, despite this, it's still a good film and kept my interest.<br /><br />A nice lady unfortunately hooked up with the wrong man and ran away to marry him. The film starts five years later after she has come to realize that he is really a brutal thief. Despite this, she tries to make the best of it and not dwell on how good life had been before this jerk came into her life. However, the rent is due and there's no money, so the lady is forced to look for work. She becomes a personal seamstress for a rich lady whose husband is trying to swing a business deal. Unfortunately, the lady who they were trying to hook up a potential client with for a dinner party can't make it and the seamstress is paid handsomely to be the man's date. Well, like Cinderella, she cleans up pretty well and the man is infatuated with her! What to do now--given that she is actually married and the new fella wants to marry her?! Well, see the movie yourself to see how it's all resolved. I DIDN'T like how they handled the husband, as it seemed awfully predictable and clichéd. However, once he was out of the way, I do admire how the film also DIDN'T give up a by-the-numbers finale and left the film with a few loose ends.<br /><br />All in all, a very good film worth seeing, but certainly not great.
|
positive
|
How you could say that Peaches, with its complex narrative dealing with a multitude of issues, is "a small TV idea" is beyond me. Besides I can think of many films that have "a small TV idea" in their plots. Your obvious dislike of the TV industry (" Sue Smith has failed to rise above her television background") is confusing. particularly as you are having such "a great time" working in TV. If only we could all be so talented as Ms Smith (no, I am not a friend or relative) - AFI award winning Brides of Christ, Road from Coorain,etc. All made for TV. Come to think of it, what about those other "small TV ideas" like "Against the Wind", "Bodyline", "The Dismissal", "Scales of Justice", "Blue Murder", "Water under the Bridge" ,etc. I think Peaches is a good entertaining film which had me interested, and most of my friends as well, from start to finish. It is far from flawless yet I think it is among the best Australian films I have seen over the last couple of years. Who knows, with a few more viewings (there's so much to think about), it might just be up there with classics like "The Year My Voice Broke", "The Devil's Playground". I really did enjoy this film much more than "Somersault" and "Three Dollars". These films, I think, had their moments-surreal, atmospheric, realistic and dealing with important contemporary issues, but as for sheer entertainment for mr.and mrs average movie goer and me, it was very ordinary if not boring. When I go to a movie, I am always conscious of the audience's reaction to a film (through in- cinemas reactions and overheard conversations in the foyer and loo). Some came out of Peaches shaking their heads, some with negative criticisms, but many seemed to have enjoyed the experience.
|
positive
|
The Gilmore girls is about a mother who had a daughter when she was 16. Now the daughter is 16 (in season 1) and they live like sisters. Sharing everything, trusting each other completely.<br /><br />I like The Gilmore Girls but I am not sure why. The mother, named Lorelai (Lauren Graham), and the daughter, named Rory (short for Lorelai, played by Alexis Bledel), are both very beautiful women, they are both funny and they are charming in their own ways. There are some funny supporting characters, such as Luke (Scott Patterson). He and Lorelai like each, may be even love each other, but neither of them really acts on it. They have their little moments. There are some other supporting characters, most of them very funny, and with their won touching moments.<br /><br />What I like the most I think is to see the relationship between the young mother and the daughter who is becoming an adult. The dialogue between them is quick, sharp, funny and sometimes touching as well. The band they have is beautiful. The Gilmore Girls makes you feel good so try it.
|
positive
|
supposedly based on the life of Domino Harvey a model turned bounty hunter. I'd say 95 % is fabricated. I always keep an open mind when it comes to movies, however, this movie lost its chances when it became apparent it had narration throughout the film, something i can't stand, and to top it off, the heroine of the story is so hateful and depicted as an arrogant b!ch I just wanted it to end with her being shot in the head. it's too incoherent, too flashy and way too boring, it's a who gives a crap kinda story, and i really think that big time directors need to make movies based on their own or a writer's own imagination not something based on some ignorant snobby brat's life.
|
negative
|
Audrey, I know you truly cherish your husband Ted's memory but PLEASE do his legacy justice and heed his wishes. Dr. Seuss refused to license his characters during his lifetime for a very good reason. We beg of you to please stop cashing in on his stories, images, fantasies and characters. They are getting disemboweled by the powers that be of Hollywood and Broadway. The children of tomorrow will be stuck with these histrionic and grotesque interpretations that will forever pollute the loving warmth and innocence of his books.<br /><br />It is indeed your property to do with as you wish. I just wish you would listen to the advice of others for a little while. Save what is left of Dr. Seuss. Thank you.
|
negative
|
It starts out looking like it may be going somewhere, then quickly leads the main characters into a three-ring circus of remarkable stupidity which permanently destroys any likability of the characters. I'm a huge collector of stoner movies, but this is something I would not consider a valid addition. Bong Water is trash from the very deepest regions of the dumpster, and I wouldn't be caught dead with this on my shelf. I'm actually convinced this movie was created by a Partnership for A Drug Free America. If you're a Jack Black fan then I would say that you may think 5 minutes of the movies is OK because Jack Black continues his legacy of singing songs for retards. I really can't say enough bad things about this movie.
|
negative
|
I can only guess that this movie was an experiment that misfired. Years earlier, it would have been moving images accompanied by music. Later, it would have been sound added to silents. Eventually it would have been Technicolor, Cinemascope or Imax. This movie must have been a misguided attempt to introduce a new element to the talking picture. During all the emotional scenes, the character stops in mid dialogue and their inner thoughts are narrated while they gaze off into the distance or appeal to the camera. This interruption is painful at it's very least. Imagine these top tier actors trying to look busy while the narration drones on. Painful. I have no idea who came up with this gimmick, but it was the only time I ever saw it used - and for good reason. In every scene the actors were forced to roll their eyes, wring their hands, or overact to such a degree, I actually wondered if this was really a comedy. <br /><br />The story is a hopeless soap opera that takes place over a couple of generations. Norma Shearer, disappointed in love, searches for a reason to live. She has a friend, played by Ralph Morgan, who worships her - but she takes him for granted. She is attracted to a doctor, played by Clark Gable, but he is self absorbed and isn't interested in her. She settles for a weakling that needs her desperately. She marries him only to find that there is insanity in his family and she can never have a child with him. Along comes the doctor who selfishly pops a bun in her oven, only to find out later that he loves her after all. The child builds confidence in her husband who becomes a success, but she realizes that it's really Clark she loves after all. Confused yet? Forget the rest, just watch a couple of episodes of "As the World Turns" and it'll all become clear.<br /><br />If your are ever forced to watch this movie, hold out for the final scene. The gyrations of the actors put Harold LLoyd to shame. It is not to be missed.
|
negative
|
I kind of liked the film, it's just that the characters run around with no real point to their craziness. As I was saying, poor goat. The goat was nahing while the guy was pretending to grind on it. I would have liked the rape scenes to be more graphic (not the one with the goat though). Jane Ryall who played Celia only did this one film. She was very nude throughout. This crazy couple who killed and tortured many people ended up in their rightful places. I almost forgot about the gay transvestite couple who are also picked out for being sinners. If you like crazy off the wall stuff, then this is your film. 3/10
|
negative
|
Well, I like to be honest with all the audiences that I bought it because of Kira's sex scenes, but unfortunately I did not see much of them. All sex scenes were short and done in haphazard manner along with all the weird and corny background music just like all other B movies - it just doesn't look much like two people having sex. There is a tiny bit of plot toward the end - Kira's new lover is a killer. Whoa!!! how shocking!!! Why don't we nominate this movie for Oscar Award? I can't imagine how bad the movie would look like if it were R-rated (Mine is imported from UK, rated 18). Conclusion? Put it down and walk away, so yon won't end up with being a moron like me.<br /><br />Score: 2/10
|
negative
|
I was lucky enough to get to see this film many years ago in England. I've seen hundreds of films since,but I've never forgotten this one.Although Sinatra was playing a not very endearing character,he was excellent in the role.A lot of people seem to think that he did'nt really come into his own until his role in "From Here To Eternity" but in my opinion he was magnificent in Concho.The other role that sticks in my mind is that of William Conrad.I'd never see or heard of him before this film. Conrad plays a terrific part in this film.I remember his deep and gravelly voice and he uses it beautifully to enhance the few words he speaks with a menace that sets the tone of his character.Also I remember the music, that both introduces Conrad and and seems to surround him whenever he appears.An excellent film and my only disappointment was that I never ever got the chance to see it again. It seems to have disappeared from the face of the earth. I see in the titles that it says that the film is in black and white but when I saw it was indeed in full color, I remember Sinatra's blue shirt.
|
positive
|
Two years ago, on Berlin Film Festival we watched the Amos Kollek movie "Sue" in the Panorama program, with a wonderful Anna Thomson in the leading part. It's a film about loneliness and sex, and how the one thing is compensated by the other. In the same section on the Festival now we have to complain the superfluous antithesis of Sue, "Extension du domaine de la lutte", which now tries to convince us that loneliness and having NO sex is one and the same problem. But unfortunately we can't sympathize with "our hero" (how he is called by the story-teller), because he is unnecessarily and incomprehensibly tired of company and himself. Own fault, I'm sorry. I can't understand him. Not enough, the writer/director/actor want us admitting to him, that it's not his destroyed self-consciousness or the passivity of his personality, what brought him so far, but the rotten society and its image of sexuality. Yes, there are some deeper insights about gender relations, but we won't follow him so far... And the point is, that there is rather any sign of reflection about his own portion to the fate, having no sex. Who didn't notice yet, it's a quite depressing film...<br /><br />In the beginning, there had been some starts to be more accurate in sketching the situation. At the bed store the "hero" speaks about the hindrances buying a new bed. Perhaps it's too broad getting up the stairs, you have to stay at home half a day... THIS is a satire about a character, who doesn't know taking the life and heart in hands, DOING something... The movie doesn`t follow this path, but handles his characters with helplessness. Nobody believes, that "our hero" is able to instigate Tisserand for a murder. Too dull, too kind, too - passive (not to mention Tisserand's complex; he has an inhibition, but he couldn't be, of course, a murderer of women!). To finish: There are women and the world, it's not a device of a modern sexualized society. Help you as you can, but don't follow the messages and the "wisdom" of this movie, which announces bankruptcy to human relationships, without seizing the real conflicts within.
|
negative
|
No! no - No - NO! My entire being is revolting against this dreadful remake of a classic movie. I knew we were heading for trouble from the moment Meg Ryan appeared on screen with her ridiculous hair and clothing - literally looking like a scarecrow in that garden she was digging. Meg Ryan playing Meg Ryan - how tiresome is that?! And it got worse ... so much worse. The horribly cliché lines, the stock characters, the increasing sense I was watching a spin-off of "The First Wives Club" and the ultimate hackneyed schtick in the delivery room. How many times have I seen this movie? Only once, but it feel like a dozen times - nothing original or fresh about it. For shame!
|
negative
|
I just wanted to say that I am watching National Velvet on TV, it is now Feb 2006 and I was checking on dates details, etc. Surprising to see it was made in 1944 and Rooney was 24 years old whilst Liz Taylor only 12, what an accomplished English actress she is.<br /><br />To put some Americans contributors right: There are no Irish villages in England. Ireland is a completely different country and has nothing whatsoever to do with the English countryside. The scenes shown are supposedly taken on the South coast of England between Brighton and Arundel (county of Sussex). No such scene exists now unfortunately. Like many other places roads and buildings have been built on the hills and beaches.<br /><br />So please, all you lovely Americans, do not confuse Ireland with England, ever! we take great exception to it. Like confusing Texas with Coney Island.
|
positive
|
Don't get me wrong. I've got a considerable soft spot for the works of Charles Band, both as producer and director. But you've got to raise an eyebrow when the man who was willing to put his name to "Dollman Vs The Demonic Toys" sticks a pseudonym on anything. As a bit of bad-movie fun, "Head Of The Family" is rather lacking, although it is better acted than you might expect. Jacqueline Lovell is a definite talent who deserves better than these kinds of movies. J.W. Perra is also quite funny as the titular monster, though for such a superintelligent being he does get hoodwinked quite easily. Y'know, I'm nitpicking because the rest of the movie is so sharp and witty of course....<br /><br />And having a lead character called Lance Bogan? Nice one guys. We didn't know you Americans knew that piece of slang!
|
negative
|
do not ever watch this film...it is the biggest pile of sh*te i have ever come across in my whole life. and thats saying something. the acting, storyline and filming were absolutely dire this is THE WORST FILM IN THE WORLD!!! seriously doesn't it even give you a hit seeing as it cost my 99p from sainsburys and it was only made in 2005? hahaha this film is like a cheap college movie you can even see the camera in the corner of the screen....although if u really wanna watch it you gotta watch the "scary shark scene"...possibly the best piece of acting i have seen in my life...ha ha. i mean seriously this is the biggest waste of 2 1/2 hours EVER!!
|
negative
|
THE PROTECTOR. You hear the name. You think, "ah, it's a crappy Hong Kong movie." Guess what - it's not Hong Kong. And yes, it is crappy. This amazingly stupid Jackie Chan film, ruined by us, yes us, the Americans (I'm boiling with anger, ooh, I think I'll jump out that window!), has Chan as a New York cop hunting down a gang, avenging the death of his buddy. Sounds cool...but it's not. Don't waste your money renting it. To prove he could make a better cop film, Chan made the amazing POLICE STORY (1985).
|
negative
|
the only word that sums up this movie is quirky. it's a light-hearted romp through an existential concept. bouncy (in more way than one) and a bit nutty. i wouldn't exactly call it grand and unforgettable cinema and it doesn't seem quite as memorable as the director's first movie "cube" but it's a good pit of fluff to watch on a Sunday morning. the acting veers from respectable to annoying at times but i believe that's how it was to be written. done as a serious movie it could perhaps have been great or may very well have stepped into a state of pretension. a little like "the matrix" meets "head" meets "human nature".<br /><br />6.8 out of ten
|
positive
|
I have to agree with Cal-37 it's a great movie, specially for the family, Kelly Linch is beautiful, the little girl is really talented and cute, of course Jim Belushi has earned his strips! But want I really liked was the piano song, if you're a musician or not watch this movie just for that, you'll know which it is.<br /><br />"You're Nobody Till Somebody Loves You" Written by Russ Morgan, Larry Stock, and James Cavanaugh<br /><br />So have fun watching<br /><br />See ya,<br /><br />Nelson
|
positive
|
Spoilers... if such a thing is possible... . . . . . . . As a rabid Robin Williams fan, I felt it necessary to buy this film as first on-screen appearance. Wow... I could not imagine a more mind-numbing movie. Essentially, the movie takes one bad joke after another that your uncle Artie would tell you after dinner and dramatizes them. Robin Williams plays a lawyer in a 30 sec skit.<br /><br />I'm all for bawdy humor, but this humor wasn't pleasantly vulgar, or ribald... it was just mind-numbing. There are no redeeming qualities to this film, other than Robin Williams fanatics, like me, who simply have to own every piece of film.
|
negative
|
Welcome to movie 17 on the chilling classics 50 pack. Where we'll see, That's right. Another movie that makes absolutely no sense. Seriously, this movie had me so confused at the end, i thought i was rewatching "At Dawn they Sleep." The plot seems simple enough....well that is until 3 seconds into the movie where a girl supposedly killed a cat and then...um.. explodes? i have no idea what happened. and that was BEFORE THE TITLE SCREEN. That's really sad when i can't even tell what happened in the first 3 minutes.<br /><br />Anyway it stars a photographer with a big mustache who finds this girl after dumping his other girlfriend on the way to take pictures of something somewhere. so we get there but not before somebody steals their jeep to drive it 200 feet out of the way towards a town. suspicious? nah. so they decide to stay at this deserted village with one old lady. and then blah blah stuff happens and blah blah talking. The guy with the mustache goes out in the fog for some reason even though the old lady tells him not to. He gets lost and then finds his way back.<br /><br />Oh, i forgot to mention this is all after an incredibly pointless 20 minutes of them staying in the house of a guy who looks like that buggy eyed guy from casablanca. Then they leave. There's really no point to this scene. It's really just padding. if you cut it out no one would have noticed or cared.<br /><br />But sadly, that was actually the best part of the movie. wait. let me rephrase that. REALLY sadly that was the best part of the movie. because the rest is so confusing that i had to look on IMDb to find out what happened. But of course no one else knows so i'm SOL. <br /><br />Seriously, the last 30 minutes of the movie were some of the most mindscrewing moments i've ever seen on film. They dressed her up in a dress, he gets kidnapped, then released, he runs back to the house, then at the end the witches are in the house and it ends? seriously. i have hardly ever been so confused in a movie. i mean, as bad as movies such as "War of the Robots" are, at least they MAKE SENSE. this movie doesn't even make the ATTEMPT to be coherent. the ending was as confusing as the end of "At dawn they sleep" and the plot was much more boring. This movie gets a 1 just for its sheer "i have no idea what happened in this movie"ness. "Witches mountain" gets 1 confused movie watcher out of 10.
|
negative
|
Saw this as part of the DC Reel Affirmations Film Festival. I hope they got better movies than this, because this film failed to deliver on any of the hopes that audience may have entertained, from the fantasy of seeing James Franco without his shirt, down to more simple wishes, such as decent acting, coherent direction, character development, or actual production values. Plagued by film school effects such as freeze frames to show moments of emotional distress, and obvious influences ranging from My Own Private Idaho to Terminator 2, this film failed on almost every level to engage the audience. After the first twenty minutes of valiantly trying to take it seriously, the audience collectively threw up it's hands and just started to enjoy the inherent crappiness of the film. I could be upset that I paid nine bucks to see it, and it was two hours I'll never get back, but on the other hand, it was an entertaining two hours I'll never get back. This would have been a classic Mystery Science 3000 episode.
|
negative
|
Larry Burrows has the distinct feeling he's missing out on something. Ever since he missed a crucial baseball shot at school that cost the championship, he's been convinced his life would have turned out better had he made that shot. Then one night his car breaks down again. Walking into the nearest bar to wait for the tow truck, Larry happens upon barman Mike, who unbeknown to Larry is about to change his life for ever.......<br /><br />The alternate life premise in cinema is hardly a new thing, stretching back to the likes of It's A Wonderful Life and showing no signs of abating with the quite recent Sandler vehicle that was Click. It's a genre that has produced very mixed results. Back in 1990 was this James Belushi led production, rarely mentioned when the said topic arises, it appears that it has largely been forgotten. Which is a shame since it oozes charm and is not short in the humour department. We know that we are being led to its ultimate message come the end, but it's a fun and enjoyable path to be led down. The film also serves notice to what a fine comedy actor James Belushi was. I mean if his style of smart quipping and larking exasperation isn't your thing,? then chances are you would avoid this film anyway. But for those engaged by the likes of Red Heat, K-9 and Taking Care of Business, well Mr. Destiny is right up your street. Along for the ride are Linda Hamilton, Michael Caine, Jon Lovitz, Hart Bochner, Jay O. Sanders, Rene Russo and Courteney Cox.<br /><br />Mr. Destiny, pure escapist fun with a kicker of a message at its heart. 7/10
|
positive
|
This is a smart drama about the way of life in a Texas honky tonk in the early 1980's. John Travolta and Debra Winger turn out two very believable performances as Bud and Sissy Davis. This film really opens up the country music scene and helped introduce America to the mechanical bull. If you love a good romance film, then you will love this movie.
|
positive
|
Once in a while one come across a movie that forces one to rethink about society's reaction to people who differ from its definition of normal.<br /><br />Mitthi having suffered at the hands of unsocial elements,left all alone to cope with her tragedy, retreats into her idyllic world....one which according to her is the real world.....<br /><br />Surreal(Mitthi's world) superimposes itself on the real(her family).<br /><br />Mitthi, suffering from schizophrenia, forces us to reconsider our priorities about trying to rehabilitate 'patients' like them. Are we right to drag them back to our reality when all we have to offer them in ours is pain and suffering? What right have we to deprive them of their source of happiness? What right do we have to take away their joy when we are unable to help them in their sorrow? 15 Park Avenue is one of the best movies on social issues...showing us the need that any patient needs empathy and not plain sympathy.
|
positive
|
Told in flashback, the film opens in 1989 with Charlie being given award for his role in the defeat of Communism. I must admit my heart sank as at the thought of have to endure yet another earnest, somewhat boring and overlong life story. How wrong was I, because that short scene is as close as the film ever gets to boring.<br /><br />The film is full of entertaining & amusing set ups and cracking dialogue in some of the most unexpected places. The next scene after the Awards ceremony is Charlie in a Hot-Tub with some naked women and a guy trying to get him to invest in a TV programme. Another rather amusing scene is about 3 quarters into the film comprises Charlie, a group of his rather sexy Secretaries, Phillip Seymour Hoffmans CIA Man and a bottle of Whisky. As to dialogue what about this for a line, "The Senator says, He can teach us to type but can't teach us to grow Tits.". OK, School-boyish I know but the film is laced with great lines.<br /><br />As to performances well Phillip Seymour Hoffman as usual steals every scene he's in. Hanks is OK but surprisingly to me anyway was Julia Roberts who is very good in the role of a rather eccentric Texas Oil Millionairess.<br /><br />Charlie Wilson's War is one of the best non Musician Bio-pics in a long while as well as being that rare thing a film that entertains, amuses as well as informs all in equal measure.
|
positive
|
What on earth was that? My family and I just waisted 2 hours of our life for this piece of rubbish !!! There was no plot, no tension, only a lot of boredom !!! My kids could do better movies with our video-camera.<br /><br />But maybe we just did not get the point of the movie...oh wait, my mum did. She was the only one who liked it for the following reason: "At least a film with no cars screeching..." If you are looking for a war-film with no fighting in it, is still interesting and gripping and has a strong anti-war-message, then you should watch "The Trench".<br /><br />I give this film 3 out of 10 because it is good enough for an afternoon-nap and because I am too nice...
|
negative
|
I'm accustomed to being patient with films because I've generally found it usually pays off. But a few works take tedium to new levels and enter the realm of provocation...."Last Year at Marienbad" comes to mind. Well, "Pola X" ain't no "Last Year at Marienbad". I can count on one hand the number of films I've walked out on over the years. "Pola X" achieved membership in that august group. In my defense, I believe I made a valiant effort to stand my ground - hoping things would turn around. However, I finally threw in the towel just shy of the 90 minute mark - quite respectable under the circumstances. "Pola X" does not come anywhere near living up to the promise of Carax's earlier work. After a 10 year hiatus, that must have been bitter for him indeed. Melville is still spinning in his grave!
|
negative
|
I heard about this movie when watching VH1's "100 Most Metal Moments." On the segment, Gene Simmons (who played a cameo) and several other interviewees discussed how utterly awful this movie is. Unlike most people, I'm often more curious about checking out movies that have reputations for being ridiculously bad than, say, a masterpiece of cinema. The advantage of having that sort of attitude is half the time I find out that the movies are nowhere near as bad as people said, and I end up enjoying them a lot more than I initially expected. That was my experience with "Trick or Treat." Now, it's hard to make a movie about a teenage boy who receives messages from a dead heavy metal star by playing one of his vintage records backwards without people scoffing at the premise. Sure, it's certainly a strange premise, but one that's never been done before! Give the filmmakers points for originality for Pete's sake! If you're looking to buy the DVD, having no prior knowledge of the movie, don't be fooled into thinking Ozzy Osbourne and Gene Simmons are the stars. However, though Simmons has a thankless role, Ozzy does have a funny cameo as a Reverend (that's right, a Reverend!!) who speaks out against heavy metal. For one thing, it's funny seeing Ozzy with short hair. And for another thing, you can't help but laugh at the irony. Sure, it's a cheap shot, but an effective one. The acting is pretty good. I found the performances convincing. The teen characters are horribly clichéd. So expect the usual array of jocks and nerds. And like in every one of these movies, the pretty girl is a decent person who has sympathy for the alienated main character, yet continues to go out with her jock boyfriend. Why's she going out with such a complete jerk in the first place? Because the plot needs an obstacle. No other reason. But I can't deny that one of my guilty pleasures is watching the evil jocks in these movies go down, since I was an outcast in high school. The movie kept my interest for the most part, but the third act is way too conventional and caused me to roll my eyes as there would be one predictable situation after another. But altogether the film is not at all bad and definitely worth viewing on a rainy day. (7 out of 10)
|
positive
|
This documentary is the most hypnotizing film I have seen in a long while. I must have had it on for an entire day. The selected material included in the piece flow amazingly well and develop three characters that are impossible to ever forget. The different layers of these people peel back to make an oddly moving film about perseverance, loyalty and determination. These characters ended up suprisingly fascinating and the film is unforgettable.
|
positive
|
Before starting to watch the show, I've heard it was great and aesthetically very interesting. What a deception, the scripts are so dumb that I am quite sure the authors are son and grandson of Scoobidoo writers. And what about the SFX and colors, they are so extreme that it is painful to watch, colors are not saturated they are over saturated, like scripts are overwritten and show is overrated. This show is like a bad pie in which a child would have put only sugar and butter thinking that because these ingredients are the best, they are sufficient. Unfortunately for this show, the only two ingredients of this show are finally vacuity and a total lack of credibility.
|
negative
|
This movie is a mystery. It's not scary, it's spooky. You'll probably jump at some points and for some of it you'll be scratching your head to figure it out. It unfolds its mystery through the main character Eve and her psychotic college project at an insane asylum, Don. He needs her to search for some clues to vindicate himself from murdering his mother, and once Eve agrees to help him, she completely opens up pandora's box and unleashes some very strange things, including Malachi. I won't go into Malachi, but I thought the way that played out was complete genius. I know movie buffs won't regard this movie with the same prestige as other classics because it doesn't have anyone very famous in it (Angelina Jolie's brother was excellent, but maybe he should have asked his sister to show her face just so this movie could get some recognition) but I do think the way the Malachi ending works is something to talk about. I've recommended this to my friends, definitely worth the purchase or rental price.
|
positive
|
It has a great name, but thats it and you wont get more than that for your money, in fact the first 30-40mins of the movie you might find it some kind of funny but after that the story goes from one side to another with no particular reason and you just cant understand whats happening until the action its gone.<br /><br />And yet the producers (Roberto Angel Salcedo) calls him an actor, but i don't think the way he does could be called nothing but overacting!!....period. The little kid who plays as his son has totally no sense of acting and i believe it was just a favor he did or something because he had no clue of what he was doing.<br /><br />For some reason while doing the casting they thought that by casting comedians they could made it, but they didn't!! and sometimes the tasteless cheap humor its so bad, i don't buy it.<br /><br />But hopefully this is as bad as it gets. To make people accept those DVD's to the good taste public they will have to offer some food with it, that might work out.<br /><br />Maka
|
negative
|
Whether it's a good movie or not, films of this kind has to be made, i think. It remembers me of "I love Huckabees", a overwhelmingly puzzling movie with Isabelle Huppert being sodomized by a young American in a mud pond, in a merry sadistic-masochist way (??!!!!). I hope the director will go on stepping across the border, as though i felt the choices Vincenzo Natali made, were not always subtle (some of the scenes were unhappily kind of "tarte-à-la-crème", like a childish slapstick), speaking about script and cinematography
The color of "Cube" was black, "Nothing" is white, more cheerful, surprisingly, than the former films of Natali.
|
positive
|
Having seen "Triumph of the Will," I can only say this movie is ghastly, even measured against the historically low "standards" of the time. Naturally it's all totally fabricated and prejudicial. This is what one would expect of 1930's German propaganda. Unfortunately, the quality of the presentation, itself, is hackneyed and cheap. It's also so blatantly ridiculous that even contemporary Germans must've left the theater holding their noses. In a genre renowned for its base appeal, lack of originality and unapologetic wrong-headedness, this film doesn't even qualify as "bad." It would have to improve significantly to attain that status!
|
negative
|
Eaten Alive is a little film that opens in New York city and the arctic where tribe men shoot snake venom at a few people,then a woman enters the police precinct who's trying to find her sister that has disappeared after 6 months Sheila is from Alabama,but her accent sucks,she is teamed up with an adventurer who seems to just want her money and seems to say it a lot throughout the film.They venture through the amazon only to find a community with people and they find the sister,they're confronted by a mad man who has probably seen one too many Jim Jones preaches.He will bring them to a better place,it could be heaven but no,Mark and Sheila find out later its actually a suicide cult.<br /><br />Why do I call Eaten Alive a "little film"? Ill tell you but when I watched it,I was floored through all the run ins with the cannibals,Robert Kerman has a different role than his professor in Cannibal Holocaust.He's a bit annoying,once we meet him at an arm wrestling match that looked like Russian roulette we know hes one tough guy.Plus the strong misogyny just makes you cringe and it looked like I saw it somewhere,oh the scenes of animals killing each other.But the whole film revolves on those scenes,its like were actually watching a images of nature with parts of a film But after watching this film I realized that most of the films scenes are taken from other cannibal films,even the demise of 2 of the characters,well..most of the film is.That's why I call this a little film,when I did found out that scenes were borrowed I felt like throwing the disc across the room,this isn't a film just a simple montage of sorts .
|
negative
|
This was filmed back-to-back with the 1992 re-make of Conan Doyle's famous novel 'The Lost World'. And it shows.<br /><br />The film starts promisingly enough, with a ruthless organization intending to exploit the lost world and Challenger et al returning to defend the prehistoric plateau, but then things go downhill. Everybody is stranded on the plateau and we're left with a feeble, boring, over-length rehash of the first film.<br /><br />The dinosaurs (who are hardly ever seen) are just laughable. Are we expected to take that cuddly toy that's supposed to be an ankylosaur seriously? And the tyrannosaur seems rooted to the spot.<br /><br />Do yourself a favor and get hold of the 1925 silent version of the Lost World. Unbelievably in this age of CGI and other advanced effects, the twenties version is the best and will remain so until somebody finally decides to do a decent re-make.
|
negative
|
This was another one of those shows that I watched to root out the positive elements, and because I've been a Nick fan for years. Some of those would be the stage sets, B-plots, guest stars, and a few of the main actors that were good. I dabbled in the show through high school as I quickly grew to despise Jamie Spears, along with the other chicks in the show that can't act. The only characters I seemed to like were Dustin, Quinn, Stacey, Michael & Logan. Quinn is a perfect outcast that eventually started to fit in; Stacey is a complete oddball; Dustin gets put through a bunch of strange, random situations; and Michael is kind of the comic relief right-hand man of Logan. There's a remarkable difference between the execution & acting quality of the B-plots that involve them, and the A-plots that showcased a bunch of screeching girls and an iconic "Miss Perfect," repeating bad lines and obsessing over guys. This show would have been great if the main plots contained the quality of the side plots, but the main plots just don't deliver anything. When it recently came back in reruns, and I tried to watch it again, I was more calloused towards the girls' abysmal acting and had to change the channel. However, I will give the previously listed characters credit because they did make the show more or less worth my time.
|
negative
|
This was a typical grade B movie in 1940s Hollywood and yet it succeeded way beyond its expectations. Why? It has a wonderful plot and backed up by Nina Foch, George MacReady and Dame May Witty, as a female villain, of all people.<br /><br />When a young lady answers an advertisement for a secretary, she certainly gets more than she bargained for. The only talents her employers are seeking are those which will lead to her demise. Seems that Witty and MacReady want to pass her off as their daughter-in-law and wife, respectively. MacReady killed his real wife and wants to do Foch in as well so that a body can be claimed.<br /><br />The film deals with how Foch tries to get town people to believe her and how she is thwarted in practically everything she does. Why don't people believe her?
|
positive
|
I can't come up with appropriate enough words to describe the horror I felt sitting in that cinema watching Ramgopal Varma Ki Aag, the director's half-hearted attempt to pay tribute to that classic Bollywood western, Sholay. The biggest problem with Varma's remake is that he doesn't even try to make a credible film. It's evident in every single frame of this movie that Varma's heart is just not in it. What you see on screen is a bad joke at best, a gimmick on the part of the filmmaker, and it pains you to see what little regard he actually shows for a film he claims he's been a fan of all his life.I've seen several bad films over the years, but I can't remember one that's been as much of a torture to sit through as this one. Consider yourself very brave if you're able to survive the entire film, because it tests your patience like few films have before.Varma may borrow his plot and characters from the original film, but his version is trite and hollow and doesn't have any of the spirit and energy of Sholay. Ramgopal Varma Ki Aag is actually a mockery of that timeless gem because it turns out to be everything that the original film was not - way-over-the-top, too-long-too-boring, and entirely mindless. Much-loved moments from Sholay are parodied by Varma and for that you want to wring his neck. One of the most memorable scenes in Sholay in which Dharmendra as Veeru climbs up the watertank and threatens to jump down to his death is turned around in this film with Ajay Devgan playing Hero, pulling a pistol to his head threatening to shoot himself. How you wish he'd pulled the trigger and spared us all the agony.Not only does Ramgopal Varma Ki Aag fail as a remake of Sholay, it's a pretty bad effort even as a stand-alone film. The eardrum-damaging background score sounds more like someone clanging vessels in the kitchen, and the camera-work alternates between dramatic and head-spinning. Partners in this terrible crime of bringing this ridiculous film to screen are the film's mostly dead-as-wood actors. Sushmita Sen as Devi the widow takes both her role and the film too seriously, punctuating her lines with pauses, staring into camera for effect, and generally performing like her life depends upon it. Mohanlal as Narsimha, struggles with his Hindi dialogue and looks embarrassed to be delivering some of the stupidest lines in his illustrious career. Newcomer Prashant Raj playing Jai-equivalent Raj has no acting chops to speak of and can't strum up any of the brooding intensity Amitabh Bachchan brought to the part in the original film.As Hero, the new-age Veeru, Ajay Devgan is entirely hopeless, failing miserably in his attempts at comedy. But the film's weakest link, easily the most shocking casting decision is Nisha Kothari as Ghunghroo, who steps into the shoes of Hema Malini as Basanti, the endearing airhead from Sholay. Nisha Kothari is not only the worst actress in this country, but possibly the worst actress in this whole wide world, she gives the word annoying a whole new meaning, and she makes you want to slit your wrists every time she's on screen. And then, there is Amitabh Bachchan playing Babban Singh, Ramgopal Varma's version of Hindi cinema's most popular villain Gabbar Singh. The only actor in this ensemble who recognises the film's over-the-top tone and plays along accordingly, Bachchan constructs a menacing character who is a treat to watch. He's meant to be a comic book villain who snarls and sneers and hisses and hams, and he does all of that to good effect. But because he's trapped in such a doomed enterprise, his performance doesn't really help elevate the film in any way.No surprises here, I'm going with zero out of ten and two thumbs down for Ramgopal Varma Ki Aag, it one's of those painful movie-watching experiences you wouldn't subject even an enemy to. It's not like Varma hasn't handled a remake before. With Sarkar he gave us a smart, gripping take on The Godfather, and it's a pity he's made this Sholay bhature out of such a much-loved classic. Ramgopal Varma Ki Aag is his worst career decision ever, it's also a dark spot on his resume he'll be embarrassed of forever. I suspect this film will go down in movie history as Ramgopal Varma Ka Daag.
|
negative
|
Wave after wave of directionless nausea - this film wants and at first promises to be quirky and original but is in fact obvious, solipsistic and mired in cliché-driven dialogue which builds to a crecendo of awfulness and cheese by the end. Throughout the film we meet supposedly off the wall characters, who are actually very dull, and just don't quite work and who clunk through the horrific screenplay like men in armour suits, driving jeeps through mansion houses and spouting preppy existential obviousness accompanied by the whinings of Coldplay. The film has occasional funny episodes, often no funnier than a dog playing with its genitals, which happened twice (an index of the slapstick, rudimentary humour of the film in general) but by the end, the film falls into an 'infinite abyss' of complete detritus and the director's egocentric ramblings which made me want to gouge my eyes out. Watch this film at your peril.
|
negative
|
This is the best series of its type I've seen all year. I can't help thinking it's just my luck - a series I love gets 6 episodes (and more next year) and the constant stream of cookie-cutter cop shows get never ending episodes.<br /><br />I think the reasons New Tricks succeeds are many. The scripts are good, and the mix of characters superb, The acting is top flight, and the blend of comedy and drama works a treat. The stories aren't all that memorable, but that's not the reason I watch shows like this one. <br /><br />The theme song is a favourite, and we were disappointed to find it isn't available in any published edition. Great stuff, BBC- a triumph of sense over sex-appeal (aside from the young constable nobody's there as eye-lolly, and even if he IS, he can still act!).
|
positive
|
Solo is an action movie about a Terminator-like android that is constructed and trained for the military. When a flaw is discovered, he is issued to be deprogrammed. Rather than face death, he chooses to flee into the jungles of Central America, where he takes refuge in a village. The military chases him into there, leading into a big action feast.<br /><br />Mario Van Peebles does a decent performance the android. His movements and gestures look mechanical enough to get the job done. Actual scientific realism is abandoned in order to make a good action hero. And it works out; the action scenes aren't that spectacular, but they aren't all too bad either. The acting from the other characters is pretty bad, but I was not expecting anything too good. The special effects were decent as well.<br /><br />Solo is decent as an action flick, but very forgettable. It lacks the substance that most movies possess. But if you just want to pass a couple hours without much thinking, this will get the job done.
|
negative
|
I think that New York Times film critic Elvis Mitchell wrote the best one line review of In the Mood for Love when he said that it is "dizzy with a romantic spirit that's been missing from the cinema forever." How true those words are! Truly romantic films are so rare these days, while films that include plenty of sex and nudity (which are often portrayed in a smutty and gratuitous manner) abound. So, given this cinematic climate, Wong Kar-wai's latest film feels like a much needed breath of fresh air. In the Mood for Love is about the doomed romance between two neighbors ("Mr. Chow," played by Tony Leung and "Mrs. Chan," played by Maggie Cheung), whose spouses are having an illicit affair, as they try "not to be like them." But after hanging out with each other on lonely nights (while their spouses are away "on business"/"taking care of a sick mother"), they fall madly in love, and must resist the temptation of going too far.<br /><br />Several factors are responsible for making In the Mood for Love a new classic among "romantic melodramas," in the best sense of that term. First, the specific period of the film (i.e. 1960's Hong Kong) is faithfully recreated to an astonishing degree of detail. The clothes (including Maggie Cheung's lovely dresses), the music (e.g. Nat King Cole), and the overall atmosphere of this film evokes a nostalgia for that specific period. Second, Christopher Doyle's award-winning, breathtakingly beautiful cinematography creates an environment which not only envelopes its two main characters, but seems to ooze with romantic longing in every one of its sumptuous, meticulously composed frame. Make no mistake about it: In the Mood for Love was the most gorgeous film of 2001. (It should also be mentioned that Wong Kar-wai's usual hyper-kinetic visual style is (understandably) toned down for this film, although his pallet remain just as colorful.) Third, there is the haunting score by Michael Galasso, which is accompanied by slow motion sequences of, e.g. Chan walking in her elegant dresses, Chan and Chow "glancing" at each other as they pass one another on the stairs, and other beautiful scenes which etch themselves into one's memory. The main score--which makes its instruments sound as though they're literally crying--is heard eight times throughout various points in the film and it serves to highlight the sadness and the longing which the two main characters feel. Fourth, Tony Leung and Maggie Cheung both deliver wonderful performances (Leung won the prize for best actor at Cannes) and they manage to generate real chemistry on screen.<br /><br />The above elements coalesce and work so nicely together to create a film that feels timeless, "dizzyingly romantic," and, in a word, magical. In the Mood for Love, perhaps more than any other film of 2001, reminded me why it is that I love "going to the movies." And I guess that is about the highest compliment that I can pay to a film.<br /><br />
|
positive
|
When I first saw this film in cinema 11 years ago, I loved it. I still think the directing and cinematography are excellent, as is the music. But it's really the script that has over the time started to bother me more and more. I find Emma Thompson's writing self-absorbed and unfaithful to the original book; she has reduced Marianne to a side-character, a second fiddle to her much too old, much too severe Elinor - she in the movie is given many sort of 'focus moments', and often they appear to be there just to show off Thompson herself.<br /><br />I do understand her cutting off several characters from the book, but leaving out the one scene where Willoughby in the book is redeemed? For someone who red and cherished the book long before the movie, those are the things always difficult to digest.<br /><br />As for the actors, I love Kate Winslet as Marianne. She is not given the best script in the world to work with but she still pulls it up gracefully, without too much sentimentality. Alan Rickman is great, a bit old perhaps, but he plays the role beautifully. And Elizabeth Spriggs, she is absolutely fantastic as always.
|
negative
|
"Driving Lessons" sees two middle class quintessential British families meet head on, when Grint's character comes into contact with Evee, (Walters), a slightly deranged out-of-touch actress with an ego. Grint betrays his overpowering, and over-Christian mother, (Linney), and goes off travelling with Evee to Scotland, to accompany her on a trip to participate in a Poetry reading, something she claims could be her last, due to an illness.<br /><br />Grint's portrayal of a caged youngster, brainwashed by an overbearing, and even hypocritical mother, is the masterpiece of this film. His portrayal of a downtrodden teen in search of his true morals, and happiness, is captivating to watch unfold throughout. The film is sharply shot, and well paced, with very few moments leaving you tired, an achievement, particularly considering the nature of the plot. Walters really grabs hold of her character with both hands, and successfully brings the audience to her side of things, emphasising Linney's ironic immorality throughout. Her role in "Driving Lessons" is enjoyable and memorable in every sense.<br /><br />The plot develops nicely, leaving the audience cheering on Grint as he chases back to Evee's place during his lunch break during his stint at a local bookshop to apologise for his wrongdoings. The values in the piece are continued and brought out thoroughly up until the final drag, in a very consistent way. The overbearing, (and relieving), main idea being that religion doesn't lead to happiness, and certainly doesn't lead to morality.<br /><br />The audience are left sympathising with the radical but lovable Evee, with her and Grint making an irresistible partnership on the big screen, transferred directly from their debut in the "Harry Potter" series. Charismatic and beautiful acting together with a tight and fact paced script make this a must-see this Christmas.
|
positive
|
Well, I have to admit that this movie brought some occasional laughs to my face. OK, but that does not make it a good movie. Most of the characters are terrible stereotypes and truly unconvincing. Not all of them give great acting performances, but some really try, but fail because their characters are badly written. The perfect example is Julia Koschitz: She changes her eating habits from one talk to the other, on one talk she does not drink alcohol on the next she is allergic to champagne, she feels too beautiful for most people (in fact she is) but still ends up with the "perfect" fit concerning the looks, and refuses to give some more "realistic" guys a chance, and so on... The end is very cheesy, although I like one of the final scenes, when everybody finally stops talking and the director gives us a chance to catch our breath again. Shoppen is basically a movie that offers some cheap laughters (mostly because it is about sex and relationships, I assume) and maybe some short entertainment. Still, the whole picture is one big stereotype and nothing is really special about it.
|
negative
|
I gave this movie a 10 simply out of my sick obsession with Ingrid Bergman:) lol. I really think she was the best actress to ever grace this earth with her talent and all of her movies are absolutely wonderful (even when they are awful) because SHE is in them. If it hadn't been her and Vivien Leigh (as it had originally been desired I hear) I would have given it a 9.0 Simply because I love Viv but probably not as much as I love Ingrid. And any other actress would have made it maybe a 6. It's a good story, two wild people falling in love in a society where it bad to be bad. Reminds me a little of GWTW except laced with a more highbrow attitude. Gary Cooper is very handsome as usual and of course his voice never changes the entire film, but hey Ingrid makes him seem so amazing and dashing and 20 times hotter than he probably should be.
|
positive
|
Why a stupid, boring, crappy overrated film series like "Star Wars" gets all the hype, and a truly amazing film like this one goes completely un-noticed.. is beyond me... This movie will really open your eyes to the dark, disturbing, sad, and scary world we live in...<br /><br />Unlike the boring "Elephant", this movie isn't one of those "just a typical day until someome pulls the trigger" movies.. this movie focuses more on what happens AFTER the event...<br /><br />Deana, played by the very hot and very talented Erika Christensen, is a happy and healthy straight-A student with great friends and a great life... until... she is injured on the day of the shooting, by being shot in the head.. Luckily she is not killed, but is severely injured and has to be in the hospital for a while, causing her to be in a lot of emotional pain, in addition to the physical...<br /><br />Meanwhile, Alicia, played by the also very gorgeous and talented Busy Phillips, is a nasty, cold-hearted, rebellious, anti-social goth girl who doesn't have a single positive trait on her... and she is unharmed when the shooting happens.. because it turns out, she was FRIENDS with the shooter and knew he was going to do what he did... which causes her to be brought into the police station and be asked some questions.. When she refuses to tell the cops if she knew the shooting was going to happen, they constantly come by her house to try to convince her to say something... and she still doesn't, so the principal of the school makes her attend a funeral of one of the dead students, and after she walks out on that... the principal decides enough is enough, and forces her to go visit Deana in the hospital.. Of course she refuses this too, but the principal says that if Alicia doesn't do this, the cops are going to continue to try to get her to say something.. and so she actually goes to see her...<br /><br />The lonely, traumatized, and both physically and emotionally wounded Deana is more than happy to have someone visit her, but of course, Alicia is anything BUT happy to be seeing her.. Deana attempts to give her a friendly welcome, but of course, Alicia responds with nothing but harsh and hurtful comments and a harsh statement on how she is only here because she is being forced, and has no intention of being friendly with her at all. But sooner or later, that intention will change... (and that's all I'll say :) This is truly one of the most moving movies ever, as well as one of the most dark and disturbing.. Actually, I think I would tie this with "American History X" as equally disturbing and moving at the same time...<br /><br />WARNING: Watch this movie at your own risk!! It contains VERY graphic scenes and images! EXCELLENT and criminally under-appreciated movie! I feel so ashamed that I'm pretty much the only one that knows about it!
|
positive
|
Over the years I've watched this movie many times from seeing it on "HBO" and I now own a copy on DVD. I must say it's very memorable and entertaining in the meantime it's interesting and educational too. As any TV fan can relate to the time of the early 90's when the time came up to replace Johhny Carson the TV living legend of "The Tonight Show" who's it gonna be Jay or Dave? This original film from HBO "The Late Shift" stays true to form and depicts the real events very well showing the behind the scenes battle between networks heads of NBC and CBS and even ABC they were all fighting for the services of Jay and Dave. The acting makes it seem real as very little actual TV footage is shown with real life people as the actors portraying Leno and Letterman make it seem so real. I haven't read the Bill Carter book so I don't know if it stayed true to the pages, but I have highly enjoyed this film over the years. From the moment when it starts showing CBS entertainment heads watching Leno sub for Johhny and they decide they want to get in on the late night game. Yet when Carson announces his unexpected retirement NBC wants to stay loyal with Leno yet conflict arrives when Letterman wants a crack at the slot at 11:30 too. It was fun to watch the wacky meeting with Michael Ovitz(Treat Williams)who makes all networks want to consider Letterman for a show. It was interesting to see the scene of Johhny telling Letterman by phone in a direct way to walk from NBC and consider CBS. And by the way Rich Little was terrific as Johhny Carson his portrayal couldn't be matched. And plenty of tense moments were provided by showing the bickering and firing of Leno's talent manager Helen which NBC heads pressured him to do. Overall great film that showed what TV is really like and it proves that networks are power and money hungry while showing that's it's a cutthroat business. Clearly there's no business like show business. Great work from HBO very memorable and a watch anytime it showed the true story of the late night wars.
|
positive
|
OK this will contain spoilers. Now I have never seen such a large pile of poop since the laxative/feed mix up at the elephant enclosure in the zoo! It has more plot holes than moth eaten lace and as for the 'realistic' plot line. Well sexual slavery is a dreadful and very real world wide problem and this pile of bilge utilises this plague as a plot device to titillate and tease, shame on everyone involved for that piece of questionable judgement. But back to the film, if you were going to kidnap people from an airport, some of the most secure and camera happy places in the modern world by the way, then why plant a stoolie on the inside of the van who does bugger all until the plot needs a twist. Just wait until you are out of the airport, pull the gun, handcuff the passengers, drive calmly to the warehouse and kill the guys, job done. On the passengers side, on at least three occasions the good guys have the bad guys incapacitated and are armed, WASTE THEM! Once in a movie it can just be acceptable not to put a bullet in the bad guys skull, but COME ON three times! And after he's killed most of you. Also the guy is willing to put down the gun to stop a scarred cheek but kills a girl for a yeast infection that could be cleared up with $20 dollars worth of drugs. I could go on and on about the amount of holes in this but I won't waste any more of my time. Suffice to say that I have rarely been so insulted by such a dreadful piece of drivel and as for the real problem of sexual slavery, girls go voluntarily to new 'jobs' in distant lands and are abused, raped, and often killed by the gang master who meets them off the boat/plane and takes their passports and freedom. This s**t is an insult to anyone whose life has been affected by this! Do not waste your time!
|
negative
|
Historical drama is one of the areas where the British just can't be beat. So while i'm not a huge fan of the genre, i can usually be persuaded to watch something lite this if it's British and with decent actors.<br /><br />I have never read anything by Sarah Waters, which is of course something i should do. Hence i didn't really know what to expect from this. I had heard that there would be a lesbian love story, but not much more. While watching it i found it to be a lot more interesting than i had anticipated. Without saying too much the twists and turns of the plot are unexpected as well as well-crafted. Although there were almost a twist too many somewhere, it took me a minute to get everything straight.<br /><br />Production values are good, the actors are very solid and the pace is decent, although i found it to be a bit slow in the last half-hour. That might just be me though, i usually have a problem with movies dragging on after the plot is more or less finished. All in all though, this is a fairly enjoyable three hours. I recommend it to anyone interested in historical dramas.
|
positive
|
I have watch this movie almost every night that is was on HBO. It is of my opinion that it could have been successful in the theater, providing the advertisement leading up to it was top scale. I was thoroughly impressed with the actress who played Nanny. She is an outstanding actress. Of course, my favorite actor is Terrance Howard. He is a very understated actor and he deserves much more credit than he has received. Ebony magazine did do a nice article on him, giving him some of his due propers. Lakawanna Blue, gave me a understanding of the stories my parents use to tell us. They were from a similar town "Philadelphia, PA" were they had to have their fun in the junt joints and such. I also like to say that Mos Def is a incredible actor. He has found his calling. I've seen him in several movies where he has played a variety of roles, from thug to doctor and he has the stuff! Overall, please put Lakawanna Blues on video for rental.
|
positive
|
This story was probably one of the most powerful I have ever taken in. John Singleton certainly went above and beyond when putting together this educational masterpiece. Brilliant performances by the whole cast, but Epps and Rapaport turned in the best and most convincing of either young star's career.<br /><br />However, as a college student myself, many of the issues that Singleton touched on were taken to the extreme. In a sense that, while they are issues faced on many college campuses, they aren't presented as big or out in the open as this movie would make one believe. In some instances, it almost seemed ridiculous to think that something of this nature could actually occur. However, aside from the fact that it was a little over dramatic, the film was brilliant and left me stunned, unable to talk, just think. One of the things from this picture I will remember forever, was a quote from Lawrence Fishburn's character, "Knowledge is power, without knowledge, you cannot see your power." Brilliant, just brilliant.
|
positive
|
Story of an ex-Navy Seal who is now a combat medical officer assigned to a state of the art Russian sub with a nurse. This is to answer a call for help set off by a dying member of the original crew. The sub has been overtaken by terrorists who are bent on destruction. So we see the duo try and gain control back. And this happens with the fear of the US Naval Forces is about to unleashing everything it has got on the terrorist sub to prevent it from launching its arsenal. Be careful of the early explicit sexual scene in the first quarter of the movie. A couple of unexplained scenes towards the end. Watch it when you have the time. Nothing to miss out even if you let the show run while you go get yourself a cup of coffee: slow moving.
|
negative
|
Last fall (of 2001), I took a film class that was taught by the director of this movie (Mark Hoeger). His vast knowledge of filmmaking, his ability to dissect any scene of a film, and his winning of an Academy Award in some obscure category seemed to give him more credibility than your average independent film director. When he mentioned during one of his classes that he had just finished directing a film called "Full Ride" and was in the post-production stages, my interest was piqued. However, that would be the last I would ever hear of that film project. Until last week...<br /><br />Last week, I saw in a TV listing that "Full Ride" was going to be showing on the WB network. This immediately raised a red flag, as I can't help but associate WB with teensploitation shows such as Dawson's Creek, Charmed, etc. PLUS, the fact that Full Ride was going to be released straight to TV wasn't too flattering in itself. But, nevertheless, I set aside that time and sat down to watch my former film teacher's creation.<br /><br />After two hours passed and the end credits began to roll, I thought long and hard about what I had just seen. What I had just seen was a typical WB-quality show stretched out to the length of two hours. In fact, it almost seemed as if this movie was made with the sole intent of only showing on the WB network. Critiquing this movie will basically be like critiquing a typical WB show.<br /><br />Where to begin? The characters are shallow, the story is cliche in every sense of the word, the scenes are completely contrived, and the character development is forced and unbelievable. This movie just screams `unoriginal.'<br /><br />The main character, Matt Sabo, is some hot shot from the wrong side of the tracks (literally) who plays solid high school football as a fullback, but then fizzles off into a life of crime. He is then offered a chance at a full ride scholarship instead of going to jail. Obviously, without much of a choice, he agrees to play football with an all-star football team, but is not excepted among his peers because of his poor team spirit and bad attitude.<br /><br />Then comes the love interest. Of course! Where would this predictable fanfare be without a love interest? She comes in the form of Amy Lear (played by the beautiful Meredith Monroe). She is actually a likable character, as opposed to the ever-so-abrasive Matt Sabo, so we almost applaud her when she rejects him at first. But, of course, the inevitable comes to pass. She falls for him, changes his attitude towards everything, and all seems good and happy. But now it's time for conflict!<br /><br />Earlier in the movie, Amy makes it clear to Matt that she doesn't want to score with him, because it would be `shameful' to her and her mother. This is much to Matt's dismay, and his football buddies (yes, they eventually warm up to him) who bet him he wouldn't get any. But, of course, Matt eventually comes to accept these terms and decides he's not all about the nookie. Here's where the exciting plot thickens. If you don't want me to ruin this surprise, then skip ahead.<br /><br />[BEGIN SPOILER]<br /><br />Matt finds out from some local guys that apparently Amy Lear always tries to score with a guy each year from the All-Star team so that she can try to use him to escape her small town life of working in a cafeteria (which is baffling in the first place) and make it to the big city. Suddenly realizing he's been used and that his love was a sham, Matt it tempted to turn back to a life of crime and leave the football camp before `the big game.' Amy tries to reassure him that she was really in love this time, but he's too hot-headed to buy it. So what will Matt do? Will he take her back? Or will he go back to robbing gas stations and being an all-round jerk? I won't ruin the super-ultra-surprising ending for you.<br /><br />[END SPOILER]<br /><br />So, if I somehow got you pumped up for this movie, please realize that that was my sarcasm and not genuine enthusiasm. This movie is an uninspired version of `Varsity Blues' or `Summer Catch.' And that's not saying much. There's hardly any comedy to save it and the characters are too shallow to care about. So what do you have left? Not a whole lot.<br /><br />What I most disliked about the movie was how much of an unflattering picture Hoeger painted of Nebraska through this film. It seems like he was trying to capture the essence of rural Nebraska and teenage life in the small towns, but his approach is all too stereotypical and shallow. The characters' high hopes for making in `the big city' and the actions they take to do so are greatly exaggerated, and it only further cements the stereotype of Nebraskans being a bunch of hicks living in farm communities. I am unsure of whether or not Hoeger's intentions were good in trying to put his home state in the spotlight, but I think he ended up with a very shameful product. If Hoeger wanted to portray Nebraska in a favorable light, he should have taken a note or two from Alexander Payne. While Payne simply chooses to use Nebraska as a backdrop for his films, Hoeger integrates it into the plot of Full Ride and becomes so entangled in his awareness of where he's shooting, that he ends up churning out superficial garbage that would seem to come from an outsider. If Hoeger actually lived here, you'd think he'd know better than that.<br /><br />All in all, I am completely disappointed in Hoeger's first big film, and I hope that next time he can combine his knowledge with a little bit of originality to create something different and thought-provoking.
|
negative
|
I was required to watch the movie for my work, so I didn't pay for it (on the contrary, i got paid), but I still found the movie to suck far more than average. The jokes were lame, the two lead actresses... well, to use the "First wives club" division of women's ages in Hollywood, they are no longer in their "hot chick" age but more in their "district attorney" age. What angered me most about the movie was the main plot line, which pretty much completely plagiarized "Beavis & Butthead Do America" (in which the boys are all jazzed up about some dude offering them money to "do his wife", not realizing they're expected to assassinate her). All in all, a bland piece of crap.
|
negative
|
A grade-Z horror filmmaker Carl Monson was one of the most prolific directors operating within the field of the low-budget gory mayhem.His movies are full of inept gore,laughable acting,boring sub-plots and woeful dialogue.A mysterious black clad figure is savagely murdering guests staying at the family mansion.Unfortunately this film is almost bloodless.You don't actually see the murders except with shadows and a few blood splatters.The pace is lethargic and the plot is rather uninteresting.The acting is merely competent,but the lack of gore and mutilation left me disappointed.A generous 4 out of 10.Just beware:do not mistake Monson's film with Andy Milligan's equally weak "Legacy of Blood".
|
negative
|
Certainly any others I have seen pale in comparison. The series gives balanced coverage to all theatres of operation. No one country is given undue credit for the Allied victory. Laurence Olivier brings great weight and dignity to his role as narrator.
|
positive
|
This is an amazing movie and is very clever at using the few actors and sets. It is also very shocking - the physical and psychological torture (both explicit and implied) is mixed with calm and even humourous stretches. So the horror is always unexpected, and brutal. I'm not soft, but this would have to be the most shocking film I have ever seen. The message of this film is definitely delivered with a sledgehammer. This is the film I will always remember both actors for.
|
positive
|
This was the funniest piece of film/tape I have ever witnessed, bar none. I laughed myself sick the first three times I watched it. I recommend it to everyone, with the warning that if they can't handle the f-sharps to stay FAR away. At his best when telling stories from a kids point of view.
|
positive
|
The brilliance of this story delivers at least one skillfully crafted message to each viewer in the audience. This story is about success, it's about failure. It's about the choices you make in life and the choices others make for you. The story deals with self realization and determination on a scale so large, no camera angle could cover it. Within the grasp of each scene is resides an element marked for depiction within your imagination. Keep this in mind as you watch the movie; it's more than eye candy. The sexually suggestive, rarely explicit scenes serve only to distract and entertain you during the tedious process of character development.
|
positive
|
This is a good movie, I won't go into any details as the other user comments do a good job of taking care of that. However, I disagree with the statement that this is Eastwood's best work. That is just not a very defendable position based on the volume of strong movies he has directed and starred in. I would like to note that I find it interesting that two of the actresses who played in this movie, Pattye Mattick and Peggy Drier, never again appeared in another film or television show, in spite of giving good performances. My curiosity has me wondering what happened to these two actresses?
|
positive
|
I'm easily entertained. I enjoyed "Hot Shots" and "The Naked Gun" and their many sequels, even when most people found them unbearable. I've even managed to enjoy most Pauly Shore movies. There is only one movie that I've seen that I can honestly say was bad...and this was it. It's been a while since I've seen it, but I do remember sitting in the theater thinking, "This is a dumb movie. Why did I see this?" It's honestly the only movie that I cannot recommend.
|
negative
|
Dolph Lundgren broods and scowls his way through this incoherent mystery/thriller that's not nearly as cool as the box would have you believe. He is actually quite good here, but the story is a mess of B-movie cliches (detectives, revenge, tycoons, hookers, S&M) that looks like it was made up as they went along. The film picks up a bit in the second half but for a more decent Lundgren flick, rent RED SCORPION instead.
|
negative
|
I have watched this movie time and time and time again - each time it makes me laugh, it makes me think, and it makes me cry. Robin Tuney does an incredible job of portraying Marcy (and I'm kind of glad that Kate Winslet and that other lady turned down her part) its just one of those rolls that you know that no one else could have even compared.<br /><br />Its a beautiful love story of these 2 very different people in crappy situations that team up together. They stand beside each other no matter what, even if it is in an odd situation and crazy ways.<br /><br />I'll tell you now its not for everyone - out of everyone I've shown it to I'd say the results are 50/50 - but if you like it, you'll love it and want to share it with others! 10 stars all the way!
|
positive
|
Oh God, Why? I am aghast at the sheer ineptitude of this delicious blathering nonsense..as if all that makes sense. Well, like this film from bottom rung poverty row of 1940s Hollywood, nothing in this door slamming horror - made on three sets - makes much sense...except the horniness of Dr Markoff (jerkoff?) who lusts uncontrollably after some plonky piano-player's daughter who has big melons and a flouncy hairdoo. It is just terrible ...and even has a gorilla and a big dog for pointless added distractions. More Elephantine than Elephant man and that is just at 62 minutes!. ....THE MONSTER MAKER is the sort of film kids in 2005 just howl at with disbelief and wonder what the hell their grandparents saw in their youth that made them the lovable movie kooks they are today. I guess you just had to be there. In 1944 or whenever the hell this mad drivel was shown to impressionable 13 year olds in glorious 3000 seat velvet movie palaces on a wet day. Somehow. It was made for no reason, by botchville crapshooter movie scammers PRC Pictures in the war years by escaped German refugees who knew who to make a film since they got out of Europe as the Nazis advanced on UFA studios...the monster in this film, like the mad scientist is actually a Nazi nightmare.
|
negative
|
This is one of the best military films ever made. And it is great because of its focus on values. It's a great human interest story that turns on a commitment to honor, loyalty, love, and determination.<br /><br />Gooding and DeNiro are superb in the lead roles. It's wonderful to see the Master Chief's racism evolve toward respect and love through Carl Brashear's determination, drive,and yes, sense of honor. The title indicates the source of their bond. I never noticed until this last time watching it how brilliant Carl Lumbly's portrayal of Carl's father, Mac Brashear, was. In a way, it's a cornerstone of the film in that it's Carl's memory of his father that helps carry him through hard times.<br /><br />I am selective about what films I purchase. This is one of those rare ones that I want on my shelf. It will be seen many times in the future, I'm sure.
|
positive
|
This was a painful example of a cheap, boring and unoriginal show produced by Australian TV stations to fulfil local content quotas. The writing was truly terrible and I'm not surprised that the writers are those responsible for the worst Australian film in recent memory the Honerable Wally Norman.<br /><br />Nothing about this TV series was funny - ever - not even mildly amusing. It was just tired and BAD and, worst of all, it really thought it was funny. It was simply embarrassing to watch.<br /><br />There is something very suss about this show being given 10 out of 10 on IMDb. Try to find a (real) review by a (real) Australian viewer of the show (there weren't many) and it is impossible. Or crazy. There are loafs of bread that are funnier than this show. <br /><br />Avoid the show at all cost and if it does come out on DVD, remember that the laughter THAT deserves was unintentional.
|
negative
|
The worst movie I have seen since Tera Jadoo Chal Gaya. There is no story, no humor, no nothing! The action sequences seem more like a series of haphazard Akshay Kumar Thumbs-Up advertisements stitched together. Heavily influenced from The Matrix and Kung-Fu Hustle but very poorly executed.<br /><br />I did not go a lot of expectations, but watching this movie is an exasperating experience which makes you wonder "What were these guys thinking??!!".<br /><br />The only thing you might remember after watching it is an anorexic Kareena in a bikini.<br /><br />The reason why I did not give a rating of '1' is that every time I think I have seen the worst, Bollywood proves me wrong.
|
negative
|
Unfortunately, SpaceCamp came out about the same time as the Challenger Explosion. Which really put a crimp on when to bring it out or even if they should, bring it out. I'm glad they did. I first watched SpaceCamp at a drive-in movie. Which really enhanced the viewing a lot.<br /><br />While I had heard of Lea Thompson and Tom Skerritt. I had never heard of the others in the movie. So, it came as a big shock to me to find all those youngsters acting, and acting real good! Of course, Kate Capshaw was excellent too.<br /><br />I especially liked the scenes, where those kids were being shown how to act, as a team. The scenes of the kids being prepared for a trip they could only hope for. The actual launch of a spacecraft, is of course, old news to us. However, this one was different.<br /><br />All in all, this is one of my most treasured films. Escapist maybe, but it was fantastic for a space nut like me. After probably renting it for 30 - 40 times. I finally found it available in a certain store and bought it. Now, if it only comes out on DVD. I will probably have it forever. This movie gets a 9 out of 10 from me.
|
positive
|
I suppose that in 1997 Hollywood wasn't quite at the point of openly celebrating homosexuality, so one might want to give some credit to those who put this movie together for having shown a little bit of courage. One simply wishes that credit could be given them for having put together a really good movie, and in my opinion "In & Out" doesn't qualify on that count. It's the story of Howard Brackett (Kevin Kline) - a small town high school English teacher who on the eve of his wedding is outed by a former student who happens to win an Oscar and who then has to go through what can only be described as a period of self-discovery as he comes to terms with being homosexual. To me, that was the first problem with this movie. Howard didn't really have to turn out to be gay. The movie would have been funnier (and perhaps even more thought provoking) had Brackett remained defiantly straight in spite of the stereotypically gay aspects to his life and the town's belief after the Oscar speech that he was gay. (In fact, I thought that identifying him as gay given the presence of those stereotypes might actually have been rather insulting to the gay community, as well as to straight men who like poetry and believe in dressing neatly!) <br /><br />Kline was decent enough in the role, and largely carried the film. Aside from him, most of the other cast members (although fine actors) were people not really noted for their success on the big screen. Folks like Tom Selleck and Wilford Brimley and Bob Newhart are good actors but not big movie stars. I actually thought that the funniest (if very small) role in the movie was that of the super model Sonya, played by an actress named Shalom Harlow (Speaking of stereotypes, I loved her oh-so stereotypical model line "I promised to do that photo shoot this afternoon. I have to shower and vomit!") In the end, what really turned me off about this movie was the ridiculous ending, starting with the graduation ceremony (and, to be honest, even if someone decided that the graduation was really necessary, the movie should have ended there, rather than proceeding on with the totally unnecessary nuptials at the end.) <br /><br />Basically, I got a few chuckles out of this but nothing more. 3/10
|
negative
|
I rented this tape a couple of years ago, and boy did it suck. From the commercials, I was lead to believe that this was a movie about a guy who had no no luck with women, and that was where the comedy would lie. Boy was I wrong. The jokes were vulgar, and they were just not funny. Don't bother. 1/10
|
negative
|
Save some very early Norris, "Breaker, Breaker" has nothing to offer which can't be found ten fold better on any broadcast channel. A pathetic attempt at film making, this is one of the worst films I have ever seen. In spite of that, I did watch it, thumbing the fast forward button, because the acting was so awful it was comical. Of course, the film is supposed to be an action/drama but turned out as a treatise on how NOT to make a movie. Everything which could be wrong with film is on screen in this "dog". If you happen across it, give it a peek. It's so bad, it's funny.
|
negative
|
If ever a potential movie must've sounded like it wouldn't work based on reading the script on paper, it would be this one. Here we have what seemingly looks like a lurid and seedy soft-porn s&m flick, complete with the huge in-theatre poster, depicting a near-naked Christina Ricci chained to none other than Mr. Bad Ass MF himself, Samuel Jackson. But let me tell you, if ever a film springs to life on celluloid major big time with soulful power to spare, it's Craig Brewer's redemptive follow-up to Hustle & Flow, Black Snake Moan.<br /><br />Unashamedly over the top from the get go, this film sucks you in with the opening scenes and proceeds to dig deeper and deeper in with every subsequent frame. It's yer basic story of two deeply damaged characters who find in each other the strength and courage to move on, in more positive ways, with their lives. Been done before, of course, this tale, but as I've always said, it's the manner in which a story is told that gives it heart, depth, meaning and power.<br /><br />Ricci's damaged-by-childhood-abuse wild-child character Rae and Jackson's equally soulsick musician character Lazarus find each other under desperate circumstances, and Laz takes it upon himself to try to help Rae. This in itself is relatively unique: the idea of a man trying to genuinely help a woman who is in serious pain, rather than trying to take further advantage of her, and we know from the onset that Laz's heart, and the film's heart, is in the right place. The movie at its core is about the redemptive, healing power of love (with music as a very close second), and the film resonates profoundly with this truth - soulfully, artfully and brilliantly.<br /><br />A major reason the film succeeds so profoundly is because of the fierce, committed performances from Ricci and Jackson. Scenes that would have come off as laughable and pathetic in lesser artists' hands are, instead, powerful as all get-out. In particular, the film's arc scene, in which Jackson sings and plays the song of the title alone in his house, with Ricci, amidst a serious thunderstorm and the abusive demons from Rae's past running amok inside her head, leading her to crawl to Lazarus and cling to his leg, comes off not ridiculous as technically it should, but rather as gut-wrenchingly cathartic. <br /><br />All the supporting performances are fantastic here too. Justin Timberlake is completely believable as Rae's anxiety-ridden boyfriend Ronnie, and the always-wonderful S. Epatha Merkerson is also perfectly cast as a character who obviously has feelings for Lazarus. John Cothran Jr. is outstanding as well, as Laz's reverend friend R.L. (a nod to blues musician R. L. Burnside, no doubt). Everything works about this movie, let's face it, including the music/soundtrack, which features Burnside, Scott Bomar, Bobby Rush, Son House, and most importantly, Jackson himself, whose fantastic version of Stackolee I am listening to as I compose this review. There's also a really beautiful and moving version of "This Little Light of Mine" featured in the film, sung heart-breakingly tentative and soft by Ricci.<br /><br />Samuel Jackson has said in recent interviews that he believes his performance in this movie is the best of his career thus far; I could not agree with him more. This is work that he can be monumentally proud of, along with everyone else involved in this audacious, supremely wise and deeply heartfelt mother*ucker of a project.
|
positive
|
Of the many problems with this film, the worst is continuity; and re-editing it on VHS for a college cable channel many years ago, I tried to figure out what exactly went wrong. What seems to have happened is that they actually constructed a much longer film and then chopped it down for standard theatrical viewing. How much longer? to fill in all the holes in the plot as we have it would require about three more hours of narrative and character development - especially given the fact that the film we do have is just so slow and takes itself just so seriously.<br /><br />That's staggering; what could the Halperins have possibly been trying to accomplish here? Their previous film, "White Zombie", was a successful low budget attempt to duplicate the early Universal Studios monster films (The Mummy, Dracula, etc.), and as such stuck pretty close to the zombie mythology that those in North America would know from popular magazines.<br /><br />Revolt of the Zombies, to the contrary, appears to have been intended as some allegory for the politics of modern war. This would not only explain the opening, and the change of Dean Jagger's character into a megalomaniac, but it also explains why the zombies don't actually do much in the film, besides stand around, look frightening, and wait for orders - they're just allegorical soldiers, not the undead cannibals we've all come to love and loathe in zombie films.<br /><br />I am the equal to any in my dislike for modern war and its politics - but I think a film ought to be entertaining first, and only later, maybe, educational. And definitely - a film about zombies ought to be about zombies.<br /><br />Truly one of the most bizarre films in Hollywood history, but not one I can recommend, even for historic value.
|
negative
|
Disney's Buena Vista Pictures presents a wonderfully told fact-based sports drama directed by actor Bill Paxton. Photography is superb, but story sometimes lumbers along. This film is about the 20 year old amateur golfer Francis Ouimet(Shia LaBeouf)and his competition in the 1913 U.S. Open. What a story; a once-in-a-lifetime chance for a supposedly incapable young man to play along side the best golfers of the time, including British champions Harry Vardon(Stephen Dillane)and Ted Ray(Stephen Marcus). A storybook ending leaves a knot in the throat. The cast also includes: Peter Firth, Elias Koteas, Marnie McPhail, Robin Wilcox, and possibly stealing the show is Josh Flitter, who plays Eddie Lowery, Ouimet's caddy and best friend.
|
positive
|
I downloaded this movie yesterday through an internet site the Quality was kinda good! I was watching the movie with high expectations (though i knew it was a flop), especially as the film has superstar Amitabh Bachchan playing the role of a villain.I though at least actors like him would have done some worth to their roles.But unfortunately Mr Bachchan failed to impress as villain this proved that nobody can compete AMJAD KHAN's magic Rgv's trial to re-kindle the past backfired royally! Sholay, the old one is a milestone in Indian cinema with an all-star cast, cult dialogue, stylish cinematography and a brilliant soundtrack which is still a hit with present generations too.A good actor like Ajay Devgan's TALENTS ARE wasted and his performance was average.Prashant Raj, a newcomer doesn't know what acting is . Nisha Kothari proved she is one of the worst actresses we have I don't know how she is still in RGV's crew Urmila & Abhishek seen in a song with no excitement and passion Mohanlal tried his best and Susmitha Sen's work was good i somehow liked her work in this movie It was a Total carnage of the original Sholay
|
negative
|
I just saw this movie tonight. Coming into it I thought it would be good because I like Natalie Portman alot and Susan Sarandon is a great actor too, but it was way better than I could have imagined. You come out of the movie feeling great. The acting was excellent, which is something that can be hard to come by lately. Natalie Portman is destined for great things and me being a college student at NYU, think that it is great that she is going to school instead of just being an actor. Anyways, back on subject, the movie keeps you interested the entire way through and I definitely think that everyone should go see it. I would give more details, but I don't want to give away the movie.
|
positive
|
Although there were a few rough spots and some plot lines that weren't exactly true to character, this was Classic H:LOTS. The characters, outside of Mike Giardello (Giancarlo Esposito), were true to form, and the reunion scenes of Pembleton (Andre Braugher) and Bayliss (Kyle Secor) were as deep and well acted as anything ever to grace the small screen.<br /><br />"Homicide: The Movie" aka "Life Everlasting" is a fan flick, but stands on its own as well as any 2-hour episode of the series. Fontana, Overmeyer and Yoshimura did a wonderful job in pulling loose ends from 7 seasons and every major cast member of "the best damn show on television" together for the series finale that NBC never bothered to give it. True to "Homicide" form, there were no happy endings, such is life. That's what has always set this show apart from the mindless cookie-cutter cop shows left on television. Kudos to the writers and the cast for creating something over the span of the series and in the movie that challenged television viewers and producers alike.<br /><br />** I call myself a "Homicidal Maniac" if for no other reason than to keep my co-workers in a cooperative mood. **
|
positive
|
The competition for the worst Warner Bros Kay Francis movie is stiff. I've only seen perhaps eight of them, but Comet over Broadway is the worst so far. The very best thing about it is that it's short. Oh, and the Orry-Kelly gowns (of course) are fine. James Wong Howe's cinematography is not. Kay Francis throughout looks fat-faced and far less attractive than she normally does. Minna Gombell whom I don't know otherwise is good as a semi-tough "burlesque" dancer (it looked more like a fashion show than burlesque). The closing shot - Kay Francis and her child (when did the child learn that Kay Francis was her mother? Did I doze off?) walking up a dirt path toward a prison painted in misty outlines on a sound stage drop is beyond ludicrous. The whole film is so cheap, so implausible and so careless that it feels infected by a sour cynicism on the part of everyone who made it: Warner Bros tossing garbage to dolts who don't know, in Warner Bros' cynical estimation of them, that what they're getting is garbage.
|
negative
|
The director, outfitted in chains and leather, warned the audience at the SF Frameline Film Festival Friday night that we were about to see an "experiental" film. Experimental? Leave the video camera on the back seat of the car, let the tape roll and edit in all the pointless dreck within eyesight. A meandering pastiche road show manqué that starts nowhere and takes the audience no place. The gratuitous violence that opens the movie drove more than one patron from the Castro theater. I would have left, too, but my cine-buddy needed a ride home and has this thing about seeing even the worse merde through to the end. By the time the lights came up the audience had thinned considerably. Tepid applause. Pro forma questions of the director who seemed pleased with the product. Avoid this film!
|
negative
|
Bad movie for sure. It's such a ridiculous fantasy with a lot of poor special effects, a lot of hasty scenes (the airport one for example), and a real unfunny time. (Charles Dance) is awful as the evil guy and he is much better in (Last Action Hero). (Eddie Murphy) is doing a non-comic joking, and I heard that this sunk had already succeed, big time success??!! I'll never understand why or how ?! In one TV interview I've heard (Eddie Murphy) himself, when he was nominated for an Oscar 2007, regretted it in a comic way !! <br /><br />One of the comments said (Hey...It's the 1980s !). Well, no my friend. It's the cinematic foolishness which made a lot of RAZZIE movies all over the years whether it's the 1980s or the 1950s ! <br /><br />There are 2 reasons made me write about this movie. The first is that I'll never forget the long tan fascinating legs of (Charlotte Lewis) especially when she was on bed before the bad guys attack her house, wearing just a blue shirt and OH BOY the camera was versifying about her naked legs as it should be. But how odd ! As I've watched her in following movies and she wasn't that beautiful again ?!! Anyhow the second reason is that I've found this movie's title lately at my list of the worst 100 movies ever!<br /><br />The bottom line: Bad movie, Greeeeeat legs.
|
negative
|
I rented this movie tonight because it looked like a fun movie. I figured that you really couldn't go wrong with a concept of Ex Girlfriend with super powers. <br /><br />... but the movie was confused and pointless ...<br /><br />it seemed that at every turn the writer kept throwing junk in. Also the writer kept throwing in way too much toilet humor and sexual situations that only a teenage boy could love.<br /><br />It seems that it could have been so simple to draw a story out of Fatal Attraction Super hero .. but I guess not. <br /><br />This is not a fun romantic comedy it was advertised to be. You could not take a child to see it and you would be embarrassed seeing it a date. <br /><br />If the writer could have done a basic story around the high concept and cleaned it up - the movie might have a fighting chance. <br /><br />A serious waste of time.<br /><br />B
|
negative
|
This agreeable French movie deals about a millionaire owner of a tobacco factory on an African island nearly to Madagascar named Louis(Jean Paul Belmondo). He's a single man looking wife, then he advertises a bride and gets a gorgeous woman named Julia(Catherine Deneuve). When she spontaneously appears turns out to be much more attractive than expected. He marries to Julia but she suddenly disappears.A French eye private(Michael Bouquet) is hired by Julia's sister and soon he's on the trail of his previous spouse. Later Louis encounters her in a dancing-hall under another name. In spite of the romantic delusion and everything, Louis goes on enamored with his enigmatic wife.<br /><br />This film is a splendid drama plenty of betrayal,deception, killing, theft and Hitchcockian suspense. Good performances by Jean Paul Belmondo as young proprietary of a cigarette company who seems determined to fall under the spell of a femme fatale and a wonderful Catherine Deneuve as suspect heroine. The film gets several references to the American cinema, but Truffaut(400 blows) was a fervent moviegoer, such as : Johnny Guitar, Colorado Jim, Bogart, and Hitchcock.The USA version was cut numerous minutes and deserves an urgent restoring and remastering. Loosely based on the novel titled'Waltz into darkness' by Cornell Woolrich (Rear window and screenwriter of Alfred Hitchcock hour) who also was adapted in 'Truffaut's The bride wore black'.Colorful cinematography by Denys Clerval(Stolen kisses) and atmospheric musical score by Antoine Duhamel, Truffaut's usual musician.This is one of the best of his suspense movies along with ¨Farenheit 451 and Shoot the piano player¨. Remade by an inferior version by Michael Christofer(2001) with Antonio Banderas, Angelina Jolie and Jack Thompson, full of erotic and lust scenes.
|
positive
|
First off, I didn't know what to expect when I started the video.<br /><br />Anytime someone brings back a cult type movie genre and adapts it into the present, something gets inexplicably lost in the translation.<br /><br />That's not the case here. This movie just starts off on the right track. It's part familiar territory but manages to take it over the top as well. Crockzilla scene anyone? That has to be seen, and just try and keep a straight face. This movie takes some of the old fun cult movie classics and manages to blend it seamlessly into a modern production. It's good to see someone is filling the need in this market. Very well done.<br /><br />
|
positive
|
From what I understand, Mr. Bava abandoned this project before completion...AND RIGHTFULLY SO!!! If I were him I definitely would have made sure that EVERY copy was burned and if anybody in the future ever asked me about this film...IT NEVER HAPPENED & IT NEVER EXISTED...end of story.<br /><br />Despite some great sets and good photography this is one horrible film...is it supposed to be scary? (not in the least) is it supposed to be funny?? (puh-leese) A total waste of time...and I really don't like to have to say that!!
|
negative
|
Another laughably lame and senseless low-budget sci-fi TV presentation
but actually its kind of amusing
kind of
in a passably undemanding way. Am I being soft? I don't know why they come up with these titles. Yes there's a komodo. And yes there's a cobra. However what's the deal with 'versus' in between? Sure they do come to blows
in only two sequences (one recapping an incident and the other being the dodgy climax) and quite boring exchanges I might add. The get-up is the same old routine of a scientific experiment getting out of hand on a secluded island (no dinosaurs about), and some innocent bystanders (environmentalists hoping to expose animal testing) getting caught up in it. This sees a komodo dragon and cobra becoming massive in statue with the government soon wanting to destroy any sort of the evidence (including witnesses) of its existence by blowing up the island. So this leaves the survivors racing against time to find a way off. The prominent staples existed of awful video game CGI, hack script, few dingy sets (although the tropical island setting was easy on the eyes), throwaway characters (but I found the performances faired up), lifelessly tacky thrills (which for some reason kept using the same repetitive shot of the victim just standing there in terror
which implied I'm waiting, please eat me now, I'm not going anywhere and eventually they were swallowed whole
well almost as it seemed to always take a second gulp to finish them off or just save the hassle by stupidly squashing them) and a very hysterical edge with some sort of wretch message amongst the acts of survival. Director Jim Wynorski seems to be on cruise control throughout. Michael Paré has fun with his gruff dialogues and Michelle Borth added much needed sparks. Renee Talbert is there to pout a lot, quite successfully too.
|
negative
|
Bit of a curate's egg, this one. I started off hating it, with it's predictable' Old Dark House' set-up, it's constant references to recent US horrors and regular trips up and down dimly lit corridors.<br /><br />But it does get going and has it's moments of originality.<br /><br />I began to wonder , once the killing started, how they were going to last out with only a cast of six but then we get flashbacks to a previous visit to the building and see a whole slew of gory killings which is pretty effective.<br /><br />Naschy is fine and by the end it's been an enjoyable enough movie. It just does not jump up and grab one, hard enough.
|
positive
|
The Battle at Elderbrush Gulch was Griffith's longest and most expensive short he had made up to that point. In it we see him trying to perfect the large-scale action scene that would be necessary in his full-length features, packing in all the elements that had made his previous action shorts successful.<br /><br />Griffith uses the western format already the ideal backdrop for pure, straight-ahead action set pieces as the setting for his first epic battle. Like many westerns of the 1910s, the starting point is a character from the east heading out west a device which perhaps helped ease the audience into the wilderness, and here those easterners are a pair of children, which was important for the type of picture this develops into. For Griffith, you couldn't have action without a sense of vulnerability and here he crams it in, with the kids from back east, Lillian Gish as the distraught mother of "the only baby in town" and even some puppies that are at risk of ending up on the Indians' menu.<br /><br />All this paves the way for an exceedingly complex and layered action sequence, blending the trapped heroine scenario and the ride-to-the-rescue with the battles that Griffith had been depicting since his earliest Civil War pictures in 1909. There is a phenomenal amount going on here, and Griffith does very well at maintaining the exhilarating pace throughout and keeping everything coherent and logical. However, juggling x amount of elements in an action sequence does not necessarily make it that many times more exciting, no matter how skilfully they are balanced, and Griffith did create better tension-soaked finales before and after this one.<br /><br />But even a Griffith picture so heavily focused on action would not be without its drama, characterisation and atmospherics. In The Battle at Elderbrush Gulch, the emotional set-up is dealt with briefly but economically. First, we have the scene in which the waifs leave their home. The cart they travel on heads away from the camera, making use of depth and distance to express their moving away from safety and civilization. An equally effective scene is the one in which we are introduced to the young family of Gish, Bobby Harron and their baby. The people of the town coo over the precious tot, then saunter off screen, revealing that two Indians were watching them from the background, adding a sinister little note of danger.<br /><br />Of course, many viewers today have pointed out The Battle at Elderbrush Gulch's offensive portrayal of Native Americans (in contrast with the more sympathetic Red Man's View), but perhaps all is not what it seems. First of all, take a look at the Indian Chief's son's waistcoat it's black and covered in shiny white dots. It looks to me like a pearly king's jacket, perhaps modified slightly for the warmer climate. Now have a look at the "war dance" they perform later on it has a certain "knees-up Mother Brown" air to it. These aren't Indians, they're cockneys! So it shouldn't be offensive to Native Americans. Just cockneys.
|
positive
|
...said a couple exiting the movie theater just as I was entering to watch this. Hmm, not a good sign, but who knows? Different strokes for different folks, after all. Well, nope. They were being kind. Godard has released work that is passionate (Contempt), entertaining (Band of Outsiders), sometimes both (My Life to Live). This is just dull intellectualism, that grates on the nerves pretty quickly. During my showing, literally half of the audience had walked out by the end of the film. If only I had been so wise.
|
negative
|
Reading web sites on Bette Davis one can find instances where authors claim that there is nothing special about her acting. I even found a site which claimed that Bette Davis' success was probably due to her luck. But Ms Davis films of 1934 tell quite the opposite. The most evident example are two films that she did only few weeks apart: Fog over Frisco and On Human Bondage. Characters she played in these movies, though both being negative, are quite different. Arlene in the former is a beautiful, glamorous and frivolous heiress and much more likable character than Mildred in the latter, which is a pale, uneducated and impudent Cockney waitress. Needless to say that Ms Davis played both characters very authentic and with the same enthusiasm. But even that is not all. The point is that the former role, which would be wished by most actresses of the day, was the one she was forced to play. The latter role, which seemed to most actresses as undesirable, career destroying role, was the one she fought for ferociously for months. And it was the latter role that launched her among the greatest stars. So there is no question that Ms Davis knew from the start what she was doing.<br /><br />The film, which tells about a medical student Phillip Carey (Leslie Howard) which falls unhappily in love with Cockney waitress Mildred Rogers (Bette Davis), has a few week points, but many more strong ones. The story is simply too big to be told in mere 83 minutes. For example, it is quite unclear why refined student found any interest in an impudent waitress in the first place. Well, there is one scene in which we are exposed to Ms Davis captivating eyes, but this is when his emotions are already fully evolved. Nevertheless, the integrity of the story is preserved by superior acting from Howard and Davis as well as fantastic Steiner's music which tells tons of emotions even when we do not see characters' faces. In fact the film is amalgamated by Phillip's walking sequences showing him from the back supplemented with shuddering two-tone repetition. Every detail is well thought - Max Steiner wrote a beautiful leitmotif for each women in Phillip's life, which is consistently used through the film. And a beautiful scene in which we see Sally's face in front of calendar is one of the sweetest scenes I've ever seen exactly due to Francis Dee's breathtaking beauty (Ms Dee was by the way considered to be too beautiful to play leading role in Gone with a Wind) as well as Steiner's captivating music. Camera movements between the some scenes is also original and refreshing.<br /><br />But my strongest objection is that events are presented too two-dimensionally, which induce viewer that Mildred is an ultimate slut. The most disgusting characters ought to be men which lure her into relationship, despite well knowing that they will abandon her after taking use of her, but they, curiously, finished portrayed as likable characters. After all, Mildred always - in her own specific, but still a honest way - lets Phillip know that she despises him and had no interest in him. Which he just refuses to hear. It is Phillips masochistic nature connected to his club foot and infantile experiences that is the principal reason of his love problem. He is enslaved to his club foot as much as to Mildred and perhaps has to be free of both to start a normal life. Of course, selfish and impudent Mildred, after discovering voluntary Phillip's bondage to her, did its own share to make his life hell. Even taking into account that she exploded after realizing that the bondage has loosen, it is less than clear why would she burn Phillip's money (Maugham intended different in his novel). After all, she could as well steal it and drunk gallons of champagne.<br /><br />For modern standards the film is a bit outdated, but each subsequent time you watch it, you can reveal new interesting details due to superior acting, fascinating music and original editing, so it does deserve the highest possible mark.
|
positive
|
After watching "Waco: The Rules of Engagement" I was just sitting in disbelief of what I was witness to. A big cover up by the FBI, a massacre by gung-ho/trigger happy government agents? I clearly remember the Waco standoff, I was 17 years old at the time and watched it all on CNN. I remembered reflecting about all the children as I watched the Mount Camel compound burn in April 1993. I remember feeling sorry for the children, but clearly felt that it was the fault of their evil leader David Koresh and the other Davidians. Gazecki's film shows clearly and beyond doubt, even though it is biased, that the FBI lied over and over again. I think that this film was a big contributor to the reopening of a new investigation of the incident in 1999. The outcome of this new investigation was in some sense predictable, the judgement relied on fact that was just as grey as the facts that the Davidians presented. I was very disappointed about the verdict, because as far as I know it didn't take into account all the lying, misinformation and evidence cover-up by the FBI and other officials. Why have no one be prosecuted for hampering the work of the Texas Rangers investigators? Why were they allowed to contaminate the crime scene and bulldoze the compound shortly after the incident? These are questions that I haven't been given answers to by the government. Most importantly, what about the children? In this new investigation I haven't been informed about who was responsible for spraying the CS flammable tear-gas into a compound with many hazards for igniting this gas and I haven't found any answer to whether the children's muscles contracted due to the effects of the gas, while they were alive. If they did, I would surely think that the Janet Reno or who ever was in charge of the raid should be indicted for mass-homicide or manslaughter. The question that was raised by Gazecki, but not mentioned is; Was is a direct plan for the people in charge and their tanks to cut holes and burn the building down with intent? (a plan that would have been accomplished with 112% efficacy) or were the officials in charge so incompetent, that their were unaware of the consequence of their actions? Both are equally frightening. Even if the Davidians set fire to the compound, the officials in charge surely provided them with the opportunity to do the job. If the officials in charge knew, as they claimed, that the Davidians would set fire to the compound, why the f
did the tanks cut all the holes in the building making it into a furnace and why didn't they have plans to deal with the fire that they knew would occur? Dark questions that still won't go away The final and most relevant issue of this film, is the way that the Davidians are demonized by the government through the media, who just feeds it in to the public. I clearly remember the resentment I felt for the evil Davidians that I saw on CNN in 1993. Now that I'm older I can see a clear line of communication coming out of the government every time they are gearing up for a massacre of civilians along with the intended targets. Demonizing people with words like; "they have different unlawful values then us" "they don't enjoy freedom" and "they are a threat to our freedoms and way of life" makes them so much easier to kill
|
positive
|
For me it's a case you'll never understand if you didn't live it.. so read this to know why would i have such unlimited anger..<br /><br />I heard a lot about (Bruce Lee).. my father loved him.. my mother who hates any minor shot of violence loved him ! and how she talks till now about his " The Big Boss" aka "Fists of Fury" , and the experience of watching it at the Egyptian movies 1973 with all the gigantic success.. further to that I watched a real good movie about him (Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story - 1993).. so I found myself crying : where are your movies Bruce ?!! <br /><br />I went to the video store.. and it was dumb move.. (you'll know why !).. and waw.. I found a lot of Bruce Lee movies.. I selected one named (Bruce Lee in New Guinea) <br /><br />I did it to myself and watched that one.. OH GOD please forgive your servant.. I harmed myself but with no intended decision.. I wouldn't do it if I knew its evil damaging !! its mythical level of hideousness !! <br /><br />After that I didn't understand at all what's the big fuss about Bruce Lee as a great immortal star ???.. why anybody would care whether he is here or there.. this hero (whom I've watched !) is not that gifted and not that genius and of course is not that sexy ??? <br /><br />Until my father saw THIS star and he asked me to pause at any of his close ups and after he examined his face a little.. he told me in a very definitive way "this is not Bruce Lee" ! so I became too confused to ask : who's this silly guy anyway ??!! <br /><br />It was 2001.. 2 years after my first entry to the IMDb database.. therefore I tended to it immediately to know who the hell is that man.. and I discovered the truth.. he isn't Bruce Lee.. No my dear friends.. he is Bruce Li !!! <br /><br />And what a huge.. so huge difference !! I just want to know who can love that bad clone ?? Or god forbid .. love his repulsive movies.. I watched 2 of them and couldn't bear finishing the third ! <br /><br />After that I ignored all our video stores because its cheap cunning (writing on the posters that THIS IS Bruce Lee !??).. and I've got the original.. The one and only Bruce Lee who is such a great star indeed and Oh BOY he certainly had the right to immortality.. and no less.
|
negative
|
I was blown away by the re-imagined Battlestar Galactica, a show that always kept me guessing and brought me to tears on more than one occasion. A hardened sci-fi fan, I like to think I can pick out the good stuff from the BS, and this was good stuff.<br /><br />As such, when I first heard about the prospect of a prequel series some months ago I got a sick feeling in my gut. I was afraid that the formula that made Battlestar so successful would be reused in Caprica, which wouldn't work at all. BSG's story, of a mournful ragged band of survivors, trapped aboard decaying star ships and guided by prophetic vision and a sequence of pseudo-miracles, was perfectly complimented by extraordinary music and a better cast of actors.<br /><br />Caprica feels different. Where BSG takes place after the fall of a great civilization, Caprica portrays that civilization in it's cold and decadent heyday. The overall vibe I got from Caprica was similar to that of Minority Report, minus excessive and counterproductive theatricality. In true BSG form, Caprica has in it's first few hours of programming already tackled the issues of religious freedom, racism, the morality of playing God and the nature of the human soul.<br /><br />The casting for Caprica is also excellent. Each character is unique and deep, from the obsessive and distant scientist-turned-entrepreneur, to his troubled and willful daughter, each actor and actress throws themselves into their respective roles.<br /><br />Music, which was used so powerfully in BSG, also plays a significant role in Caprica. Battlestar's powerful rolling drums and mournful duduks served it's themes very well. Caprica uses a more orchestral sound, which gives the show it's own feeling quite distinct from either of it's predecessors. <br /><br />The new Caprica is definitely it's own show, pulling from the Battlestar franchise only as much as it needs. I look forward to the full series.
|
positive
|
This is undoubtedly the most harrowing black-and-white war film that I've watched; as a matter of fact, the only Western director during this time to remotely approach its level of intensity and sheer visceral power in his work was Samuel Fuller. By the way, I had attended a Kon Ichikawa retrospective at London's National Film Theatre in September 2002, but only managed to catch some of his work made between 1960 and 1973.<br /><br />The film is certainly as depressing as it's reputed to be; however, it also displays welcome touches of black humor throughout - the 'dead' man who wakes up to answer a querying soldier and promptly 'dies' again, the deliciously ironic shoe exchange sequence, a moribund eccentric telling the famished hero which part of the body he should eat, etc. Incidentally, the script was written by a woman - Natto Wada, the director's own wife!<br /><br />Ichikawa is a versatile and prolific film-maker whose reputation may not be as high as it was during his peak years (1956-65), but his direction here is often striking - the startling pre-credits sequence (the hero is violently rebuked by his superior officer for being discharged from hospital earlier than expected!), the death of a surrendering Japanese at the hands of a gun-toting Philippine woman, the bombing of a hospital (with the medical staff running away to save themselves, leaving the wounded soldiers behind to crawl out of the shack at their own limited pace), the automated march in the rain of the disillusioned soldiers (which also involves the afore-mentioned business with the shoes that, actually, recalls a similar scene in ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT [1930]), a hill littered with the bodies of soldiers attempting to climb it, the finale, etc. Surely one of the film's major assets is the stunning cinematography of the unforgiving and desolate muddy landscape.<br /><br />The film is notorious for treating the taboo subject of cannibalism (almost 10 years before it became a staple of horror movies) but Ichikawa's approach is not only subtle but highly effective: the flesh is actually referred to as "monkey meat", while the hero is seen partaking only once (and promptly spits out the piece along with most of his decaying teeth!); conversely, when the weak underling soldier (played by Mickey Curtis who, despite his name, was a Japanese pop idol of the time!) rabidly indulges, the ground nearby is splashed with blood.<br /><br />In the supplements, Ichikawa remembers that Method-practicing lead actor Eiji Funakoshi (whose portrayal is unforgettable, by the way) arrived on the set at starvation point - with the result that production was forced to shut down for two weeks until he recuperated! Donald Richie's perceptive interview favors the nihilism of the film over the underlying patriotism behind such gut-wrenching recent Hollywood fare as SAVING PRIVATE RYAN (1998).<br /><br />FIRES ON THE PLAIN is universally considered to be one of its director's top efforts and, out of the several films of Ichikawa I've watched, the closest to it in spirit are THE BURMESE HARP (1956; another character-driven war film but with a spiritual tone, and which is also available on DVD from Criterion) and ENJO aka CONFLAGRATION (1958; which was actually given a limited theatrical showing locally, as part of a foreign-film week, a couple of years ago). Personally, I also have a particular soft spot for the director's stunningly stylized color extravaganza, AN ACTOR'S REVENGE (1963), which I've actually caught twice at the NFT in 1999 and the afore-mentioned 2002 retrospective.
|
positive
|
Boogie Nights is perhaps one of the greatest examples any would-be filmmaker should take a long hard look at. Sure, you could spend loads of quality time reviewing the clasics from Hitchcock to Scorsese; but lets follow suit for the modern generation and study half-heartedly.<br /><br />Where to begin, I suppose one could look at the film as simply a story, perhaps even docudrama which focuses on the late 1970's porn industry-and what an industry it was! The other half could focus on the incredible detail one brillant filmmaker can achieve simply by using polyester and *ahem* rubber. But honestly, Boogie Nights brings back the pure, no-bul!shi$, in your face kind of cinema I haven't experienced since the film greats of the 1970's...ironic...or stroke of genius. The story is full of richly detailed characters, all of which you either can relate too, love, or hate; but the impact is clear-you are feeling something for them. Among the characters the two performances which stand out are: Burt Reynolds as Director Jack Horner, and Mark Wahlberg as Eddie Adams/Dirk Diggler. Julianne Moore is also brillant, as is Heather Graham...but if I focus on any one actor it would have to be John C. Reilly. John's performance is a perfect balance of comedic timing and character driven emotion...I'm a sucker for the line "Ever see the movie Star Wars?...People say I look like Han Solo." Anyway, the look of the film is incredible, the Director of Photography and Director/Writer/Producer, have come up with a vibrant colour, and flashy style that compares to Martin Scorsese, and Stanley Kubrick(in terms of his perfection of his craft); but with creating his own unique look, and pushing the edge with the longest single shot I'ver ever seen...that being the New Year's party sequence.<br /><br />The music, like in any great film, is a character of its own. At times, it consumes oneself with sorrow or grief...but mainly its all about fun, dancing, and having a good time; the spirit of the 1970's. OK, back to the performances.<br /><br />Burt Reynolds plays the character of Jack Horner, a porn director who feels the burden of what the future of "film" means to his genre. The awful transition from shooting on film to recording on magnetic tape. The lose of his art, as it were...and the changes in mentality to the people he works with. Walhberg adds the perfect blend of innocense and sexual bravado needed for the character. For all those individuals who have seen Burton's Planet of the Apes, pay no attention to the performance of Wahlberg in that film...rent boogie nights and see what a difference a good script can make!<br /><br />Julianne Moore plays the would-be mother to all, and with that comes the torment and anguish she feels, as life imitates art; and she loses all those close to her. Heather Graham is the eye-candy, but later holds her own, and steals some of the scenes from even the great Mr. Reynolds himself. Each character is multidimensional, rich with life, and performed by actors that seem to be picture perfect for the part.<br /><br />The film itself is often funny, tragic, exciting, and provides a uncompromising look into the turblulant lifestyle of the fast-pace 1970's. It makes no excuses, and tells no lies; and offers the audience a trip back. But even more importantly, the movie gives us a grand example of how films should be made; and a new director whose bold visions bring back art in film.
|
positive
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.