review
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| sentiment
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
I wrote this as a two part review. Part two has spoilers.<br /><br />Part 1: <br /><br />No, this isn't that one about the sex with car accidents. This is the one about racism in L.A. You know, the one where everybody is a racist, and race is the topic on everybody's mind at all times. Race.<br /><br />Its like the movie has a form of turrets syndrome where race is the constant theme. Race. Racist. Racism. Race Relations. Relay race.<br /><br />Paul Haggis made a movie which took the structure of Magnolia, which was used to show the disconnect of people who are tangentially connected, and then screwed it into a 1'53" mental vomit about racism in America. RACE. In the 24 hour period we have 7 stories running parallel all connected and about race. The first hour, people say ridiculous stuff and do absurd things in an effort to be real about racism in America.<br /><br />For example, the story with Ludicrous and Larenz Tate provides the comic relief. Too bad, the first half of their story is lifted straight from The Bonnie Situation in Pulp Fiction. RACISM. Their section is the Quentin Tarantino section where, instead of being cool and talking about foot massages and religion, the characters talk about race and racism. CONSTANTLY. <br /><br />The other good thing about it is the Mexican story when the Mexican guy is talking to his daughter. He gives her his invisible impenetrable cloak to protect her from bullets. Decent writing, but that's only because the writers have had daughters and know what they would say in his place.<br /><br />The rest of the stories are extremely ludicrous. The Hindi does not act in any semblance of realism. The scene where he's trying to get the lock fixed and the Mexican tells him he needs a new door is abbreviated and stupid. Why would anybody act like that? Is it realistic? NOOO. It reminds me more of the convenience store clerk from The Doom Generation. "Six Dollar Sixty Six Cents girly." If i ever watch the second half of the movie, I hope his head is shot off and his bodiless head starts coughing up relish.<br /><br />I haven't mentioned race in over a paragraph. RACE. RACISM. RACE FOR THE SUN. Better. Then, there is the black guy who wants to be white, Matt Dillon who has a chip on his shoulder against blacks, Ryan Phillippe who looks beautiful and does nothing, and various other bad actors acting badly with bad dialog. When Matt Dillon molests the black producers wife, could I help it if I was cracking up? When Philippe is second guessing his writing up of his partner for racism, can I help but crack up? The movie is so funny when it is being racist. Racist. RACIST I tell you.<br /><br />Now, mind you, this movie was nominated for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Screenplay, and Best Editing, besides a nod to Matt Dillon who actually did attempt to do a decent job. Who was paid off for that one, I have no clue.<br /><br />Don't see it unless you feel like being preached at about the racism in society through a bad and unrealistic script from 2 white men over fifty who have no semblance of reality or interaction with real society in any way shape or form.<br /><br />D- <br /><br />Part 2:<br /><br />The second half of Crash takes any and all story lines in the first half...and spews them back out in a sort of redemptive, conclusionary, the world is a big coincidence kind of way. And it is in fact one of the worst ways to do it.<br /><br />Take 1999's Magnolia. People weren't conveniently tied together over and over again. They were just connected in a strange way that happens more often than you think. You know somebody who knows somebody who did something that you knew somebody else was also involved in. Crash takes this wrapping into a serious extreme.<br /><br />The stories are lined up so everybody meets again. Are there only 5 on the LAPD force? Aren't these people working weird shifts? Dillon and Philippe were a late shift then an early one the next day? And, why did Tate have to be the murdered hitchhiker? Wouldn't it have had more emotional tension, as well as realism, if it had been somebody we had not been following all day long? Like Phillippe just picks up a random hitchhiker and then freaks out. Everybody'd be freaking out.<br /><br />Eventually, in the second half, the touching invisible cloak scene is used to get the Hindi to shoot the daughter. It ticked me off and made me feel dirty. Not that the Hindi shot the daughter, but that they created a beautiful touching scene and then had it be the direct cause of people tearing up. It really ticked me off. At the writers, not the scene.<br /><br />The whole movie is fake and totally uncalled for. The coincidences are far too many and they require an extreme suspension of disbelief. Unlike Magnolia which was connected mildly, this had connections upon connections upon connections which were just so over-the-top. The only good part in the second half was when Sandra Bullock falls down the stairs. She doesn't die though. She should have. I cheered when she fell.<br /><br />The worst part about the movie is it pulls a Magnolia. Not just in structure, but it has a montage over the song In the Deep where you see everybody being depressed. Magnolia took this and had post-modern commentary on it by having all of the characters singing along to Aimee Mann's Wise Up. Unfortunately, Magnolia came out in 1999, while Crash came out in 2005. Its hard to make commentary on a movie which won't be made for another 6 years, but it happened. Somehow.<br /><br />Utter waste of my time.<br /><br />First half: D-; Second half: lowest grade ever; Overall: F---
|
negative
|
I originally came across Linda Feferman's Seven Minutes in Heaven when I was 14 and worked at a video store and I loved it. I recently watched the movie again and have realized that it is a lost treasure. The movie stars Jennifer Connelly, almost twenty years before she would go on to win an Oscar for Beautiful Mind, as Natalie Becker. Byron Thames plays her best friend in the world, Jeff Moran. The film is definitely a milder, cuter and softer version of the Pretty in Pink's and Some Kind of Wonderful's of the 1980's, which is exactly why it is so good. It's honest, not forced like those films, and parents will enjoy watching this movie with there kids.<br /><br />When Natalie's Dad leave home on a business trip, Jeff convinces her that he should move in because his home life sucks. With support from Natalie's friend, Polly, played exquisitely by Maddie Corman, she lets him. But this movie isn't about putting kids in situations and seeing what they can get away with. The three leads are so natural and the script, surprisingly so honest, that what comes through best in their performances is heart breaking. These characters really do care about each other. It's a great film to show to kids who are reaching pre-teen adolescence.<br /><br />
|
positive
|
This movie is a great movie, however it is, as most movie highly predictable. The greatest highlight of the movie of course is the star character Amanda Bynes, who is absolutely gorgeous and hilarious. She is one of very few people in this world who can use all 53 muscles in her face to make the most strangest and gut-busting faces ever made. It's good for the kids, and contains upper male nudity and suggestive nudity towards the end. All in all, they did a good job updating an old classic, and deserves to rest on the movie stand along with O and 10 Things I Hate About You. The other actors also do a swell job, in many of their first time debuts.
|
positive
|
There's no getting around it-- this movie is terrible. I've seen the old Christopher Lee/Fu Manchu movies, I'm familiar with the characters and it's serial origins, but it's still just godawful. However, Peter Sellers' genius still shines through with his portrayal of Nayland Smith, with echoes of sadness, tragedy, and strength simmering through a stoic facade; it's a performance I place on par with Peter Cushing's portrayal of Van Helsing but done in a tenth of the cumulative screen time of all Cushing's "Dracula" movies. If the movie was done in a more serio-comic vein like BUBBA HO-TEP by way of the 1960's AVENGERS TV show, this could've been something special. If you're a Fu Manchu or Peter Sellers completest, this is something you need to see, but it's a pass for anyone else.
|
negative
|
The Last Hunt is the forgotten Hollywood classic western. The theme of genocide via buffalo slaughter is present in other films but never so savagely. Robert Taylor's against-type role as the possessed buffalo and Indian killer is his finest performance.<br /><br />In the 1950s, your mom dropped you and your friends off at the Saterday matinée, usually featuring a western or comedy. But it was wrong then and now to let a youngster watch psycho-dramas like The Searchers and The Last Hunt. Let the kids wait a few years before exposing them to films with repressed sexual sadism and intense racial hatred.<br /><br />Why did Mom fail to censor these films? Because they featured "safe" Hollywood stars like Taylor and John Wayne. But the climatic scene in The Last Hunt is as horrifying as Vincent Price's mutation in The Fly.<br /><br />The mythology of the white buffalo, part of the texture of this movie, was later ripped-off by other movies including The White Buffalo, starring Charles Bronson as Wild Bill Hickock. The laugh here is that Bronson used to play Indians.<br /><br />Today a large remnant bison herd resides in Yellowstone National Park in Wyoming. In the winter, hunger forces surplus animals out of the park into Montana, where they are sometimes harvested by Idaho's Nez Perce Indians under a US treaty right that pre-dates the Lincoln Presidency. Linclon signed the Congressional act which authorized the continental railroad and started the buffalo slaughter.
|
positive
|
*may contain a spoiler of sorts?* The mere mention of Crispin Glover is enough to send some geek's panties in a bunch. His landmark appearance in Back to the Future as George McFly has sealed him into the American conscience forever. More recently, he has been trying to get back into the culty subconscious with Bartleby and Willard.<br /><br />This time, however, Crispin has made a 76-minute, cheap dada film. At times it reminded me of genius, while overall it almost insulted me, but not because of its content. Content? What Is It? is a movie where, in one half of the movie, all of the actors have Down's Syndrome, giving it a freakshow feel to it. The other half of the movie includes Crispin Glover, Adam Parfrey, and a guy with cerebral palsy. This all had the feel of what John Waters was attempting to do with Desperate Living, and simultaneously feeling more successful and failing miserably.<br /><br />The half with the Down's Syndrome actors also features many many killed snails. It is about a guy who has snails, and ends up killing one. He is also tormented by a bunch of other people, and a grasshopper. He falls in love with 2 girls, one of which he has sex with in a graveyard. He also has a falling out with a friend who teases him.<br /><br />In a weird semi-interior set, Crispin Glover is the director of this show. He is something like the control of the guy's mind, and the cerebral palsy guy is something like the sexuality. Well, he at least gets masturbated in explicit scenes. There is other "shocking" imagery made humorous, like Nazi Swaztikas crossed with Shirley Temple, and minstrels in black face saying they're Michael Jackson.<br /><br />In the outside world, the tormentor is still dealing with his love of killing snails and being beaten by the other people. They beat him with rocks, and such. Later, they beat the minstrel after putting him on trial.<br /><br />Back to the interior, Crispin Glover is still the ruler of his set, and tries to control everybody, but fails miserably.<br /><br />What Is It? makes less sense than Dr. Caligari, and has more than a passing style stolen from it. The claustrophobic mental space feels very much like the way the no-wall sets of Dr. Caligari felt claustrophobic. They also had some dialogue that was absolute nonsense. And, it was all wrapped up with absurdist imagery for humor.<br /><br />The problem is, about 20 minutes into the movie...maybe a little more...What Is It? runs out of imagery. For the next 56 minutes, we keep running on the same sets of images, only introducing new imagery in the form of an absurdist puppet show. The movie seems little more than a movie which attempts to push the envelope in offensive and taboo imagery. It tries to mock and confuse the audience. But, the issue is that it only has enough different imagery for a 40 minute movie.<br /><br />Even worse than that, the cinematography, set design, and everything else felt very very cheap and almost unplanned. It felt like "OK, this is the way we can do it and get it out of the way." It didn't feel interesting, and was quite...boring. Dr. Caligari, on the other hand, had amazing cinematography and framing. The difference between the two is quite astounding.<br /><br />rating: C
|
negative
|
I went into this with my hopes up, by twenty minutes into the movie I couldn't have been more let down. Despite thinking that this would be another horribly bad remake, I kept my hopes high that maybe...just maybe someone would get it right this time around. Sadly, Prom Night is about on the same quality level as the recent April Fools Day remake, bad script, bad direction, cheesy overdone acting and generally bad horror.<br /><br />From beginning to end it's boring, repetitive and worthy of about a dozen eye rolls. We've seen it all before and we've seen it done a million times better then this. If you go to see Prom Night in the theater (I'd say wait for the DVD or PPV), get ready for the audience to laugh, because laugh they will. The laughs aren't at points in the movie that are supposed to be funny, they are in response to key "thrilling" moments in the film that are so poorly done you feel as if your watching the newest installment of Scary Movie. Seriously, was this supposed to be a remake or a spoof? The film makers missed the mark so badly here, that a large number of the audience in the theater I attended walked out about halfway through the movie. Which in retrospect, I wish I had done. Not me though, I had to torture myself and stick with it hoping it would get better. Needless to say It didn't. The "horror" scenes are a joke, not even so much because of the acting but because of the direction, the script, the "special effects" and the camera work. The movie manages to look as if they spent a fortune to produce it, but still came out of it with a micro budget movie. I halfway expected to see dollar store tags on some of the props and kept thinking I would spot a porn star in the cast somewhere. <br /><br />This movies scary alright, if this is the future of big budget horror then the horror genre is doomed.
|
negative
|
Great movie. I was laughing all time through. Why? Well, I am from Austria, I can get along with the German (Bavarian) kind of humor. So I guess this movie makes only sense watching when you are German native speaker. Stefan and Erkan both are talking in a new kind of turkish-german accent, which became really popular in our Countries (GER & AUT). But of course they are very stupid. As in every comedy your personal humor will decide, whether thumb up or down.
|
positive
|
When I bought my Toy Story tape when it came out to Video after being released in theaters I saw a trailer for this that said from the creators of Toy Story. As soon as I saw that I knew this was gonna be a good feature! I was right! A Bug's Life like Toy Story is great story, great characters and great animation. My favorite characters are Dim the rhino Beetle voiced by Brad Garrett and Hemlich the Caterpillar voiced by the late Pixar Storyman Joe Ranft. My favorite scene is when Slim the walking stick (David Hyde Pierce) lifts up Hemlich trying to distract the Bird and Hemlich's like You hoo Mr. Early Bird. How about a nice tasting worm on a stick and Slim's like I'm going to snap! I'm going to snap! I just died laughing at that scene. Being a big fan of insects I think A Bug's Life is my favorite Pixar even though I know a lot of people consider it the worst Pixar film ever! I don't know how you could hate a Pixar film! I think they're all pretty good films! Good job PIXAR!
|
positive
|
I first saw this movie about 3 years ago. I was shocked at how stupid the FBI was not to prevent such a tragedy. It could have been easily prevented. This movie was just unbelievable.<br /><br />Now seeing it after September 11th, I am appalled and can say that this could have been prevented more easily that most people would want to know.<br /><br />This film is 100% true<br /><br />In the final scene of the film, when the mastermind of the 1st attack is being taken to prison by helicopter and flies over the towers, he makes a spine chilling remark, that was laughed at when he said it. "Next time we'll bring them *BOTH* down." This was actually said by Ramzi Yousef after his arrest.<br /><br />This movie reveals the shocking truth about how the first attacks were carried out right under the noses of the FBI and NYPD. It shows how the 1st and 4th Amendments are partially to blame for the attacks.<br /><br />I watch this movie now and know that both attacks could have been prevented.
|
positive
|
In complete contrast to the previous correspondent here, I thought Shoppen Munich (as it was billed when shown with English subtitles here in London at the German Film Festival in November 2007) was very funny, very well acted, and excellently scripted.<br /><br />It's quite audacious to design a 100-minute film that consists exclusively, and relentlessly, of talking heads. But I think Ralf Westhoff succeeded with wit and élan. No standard filmic devices of, say, following a character's soul-baring pronouncement with some meditative minor-seventh-chord music and long-shot nature cutaways. But when someone said something that revealed their souls - well, we were hustled on by the man with the timer for yet another superficial introduction. Which is, of course, the point: the hurtling tickbox superficiality of thirtysomething urbanites, where everything is down to a quick question and answer.<br /><br />Maybe most films are so clichéd and stupid that we English are ready to laugh at any vaguely intelligent and uncontrived cinema, but I can promise you that at the screening tonight (Curzon Cinema, Sun 25 Nov 2007) the full audience bellowed with laughter most of the way through. So I wasn't the only one guffawing!<br /><br />My girlfriend (who speaks German and has lived in Munich) thought it was hilarious. I (who don't speak German and have not been to Munich, I think) thought it was hilarious. I'd recommend Shoppen (Munich) to anyone (especially couples...) looking for a smart, witty, original, wise film about the superficiality of modern relationships and the bewilderment of the generation who feel they've missed out on the happy-ever-after stuff first time round.<br /><br />NB In the English subtitled showing in London, the subtitles (which were very good) were shown completely underneath the slightly reduced picture, not inside it. I thought this was a Good Thing.
|
positive
|
Personally, I think Sayonara was the greatest movie he ever made. It touched every emotion from anger to romance to complete tragedy. And Brando should have won for best actor. Anyway, the movie is awesome, the man is attractive to BOTH MEN AND WOMEN and now you have no reason not to see it! Do so, and fall in love.
|
positive
|
It is a shame that the Gershwin family and Goldwyn Estate has pulled this great movie from the viewing, thereby depriving the public from seeing some of the most wonderful actors and performances ever packed into one motion picture. <br /><br />It is also true that the singing voices for Sidney Poitier and Dorothy Dandridge were dubbed for this movie, and that is used as one of the reasons that the Gershwin's do not want this movie ever released again.<br /><br />For in spite the flaws in the movie and the creative differences between the Gershwins and the Goldwyns, this film has some of the most remarkable performances ever committed to the screen. Sammy Davis, Jr. and Pearl Bailey are especially deserving praise.<br /><br />This film was the great independent producer Samuel Golwyn's swan song. It was also ironically, the Gershwin's greatest shame.<br /><br />Finally, it is a loss to the wonderful black actors who appeared in it. For we can no longer see them at their best.
|
positive
|
This was another World War II message to the soldiers and to the Allies to be careful about spreading rumors. These were called "instructional" cartoons because it was a mixture of serious messages along with a funny-looking main character called "Pvt. Snafu."<br /><br />All of us have imaginations, along with fears and what-have-you, and that's what happens here as Pvt. Snafu incorrectly adds two and two to something he hears and comes up with "five." You can start panics and all kinds of disasters if you spread enough rumors and enough people believe them. That includes losing confidence in your country and your cause, as pointed out here in this cartoon. A good way to lose a war is demoralize the enemy. That's still being done today. <br /><br />"We lost the war," declares one big baloney near the end of this cartoon. Amazing how some Americans still haven't learned. This cartoon may be 65 years old but it sure has relevance today. As I write this, there were two terrorist bombings in Europe today and some people still think the "War On Terror" is just a bumper sticker slogan. Amazing.<br /><br />The writer, the famous "Dr. Suess," uses analogies of "hot air balloon juice" here to present the above message. With Theodore Geisel (his real name) you know the rhymes will be clever.<br /><br />Nothing hilarious here, but it wasn't meant to be. You have to understand the climate of 1943 and the justified paranoia that was out there during World War II. People forget that war could have easily wound up with the other side winning. It was a tense time
|
positive
|
is seismic activity with little or negligible results on the surface. So in that respect, IMDb's average voting score is spot on.<br /><br />A Spanish film made in the USA with third or fourth rate actors giving a kind of "Falcon Crest" dimension to the whole affair is a wonderful way to waste your time, as well as wasting the money of those who backed the project financially.<br /><br />The slugs involved are originals from Asturias, northern Spain, but as they were not allowed into the United States, plastic ones had to be made. However, chopping them up in the lettuce being used for making the evening dinner-time salad contrasts rather weirdly with Parisienne music as well as a rather tatty array of other US forgotten hits (or misses if you have no idea who was responsible for composing it). The actors involved were also a rather tatty array, just suitable for a low-budget film which might be categorised as horrific, horrifying, horrible or just simple awful.<br /><br />As a result, the outcome is negligible on the surface, undetected underground, and about as attractive as Chapter 17,000 of Coronation Street or the latest news from Baghdad.
|
negative
|
One of my favorite films for a number of years was "Last Action Hero"; unfortunately, Arnold Schwarznegger decided to spoil my fun by becoming a corrupt scumbag politician; so now I can't bear any film he may had a hand in.<br /><br />The Adventures of Jake Speed actually toys with some themes similar to those in Last...Hero; so I was pleased to find it on DVD, so I could watch these themes played out so well.<br /><br />Despite the "plot-within-the-plot" involving white slavery during an African nation's civil war, this is not an action movie. The plot that the "plot-within-a-plot" is within, is actually about a question that the film has no intention to resolve: Is Jake Speed a real person that is helping the heroine save her sister from the white-slave trader; or is he actually a fictional character (which means that the heroine has somehow entered the universe that really only exists in a series of pulp novels)? I suggest that this is not all that clearly defined in the film, and that Wayne Crawford and Andrew Lane are perfectly aware of this. The film thus becomes a presentation of what audiences may want from such a fictional "adventure-story" universe. That's actually a rich theme, the potential heaviness of which is lightened by the film's amiable and campy sense of humor.<br /><br />There are weaknesses to the film - primarily it's cinematography, which makes the film look like a TV show. And the pacing does sag on occasion.<br /><br />But I really like these characters, and I enjoy the adventure they live, however silly. And I just find fascinating the idea that this adventure is actually taking place in a novel.<br /><br />Holds up under multiple viewings -m good show!
|
positive
|
I won't be too hard on this show because I enjoyed the first season, but then, things got worse. The concept is nothing special, just about a girl named Casey who is trying to cope with a new step-brother, Derek, and his loud, crude family, while she gradually forces her princess standards onto each of them.<br /><br />In season 1, the story was actually interesting. I liked Casey back then because she was smart, strong, independent, and conservative. She was well-mannered and deep. I felt bad when she was being harassed at her new school by her new step-brother. She was a perfectionist, but not as annoying as the later episodes. Oh, and she dated a nice guy, who is now currently portrayed as one of Derek's idiot friends. The season grasped the true tension the title of the show was trying to capture.<br /><br />Now, I can't say the show has really gone downhill because the story is sometimes interesting, but I root for Derek now instead of Casey. Now, there is little, if any interaction, between the two siblings. If they interact, it's only briefly. Oh, and I don't want any Dasey fans in my face. People, that's called INCEST, even if they are step-siblings. My tolerance can only go so far, but that's not the point.<br /><br />It's strange. Derek, as the antagonist, has gotten more sensitive over time, while Casey, the supposed protagonist, is more neurotic and unlikeable than before. I like how the younger kids get more airtime, but the parents are even more clueless than before. But that's not the biggest problem...<br /><br />Unfortunately, we are forced to see everything from Casey's point of view, with lame, nauseating background music. She has gotten stupider and more shallow over time. In one episode, she got whiny and wanted her boyfriend to be more chivalrous, so she purposely dumped food on herself and blamed Derek. Now, what happened to being a strong, independent feminist? I haven't watched much of the fourth season, but I hear she is dating a guy named Truman, who is a jackass and is arrogant. Oh, I remember that fencing episode. She constantly reminds him she doesn't like him, freaks out over being "goosed" by a sword, and in the end, hooks up with him because she can "handle" him? What the hell? Why go with a guy like that in the first place. The 1st season Casey would have just punched him in his...never mind. Or, maybe that would have been my reaction. Oh, and she's a cheerleader. Not that that's a bad thing, but I think she fell on her head at one of her practices. And in a prom episode, she cried because she couldn't find the "dress in her dreams," and wasn't completely satisfied until she became prom queen. One thing I've noticed is that no matter how bad Casey tries to tell us her life is, thing's almost always go her way in the end (she gets the guy she wants, Derek gets some kind of revenge, people all love her, etc.) Derek is still quite immature, but I see that he really has matured. I don't see why many people hate Sally. She seems nice, and it's good to see Derek in a serious relationship with someone he cares about rather than "playing the field." He is also treating Edwin slightly better, and is a good brother to Marti.<br /><br />Really, the show is so-so, and I rated it low because despite some character development, the character I once admired has now become like any "fashionable teen queen" you can see anywhere on TV. But it was good while it lasted.
|
negative
|
I think it's the first time that I go inside a theater and go out so disappointed. There were two reasons why I went to see "Astérix et les Vikings": first as a film buff, and second as a big Astérix fan.<br /><br />In the end, the film doesn't satisfy any request. It's simply a big animated mess and it proves that the Astérix franchise is going from bad to worse.<br /><br />In fact, it has been this way since the death of first scenarist René Goscinny in 1977. His faithful collaborator, illustrator Albert Uderzo took his place, but the following books were clearly lacking of the quality that was present during the Goscinny years.<br /><br />"Astérix et les Vikings" is based on the book "Astérix et les Normands", which was published during the Goscinny reign. The basic story is the same: Goudurix, Abraracourcix' nephew' arrives to the village and Astérix et Obélix must turn him into a real man, while the Vikings come to Gaul in order to discover what fear is, because it seems that fear gives wings.<br /><br />The similarities end here. What follows in the book is a non-stop series of laughs, gags and hilarious dialog with the result that the Vikings do discover fear and they flee Gaul. The movie is silly, unfunny, fast-paced, corny... Well, just name a default and it has good chances of being applied...<br /><br />The difference between the book and the movie could be more acceptable if the movie was good. But the new ideas simply crashes it in a bottomless pit. Even older Astérix movies such as "Astérix le Gaulois", which almost transferred the lines one by one without changing them are easily better.<br /><br />Animation has the quality of other 21st century movies, but it has its faults and any film beginner could find the mistakes. The greatest example is the continuity mistake, where the day follows the night after a fraction of second, in the same sequence.<br /><br />Imagine. They took animation studios from numerous countries and they still can't get adequate film-making.<br /><br />The changes of the original story are simply unbearable. And they still could be even if there was no original story. Goudurix, in the movie, has a pet pigeon named SMS and who act as his cell phone (!). Grossebaf, the Viking chief, has a rebellious teen daughter named Abba (!) and she constantly defies her father's authority. There's also a stupid Viking wizard, his cartoonish dumb and muscular son, the faithful bride of Grossebaf who is obsessed with decoration (her name is Vikea!) and... well I can't stand that much longer.<br /><br />We're far from the original gags from the original book. The biggest problem is the difficulty of transferring the images to the big screen, mainly because the greatest laughs in the books come from the verbal jokes and visual gags which do not have the same appeal on a theatre screen. I remember that the greatest moments in the book were Obélix laughing at the invaders' names (which all finish in 'af') and Goudurix tries to scare them in ridiculous ways.<br /><br />And if everything wasn't enough, somebody in the publicity staff decided to write on the movie poster that there's an already existing Céline Dion song which would be featured in the final credits. If it was a new song, I could have understood. But using an old song is only another proof that the movie is so badly made that they're ready to do anything in order to attract film-goers.<br /><br />The only good point for this movie is that it is so stupid and the end is so bad that we just can't walk out of the theater without being left cold. In a summer release, it just can't hurt...<br /><br />The only other acceptable point of the movie is how Goudurix becomes courageous. His psychological transformation in the book is too spontaneous and not credible, while it's better pictured in the movie and the motivation point is more believable.<br /><br />So if you haven't seen the movie yet, don't waste your money on it. Grab the book instead.<br /><br />Oh René, why did you leave us?
|
negative
|
This is one of those inoffensive and mildly entertaining little movies that strive to make you to like them more. But like so many others, it's material isn't strong enough to successfully fill a couple of hours.<br /><br />The pitch is promising: three drag queens drive a bus through the Outback from Sydney to Alice Springs. They run into lots of trouble - with homophobic locals, with the engine, with their pasts.<br /><br />The real trouble is with the dialogue. The leads are fine (though Pearce's continual campness becomes tiresome), but the one-liners and epithets feel forced where they should be casually thrown away. Characters shouldn't laugh at their own gags.<br /><br />Writer/director Elliott also feels the need to pile on the pleasingly incongruous shots of flamboyant drag costumes against stark desert backgrounds like so much cheap make-up. For a movie about self-confidence and just being yourself, it all seems very insecure with itself.
|
negative
|
Normally for movie reviews, I try to be constructive and objective, but there is only one word for this, uh, "film" : SUCKS!!!!!!! The dialogue, acting, special effects, plot, set, and characters all seem as if they were made up by, well, my potted plants. Don't see this, for the sake of all that is good and right in this world! :)
|
negative
|
This movie reminds me of great movies that temporarily wake me up with the realization that the Emperor is indeed naked. Our election process is unclothed and dismal. My awareness is heightened and I want to see the world change. After a short while I am lulled back to my little complacency and "bubble life." In the best sense of film this work will ferment into an edible stew for me and like in "Network" I want to be convicted to say'I'M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!' But to whom? My vigorous youthful idealism has been slowly reduced to concerned parent with quiet convictions or rather "beliefs." "Man of the year" reveals how much I yearn for honest and sometimes humorous takes on our current political situation. Dobbs' line " I did inhale because I thought 'What the hell,it's lit, it's in my hand, I'll inhale it.'" was refreshing or would've been when Clinton was President. Why can't politicians be honest and set that tone for debates? We people must realize how much veneer is being put forth as real? I am sick of this election process already,anyone else? Let take off the veils and set an agenda for our elected officials and take them to task (not re-elect) when they continue with evasion and non-representation of citizenry. This movie can inspire us to increase our expectations of politicians that spew rhetoric. Great Film!
|
positive
|
If you put Seinfeld aside, this is The Best Comedy ever, no doubt! Just Great!<br /><br />"The King Of Queens" just finished its eighth season of domestic bliss. Set in the working-class suburb of Queens, New York, the show follows Doug Heffernan (Kevin James), an amiable delivery man, and his wife, spitfire legal secretary Carrie Heffernan (Leah Remini), as they explore the everyday challenges of love, life, family and marriage. <br /><br />Doug and Carrie deal with day-to-day domestic realities that reflect our times and enable us to laugh at ourselves. Their love for each other ultimately carries them through each dilemma they face, whether it's Doug's fixation with food or Carrie's obsession with expensive clothing. <br /><br />Doug and Carrie also have to deal with the third, high-maintenance member of the Heffernan household Carrie's twice-widowed father, Arthur Spooner (Jerry Stiller), who lives in their basement. His constant presence and often bizarre behavior add to their daily adventures. Doug and Carrie have stumbled upon an unorthodox solution to reduce their burden and keep Arthur happy his regular excursions with gullible dog walker Holly (Nicole Sullivan). Doug's friends Deacon Palmer (Victor Williams), Spence Olchin (Patton Oswalt) and cousin Danny Heffernan (Gary Valentine) round out the cast with their "guy" humor and diverse perspectives.<br /><br />In a manner that evokes "The Honeymooners," THE KING OF QUEENS finds inspiration in life's everyday situations. Last season alone saw Doug "loaning" Carrie to a wifeless Deacon for help with Thanksgiving dinner; the Heffernans suffering through the annoyance and financial strain of mold damage to their house; and Doug and Carrie striving to copy a couple whose photos of a more adventurous life than Doug and Carrie's they accidentally took home. We also watched Arthur grow jealous of a new dog that Holly added to her route, and Doug finding out that his overprotective parents replaced his childhood dog Rocky three times behind his back. Throughout, the series showcases James' incredible physical comedy, Remini's hard-edged wit, and Stiller's unique comic presence.<br /><br />You can't... You shoulden't Miss it!
|
positive
|
Camp North Star and it's Camp counselor extraordinaire, Tripper Harrison(Bill Murray)sure would like to end a decades long losing streak to rival Camp Mohawk, an ivy league type place where only the wealthy kids can attend. Meanwhile, we watch as Tripper tries his hand at love when he flirts aimlessly with fellow female counselor Roxanne(Kate Lynch)as other teen counselors pair up and also fall head-over-heels. The film comes to head at the Camp Olympiad as the rivals square off in competitive athletic contests with Tripper almost realizing their doomed to fail yet another year. The film also shows the growing bond between Tripper and a quietly lonely, puppy-dog eyed Rudy(Chris Makepeace of "Vamp" fame), whose dad is often away all the time. Rudy doesn't seem to fit in with the other kids his age and he seems to spend most of his time either jogging in the mornings with Tripper or taking his peanuts at Blackjack. The film mostly contains hi-jinx of fellow teen camp counselors cutting up and goofing around.<br /><br />You have hottie counselors, total nerd Spaz(Jack Blum)with his taped glasses and bad acne, beak-nosed "Hardware"(Matt Craven)who likes to blow things up, fat kid Fink(Keith Knight) who is often stuffing his face, amongst others in the film. There's a basketball game where poor Spaz can barely bounce the ball against rival Camp Mohawk much less shoot an accurate shot with poor Fink tossing underhanded, between-his-knees fly-balls that sail over the back-board. There's camp fire coupling(with a spirited scary tale by Tripper about a hook-handed killer)and boys drooling over the lovely ladies.<br /><br />Yes, I know it's desperate at times trying to squeeze out every laugh it can and occasionally indulges in lapses of sentimentality(such as the scenes with a sad Makepeace and Murray), but just as much as this recent viewing, I found myself giggling away. I'm licked and just can't help loving this. It's a summer camp movie through and through which simply wants to entertain you. I can't explain, or reinforce enough, the overwhelming joy that floods forth when I see a sleepy Murray's hand reach from the covers for the alarm clock that's piercing loudly pronouncing a summer camp movie is about to begin. His intercom jokes are especially amusing. But, the flick is, let's be honest, a series of comic vignettes with Murray dead-panning endlessly..not that there's anything wrong with that. The film, though, couldn't quite survive without him, could it? Hard to even think of this movie without Murray in the lead. It's a happier time and I think nostalgia of that summer camp experience plays quite a hand in why we grown-ups still connect with "Meatballs" warmly. And, poor Morty(Harvey Atkin), the camp head who so badly wants things to run smooth, and to beat Camp Mohawk for a change, is the constant source of Tripper and gang's amusement as they often play gags on him..especially when he's sleeping on his bed! Great enthusiastic cast who seem to be having as much as us.
|
positive
|
I've seen many horror shows over the years, like Nightstalker, that dealt with the Wendigo legend, so I was looking forward to an angry spirit causing mayhem to add flavor to the Halloween season. Man was I mistaken. The whole movie creates this sense of events about to happen that will be scary and creepy, but then delivers a very simplistic tale of revenge and murder over the loss of some property. Ve-ery scary - not! This movie has a lot in common with Cold Creek Manor, another total loser.<br /><br />It's getting harder and harder to believe anything Hollywood puts forward about scary movies, since they rarely come through with anything original and spooky anymore. What idiots pay for such a bogus movie to be made? Go back to the drawing board fellas, and do something useful with those millions of greenbacks you have to throw around.
|
negative
|
Despite a silly premise,ridiculous plot devices and low budget,Tourist Trap<br /><br />manages to be striking. An inventive ,beautifully scored film,a must see. You have to throw rationality out the window to fully appreciate what the director was trying to do If you can manage that,you will be in for a pleasant surprise. Also take note that this is one of the few semi-classic horror films that wasn't spoiled by numerous sequels.
|
positive
|
His first movie after longtime friend John Belushi's death, Aykroyd shows much fatigue trying to pull off a character that would have been a snap for Belushi.<br /><br />Instead, "Doctor Detroit" gives us bookish professor Aykroyd masquerading as a weird, violent pimp to ward off a rival known only as Mom. That's bad enough, but he also has classes to teach, a school dinner to host, four ladies of the evening to protect and a Pimp's Dinner (or something like that) to attend. No wonder Aykroyd seems stupefied most of the time. Why should the viewer be alone?<br /><br />It was on this film that Aykroyd met future wife Donna Dixon. At least some good came out of this chaotic mess.<br /><br />One and a half stars. You want good Aykroyd, see "The Blues Brothers". You want bad, see "Doctor Detroit".
|
negative
|
Red Eye is a good little thriller to watch on a Saturday night. Intense acting, great villain and unexpected action.<br /><br />Some might not want to see this movie because it goes for a very short 85 Min's and 88% of the movie is on a plane and just talking. Don't worry they pull it off very well with the smart and witty dialog.<br /><br />A PG-13 movie seems to be new grounds for director Wes Craven. But surely enough he has fit as much violence as he possibly can into this thriller.<br /><br />This movies strongest point is its cast. This film needed good actors to deliver the dialog and thrills. If they didn't have those actors the film would have been lost and boring. We had Rachel McAdams from Mean Girls and Wedding Crashers. Cillian Murphy from Batman Begins and 28 days Later. Rounding off this cast is Brian Cox from X-men 2.<br /><br />The pacing in this film was great. Just when your thinking its going to get boring they throw a twist at you. Luckily this isn't a long movie and doesn't feel like it either. Much better then the other flight movie Flight Plan.<br /><br />Here is my Flight Plan comment: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0408790/usercomments-578<br /><br />I recommend. Not too long and not too shabby.<br /><br />8/10
|
positive
|
This might very well be the worst movie I've seen in my life. Normally I don't watch movies like this, however I was forced to watch this at school. What a torment!<br /><br />The story is as average and boring as it can be: Boy meets girl at the Spanish coast, boy and girl fall in love, but the love between the two seems impossible and everyone and everything is against their love. At the end of the movie the film becomes some kind of weird kung-fu movie were the guys in white fight the guys in black. Awful!<br /><br />The action is so bad that it makes you laugh. The dances in the film that I think are supposed to be cool are so simple and laughable that even I can do them! And Georgina Verbaan is possibly the most irritating person i've ever seen on screen.<br /><br />Johan Nijenhuis is on his way of becoming the Dutch Ed Wood. His movies are so bad that they make you laugh.<br /><br />Victor Löw however gives a surprising good performance and Daan Schuurmans also acts OK.<br /><br />So please for your own sake don't watch this movie. However if you like watching soaps this might be very well worth your time.<br /><br />Yuk!<br /><br />2/10
|
negative
|
Definitely the product of young minds, this piece may very well appeal to the 20s crowd, who is still trying to find their place in the world, while obsessing over every neurosis. However, I can't imagine that the heavy amount of narcissistic navel-gazing, trite humor, or banal subject matter would be particularly engaging to anyone over 30. Another problem is that the peripheral characters, whom the filmmakers obviously have nothing but contempt for, are hyped up to such absurd caricatures for comic effect, that they fail to be relatable in any real way. <br /><br />However, one has to give some style points to the filmmakers, who obviously grew up in the video generation, and use every conceivable editing trick in the book in order to spruce up an otherwise non-existent plot. There are 2 points to remember here. First, beware of festival darlings. Second, even though we live in the age of youtube, not everyone's account of their mundane lives deserves big- screen treatment. But these young filmmakers have every right to make their film, and if others 20-somethings can find something in it to identify with, then all the better. Yet I could not help but think at the end of this film how this latest generation, just now coming of age, will fare in the real world that presents so many challenges and complications. In the age when every child is constantly reassured of how special they are, and that they all deserve their 15 minutes of exposure, resiliency and the ability to deal with adversity does not exactly appear to be this generation's strong point.
|
negative
|
Damn straight.....this show was kick ass back in the day and still continues to outshine cartoons today. I can't wait to track down some of the DVD's to share with my little guy and see the same sparkle in his eyes. I've already introduced him to Voltron (the 5 lions one, not the 15 vehicles one)and I laughed my head off when he said to me one day "Dad..you sure watched some awesome cartoons when you were a kid!!" How cool is that.<br /><br />Come on Hollywood, dust this one off and give it a live action attempt. Couldn't be any worse than Spiderman 3 was...Man oh man... 2007 has been pretty lame so far for summer movies.<br /><br />OK, I'll shuddup now<br /><br />Cheers
|
positive
|
... because while I thoroughly enjoyed this film, it seems from other user comments that I'm in the minority. Maybe not one for the philosopher (eek), there are some wonderful scenes here (- particularly the techno), and the great life adventure story originally portrayed. Go see for yourself!
|
positive
|
Universal Studios version of "Flipper" (1996) is a great heartwarming film for the entire family with good values and sentimentality. It is the story of Sandy Ricks, a teenager from Chicago who reluctantly spends his vacation with his Uncle Porter Ricks in the Bahamas. This ultimately changes the teenagers life and he grows up in the process. He learns to appreciate nature and to have a respect for the environment. I grew up in the 1960's and the NBC television show "Flipper" was my favorite childhood show. Elijah Wood is perfectly cast as a 1990's Sandy Ricks and gives an excellent performance. As much as I liked the NBC television show and MGM theatrical feature films with Luke Halpin as Sandy in the 1960's I liked this feature the best! I feel Elijah Wood is the best Sandy Ricks. With respect to Luke Halpin I feel Elijah Wood has more of a range of acting talent and emotes more as an actor which makes his performance excellent and more believable. I think Elijah Wood is the best young actor working today in films. Director Alan Shapiro also wrote the screenplay and has done an excellent job as both writer and director of this film. Paul Hogan gives a comical and likable performance as Sandy's Uncle Porter Ricks. Mr. Hogan's performance perfectly offsets Elijah's role as Sandy. I am a big fan of underwater films. This film was beautifully shot in the Bahamas like "Thunderball" (1965 UA) was. The director of photography was Bill Butler A.S.C. who lensed the film "Jaws" in 1975. Mr. Butler is a very talented cinematographer. The underwater director of photography was Pete Romano. He did a superb job with the underwater cinematography. I enjoyed the film score by Joel McNeely. This good film score featured Crosby, Stills and Nash among other talented artists. This motion picture was shot in Panavision like "Thunderball" in the aspect ratio of 2.35:1 If possible try to see this film in a scope version as originally framed and visioned by Alan Shapiro and Bill Butler. Another very nice thing is that Mr. Shapiro gave the "original" Sandy Ricks (Luke Halpin) a small part in this remake. He portrayed Bounty Fisherman #3 in this film. This was a very kind gesture on Mr. Shapiro's part! As you can tell I am a real true fan of this film. Sadly this beautiful film was met with harsh words by the majority of movie critics. I originally saw this movie on my birthday, May 31st of 1996 in a movie theater. It meant a lot to me. I have it on numerous video versions. The VHS versions are in "pan and scan". The laserdisc version is "letterboxed" 2.35:1! I even have a VCD in 2.35:1 from Hong Kong which is "letterboxed". But my most prized possession is an "original" 16mm theatrical feature print which I will treasure for the rest of my life! Thank you Mr. Shapiro, Elijah Wood, Paul Hogan and everyone involved for making this a memorable movie for me to enjoy!<br /><br />P.S. I must add that the quality of the Universal DVD is superb! It is the best DVD as far as quality I have ever seen. The color and resolution is spectacular. The soundtrack is great. I think Universal must have used the same transfer for the DVD that they did for the laserdisc version. The 35mm scope print is "mint" and Alan's film really has a wonderful look to it. A great tribute to a wonderful film! The DVD's resolution is even superior to the laserdisc quality! It's just spectacular! Thank you Universal Home Video for the great quality control and transfer. Many thank's for doing a superb job on this wonderful family film. Also many thank's to you Alan for all your extreme kindness to me!!! It's a real honor to know you!!! (Review Revised/Updated June 27, 2005)
|
positive
|
This show stinks. For parents, they usually want their kids to watch something good for them. It is usually educational, funny, and bright.<br /><br />Is it educational? No. the Doodlebops sing and that's it. They usually sing about themselves, they don't try teaching anything.<br /><br />Is it funny? No. The Doodlebops instead say something which is not intended as a joke, and laugh at it.<br /><br />Is it bright? It's so bright, it's painful. As far as color,s everything is extremely bright, so that's good. But NOTHING is ever wrong in the world of the Doodlebop's. Therefore, they are always happy. a kid in trouble will become depressed because they have never been exposed to being sad.<br /><br />The show is also extremely cheesy. Every syllable is said to the highest level of exaggeration and very corny. It's overkill.<br /><br />For kids, it's entertaining, but past the age of 2 you won't want your kids to see it. They'll never know how to grow up.
|
negative
|
When I think of the cheesiest guilty pleasure-type movies, the first thing I think of are '80s slasher flicks. Really bad slasher flicks. The formulaic type of film, where all a script needed was 2 parts blood and several parts nudity to get made.<br /><br />Flash forward to the late '90s/early '00s. The slasher flick has been revitalized with the success of 1996's "Scream". Like in the '80s, these films were formulaic, masking a lack of inspiration by labelling themselves as "hip, tongue-in-cheek parodies" of the original slasher flicks. Of this recent blend of "hip parody" neo-slasher flicks, the only one worth seeing is the low-budget, direct-to-video "Cut".<br /><br />Like most of the other "new" slasher flicks, "Cut" relies on the production of a slasher flick, in this case a fictional 1985 film "Hot Blooded", to make its commentary on the genre. "Hot Blooded" never finished production, because of killings by someone wearing the mask of the film's killer, Scarman, a bald figure with its mouth stitched close and dark, pupil-less eyes. Now, 12 years later, a group of film students, whose professor was involved in the production, have decided to go into the vaults, tap the original surviving actress, and finish the film. But every time the film is screened or a scene is shot, "Scarman" returns and someone dies. To quote the tagline, will they finish the film before it finishes them?<br /><br />This all sounds really bad, and to a degree it is (really, is there such a thing as a good slasher flick?). There is no character development (the "new" director is revealed to be the daughter of "Hot Blooded"'s original director, whose life was apparently ruined after the production was cancelled; this would've been a perfect detail to be worked into the plot, yet it's never mentioned again) and, like in all other slasher flicks, there are just too many bodies to care about. The actors aren't great, even by direct-to-video standards, but most are having fun with their characters (and for those who aren't, it's inadvertent character acting, since none of their characters in the film wanted to work on "Hot Blooded"), particularly whoever was lucky enough to play Scarman. "Cut"'s climax has no big "who dunnit" unmasking of the killer like in the "Scream" films. It doesn't have the gimmick killings of the "Urban Legend" films. What it does have is an original and interesting concept that is diluted by a "this way we can write a sequel if it sells well" ending. But that's par for the course.<br /><br />By any sensible viewing standards, this is a horrible movie that should be avoided, but this "quality" is what makes it true to its roots in the slasher genre, and this is what makes it more enjoyable than any of the other neo-slasher flicks.
|
positive
|
I was delighted when I saw that my husband rented "Labyrinth of Passion". I love Almodovar's films. We both loved the movie. We both couldn't stop laughing. We especially enjoyed the scene in which the transvestite is shooting a photo novel, and while supposedly being menaced by a killer with an electric drill, is told to answer the phone and say, "I can't talk to you right now, I'm being attacked by a sadistic serial killer. If I survive I will call you back". (That would make a great answering machine message come to think of it). We also loved the lady telling her new found beloved, "I went to an orgy after the concert but I couldn't stop thinking of you." (I'm waiting to use that line on Twitter). "Labyrinth of Passion" is a rollicking farce with plenty of high jinks, hilarious dialog and eye candy for everyone. The film has aged well: the 1980s costumes and hairdos add to the wackiness. I would give it a 10 out of 10 rating but I am giving it a 8 for two reasons. The first is the scene which involves laxatives which includes a shot of a lady soiling herself: totally unnecessary, and it brings down the tone of the film to Hollywood gross-out comedy for a moment. The second is the suggestion that Queti is sleeping with her father: shocking, yes, but again, it ruins the tone of the film. Still, I would recommend the film to anyone who wants a sophisticated, spicy, and fun time.
|
positive
|
In what must be one of the most blood-freezing movies ever, a transvestite is murdering people in New York, and the answer to everything may not be what people suspect. One can see how Brian DePalma takes some influence from Hitchcock with camera angles and stuff. Michael Caine plays a most thought-provoking character, while Angie Dickinson is basically a bored rich woman with a bad hairdo. Keith Gordon (who later starred in "Christine") is probably the most interesting character in the movie. But you can't really understand this movie without seeing it. And after seeing it, you may never know just whom you can trust. Also starring Nancy Allen and Dennis Franz.
|
positive
|
From the brilliant mind that brought us "The Exorcist"...and "Cruising." "Rampage" is unfortunately more like the latter. It's an overall messy movie that has a major made-for-TV vibe going for it. The whole film pretends to hinge on the question, "What if the 'Boy Next Door' was a serial killer?" but instead it winds up being an uninspired courtroom drama and meditation on the the insanity plea and death penalty that makes little sense. The movie is very loosely based on the Richard Trenton Chase case, culling a few facts here and there to make a fake character and a different outcome. One of the main points of the film seems to be that ending the life of a terminally braindead child and ending the life of a murderer are somehow analagous. "Sometimes you just have to choose," says the lead character. Yeah, sometimes you have to choose to pull the plug...on your TV!
|
negative
|
Extremely boring..I don't care how many avant-garde bones you have in your body, this baby sucks...and don't go and see it because I mentioned that, save it for Warhol's "Empire", it's far more entertaining!! I have seen other Duras films that were far better, so I am dumbfounded why this is considered a "Masterpiece". As an Art Historian, I have had to consider radical works by Marcel Duchamp, Chris Burden, and Damien Hurst, and in these artist I can still see artistic intent , even quality, and an entertaining aspect in the rendering of their art. As for "India Song" -it's not even soft-porn- Anias Nin was almost here - G-rated slide show of sex- and a voice-over that does not relate to the slide show / movie......pure crap and not even campy...sadly just a bore and a waste of 2 hours. To add insult to injury, the print I saw was faded and scratched to hell!!! (Harvard Film Archive), If I want to see "entertaining boring" I watch Bunuel!! Yes "India Song"- hold your head high to late modernism and be truly bored!! Watch a 70's porn film with all the good parts cut out and turn the sound down, you'll get "India Song" but with better cinematography and none of the annoying music or the screams of the Vice Consul!!!.
|
negative
|
Anyone who loves the Rheostatics' music is going to enjoy this film. I have some minor complaints, mainly about pacing and the casting of certain actors (not Maury) who aren't really convincing in their roles, but I don't have time write a detailed review. I just want to warn anyone who has seen this film or plans to watch this film as presented CBC television in Canada: The version that airs are the CBC is like the Reader's Digest version of WHALE MUSIC---don't watch it. It cuts out entire scenes and subplots (if you can them that) from the film. The CBC, which presents most of films untouched, took half the guts out of WHALE MUSIC. I don't know why. It's horrible what they did to the film. Rent the video or watch it in a theatre, but DON'T watch it on CBC television.
|
positive
|
I suppose the ultimate curse of attending the Toronto Film Festival is your release date time table get messed up. Quite frankly, I'm just happy Fido got picked up for US distribution. In any case...<br /><br />Ever seen Shaun of the Dead? Good. How about Lassie? Able to reconcile the two? Well, if you can your name might be Andrew Currie, Canadian helmer of the first ever family themed zombie comedy, or zomedy. (Seriously, that's what the press book in Toronto called it.) Though not as violent, dry, or British as Shaun of the Dead, Fido remains true to its roots: a devotion to old 50s black and white television including both Lassie and the infamous sci-fi pulp that was being pumped out during the period.<br /><br />Fido's talented headliners (Carrie Anne Moss, Billy Connelly, Dylan Baker, and Tim Blake Nelson) stand as a testament to the brilliance of the script. The film explores all the implications of its premise: a world where zombies have been converted to servants because of the sheer number of them due to a strange accident. What would you use your new undead servant for? A butler? Manual labor? A pet? Unspeakable acts? Fido tackles all these possibilities in a sweet and surprisingly classy way, with much thanks to the work of Connelly (as one of said zombies) and young TV actor K'Sun Ray, who seems at times to be a better young Elijah Wood than the young Elijah Wood was.<br /><br />If you're expecting another Shaun of the Dead, don't waste your time. There's not nearly enough gore and pokes at the genre to satisfy you and you'll just leave the theater bitter and depressed. But if you're willing to take a look at what happens to Shaun of the Dead when it jumps across the lake, you're in for a treat. Think of Fido as the sensitive, more often beaten up little brother to Shaun of the Dead's rebellious loser, and you're starting to get the drift. If you like (or at least tolerate) zombies, small children, and loads of deadpan satire, Fido's the film for you. If that's not the case....well, you know the drill. Just hit 'em square between the eyes.
|
positive
|
It's the early 80s. There's a group of suspiciously old-looking teens. And there's a maniac stalking around. Yes, this is slasherville.<br /><br />This movie is called Pranks. Why is it called Pranks? I haven't the faintest idea. Unless your idea of a great prank is to repeatedly hit someone's dinner with a baseball bat - on balance, not a great prank; in fact quite a rubbish prank if truth be told. But there you go.<br /><br />The film itself concerns a group of teenagers who are tasked with cleaning out a decommissioned dormitory. They become aware that a psychopath is on the loose. To combat this development, they split up and wander about in the dark. It ends in tears for most of them.<br /><br />Pranks is a badly made slasher movie. The DVD release I viewed was the Vipco one. It appears to be cut of a fair bit of violence. This makes the DVD even more pointless because, let's face it, a slasher movie shorn of violence is a waste of time. For slasher-film and video nasty completists only.
|
negative
|
Carlos Saura's Carmen is one of the finest achievements in world, let alone Spanish, cinema. It manages to excite interest in flamenco in its wonderful staged adaptations from Bizet with powerful physical force. At the same time we see the impact of the creation and rehearsal of a new interpretation of Carmen on the choreographer/director and the principle dancers. The fine line between life and art is dazzling.
|
positive
|
Sugar &Spice is one of the worst movies of 2001. The film tries to cross Heathers and Bring It On and fails . When I saw last January I was so disgusted by the film that I walked and talked on my cell phone to my girlfriend for the last half hour of the movie. I've heard that the DVD has a director's cut maybe I'll check it out, but this PG-13 trash movie is s*** and the worst kind of s***. Maybe if the film had some T&A that would've have made it okay. But the gags are lame and the acting is horrible. Worse than a Troma film.
|
negative
|
Bottom line - best romantic comedy ever. This movie accomplishes what all great movies strive for: the creation of a world and time that we want to re-visit and makes us glad to be part of the human race. When I am blue, this movie lifts my spirit and makes me laugh (and that is still true after many viewings - always fresh).<br /><br />All of the actors are in top form. The characterizations are so dead on and the characters mesh so well together that you forget the actor (usually difficult to do with Matthau, Robbins and Ryan). The supporting cast is consistently brilliant: Fry ("agae", "a total pygmy package"!), Jacoby & Saks & Maher (the three theoretical physicists as "Greek chorus" - "but time doesn't exist"), Durning ("something we can launch from NJ"), Shalhoub & Whaley (Robbins' boss and co-worker at the service station), and Curits (Eisenhower - how many comedies have Eisenhower??).<br /><br />Don't miss this overlooked treasure.
|
positive
|
I saw this obvious schlock fest on a video store shelf. And before i got my first VCR I figured I'd christen it with this little gem and it's bad film-making at it's finest!<br /><br />The dialog is inadvertently hilarious. And it contains a cameo with Donald Trump. Anthony Quinn is in it inexplicably. And much like Christopher Walken seemed to want to star in every bad movie in his later years. This movie is Mr. Quinn's Country Bears.<br /><br />It features lines like, "Shut up and let me FIGHT!!!"<br /><br />And "You're saying a lot of sh_it!" <br /><br />And the priceless comeback: "Unfortunately it is sh_it, tough angry sh_it!"<br /><br />You'll be awed by a fight scene as Bo does a SOMMERSAULT across a billiard table! And does a nice kung fu kick when she comes up from the roll! Chop socky action and T and A thrills!!!<br /><br />What schlock movie fan could ask for more? Oh, and when Mr. Quinn's character commits suicide and and comes back to haunt Bo as a ghost she asks him why he killed himself rather then deal with his debilitating illness? He says, "Real men don't eat quiche."<br /><br />Uh, aaa, yeah. If Bo was a smart cookie she woulda called for an exorcist right then and there!
|
negative
|
...then you'd better not watch this movie. They've completely ruined the premise of the show. In the movie the Duke boys are idiots, Daisy is trampy, Roscoe is sinister, Boss Hogg is capable, Uncle Jessie is a criminal...only Cooter and Flash are true to the original characters. At least Enos is kinda close.<br /><br />At one point they open the doors to get into the General Lee -- nuff said.<br /><br />The original show may not have been great TV, but it was entertaining and the characters made sense. This movie is like Dumb & Dumber meets the Simple Life.
|
negative
|
Sure, most people will designate "Island of the Fishmen" as silly and trashy hokum, but can you honestly name one other movie that brings forward THIS many exhilarating themes? This Italian gem stands for pure entertainment and features stuff like voodoo, volcanic eruptions, mutant fish-creatures, the mysterious continent of Atlantis, treasure-hunting, a remote island filled with death traps and utterly mad scientists! All this and much more in one simple movie? Yes, please! Close-minded opponents of Italian horror cinema can easily tag this film as a cheap exploitation version of "The Island of Dr. Moreau", but the truth is that this is so much more! "Island of the Fishmen" delivers thrills and adventure from start to finish with surprisingly convincing special effects and astonishingly stylish camera-work. The story promisingly opens with a small group of prisoners, survivors of a shipwreck, washing ashore a tropical island. They encounter the sadistic Edmond Rackham who rules over a native tribe
and a legion of genetically created amphibian monsters that live in the island's swamps. There are so many twists and additional sub-plots in the story that it's almost impossible to write a summary but, trust me, this gem is worth checking out. Sergio Martino once again proves that he's an ingenious filmmaker who has the talent to be commercial-minded and creative at the same time. He makes great use of the beautiful island location and also the interior sets look very impressive. The staggering underwater footage and imaginative scenery really lift this film high above the normal standards of late 70's exploitation. I don't quite understand why Roger Corman reworked the original so much and released it on the American market under a different title ("Screamers"), because there are very few elements open for improvement. The cast members are all Sergio Martino regulars (with the exception of the great Joseph Cotton is a neat supportive rule) and give away great performances. In case you can get your hands on the recently restored German version, you're treated to fifteen uncut minutes of extra action. See it!
|
positive
|
There's a certain irony in a parody of the Gothic genre being turned into a mess of clichés by filmmakers who either had no idea what the story's purpose was, or just didn't care. All of the hallmarks of your average family film are present- rambunctious younger siblings, a grumpy teenager who doesn't want to move, unsympathetic parents who are unable to see the apparition, and of course a romantic subplot. The movie has very little in common with Wilde's original story, which was largely written to poke fun at the melodramatic Gothic novellas that were all the rage at the time. If Wilde saw this version, he'd probably laugh- and then of course, write a parody. One can only hope that the children who watched this bland, mass-produced pap eventually discovered the wit and sparkle of the original version.
|
negative
|
Just the ultimate masterpiece in my opinion. Every line, every phrase, every picture is exactly in place and Lindsay Crouse and Joe Mantegna are just THE cool shrink and the sleazy con-man, so well cast. 10 out of 10!
|
positive
|
A Give this Movie a 10/10 because it deserves a 10/10. Two of the best actors of their time-Walter Matthau & George Burns collaborate with Neil Simon and all of the other actors that are in this film + director Herbert Ross, and all of that makes this stage adaption come true. The Sunshine Boys is one of the best films of the 70's. I love the type of humor in this film, it just makes me laugh so hard.<br /><br />I got this movie on VHS 3 days ago (yes, VHS because it was cheaper-only $3). I watched it as soon as I got home, but I had to watch it again because I kept missing a few parts the first time. The second time I watched it, it felt a lot better, and I laughed a lot harder. I'm definitely going to re-get this on DVD because I HAVE to see the special features.<br /><br />It's very funny how that happens. Two people work together as entertainers/actors/performers. They get along well on stage, but really argue off stage, they can't survive another minute with each other, then some 15 years later, you want to reunite them for a TV special. You can find that in this film. Matthau & Burns were terrific in this film. It's a damn shame they died. George Burns deserved that Oscar. He gave a strong comic performance. He was also 78 when this movie was filmed. So far, he's the oldest actor to receive an academy award at an old age. Jessica Tandy breaks the record as the oldest actress. Richard Benjamin was also fantastic in this. He won a Golden Globe for best supporting actor. He deserved that Golden Globe. Although many people might disagree with what I am about to say, everybody in this film gave a strong performance. This Comedy is an instant classic. I highly recommend it. One more thing: Whoever hates this film is a "Putz"
|
positive
|
Fame is one of the best movies I've seen about The Performing Arts. The music and the acting are excellent. The screenplay and Set Design are also excellent. My favorite part is when all the students start Dancing and making music in the Canteen. I can see this movie any number of times, and never get bored. I give it 8 1/2 on 10.
|
positive
|
This film always hits me hard emotionally at the end. Though the issues of the film - interracial romance and adultery - were controversial at the time, this film goes way beyond those narrow parameters of ground breaking novelty and trail blazing uniqueness. Here we have a true love story, as written by the woman involved in this love affair, told in a brilliant aggressive style that extols the virtues and glory of mad passionate love. I "love" this endorsement of the only emotion that makes life truly worth living. Jennifer Jones is full of grace and William Holden is simply magnificent in his role as a reporter. A wonderful film that only people who have been in this kind of love can really appreciate and understand. And for those who haven't yet been in love, even just the hope that one day lightning can strike for you makes life worth living - because love is worth having even if but for a short time - even if you lose - because love is the "stuff" - the essence - of life. This film works for me. A warmly felt experience!
|
positive
|
First of all..I've seen better acting and more realistic makeup in porno flicks. How bad was "Chris Moltisante" as Stewie Ungar? On The Sopranos, Chris is not taken too seriously and can be considered comic relief. And then throw in "Bobby Baccala" as one of his Vegas cronies. It's just too much to take in a dramatic movie. Neither actor can handle a serious role and is better suited as a second banana for Tony,Paulie, or Uncle Junior. And I want to know who did the makeup for this disaster? I want that person to be MY make-up person over the next 25 years so I'll never age a day either. So that's all I'll write on this movie since it's not worth wasting too much more of my time. <br /><br />Yes I DO know that Michael Imperioli and Steve Schirippa are their REAL names.
|
negative
|
Some Janapese modern horror movies are very good. Strong plot, scary moments, good acting, while others are just.... unfortunately, Uzumaki belongs to the latter camp.<br /><br />I will rate the movie based on 3 elements: Plot, Scary Factor, and Acting.<br /><br />1) Plot - true to the name the movie, the plot moves in circle and never really explains itself. OK, the town is captivated by the spiral curse, but why? And why do people act so foolishly? There is a fleeting attempt to explain about what is happening by the reporter.. unforutunately...<br /><br />2) Scary Factor - if this was meant to be a horror flick, it has failed miserably. I can't really remember one good scary scene with plenty of build-up to it. <br /><br />3) Acting - very monotonous. People walking around, saying meaningless phases. I can't really feel much empathy for our tragic heroes.<br /><br />All in all, there are much better modern Japanese horror movies out there with coherent plot and strong characterization. Don't bother wasting your time on this wannabe.
|
negative
|
I was so moved by this film in 1981, I went back to the theater four times to see it again! Something I have never done for another film. No movie evokes the feelings of growing up in the 60's like Four Friends. That it so closely approximated my own experiences in the 60's is probably something that many will share. Jodi Thelen is radiantly beautiful and unforgetable! Why she didn't become a major star after this I will never know. The acting by the entire cast is flawless as is Steve Tisch's script. I always wanted to know how much of the story was autobiographical. But alas, Steve is no longer here to answer that question. I have all but worn out my VHS copy of this great movie! Highly recommended!
|
positive
|
hi.. I consider Just Cause one of my favorite Sean Connery's movies, it is a tense psychological thriller with excellent performances from the Cast, especially Connery..it also has one of the best lines i have seen in movies, so the dialog is pretty good in this one.. It also has one of the best scenes in movies ever, when Sean interviews Ed Harris's character in prison is just fantastic..i enjoyed this one a lot and i can not recommend this enough, really do not miss this one ! Do not pay attention to the negative reviews stating that the last 30 minutes suck, it was as intense as the rest of the movie, i really find Just Cause a very entertaining movie..
|
positive
|
Back (again) in Scotland, Lassie is (again) on trial for her life. Because the faithful dog sleeps on her master's grave, she must be put to death, according to law. Oddly, it is also explained that Lassie had no "legal" owner, which is, apparently, also against an old Scottish law. If, after three days, no owner is located, dogs must be destroyed. Edmund Gwenn (as John Traill) pleads Lassie's case, which leads to an extended flashback, showing Lassie's adoption by Donald Crisp (as John "Jock" Gray).<br /><br />Although it's based on an interesting, original story ("Greyfriars Bobby"), "Challenge to Lassie" revisits several earlier Lassie situations; and, it does not improve upon them. Comparatively speaking, this one is sloppy and unexciting; and, it's a disappointing follow-up to "The Sun Comes Up" (1949) *******. Geraldine Brooks (as Susan Brown) and several of the other performers may be charming, but can't elevate this one. Little Jimmy Hawkins (from "It's a Wonderful life") is among the notable children supporting Lassie; much later, he will grow up to marry "Dark Shadows"' bewitching "Angelique" (Lara Parker).
|
negative
|
This series just gets worse and worse. Poorly written and just plain not funny! The premise is excellent, but the writer's inexperience shines through. By trying so hard to offend no one they end up insulting everyone. Now into the second season the desperate cast have stopped waving their arms about, and resorted to that patronizing, smug, "Oh, silly you" style acting that comes with a no laugh script. They roll their eyes and shake their heads at each other as if to say, aren't we zany? Isn't this funny? Well, no, it's not actually. Gum disease is less painful. No wonder, with the exception of Corner Gas, Canadians generally avoid Canadian TV. Come on CBC you're suppose to be our leading station showcasing the best of Canadian talent. Pull the plug on this amateurish mess.
|
negative
|
well I'd probably agree with all the bad comments about this movie cos honestly i thought it was such a piece of crap i mean the actors had done a terrible acting job and the script was all terrible. Although the special effects wasn't a bit bad but i think the should have thought a lot harder than that. I mean how did Clara Bryant get successfully put into this film i mean she'd do a lot better if she looked a bit further and that goes the same with Kristen honey, i mean her character dies and she doesn't bother to try and defend herself i mean it's gotta be a total joke. She should at least do a lot better than what she an do like become a soldier or more of a heroine or something along the lines of bravery. But the point is the actors did a complete soulless lousy job and so did the director and the writer who made this film. they should've went into film school to think up some better ideas and i hope everyone agrees with my methods cos they are probably thinking the same thing.
|
negative
|
Sadly not available on DVD as yet, but worth pursuing on TCM or VHS. A secretary believes her boss is wrongly accused of murder, and courageously takes on many dangerous characters in an effort to establish the truth. A movie with many twists and dark alleyways, none of which I will mention! The jazz band sequence where our heroine seeks the information about the killer, is one of the most erotic scenes in Hollywood history, despite being at very low budget and made during WWII in black and white. Despite the low budget - Long Island looks somewhat mountainous - this is a movie of original style and outstanding vision. Ella Raines was a great actress discovered by Howard Hawks who knew much about these matters, casting the feistiest women - Joanne Dru, Hepburn, Angie Dickinson, Lauren Bacall, Ann Sheridan - of their era. Robert Siodmak was of one of several German, Hungarian & Czech film-makers - Sirk, Wilder, Zinnemann, Lubitsch, Curtiz,Lang, etc - who émigrés relocated to Hollywood, and brought a highly original fresh vision with them. Sadly Ella Raines was never given such a great part again, and eventually ended up in poorly produced westerns.
|
positive
|
Me and a buddy rented this movie the other day. At first look, it seemed to be another teen movie, which was also what we hoped for, being fans of simple horror and comedy.<br /><br />It seems that the movie is designed to disappoint the viewer as much as possible. It quickly accelerates into something that holds a lot of potential. Unfortunately it never quite leaves the ground. We had watched it for something that seemed like 1 hour, when I finally, half-sleeping, managed to say :"Dude, this movie sucks" It was only 35 minutes actually... Dude agreed.<br /><br />The problem is: the movie is simply not funny. It was undoubtedly supposed to be funny, but it failed. It failed in a way that made me sad. It kind of reminds me of myself. I had the potential to be anything I wanted, and instead i ended up watching cheap horror/funny movies all the time. I pity the makers of this movie from the bottom of my heart. Its so sad. All that potential.. and nothing.
|
negative
|
While the writing was terrible, the acting was atrocious, the only thing that saved this "turd" was the breast count, but that wasn't enough to make me watch this again. All said and done I'm actually dumber from watching this movie. This was a new low for Troma. Lloyd Kaufman starting the movie wearing a garbage bag and making fart noises should have made me realize what I was getting into. This was by far one of the worst ever put out by the Troma team. The best place to show this movie would be to invalids, sense they can't get up to change the channel. To conclude this is not a swift recommendation to watch this movie just for the breasts.
|
negative
|
I found myself watching Sex Lives Of The Potato men with a furrowed brow, puzzled why so many talented and witty comedians decided to be involved in a film so totally devoid of humour.<br /><br />Poo and wanking jokes are funny when you're eleven. Eighteen plus and you begin to lose friends around the water cooler.<br /><br />Maybe some enjoyment could be had from this movie if you're the kind of person who frequently plays practical jokes involving dog mess, brown bags and matches, or maybe partake in 'man' competitions on nights-out by imbibing companions' vomit/urine etc when you're not back at your parent's basement punching your teenage wife.<br /><br />Even then "Sex Lives..." it's hard to recommend. Perhaps if you're really weirdly into masochistic cranial surgery and spend your evenings happy slapping the elderly or watching toilets flush, you might think a close-up of a bogie is worthy of cinematic distribution.<br /><br />I'd discuss characterisation, narrative or performances had I not zoned completely out following the lengthy tuna-paste/vagina comparison.
|
negative
|
I was at the world premier of this movie, and have even met Todd a couples times around town (once at Olive Garden). Todd isn't a bad guy, he is just a small time film maker with little to no budget and big dreams.<br /><br />As for the movie, it is good if you like zombie films with very little plot and lots of blood and guts. You get to see some Kansas City locations and lots of raw meat, what could be better? :-) Look for the same 2 dozen people playing different zombies (with just a change of clothes or hats). You can have a good drinking game with this movie, take a shot whenever you see the same zombie in a different shirt.
|
positive
|
in 1976 i had just moved to the us from ceylon. i was 23, and had been married for a little over three years, and was beginning to come out as a lesbian. i saw this movie on an old black and white TV, with terrible reception, alone, and uninterrupted, in an awakening that seemed like an echo of the story. i was living in a small house in tucson arizona, and it was summertime... like everyone else here, i never forgot the feelings the images of this story called forth, and its residue of fragile magic, and i have treasured a hope that i would see it again someday. i'll keep checking in. i also wish that someone would make a movie of shirley verel's 'the other side of venus'. it also has some of the same delicacy and persistent poignancy...
|
positive
|
Let's describe Larry as an interviewer: a complete suckhole, in every way possible. He laughs at all his guests jokes, he asks the most boring questions and he would never dare contradict them. He hits me as the type of person who wants to be liked by...everyone. Friendly, boring, ol'predictable Harry. He probably owes his success to being a dream interviewer for celebrities because they don't get bombarded with what we, the people, want to know and have a right to know. Let's put it this way: he interviews as if he's in a red country. 02/10, 2 for the guests that come on the show yet it all seems pointless when Larry starts asking his mind numbing questions such as "What's it like to be a mother?" followed by the usual answer along the lines of "Being a mother is the greatest thing that ever happened to me: it's wonderful, but tiring".
|
negative
|
Logan Lerman & Dean Collins III of Jack & Bobby Fame provide a nice touch of familiarity as friends in this even if not maybe as close as they may be on Jack & Bobby but the expressions of young students taking their stand for a good cause is very well expressed in this movie.Logan Lerman may be seemingly typecast in roles of being "different" as thusly seen from here as is seen in this as well as in Jack and Bobby.The Movie also opens up with a very nice tune coined as a lost 45 "And I'm Wondering where the lions are?"A song which I'd Always heard on the speaker @ my old Job of ChristmasTreeShops and got it played on my local radio show of The Lost45s hosted by Barry Scott but the last time of which I suggested this with this movie as it's dedication but the dedication was left out.Environmentalist demonstration is well expressed in this movie too for the protection of the ground owls as seen in this movie too.What a hoot too this movie is.Hoot,Sogive a hoot in the tradition of the Woodsey Owl Commercials of the 1970s too. Truthfully, Stephen "Steve" G. Baer a.k.a."Ste".
|
positive
|
I realise it's very hard to live up to the first The 10 Commandments movie (which was grandiose and personally not a Charleton Heston fan) but wow...this movie/mini-series was disappointing. Even the animated The Prince of Egypt was better.<br /><br />The one thing that threw me off was Ramses. Compared to Yul Brynner's version, Paul Rhys's version just seemed so weak and un-Pharoh like. The acting really wasn't that great. For a modern adaptation, I was expecting something better. It just didn't look as stunning visually as the first one. I guess they were running on a tight budget or something. There's an occasional voice-over narrator which I found strange and unnecessary. It also broke up the flow of the story. And um...God's voice/lines were kinda weird.
|
negative
|
I just don't get it. Why call this a sequel to the film "American Werewolf" when it has absolutely NO connection with it whatsoever? The first film was funny *and* scary with ground breaking special effects. (If memory serves, the Oscar category for special make-up effects was *created* for this movie). "Paris" is none of these things. Awful effects, and not much else. Do not see this movie. Rent the original "Werewolf in London" instead. You'll be much happier.
|
negative
|
In Carmen, Saura once again seeks to establish a dynamic rapport between reality and fiction, between the actual passions of the personalities in a dance company preparing the choreography for the dance portions of the opera Carmen and the scripted passions from the story of the fictional Carmen, the famous fatal mix of a free spirit (read disregard for fidelity) and her ability to drive men mad with desire. Saura used this same vehicle fiction/reality in an earlier black-and-white film, Bodes de Sangre (Blood Wedding). But, whereas the tensions between the dancers rehearsing Blood Wedding showed to advantage how they evolved into the fictional characters of the story to be performed through directing their emotions into their roles, in Carmen, the parallel between the petty, libidinal urges of the dancers of the troop during rehearsals and the spirit forging to do with the mythic Carmen never comes even close to being believable. It remains a gadget, and, for that reason, a bothersome distraction. One really needs to see Blood Wedding next to Carmen to appreciate the comparison. However, it hardly matters, the melodrama Saura tries to impose upon his Carmen, because the Flamenco dancing and guitar music of the rehearsals_ which are 95% of the film _by some of the best known Flamenco dancers and musicians, more than repays the price of entry. A flawed film, and a wonder: perfect for doing a drill in Keats's 'negative capacity', perhaps?
|
positive
|
Amy Poehler and Rachel Dratch are among the funnier women to have been on "Saturday Night Live". It's unfortunate that they, along with Tina Fey and Maya Rudolph, were on SNL during the longest stretch of unfunny writing and sketch-making (circa 2002-2006) the show has ever had. Still, these two women most especially know what's funny, and they know how to write a funny movie.<br /><br />You'll notice in the credits of this movie that Dratch and director Ryan Shiraki wrote the story for "Spring Breakdown", but who wrote the actual screenplay, consisting of dialogue and all the important fill-in-the-blank material that makes a story into a multidimensional movie? Yep, just Shiraki. Just one guy wrote the dialogue for this movie, and no women apparently wrote the script with him. The result is a pretty cliché spring break movie that doesn't so much spoof the faux holiday as much as exploit it equally as much as MTV does every year.<br /><br />If Dratch, Poehler, and even co-star Parker Posey could have contributed their handwriting to the screenplay, it would have been far less cliché. The premise is original, being about three thirty-something women who were unpopular in high school (and apparently college, too) who never had the fun spring break trip they allegedly dreamed about. I say "allegedly" because you never quite know what fun is to these characters. They entered talent shows in the past where they sing stale pro-woman anthems like "True Colors", and spend their nights together holding make-your-own-pizza parties. Even though none of them are especially unattractive, the outside world appears to treat them like they are. There's a scene where a blind student of Poehler's (played by Poehler's real life husband Will Arnett) asks her out on a date, only to touch her face and immediately change his mind. If Poehler's character is supposed to be unattractive, they obviously hired the wrong actress.<br /><br />The movie continues to show promise, even though we have our doubts about the main characters, when Posey's boss, Texas Senator 'Kay Bee' Hartmann (Jane Lynch, funny as always) hires Posey to watch over her unpopular college-age daughter (Amber Tamblyn, playing yet another woman who's attractive in real life, but not in the eyes of any characters in this movie) while she goes to a Laguna Beach-like vacation spot for Spring Break. Poehler and Dratch come along, they reluctantly get boozed up, party like they apparently should have when they were in college, and then comes the ultimate showdown with the sorority bitches lead by Sophie Monk.<br /><br />Sophie Monk is an incredibly attractive woman who has a body both women and men would kill to have for different reasons. Unfortunately, her movie career is off to a rough start with the abominably unfunny "Date Movie" (2006) and the disappointing "Click" (2006). Here, she plays a Southern belle, although her voice sounds like she stole Delta Burke's voice box. She hams it up a little too much, trying too hard to play a conniving bitch that she comes off as much like a caricature of spoiled college kids as the rest of the extras.<br /><br />"Spring Breakdown" was released straight to DVD despite the star power of Amy Poehler, but rightly so because the story is way too cliché. It may as well have been called "National Lampoon's Spring Breakdown", and the magazine probably wouldn't have sued for trademark infringement because of the free publicity. If director Shiraki had given at least one woman the creative input, especially Rachel Dratch, this movie would have been great and not nearly as run-of-the-mill as frat-house comedies we've seen before. I know Dratch will come up with another funny concept, and hopefully be allowed to fill in the rest of the screenplay herself. She's funny enough, and she deserves better than this half-baked comedy that would accept Stiffler's brother with open arms.
|
negative
|
This film is just another waste of time. The plot is ridiculous, forced USA drama. The characters were all really weak, especially the uncharismatic Goya and the bad interpretation of Bardem, who only was alright in his classic interpretation, when acting as french ally.<br /><br />Just another chance lost of have spent the money in a good film. I guess it was no a low budget film. Definitely not recommended. Maybe the director's should think a bit whether the film has sense or not before wasting so that money. Maybe they do not bother as they have profits before launching them in the cinema.<br /><br />No more hope in cinema...
|
negative
|
Seeing all of the negative reviews for this movie, I figured that it could be yet another comic masterpiece that wasn't quite meant to be. I watched the first two fight scenes, listening to the generic dialogue delivered awfully by Lungren, and all of the other thrown-in Oriental actors, and I found the movie so awful that it was funny. Then Brandon Lee enters the story and the one-liners start flying, the plot falls apart, the script writers start drinking and the movie wears out it's welcome, as it turns into the worst action movie EVER.<br /><br />Lungren beats out his previous efforts in "The Punisher" and others, as well as all of Van Damme's movies, Seagal's movies, and Stallone's non-Rocky movies, for this distinct honor. This movie has the absolute worst acting (check out Tia Carrere's face when she is in any scene with Dolph, that's worth a laugh), with the worst dialogue ever (Brandon Lee's comment about little Dolph is the worst line ever in a film), and the worst outfit in a film (Dolph in full Japanese attire). Picture "Tango and Cash" with worse acting, meets "Commando," meets "Friday the 13th" (because of the senseless nudity and Lungren's performance is very Jason Voorhees-like), in an hour and fifteen minute joke of a movie.<br /><br />The good (how about not awful) performances go to the bad guy (who still looks constipated through his entire performance) and Carrere (who somehow says her 5 lines without breaking out laughing). Brandon Lee is just there being Lungren's sidekick, and doing a really awful job at that.<br /><br />An awful, awful movie. Fear it and avoid it. If you do watch it though, ask yourself why the underwater shots are twice as clear as most non-underwater shots. Speaking of the underwater shots, check out the lame water fight scene with the worst fight-scene-ending ever. This movie has every version of a bad fight scene for those with short attention spans and to fill-in between the flashes of nudity.<br /><br />A BAD BAD MOVIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
negative
|
Ice-T stars as Mason a homeless African-American who finds himself hunted by wealthy hunters (Rutger Hauer,Gary Busey,Charles S. Dutton, F.Murray Abraham,William McNamara and John C. McGinley) however Mason proves to be much harder prey then the usual targets in this ridiculous and slow paced actioner which takes too long setting up actionscenes and then totally botching them.
|
negative
|
More of a Frisbee like turtle with fangs that go up like a wart hog. More battles with people in bird suits that look like people in bird suits. A ping pong ball space ship. Two naughty boys who know how to do everything, including getting on board the space ship. More tiresome music. More "Gamera is the friend of children" stuff. I remember when Godzill and Rodan came out. The movies were a lot of fun because the monsters were actually a threat to people. Now they are just a parade of silly costumes with very little behind them. The adults are all ridiculous and moronic. Like in American sitcoms, the kids are the bosses (when in reality they couldn't think their way out of a paper bag). These monster movies must be the Japanese means of partonizing these little snots. Above all, however, is that after seeing three of these movies (with the same plot over and over; check the stock footage), the ultimate conclusion is that they are boring. If you haven't see this one, don't bother.
|
negative
|
Luckily I did not pay to see this movie. Also, I cannot even reveal any spoilers because I willingly WALKED OUT after forty minutes of the movie. It was that bad. I laughed once, when the Yahoo! billboard fell on the guy, and the theme song came on. However, that was only because I thought it was making fun of it, but then I realized it was yet ANOTHER product placement. <br /><br />I loved the cartoon. I used to watch it almost religiously. (although i missed the last episode. I heard that they show Dr. Claw and it was nothing more than a Claw, somebody comment on the show's page) The cartoon had Penny and Brain alot more than the movie had, as to that point. I hated the setup of the whole thing, reminiscent of Robocop. Then Broderick screws with the whole feeling of Inspector Gadget. He is not nearly as clumsy as the cartoon was. Another fact is his gadgets actually work to the point I saw, except for the oil slick. He also screwed with the tone of "Wowsers" which used to be in an excited tone. I felt so disappointed that they slaughtered the cartoon so badly. Everybody else felt that way too. Us 14-17 year olds remember the cartoon fondly and we loved every minute of it.<br /><br />I went into the movie with an open mind, knowing that they would have screwed with the cartoon. I was taken aback at how retarded the movie was. It relied on sight gags, and stupid dialogue for humor. Disney relies on pain and physical humor to push a kids movie along. Product placement is pointless in this film, and it shows. The wise-cracking car is not that good at cracking wise. The gadgets look nice, but they were almost overly glossy. The cartoon was a better look. The silly scenes were crap. In the 40-45 minutes I watched the movie, not one laugh was heard, and they laughed at the Dudley-Do-Right preview. This movie should not be watched by people who want intelligence in their family entertainment. I highly recommend "The Iron Giant," which was sad, but very very good. This movie is a travesty to the whole family drama.------------1
|
negative
|
Mike Hawthorne(Gordon Currie)is witness to the brutal murder of his mother and suicide of his father Morty(Jon Fedele). Twenty years later, Mike gathers a group of his friends to his family's cabin in the woods for a Halloween party. While playing a game where the guests confess and confront their worst fears...Mike tries to summon the spirit of his late father. It is soon discovered that Morty's spirit inhabits a wooden Indian in the cabin. The statue comes to life and the blood bath begins.<br /><br />Most of the F/X are not very convincing and the movie takes on a cheap teen slasher theme. Stale story pitifully acted. Cast members of note are: Kelly Benson, Phillip Rhys, Emmanuelle Vaugier, Byron Chief-Moon and veteran actress Betsy Palmer.
|
negative
|
I found this movie to be very funny, I loved how it made of the politics of modern day sports. This movie is not as funny as South Park but it is pretty funny. And since I am a sports fan I loved how they made fun some of the more ridiculous things in sports. This movie is great for non sports lovers too, probably better for them actually since they have to go through life wondering why people follow sports so closing when there are so many insane rules and intricacies to sports and the fact that it means absolutely nothing. I also found the actual game they came up with to be interesting, it is sort of like horse with bases and psyche outs (for the person shooting). Overall I highly recommend you see this movie, and believe that you will end up loving this movie. However if this style of comedy is not your favorite you probably won't like it. (but that is with any comedy movie)
|
positive
|
Leos Carax has made 3 great movies: Boys Meet Girls, Mauvais Sang, Les Amants du Pont Neuf. In fact those films were not that great but it has the violence of youth, the beauty of juvenile wilderness. Carax in these three movies was well aware of what cinema was, but he tried to make his own vision of the art, without thinking about about all he have seen, but using it and melting it into his times. Pola X is a very different movie because Carax made Les Amants du Pont Neuf, a monstruosity of 20 millions dollars, a film that has destroyed everything on its way. After such a movie you can't do another one in the same point of view. So Leos Carax has to changed, and he did. The movie isn't as beautiful as its first, it's more reasonable, no more studio, no more dreamed Paris, Carax has entered at last reality. It's not clean anymore, it's not poetic characters. Carax have become a romantic in the german sense of it.
|
positive
|
Once I heard that the greatest and oldest preserved Germanic heroic poem was transformed into a film it almost became my obsession to see it. The first glints of its appearance I caught never disappointed me. A futuristic interpretation With Lambert our favourite highlander and Mitra, tomb raider to be,in leading roles seamed appealing, though some doubts came to life (an important female character in Beowulf?)... Two hours ago I saw the film. After I had read the director's name my world fell apart. As I said - from that point on, there was not many surprises. First and foremost, the film has NOTHING to do with the original Beowulf if we disregard a couple of violently and pointlessly stolen names. If they had not stolen the names and declared it to be a new story, it might have passed as an f-class action stupidity with nice costumes and scenography. This way it is simply a crime! An attack on a legend and its ideology as well as on common sense. Ok let me be positive for a second... apart from the general electro-goth atmosphere which is nice it also has good music. That was it for both the positive part and this comment.
|
negative
|
It's a good movie if you plan to watch lots of landscapes and animals, like an animal documentary. And making Pierce Brosnan an indian make you wonder 'Does all those people don't recognize if someone isn't indian at plain sight?'
|
negative
|
Avoid this film if you are looking for entertainment.<br /><br />It is filled with wannabes trying to be something that they are not and Emraan is just wasted in the role of a tour guide who falls for a newcomer who needs to go to acting school. Seriously, where to they get these people from? Just because you're pretty doesn't mean you can act or should be an actress.<br /><br />Asmit Patel needs to send an apology letter to everyone who accidentally watches him makes a fool of himself in this poor excuse for a film. He plays an insipid wannabe gangster who drugs girls and forces them to fall in love with him and sells them off to the highest bidder.
|
negative
|
Burt Kennedy used to be a very good director, but you'd never know it by this lumbering mess. Not only does this film look cheap, it IS cheap--most of the battle scenes are lifted from the far superior "The Last Command" from 1955, and that footage, shot 32 years previously, looks more contemporary than anything in this picture. The few action scenes that were actually shot for this movie are disorganized, confused and incompetent, looking just as shoddy as the rest of the picture. This has the look and feel of a bad student film (and the budget didn't seem to be a whole lot more). It moves like molasses, the acting for the most part is either over-the-top ham or under-the-top comatose--although Raul Julia comes off better than most of the rest of the cast--and it's chock full of annoying historical inaccuracies. On top of that, it's WAY too long. If you're going to make a boring film, do it in an hour or so and get it over with--don't stretch it out over three hours, like this one does. If you want to see a good movie about the Alamo, check out John Wayne's 1960 version, or even the 1955 film from which this movie stole its action scenes. Hard to believe it took six producers to make a movie this lousy. Skip it.
|
negative
|
I've loved this movie since the first time I saw it lo these many years ago. I'm not sure how many times I've seen it, perhaps 10, perhaps 20. This last time I watched it I was struck by a detail that I hadn't noticed before.<br /><br />Toward the end of the picture, the slain heroes are conveyed back to the town via sled. There are a couple of closeups of the dead men. The one that struck me most was a shot of the blond youth. All you see on the screen is his profile from head to hands. His hands are holding a flickering candle. The wind is blowing and his thick blond hair is dancing in the wind, in tune with the flicker of the candle flame. The contrast between death and the life he has lost is incredibly powerful. The moving hair and candle flame remind us of the life force that once inhabited his body.<br /><br />Every time I revisit this film I see something new.
|
positive
|
Lackawana Blues An impressive HBO movie about a beautiful woman that made her house a home for several characters.Touching,alive,entrancing-a great mix of sound and story- based on a true story featuring an All-Star cast.A time capsule about .....<br /><br />you get the point and no I am not on the payola for the HBO crew- I would throw around more superlatives but I am about to go out . The extras on the DVD include a deleted scene,a featurette and commentary.The funniest part about the featurette was "star" lighting they used when interviewing exec producer Halle Berry..<br /><br />OK seriously - good times A
|
positive
|
Ti%s and As*, lots of boobies. Some great characters, fun filled pranks and well put together teen action in this spin off of the Amercan Pie franchise. This feels like really OLD SCHOOL. It feels a bit like Porkys for the 2000's. Some great funny characters combined with some very humorous situations make this one a real surprise for me.<br /><br />Whilst the original cast is all but gone except for one, this movie I found really entertaining. Lets not get too excited, you have to take it for the booby teen comedy that it is, but for what it is, it excels. The characters are likable and funny, the girls are hotter than hell. The fun and games are hilarious, with some stuff I've never seen before in comedies, they make me cringe but laugh at the same time.<br /><br />So ignore the haters and give this a run and see what you think. Don't expect the classic American Pie, but expect something that should make you laugh and spark your attention for an hour or so.
|
positive
|
I don't have a really solid thesis here, so I'm just going to toss out some observations.<br /><br />First of all, the film is absolutely gorgeous. It's shot in high contrast black and white, and some of the scenes are so well composed that they're almost distracting.<br /><br />There's a sequence early on of some intense protests, and some of the shots were amazing -- three guys launching tear gas at the protesters, etc.<br /><br />Second of all, I think that one of the biggest signs that this is a recent film looking back on the 60's is that it's really about how the idealism of the revolution morphed and shifted into something different. The take on this shift is really interesting -- I think that both the political phase of things as well as the artistic and more self-indulgent phase have strong points and weak points. The film doesn't necessarily take the position that things decayed.<br /><br />Third, I think the romance works very well.<br /><br />Finally, I really, really, really hated the ending. It was way too melodramatic. You could even say that the ending is unworthy of the film that preceded it.
|
positive
|
There isn't enough space to explain the many ways this movie is a disappointing mess. Silly special effects and an incomprehensible plot are the least of this movie's problems. The film looks like it was conceived in the mid-eighties and just stewed until it could finally be made in the early nineties. The mullet-headed "hero," (complete with fashionable "Miami Vice" three-days shadow beard), the ham-fisted slams at Ronald Reagan, it would be funny if it didn't take itself so seriously. As it is, the movie is just pathetic. I actually feel sorry for the poor actresses who wasted their fine nude scenes in this awful movie.
|
negative
|
This is a great film!! The first time I saw it I thought it was absorbing from start to finish and I still do now. I may not have seen the play, but even if I had it wouldn't stop me thinking that the film is just as good.
|
positive
|
Set in Hungary in November 1956, this is the story of a group of foreign nationals who were trying to leave the country at the time of the Uprising.<br /><br />Once the airport is closed, the titular journey begins on a bus taking them to Austria. As would be obvious, they are stopped on their way which is where they come up against the almost faultless Yul Brynner whose military power as a Red Army Major was marked with loneliness, his internal struggle between right and wrong, his search for the truth and his need to feel emotions for other human beings. He was saddened by the fact that his job had alienated him from his friends and enemies alike and he yearned for social contact.<br /><br />Robert Morley plays the quintessential stiff upper-lipped Englishman who, no matter how serious the role, manages to maintain an almost light-hearted logical outlook on life while Jason Robards has a stunning movie debut which enforces the reason why he had so many roles throughout his career. Deborah Kerr, as the leading lady, exhibits the grace and femininity we have come to associate with her yet manages to bring over the strength and resolve required for her character.<br /><br />The film deals with a very tempestuous time in European history but it never ceases to remind us that there is good in all of us and you can never completely judge a book by the cover. Fabulous scriptwriting ensures that for all the seriousness of the subject there can still be great one-liners and comedic instances that add to, rather than detract from the movie. The chemistry in the cat and mouse game between Kerr and Brynner makes you understand why they appeared in more than the one film together.<br /><br />All in all, a thoroughly engrossing movie which I would definitely watch again. 8/10
|
positive
|
Barbet Schroeder's "Murder by Numbers" starring Sandra Bullock is solid work, though not particularly compelling. I am a big Sandra Bullock fan, and she is effective here as forensic detective Cassie Mayweather, who is not very likable and a broken person too. However, there is a sense of detachment inherent in the story structure. It's about the perfect murder executed by two spoiled sociopath teenagers, Richard (Ryan Gusling) who is the cool one, and Justin ( Michael Pitt) who is the sympathetic geek. Basically, Richard and Justin kill a young woman, because they have nothing better to do on a school night. They are very smart and very arrogant which is normally not a bad thing, but it just doesn't work here. Tony Gayton's script does a great job of detailing the investigation of a puzzling murder, and it is truly by the numbers. We have these two punk kids flaunting their superiority, and we just want them to take a fall. <br /><br />This is not a great exploration into the dark side, like Schroeder's "Reversal of Fortune" about Claus von Bulow. There are interesting turns in "Numbers". The movie is not so much a thriller, but rather a character study of Cassie. Sandra Bullock balances the bravado of Cassie, her fear of letting people get in with her, and her secret past. Bullock brings courage and strength to a suffering character. Her partner and sort of love interest, Sam (played by Ben Chaplin), is more a plot unconcealing than a real character. Though Chaplin does the bewilderment thing very admirably. The other nice touch is having Richard and Justin involved a strange sexual attraction. The most interesting thing about "Numbers" are Pitt and Gusling. <br /><br />There are many entertaining twists and turns throughout the movie. Everything is done very competently. I saw the movie about a week ago, and in retrospect I like it a little more than I did when I saw it. However, it is just not inspired work. Sandra Bullock and Barbet Schroeder deserve a lot better, and so do we.
|
positive
|
Based on Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time", this amazing film by Eroll Morris documents the the life and work of one of the greatest minds in the history of astronomy. He has contributed more to Science, despite his debilitating disease, ALS, than an able bodied Scientist could only dream of.<br /><br />The film begins by telling of Hawking's childhood, and how he was a poor student that was recognizably bright. He slacked his way through college and university, where he was diagnosed with the disease that would take away normal functions of his body, but would allow him to continue living and thinking perfectly.<br /><br />Morris discusses how the brilliant mind of Stephen developed from childhood to the present, at one point his mother tells how- when she was pregnant- she prophetically bought a astronomical atlas to read while in the hospital. Hawking himself narrates the timeline of his discoveries, while Morris interviews close friends and colleagues whom have been lucky enough to befriend the magnificent man. <br /><br />He tells how he was first intrigued by the discovery that the Universe was expanding similar to how a star would expand. We also know that stars eventually die and become what is now known as "black holes", if this is the case,will the universe not too begin to contract, reversing itself until we reach the "big crunch"? as Hawking puts it. And when the universe does begin to recede, will time not "reverse"? When posed this question, I began to think that death may not be the end, perhaps one day time will go backwards, and our death will become our rebirth and our birth our death. The universe is one big cycle just like everything else in life. <br /><br />This is what Hawking is telling us, everything in the universe recycles itself. This is completely logical and can make your mind wonder in a million directions pondering it. This is why i love this film and why isay it is a MUST SEE!!! An 11 out of 10 ...Morris never ceases toamaze!
|
positive
|
I had to see this gem twice to really appreciate all of it. When a widowed father of two interrupts his two sons' sleep with a shocking revelation, they are torn between believing him and not. As the horrifying events of this tale unfold, we learn a lot about the father, about his two sons, and about their destinies. With shocking twist after shocking twist, this film never allows for a lull in the plot. Bill Paxton plays the father, but the most notable performances are that of his older son, Fenton, played by Matthew O'Leary and his younger son, Adam, played by Jeremy Sumpter. This is one of the best thrillers that I have seen in a while, and you will want to watch this a few times to appreciate every intricate aspect of the plot. I give this film a 9/10.
|
positive
|
This is an interesting little flick made in 1967, with cool jazzy twangy soundtrack music and a plot that will make you laugh...OK, it's not really stupid but it's cheesy fun. I saw many similarities between this and 'Creature with the Blue Hand' (AKA The Bloody Dead) and they do have the same director! Scotland Yard's finest is investigating the murders of young ladies at a college. Seems that criminals are being let loose from a local prison to do the bidding of some evil person and then returned when their work is done. There's a nifty device hidden inside a bible that squirts prussic acid, and there's another device that is neither nifty nor clandestine, it looks like a large squirt gun and the victim must be pretty near soaked before they expire. Joachim Fuchsberger plays an Inspector and he mostly chews gum and looks off into the distance. There's a "monk", and how anyone identifies this thing as a "monk" is beyond me, it carries a whip and dresses in a red outfit with a red hood, more of a Klan member of a different color than a monk. There's all kinds of nifty devices like a fireplace hearth that goes up and down to admit the monk, and it steps right over the fire without setting his robe alight, a nifty trick right there. This is an odd combo of crime drama with goofy overtones, and while it's rather silly at times it is fun to watch. 7 out of 10, not bad....
|
positive
|
Pola X is a beautiful adaption of Herman Melville's 'Pierre; or, the Ambiguities'. The comments on here surprise me, it makes me wonder what has led to the overwhelmingly negative reaction. <br /><br />The shock value is the least appealing thing about this film - a minor detail that has been blown out of proportion. The story is of Pierre's downfall - and the subsequent destruction of those around him - which is overtly demonstrated in his features, demeanour and idiolect. The dialogue and soundtrack set this film apart from any other I have seen, and turn a fundamentally traditional storyline with controversial twists into an unforgettably emotional epic.<br /><br />I can't stress enough the importance of disregarding everything you have heard about this film and watching, as I did, with an open mind. You will, I hope, be rewarded in the same way that I was. I felt on edge and nervous from around the half-hour mark, however the film is far from scary in any traditional sense. It will leave you with 1,000 thoughts, each of them at once troublesome and thrilling. I know I'm gushing here, but I feel the need to make up for the negative perception of this film. It's the best I've seen all year.
|
positive
|
The third installment of the "Carnosaur" trilogy features a bunch of Keystone Kops-quality military commandos trying to kill two Velociraptors and a T-Rex. I give it a 4 out of sheer sympathy and my affinity for dinosaurs. The movie is definitely the worst of the trilogy, it really can't be taken seriously. More significantly, however, watching this movie I can't help but notice some interesting parallels between the "Carnosaur" and "Xtro" trilogies. The first installment in both franchises is a dark, disturbing film that has become a cult classic, the second is an "Alien" ripoff, and the third is a tongue-in-cheek, almost slapstick (whether intentional or not) movie that has you rolling on the floor laughing. Also, like the "Xtro" franchise, all the "Carnosaur" movies are completely unrelated to one another. They they only carry the franchise name to drum up interest in the "sequels," I guess. Obviously "Carnosaur" and "Xtro" have two different production groups at work here, but if you've seen all three movies of both franchises you find yourself referring back and forth between the two.
|
negative
|
Oops. I hired this because I thought it was Bitter harvest (1981), which was recommended. After the appearance of the appalling Patsy Kensit, I checked the recommendation and discovered my mistake. OK, It's watchable, because the main characters are very sexy, but the acting is awful. Stephen Baldwin looks morose the whole time, which is understandable, considering his co-star. Is Patsy competing with Liz Hurley for the title of the most obviously useless actor on the screen?
|
negative
|
this is by far the most pathetic movie Indian cinema or any cinema has come up with.it is totally a piece of crap.the story line odes not hold any water. it is shameful that such a respectful actor has stooped to such a low on making such a disgraceful movie. the little respect he had is lost forever. he should have retired longtime ago instead of making a fool of himself and loosing all the self respect. i would not recommend this movie to any one. furthermore i would suggest that Amitabh should retire already. I wonder how IMDb has given some recommendations to this movie. there are no movies so horrible that any recommendations could be made. seeing such movies as Devdas in the same line as this movie does a grave injustice to a decent movie. its overall i could say shameless.
|
negative
|
This movie is some of the worst crap I have ever seen. I literally got a sharp pain in my head while watching this movie. The CGI was awful, and the story was just a waste of ink. Dean Cain's character was Mr-Super-Intuitive-I-can-figure-out-anything, except he can't seem to work his own helicopter correctly. The biggest problem was the split screen camera work. I felt like I was watching the Brady Bunch or something, only it wasn't different people in the boxes, just close ups and different views of the same thing. I can only figure that the actors really needed the money, because this movie wasn't worth the film it was shot on.
|
negative
|
this show is pretty alright and fun to watch, its a great Disney channel shows and sometimes entertaining.<br /><br />I really enjoyed the first season but i hated the second and third seasons. This show has completely changed around. In the first season it was more about science and animals, all that is gone now in the season and third season. Its more about her life and dating. Ever since that gay kid (Ben) came along, this show has sucked. The writers took a perfectly good kid show and changed it to a crappy teen comedy. Disney took a turn for the worse. I cant stand to watch the newest episodes anymore, they're all garbage.
|
negative
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.