review
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| sentiment
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
Excellent exercise on multiple plans:<br /><br />- showing the not yet ended colonialism spirit in France <br /><br />- more generally the boring mindset of superiority from all western people<br /><br />- a renewal of the spy and thriller movies: OSS 117 is uncultured and stupid!<br /><br />The good idea is that, in spite of all these messages, it is a funny film, plenty of jokes and gags, very light and sparkling.<br /><br />Special mention to Jean Dujardin and Berenice Bejo.<br /><br />Definitely worth seeing. Wonder how it will be appreciated in US?<br /><br />Seems to be a success in France, so probably a next version will come.
|
positive
|
I was really surprised, that my mom watched whole movie without leaving to iron, clean or some other things like these. And I was almost shocked, when she said, it was very funny and very interesting. And I think so.
|
positive
|
See No Evil is the first film from WWE films. Yes WWE, Word Wrestling Entertainment, pro wrestling. Of course being that it's a WWE film a wrestler has to star in it, the wrestler being Glenn Jacobs aka Kane. Which is not really important as if you didn't know Kane or what WWE stood for you would never know it had anything to do with the wild word of wrestling, as the movie has nothing to do with wrestling. See No Evil is gross out horror film, it has some moments were the some people may jump but for the most part it's just saying, hey look how gross we can get! Not that there is anything wrong with that. Jacob Goodnight (played by Kane) is sort of a Jason type character, his mother tortured him as a kid with strict (understatement) Christian beliefs and has warped his mind. Now he's a big scary chopping killing machine. 90% of the movie takes place in an abandon hotel where Jacob stalks six teenagers (surprised?) and a handful of adults. I could explain why they are in a creepy old hotel but eh, who cares? Despite it's lack of originality See No Evil is well made, for what it's supposed to be. Kane plays an awesome killer and needs little make up to be scary. One flaw in the movie is the most annoying possibility people survive, I really looking forward to having them being horribly killed, but alas, does not happen. I wish the film didn't have the stigma of wrestling attached to it, although like I said the film has nothing to with wrestling, people are still closed minded enough not to want to see it because, given of course if they are a wrestling hater. Then again the movie may also make money because Wrestling fans will want to see it. Either way, See No Evil has top notch effects and little CGI, and like I said, it's quite brutal so like I say it's good stuff....if you like that sort of thing.
|
positive
|
Goldie Hawn's depiction of a simple young lady caught up in a love triangle with an older man, a dentist, played with such relish by Walter Matthau, that she won the best supporting actress Oscar for 1969.<br /><br />The film, however, is another tribute to Ingrid Bergman. Rarely, did we ever see her in a comedy and she literally kicks up her heels here as a dedicated dental nurse who is thrust into a scheme for Matthau to tell Hawn that they're married.<br /><br />It is such a joy to watch Matthau and Bergman fall for each other here. Theirs is an accidental love affair in the making.<br /><br />As Matthau's friend, Jack Weston is fabulous as his partner in the scheme as well. Rick Lenz gives ample support as Hawn's newly-found boyfriend as well.
|
positive
|
OK. I think the TV show is kind of cute and it always has some kind of lesson involved. So, when my kids decided they wanted to see this movie, I decided to tag along. I wish I'd stayed home and watched the TV show instead.<br /><br />The fact that the humor is silly and unoriginal is the least of the problems with this movie. The plot is next to non-existant, the characters seem to exist in a vacuum, and, worst of all, Gadget does not carry any lesson whatsoever. It appears that Disney took all of the things that make Inspector Gadget work on TV and tossed them all. To be fair, my younger child (8 years old) liked the movie but the older one (10 years old) came away thinking it silly (he was too old for the youth humor but too young for any of the adult humor).<br /><br />Generally, I like Disney films but this one misses by a mile. It is OK for a very narrow age band (say 7 to 9) but a must miss for everybody else.
|
negative
|
If this was nominated for a screenwriting award by the WGA, a professional association of screenwriters, then it's time to hang up the word processor. Astonishingly inept writing, direction, production, at every level, even for a TV movie. No cliche goes unexploited in this jaw-droppingly bad movie. What were they thinking? Does anyone really believe kids are stupid enough to watch this?
|
negative
|
How to Lose Friends & Alienate People is in all honesty one of the best comedies I've seen this year along with Pineapple Express and Step Brothers. Its not one of those "gross out" comedies that heavily relies on fart jokes and toilet humor but instead moves at an affable pace and you will be easily attached to the unfolding narrative. Simon Pegg nails it in the coffin with his hilarious portrayal of a fish-out-of-water character and is quickly detaching himself from the tripod he once belonged to back in England (the other two would be Nick Frost and Edgar Wright). Getting yourself in the top of the Hollywood food chain is a hard thing to do as we can clearly see with Pegg, his first jab at the lead role was David Schwimmer's comedy Run Fatboy Run but it received lukewarm reviews from critics and audiences alike. His second try is this movie, got fairly positive reviews from the majority but was a flop in the box office. I, for one still haven't lost faith in him and I'll still be there whenever he wants to take that third shot for glory.<br /><br />Other characters were well cast from Jeff Bridges to Danny Huston and Gillian Anderson. Surprisingly, Kirsten Dunst in my opinion fared well in this movie as the love angle to Pegg's character however, the spark that I saw in Interview with the Vampire is still lost. She needs to find it, fast or she might suffer the consequences of being lost in the land of "rom-coms" forever.
|
positive
|
Although Stardust seems to be a fantasy film with predictable ending and average performances, it is certainly not. When i saw the movie, i knew it was going to be one of my favorite movies. And i was right. <br /><br />Stardust is more of a fairytale than an adventure film. It has this magical 'aura' from the beginning to the very end of the movie. The storyline is well written , and it keeps you on the edge of your seat. Like every tale , it has some short of morality. Therefore we know in our hearts that the evil brothers won't take the throne but the innocent boy who manages to overcome every obstacle and difficulty he encounters during his journey. We also know that the true love is Yvaine and not Victoria , the material girl who is shallow and manipulative. <br /><br />I have to give extra credits to Claire Danes. She literally shines in this movie. Her eyes have this sparkle that fit totally in her character. Moreover, she and Cox do have chemistry which makes the romance in the film even more notable. The rest of the cast are well known actors and actresses which of course make Stardust an interesting and ''high classed'' movie<br /><br />Overall , the movie is FANTASTIC, the locations magical and the plot interesting.I was very disappointed that the film didn't get nominated for more awards. I have to give at least 9/10 stars for this.
|
positive
|
The film as entertainment is very good and Jimmy Stewart is excellent as Chip Hardesty, with well done co-starring turns by Vera Miles and Murray Hamilton. But the film, directed by legendary director Mervyn Leroy, was constantly vetted and script approval as well as every aspect of the film, down to clothing, was closely watched and controlled by J. Edgar Hoover. Not that J. Edgar Hoover didn't have something to be proud of. His management of the bureau from 1924 to his death crated on of the finest investigative services in the world. But by 1959 Hoover was already beginning to worry about being forced out and had already started to collect dossiers on powerful people to make sure and protect his little kingdom. And he was determined to make sure that no motion picture showed even a single wart about the bureau. The films shows only continued successes and glosses over the failures which occurred, and the bureau's part in the witch hunts of the early 1950's. Enjoy the story, but with tongue firmly in cheek.
|
positive
|
This is NOT your run-of-the mill police story where the characters were only secondary to the gun battles and car chases. The episodes, so far, are more realistic and intelligent.<br /><br />If you are looking for something with a lot of butt-kicking Rambo-style cop story, you will not find it here.<br /><br />I gave it a 9. I wish this series lives long. Morse is excellent!
|
positive
|
I got Monster Man in a box set of three films where I mainly wanted the other two but still had a very pleasant time with it. It blends horror and comedy to reasonable effect, helped out considerably by the decent performances of Eric Jungman as the geeky lead, Justin Urich as his a hole friend and Aimee Brooks as the love interest. The film is fairly predictable and mines ideas from a host of other films, but stays fun throughout, with some good gruesome gore thrown in. Sure it doesn't measure up to the classic gory comedies, but this still does fine. Director Michael Davis even manages one or two creepy scenes, such as in the bathroom, or the bar. The film is watchable throughout if a little messily plotted and written and for me it only lost it a bit towards the end when the Monster Man of the title starts to resemble a member of Slipknot and the film tries to go more horror style but isn't twisted or convincing enough. The final moments are a trifle weak as well. Still, despite lack of much suspense and overall silliness, this is a good example of unpretentious, often gnarly splatter comedy that should endear itself to fans of the same.
|
positive
|
Ouch!! What a mess we have here. Not so much of a mess as a painfully dull, half-assed excuse for exploitation. Brought to you by the one and only, J. G. "Pat" Patterson, yeah, the same one from Moonshine Mountain. Doctor Gore, formerly known as The Body Shop, is, I guess, somewhat inspired by Frankenstein, and God knows what else. The Late Mr. Patterson also stars in this joke, as a heartbroken scientist/plastic surgeon, who has recently lost his wife in a car accident, and is driven insane from grief, to the point that it becomes clear that the next step is to slaughter countless females, then maybe rob a few graves for body parts, in order to "put together" the perfect mate. It won't be easy, but thank goodness his pal Gregg the hunchback is available to lend a hand, and to offer moral support.<br /><br />If proof was ever needed that some peoples goals are not meant to be accomplished, here it is, gang. This Patterson hayseed obviously never had any business directing anything, much less, following in the footsteps of good ol' H. G. as a master of gore. I've never seen a gore movie that just flat-out refuses to give the viewer a single reason to keep watching. Even the gore is boring. Almost remotely humorous at times, but impossible to tell whether it's intentional or not. I pick "not".<br /><br />Shot in Charolotte, North Carolina (home of the California Axe Massacre), on, most likely, a 3-digit budget, by a guy, as untalented as he may have been, who probably had an appreciation for drive-in trash, so, maybe we should give good ol' J. G. a break, I mean, he tried (I assume) which is more that can be said for most, and this movie is better than any of the big-budget super-hero garbage the theaters put out these days, although, I realize that isn't saying much. Besides, Doctor Gore is quite the improvement over Patterson's previous failure, The Electic Chair, so it's slightly possible he would have improved his craft in time, had he not died, so maybe it's not all that terrible, especially compared to the other movie on the DVD, How To Make A Doll, so what the hell, check it out. 4/10
|
negative
|
Interesting plot but painfully dull. The script lacks... lacks acting. To me this film compares with "Made for TV" type movies. I was lucky to survive the film without falling asleep in my popcorn. I watched this film with my family. It is fairly safe to watch with your kids. (only 1 semi sex scene)If you wish to see a young Meg Ryan...check out this movie. Very 80-ish. You will like this movie if you like the combination of depressed people at Christmas, booze, super glue and tar. Or maybe you are like me... and have have a higher standard for acting in films. However I did like the way the movie began and ended! Mark.
|
negative
|
The movie was awful. The theater was dead with silence 'cause everyone was embarrassed to be in there watching such trash. I think someone gave Jet Li a lobotomy and made him perform a script with dialogue written by a five year old. The martial arts are 'ok', but when put next to the Jackie Chan movies and "The Matrix" you're better off seeing one of those.
|
negative
|
Dear Richard, I know we all loved you on Home Improvement with Tim Allen. But seriously, do you not have anything else to do besides lame sequels to Air Bud? I would have thought Tim might have actually give you a bit role by now or even becoming his personal assistant. I know that seems ironic, but the pay benefits are much more rewarding.<br /><br />Everybody would see you around Tim and instantly think "Tool Time". You would even get roles with Bob Vila more often. Instead, you appear for 10 minutes with a Golden Retriever and smiling. I know there wasn't much of a script, but you could have added to it. I mean, come on. Tim owes you one.<br /><br />But seriously, this movie does nothing for the Air Bud line. Quite the contrary, the fake talking puppies are cornier than actually seeing the dogs play sports. The original was better. And you, Mr. Richard Karn, know that more than anybody.<br /><br />This is an "F" movie.
|
negative
|
I love dissing this movie. My peers always try their best to defend it, probably out of love for Quentin Tarantino or Harvey Keitel, but they'll never convince me that this one should be treasured. Here's some huge reasons why: A: The plot goes from kidnapping road trip movie to vampire-inhabited strip bar slasher flick with no set-up whatsoever. Suddenly something very real turns into something very fake, which is like sitting the audience down to a Thanksgiving feast then exploding it with dynamite. B: That untalented Juliette Lewis is in it. C: Preposterous ideas abound such as actual torso-and-leg guitars, brothers with the last name "Gecko," bad vampire make-up jobs, Cheech Marin playing three characters (?), and a crotch-based gun that only fires when "erect" and belongs to a guy who goes by "Sex Machine." If Robert Rodriguez didn't pathetically try to be so innovative with his violence, I might've had fun with this obvious popcorn flick. The whole project's like he got the ideas by playing with action figures. The only thing even close to being considered my favorite scene is George Clooney's laugh-out-loud cheesy monologue after he kills his blood-sucking, horny-for-children, terrible-acting brother. I swear I think they thought it up right then and there. This movie's out to offend, and ends up offending those who want the offensive. Horrible movie.
|
negative
|
This is easily one of the worst films I've seen in many years. I started viewing the film not expecting much and that is exactly what it delivered....not much! In fact, it ended up delivering even less than I expected. My first reaction when I saw the opening portions of the film was that I would probably end up rating it a "4". I thought that it seemed to have reasonably good photography and a haunting atmosphere.<br /><br />As the film progressed however, the rating kept going down and down in my mind mainly due to pedestrian acting and a plot that went from being just plain silly and tasteless at the beginning to being both silly and repugnant near the end. By the time the movie was over, I was willing to rate it no more than a "1". <br /><br />Don't waste your time or money on this one.
|
negative
|
Trudy Lintz (Rene Russo) was one very fortunate lady many years ago. She was the wife of a wealthy doctor and had lots of extracurricular money. Her passion was animals and she devoted herself to providing a sanctuary for the furry ones on her property grounds. Trudy also raised two chimps in her home to be more like children. They dressed in clothes and had many amenities. One day, she learns of an abandoned baby gorilla. Knowing nothing about the large apes, she relies on her husband's medical abilities and expert advice to save the gorilla's life. Once out of danger, Trudy decides she will raise the gorilla, also, as one of her children. This works well for years and Buddy, the gorilla, is truly a remarkably intelligent addition to her home. But, Buddy is also a gorilla and his strength and curiosity become quite enormous. Will Trudy be able to keep Buddy under control? For those who love animals, Buddy is a must-see movie. Based on a true story, Trudy and her ape develop a relationship that is unique in the annals of animal history and lore. Of course, Buddy is not a real gorilla but a mechanical one, in the film, but he is very close to seeming totally real. Russo gives a nice performance as a lady ahead of her time and the supporting players are also quite nice. The costumes are exemplary, as befitting the earlier era of the story, and the settings and production values outstanding. But, most importantly, animals are here in abundance, not only Buddy, but the adorable chimps, the ducks, the rabbits, and so forth. For those who want to watch a film and be transported to animal heaven, here on earth, this is a great movie choice. All animal lovers, and even those who just want to watch a great family film, will go "ape" over Buddy.
|
positive
|
Pier Paolo Pasolini, or Pee-pee-pee as I prefer to call him (due to his love of showing male genitals), is perhaps THE most overrated European Marxist director - and they are thick on the ground. How anyone can see "art" in this messy, cheap sex-romp concoction is beyond me. Some of the "stories" here could have come straight out of a soft-core porn film, and I am not even so much referring to the nudity but the simplistic and banal, often pointless stories. Anyone who enjoyed this relatively watchable but dumb oddity should really sink his teeth into the "Der Schulmaedchenreport" soft-porn German 70s movie series, because that's what "Decameron" looks like to me.<br /><br />Besides, the movie is sloppy on nearly all levels, from start to finish: <br /><br />1. Editing. An example: at 1 hour:15 minutes:45 seconds there is a chasing scene that is put quite clearly in the wrong place. It was supposed to be placed about a minute later, but I guess that Pasolini must have hired boozed-up editors who have little time for the "fine details" of movie-making. Pee-pee-pee's fans would probably counter this by saying that it was placed there intentionally - which I very much doubt. Besides, even if that were true, that would be even worse, because that story gains absolutely nothing by making it harder to follow. (This isn't exactly "Eraserhead" or one of Tarantino's broken-form films...) <br /><br />2. Acting. Vey sloppy. Triple Pee's fans (all 8 of them) proudly declare how 3P-O uses "real people instead of actors". (Aren't actors people? Or are they Martians? Sure, many actors have sub-par IQs but does that mean we should treat them with contempt...?) Other directors have used amateurs and succeeded (such as Alan Parker or De Niro), so why are PPP's amateurs so utterly awful in his movies? The answer is once again appalling sloppiness. Pasolini is sloppy in everything, and that includes trying to get as much out of his toothless amateurs as he can. He is a lazy director, an IMperfectionist if you like. The anti-Kubrick, I suppose... Pee-pee-pee's principal goal when casting must have been to find as many toothless old people as possible (and young men that are to his liking). In Pasolini's world there is a simple formula: lack of teeth + strange face = realism. It's all well and fine to have them toothless, but at least try to eke out some at least semi-decent performances out of these inexperienced neo-thespians, otherwise you're an amateur yourself - an amateur director, in Pasolini's case. Whether 3P-0 wasn't capable of this feat or simply didn't care doesn't change anything. (Who knows... maybe he didn't even notice the awful acting?) <br /><br />3. Audio. The synchronization. If 3P-0 felt that microphones are too much of a hassle when filming a movie, then he ought to have at least made a concerted effort in post-production, i.e. getting all these bum actors to say their lines on cue in the studio, so that we the viewers wouldn't have to watch mouths move while the elusive dialogue floats elsewhere in the movie.<br /><br />4. Lack of concept. We have close to a dozen stories which aren't connected in any meaningful way. Some are anti-Church (more on that later), while some are merely sex yarns i.e. cheap male (sometimes gay) fantasies designed to titillate and nothing else. The stories and characters are not amusing (if at all) on an intelligent level, but on the basest level. 10 year-old kids can laugh here... And there is nothing wrong with that, but then don't call it exalted, intellectual art! <br /><br />5. As a result of point 4, there is also a lack of logic in the order of the stories. That goes without saying. Pee-pee-pee could have arranged the order in any other way, and we would have had the exact same movie. This also means that you can feel free to start from the middle then go back to the beginning, etc. "Decameron" is like a bowl of spaghetti that way: when you start eating it you can begin with any thread you want, it makes no difference at all.<br /><br />6. The pointlessness of the stories' resolutions. Most stories end with a cheap gag/joke, i.e. some damn dumb punchline straight out of a porn comic-book, whereas some stories don't even have a conclusion: they merely end. Finito. At best, the stories are watchable semi-anecdotes, barely any deeper meaning there - unless you find "deep" meanings in a porno. There is, of course, nothing easier than looking for and finding "meaning" where there is an absence of it. Hence even any hardcore porn film can be philosophized/mused over endlessly. It's easy and fun. Try it, oh ye 8 PPP fans! <br /><br />As for the Church-bashing... Some viewers get all excited about his attack on Catholicism and what-not. In principal, that's all well and fine - after all, I'm an atheist myself - but what those people ignore is the simple but essential fact that Pasolini was a Marxist. It's like the pot calling the kettle black. A Marxist criticizing the Church for hypocrisy and stupidity? Where does he get the nerve? Besides, Pasolini wasn't an atheist, hence his high-and-mighty and self-righteous stance isn't justified. After all, Marxists are believers: they merely substituted the accepted god with the idea of a Utopia, which is merely another supernatural wishful-thinking fantasy. Hence I cannot get excited about PPP's anti-religion antics.<br /><br />This sophomoric humpdorama anthology ends with Pasolini saying rather pretentiously: "I wonder... Why produce a work of art when it's nice just to dream about it?" He wasn't actually referring to this silly little movie as art, was he...? In case he was - the poor deluded man - then I have to wonder why he didn't just leave it at dreaming, and NOT make all those bad movies...<br /><br />Wanna read my altered subtitles of Bergman movies? E-mail me.
|
negative
|
Fred "The Hammer" Williamson delivers another cheaply made movie. He might have set a new standard for himself. Look for the painfully obvious special effects mortar cannon that is visible in the street during a chase scene. You don't see it just once, you see it several times. Look for the out of focus shot in one scene and the camera operator try to fix it as the scene rolls on. Watch this with a group of people and make your own Mystery Science Theater!
|
negative
|
The year still has three weeks to go but unless a really horrendous turkey shows up before then, Passion Of the Mind may be the winner of my lousiest movie of the year contest. An interesting idea badly executed. And, for that matter, badly acted. Demi Moore is very good at curling her lip and smoking cigarettes, but is that all she does? And why so many cigarettes. Did Ligitt and Myers or one of the other bad boys of nicotine have some of their illicit profits invested in this production. It's confusing, silly and moves at the frantic past of a arthritic earthworm. I gave it a 3. Should have been a 2!<br /><br />
|
negative
|
I saw this film on 19SEP2009 at the Cambridge Film Festival. <br /><br />The Beagle's only in a couple of short flashbacks, the whole thing is about Darwin's life from 1841 to 1859, when he was ensconced in Kent with his growing family, 200+ pages of Origin had already been drafted and he was wondering whether to complete the book. <br /><br />The script is based on Randal Keynes's book Annie's Box (Annie, Charles's daughter, died when she was 10). It is mostly a family drama, but does include sex scenes - however, the participants are married, both on and off screen. Not too exciting, not much science but a well-made film that's pleasant to watch and pushes the right emotional buttons. A bit of a romantic weepie, actually. I suppose the conclusion is that you can be an agnostic free-thinking scientist from an atheist family background and still be an emotional romantic as well as an excellent father. <br /><br />Some of the characters and Darwin himself state or wonder whether he "killed god" but the viewer is able to doubt that. What is beyond doubt, given the deadly struggle for survival and the web of predation on the meadow-bank (well-known before Darwin and completely uncontroversial) and the failure of Darwin's prayers is that the idea of a kind, providential god who loves "his" creatures is untenable. <br /><br />I really cannot see many Americans objecting to it very much. Some may have problems with the title, which is probably the most controversial thing about the film, or with the fact that Bettany does not have horns, a tail and a pitchfork.
|
positive
|
FREDDY FORSYTH has come up with a storyline which will suit the mood of the West's suspicions about Putin's Russia. Forsyth installs a nasty guy as the Ruski president who wants to return the country - not so much to Stalin's Communism but more to Hitlerian Fascism. In fact, his Political Manifesto could have come straight out of Mein Kampf rather than Marx. And, the loon has the latest weapons of biological destruction to achieve the ethnic cleansing pogrom of the Russian Federation. American mercenaries connive with the Russian Prez to realise his fanatical, genocidal dream, but then enter Dirty Dancing's Pat Swayze...and,yep,things get really down and dirty. He's a former US operative-turned-drifter,Jason Monk, who is enlisted by the British Government to see what the Russians are up to. As a corny sidebar, Swayze's character who is no Monk (!)has sired a Russian beauty Elena (played by the gorgeous Marta Kondova) on his previous missions to the former Commie state. Hardman Swayze does a passable job in setting out to defeat the evil Russians. But young unknown actress Marta Kondova steals the flick as his nubile, 18-year-old Russian daughter Elena who helps dad root out the terror threatening her beloved Mother Russia.
|
negative
|
How do I begin to review a film that will soon be recognized as the `worst film of all time' by the `worst director of all time?' A film that could develop a cult following because it's `so bad it's good?'<br /><br />An analytical approach criticizing the film seems both pointless and part of band-wagon syndrome--let's bash freely without worry of backlash because every other human on earth is doing it, and the people who like the film like it for those flaws we'd cite.<br /><br />The film's universal poor quality goes without saying-- 'Sixteen Years of Alcohol' is not without competition for title of worst film so it has to sink pretty low to acquire the title and keep a hold of it, but I believe this film could go the distance. IMDb doesn't allow enough words to cite all the films failures, and it be much easier to site the elements 'Sixteen Years of Alcohol' does right. Unfortunately, those moments of glory are so far buried in the shadows of this film's poorness that that's a task not worth pursuing.<br /><br />My impressions? I thought I knew what I was getting into, I had been warned to drink several cups of coffee before sitting down to watch this one (wish that suggestion had been cups of Vodka). Despite my low expectations, 'Sixteen Years of Alcohol' failed to entertain me even on a `make fun of the bad movie' level. Not just bad, but obnoxiously bad as though Jobson intentionally tried to make this film a poetical yawn but went into overkill and shoved the poetry down our throats making it not profound but funny . .. and supposedly Jobson sincerely tried to make a good movie? Even after viewing the 'Sixteen Years of Alcohol' promotional literature, I have trouble believing Jobson's sincerity. Pointless and obnoxious till the end with a several grin/chuckle moments (all I'm sure none intentional)spiced the film, and those few elements prevented me from turning the DVD off. So bad it's good? No. It had just enough 'I can't believe this is a serious movie moments' to keep me from turning it off, and nothing more.<br /><br />Definitely a film to watch with a group of bad-movie connoisseurs. Get your own running commentary going. That would've significantly improved the experience for me. So bad it's Mike Myers commentating in his cod Scottish accent on it as it runs, to turn this whole piece of sludge into a comic farce "Ok dare ma man, pass me annuder gliss of dat wiskey".
|
negative
|
Ten years after the first movie, James Belushi, one of the most gifted, and over looked light comedic actors of the last twenty years, returns as Detective Dooley for this movie.<br /><br />If you are expecting more of the same from the first movie, you will be disappointed, but this is still a good movie. Realizing that all the Dog vs. Man battle of wills scenarios had probably been used up in the first movie, this one turns slightly more psychological in its approach as it concentrates on a criminal with a fixation with Dooley's recently deceased wife after she rejected his book, and blames Dooley for her death.<br /><br />The script may not be the best, but the movie allows both Belushi and Christine Tucci to show their good acting ability, while still retaining enough of the light humour of the first movie to make it work, and the chemistry between the two stars is there for all to see.<br /><br />An easy, light going movie, which, while maybe not worth a purchase unless you are a true fan of either the first movie or Belushi, definately worth a watch when it comes on TV.<br /><br />
|
positive
|
If you havn't seen this movie I highly recommend you do.It's an excellent true story.I love Alison Lohman she is so talented side note: I also loved her in 7th heaven.The whole story line is amazing and the way they chose there characters waz awesome. The acting in this film is<br /><br />very awesome.
|
positive
|
Hard Justice is an excellent action movie! The whole movie is really nothing but shooting and fighting! For the people who say they don't make shoot em ups like they use to. Well, this one is really hard-core! David Bradley is really good and his character takes a pounding in the movie. He gets hit by the stick over a dozen times, gets stabbed in the back and is in a coma for three days and then wakes up and fights again, gets beat up, recovers and is ready for more action! His character is incredibly tuff! Charles Napier was very good as well and he arguably steals the show! Vernen Wells was good! Professor Toru Tanaka had a short and an uncredited role in Hard Justice! As for the action, it is truly awesome with all of the gun fights and the huge stand off like scene in the beginning has cars getting blown up and flipping up in mid air! There is so much that happens in the 95 minute run time. For the action fans you will be blown away by all of the fire power and fighting that this film has to offer! Hard Justice is a movie that isn't easy to locate and if you are at a video store and you see it for sale buy it up because this movie is big keeper an d plus the box is cool! There is a ton of action that has to be seen to be believed! Look and see if you can find some good deals on Ebay, Half.com, Amazon.com's Z-Shops and Market Place Sellers! I strongly recommend that any action movie fan who loves shoot ems and fighting movies and has been disappointed by other movies that have the look like a true non stop action flick but fails to deliver it to get Hard Justice!
|
positive
|
This movie is very similar to Death Warrant with Jean-Claude Van Damme and also has some similarities to Island of Fire with Jackie Chan and I also heard that there is some other very similar action movies, but this film has a much better action than Death Warrant or even Island of Fire (that's right, the Jackie Chan's movie). Rarely American action movies has such a great action sequences, though there was many negative reviews on this film, it easily beats most of the action movies of that time who were more successful. There were many martial art's scenes, David Bradley was fast as Bruce Lee in this film and what else was good, that fighting scenes were much longer than in most of the American martial art's movies. The shoot-out scenes were similar with John Woo's movies, maybe not that good, but still very exiting. There was also many impressive explosions and one great chase scene. I've seen some other David Bradley's movies, but this one, yet is the best in terms of action. OK, this movie has some cheesy moments, but which movie hasn't? The acting was decent, Charles Napier was incredible and his character was real tough. Adam Clark who played Squid and Yuji Okumoto who played the main bad guy were also very good. Other actors acted pretty well too, though the acting isn't important in this type of movies. If you are action movies fan (I mean the real action movies fan, who really can appreciate the good action), than you must see this film.
|
positive
|
Criminally Insane 2 is included on the new DVD of Satan's Black Wedding/Criminally Insane, and it's a good thing too, because when I've seen a movie and know there's a sequel (especially something that's as obscure as this) I'm always curious. I've now had my curiosity satisfied and will never watch this again. Most of CI2 is nothing but "flashbacks" to CI, and footage of Ethel asleep, recalling fond memories, I guess. Thanks to Proposition 13 she's released from Napa State (wonder if she got to see The Cramps play while she was there?) and sent to a halfway house run by a nice old lady that Ethel promptly takes to calling "granny". This is all filmed with a video camera so the picture and sound are rather pathetic, and it's even complete with a couple of "rolls". Of course Ethel does her thing, which is to dispatch anyone between her and food, especially the guy that witnesses one of her acts of mayhem and extorts her dessert. Also, you have to wonder about any halfway house for murderers having a big drawer full of sharp knives in the kitchen and rat poison under the kitchen sink. Guess that's all a matter of misguided "trust". If you liked or disliked Criminally Insane, either way there's no good reason to watch this except out of curiosity. One wonders why the makers of this even bothered. 2 out of 10.
|
negative
|
Though for most of us, sexiness is a variable quality, I cannot recall a movie that did for me what this one does. It transported me into an awfully familiar realm of longing and desire. All the compulsive attraction, uncertainty over the outcome, the palpable fear and excitement so attendant to that state of arousal were brought to fever pitch by this flick. So French and what I consider daring! No matter what your orientation, I think that the danger of chasing your desire is brought full-front and center here...much more so, say, than with Kubrick's "Eyes Wide Shut".
|
positive
|
I know it's hard for you Americans to find European films on video/DVD, particularly from the 80's but please seek out the original version of the Vanishing - title Spoorloos (1988) - and you'll see why the Hollywood version of The Vanishing screws up bigtime, particularly at the finale.<br /><br />I really like Sandra Bullock, Kiefer Sutherland and particularly Jeff Bridges, but this is just so so lame compared with the original. What where they thinking? Can you imagine Seven with a happy ending with Gwyneth Paltrow running happily into the arms of Brad Pitt in the finale? The whole point the original was such a major international success was because of the shocking finale. So why do you accept this kind of shyte remake? Really, avoid this and GET THE ORIGINAL.
|
negative
|
Sequel to "The Kingdom" is bloodier and even more twisted. I only saw half (I was exhausted and couldn't sit through all 5 1/2 hours) but I loved what I saw. Ghosts, blood, murder, poisoning, mutated babies, voodoo...this has it all! If you have a strong stomach and like weird movies this is for you.<br /><br />Also, you don't have to see Part 1 to understand this...you'll figure it out!<br /><br />Does anyone know if Kingdom 1 and 2 are available on DVD? Sitting through these marathon movies in a theatre is tiring. <br /><br />Sadly, there probably won't be a "Kingdom 3"--Ernst-Hugo Jaregard (Sig) died a year after this was filmed. But you never know!
|
positive
|
I originally saw this movie in a movie theater on Times Square in the late eighties. Who would have thought this film would spawn two sequels and have this cult following.Night of the Demons was like most other films that came out at the time.A group of horny teenagers find themselves trapped in some isolated local and then are killed off one at a time in various gruesome ways.Come to think of it the formula still is used and still seems to work as evidenced by Saw II that I recently saw.<br /><br />I saw Mimi Kinkade at a Fangoria convention about six years ago and she was so gentle hearted!I guess that makes her a pretty good actress if she could make a career out of playing this demon possessed woman in all these horror flicks.Anyway, I just this film again on VHS cassette and this movie still holds up.A little slow at the beginning as I remembered when I first saw it but then it quickly picks up pace. One of the eighties horror classics and worth a look!
|
positive
|
You cannot be seeing the same movie if you didn't grow up in France (or spent at least 10 years there, like me). I don't know if it will ever make it outside French cultural borders (I include Belgium and Luxembourg here). You cannot translate its kind of fun - every name is joke (how many people outside Paris would understand the pun in "Couloirdebus", the name of one of the Roman legionnaires ?). However Monica Bel(l?)ucci is so beautiful, I almost forgot to breathe when I saw her.
|
positive
|
I'm hearing rumors of an upcoming "Leonard Nimoy Demonstrates the Blu-ray Disc". With advances over the past 25 years ranging from Steady-cam to CGI, it'll be interesting to see if the franchise can be reinvigorated. I just hope it helps to remove the bad taste left in my mouth by that whole Magnavision demonstration fiasco.<br /><br />And yes... "Leonard Nimoy Demonstrates the Betamax VCR" was a brilliant milestone in entertainment history. After the tentative "Leonard Nimoy Demonstrates the Compact Cassette" and the downright tacky "Leonard Nimoy Demonstrates the 8-Track Tape", who would have expected such a glorious piece of cinema? I'm weeping right now just thinking about it.
|
negative
|
Yeah, Madsen's character - whilst talking to the woman from the TV station - is right: the LAPD IS a corrupt, violent and racist police. And this movie changes nothing about it. Okay, here are the good cops, the moral cops, even a black one, whow, a Christian, a martyr. But this is a fairy tale, admit it. Reality is not like that. And most important for the action fans: The shoot out is boring. It's just shooting and shooting and shooting. Nothing more. Play Counter Strike, then you will at least have something to do. The only moral of this film is: The LAPD is good now. No more bad cops in it. If you like uncritical, euphemistic commercials for police and military service, watch this movie. It's the longest commercial I've ever seen. (2 Points for camera and editing).
|
negative
|
this movie has a great message,a impressive cast, ellen burstyn, samantha mathis, jodelle ferland( was 4 years old when she made this movie) ellen burstyn and jodelle ferland have both been nominated for best actress in a tv drama at the up-coming emmy awards in new york, peter masterson-director- has been nominated best director tv drama at the emmy awards also. april 1, 2001, jodelle ferland 'Won', best actress in a tv drama, at the young artist awards, in studio city, ca. i can see why they have 3 nominations. mermaid is a true story, during the cridits they have the real family on the set, something you don't see often. you can find mermaid at all blockbuster video stores. do watch it,you'll be glad you did.
|
positive
|
The acting was terrible, the cheesy, fake, CHEAP green screen effects were ridiculous, and the creatures were absolutely retarded. The only good thing about this movie was the concept, and the laughs I got from watching such a bad movie- then I became pretty angry because I realized I wasted 4 bucks on renting it. Why would a movie like this ever be in theaters? I know this movie came out almost 5 years ago, but does anyone put any effort into making movies anymore? I am just writing random things to fill up space- because I need ten lines of text in order to publish this review. This next line should just about do it. Annnndddddd there!
|
negative
|
Take a subject I didn't know much about and make it exciting, why don't you? It so happens that back about 1979, director Robert Altman said that he didn't believe he had ever made a real movie and that he expected that one of these kids riding skateboards--if he doesn't break his neck--will make the first movie. Well, I wouldn't put such an expectation on Stacy Peralta, but he is a skateboarder who has made a good movie. Of course, he was forced by the nature of the film he was making to use existing footage, and it is certainly a good thing that so much archival footage existed. Peralta edited it together well with not-your-usual talking head shots of his erstwhile colleagues as they are today. The whole effect is post-modern in the best sense, but that has been done. Altman's prediction hasn't quite come true. What Peralta has done, however, is capture enough of the energy of those heady days that we can appreciate what it must have been like when modern skateboarding was invented by the Z-Boys. This is all good. I highly recommend "Dogtown."
|
positive
|
Rated PG-13 for violence, brief sexual humor and drug content. Quebec Rating:13+(should be G) Canadian Home Video Rating:14A<br /><br />I have seen Police Story a couple of times now.In my opinion Police Story is Chan's best film from the 80's.He originally made it because he didn't like the other cop film he had to star in which was The Protector.I have not seen the protector so I cant compare.The acting isn't too bad and the plot is pretty good.I don't remember the plot well because I saw this film a while back but what I do remember is this film has lots of great action,stunts and comedy just what a good Chan film needs.If you can find Police Story and you are Chan fan then buy this film! <br /><br />Runtime:106min <br /><br />9/10
|
positive
|
I went into this film thinking I wasn't going to like it, but hoping to be surprised, but this, much like the film, ended up being bleak and hopeless. But don't get me wrong, Minghella delivers every bit of a grand epic and for those who enjoy that kind of experience and are willing to take that adventure and accept what comes as just that, then they will not be disappointed and it will be one of the better films of the year in their opinion. The acting is of a high quality and will most likely come away with a trinity of oscar noms for Law, Kidman and Zellweger, even though Portman's few scenes may be the most powerful in the film. The locations are beautiful and Minghella has an eye for a good shot.<br /><br />However, for those like me who want the director to take them on the adventure instead of going willingly may come away disappointed mainly due to Minghella and his adaptation. The film is so utterly bleak it makes for what I consider to be a punching bag epic which is a film that that tries to hit hard with emotion but does so to such an extreme and so often that during the film I didn't have the time to emotionally invest, or hadn't recovered from a previous blow, and it became unrealistic and consequently too difficult to really care, not to mention predictable. Overall the "Cold Mountain" almost left me too drained to even think back on the good aspects of the film, as all I remember is death, which may have been an original motif but ends up being the focus instead of the characters.
|
positive
|
Even for sci-fi this movie is movie is a little out there. Alright, more than a little... My first thought after watching it was that i had just lost my mind.<br /><br />Don't watch this movie expecting another Darko. Darko fans are never going to like another Richard Kelly movie because of their freaky cult standards. Donnie Darko is a thing of the past, get over it.<br /><br />Richard Kelly loves making movies that make you feel stupid for not understanding the 'Deeper meaning' the first time you watch them. To be honest I had to watch The Box twice before I liked it. <br /><br />The deeper meaning- (to spare you a bunch of sociological psycho babble) Humans are self serving, we make decisions that can destroy our lives and don't open mail without a return address.<br /><br />Summary: Creepy old man tells Cammeron Diaz if you push the button i will kill someone you don't know and give you a million bucks. Of course she pushes it and as promised by the creepy old gets a case of money. Then the movie takes a dive into the unusual. To spare my fingers the typing... For pushing the button, Diaz and her husband are cursed by supernatural alien beings, in an elaborate experiment to gage the morality of the human race.<br /><br />I liked: The willingness of the movie to ignore the generic movie guidelines. Its different. Its intense. It has a deeper meaning (although its philosophy 101 material). It leaves you guessing. NOT A Hollywood ENDING!<br /><br />I disliked: Why would any being with the technology to inhibit another life form devise such a ridiculous scheme? What god like alien has the patience for that? Diaz was good, but was there a need for the country accent? They live in Virginia. <br /><br />I give it a 7 because Kelly didn't put as much attention to detail as with his other movies. Overall good flick.
|
positive
|
I had stifled high hopes for this David Lynch, whom I really like, film, but the very poor acting by everybody but Naomi Watts was the first clue that this was a wasted effort. Some Twin Peaks characters are recycled into this film, but it wasn't eerie, it wasn't interesting (except for the topless Watts scenes) and the quirks were poorly executed. <br /><br />I will probably give Lynch one more chance, but the hype around this film just doesn't pan out, especially for those of us fans who saw Eraserhead when it first came out.
|
negative
|
Necessary Roughness (1991) was a bad comedy/ drama that tried to hard on every level to be a serious film about college football. A lot of current and former superstar athletes appeared in this production during one of the film's comedic highlights. Other than that it's a very mediocre movie. They should have just stuck to making a straight out comedy filled with no realism. Instead the film makers try to play both fields and they end up on the short end of the stick. When will somebody make a decent film about college football that's funny and realistic?<br /><br />Not recommended, unless it's for free on t.v.
|
negative
|
I've always been enthusiastic about period dramas, an art form in which the BBC has excelled in the past. This presentation of "Byron" was unbelievable. Unbelievably bad! The script was dreadful, the acting uninspired, and all the characters woefully insipid. Apparently Byron was "mad bad and dangerous to know", and set the ladies hearts all-a-flutter. Not in this production. Here he appeared as a tawdry jumped-up little squirt instead of a fiery hero of womenfolk and the Greek struggle for independence. It is said that Byron walked with a limp. This portrayal of the man was just limp all over.<br /><br />I watched the whole two and a half hours waiting for something to spark into life. Not a splutter, not even a glimmer. It was utter tedium, if not downright boredom, from start to finish.<br /><br />Having the opinion that no-one will ever better the Bard of Avon, I also believe that Byron's poetry is over-revered and to my mind should be flung on the back burner, and this dramatisation of his life should be accorded the same treatment.<br /><br />I think the BBC lost its nous with this one
|
negative
|
'SherryBaby' is quite a painful and sordid melodrama set in Jersey, the story of a young mother who is out of jail on probe after a drugs-related conviction and fights to stay clean, to find a place for herself in life and especially to win back the love of her kid daughter who is being taken care by her brother's family. The only reason the film is to be watched is Maggie Gyllenhaal, an actress at the top of her career, who fits very well in the role and carries the whole film on her shoulders. This is not enough however, as the story line is too simplistic and expected, and the emotional emphasis is put on the wrong place - I kept asking myself all over the picture whether I am supposed to be sorry about the ex and maybe future drug addicted mother as the director and script-writer wanted, or about the innocent kid who is in the middle. Even Maggie Gyllenhaal's acting could not convince me that I should not care more about the kid.
|
negative
|
Sorry, but I usually love French thrillers - e.g. Chabrol - but this was a glossy shambolic mess. The fact that it was based on a Harlan Cohen book is telling, because rather than being a French film (strong on psychology and character), it's more like a John Grisham-esquire roller-coaster ride by numbers with ludicrous plot twists, flashbacks that update previous flashbacks, a predictable villain (as soon as his name is mentioned you think 'hmm, he'll be the bad guy!') and sets of mysterious stereotyped characters who seem to inhabit different movies. By the end I was laughing hysterically at the unevenness of the film's tone (the scenes where the lead character is being helped by two streetwise shady characters are unintentionally hilarious), the utterly baffling plot, the absurd coincidences and strokes of good fortune (e.g. guessing the password for an email account) AND yawning uncontrollably (thought I must have misread the 1hr 50min running time as it seemed to drag on for 3 hours 50 minutes).
|
negative
|
Detective Dave Robicheaux is trying to link the murder of a local hooker to New Orleans mobster Julie Balboni. But during his investigation Robicheaux is led into a series of surreal encounters with a troop of Confederate soldiers??, What a awful plot and it was worser than i had expected. it was real slow and had minimal skill in the acting i could not watch through it it was waste of my time. Another FLOP, i would give it under 1 if i could please people don't waste your time its 1:42m of wast-full time. Actor Elrod Sykes and his girlfriend driving under the influence. As Dave takes Elod to the station the actor tells Dave he found some skeletal remains while on the set of a movie he is filming
|
negative
|
It's possible that A Man Called Sledge might have been done irreparable damage on the cutting room floor. Maybe someone will demand a director's cut one day, but I seriously doubt it.<br /><br />James Garner decided to cash in on the spaghetti western market and in doing so brought a whole lot of Americans over to fill the cast out. Folks like Dennis Weaver, Claude Akins, John Marley. And of course we have Vic Morrow who both wrote and directed this film.<br /><br />Garner always gets cast as likable rogues because he's so darn good at playing them. But he has played serious and done it well in films like The Children's Hour and Hour of the Gun. He can and has broken away from his usual stereotyped part successfully. But A Man Called Sledge can't be counted as one of his successes.<br /><br />He's got the title role as Luther Sledge notorious outlaw with a big price on his head. After partner Tony Young gets killed in a saloon and Garner takes appropriate Eastwood style measures, he's followed from the saloon by John Marley.<br /><br />Marley's spent time in the nearby territorial prison and it seems as though gold shipments are put under lock and key there on a rest stop for the folks transporting the stuff on a regular run. Garner gets his gang together for a heist.<br /><br />Here's where the movie goes totally off the wall. Usually heist films show the protagonists going into a lot of methodical planning. Certainly that was the case in The War Wagon which some other reviewer cited. But in this one Garner decides to break into the prison as a prisoner of fake US Marshal Dennis Weaver and cause a jailbreak at which time the gold will be robbed. <br /><br />That was just too much to swallow. If taking the gold was this easy it should have been done a long time before. But I will say for those who like the blood and guts of Italian westerns, during that prison break there's enough there for three movies.<br /><br />That's not the whole thing, of course the outlaws fall out and we have another gore fest before the film ends. But by that time the whole film has lost a lot of coherency.<br /><br />The great movie singer of the Thirties Allan Jones is listed in the credits. But for the life of me I can't find him in the film. Maybe a chorus of the Donkey Serenade might have made this better.<br /><br />Couldn't have hurt any.
|
negative
|
GoldenEye 007 is not only the best movie tie-in game of all time, but it is perhaps the most influential first-person shooter ever to hit the gaming-console market. If you aren't aware of the plot of this game that's not a problem, because essential it is the same as the popular James Bond movie, GoldenEye, which was released in 1995- two years prior to this game's release.<br /><br />This is a game that is filled with techniques and styles that would be mimicked in many future games to come, and it gives the player a wide variety of objectives, and difficult challenges. The A.I. is smart (especially on higher difficulty settings) and the environments are complex enough to provide entertainment, as well as difficulty to any gamer.<br /><br />The introduction of logical hit-points on your enemies is a great feature. Even bosses in this game can be taken down with a well-aimed shot to the head. It is this type of realism that really makes you feel like your James Bond and that you can sneak in, sneak out, covertly taking out henchmen as you go, or springing alarms and having to go through massive shootouts. Because of this there are many ways to beat the game, and limitless possibilities for how you accomplish your tasks. AKA: You can take easy ways or hard ways of beating levels...and if you don't have a strategy guide you'll have to find out those paths by yourself (which, I might add, is incredibly fun if you want to waste a day away).<br /><br />This is one of those games that the more you play it the more you're able to value its contributions to the gaming industry. Each time I play it I notice aspects that have been replicated in many following FPS games. So if you have a Nintendo 64 go ahead and dust that sucker and order a used copy of GoldenEye 007, because trust me, as a Bond fan, and a casual gamer I can say that this game is highly recommended for all those who want to step into the shoes of James Bond, or just have an awesome, intense gaming experience.<br /><br />(Also make sure to look out for its sister game, Perfect Dark, which is also on the N64, following the same controls, and very similar weapon uses.)
|
positive
|
I have watched Grand Champion all the way through at least twice now. I enjoyed the movie's story, the characters and the actors were not bad. It is refreshing to see a G rated movie. This is a feel good movie. The story is mostly from the view of the children. The interactions between the kids and the adults makes the story interesting. I recommend this movie if you are looking for a family film. If you liked the Little Rascals, you will probably enjoy this. I viewed this movie on cable. Either on Encore or Showtime family. This is not a movie that I would have gone to see at the theatre. But, I only go to the theatre for the effects of the big screen, so most comedies, romantic films, or dramas I do not go for big screen-I wait for TV/cable edition. Get your kids together, pop some popcorn and enjoy!
|
positive
|
I cannot believe the number of people referring to the lead characters as 'boy cows'!! there is no such thing people!!!! There are cows and bulls and all males in the bovine species are bulls and do not have udders!!!! There was even an actual bull but it was like it was another type of animal completely! my god this is like drawing human ears on a cat, boobs on superman, or mickey mouse with blond shirley temple curls - even in animation it just doesn't work! giving human qualities to the animals is nothing new & to be expected, but changing their actual bodies into basically a transsexual figure is bizarre for a family cartoon - how many people- editors, writers, producers, animators saw this and didn't know any better or didn't say anything- it is completely astounding! i'm no snob & I luv animation- simpsons, beavis & butthead, south park, even ice age & all the other new ones out there - over the hedge was great- but this is nuts - totally nuts- i could not accept that that many people are that ignorant & i kept hoping for a reason for the udders in the film - an explanation - none came - and at the end when they hold up this little newborn calf & half its belly is udder & they pronounce 'its a boy' i nearly choked!!!! please, writer/creator let us in on the joke!
|
negative
|
After a very long time Marathi cinema has come with some good movie.This movie is one of the best Marathi movies ever made. It shows how a old grandfather tries to save his grandsons eye. He tries everything that is possible in his hands to save the child's eye. Doctor and a relative of his tries to help him in his attempt.<br /><br />The acting by the grandfather, the boy and the doctor are simply superb. They have shown true picture of a typical Marathi life. Every bit of action has some meaning in it. I would recommend to watch this movie, as initially I thought this one would be of documentary type but this was above my expectations.<br /><br />This film is really going to touch your hearts.I would expect more Marathi movies to come up with performances like this.
|
positive
|
There are movies that are leaders, and movies that are followers.<br /><br />"Meatballs" was a leader. And here's one of its followers.<br /><br />"Party Camp" is about as interchangeable as any of its brethern who plumbed the depths that "Meatballs" (the original) had so successfully mined. Of course, that one had Bill Murray. So, what does "Party Camp" have?<br /><br />I'm glad you asked that question.<br /><br />Jewel Sheperd has made these flicks her bread and butter, and what a side dish SHE provides! Even as an innocent (wink, wink) girlfriend to a rich twerp (Cribb), she provides that sultry steam she gives to all her parts. And yes, guys, she shows (if you know what I mean and I think you do). My gosh, that smile of hers could melt through titanium.<br /><br />What? Oh yeah, the movie. Nothing special as I said; every cheap joke is aimed for and hit (at about crotch-level). And eternal teen Jayne is good for a laugh or two. But instead of a sense of humor there's just nudity, lame sex jokes, more, nudity, a soft-core dream sequence, a sex symbol nurse simply for (CLOTHED!) leering purposes, even more nudity....<br /><br />Hmmm... Maybe it's a good idea Bill Murray WASN'T in this.<br /><br />Two stars. For Jewel, naturally. Plenty of "Camp", but not much of a "Party".
|
negative
|
When a group of escaped convicts manage to flee to a remote island,they soon find that their new home is inhabited by a strangely menacing doctor(Richard Johnson of "Zombi 2" fame),a mad scientist(Joseph Cotten),his beautiful daughter(Barbara Bach)and a horde of superstitious natives.The tribesmen say that the doctor has created grotesque half-human,half-fish creatures for evil,secretive purposes.And though at first the prisoners do not believe this,as they disappear,one by one,they begin to change their minds."Screamers" is a very entertaining mix of "Mysterious Island" and "Humanoids from the Deep".There is plenty of gore with really cool decapitation scene and throat tearing to boost.The acting is so-so,but the film is fast-paced and entertaining.Give it a look.8 out of 10.
|
positive
|
Volcano is set in Los Angeles where a minor earthquake has just hit, vacationing boss of the O.E.M. (the Offcie of Emergency Management) Mike Roark (Tommy Lee Jones) decides to cut his holiday short & go in, once there he sees that everything is alright but then drives off to the epicentre of the quake where seven underground workers have been killed by a fire or intense heat of some kind. Mike isn't sure what to think so he brings geologist Dr. Amy Barnes (Anne Heche) in to try & explain things, unfortunately a huge underground river of molten lava has been released after the quake & erupts at the La Brea Tar Pits sending the lava pouring out into the city streets engulfing anything & everything it touches in flames. Mike, his men & the emergency services have their work cut out trying to stop the river of lava & save as many lives as possible...<br /><br />Directed by Mick Jackson this was the second big budget disaster flick revolving around the idea of an erupting Volcano during 1997 with Dante's Peak (1997) being released a mere two months or so before Volcano was & while Dante's peak is hardly any sort of masterpiece at least it's slightly better & more plausible than Volcano is. The script here is total nonsense & is not based in reality at all, underground rivers of lava that seem to appear & then disappear just as quick, various character's standing inches from a river of lava yet not being affected by the heat (when that guy is on the train the metal seats around him start melting but he remains perfectly fine, as far as I am aware human skin is not as heat resistant as metal, is it?) & it constantly happens, helicopters flying is clouds of ash (in reality it would be impossible), one simple blockade at the end of a street will stop the flowing lava (what about down the other streets & other directions?), being able to blow a perfect trench in a street & then blowing a huge building up to make a massive dam & when Kelly sees the lava heading towards her car she gets out just like anyone would but then for some reason just stands there & watches two firemen get burned to death & waits for her dad to save her even though by this stage her leg has caught fire, despite all those concrete blocks being placed together to make a barrier in less than twenty minutes the guy's do such a great job not one bit of molten lava manages to seep through & loads more besides like that massive building falling on Tommy Lee & his daughter yet then both being fine afterwards. The character's are awful too although they were not as clichéd as usual with no romance blossoming between Tommy Lee & Anne Heche & minimal city official's who try to shut Tommy Lee & Anne Heche up before the event labelling them scaremongers. There's a few badly written & at times embarrassing moral moments as Los Angeles pulls together, the black guy & that semi racist cop who warm to each other & by the end are wishing each other well & that little kid at the end when he says 'everyone looks the same' is cringe worthy & is surely a ham-fisted attempt & trying to say whatever colour we are we are still human beings & we can all get along in time of a crisis as it brings people together. Having said that I think Volcano is one of those so bad it's good films, it entertains & it moves along at a decent pace but just don't expect anything grounded in reality or any human drama either.<br /><br />I suppose a film like Volcano could be seen as an updating of a 70's disaster film such as The Poseidon Adventure (1972) or Earthquake (1974) but on a huge budget with modern effects work. Speaking of the effects they are alright but none stand out that much & the set-pieces are also surprisingly forgettable, sure there are a few impressive explosions & a few OK river of lava flowing through Los Angeles effects but little else. Generally Volcano just isn't very exciting & while occasionally unintentionally funny & completely ridiculous it doesn't really work in the way the makers intended.<br /><br />With a supposed budget of about $90,000,000 it opened to a little under $15,000,000 at the box-office, it looks alright & there's lots of fire but nothing stands out & Volcano is a pretty forgettable film overall. Filmed in Los Angeles I think most of the places featured here were shot at their real life locations. The cast go through the motions with some terrible dialogue & ridiculous set-pieces to contend with, Tommy Lee Jones deserves better than this.<br /><br />Volcano is a bit of a disaster in both senses, it is a disaster themed film that ended up a bit of disaster itself. Worth it for a few unintentional laughs & the ridiculousness of it all but it's nothing great & I doubt I would ever want to see it again.
|
negative
|
Possible spoilers.<br /><br />Although there was some good acting - particularly Chloe Sevigny, and Radha Mitchell in the comedy half - this simply was not an engaging film. The segues between the comedy part and the tragedy part were awkward or sometimes not obvious. This viewer was initially confused by the fact that the supporting cast differs in the two halves; I thought with the way things were laid out in the opening scene that the people surrounding Melinda would be the same people, just reacting differently (more of a "He Said, She Said" premise). However, what we have is two totally different stories and two totally different women, both of whom happen to be played by Radha Mitchell.<br /><br />The two playwrights in the opening scene - the comedian and the tragedian - supposedly take the same premise and go from there, but the two stories are only tenuously related. They do little to support the topic of discussion, which is that almost anything can be looked at as either comedy or tragedy. Nice cast, but a disappointing film.
|
negative
|
This was one of the worst films I have ever seen.<br /><br />I usually praise any film for some aspect of its production, but the intensely irritating behaviour of more than half the characters made it hard for me to appreciate any part of this film.<br /><br />Most common was the inference that the bloke who designed the building was at fault an avalanche collapsing it. Er ok.<br /><br />Also, trying to out ski an avalanche slalom style is not gonna work. Running 10 feet into some trees is not gonna work. Alas it does here. As mentioned before the innate dumbness and sheer stupidity of some characters is ridiculous. In an enclosed space, with limited oxygen a four year old could tell you starting a fire is not a good idea.<br /><br />Anyway, about 5 minutes of the movie redeems itself and acquires some appreciation. However, if you have a modicum of intelligence you too will find most of this film hard to tolerate.<br /><br />It pains me that so many quality stories go unproduced and yet someone will pay for things like this to be made.<br /><br />Oh, did I mention the last five minutes? Well to give you a hook you have to keep watching in order to see the latest in combative avalanche techniques. Absolutely priceless.
|
negative
|
I saw this movie the first time at about twelve o'clock on a Saturday evening. It really is the perfect time for this one. I have never, EVER seen a movie that was actually more predictable and drenched with stereotypes. If you want to see a thrilling action movie, don't watch it because you might lose the will to live halfway through. However, if you want a good laugh, please watch it! I even bought the Chuck Norris 3DVD collection thanks to my enjoyable Saturday night. What especially struck me is that évery scene that would be expensive to make was copy-pasted from a Discovery documentary or an old TV-special on the US Army. Furthermore I was amazed by the fact that they didn't put the slightest effort in making the production look real. Afghanistan is, as far as I can remember, nowhere near any sea and yet with a single click Deke escapes from the terrorists sand-castle with his jet-pack and is taken away by a submarine (probably Discovery). Later on in the movie, Deke throws an Islam terrorist against the wall. In the slow motion scene you can beautifully see the long hairs of the Korean stuntman flap in the air when smashed against the wall. Gotta love it. I recommend you watch it with some friends and a good amount of beer though, only then you'll understand why I've been mad enough to spend 6,99 euro's on the box.
|
negative
|
Something that really does not go down right with Al Gore (and his supporters)'s theory is the whole thing about "concensus".<br /><br />If there were such a consensus, why is it that the "believers" in the almighty global warming feel the irrepressible need to try and bully anyone who questions them.<br /><br />Why is it that anyone who does not toe the line on global warming is met with smug accusations of being either stupid or on the payroll of the oil companies (apparently being a professional global warming researcher does not mean you're on anyone's payroll in that wondrous world...) Why is there such a need to tell everyone how the whole question is settled, when it is the very nature of science to honestly question assumptions? For some ideas on the answer to those questions, read Prey by the well-know oil-stooge Michael Crichton... oh wait, he is rich and not on the payroll of the oil companies. He just took a huge career risk in not toeing the line of the Greens and other Kyoto worshippers and told the truth as he researched it. By the way did you know that abiding to the Kyoto protocol would result in almost no lowering of temperatures, according to its own backers? Just a few questions that Al Gore made sure to stay away from lest he not get every penny of the environmental lobby in case he decides to run again.<br /><br />So who's a stooge..?
|
negative
|
This movie seemed to have it all going for it with good camera, sound, film, sets, music, costumes ... but drum-roll, Gary Stretch spoke! I don't know if it was his poor acting or simply a bad script, but would say it was both. Considering the casting of him in this role, I found it difficult to root for him even to the very end. I wished he'd have died in battle or one of the sword/knife scuffles.<br /><br />Then, the tinder for the plot to kill the king was because the king didn't have dinner and sex with his Queen? Pretty lame. And to go to the extreme to kill her own son? And to then push up her lover as succeeding King? I see a thread or two here and there of historical bytes, but the manner in which this was all presented was farcical.<br /><br />I don't recognize Gary Stretch from anything else, but he was dreadful. I read another user's comments about audio being dubbed, but don't think his was dubbed ... after all, he speaks English, right? It really was awful. The lines were read right off the coroner's table ... flat-line. It could be he just doesn't have the voice to carry tone fluctuations.<br /><br />Aside from this, I did watch it to the end, so the movie had at least an "interest." It could have been more if the script/lines and casting had been given more work. The scenery and filming crew along with very good quality film is what really made this movie above all else. The cast and story were all secondary. I give the film crew a 10.
|
negative
|
Having first watched the movie at 14, I remember being struck by hearing the word 'govno' (sh*t) for the first time ever on the then-still-Soviet TV (I bet it really was *the* first time in history anyone wants to add this to trivia section?:)... What an open boldness and freedom, I thought! As years passed, I was more and more impressed with the movie and the incredible acting, but my feelings turned to a kind of mixture of enjoyment from a genuine piece of cinematographic art and a bitter realization of a concept diametrically opposite to my 14-y.o. impression: helplessness. There's an air of inevitable catastrophe looming throughout the movie, of primitive degenerate tide (embodied by Sharikov) sweeping the lives of the finest minds advancing humanity in their areas... It's a great metaphor of Russian revolution in general, inspired by intellectuals ashamed of their superiority and hoping to 'upgrade' the lower classes, only to unleash the power of mediocrity and get swallowed by it... An extremely fine and talented piece, wrapping a truly sad idea in a brilliantly satiric and elegant form. Symbolically enough, the movie itself marked the end of the Soviet movie traditions era before the Hollywood tsunami had knocked them over for good, it seems, judging by most current Russian movies (most of them labeled 'blockbusters' in prerelease!!! trailers and posters:).<br /><br />Funnily, that 'govno' episode is in no contradiction to Efenstor's comment above re rude language of current generation... From what I've already said it could seem that this might be the movie that showed the way for this, but it was not. A mild word by current standards, it was way too rude back then, and just rude enough to show the true nature of all Sharikovs... BTW, re Efenstor's lament, it is sooo naive to juxtapose being intellectual and using rude lexicon, especially for Russian speakers, where a single cussword could have meanings that take sentences in translation! But I join in regret that ALL the meaning in today's teenager's talk may be expressed by cusswords. I feel that this is the bigger problem than their choice of the medium that's most efficient for the task:) Well, this movie and the book are great food for thought that might change them, or anyone who might have a luxury of watching it.
|
positive
|
I had been long awaiting this movie ever since I saw the trailer, which made it look like a political drama, starring three of my favorite actors; Al Pacino, John Cusack, and Bridget Fonda. And even though it was directed by Harold Becker, who has done uneven work, he and Pacino did combine on SEA OF LOVE, which ranks among each of their best work. But interference on some level(for starters, several of the scenes in the original trailer don't appear in the movie) and changing of tone(subsequent trailers make it look like a thriller) make this, while watchable, nowhere near as it could have been.<br /><br />Which is too bad, because I really wanted to like this movie. There was great potential here to be a film about how government can still be worthwhile despite all the corruption, and to make a complex statement about that corruption, not the usual good guys vs. bad guys. And there is good acting here. Pacino and Cusack are both very good, and Danny Aiello gives one of the best performances of his career. But Fonda is wasted in her role, having nothing to do, and while there is merit in the central storyline, when it turns to a thriller, the movie loses its way, briefly recovers in the final scene between Cusack and Pacino, and then falls down completely in the end. I wish I could like this more, but no.
|
positive
|
Simply put, Paul Bettany and Jennifer Connelly were remarkable. The movie is less about the raw science of Darwin's beliefs, and holds the focus very strongly on his relationship with his family, primarily his wife, Emma, and daughter, Annie.<br /><br />Toby Jones gives a wonderful turn as Thomas Huxley, the great defender of Darwin's beliefs, and the rest of the cast is up to the task of sharing screen time with Bettany and Connelly.<br /><br />But it is those two who carry the movie. Their real chemistry is apparent from beginning to end, but develops transcendence as Darwin grapples with his demons. The scene where Darwin relates the ending of the story of Jenny, the orangutan, to his dying daughter, Annie, is utterly gripping. The world premiere audience at the TIFF was spellbound. Bettany's performance will be recognized as one of the year's best in short order. Equally magnificent is Connelly's work playing the religious wife of a man who, in Huxley's words, "killed God".<br /><br />The film moves slowly through the entire spectrum of Darwin's grief, relishing every detail of Bettany and Connelly's acting.<br /><br />Brilliant.
|
positive
|
Unfortunately, I've never seen the full version of this movie. I did see the 87-minute version twice, back in the 1950s. Even more floridly directed than is the norm with Julien Duvivier, this is a wonderfully out-of-the-ordinary piece, replete with sweeping tracking shots through, over and into Andrejew's magnificently atmospheric sets. Beautifully lit too by photographer André Thomas, Black Jack is nothing if not a connoisseur's delight. Reinforcing this imaginative visual style, is a script that allows a roster of our favorite actors, including Agnes Moorehead and Marcel Dalio, some brilliantly bizarre, full-blooded characterizations. George Sanders gives a polished performance, whilst an eccentric millionairess (who turns out to be a rival racketeer) is admirably played by Agnes Moorehead. Also realizing the most from her role, Patricia Roc. The film was made, on locations in Spain, in 1949.
|
positive
|
I had a different experience with this movie - it never got charming, or delightful, or funny for me. one big clue that this was not your typical movie was that the label gave no indication of the Ianguage(s) spoken in the film. another was the lack of choices re subtitles.<br /><br />I found the lack of dialogue annoying, especially when accompanied by exaggerated facial expressions as it almost always was. The wildly inconsistent development of the feeble plot was puzzling. Were there characters, or only vague gestures? was there even a plot?<br /><br />on a separate matter, I'm getting prompted to correct the spelling of "dialogue", with the suggested substitute of "dialogue". maybe this movie in its entirety, including the IMDb portion, is designed to puzzle, or amaze, but I'm getting more irked than amused.
|
negative
|
Well, I must say that this was one hell of a fun movie. Despite the fact that the dubbing was pretty cheesy, and there were some odd moments where the film seemed to turn dark blue for no apparent reason, I was not disappointed. The story was actually pretty interesting: the last member of the Poison Clan must track down the other five members and discover who among them is using their skills for evil, and who is using them for good. The catch being that during training, all of the clan were masked, and all have since returned to society in disguise and changed their names.<br /><br />The fights are a joy to watch, as each member of the Poison Clan has a different fighting style: toad (my favorite), snake, scorpion, lizard, and centipede. The fight scenes have the actors jumping all over the place, and thankfully the camera stays planted and uses a wide enough shot so you can clearly see all of the action.<br /><br />The one drawback to the movie is that the story tends to drag a bit in the first half up until the first fight sequence. But stick with it, and you won't be disappointed!
|
positive
|
I began watching this movie with low expectations, as a matter of fact i only noticed it because it was an adaptation of a S.K. novel ( a novel i never read).<br /><br />I'm glad my expectations were low because the movie wasn't nothing close to good, but it manages to keep you interested. What really drags this story down is the work done by the director and the actors. The movie is overlong, hasn't no "nice" shots and no scares, the dialogs are dumb and the special effects are crap.<br /><br />The only things good are that, as i said, it keeps you interested ( i guess the book must be good) without using much horror cliches.<br /><br />My Vote 4/10.
|
negative
|
Many have disparaged Never Say Never Again because it is not an official Bond movie. Nevertheless, it is manifest that the producers adhered to the fruitful Bond formula. Although the film does not have a pre-credit sequence, it is clear that the training exercise at the commencement of the film is meant to be the introductory scene. It would have been impossible for EON to stop the producers from including a pre-credit and title sequence, albeit without the gun-barrel introduction.<br /><br />Sean Connery is on fine form as the immortal secret agent and this film is certainly better than Dr No, Thunderball, You Only Live Twice and Diamonds Are Forever. Although, NSNA is meant to be a remake of Thunderball, it is a vast improvement. 007 spends more time on terra firma and a more diverse range of exotic locations are included in the film. <br /><br />There is some resplendent acting in this movie. Barbara Carrera is impeccable as the bizarre Fatima Blush. One of the best scenes in the film is the coup de grace between Bond and Fatima in Nice, which is preceded by a dynamic motorcycle chase through the city. Klaus Maria Brandauer plays the psychotic Largo and Max Von Sydow is free of the melodrama that other actors portraying Blofeld have indulged in.<br /><br />NSNA tends to centre on Connery rather than the character of Bond. At the commencement it is stated that Bond is ageing and has been out of action. This seems to refer to the 12 year hiatus in Connery's portrayal of Bond. Bond promises "never again" to work in the Secret Service; an allusion to Connery's portrayal of Bond. It appears that the producers were trying to hurt the official Bond franchise. <br /><br />Nevertheless, this film is definitely worth watching. This is the last time that Sean Connery played James Bond, but his performance convinced me that perhaps he should have never have said "never again".
|
positive
|
Esther Williams gets her first post MGM starring role and gets off<br /><br />to a good start. This film is a well acted entertaining suspense<br /><br />with a mature theme that would be repeated a million times more<br /><br />in the future - innocent girl stalked creepy woman hater. Esther<br /><br />looks great and if she wanted to, probably could have gone on to<br /><br />do more and better films but according to her autobiography, <br /><br />pretty much gave up working for marriage. Either way she is so<br /><br />likable and engaging that its fun to see her in a totally different role<br /><br />outside of the 'swimming musical'. Universal was fabulous for<br /><br />making films with former MGM stars after that studio began<br /><br />dropping its biggest names as it began to slide down hill. Stars<br /><br />like Lana Turner, June Allyson and others got to make quality first<br /><br />rate films at Universal as they obviously still had drawing power at<br /><br />the box office. I wish Esther had made more but since she didnt, it<br /><br />makes this one all the more special.
|
positive
|
This movie was a long build-up with no climax. People whom refer to the swordfight in the end as great must either be out of their minds, or have none. Way too often this movie got soft. I am not saying that soft movies are bad. But no matter how fond you are of sugar it should have no space on a T-bone steak. This movie was supposed to be about vengeance for crimes committed against a culture, but it ended up being a petty bar-brawl. And there was only one of them who actually knew what a sword was; Tim Roth's character (and yes, he plays him well). Rob Roy was a weak "hero" with no knowledge of how to use a sword, and the way he "won" was a disgrace. As a drama this movie had it's periods, but the best performance in it has to go the nature of Scotland. This is one tad breath short of being termed as "soap" in my book.
|
negative
|
This film is by far the worst film I have ever seen in my life. A woman "The EX" pretends to be a number of people in order to gain access to her ex-husband. Killing people for no- reason in baths to achieve her goal. The women I don't think ever went to acting college. She just spends the whole film making stupid expressions, and she looks like she is trying her absolute hardest to avoid looking into the camera. Failing on most occasions. She makes friends with her Ex Husband's wife and son, she does this to use them against her husband. At first when you watch this film, you think that the "Ex" wants to kill her ex-husband, maybe because he has treated her in a bad way. But in fact the women is obsessed with the man and wants him back. The two of them used to enjoy rough entertainment (using whips of course). My advice to the general public is do not buy this film, do not rent this film and do not watch it like I did (at 1.15am on FOX)
|
negative
|
First, let me make it clear that I'm a big fan of bad sci-fi, especially when it involves gigantic, city-stomping monsters. But this one is so fantastically lame that I can't even like it for being bad. They apparently didn't shave enough money off the budget by skimping on the props (the only prop we have to indicate the size of the alien girl is an oversized novelty pencil, available at Spencer's Gifts for about fifteen bucks), they also decided not to outlay for concept or plot. The monster DOES look okay, in my opinion, but it doesn't have enough interaction with the backgrounds, i.e. not enough destruction to suit most fans of the genre. The general rule of giant monster movies is: If you don't have a lot of fake-looking buildings to smash, then you'd better have another fake-looking monster to wrestle with. This movie has neither. I can't make my final complaint about the movie without giving away the ending, but suffice to say the origin of the monster, and the method found to get rid of it, just don't hold water. Not even as well as most of these movies. Skip it.
|
negative
|
The delivery of some very humorous rude lines by Pierce Brosnan is alone worth the price of admission. He plays a kind of "James Bond's psycho twin brother", separated at birth, no doubt. As an intense hit-man, his character is very sexual but even better, very funny. Add the kind-hearted, uber-likable American "guy next door', Greg Kinnear, to set up contrast. The myriad locations, vivid colors, and quick-witted humor provide great entertainment. Hope Davis is well cast as the "gem of a wife". But the focus of the film is on the two fellows, a new "Odd Couple", and that's the part that works very well. Have a great (probably R-rated) laugh, and look for the places where the story goes a little deeper.
|
positive
|
Check out the two octogenarians who review Leatherheads. These guys are old-school Hollywood and a hit on YouTube. They always give an insightful and fun review. They have movie comparisons that are really interesting and they have a banter back and forth that is endlessly entertaining. They know movies, collectively they have been in the biz for practically a century. Lorenzo is a well-known screenwriter and Marcia is a famous producer. All of their insight on movies always leaves you with something to think about. See what they think about Clooney's latest...<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-W7evBEArs
|
negative
|
Night Of The Demons is definitely one the definitive cheesy 80's demons horror flick in the same vein as the brilliant Evil Dead and Demons movies. This movie combines boozy sexually active teens and demons into one hell of a fun movie. A definite welcome addition after the 80's were overrun by slasher flicks, it was nice to see something a little different.<br /><br />The plot follows a group of teens who all meet up for a Halloween party at hull house which used to be funeral parlour, hosted by Angela. About 40-minutes of boozing and sexing eventually leads to a demon or demons finding their way out of the furnace and possessing each and every one of the teens. Add some snazzy make-up effects, lots of gore, and cool-looking demons and you've got yourself a sweet 80's cheese-fest that would be ranked as one of the best demon-related films in many horror fans' lists.<br /><br />Firstly I loved the setting for this movie, "Hull House" is really creepy and scary and the perfect setting for a horror movie and plus when the Demons emerge, that's when the action really kicks in and it becomes a night of terror and fear. This movie spawned 2 sequels, the first one in 1994 which was okay but nothing come pared to this and the third one titled Demon House was absolutely horrendous. This is one of those horrors that has definitely stood the test of time and remains a true gem of mine for many years to come.<br /><br />All in all a fun cheesy flick with Demons that's definitely worth checking out.
|
positive
|
"Yagyu ichizoku no inbo" (let's just say "The Shogun's Samurai") is somewhere between horrifically boring and mind-bogglingly painful to watch. As an historical epic, it could have had so many more chances to be a rich saga... but it's really no more than just another cheap '70s action flick with a based-on-real-events story and an eyepatch-sporting Sonny Chiba. Before this movie's halfway point, I was even tempted to commit seppuku! The music is like a thousand dogs in heat wailing in your ears to a tune composed by Ennio Morricone (that's not an insult towards Morricone). The use of zoom lens cinematography is more nauseating than fascinating. And in terms of action, it's really nothing more than a series of brutal attacks and oh-no-they-didn't shocks. What a terrible movie.
|
negative
|
!!!!! OF COURSE THERE'S SPOILERS !!!!! I'm sure this project started off as a screen writing workshop on avoiding clichés in horror movies: Female protagonist - Check Bad things happen to drug takers - Check Heorine knocks out villain - Check Heroine doesn't notice villain recovering unconsciousness - Check Frame the sequence so we see recovered villain creep up behind heroine - Check Unfortunately it seems someone has sent this cliché list to a film studio instead of using it for class . Dear oh dear if only London transport was as regular as the clichés turning up here . In fact there's so many clichés and seen it all before moments that no one actually thought about going into detail as to what the eponymous creep is or how long he's been killing people on the underground . I'm led to believe it's the result of some human experiment and perhaps it's not until that night he decided to take his revenge out on humanity but all this is so vague as to be meaningless Not to be totally negative I doubt very much if the producers thought they'd be making a film that was going to sweep the Oscars that year and there's always a market for horror movies . Likewise I doubt if it cost too much produce and had one eye on the DVD market rather than cinema distribution and I will state that it's slightly better than 1972's DEATH LINE which also featured a murderous cannibal hiding in the London underground . it's just that when you think all the clichés have been used up in this film another cliché comes along to raise its ugly head
|
negative
|
If you delete the first twenty minutes or so of this film, you will be left with a fantastic comedy. As it is, I still found it to be a pretty good movie, which is no small feat considering the coma I was put in by the opening scenes. To put it mildly, this film has a dreary beginning that wasn't even remotely funny, or even upbeat. Once things get sillier, however, you are left with a comedy that still holds up well after more than three decades. Definitely worth checking out, especially if you're a younger fan of Lemmon and Matthau who wants to see their earlier work.
|
positive
|
Here's another of these modern-day ultra-sleaze comedies in which dysfunctional families are supposedly hilarious. Know wonder people once asked, "What ever happened to Pauly Shore?" Well, Shore didn't disappear, but his career took a nose-dive, that's for sure. Movies like this one, didn't help.<br /><br />In "Son-In-Law," Shore plays an incredibly-obnoxious character called "Crawl," and yet he's the most likable of the family! His father is a profane idiot; his mother is totally incompetent, his young brother is a sex maniac and his college-age sister is a real snot.<br /><br />Watching an hour and a half of totally-unlikeable people was tough to do. I certainly wouldn't watch this again, or recommend it to anyone but die-hard Shore fans. Adam Sandler took Pauley's shtick and went a lot further with it.<br /><br />The following is an excerpt from the IMDb title page here under "biography" and it explains why I am not the only one who was disgusted with this movie.<br /><br />"........but his lunacy was dismissed as crude, dumb and, for the most part, unfunny. His film career quickly tanked. This downhill spiral was not helped by the failure of his failed Fox sitcom "Pauly" (1997) in 1997. Lambasted unmercifully by both critics and media alike, he was soon becoming a running joke and forced to lie low and ride out the storm...."
|
negative
|
I had a feeling that after "Submerged", this one wouldn't be any better... I was right. He must be looking for champagne money, and not care about the final product... his voice gets repeatedly dubbed over by a stranger that sounds nothing like him; the editing is - well - just a grade above amateurish. It's nothing more than a B or C-grade movie with just enough money to hire a couple talented cameramen and an "OK" sound designer.<br /><br />Like the previous poster said, the problems seem to appear in post-production (...voice dubbing, etc.) Too bad, cause the plot's actually OK for a SG flick.<br /><br />I'll never rent another SG flick, unless he emails me asking for forgiveness.<br /><br />Too bad - I miss Kelly LeBrock...<br /><br />--jimbo
|
negative
|
This movie was so bad If anyone out their who starred in the movie are reading this including the director,i HATE YOU! LOL,that blonde woman, who was running away screaming through the forest.At least CRY RATHER THAN SCREAM AND KEEP DOING THE DODGY HEAVY BREATHING!! and oh dear god, if it was the director who sorted out the cameras on this one, then go back to a normal job. No one wants to be watching some scared woman's chin throughout it.Damn, don't even THINK about renting/buying or even having a copy of this within 100 metre radius of your house since it can be harmful to,people who like good movies...When i got home, i thought id rented a pron movie by the acting and style of the camera.
|
negative
|
We've just watched the last of the series shown on the SBS network and will miss our weekly dose of Danish Delight. My wife and I picked up the show after the Swedish show "The Eagle" finished and it seemed by comparison to be a very poor substitute for our then favourite show on TV. Week by week, however, the show grew on me, and whilst not as glossy as the Swedish show and definitely grittier in terms of their investigations of everyday crimes, it certainly provided a very satisfying weekly viewing meal indeed.<br /><br />Prior to these 2 shows I had not really been a fan of the cop genre and can't say I am now but the 2 Scandinavian shows really provided us with an insight into life in those northern Euopean countries through the eyes of their special policing units.
|
positive
|
An unusually straight-faced actioner played by a cast and filmed by a director who obviously took the material seriously. Imperfect, as is to be expected from a film clearly shot on a tight budget, but the drama is involving-- it's one of those films that when it gets repeated ad nauseum on Cinemax 2 or More Max or whatever they call it, you end up watching 40 minute blocks when you're supposed to be going to work. Along W/ "Deathstalker 2", "Chopping Mall", and "The Assault", a reminder that Wynorski is a much more talented director than many of his fellow low-budget brethern, who has a real ability to pace a genre film, when he actually's interested in the material (i.e., don't bother watching any of his Shannon Tweed flicks with a 3 or a 4 after the title!) Actors who've had too little to do recently (Mancuso, Ford, even Gary Sandy for chrissakes) really put their all into some of their best roles in years -- as for Grieco, he has the right look, although his acting is a bit one-note -- it's clear his character is supposed to be self-destructing throughout the film, but Grieco doesn't quite convey it. I checked IMDB and I see the writer also wrote "Sorority House Massacre 2" & "Dinosaur Island" for the director -- both minor classics in their own rights, but obviously "silly" Roger Cormon-like Cinema -- this one's more like some of the better Jonathan Demme and Jonathan Kaplan B-pictures of the 70's -- giving you the exploitation element but offering involving drama at the same time -- a real step forward. Not "Citizen Kane," and the comic final moments are a bit disruptive, but a well-written, character-driven above-average straight-to-video actioner. Small achievements like this should not be overlooked when they come along, which is rare enough (as I was reminded as I tried to sit through an Albert Pyun monstrosity called "Heatseeker" the other night -- this low-budget stuff isn't as easy as it looks -- but that's another story!)
|
positive
|
This movie is a mess. I'm surprised it even has a theatrical release. WIthout Robin Williams it would have gone straight to video. It is poorly written. It is poorly directed. It's worse offense is that it has taken an interesting topic and reduced it to a ridiculous and BORING thriller that has no thrills and no suspense and no inner or emotional logic.Especially after the first half hour the movie dovetails into a series of ridiculous set pieces that are so over the top that the audience I saw it with was laughing at it. Save your money. The trailer is totally misleading - it is not suspenseful and there are no thrills - in fact the movie's truly worst offense is that it is simply boring.
|
negative
|
There's nothing quite like watching giant robots doing battle over a desert wasteland, and Robot Wars does deliver. Sure, the acting is lousy, the dialogue is sub-par, and the characters are one-dimensional, but it has giant robots! The special effects themselves are actually quite good for the period. They are certainly not as polished as today's standards, but it contains a minimum of computer graphics and instead uses miniatures, so it has aged fairly well. Its shortcomings are easily overlooked given the films short runtime, and it does have a certain tongue-in-cheek humour in parts that make it quite enjoyable. I would recommend this to any fan of giant robots or cheesy sci-fi who is looking for a lighthearted hour of distraction.
|
negative
|
It's one of the paradoxes of Basil Rathbone's wartime anti-Nazi Sherlock Holmes films (Voice of Terror, SH in Washington, and this one) that while the plots and settings are mostly terrible, he is so good in them. Despite a bizarre wind-swept hairstyle meant to make him look younger, he blazes through every scene with so much bite and attack that you hardly register how flimsy the plots are. Here he also has great acting rapport with Lionel Atwill, who makes a wonderfully repulsive Professor Moriarty -- a heavy lidded cockroach with nice hints of sadism and depravity (it may not have been acting, kids). At the climax, changed into a lab coat in order to drain Rathbone's blood "drop by drop," he's as over-the-top sinister as Seinfeld's arch-nemesis Newman. The movie itself is ancient kiddie matinée fare, but it benefits from director Roy William Neill's attention to staging and atmosphere. It also looks fairly sharp in the DVD's UCLA restoration -- don't even think of buying any other edition, all of them faded, choppy public-domain prints.
|
positive
|
Dynasty Revisited in Hawaii... Full of clichés, highly predictable, unrealistic and sometimes even stupid. If you have nothing better to do however, it does provide 40 minutes of simple, unpretensive entertainment, endless looks at great male and female muscles and very good photography of the spectacular Hawaiian scenery. On the other hand, If you are looking for anything more than that, stay away...<br /><br />Oh, and by the way, if you have ever worked in a Hotel or know anything about running one, you have two options: 1. You will feel sick every two minutes at the sheer stupidity and silliness of how the show presents Hotel Business or, 2. Look at it as science fiction comedy as I did, lie back, relax, and laugh about it!
|
negative
|
I must admit, I didn't expect this to be as good as it was. I also didn't expect Samuel L. Jackson to play slide and sing blue either.<br /><br />Cinemark of Beaver County PA does this frequently. They advertise movies in the lobby, get you all excited about seeing it, and then disappoint you by not showing it...<br /><br />I Expected that with such a great cast of Jackson and Ricci and even a former N'Syncer (Timberlake), that this movie would at least have shown for a week. But nay, at that time if I remember correctly MI3 was showing on 3 screens (that or some other type of supposed blockbuster).<br /><br />Like Blues Brothers, and Crossroads, this movie incorporates the mystic and legend of what blues music is all about. Passion, and hard times. Religion and Sex. Hell Hounds of the past. Redemption. I mean so many elements go into the blues to make it work.<br /><br />This was just a good all around story. Of course, not many people will see it cause it doesn't have pirates or swinging spiders. But it does have Samuel L. Jackson...<br /><br />Think of what happens to Jacksons character from Pulp Fiction after he walks the earth and settles down and that essentially describes him to a "T".<br /><br />Great and underrated, but aren't all the good ones like that anyway?
|
positive
|
Oliver Gruner is totally unknown to me. My friend showed me this film because he had seen Gruner in, what he called a pretty good sci-fi film, Nemesis. So as we watched this, we found ourselves fastforwarding through the BS drama parts just to get to the unbelievable action sequences. Gruner loves to kick and kick and kick. And kick! haha<br /><br />Gruner character is a graduate student who is forced to stay in a ghetto close to the one that he grew up in. He finds himself watching after the boy who lives with him because he really wants to join in the Mexican gang that keeps tormenting his family. Instead of joining up, Gruner tells the boy to fight back (against a gang? too crazy). Gruner plays a typical Van Damme character who kills everyone (or maims them pretty bad) and works to rid his block of these gangmembers.<br /><br />The plot was very cheesy and easy to think of. Gruner is probably not very well known because of his script-choosing if this movie is anything to compare possible choices to. This ghetto is pure hell and I enjoyed seeing the motley crew of characters go through it as if they have a chance against Gruner's character. The music was typical action music (thumping pianos and timpani, swelling guitars) which actually wasn't as bad as I make it sound. The director really needed to keep the action going instead of taking a break every 5 minutes for a tense family moment.<br /><br />Ultimately, I gave it a 4/10 because it really tried to be an average action film for Oliver Gruner to star in, but the overall feel of the film leaves you wanting more closure on what you just saw.
|
negative
|
Eddie Murphy spends his time looking for lost children, so when a very special magical child is kidnapped in Tibet, the sexy Charlotte Lewis asks for his help to rescue this child from the clutches of evil itself.<br /><br />Although the story is a bit silly, it never quite feels corny, despite the hilarity of the comedy throughout the film; Charles Dance off-sets the comedy with his very serious and dark characterisation of the evil that holds the child hostage.<br /><br />The Golden Child is very funny, action packed and really quite compelling in a charming, almost magical way.<br /><br />7/10 Great for all generations.
|
positive
|
If you like stupid jokes and a terribly predictable storyline, then perhaps this movie is for you. Courtney Thorne-Smith, Jack Warden, and several other members of the supporting cast actually have talent, but it was completely stifled by the paper-thin script. This is a generally boring and joyless time waster of a movie.
|
negative
|
I recently watched Spirit and enjoyed it very much, I've seen it about 4 times now on HBO and will buy the DVD. Those who gave negative reviews would probably think that `Vanishing Point' was just another car chase movie and `Thelma & Louise' was just another chick flick. Although the conclusions of those films are darker I feel the themes are somewhat related; that freedom and individualism are very important and that there is usually someone wanting to take it away from you. The other common trait of these movies is the caring, thoughtful `guardian angel' types who help the main characters to overcome adversity.<br /><br />Another review here mentions how this film relates to the theme of civilization invading someone else's home. All one has to do is look around at the dwindling open areas around us to see that.<br /><br />I thought the animation and the story were amazing, the animators really got the horses to look, act and move naturally. Spirit's emotions were very clear as the story progressed (yes I'm aware they do humanize the horses a bit, but this is fiction). In a couple of action scenes you feel caught in the current of the rapids and the heat from a forest fire. In other more quiet scenes (which are most of the time) you're allowed to savor the backgrounds. One of the big things that make the story really work is by not going the talking, singing animals route. Doing so would take away from the story's power. Instead the flow of the story is told by occasional narration by the main character, further punch is added by the fantastic soundtrack. Another plus is that they weren't afraid to give the story somewhat of a dark side (which really made this film watchable to me). This isn't prevalent through the entire movie though, and the conclusion is fitting and uplifting without being sappy.<br /><br />Those who appreciate horses will really like this movie, but I think it's a bit more than a horse movie. I don't feel this would be a good movie to take children to if they're brought up on the inane fare that's offered up today. But if they're the thoughtful sort that can handle compelling stories like The Lord of the Rings and Black Beauty they'll likely love this movie. Hell, I'm 35 years old and STILL love that stuff.
|
positive
|
I came to Nancy Drew expecting the worst...because of everyone else's bad reviews. I thought: Even though I don't read the books, that doesn't look anything like the Nancy Drew I've heard of. But I was wrong. Sure, it wasn't a carbon copy of the books, but when you make a movie out of something, you have to modify it to become big-screen entertainment. The plot was enjoyable and thrilling with a lot of actual scares and I thought that Emma Roberts was really believable in her own way of portraying this classic character. There were several funny moments and on the contrary of many statements, at no point in this film does Nancy come off as a ditz. She was intelligent, conservative, polite and genuine. One thing this movie also did well was balance the whole thing out with a mix of comedy, romance, suspense and heartfelt moments. I loved this movie. What a flick, what a flick! And if you are wise and decide to trust me and go see this, be prepared for some SCARY as heck moments because I was, like, freaking out! Go see it or be a bum-bum and just let other people decide what you think of this movie for you...a mistake I almost made. I love it, I wanna own this movie! I love Emma Roberts now, too. She's like a mini-Bree Van De Kamp from DH. Love it, love it.
|
positive
|
All Dogs go to Heaven was a quirky, funny movie; With good name talent who's voices lended an adult familiarity to a cartoon basicly for kids. It was just interesting enough to be likeable by adults aside from something good for the kids to watch.<br /><br />Unfortunately ADGTH2 is a valueless sequel trying to make a bit of cash rideing on the coattails of the first. Charlie Sheen is a passable replacement for Burt Reynolds in this second movie and Sheena Easton's voice in a few of the movies lovely but forgettable songs makes her a worthwhile pick as a co-star for this. Add Dom DeLuise from the first movie and you'd think this would be a decent mix to make this sequel at least relatively decent compared to the first one.<br /><br />Unfortunately even with the addition of other good voice actors such as Bebe Neuwirth in the horrible role of Anabelle, this movie cannot be saved from the atrocious production values and animation skills (or lack thereof) present all over this movie. Horrible editing, syncronization of the voices, and flat out spaces where characters mouths should be moving to dialouge but are not combine to make this movie look like a college interns animation project instead of the decent sequel it could have been.<br /><br />All in all i'd say unless you were a very big fan of the first movie i'd give this a very large PASS.
|
negative
|
I don't usually like TV movies, I reckon that if the thing was any good it would make it to Hollywood. This one though is better than average, pretty high production values, a few interesting story twists and some nice shots of NYC (along with Toronto) hold the interest.
|
negative
|
This film is about the complicated friendship, romance and deceit between two men and two women during the World War II.<br /><br />A lot of effort has been put to make "The Edge of Love"look the right period. However, I find this effort too excessive, particularly in terms of the tone of the colours. Most of the first half of the film is processed so much to have a strong bluish tone. It's hard to make out who's who in this tone.<br /><br />Another detrimental point is the fancy use of image splitting lens. There are many scenes that have three or four images of the same thing, such as three Keira Knightley smiling face or four pairs of arms in embrace. That simply makes the film confusing and hard to follow, instead of being artistic.<br /><br />As for the plot, it is plain boring. The way the story unfolds is not engaging at all. Sienna Miller's unstable character is annoying. In fact all the main characters are annoying and unlikeable. Keira Knightley's accent is impossible to understand, making it a further impediment to understanding the plot.<br /><br />I strongly advise avoiding "The Edge of Love", unless you watch a film only to appreciate great costumes, nice sets and lighting.
|
negative
|
Frightmare begins with a horror movie icon killing a director and then his servant before he is laid to rest. This icon, who has some Christopher Lee qualities to him, then continues to haunt those around him when a group of horror film society students steal his corpse from the mausoleum he is in.<br /><br />The first ten minutes is well-filmed, good writing and lots of potential for murderous mayhem. But the film drags in the middle (although thankfully not as much as "House of Death") and never really gets that initial spurt of energy back.<br /><br />Lots of the deaths are confusing, as they seem to have people just falling over scared when they see a floating coffin or other odd things. Twice we see poisonous gas being used. But the box promises that this horror star will be the embodiment of all the monsters he has played. Boy, is that false advertising, unless he spent his career playing boring old men who take naps and watch "Matlock".<br /><br />The general principle of the film is decent: horror society kids stealing a corpse of a dead icon. A modern equivalent (digging up Vincent Price or Peter Cushing) would make a great film. Maybe a remake is in order if that wouldn't be too disrespectful. Sometimes theory doesn't come across as well in application, and this film offers that example.<br /><br />The only redeeming quality of this film (besides the beginning) is the brief appearance of a very young Jeffrey Combs. I saw him and thought "that's Jeffrey Combs" but felt I was mistaken as the box never mentioned him. But sure enough, Combs was present. (A note to this movie's film-makers: mention Combs on the cover of the DVD, you'll sell more copies if if you would be deceiving customers.) If you're a Jeffrey Combs die-hard, check out this early role. Otherwise, I cannot offer this as a great selection for a horror movie marathon. Let me suggest "Intruder" or "Popcorn", as those are both pretty decent and will stand the test of time.
|
negative
|
I had a video of the thing. And I think it was my fourth attempt that I managed to watch the whole film without drifting off to sleep. It's slow-moving, and the idea of a mid-Atlantic platform, which may have been revolutionary at the time, is now just a great big yawnaroony. Apart from Conrad Veidt, the rest of the cast are pretty forgettable, and it is only in the action towards the end that things get really interesting. When the water started to spill big-time it even, on one occasion, woke me up.<br /><br />But give the man his due. No one could hold a cigarette like Conrad Veidt. He doesn't wedge it between his index and middle fingers like the lesser mortals. He holds it in his fingers, while showing us the old pearly-browns. There are a few scenes in this film where the smoke drifts up to heaven against a dark background,and looks very artistically done. But it does not say much about this film if all that impresses you is the tobacco smoke.
|
negative
|
What an appalling film. Don't get me wrong, Gene Hackman and Denzel Washington are good actors, but aside from a few interesting set pieces, the film is mostly taken up with hysterical submariners shouting, crying, sweating and generally freaking out when anything goes wrong.<br /><br />Take that with simplistic asides to make sure the audience still understand what's going on (the scene where Denzel Washington explains to a radio repairman how he must be like Scotty in Star Trek is nothing more than a joke) and you have a dumbed down thriller not worthy of the acting.<br /><br />Let us just hope that the real nuclear US Navy is not in the hands of such a script!<br /><br />
|
negative
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.