review
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| sentiment
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
Orca starts as crusty Irish sea captain Nolan (Richard Harris) & his crew are trying to capture a Great White Shark so they can sell it for big bucks, unfortunately when a hapless marine biologist called Ken (Robert Carradine) comes under attack from it the Shark is killed by a Killer Whale, this raises Nolan's interest in Killer Whales & decides he want's to catch one of them instead. However while trying to do so he catches a pregnant female & injuries it to the extent she aborts her unborn foetus on deck which makes a mess & enrages her mate, Nolan orders the Whale be dumped back in the sea which is what happens. The male Killer Whale is annoyed to say the least & kills one of Nolan's crew before they reach the dry land of Newfoundland in Canada, once there the Killer Whale conducts a series of attacks on the town & it's people in an effort to lure Nolan back out to sea for a fight to the death...<br /><br />Directed by Michael Anderson I thought this blatant rip-off was terrible, I'm sorry but I thought it was just plain ridiculous & utterly dull even at a modest 90 odd minutes. The script by producer Luciano Vincenzoni & Sergio Donati is so stupid I'm lost for words, the fact that it seems to take itself very seriously doesn't help & if I have to listen to Charlotte Rampling go on about how intelligent Killer Whale's are just one more time I'll scream. I'm sorry but I simply don't believe a Killer Whale is intelligent enough to know who any particular boat belongs to & sink it, I don't believe a Killer Whale can cause a huge explosion including knocking an oil lantern from a wall on the opposite side it hits as there is no way on earth it could know it was there, I don't believe a Killer Whale can identify someone's house, know someone is in there & then wreck it on purpose, I don't believe a Killer Whale can move icebergs around in order to trap a boat, I don't believe Killer Whales can physically recognise people & I don't believe it has any revenge instincts or at least none that are as strong as this dumb film makes out. Maybe I'm being a bit harsh, I mean it's only a film after all but it's a film which is trying to be serious & things just got so ridiculous that I was half expecting the Killer Whale to write a letter to Nolan to tell him his plan & hand (or should that be fin?) deliver it, the thing seemed intelligent enough to do just about anything else. They should have asked it to come up with a cure for the common cold! Seriously, that's a statement that's no more far fetched than anything else in this film. I found the film very boring, totally dull & had awful character's with no on screen presence at all. It goes without saying this is a Jaws (1975) rip-off which doesn't even come close to Spielberg's classic.<br /><br />Director Anderson is no Spielberg that's for sure, this rubbishy film has absolutely no suspense, scares, tension or atmosphere at all. All the attack scenes are as dull as dishwater & totally forgettable, there's no build up to them & virtually no pay off either as Orca doesn't get to eat a single person. Then there's the scenes which literally had me laughing, the shots of the Killer Whale appearing to cry are pure comedy & the opening scenes of the two Killer Whales I suspect tried to show them as a 'loving' & 'caring' couple but I couldn't help but think that this is the closest we'll ever get to Killer Whale porn, hilarious stuff. The footage of the Killer Whales themselves is bland & boring, instead of footage which matches & enhances the scenes around it it just looks like dreary wildlife documentary footage that has little connection to anything else. Do you get the impression that I don't like this film? Good. Forget about any gore or decent deaths either, there's a brief scene when Bo Derek has her legs bitten off but blink and you'll miss it.<br /><br />This probably had quite a big budget & it still sucks, there's nothing outstanding about Orca, it's well made I suppose but flat, bland & totally forgettable. The cinematography is quite nice though. The acting is bad, Rampling is awful & the late Harris' Irish accent is embarrassing.<br /><br />Orca is a lame Jaws rip-off which completely ignores or messes up everything that made Spielberg's film so good, this is one for bad movie lovers everywhere. Definitely not recommended although not quite as bad as Jaws: The Revenge (1987).
|
negative
|
What a boring movie. While it did have humorous parts, it was just plain boring and lengthy (for a 90 minute movie). I believe that the cause was a lack of action.<br /><br />When I rented this movie, I expected to see white blood cells combat the evil viruses, but no such luck. It was more that the virus was thwarted than defeated.<br /><br />The movie had promise, but since made for little kiddies in mind, it did not meet its potential, in my opinion.
|
negative
|
"House of the Damned" (also known as "Spectre") is one of your low budget haunted house horror flicks, filled with mediocre performances and cheap effects. It is about a family that inherits an old Irish mansion, and after moving in begin to experience strange phenomenon and ghostly apparitions, including the ghost of a young girl who was murdered and buried within a wall in the mansion's basement. The couple's young daughter is then whisked away into some other dimension and they seek help from a group of paranormal investigators for help.<br /><br />The ideas this film borrowed from the 1982 haunted house film "Poltergeist" are obvious. I will say that this movie does have some slightly creepy sequences, but it is sometimes very, very boring. The acting here is nothing special, the mood is alright, the score (which was mostly this dramatic Irish opera music) was somewhat annoying, and the CGI special effects are really horrible. I mean, it was 1996, you would think they could have done a little better than they did. The ending where the house was on fire was the poorest special effect I've seen, very very cheap. But hey, this was a cheap movie.<br /><br />Also, the translucent monster wolf thing that their daughter sees looks horribly fake. And what was it's significance in the film anyway? What the heck does a wolf-monster have to do with a haunted house? The special effects in here are what really ruined this movie. The acting was pretty bad too. I usually enjoy many low budget horror films, but not this one. "House of the Damned" is nothing special at all, only consider watching it if you have nothing better to do. But you'll probably want to pass on it. 4/10.
|
negative
|
In my opinion this movie advances no new thought. seems to me like taking a spear to a spear without looking to the side! the director seems to have an agenda! Duh! I find that his rational is lacking there does not seem to be room for the alternative view. I for one am usually on the side of the naysayer but this movie lacks credibility as it relies on the fantastic observations of the man/woman on the street. really now if you wish to cr5eate a credible alternative to a creed held onto for 2000+ years you have got to make more of an effort allowing the other side to voice their beliefs. I'm not sure but at the beginning of the movie it felt like an attack on the Cristian faith, I for one am a non believer, but allow for the beliefs of others, and would not wish no ridicule them but try to understand and tolerate.
|
negative
|
This movie is like the thousand "cat and mouse" movies that preceded it. (The following may look like a spoiler, but it really just describes a large class of movies) There is the passionate, wise main character, his goofy but well-meaning sidekick with his ill-placed attempts at humorous comments, the initially-hostile but soon softened gorgeous lady who triggers the inevitable "unlikely" love story, the loved ones taken hostage, and of course the careless evil adversary with his brutal minions. Everybody has seen tons of these movies already, and "National Treasure" is like any one of them, with only a slightly modified wrapping. Every turn of the story was easily predicted (and I can assure you I am not the sharpest tool in the shed). I am quite tired of feeling tricked for money after exiting the theater from a Hollywood movie, and if you have ever felt that way too, heed my warning; stay miles away from this movie.
|
negative
|
It's pretty bad when the generic movie synopsis has more information than the film itself. The paragraph-long "plot summary" written on the movie page has details I could not glean from watching the actual movie. I found myself constantly backing it up to see what details I had just missed which could tell me what the (bleep) was going on. Alas, to no avail--this movie leaves out monstrous pieces of the story, if you could call it a story. It's like they were trying to fool us into thinking that there was some kind of movie here, filming just enough so that there was the resemblance of a story and leaving the rest to our imaginations. Newsflash to the the creators: I paid to watch you MAKE a movie. I can sit home and imagine plots and story lines for free. And Rosario Dawson? This is somebody I've never paid enough attention to to be able to put the name to the face, and I can see why. She had one of the most artificial performances I have ever seen for a leading character in any movie, A or B. I figured okay, maybe she didn't really want the role, just got a hefty offer for a movie she wasn't into? Wrong. She was listed as one of the producers. Next time you produce something, don't book yourself as the lead if you can't act. If you really can, then create a decent character for you to become. Also, somebody here mentioned the white/latino issue--yes, I hate to say it, but this movie does come across as an act of vengeance against white college-age males who wear baseball hats. That's what happens when there is nothing in the movie to endear the watcher to latino characters. The Adrian character seems like a cocky jerk who is no better than the story's antagonist. As for the Maya character, she didn't seem like a real person. Anyway I'm ashamed for Hollywood that this movie was even made.
|
negative
|
This is one of the best presentations of the 60's put on film. Arthur Penn, director of Bonnie and Clyde and Little Big Man, saw that Steve Tesich's outstanding script rang with truth, and from these two talents comes solid cinema. Jodi Thelin's Georgia Miles gives male viewers a hit of pained nostalgia for the archetypal beauty who is almost within our grasps, but, always just out of reach. Just see it, or you cinematic education will be incomplete.
|
positive
|
If this is classed as 'real life' of London, then the producers must be on different planet.<br /><br />It is the most depressing, suicidal, dark, dingy, dross on TV.<br /><br />Everyone is fighting, everything has nasty under tones running through it, nothing is done for genuine reasons.<br /><br />If you want a real life picture of people in London or the UK, then this programme is by the farthest from reality.<br /><br />There is not one good word I can say about this programme. The only certainty is that will be a great big fight over Christmas dinner.<br /><br />Even the characters are totally unbelievable!
|
negative
|
So the other night I decided to watch Tales from the Hollywood Hills: Natica Jackson. Or Power, Passion, Murder as it is called in Holland. When I bought the film I noticed that Michelle Pfeiffer was starring in it and I thought that had to say something about the quality. Unfortunately, it didn't.<br /><br />1) The plot of the film is really confusing. There are two story lines running simultaneously during the film. Only they have nothing in common. Throughout the entire movie I was waiting for the moment these two story lines would come together so the plot would be clear to me. But it still hasn't.<br /><br />2) The title of the film says the film will be about Natica Jackson. Well it is, sometimes. Like said the film covers two different stories and the part about Natica Jackson is the shortest. So another title for this movie would not be a wrong choice.<br /><br />To conclude my story, I really recommend that you leave this movie where it belongs, on the shelf in the store on a place nobody can see it. By doing this you won't waste 90 minutes of your life, as I did.
|
negative
|
Okay, I can sit through almost any movie, and I tend to get a real kick out of Sci Fi Originals, but there was a major flaw in this movie that made me have to turn it off half an hour into it.<br /><br />Having served in the US Army, there are certain expectations in a movie including the military. At least some semblance of attention to proper military rank, uniform, and terminology is necessary if you expect a viewer to actually enjoy the experience. "Bats: Human Harvest" had characters wearing rank that was facing the wrong direction on the lapel and, later in the movie, the time was listed as 11:00 hours, but it was full dark outside. Even if the script was perfectly done, and the dialogue spectacular, and the acting Oscar-worthy, if the people making the movie don't care enough about the movie to even bother to look up the proper way to display military time, why should anybody bother to attempt to watch it?
|
negative
|
I do not remember, at least in the last ten years or so, a movie that I have liked less than Mama Mia. From the non-existent acting to the atrocious singing, I was cringing at least once per minute. I don't believe I could even recall one brief segment that I tolerated. I do know that I will never watch this disaster again. I cannot believe that with such high expectations due to the talent - Colin Firth, Meryl Streep, Pierce Brosnan, that a movie could be such a flop. But to see the lack of acting skills shown, the seemingly drug-induced dancing, and then, horrors of horrors, to hear the singing of Pierce Brosnan(!), I cannot see how this movie will not make it into the hall of shame. Definitely, a movie that never should have been made, and just in case you missed it the first time, one that I will never watch again.
|
negative
|
Thomas Ince always had a knack for bringing simple homespun stories to life with fullness and flair. "The Italian" is such a film. Solid acting, particularly by George Beban, father of silent child actor George Beban, Jr., and wonderful sets convey a realistic feeling of early immigrant tenements in New York. These give this 1915 film an authenticity which is unusual in features of this vintage.<br /><br />The film begins with the modern day and a man (George Beban in modern clothes) reading a story about an Italian immigrant, and then we transition into the story with George playing the immigrant. He raises enough money to bring his fiancée from Italy to America, marries her, and has a son with her. But times are hard and the family struggles to survive. I found myself wondering why the mother didn't breastfeed her child, and avoid the complications with the dirty formula, but oh well, even the early Dream Factory was pushing political correct behaviour for women in 1915!<br /><br />The best scene in the picture is when Beban has a chance to seek revenge on a crime boss who inadvertently put him in jail, and at the last minute he decides against his planned course of action. Very neat. I loved the curtain effect, it was great. Wonderful use of lighting in this film.<br /><br />I give "The Italian" an 8 out of 10.
|
positive
|
this was a favorite Christmas Special that I wish that they would release on vhs or dvd , since my 33 RPM got lost,and any cassettes I made are also long gone.<br /><br />I am not even a big John Denver fan but was very impressed with the music , which was mostly traditional favorites with a muppet spin ( esp Little St. Nick ! ) It also contained a few little known songs ( original ? ).<br /><br />Even though it was done at the end of the '70's this show had a timeless feel to it. Hoping to find a copy soon !!!
|
positive
|
The movie is a bit "thin" after reading the book, but it's still one of the greatest movies ever made. Sheryl Lee is beautiful and Nick Nolte is really "vonneguty". He makes great job expressing the feelings from the book to the film. Not many films engage the feeling of the book as well as Mother Night does.
|
positive
|
I actually liked this movie even though this movie seems to be so hated and i think it's even better then The Deer Hunter, which was overrated. Both this movie and Year Of The Dragon are very underrated although i could see why someone would not like this movie. At three and a half hours the movie just goes on too long and the second half of the movie is much better than the first half. Kris Kristofferson and Christopher Walken are fighting over Isabelle Huppert but she can't make up her mind about which one to be with. Sam Waterston is the villain who has a list of 125 people to be killed who is says are anarchists and thieves. There is a great cast that also has Jeff Bridges, Brad Dourif and a young Mickey Rourke.
|
positive
|
Usually, any movie with Steve Railsback in the lead is a good movie. However, this movie does not conform to that opinion. Lifeforce is a below average movie that is extremely confusing in the beginning (reminds me of Star Trek: TMP), but is able to pick things up a bit towards the end when London becomes Zombie City. A horror/sci-fi mess that is very hard to sit through, although the naked spacegirl/vampire is very easy to look at. This movie deserves a rating of 4 out of 10.
|
negative
|
The cast is different and now they took a different approach we have the street smart team "Networth" vs . the supposed professional team "Magna" but boy if you think the street smart team would have trouble you'd be right. While the Magna team has struggled at times, the street team has simply disintegrated week after week.<br /><br />First some things to reiterate as far as the "Apprentice 3" first of it continues the same absurd mentality (from Trump) and the game in this series: if your a good project manager, but you lose, the team will turn on you and you will be fired, despite the fact that your backstabbing teammates are often the ones who do half ass jobs. Simply absurd, that a game show that claims to hire the best candidate actually "weeds" out the best while the dysfunctional candidates stab each other until one is left and that person is the best . lol<br /><br />Anyone this season, weve seen a total of cursing, backstabbing and even gay offensive stereotypes carried out as teams try to do campaigns.<br /><br />The list of victims so far Cast Tara Dowdell , Audrey Evans , Danny Kastner those three are the only that I feel were unfairly fired by Trump, the rest really had it coming as they only incited conflict, anger and suffering. It's just amazing as one candidate Audrey Evans said as how she who did a good job was fired and how some of her worthless teammates are still in the game.<br /><br />Yes its the game, it's "The Apprentice" where manipulation, backstabbing, and always popular "everyone gang up on the project manager" mentality rules.<br /><br />It has been an entertaining ride, though, the candidates are given a wide array of assignments from photo shoots to the construction of mini golf courses, to building of new apartments.<br /><br />Still though it's still the "Apprentice" though so all you can do basically is laugh the whole time as the insanity and chaos insues until lucky person is the winner.
|
positive
|
Aliens let lose a giant monster named Zarkorr, then send down a hologram that looks your average stupid teenage girl to tell postman, Tommy Ward (Rhys Pugh, in the only movie you ever see him in) that has been chosen to fight. Also if he loses the plant goes doom, so he goes off to fight Zarkorr the Invader! This movie is bad, very bad. So bad it you need negative numbers just to gave it a rattan. Horridly written, bad directing, way below Power Rangers over-the-top wooden acting that you're just whiting for a horde of Lumberjacks to come out of no where and cut them down! And don't get me started on the theme song at the end. The people who made this stemming pall of S$@# should not be aloud near a camera or any thing to do with films. Zarkorr is a cool looking monster that should have been in a movie a million times better than this one. Do your self a favour and don't see this movie, it's 80 or so minute of life. The actors that are in this never worked again by way.<br /><br />3/10
|
negative
|
I thought Rachel York was fantastic as "Lucy." I have seen her in "Kiss Me, Kate" and "Victor/Victoria," as well, and in each of these performances she has developed very different, and very real, characterizations. She is a chameleon who can play (and sing) anything!<br /><br />I am very surprised at how many negative reviews appear here regarding Rachel's performance in "Lucy." Even some bonafide TV and entertainment critics seem to have missed the point of her portrayal. So many people have focused on the fact that Rachel doesn't really look like Lucy. My response to that is, "So what?" I wasn't looking for a superficial impersonation of Lucy. I wanted to know more about the real woman behind the clown. And Rachel certainly gave us that, in great depth. I also didn't want to see someone simply "doing" classic Lucy routines. Therefore I was very pleased with the decision by the producers and director to have Rachel portray Lucy in rehearsal for the most memorable of these skits - Vitameatavegamin and The Candy Factory. (It seems that some of the reviewers didn't realize that these two scenes were meant to be rehearsal sequences and not the actual skits). This approach, I thought, gave an innovative twist to sketches that so many of us know by heart. I also thought Rachel was terrifically fresh and funny in these scenes. And she absolutely nailed the routines that were recreated - the Professor and the Grape Stomping, in particular. There was one moment in the Grape scene where the corner of Rachel's mouth had the exact little upturn that I remember Lucy having. I couldn't believe she was able to capture that - and so naturally.<br /><br />I wonder if many of the folks who criticized the performance were expecting to see the Lucille Ball of "I Love Lucy" throughout the entire movie. After all, those of us who came to know her only through TV would not have any idea what Lucy was really like in her early movie years. I think Rachel showed a natural progression in the character that was brilliant. She planted all the right seeds for us to see the clown just waiting to emerge, given the right set of circumstances. Lucy didn't fit the mold of the old studio system. In her frustrated attempts to become the stereotypical movie star of that era, she kept repressing what would prove to be her ultimate gifts.<br /><br />I believe that Rachel deftly captured the comedy, drama, wit, sadness, anger, passion, love, ambition, loyalty, sexiness, self absorption, childishness, and stoicism all rolled into one complex American icon. And she did it with an authenticity and freshness that was totally endearing. "Lucy" was a star turn for Rachel York. I hope it brings a flood of great roles her way in the future. I also hope it brings her an Emmy.
|
positive
|
The theatrics and the drama included in the movie is fantastic, but the facts and the research is far from solid. When quoting Dr. Bovon, where the documentary tries to establish a connection to Mary Magdalene from Mariamene, Dr. Bovon later clarifies it should be used for literary purposes (ie: fables of that time) not for a historical figure. In fact he states, he does NOT believe the Mariamene ossuary in Talpiot is Mary Magdalene. He further comments on his public letter, that he was not informed that his words would be used for this documentary but rather for information regarding Acts of Philip (a literary work in the 4th century).<br /><br />So what we have here is a director that took one clip for a 4th century Acts of Philip fantasy and used it specifically to support a 1st century ossuary inscription. A very sad stretch and Dr. Bovon calls the Jesus/Mary Magdalene connection as "science fiction" -- as this documentary should be rightly labeled.
|
negative
|
I agree with msinabottle; this is a great movie. Here are some dialogue snippets:<br /><br />Raisuli (Sean Connery) to Eden Pedecaris (Candice Bergen): "You see the man at the well, how he draws the water? When one bucket empties, the other fills. It is so with the world. At present, you are full of power. But you're spilling it, wastefully. And Islam is lapping up the drops as they spill from your bucket." <br /><br />Raisuli: The English have paid very well in the past. Pedecaris: Well you'll not have your way with the Americans. President Roosevelt will have your head for this. Raisuli: Roosevelt. This President Roosevelt--he would try and take it himself? Pedecaris: He certainly would! He is a man of grit and strong moral fiber. He does not kidnap women and children! Raisuli: What kind of rifle does he use? Pedecaris: A Winchester! Raisuli: Winchester. Winchester. I have no knowledge of this rifle. Pedecaris: You will. <br /><br />Teddy Roosevelt (Brian Keith): The American Grizzly Bear is a symbol of the American character: strength, intelligence, ferocity. A little blind and reckless at times, but courageous beyond all doubt. Oh, and one other trait goes with all previous. Newspaper reporter: And that, Mr. President? Teddy Roosevelt: Loneliness. The bear lives out his life alone. Indomitable. Unconquered. But always alone. He has no real allies, only enemies--but none of them are as great as he. Newspaper reporter: You feel this might be an American trait? Teddy Roosevelt: Certainly. The world would never love us. It may respect us. It may even grow to fear us. But it'll never love us. For we have too much audacity. And we're a bit blind and reckless at times, too.
|
positive
|
I haven't for a long time seen such a horrible film. I hoped that at least Adam Sandler could be funny... hopeless. Seems, like some teenager have written it's script and he's daddy pushed this so far, that someone agreed to shoot it. (Movie)World could be better place without this, whatever it is.
|
negative
|
The Three Stooges are arguably the greatest comedy team in film history. For that reason alone, they deserved a much better ending at Columbia than they received with this short.<br /><br />"Sappy Bullfighters" is just not good. Granted, this is not all Joe Besser's fault. I personally feel that some of his shorts are fun enough, simply because of the departure from the Stooges usual fanfare that they contain, and for the fact that Larry is sometimes showcased more. However, this short just will not do. And the fact that one knows that it is their last short that was ever shown, well that just adds to the overall disgust.<br /><br />This film just epitomizes how short subjects were on their last dying breaths during this time and how little effort went into making them. This short is so sloppy. It is a simple re-make of a Curly short, "What's the Matador?", filmed years before. As if this fact wasn't bad enough, the studio actually threw in footage of Moe and Larry from the original (which was filmed nearly 20 years prior). Are these things not obvious? Laughable or sad? You be the judge.<br /><br />Another part of this short that makes it miserable is the fact that it is basically a Joe Besser showcase, with him showing that all he is (at least in this film) is a Curly-wanna-be-gone-completely-wrong! Moe and Larry have little to do in this short. As a Larry fan, I also must say that I feel it a bit disgraceful to have Besser get to use the joke that Larry originally popularized in the short "Ants In The Pantry". To see Besser say "I can't see, I can't see!" and have Larry say the simple "Why can't you see?", while Besser gets to quip "I got my eyes closed", is just wrong on all levels.<br /><br />The two brave soldiers who stuck it out for all those years, Howard and Fine, have so little to do in this short. There are hardly any funny bits with them. The only thing that qualifies is Larry hiding under the bed of a jealous husband, attempting to be "Pepe", his dog.<br /><br />One can't blame the dynamic duo. Larry and Moe give it their all. No matter how ridiculous things could get (and I'm sure they had their opinions by this point in their careers) Howard and Fine never gave anything less than their best. Their efforts do not pale from 1934-1959.<br /><br />I often enjoy many shorts that some will dismiss as horrible. I'm all for their more "experimental", unusual shorts. At least those contain new ideas. However, this short, I think everyone can agree, is just not good.<br /><br />Thank goodness TV later discovered the boys after the shorts department closed. Had they been forced to go out in THIS fashion, well that would have been a gross injustice to all the years they invested in making audiences laugh.
|
negative
|
...for one of the worst Swedish movies ever...forgive me for being dull.<br /><br />First of all i haven't seen the first one (i was bored that's my reason for watching the 2nd before the 1st one), well i hope the first one is better than this, it was filled with weird cut scenes and very strange plot changes, For the people that have seen this and think 4/10 is high (belive me so do i), but it made me laugh a few times, because it was so bizarre so bad and i still laugh thinking of the punk that came up with this idea, what's next "Det sjunde inseglet II". Sequels not based on novel or book doesn't turning out great to often, and this is a perfect example of one.<br /><br />OK i'm gonna be honest with you: i did laugh a bit, it got a few decent jokes in it and slapstick humor. But don't buy it, rent it. Just let some other idiot do it or download it.<br /><br />4/10 This movie will be remembered and the director is probably laughed out already...
|
negative
|
I just finished watching this (last weekend) and found it absolutely hillarious, some of the scenes I just couldn't stop laughing at! Dennis is soooo amazingly thick sometimes, and just says the stoopidest things...but at the same time he's just being cool to impress his girlfriend (who gets arrested anyway!) The beach scenery is very tranquil...until along comes Robbie Coltrane...! Not the greatest movie ever made but certainly something to think about renting on a Saturday night when you haven't got much else to do (like I did). You might need to hunt around for it though - I was lucky, as my local video store stocks it.
|
positive
|
Man oh man, this was a piece of dog sh#t. I read a few reviews on here after seeing the case in the local video store, and thought to myself........ Ah this seems like a half decent movie.Vampires.Swords. Thailand.How can you go wrong? Right? No,no,no way f*cking wrong. Jesus, if only I could gouge out my eyes and not remember this film, I would be happy. The lead actor had THE whiniest, gayest voice ever.Man!It really was bad...."Amandaaaaaaaa....","I gotta save my girlfriend...." F*ck off! My buddy and I actually changed the Audio Track on the DVD to Portugese just so we didn't have to hear the guy's voice. Subtitles and all...and this IMPROVED the film. I'm serious, if your anything like me and wondered what this film was like..STOP WONDERING. I have the answer. WORST VAMPIRE MOVIE EVER! No good action, no good gore and only the smallest smattering of nudity. Just pure sh*t for 90 Mins. Don't rent this,buy it,think about it,or watch it at 3:00am. It just doesn't cut the cake......at all....in any way. F*ck this movie and watch All Anal 7: Real Deep Cover. You'd have a better time. I'm sure.
|
negative
|
I recently decided to revisit The Omen trilogy only to discover that {insert demonic music here} there is a fourth. I didn't expect much from it, and in that respect it certainly lived up to my expectations. If you're into watching bad movies for a laugh, then this just may be the movie for you. Oh, where do we start?<br /><br />From the onset, the "made for TV" look and feel of the movie was obvious. The music was often inappropriately matched with what was happening in the movie and therefore (at best) distracting. The script had all the suspense of an 8 year-olds work of fiction. But one thing that must be said is that the lacking script was very well matched up with the appalling acting. Numerous scenes left me contemplating whether it was the script or the acting that was the source of ridiculousness.<br /><br />The story itself is quite thin, centering on all the crazy antics of the daughter of Damien Thorn, adopted out by wrong-doing and badly acted nuns. There is the usual lot of mysterious and convoluted deaths that personally made me yawn as the "drama" unfolded, and the usual third-party investigator into the whole affair. Later, via some medical phenomena, Damien Thorn Jnr is born. And that pretty much wraps up the plot. The whole thing is executed rather badly right from the beginning with the lack of suspense making the movie one monotonous and/or ridiculous scene after another. <br /><br />There were many WTF?!? moments too that provides the unintended comedy relief. For example, what's with the major over-reaction at the beginning of the movie when the baby scratches the mother's cheek?? Hardly a 360-degree-head-turning omen. I also laughed at the over-reaction at the baptism. The baby cries, and everyone looks very concerned. The distressed mother runs out of the church and the priest is left looking very alarmed while crossing himself. Huh? Then there is the new-age nanny that seems to have carte blanche on exposing an 8 year-old to all kind of alternative spiritualism. I laughed when the nanny suggested bringing the troubled Delia to a psychic fair to meet the nanny's hippie friends and the mother just shrugs her shoulders and allows it. "Yeah that's groovy, fill my troubled 8 year old daughter's head with all this mysticism stuff. That's cool. I don't need to be there." Of course this would be expected from a mother who allows her daughter to adopt a fully grown Rottweiler they encounter on the street that could bite the little girls head off as a snack. The entire scene at the psychic fair is quite comical in a slapstick kinda way, from the horrified reactionary stares of the psychics to Delia, to the ensuing inferno.<br /><br />I also laughed at how the nun's death is considered a "freak accident". Here we have a religious zealot, (who is described as being part of a cult), who is fanatically preaching in a pit full of rattlesnakes to prove how God's Glory will protect them. She antagonizes the snakes by handling them and SOMEHOW she is bitten several times. Hardly a freak accident. More like a successful suicide attempt. <br /><br />The snakes-vs-nun scene wasn't the only comical death. There is the slow-speed car accident resulting in decapitation in a school parking lot. Then there is the slow-motion demolition ball headed straight for the detective. I believe I may have gone and made a coffee when the slow-motion started only to come back to see the demolition ball still headed straight for the "concerned" detective. Then there is the quintessential who-shot-who cliché death, where a gun goes off and both act as if they have been shot for several seconds while exchanging horrified glances. Then someone goes tumbling down the stairs revealing who the real victim was. Additionally, the death of the priest at the beginning of the movie seemed a little strange and pointless to me. He runs around looking at the architecture of the church. Obviously finding this quite distressing, he eventually collapses, clutching his chest and dies. Apparently something demonic was happening, as this is what the music was suggesting. Ummm. OK. <br /><br />I am surprised that others have reviewed this film favorably and, in particularly, as a "worthy sequel". It is difficult not to notice the non-sensical script, the unrealistic acting, and the inappropriate musical score. The movie lacks any suspense, relying heavily on Delia's "demonic stare" to provide a sense of horror, which becomes rather annoying after a short time. <br /><br />Bottom line : This is a bad movie with the only redeeming feature being it's unintended potential for being a comedy.
|
negative
|
Sjöströms masterpiece and a movie that captures the swedish soul . It also served as a great inspiration for Bergman; the similarites between Körkarlen and Smultronstället (with Sjöström in the leading role as Isak Borg) from 1957 is not a coincidence. Don't miss it for the world!
|
positive
|
I love this show and my 11 year-old daughter and I LOVE watching it together. It teaches good old fashioned values in a fun, adventuresome and entertaining way (albeit with a somewhat predictable story most of the time). It's also really fun to make fun of...you know, rewind and insert your own dialog, in place of the actors'.<br /><br />I have my DVR set to record all the episodes and I happened to catch the tail end of an episode (just prior to the next one starting...so I don't know what episode it was) but there was an absolutely TERRIBLE sequencing mistake! Adam had handed Sheriff Coffee a small swatch of "leather", which was torn from some outlaw's coat as he tried to make his getaway, I suppose.<br /><br />Well, Roy happened to have the coat, so he laid it out on his desk and placed the swatch right where it had been torn from. The swatch was EXACTLY rectangular...which I reckon would be nearly impossible to tear from a piece of leather (post-1950's Naugahyde? Yes. Leather? I don't think so). Well, the swatch lined up perfectly and the mystery was solved.<br /><br />Not 10 seconds later in the scene, we see the coat again, still lying on Roy's desk. But this time the swatch is more like the shape of North Carolina and is now in a COMPLETELY different place on the coat (but still perfectly aligned with the hole in the coat) and the seam (which WAS smack-dab in the middle of the swatch) is now gone...as is the seam in the coat. My daughter enjoyed a good laugh as we played the short scene over and over and over again! It's prime for youtube, I tell ya!<br /><br />We still totally LOVE the show though and the sequencing errors make it lots of fun!
|
positive
|
The biggest problem with "In Search of Historic Jesus" is that there is very little search to it at all. Shick-Sunn produced these "documentary" films in the 1970s and just into the '80s, which featured interviews with "experts" and discussion of "science" and "facts" to make a case for whatever the title of the film was looking to cash in on.<br /><br />Sadly, "Historic Jesus" is really little more than a third-rate dramatization of the life of Christ. Unlike Shick-Sunn's more superior "In Search of Noah's Ark" which spends the majority of its running time discussing the possibility that the ark is resting on the earth today and where that might be, this film is basically the story of Jesus with no effort made to prove or disprove his existence. The famed Shroud of Turrin is mentioned, but little other detective work is given much screen time.<br /><br />For fans of these quasi-documentary films like "Jupiter Menace" and "In Search of Bigfoot", etc., this movie doesn't offer much.
|
negative
|
I had to suffer through this movie three times while I was a zombie extra in the director's new movie After Sundown. The first time that I saw this movie the director was standing next to me and a clearly fake and cheesy looking hand popped out of nowhere and grabbed one of the characters. I could not take it any more I busted out laughing right in front of the guy. The movie has no direction whatsoever and the one thing that could make this movie decent (Female Nudity) was nowhere to be found. I am a fan of low budget horror movies, but this was just too much for me. The worst part was that I had to watch it so many times. Also do not expect the new movie to be any better.
|
negative
|
"The Egyptian" is set during the reign of one of the most fascinating figures of the ancient world, the Pharaoh Akhnaton, who, thirteen centuries before Christ attempted to introduce a monotheistic religion, Atenism, to ancient Egypt. The main character, however, is not Akhnaton but rather the fictitious Sinuhe. As a baby, Sinuhe is found mysteriously floating in a basket on the river Nile and adopted by the physician Senmut and his wife. When he grows to manhood, he follows his adopted father into the medical profession, initially working (as his father did) among the poor of the city, but he comes to prominence after he and his friend, the ambitious young soldier Horemheb, save the Pharaoh's life while on a hunting expedition in the desert. Sinuhe is appointed Court physician, but becomes obsessed with the Babylonian courtesan Nefer. Sinuhe not only ruins himself in a vain attempt to win her love, but is also disgraced when his neglect of his duties means that he is unable to save the life of Akhnaton's daughter.<br /><br />Sinuhe flees into exile, where he achieves success as a healer in neighbouring countries, but returns to Egypt when he learns of a Hittite plot to invade. Although Akhnaton readily forgives him for his previous offences, Sinuhe finds the country in turmoil. The Pharaoh's attempts to introduce a new religion have led to civil strife between his followers and those of the priests of the old polytheistic faith, and he is too pacific by nature to take any steps to confront the Hittite threat. Sinuhe becomes embroiled in a plot by Horemheb, now the general of the Egyptian army, and Akhnaton's sister Princess Baketamon to overthrow the Pharaoh and replace him with a more effective monarch.<br /><br />The film's weaknesses arise mostly from its two romantic subplots. In the course of the film, Sinuhe is revealed as the long-lost son of the previous Pharaoh and half-brother to Akhnaton and Baketamon. It might therefore surprise a modern audience that she should fall in love with him; marriage between brothers and sisters were not necessarily considered as incestuous by the standards of Egyptian royalty, but the standards of 1950s cinema audiences were generally less liberal on this point. In any case, the Horemheb-Baketamon-Sinuhe love triangle is an unnecessary complication and detracts from Baketamon's role in the film, that of the voice of cold-eyed, cynical Realpolitik.<br /><br />The Nefer subplot, which takes up most of the first hour of the film, is overwritten and excessively melodramatic. Nefer is morally worthless but fascinating, and the role needed an actress of great beauty and also great dramatic skill to make her credible, especially as Nefer achieves the difficult task of winning Sinuhe away from a woman as lovely as Jean Simmons (who plays Merit, Sinuhe's rival for her affections). It is therefore unfortunate that the role went to an actress as comically inept as Bella Darvi, whose only qualification was that she was the mistress of the producer, Darryl F. Zanuck. Darvi was not only a wooden actress, but also spoke with a thick foreign accent, made even more incomprehensible by a lisp. She was not even particularly attractive by comparison with the two legendary Hollywood beauties in the film, Simmons and Gene Tierney who plays Baketamon.<br /><br />The film is better when it concentrates on its main political and religious themes. The other actors are better than Darvi, although Peter Ustinov as Sinuhe's servant Kaptah makes the same mistake as in "Spartacus", that of trying to bring comic relief into a film that does not need it. His voice, anyway, was far too patrician for a "comic servant" role.<br /><br />Edmund Purdom, a little-known British actor, was thrust into the main role when Marlon Brando pulled out at the last minute, but more than adequately fills the great man's shoes, even though his style of acting was quite different. He copes well with the challenge of showing the changes in Sinuhe's character, from unworldly idealist, to lovesick fool, to embittered cynic to the enlightened visionary of the final scenes. Victor Mature was never the most expressive of actors, but he is well-suited to the role of Horemheb, a practical, down-to-earth man of action. He is better here than he was in his other epic from 1954, "Demetrius and the Gladiators". Simmons is luminously beautiful as Merit.<br /><br />Michael Wilding (hitherto best known to me as the second Mr Elizabeth Taylor) plays Akhnaton as a would-be philosopher-king who ends as a sort of holy fool. His inability to make difficult decisions makes him an unsuitable ruler, but he has a prophetic vision of peace and justice which lend him an air of moral greatness far beyond those who hope to replace him on the throne. Although Aten had more in common with the Supreme Being of the Deists than with the Old Testament Jehovah or the Trinitarian Christian God, there is a quite deliberate attempt to draw parallels between Atenism and Christianity. In the film the Atenist symbol is the "ankh", doubtless chosen because of its resemblance to a cross, but in reality it was a common Egyptian hieroglyph for life, not unique to Atenism. Akhnaton's language often has a Biblical ring to it; his comparison of himself to "wind whistling in the desert" recalls John the Baptist's "voice crying in the wilderness" (hence the title of this review). Sinuhe's finding in the river parallels the Old Testament story of Moses.<br /><br />At the end of the film Sinuhe, who has become the inheritor of the spirit of the dead Akhnaton, achieves a moral greatness of his own. The message of the film is that, while we may need practical men of action like Horemheb, we also need visionaries and thinkers who are prepared to ask the question "why?" For all its faults, "The Egyptian" is a film which is idealistic and humane in its approach to both religion and politics. 7/10
|
positive
|
"Japan takes the best from around the world and makes it their own", while that may be true, it applies to all except for one thing, that being,.....Major league baseball....but not to worry, "Mr Baseball" is there to try and change all that. But just who will change whom, is the part of the movie that really makes it rock! Tom Selleck is one of my favorite actors and really shines-on in his comedic roles. The storyline may be true to life, however the subplot is dead-on. The Japanese people are a gentle, respectful people with ways and traditions very different than those of Western Society. All of these elements and obstacles combine to make for one truly enjoyable, funny film. It's definitely worth the watch!
|
positive
|
I am glad to read so many negative comments about the Tritter plot. Everyone I talk to says the same thing. They like House's gruff nature and his intelligence, but really dislike the vindictiveness of this continuing plot. It cuts into the real nature of the hospital story and makes everyone angry at police authority. It needs to have a more caring nature instead of the vindictiveness to everyone at the hospital. Also, there seems to be many questionable legal aspects to what Tritter is actually doing. He alone cannot freeze accounts and have the authority to stop doctors from writing prescriptions for patients. A lot of the vindictiveness he is showing also is hurting the very sick patients at the hospital and the is not a good storyline to portray. I voted the episode awful not because of the story itself, but when you insert the Trittor piece it turns me off and the rest of the plot gets hurt by it, People say they hate to watch the story lines anymore. Please change it. Get Tritter out.
|
negative
|
THE DECOY is one of those independent productions, made by obvious newcomers, but it doesn't have all the usual flaws that sink most such films. It has a definite story, it has adequate acting, the photography is very good, the hero and the bad guy are both formidable men, and the background music isn't overdone. This is a DVD New Release, so people will be looking here to see if it's worthwhile. I don't know where all the 10's come from, as there's no way this film is that good --- even if you're the filmmaker's mother. <br /><br />The last film we saw at a theater was Warner's trashing of J K Rawlings much-loved and excellent book, Order of the Phoenix. In comparing THE DECOY with PHOENIX, consider that PHOENIX (as made by Warners) had no story, certainly no acting was allowed by the director, the photography was dreadful, and the wall-of-sound overbearing musical score was just a mess. I rated Phoenix a "1" because the scale doesn't go any lower. THE DECOY is 4 times better -- in all regards.<br /><br />If you have the opportunity, give THE DECOY a chance. Remember, this isn't "Decoy 3 -- the Shootout" or any such nonsense. It's original. If your expectations aren't overblown by the foolish "10" scores here, you might just enjoy the film on its own terms.
|
negative
|
In my opinion, the ending is what completely ruined the whole thing. The initial idea of having someone suddenly realize they were the son of god and the second coming was somewhat clever. People started to believe him and his friends became the new disciples. People went nutty, demons were possessing people, all kinds of fun. Of course then it all went wrong. It was bad enough that they had to take on the impossible task of looking through a vast amount of writings to find the "third testament" in five days, but then at the end it became this ridiculous humanist fantasy. I won't spoil it, but I'll just say it comes off as if it were written by a teenager with a very limited knowledge of theology. I hear they are making an American feature version of this story, I just hope they change the eye rolling ending.
|
negative
|
Largely dense road movie with some comic relief provided by the excellent John Cleese (although he is really sending up his performance in Fawlty Towers). Seems to flip from over the top slapstick to slushy sentimentality at the drop of a hat, and the worst part of the film is that Martin and Hawn have to "find themselves", who they are, etc. See it at your peril.
|
negative
|
This really is the most dreadful film I have ever seen. I simply have no idea how anyone has the audacity to put this on release.<br /><br />The production standards are atrocious. There is no pretence here at cinematography. The camera work, scripting, acting and sound are unbelievably crass. I think there is a plot, but it could have been done in 10 minutes sparing us the time to watch it. The hysterical neurotic girls at the centre of this piece have no credibility whatsoever.<br /><br />I would urge anyone to avoid spending any time or money on this Title. It is truly atrocious.<br /><br />JDD - 14 December 2008
|
negative
|
I had high expectations following "My Beautiful Laundrette", "Bend it like Beckham" and (less so) "East is East". The histories of British Asians fitting into their adopted home has had many good runs on the big screen, as well as a number of excellent TV and radio series (Goodness gracious me, etc). This one falls flat. Inspite of a good start it rapidly went down hill.<br /><br />Ultimately this was a horribly typical BBC effort, complete with strong regional accents, whacky over-acting characters, a "those were the days" soundtrack, and lots of "issues" in an attempt to be worthy.<br /><br />I found myself cringing at many points during this film. The writing is predictable. Every possible cliche was dragged out and aired. In fact, I have trouble thinking of any cross-cultural/cross-generational devices that could have been used that weren't. The characters were thin and cliched: the eccentric non-conformist minister; the well meaning but ultimately racist old woman; the over weight, overbearing aunt; the pushy Indian parents; the working class neighbour; the 'wise' profound grandmother; the motorbike riding thug. The script was weak, with every chance to shock the audience with overt racist dialogue from the two dimentional racist white characters taken. And why it had to be set in the 70's (apart from needing an excuse for a 70's soundtrack) is a mystery. Possibly it make unbelievable characters slightly more believable to people born after 1979. I don't know.<br /><br />Even these things aside, good acting could have carried this into respectable obscurity. Instead, the usual "BBC comedy" suspects were wheeled out to ham it up. "Bend it like Beckham" had far better comic acting (and serious acting, in fact) than this, with a virtually unknown cast.<br /><br />In summary, a lazy cliched script, over acted, in a dull predictable story. Give it a miss.<br /><br />
|
negative
|
Don't ask me why I love this movie so much...Maybe it came at a time in my life I desperately wanted to fit in, maybe it is the amazing monster effects, maybe because I enjoyed the novel "Cabal", but It's probably because I LOVE Clive Barker. I think it's fair to warn you the movie and the novel have no true resolve and like me you'll probably have a WTF moment at the end. At least two sequels were planned but never came about due to the fact the movie flopped for a few reasons. The studio made drastic cuts to the film cutting a good 30 or so minutes out of it and they did a HORRIBLE job promoting it. The adverts made it look like just another cheap slasher showing mainly the "Button face/Mask" Decker character. This is a movie about the monsters! About fantasy! About a place called Midian! It's a story where the monsters are the good guys. There is truly nothing else out there like it! It's not a movie for everybody I suppose but it stands as one of Clive's many great works. Sit back and be prepared to be taken to Midian - where the monsters are.
|
positive
|
I am writing this with 10 minutes left before the film finishes. I feel comfortable writing it now, because unfortunately I know exactly how this film is going to end.<br /><br />The premise is simple enough, rabid dog on the loose in a small town, kills people. Great - simple plot for a good fun camp 80s horror.<br /><br />Uhh ..no.<br /><br />The main problem is this is based on a book (Stephen King) and you can tell that is should not have really been adapted to film, at least not with the same plot. Why? Cuz its boring! The first 45 minutes tries to build depth to its main characters and create suspense. It however lasts too long (half the film!) - the characters are unlikeable and we never care for them anyway, and it just about creates zero suspense. The easiest film (according to plot and time) to compare this to it the classic Jaws. Everything that Jaws does right, Cujo does wrong. Jaws created good characters and a genuine feeling of dread. Cujo does neither. Jaws effectively creates a scary, creepy villain in its shark. Cujo has a dirty St Bernard running about growling and jumping, and not a lot else. Jaws is exciting and unpredictable. Cujo is a tireless bore that remains predictable right to the end.<br /><br />Also confusing is the plethora of subplots that just act as boring red herrings to the films main plot.<br /><br />If this film was rewritten for the big screen and had a better director this could have been good. But it wasn't. It was a waste of 90 minutes of my life.<br /><br />People on here are saying this is one of the best King adaptations - Im sorry you could not be more wrong. The Mist is a hundred times better, Thinner is 10 times better and even the one with the cats is twice as good! This in my opinion is one of the worst! The only good thing was the action scenes with the dog looked real, even though they were dull.<br /><br />Films ended now, and it didn't get any better. Avoid.
|
negative
|
I consider myself to have a decent sense of humor, but this "movie" left me stunned in my chair.<br /><br />It's so bad that it could just not have been any worse. Not once did I laugh at the sadly attempted jokes in this movie. I have watched and enjoyed several parodies of big movies, but unfortunately this one will allways be the one I remember best - in my nightmares.<br /><br />The only reason anyone should want to watch this, is if they want to enter a coma for a brief period of time.<br /><br />This is the worst movie ever.
|
negative
|
The British 'heritage film' industry is out of control. There's nothing wrong with filming classic novels, but why must they all be filmed by talentless nobodies? This film rips the guts out of Orwell's tough novel, turning it into a harmless, fluffy romantic comedy. 'Aspidistra' may not be Orwell's best work, but no-one who reads it can forget its superb depiction of poverty. Orwell emphasises not only the cold and the hunger, but the humiliation of being poor. In the novel, London is a bleak, grey, cold, heartless city, and Comstock prays for it to be blasted away by a squadron of bombers. But this film irons out anything that might be in any way disturbing, and creates instead a jolly nostalgic trip to charming 1930s London, in which everything is lit with shafts of golden sunlight, and even the slums of Lambeth are picturesque and filled with freshly scrubbed urchins and happy prostitutes. Comstock's poems about the sharp wind sweeping across the rubbish-strewn streets seem completely out of place in this chocolate-box world. Worst of all is the script's relentless bonhomie, ancient jokes, and clunking dialogue. It's so frustrating because Richard E. Grant is the perfect person to play Gordon Comstock, and the film is packed with great actors. But it's all for nothing. This film made me so angry! Britain's literary history is something to be proud of for its richness, complexity and power. And what do we do with it? We employ bland nobodies to turn it into soft-centred, anodyne pap for people who want to feel that they are 'getting some culture' while they drink their Horlicks and quietly doze off.
|
negative
|
This is beyond a shadow of a doubt the absolute worst movie I have ever seen. It's been a long time since I've seen it, but the jokes are NOT funny, the plot is painfully forseeable, calling the main characters stupid is to vastly upgrade their intelligence...uggh! I just wanted to punch Tom Arnold and make him cry because he wasted two hours of my life when I was done watching this piece of cinematic filth. I don't even know why I ever wanted to watch it, but remember if you see this movie: DON'T SAY I DIDN'T WARN YOU.<br /><br />PS Tom Arnold's character sings a song in this movie called "I'm My Own Grandfather." Nuff said.
|
negative
|
Years ago many big studios promoted serial films that were shown in movie theaters's in between the actual features along with a Newsreel of current events, plus cartoons, especially on a Saturday afternoon. (The parents loved it mostly) "The Return of Chandu" was a 12 episode serial where Chandu,(Bela Lugosi),"The Mysterious Mr. Wong",'34 is a magician with super natural powers and travels to the island of Lemuria to rescue the kidnapped princess of Egypt,(Nadji)Maria Alba,"Dr. Terror's House of Horrors",'43. Princess Nadji is held captive by the black magic cult of Ubasti, who believe that she is a reincarnation of their long-dead goddess Ossana. These 12-episode serials take you way back in time and are very well produced, considering we are talking about 1934 !
|
positive
|
I'm 14, so you probably would think I have never heard of George Burns or Walter Matthau or anyone like that. Boy are you wrong. I had heard that George Burns was in this movie and that he won an Academy Award for it. I have been a fan of George Burns since I was ten. I saw the movie Oh, God recently and loved it. This one was also very awesome. George Burns did a great job. So did Walter Matthau(this is the first time I've ever seen him perform). And even though they had really small roles, Phyllis Diller and Steve Allen did a good job. That special they were filming would have been awesome if it was really done. Let me say this, if you are a fan of George Burns or Walter Matthau, you should see this movie right away!
|
positive
|
Nightbreed is not only great, it is also unique, even taking into account other Barker's movies, which never lack originality. An amazing adaptation of a very interesting idea for a book. For the horror genre, it has quite a few of subtle symbolics and references. Certainly a lot of fun to have, a a bit to think about, if one cares to. And, not to forget, a nice music score. Well, the special effects, as usual, get old faster than anything, but that is probably the only drawback. I've just seen it again after ten years, and I still find it something to recommend.
|
positive
|
This movie is one of the worse movies of all time. I'm kind of upset this movie isn't on the bottom 100; it deserves a spot at least number 60 or 70 on that list. This isn't just a film I think is bad in a campy-fun sort of MST3K way; it's just bad. This is one of the few films that I really, really HATE. Freddy Got Fingered is in the same category of bad.<br /><br />So the story in this one goes that the daughter (Gugino) goes to California to go to school and comes back with Crawl (Shore) and he tries to learn to be a farmer. Then the boyfriend tries to set Shore up so that the girl will leave Crawl and go back to him. It ends and what's left of the audience can leave.<br /><br />The main purpose of this movie is for Pauly Shore to mug for the camera and try to be funny; but I'd say about 100% of the time he fails at that. Their horrible inaccurate and out of date view of farms and farming is offensive and there's nothing in this movie worth seeing. If you think of seeing it: don't. The one time I saw the movie it felt like I was watching it for 5 or 6 hours. If you've already seen it; you have my sympathy.
|
negative
|
Fred Carpenter screened Eddie Monroe at Boston College, and judging from the enthusiastic response, he has much to be pleased about. A taught, well done Indy, impressive for it's big budget look and feel. This movie has it all: a tight script that grabs you and doesn't let go right up to it's surprise ending. This viewer didn't see it coming! Excellent performances all around. Craig Morris and Jessica Tsunis were were especially well cast in the leads, delivering strong performances. And kudos to Frank Bongiorno and Alex Corrado for creating two detectives as engaging and interesting to watch as any in film. I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. It confirmed my belief that some of the best work in film will be coming from the independents, and Fred Carpenter looks to be one of the best.
|
positive
|
This movie was made for fans of Dani (and Cradle of Filth). I am not one of them. I think he's just an imitator riding the black metal bandwagon (still, I'm generally not a fan of black metal). But as I was carrying this DVD case to pay for it, I convinced myself, that the less authentic something is the more it tries to be convincing. Thus I assumed I'm in for a roller-coaster ride of rubber gore and do-it-yourself splatter with a sinister background. Now, that is what I do like.<br /><br />I got home and popped it in. My patience lasted 15 minutes. AWFUL camera work and DISGUSTING quality. And that was then (2002), that it looked like it was shot using a Hi8 camcorder. I left it on the shelf. Maybe a nice evening with beer and Bmovies would create a nice setting for this... picture. <br /><br />After a couple of months I got back to it (in mentioned surroundings) and saw half. Then not only the mentioned aspects annoyed me. My disliking evolved. I noticed how funny Dani (1,65m; 5'5" height) looked in his platform shoes ripping a head of a mugger apart. (Yes, ripping. His head apparently had no skull.) I also found that this movie may have no sense. Still, I haven't finished it yet, so I wasn't positive.<br /><br />After a couple more tries I finally managed to finish this flick - a couple of months back... (Yes, it took me 5,5 years.) So - Dani in fact was funny as Satan/Manson/super-evil-man's HELPER and the movie DID NOT make sense. See our bad person employs Dani to do bad things. He delivers. Why? Well I guess he's just very, very bad. As a matter of fact they both are and that is pretty much it.<br /><br />We have a couple of short stories joined by Dani's character. My favourite was about a guy, who STEALS SOMEONE'S LEG, because he wants to use it as his own. Yeah, exactly. <br /><br />The acting's ROCK BOTTOM. The CGI is the worst ever. I mean Stinger beats it (and, boy, is Stinger's CGI baaaaad). The story has no sense. And the quality is... Let's just say it is not satisfying. The only thing that might keep you watching is the unmotivated violence and gore. Blood and guts are made pretty well. Why, you can actually see that the movie originated there and then moved on. (Example - Dani 'The Man' Filth takes a stuffed cat - fake as can be - and guts it... and then eats what fell out. Why? We never know. We do know, however, that this cat must have been on illegal substances, as his heart is almost half his size.)<br /><br />You might think, after my comment that this movie is so bad it's good, but it's just bad. Cradle of Filth fans can add 3 points. I added one for gore.
|
negative
|
I don't need to say much about how good this documentary is--it's truly an amazing piece of true narrative. The story is simple enough: a white senior citizen tourist is murdered by a young black man in Florida, and the boy who is arrested is mistreated and put on trial with only the public defender and his family on his side. It's very enthralling, and the public defender is a joy to watch in all his human ways--you can't help but pull for the triumph of justice, and the ending fulfills more than could be expected of a true story.<br /><br />It's a shame more people haven't seen this documentary, but hopefully you will find a way to watch it. For those interested in race relations in the United States, and the actual workings of law enforcement and the legal process, it's well worth your time and effort to find this documentary. I give it a 10.
|
positive
|
Emily Watson's Natalia is absolutely the most loving and romantic lead character I have ever seen on a screen. She is the queen of this film beyond all doubt. Or, is she transmuted to the king? The internecine weaving of the chess games and the families' struggles for control, power, and victory is stunning. Just as the chess masters in the film do, the director is playing many simultaneous games with our mind at once, but all weave into either major or minor patterns. The period, the costumes, and imagery of early 20th century Italy's lake district is captured magnificently. Not a single square of space is wasted.<br /><br />So many brilliant scenes abound, I cannot recount them all. I recommend budgeting enough time to watch this movie twice, possibly a week apart, because you can't possibly capture all the poetry within a 64-square yet multi-dimensional framework in one setting. <br /><br />I did not read Nabakov's book, but to try an analogy of my own, what I am reading reminds of me of another romantically triumphant poetry-as-game movie, Barry Levinson's The Natural. It totally jettisoned the downbeat ending of Bernard Malamud's fatalistic book in favor of a romantic impressionism that was uniquely American. Well, the director did that one better by seamlessly meshing Russian and Italian morals and mores as a backdrop to enlightenment. The true story here is that games are zero-sum; there is a winner and a loser, unless both contestants draw. But, in life, and especially in the context of our immortal souls, we are only limited by those constraints and life's conventions to the extent we let others break our spirit. <br /><br />Pure love, as personified by Emily Watson's Natalia, can transcend and allow all of us to be enhanced by its gifts simultaneously. Only the barriers erected by our fears can cut us off from it.<br /><br />This is a magnificent movie (10/10).
|
positive
|
Safer indeed. Hitchcock is cinema's all time pervert; however, we all know his perversions are ours as well, so we forgive him. And we not only forgive him but we applaud his clever way to invite us for an unforgettable train ride.<br /><br />I saw Hitch's 1953, I Confess, a week before this one, and I put both in the same category as part of his trademarks. These trademarks resided in his genius questioning and pulsing his artistic veins that spills psychological drops of blood on the viewer without leaving stains of guilt, instead very subtle awareness of feeling ashame.<br /><br />The pen is always mightier than the sword and Hitch firmly wrote the most arguable questions with his wrist, and then holding firmly with his hands, he held cameras that always reflected peoples thirst for blood (most humans have), otherwise comedy wouldn't be mostly a tragic thing, and making people laugh wouldn't be so complex.<br /><br />Mixing all dark elements of "high society", with a wealthy psychopath Bruno, and an ambitious tennis player wanna be politician, Guy, the story is one of the most well constructed and guided by Hitch, inspiring many filmmakers, not only with its plot, but with tricky images provoking dark smiles and happy nightmares.<br /><br />Barely perfect!
|
positive
|
"Gespenster" (2005) forms, together with "Yella" (2007), and "Jerichow" (2008), the Gespenster-trilogy of director Christian Petzold, doubtless one of the creme-De-la-creme German movie directors of our time.<br /><br />Roughly, "Gespenster" tells the story of a French woman whose daughter had been kidnapped as a 3 years old child while the mother turned around her head for 1 minute in Berlin - and has never been seen ever. Since then, the mother keeps traveling to Berlin whenever there is a possibility and searches, by aid of time-dilated photography, for girls of the age of approximately the present age of her age. As we hear later in the movie, the mother was already a lot of times convinced that she had found her daughter Marie. However, this time, when she meets Nina, everything comes quite different.<br /><br />The movie does not bring solutions, not even part-solutions, and insofar, it is rather disappointing. We are not getting equipped either in order to decide if the mother is really insane or not, if her actual daughter is still alive or not. Most disappointing is the end. After what we have witnessed in the movie, it is an imposition for the watcher that he is let alone as the auteur leaves Nina alone. The simple walking away symbolizing that nothing has changed, can be a strong effect of dramaturgy (f.ex. in "Umberto D."), but in "Gespenster", it is displaced.<br /><br />Since critics have been suggesting Freudian motives in this movie, let me give my own attempt: Why is it that similar persons do not know one another, especially not the persons that another similar person knows? This is quite an insane question, agreed, from the standpoint of Aristotelian logic, according to which the notion of the individual holds. The individual is such a person that does not share any of its defining characteristics with anyone else. So, the Aristotelian answer to my question is: They do not know one another because their similarity is by pure change. Everybody who is not insane, believes that. However, what about the case if these similar persons share other similarities which can hardly be by change, e.g. scarfs on their left under ankle or a heart-shaped birthmark under their right shoulder-blade? This is the metaphysical context out of which this movie is made, although I am not sure whether even the director has realized that. Despite our modern, Aristotelian world, the superstition, conserved in the mythologies of people around the globe that similar people also share parts of their individuality, and that individuality, therefore, is not something erratic, but rather diffusional, so that the borders between persons are open, such and similar believes build a strong backbone of irrational-ism despite our otherwise strongly rational thinking - a source of Gespenster of the most interesting kind.
|
positive
|
Anurag Basu who co-directed the flop KUCCH TO HAI made his debut in this film <br /><br />The film was ahead of it's times in a way though it has a story not to different and it came closest to HAWAS which released 1 week before and luckily this was better and did a better business<br /><br />The movie starts off well, Malika's guilt is well shown at the start though the scene with Emraan- Malika is too crude/vulgar<br /><br />The scenes between Emraan and Malika are well handled and the twist in the tale where Ashmith confronts Emraan is brilliant<br /><br />The pace moves fast and the viewer is kept on the edge but the second girlfriend track of Emraan isn't fully convincing<br /><br />Also the cop track seems half baked<br /><br />The finale is too filmy too<br /><br />Direction by Anurag Basu is good Music is a winner, all songs were fab Camera-work was stunning<br /><br />Emraan played his naughty streak very well, this was the role that gave him stardom and though he kept playing such roles and got annoying in this film he was superb Ashmith too was good in his role for once, He did a nice job and one of his only good performance and he looked good too Malika was brilliant in her role esp in the second half but her dial delivery was at times not up to the mark Sadly rarely she showed such potential in other films Raj Jhutsi is okay
|
negative
|
this is the worst movie in the world. the only reason i gave it a 2 was because the first 10 minutes were hysterically funny in a "is this for real??" sort of way. it was so cheesy and low budget...they should not have even bothered. there was nudity and violence for the pure sake of having nudity and violence, and the effects were just so so bad you would not believe it (think ketchup as blood, and cabbages for severed heads). do not rent this!!
|
negative
|
I'm a 55-year-old fairly jaded gay white man. Since I don't watch TV, I watch at least 250 films a year, most on DVD. I keep notes on all the films I see and rate them. Since December 2003, I have seen only five films as great as EIGHTEEN. So, I've rated EIGHTEEN better than at least 700 other recent films. Mr. Bell is far too modest in his film commentary. EIGHTEEN is a Great Film. And, it also resulted in two "firsts" for me.<br /><br />I watched the film, the first time, and I was riveted throughout and weepy during the last half hour, something that's only happened to me three times before. (Five minutes into the film I knew it was going to be very good.) When Jason began reciting Whitman, I lost it, and then... The Kiss. Well, that is one of Film's great kisses, and that scene among Filmdom's most poignant and unforgettable. When Pip blows out the candle at the end and the credits rolled, I clapped. I cheered. I love happy endings. I wept.<br /><br />Then I watched the trailer and the TLA previews and thought, "Okay, is this $800,000 or so Indie really that Great?" So, I immediately watched EIGHTEEN again, something that's only happened three times before. And, EIGHTEEN blew my socks off yet again, even more so. Then I watched "The Making of EIGHTEEN" documentary and was completely charmed by the cast and Mr. Bell.<br /><br />So, I thought I'd watch EIGHTEEN again with the Director's Commentary. I have never before watched a film three times in one night. After the third time, at 3:00 AM, I knew I had just experienced a Great Film; EIGHTEEN now ranks #10 on my Top Twenty Films of all time. And, in the very small universe of great gay or gay-subtext film, there is Brokeback Mountain, EIGHTEEN, Mulholland Drive, and Maurice.<br /><br />Thank you Mr. Bell! EIGHTEEN is brilliant and fully-realized, with a magnificent cast, a wonderfully moving, understated score, excellent cinematography, an entertaining, touching, totally appropriate and hummable song. I can go on, but I won't gush too much more.<br /><br />This film should have received Oscar nominations, certainly one for Best Picture. The performances, without exception, were all wonderful. Ms. Gill's lovely, sultry voice was a surprising epiphany. And Sir Ian McKellen? 'Nuf said. Awesome.<br /><br />EIGHTEEN is the reason I slog through over 200 mediocre to utterly horrendous films (some in the $150 million plus range) a year, to find that one treasure, that one exquisite, magical, unique and enchanting, perfect "Faberge egg" enfolding an unforgettable heart.<br /><br />Finally (I promise), my second "first" -- I've never before posted a commentary on any film I've seen.<br /><br />Thank you again, Mr. Richard Bell! Breathtaking genius. Give this man $100 million for his next film! He made $700,000 US into one of the top 50 films of all time. If I had the cash, I'd grant him $75,000 a year living expenses and match any funds raised for his next film. Mr. Bell is already a great director at 31-years old. Can you imagine him at 45-years old?<br /><br />Wise and witty, tender and brutal, poised, poignant, understated yet edgy, chilling and thrilling, mesmerizing, haunting, unforgettable: EIGHTEEN, THE MASTERPIECE.
|
positive
|
There are only a handful of movies that were made on such a grand scale and made such a difference in the art of movie making.<br /><br />"Bronenosets Potyomkin" is one of these movies, and it should be on anyone's list looking to learn more about the history of cinema. <br /><br />Grigori Aleksandrov & Sergei M. Eisenstein directed this groundbreaking film that documents the horrors taking place on a Russian battleship. When the sailors finally retaliate against their superiors, the locals embrace the them, and support them. Things get ugly when a group of soldiers are sent to the small town to take care of business. What follows is one of the most imitated scenes in the history of cinema. Anyone who has seen "The Untouchables", and "Bronenosets Potyomkin" knows exactly what I mean.<br /><br />Overall I think this movie raised the bar for film making just as "Intolerance" did a few years earlier. If you do not mind silent films, do yourself a favor, and see "Bronenosets Potyomkin". <br /><br />If you don't like silent films..... watch "Bronenosets Potyomkin" anyway. <br /><br />
|
positive
|
I love this movie. I just saw it for the first time about 10 hours ago and had to rewind it so that my sister could watch it. This movie is so funny. There are two times that I was laughing so hard my sides hurt. I didn't expect to watch a movie so funny; I really only wanted to see it because Laura Fraser is in it. I first saw her in Titus which is an awesome movie as well.<br /><br />Like others reviewers have said, too many people are expecting a deep moving film. You are not going to get it. What you will get is humor, eye candy and the chance to ask yourself exactly what your perfect mate would look like if you could create them. You can also wonder what it would be like to be stuck in the body of the opposite sex.<br /><br />A hilarious sequence involves Justine first seeing herself as a naked man. I was cracking up.<br /><br />I swear, this movie is the most imaginative teen film that I have ever seen and it is now my favorite.<br /><br />Just remember why movies were originally created; as entertainment not philosophy in motion. Remember this and you will have a great time watching Virtual Sexuality.
|
positive
|
as a fan of robocop, i always loved this movie. i seen it when it first came out, and finally i bought it on DVD from Brazil, it was never released in the us on DVD. i like the film, but like everything else in this world, everyone has their opinion, love it or hate it. no matter what a movie does, someone will always say "why didn't they do it another way?" in other words you cant please everyone. if you love robocop, you will love this film. to me, its so unique thats its not cheesy, or silly like a lot of lower budget movies. this film always kept me interested. i can see a few scenes that robocop borrowed from here, but tell me what movies don't do that? a lot of films use other ideas from other movies, and sometimes change them around. fun film!
|
positive
|
Probably because this is Columbia's first film in color, the colors look different specially in the indoor scenes. They seem to be stronger, sharper and the result is a bit unrealistic, but very pleasing. Randolph Scott is the sheriff, a good guy but the real star of the movie is a very young Glenn Ford, who is an outlaw that wants to change. Evelyn Keyes is the woman that starts falling for Ford and Claire Trevor is the Countess that runs the saloon. There is a funny character called Nitro that does not think twice before blowing it. I particularly enjoyed two moments of the film, one when there is a tremendous horse stampede and you see thousands of horses, there was no computer to help at that time, so I presume they must have gathered all those horses, no easy task. Another moment is the final shootout, technically very good. There is also quite a fistfight. Seeing this western made in 1943 with such great action scenes, makes you come to a sad conclusion: They don't make them anymore. Would they be able to in case they wanted? I have my doubts.
|
positive
|
The action in this movie beats Sunny bhai in Gadar. Akshay Kumar possess the superpowers of Leonidus in 300, Neo in Matrix along with Spiderman and Superman. It is hilarious. Except for the typical Akshay Kumar and Anil Kapoor comedy I cannot see anything positive in this film. The story looks like the writer told his 10yr old son to write. The movie is so unreal that Anil Kapoors long range shooting with a shotgun is the least most mistake by the director. Except for the directors Tashan to make this movie there is no other Tashan. I regret wasting my money on this movie and I would not recommend it to anybody. 1/10 is the least I can give on IMDb or I would give it a zero.
|
negative
|
This is so poor it's watchable.<br /><br />The plot deals with a grizzled spaceship crew happening upon a drifting, apparently abandoned Russian craft.<br /><br />In the empty vastness of space, the two craft accidentally collide (!) - and 'Alien'-esque fun ensues as a cyborg from the Russian ship menaces our crew.<br /><br />The spacecraft interiors are clearly a dolled-up factory set (metal walkways, boilers, piping). In this entirely unconvincing setting, 'Kody', 'Snake' and the rest of our hero crew grimace, grunt, run about and continually and repeatedly rack their shotguns without firing them.<br /><br />The continuity gaffes are what define this movie, and they are nothing short of amazing:<br /><br />Stuff appears and disappears. The shotguns are racked. A cigar gets longer by being smoked. The shotguns are racked again, just to make sure. Content of a bottle increases by being drunk from.<br /><br />The film progresses through the usual clichés by way of intense ham acting, poxy camera work and Ed Wood quality props to a showdown climax.
|
negative
|
Video Vault By Shawn K. Inlow<br /><br />My Architect: A Son's Journey 2003 - Nathaniel Kahn Not Rated: 116minutes Vault Rating: 7<br /><br />What a thing to be fatherless. "My Architect: A Son's Journey" follows Philadelphia filmmaker, Nathaniel Kahn, as he desperately seeks answers from his father, the renowned architect, Louis I. Kahn, dead these 30 years.<br /><br />Louis Kahn died in a train station in 1974 and left behind more than one family. The funeral service, when the filmmaker was just a boy, was, shall we say, an unpleasant surprise.<br /><br />We find that Nathaniel only knew his father en passant, from his sporadic visits with his mother, whom, we are told, he loved deeply. This movie is about a boy seeking his father and perhaps himself by visiting his work, as if the magnificent structures hold some secret. <br /><br />To be sure, Louis Kahn was a gifted architect, but "architect" is a cold word. The man was a sculptor on a grand scale who spoke of his craft in airy terms of silence and art.<br /><br />Among his notable works, explored lovingly in the film, are the Salk Institute (1965), The Kimball Art Museum (1972) and the monumental capitol complex in Bangladesh (1983). The portion of the film where Nathaniel first visits Dhaka, Bangladesh, finds the work, but not the man.<br /><br />The film benefits greatly from having much footage of the very public man as he worked in New York City and as a professor at Yale and the University of Pennsylvania. Many of Khan's contemporaries and collaborators also help flesh out the filmmaker's ghost- father.<br /><br />Even so, the viewer seems not to come to a particularly satisfying place. The answers Nathaniel Khan is looking for seem hollow. Not good enough.<br /><br />In scenes where the director meets with his half sisters, both from different mothers, one can feel the tensions of the years, the slights and hurts. One might expect them to burst into anger, but only the camera saves them from hostilities. Each of these children has visibly lost something.<br /><br />It might be pointed out that Khan, who seemed a driven perfectionist, never became rich. Instead, he became noteworthy. It was as if he sacrificed his family for his art. This is a crushingly sad and great thing.<br /><br />April 28, 2005
|
positive
|
LES CONVOYEURS ATTENDENT was the first film I saw in 2000 and I doubt I'll see a better one this year. This beautiful tragicomedy by Belgian filmmaker Benoît Mariage is set in the industrial wastelands of Wallonia. Benoît Poelvoorde plays a father who desperately wants his son to win a car (a Lada!) for him. To do this the son has to break the record opening doors. What the father actually wants his for his son to be someone, because he himself has never made it further as the reporter of local news for a newspaper ironically called L'Espoir (Hope). Of course nothing works out as planned. This film can best be compared to Aki Kaurismäki's DRIFTING CLOUDS, although it is more dramatic and the humour is darker. Just like in that film however the tone is more melancholic than depressing and the ending upbeat, without being unrealistically happy. The humour is absurd, without making the plot unbelievable, and Mariage finds stunning images in the bleak settings that never seem artificial. The best thing about LES CONVOYEURS ATTENDENT is the acting by Poelvoorde. This actor shot to fame with the also brilliant cult-classic C'EST ARRIVÉ PRÈS DE CHEZ VOUS in which he played the charismatic hitman Ben. Since then he only played two small roles in films that were not released in the Netherlands, because, as he said in an interview, he was not convinced of his own acting capabilities and all the roles he was offered were reprises of the Ben character. With his return to a leading role in LCA there should be no doubt anymore about his acting. He's simply brilliant as a man stupid and evil enough to put his family in misery, but smart enough to realize what he's done and be torn by remorse about it. A must see.
|
positive
|
I've watched a few episodes of this show and have found certain elements of it to be rather interesting, considering medical facts that can be learned. But this is totally upstaged and wrecked by the neverending immoral relationships of the show's characters. Everybody seems to have slept with just about everyone, even during office hours, which is ridiculously unrealistic. There doesn't seem to be one solid, lasting marriage or relationship in the entire show - everyone is broken up and on the prowl - hardly a true reflection of all Americans. Indeed, there is a total lack of respect for marriage or monogamy and it's truly fulsome.<br /><br />Then we are presented with endless little moral 'dilemmas' and they're generally solved in such a way that belittles anyone who doesn't agree with the all-knowing degenerate management and staff of the private practice. For instance, in one of the latest episodes we're presented with an exceedingly rare situation of a baby who is born with an uncertain gender and Addison absolutely refuses to perform the surgery because we're supposed to let the baby decide his gender later on. Anyone who disagrees with this is portrayed as immature and stupid.<br /><br />And I think that anyone opposed to abortion would be offended by the way the show treats pro-lifers. Addison made the comment that no man was allowed to have an opinion on the issue and only one black character was given dignity for opposing abortion on moral grounds. The general feeling was that if you opposed abortion, you're a freak - hardly the popular sentiment in the US. Two of the main characters in the show nonchalantly mention that they had abortions when they were younger and had no apologies or regrets, in spite of the fact that research has shown women can undergo intense depression. What's more a young girl comes to the clinic for an abortion and then thanks the staff on the way out and someone talks about it as how they were helping this young person and it was like something to exult in. The script could have been written by Planned Parenthood.<br /><br />All in all, this is a cheap show that lacks much of a future unless it decides to present more real relationships rather than just totally unbelievable soap opera relationships and far-fetched medical situations throughout the whole show.
|
negative
|
Even those of us who like cute animal pictures --- and I abhor them ---would be hard pressed to find any merit in this abysmally bad travesty of a film. Perhaps inspired by "101 Dalmatians" with its smart and loyal dogs, its dumb and devious humans and its absurdly "happy" and predictable ending, the alternate title "101 Turkeys" springs to mind. That would just about cover everyone involved in its unfortunate production. I dismissed it as some inane Hollywood perversion of British customs before learning, to my horror, that it actually is a Canadian film, done in Victoria BC, that phony British theme park of a town, while sucking tax dollars out of Ottawa ON, that equally phony pit of Canadian mediocrity. Let me count the ways it is bad. The dizzy plot? The asinine script? The dismal performances and sophomoric direction? The cloyingly clever animals? The endless clichés and predictable slapstick? On second thought, neither I nor those browsing the IMDb have time for a complete catalogue of its failings. Yet were I to detail its merits, this space would remain blank. Trust me, it is bad; a signal monument in the vast pantheon of truly terrible (Canadian) cinema. If you have seen it already, my condolences. If you have not, stay away from it as you would SARS or bubonic plague. Or other movies with cute animals. Don't even let your children see it lest their tiny minds be warped by the even tinier minds of those who financed, fabricated and filmed this frightful folly. Perhaps tonight, when I retire, I will have a nightmare with ghastly fanged beasts springing from the bed table as I flee in frantic flight. I hope so. It will be a far far better thing I do than watch this beastly banal boondoggle. But then, I might dream that I had to watch it a second time and the sheer terror and cold sweat of that makes me want to stay up all night, trembling at the very possibility of seeing it again even as a bad dream. I might even find something worthwhile to watch in its stead. Maybe "Godzilla" or "Attack Of The Killer Tomatoes" Perhaps the instruction video for my built in vacuum cleaner.
|
negative
|
...would probably be the best word to describe this film (in my opinion). besides one great heck of a fan service for fan girls (well, that was redundant~), it was the story that blew me away. hurray for Takahisa Zeze and Gackt! and i know some people will disagree with me on this one, but it wasn't any of the big three actors (the guys that played Sho, son, and Kei) that gave the best performance (for me, anyway). it was Taro Yamamoto, boy #5 from battle Royale! <br /><br />don't get me wrong, i like Hyde, i worship his voice, but the problem was that some of his scenes came a little bit 'off', but i loved that scene where he danced with the dead guy's body killing the other guys. and Gackt wasn't at all that bad too, i preferred how his character was kind of aloof from the start. nothing much i can say about my background on lee-Hom Wang, i won't pretend to know him, but he carried his own weight with the star-studded cast. <br /><br />this movie paved the way for one of the best collaborations I've ever heard, Orenji No Taiyou (forgive my spelling if it's wrong). while the complete song lasts about nine minutes, you wouldn't notice the length because you'd be enjoying hearing Gackt and Hyde together. <br /><br />anyway, this movie is a must-see not only for the fans (huge fan base~) but for those who enjoy sci-fi, futuristic movies, Asian-style.
|
positive
|
I have not managed to completely block out this film from memory even though it has been two years since I've seen it.<br /><br />Don't get me wrong - I have long forgotten the main story line - the relationship between Kidman and Law, that made no impression on me but it was the torture scenes in the film that really struck me. I cried for about two hours straight after wards. <br /><br />It had never previously occurred to me how people, in war time, could take advantage of something as pure as a mother's love. We see several examples of this here - in both the scenes with Natalie Portman and with the mother with her fingers in the fence for keeping her son hidden at home. I was shocked at these scenes and will probably never watch the film again as a consequence because the scenes even now are perfectly clear in my mind. However, I am glad I watched the film simply because it has made me more aware to the horrors of war and the horrible cruelty that mankind can inflict on it's own. <br /><br />The blonde albino character has been top of my list of most evil bad guy ever since I saw the film. His horrible sneer and lack of any human feeling for the people he tortured really hit a nerve with me. At one point I wanted to get up in the cinema and kill him myself (see the movie pushed me over the edge of reason,it only occurred to me afterward that I'd only be hitting a big screen - that shows the film's power and intensity at least). <br /><br />I recommend the film for it's sheer experience not for the entwined love story but for the manner in which it depicts war without needing a battlefield.
|
positive
|
This is a well-crafted piece from everyone's favorite master of suspense. As usual, the technical elements such as camera work and lighting are outstanding (especially for the film's time). I did not find the first part of the film very exciting, but the latter one certainly made up for it with one thrilling scene after another.<br /><br />The only thing I did not like about this movie was the choice of Farley Granger for the part of Guy Haines. Somehow, I didn't find him very believable. On the other hand, Robert Walker shines as sinister 'bad guy' Bruno Anthony.<br /><br />Overall, I would highly recommend this.
|
positive
|
the movie is far more sophisticated and intelligent is its exploration of sexual tension than such American attempts as 9 and a half weeks...the courtroom scene itself...with the couple copulating in the cage while the heroine pleads for their orgasm...is amazing...I have not seen this movie in 20 years...but it made indelible pictures in my mind...it is rich in texture and successful in creating a world where sex is the engine for all activity, and at its bottom is the yawning angst that lives in us all....the plot is European, and it meanders a bit, but so does life...especially when you are 17 and have a constant hard on....
|
positive
|
********Spoilers--Careful*********<br /><br />What can I say? I'm biased when it comes to Urban Cowboy. I love it and have watched it countless times--and usually find out something new about it with each viewing.<br /><br />I think one of the things I like about it is that Urban Cowboy is about working class people, not rich people who live in either L.A. or New York. Well, it is true except for Pam.<br /><br />Travolta plays Bud, a small town Texas boy who moves to Houston to work in the oil fields. And this is when Travolta actually played in good dramatic movies like Saturday Night Fever instead of playing stereotypical bad guys/good guys in big budget movies. This is a really good movie--the mechanical bull riding contest and two-step dancing may be silly, but you have to enjoy this for what it is.<br /><br />Bud meets Sissy (played by Debra Winger with slutty brilliance)--and soon after, they are married and living in their dream trailer. But their relationship becomes a real life battle of the sexes. Bud wants to be a real cowboy. Sissy wants to be with a real cowboy. But in modern times, men's roles are not as clear. Where can Bud prove he's a real man? He can work his dangerous job by day and ride the mechanical bull by night--he can be a "urban cowboy." But Sissy wants to drive his pick-up truck, and she wants to ride the mechanical bull, too. So where does this leave Bud? As Sissy asserts her independence, she lies about riding the bull and flirts with the ex-con and prison rodeo star--a real bull rider--, Wes (played wonderfully greasy by Scott Glenn). Bud is threatened, and Bud and Sissy break up.<br /><br />Sissy shacks up with Wes, who abuses her. Emasculating himself further, Bud becomes the boy toy of Pam, a rich girl whose Daddy is in oil and all that implies. Sissy comes by the trailer to clean it up--Pam doesn't do that kind of thing. She writes a make up letter to Bud, but evil Pam tears it up and takes the credit for Sissy's housework.<br /><br />Bud's Uncle Bob dies tragically at work when lightening strikes and causes an explosion. Bud and Sissy have a chance at reconciliation, but are too stubborn. Later the mechanical bull riding competition is at Gilley's, and you know Bud is going to win. Pam realizes that Bud doesn't love her, but Sissy--he did it for her. Wes tries to rob Gilleys, but wouldn't you know that urban cowboy, Bud, saves the day and wins back the woman he loves.<br /><br />Of course, you may ask yourself why Bud and Sissy would go to Gilleys about every night and "live like pigs." Maybe that contributed to their bad marriage. Or why didn't Bud stay with Pam--she wasn't that bad and had money. Or why they had to kill off Uncle Bob. Or why Bud and Sissy had such stupid friends like Marshall and Jessie who were always trying to break them up: Marshall says to Bud, "She {Sissy} rides that bull better than you do!" But part of the fun of Urban Cowboy is making fun of it a little bit--and saying, isn't that Bonnie Raitt on the stage!
|
positive
|
I can admit right away that this is one of the worst movies i have seen in my life. And that is not saying a little, because i consider myself to be somewhat of an aficionado when it comes to crappy film. But this is beyond bad. This movie is so awful that there is no fun left in it, it's just bad.<br /><br />Reviewing this is almost impossible. There are no strong points and nothing positive to say. I'll just ramble about a few of the points that sucked. First off, the CGI has to be one of the worst i've seen. I can't believe this movie was made in 2005, the CGI reminds me of something i might have seen in Babylon 5 way back when CGI was new and fresh. It's poor beyond belief. Second, the actors all seem like they belong in the worst kind of daytime soaps. And looking at their resumes i see that i'm correct... Thirdly, being able to breed enormous reptiles is no match to the other technology they invented in this movie: the recoilless pistol with infinite ammo! Seriously, Michael Paré fires 100-200 times without reloading in every other scene... As if that was not enough there are also shape-shifting planes! At first they are regular F-16 fighters, in the next scene they are something else completely, and in the third scene they are F-16 again! If you're buying stock footage, please don't mix it like this! <br /><br />Honestly, there is loads more to say, but i think i'll stop. You all understand what i'm saying. Honestly i didn't think this kind of movie was made any more. It's like something Ed Wood would do. Completely ignorant of quality, not caring how anything looks... It's almost amazing in all it's awfulness. If i could give it 0/10 i would, but 1/10 is the lowest grade. So that's it.
|
negative
|
This film easily rivals the emotional strength, the dramatic impact and the top-notch performances of "12 Angry Men". I rented it on a whim and was amazed that I had not heard of it before.<br /><br />I do not know if this was Emilio Estevez's directorial debut, but the pacing, the interplay and development of the characters as well as some clever camera work surrounding the character Estevez plays all suggest a natural eye.<br /><br />The interplay between Martin and Emilio contains the same wonderful chemistry we saw in Wall Street with Martin and Charlie. Kathy Bates is wonderful in her characters subtle desperation and escapism; a variation on her character in "At Play In The Fields Of The Lord". She is irritating and yet one can empathize with her at the same time.<br /><br />There are some moments where I feel the plot slows a touch and the moments between Estevez and his ex-girlfriend almost seem written for another film, Estevez comes off as another character all together. But those are minor complaints.<br /><br />This film must be based on a true story or must have been written by someone who lived these experiences. I rate it 8 out of a difficult 10.<br /><br />
|
positive
|
Falls into the film category of "Way too ridiculous in the dialogue and execution departments to be taken seriously". Whereas Shriek If You Know What I Did Last Friday the Thirteenth or My Boyfriend's Back know they are bad, Scarecrows doesn't. Evil Dead set such a high standard for the comedic horror on a budget genre, that Scarecrows is simply out of place. <br /><br />Suspicions of inexperience are immediately at play as there are no hints of noise or vibration in the hull and cockpit of an airborne plane. The repeated display of a picture of 3 men just screams for a story arc, but nothing comes. Although the men are obviously the scarecrows, there is no explanation.<br /><br />Knowing this film is too serious for it's own good may produce some grins. I don't recall if Joe Bob Briggs ever previewed Scarecrows, but I believe that he wouldn't stoop this low. However, with an IMDb rating of over 6, there are many people that disagree.
|
negative
|
I guess this is the first time I have seen a Roscoe 'Fatty' Arbuckle movie. I really liked him in his (title) role as a butcher boy. The way he moves is very funny in my opinion, for example how he handles his knife and the way he rolls a cigarette. I think he is a good actor; his facial expressions really suit the role he plays, for example how he winks at the audience in the end. But one might add that that was probably not too difficult. Anyway I think he would have deserved a longer career. As you probably know it was ruined by greedy journalists who made money by printing false accusations that said he was involved in a scandal.<br /><br />The plot is not very important. In the first half, Fatty and Alum are employees at a store and rivals for Almondine's affection. After a heavy food fight, Almondine is sent to a girls' school by her father, the store owner. (This is the beginning of the second half). Both Fatty and Alum enter the school in drag, and the fight for Almondine continues. (Some of the characters' names are different in the version that I have seen. It seems that for some reason they replaced the original title cards with new ones.)<br /><br />There are a lot of corny gags like food fights and pratfalls, but they are done well in my opinion. And there are some gags I really liked, for example how they make the dog run the pepper mill (or is it a coffee mill?), or the scene when Fatty dons a coat although it is obviously not necessary, or when Miss Teachem, the head of the girls' school, spanks Fatty, and he spanks her back.<br /><br />Buster Keaton is also funny in this, his first, movie; a good addition to the cast. In the first half he is a customer at the store, in the second half he supports Alum in his fight for Almondine. I liked his acrobatics, for example when Fatty pushes him from one room of the school to another, he doesn't show a simple pratfall but lands on his hands and his head and does a little pirouette. Watch out for one scene in the food fight: Alum throws a flour bag at him, but it misses and hits the store owner instead. That makes Buster laugh, which must be a rarity since he normally always shows a neutral expression (which - as you probably also know already - got him the nickname 'The Great Stone Face'). (One more note: Al St. John, who plays Alum, was 'Fatty' Arbuckle's nephew, and later became famous for the role of 'Fuzzy' that he played in lots of westerns.)<br /><br />I don't like this one as much as I like, for example, 'One Week' and 'The Balloonatic' (films that Buster made later, without 'Fatty'). And it didn't make me laugh out loud often - but it made me smile a lot, so I have given it eight points.
|
positive
|
I must confess, I was surprised at how good this movie was when I first watched it. I had planned to see it in theaters during the summer but found out unpleasantly that it had already been and gone. Therefore, I expected it to have been removed from theaters because it was bad. Then, today, I rented it and watched it and really enjoyed it. The speed that events were occurring was questionable, it could have been a little longer. I found it was very true to the book, however it left out some crucial parts: Mullet Finger's real name, etc. I felt as if I hadn't read the book I wouldn't have really understand what was going on. The acting was quite good, another thing I had expected to be poor, however the cop, sorry I can't remember the actor's name, could have done a little better. All in all, I found this to be a very entertaining movie and would recommend it to all audiences!
|
positive
|
It's a ghost story. It's a cannibalism story. It's a revenge story. It's a very poorly done film with a lot of violence. I suppose it follows cheaply along the lines of every slasher movie you've ever seen. It has the usual isolated place, the cocky campers, heading off to the wilderness. Granted, there are some pretty intense scenes. It's just so dull. Bad editing and the whole works. There are ghost children who sound like they are talking into a wastebasket. I'm not really sure what rules the ghosts and the psycho with the seed cap are playing by. It also has the gross out scene where a man eats a piece of meat which is actually what's left of his wife. A friend of mine once asked me why it is necessary to show this kind of gratuitous, sick violence. I fear that it's just another step in our desensitized evolution. Three is no cleverness here, no tongue in cheek, only a sad waste of time. Lots of blood; little plot.
|
negative
|
The combination of amazing special effects and oscar worthy acting makes the Vindicator one of the most important sci-fi films of recent years. For some reason still unknown to me this gem was found in a bargain bin, why some worthless human thought it right to dirty a modern classic by relagating to a bargain bin is beyond me. I have never been so terrified by a man in tin foil and random bursts of fire. Forget Terminator, Robocop, Aliens, and other films that blaintly ripped off this masterpiece, the vindicator is an unstoppable force.
|
positive
|
With all the shoot em up, blood horror movies that have come our way in the last little while "Saw, Hostal, Saw 2, The Hills have eyes" Yes, they have their place, don't get me wrong! I went to see "When a stranger calls" with my buddy the other night! Why? Because it's a remake of the 1979 classic, which at the time was excellent and scared the you know what out of everyone! I didn't know what to expect. However I was pleasantly surprised! It was a film made of mood, atmosphere, suspense! Because remember people, what you can't see, what you think you see, what you can't hear, or what you think you hear, is far more scarier then what you do! If you love films with mood, creepiness, suspense and atmosphere!! You'll love it! It brought it back to the roots of the original Halloween. Thumbs up, a solid 8.5 out of 10 Remember folks, it's well done! not perfect! It's spooky, not bloody, It's creepy, not gory! It was nice to see a film come a long like this. Our minds have been conditioned and warped by the glitz and shock value of modern day horror movies, we forget, what's really scary.
|
positive
|
Saw this in the theater in '86 and fell out of my chair laughing more than once. "Beirut"..."What do you know about Beirut?"..."Beirut...he's the best damn baseball that ever lived."<br /><br />You know how it's going to end but it has a great time getting there. The training scenes are very funny but the best scene may be the one when Jack and Reno are attempting to watch the Falcons v. Vikings Monday Night Football game while attempting a make-up dinner with their wives.<br /><br />Williams and Russell seem to have a lot of fun with this one and it's too bad that it's overlooked as a top notch comedy.
|
positive
|
The movie has an excellent screenplay (the situation is credible, the action has pace), first-class direction and acting (especially the 3 leading actors but the others as well -including the mobster, who does not seem to be a professional actor).<br /><br />I wish the movie, the director and the actors success.
|
positive
|
I have watched this movie over and over since it first came out. I was fifteen and even then, I knew it was cheesy. It had such great potential and I constantly rewrite the script in my head. The Capoeira ruined what could have been a good drama. I loved the fact that it was shot on location. Too bad that the characters were underdeveloped. It's like they wrote a first draft of a script then made the movie right away. At fifteen I could have written a better script!Some scenes and dialog seemed to come out of nowhere and you were left with a lot of unanswered questions. And was it just me, or did it seem like Lobo was sexually attracted to his cousin? "Elena's grown into some kind of woman!" And the way he was always touching her. Would have an interesting plot twist, Elena working for her drug dealing cousin who is also a perv. Too bad they missed the mark on this one.
|
negative
|
This movie is an embarrassment to film-making. I can't believe it was even listed as a comedy - not funny. Not only was the script atrocious, but the casting people should be shot. Gail O'Grady is just a great actress, but beyond that... %99 of the rest of the cast...ouch. Pretty much everyone else...wow it is hard to even...wow. Here is the number one rule about comedy "DON'T TRY TO BE FUNNY". There are a lot of very talented actors in Canada who can do drama and comedy - none of them were used in this film. Canadian nepotism and casting directors are helping to perpetuate bad film-making in Canada. I realize this is technically a "US" film, but look at the director, actors, location, etc. I just saw this on Bravo - they should be ashamed that they bought the rights to show this film. Again, there are a lot of great films out there that can't get airtime and they show this crap.
|
negative
|
I was really excited about seeing "Cold Mountain". Alas, like most movies I'm really excited about seeing, it was a letdown! Were it not for that miraculous invention called a DVD, I think I would've put my head through the monitor, I was so bored!<br /><br />I closely watched Kidman and Law when they meet because their characters are supposedly "destined" for each other. Yet Law's face showed anything but dumb-struck love, while Kidman seemed to be counting the seconds until she could run back to her trailer! Zellweger's character is pure Granny Clampett (as if we don't get it, cornball banjos mark her every entrance), and so over the top, it was all I could do not to laugh! Ironically, her performance serves to highlight just how stiff-as-a-board the leads are.<br /><br />Ada nearly starves because she freed her slaves; we never learn why. More perplexing is why didn't any of them stay on as Ada and her father were unusually benevolent, and (as shown in one scene) it was a very dangerous time for Negroes (as they're politely called here). Why didn't the neighbors teach her how to milk a cow or grow a crop? Heck, why didn't she just sell the farm and go home? And for all of Ruby's practicality, when she dispatches Ada's "evil" rooster, that kind of puts the kibosh on them having any more chickens!<br /><br />By the time her beloved finally returns, Ada doesn't need him or anyone else -- which is the big joke! Indeed, she may be physically intimate with Inman, but her real intimacy is with Ruby, who has turned Ada into an Über-Babe version of herself. Did anyone else notice how they walked down the hill holding hands, happy as two peas in a pod, as they left Inman behind?<br /><br />I doubt that Minghella recognized this as he was too busy making an anti-Bush movie. Inman tells us he is "like every fool sent out to fight with a flag and a lie", and Ada's father says "I imagine God is weary of being called down on both sides of an argument". These "observations" are historically inaccurate and insulting. While slavery was the basis of the South's economy, the reasons for the War were more complex. It was incomprehensible for a soldier to think that the cause was "a lie" (in fact, most in the rank-and-file were indifferent to it). For filmmakers to stamp their views onto a period where such views were foreign to those who lived in that time is beyond obnoxious.<br /><br />Structurally, the film is choppy and episodic. Law and Kidman are miscast, and have zero chemistry! The script is little more than half-baked dialog, and an egregious bunch of clichés and banalities. "Small moments like a bag of diamonds?" Ugh!
|
negative
|
This is not a good film by an standards. It is very poorly written and the acting is just a little above par (some performances are well below par, but Swayze and Grey do a very good job with little to work with).<br /><br />What was good:<br /><br />The dance sequences were choreographed very well and, as stated above, Swayze and Grey were high points.<br /><br />What was bad:<br /><br />The script. The "bad" guys were simply too evil to be believable. The best villains are the ones who aren't so obviously evil. These guys (the owner's nephew, the waiter who impregnates the girl) do and say NOTHING that would leave me to believe they could be real people (perhaps there are guys like them, but I sure don't want to see a movie about it).<br /><br />Another scene, the first where Grey and Swayze meet when the employees at the resort are "dancing". Swayze and Grey dance together and seem to enjoy themselves. The next time they meet, Swayze is hostile towards her. Why? What happened in between to make him dislike her so when they danced well together?<br /><br />And some of those lines, I mean COME ON (I cringed at the end when Swayze muttered the line "Nobody puts baby in the corner". How did he EVER do that with a straight face.)<br /><br />Another thing wrong, the setting of the 1960's. Everyone looked and dressed like the 1980's! Who was in charge of the costumes and hairstyles?<br /><br />The music (original music for the film) was laughable (with the exception of "I Had the Time of My Life" which was a good song).<br /><br />Not the worst film I've ever seen, but DEFINITELY the most over-rated
|
negative
|
Zombi 3 has an interesting history in it's making. Firstly, it is a sequel to Fulci's hit Zombi 2, with Zombi 2 itself being of course a marketing ploy to trick people into thinking it was a sequel to George A. Romero's Dawn of the Dead aka Zombi. Confusing enough? Basically, none of the films have anything to do with one another, but who cares when they make money. I guess Fulci himself starting to not care about the production about half way through Zombi 3 when he decided to walk out. Bruno Mattei was brought on board to help pad the film with additional scenes to lengthen the running time.<br /><br />Zombi 3's plot is your typical zombie fare. Scientists develop a serum on an island in the Philippines, terrorists steal it unleashing a plague, and zombie run amok. The scientists want to create an antidote, while the military is set on mowing down everyone without prejudice. There are also brief inserts of a Radio DJ preaching about how we treat the planet. <br /><br />Overall, I actually liked this film. I heard horrible things, but I find the goofy dialogue quite enjoyable. The film seems to be an attempt at raising awareness about pollution, corrupted military, Man playing God, etc. I get the feeling this was at one point a serious film, but it veered off in a weird direction, presumably when Mattei came on board.<br /><br />Besides ripping off other zombie flicks, this was very reminiscent of Romero's The Crazies. You hear the Radio DJ breaking the good news with, "When you see the men in white suits & gas masks, Run to them for Help." This is of course played to the images of the men in white gunning down zombies. Later, they straight up steal a scene from Crazies in which one of the regular, uncontaminated people is killed by mistake.<br /><br />The gore factor is pretty good in this one with zombie hordes around every corner. How is it cool? Let me count the ways
1. Zombie Birth 2. Flying Zombie Head 3. Zombie Birds. 4. Zombie with no legs swimming in a pool. My favorite zombie was the machete-wielding maniac at the gas station. He was bad ass and nearly tore down the entire building trying to kill a girl.<br /><br />Favorite Quote When a sergeant insists on cremating a zombie, the scientists asks, "Don't you think that once the ash is in the air, it will fall to the ground, and contaminate everything?" To which the Sargeant boldly replies, "Now you're talking science fiction." He also continues to mention the "Science Fiction" told by the scientists even at the end when everyone dies.<br /><br />Extras: Gallery, Trailers, and Interviews, most notably the one with Mattei where he insists he directed 40% of the scenes, yet cannot recall which ones or any other significant details.<br /><br />Bottom Line: A must see for zombie and Fulci fans.<br /><br />Rating: 7/10<br /><br />Molly Celaschi www.HorrorYearbook.com MySpace.com/HorrorYearbook
|
positive
|
I expected so much more than what I received from watching this movie. It is not that I object to literary license, (if that is what it should be called) especially when there is no overt attempt to say "based on a true story." But this movie is about Beethoven -- a real historical person who is so widely known and so deeply embedded into our musical experiences and I expected the movie to be true to history at least in the primary elements. This movie took such great exception from the historic record it could only disappoint.<br /><br />My assumption (because I had not researched the movie at all) was that it was true. Half way through, I stopped the movie to look it up on IMDb. The rest of the movie was a remarkably different experience. I was relieved that this was not accurate with history because it was so hard to believe a major portion of the story. To enjoy this movie, I was required to recognize it as a fantasy, a "what if it was like this" story. The movie lacked this honest disclaimer.<br /><br />What disappointed me most was the fictionalized conducting of the 9th symphony. The very concept portrayed in the film stretched my imagination to the point of incredulity. I ended up doubting anything was true to history other than Ludwig van Beethoven and his relationship with Karl van Beethoven.<br /><br />I really enjoyed the performance of Ed Harris - an exceptional actor who knows how to play a role and keep himself out of it and that was about it and for that I give it a 3/10.<br /><br />Those who portend that this movie is as good as or better than Amadeus have not a clue about either either composers life and are looking only for what this movie really is, for in the end it was a cheap novel of a story - pulp fiction.
|
negative
|
A true masterpiece of the Soviet cinematography. It's a shame for the Soviet Union that Samojlova was never given an opportunity to play in the Western movies -- but then again, she would probably never find herself there. In "Letyat Zhuravli", she is unforgettable. This was one of the few movies where I was crying...<br /><br />In addition to Samojlova, Batalov and Merkurjev, who are top rate, it was a brilliant work of the director and the operator which made this movie an all-time classics world-wide. Just remember the scenes of piano music and proposal under the heavy German bombardment, or the death of Boris with a swirling sky above his head and his last visions appeared blurred in those skies. The very simple means -- but the great technique added to the emotional weight... Mind you, 20 years before "The Star Wars", 41 years before "Titanic", and with a Soviet budget.
|
positive
|
Voor een verloren soldaat , for a lost soldier, is a sad example of how not to translate to film a touching, complex psychological study, of that most magical time in a man's life, when he is still a child, but starting to become a man. The novel records the real life experiences of Rudy van Dantzig, as told thru the boy Jeroen, during the waning days of WWII at age 11 as he deals with his incipient sexuality, and his deep fears of abandonment as he has been sent to the province of Friesland, north of Holland by his parents because of the lack of food in Amsterdam and has not heard from them in many months as the postal service has broken down.. The arrival of the liberating soldiers in the film, is presented in a painfully corny way, with the soldiers providing entertainment vaudeville style. Then one soldier, Walt, romances Jeroen and the pair is presented as two frolicking males.who consummate their love in a sexual experience. This taken in stride by the 11 yo Jeroen. The reality was somewhat different: Jeroen describes his encounters with Walt, 6 in all, in detail but in oblique language. But there is no misunderstanding their nature. Walt is aroused to an intense passion by Jeroen, during which he handles him roughly, so that in their final meeting, Jeroen is bruised and suffering a painful wound on the shoulder where Walt has bitten him. During this encounter, Walt rapes Jeroen, twice. Jeroen could have easily avoided Walt after their 2nd encounter, when Walt first assaults him as Walt is clearly anxious to keep his abuse of the boy from the other soldiers. Why Jeroen keeps seeking Walt out is a mystery of the human heart and not explainable, by me anyway. What the film leaves out is the aftermath: the nightmares, the dejection, the frantic search throughout Amsterdam on the chance of finding Walt, for Jeroen loved Walt, and nothing could shake that.
|
negative
|
That's all I can really say about this film. It's DBZ...like Tree of Might and The World's Strongest, it really...doesn't fit into the timeline for the show at all, though it is supposedly placed just before the beginning of the TV series. The action is pretty nice in general. The plot has a nice enough base, with a good background establishing why these guys hate each other and all. Pretty good in general, there... The problem is...there's a lot of really weird stuff. I mean, really weird stuff. Like The World's Strongest, there's a really, really odd song in this one that could only have been created in a drug induced haze...disturbing is the fact that Gohan, while singing, is pretty much drugged out himself. Creepy. The villains are odd and rather comical...moreso than the usual DBZ type--this seems more like it was made as a Dragon Ball movie rather than a Dragon Ball Z movie. In general, its entertaining enough, but...just...strange.
|
negative
|
I jumped for joy to learn this show ended. This show's characters were extremely irritating. None of them had one singing redeeming quality. Damon Wayans is probably the most standable one. Kisha Campbell is... Kisha Campbell. She's just as annoying as she was in Martin.<br /><br />The kids are all very annoying as well. The oldest is an idiot, the oldest girl is a stuck up brat, and the youngest is frustrating to listen to.<br /><br />I guess I did like the intelligent little boy. But that's about it.<br /><br />It did the world a favor by ending.<br /><br />Let's pray that a Wayan never stars in another show... EVER.
|
negative
|
The film gets my stamp of approval. The scene in the museum demands acting without dialogue. This is one of the most interesting and unique scenes in the history of film. Dickinson's character Kate is very well developed and her performance is felt throughout the entire film. The best work Angie Dickinson did since Point Blank!
|
positive
|
This movie set out to be better than the average action movie and in that regard they succeeded.This movie had spectacular cinematography featuring spectacular mountain snow and heights,a very fit Stallone putting in a good performance as well,an exciting plot,and a great performance from it's main villain becouse he will really shock you with his evil ways.The movie does not rank an all time great becouse of the weak screen play.The plot and story cries for this movie to make Stallone an extra special human,much like the Rambo or Rocky or Bond movie characters.They chose to humanise Stallone's character in this one which is ok but considering the plot's style,weakens the excitement factor.Also,the dialogue was cheesy and carelessly condescending at times.The script should have been more realistic and less "talky".Another weak point was the unrealistic shooting scenes.The movie makers should have been more carefull how they hadled the shooting hits and misses.They should have continued the quality of the scenes of the shooting sequences during the plane hijacking early in the movie.Instead,they decided to water down a lot of the shooting sequences (ala "A-Team" TV series) as soon as the villains set foot on the mountain tops.This movie had a lot of all time great potential.Crisper action sequences,better dialogue and more Rambo/Rocky style emotion/determination from Stallone would have taken this movie to a higher level.I know this was not Stallone's fault.I sense the movie's director wanted to tone down Stallone's character and try to steal the movie by taking credit for his direction which was not all that great if not for his cinematographer.Sill a good movie though........
|
positive
|
L'Hypothèse du tableau volé/The Hypothesis of the Stolen Painting (1979) begins in the courtyard of an old, three-story Parisian apartment building. Inside, we meet The Collector, an elderly man who has apparently devoted his life to the study of the six known existing paints of an obscure Impressionist-era painter, Tonnerre. A narrator recites various epigrams about art and painting, and then engages in a dialogue with The Collector, who describes the paintings to us, shows them to us, tells us a little bit about the painter and the scandal that brought him down, and then tells us he's going to show us something....<br /><br />As he walks through a doorway, we enter another world, or worlds, or perhaps to stretch to the limits, other possible worlds. The Collector shows us through his apparently limitless house, including a large yard full of trees with a hill; within these confines are the 6 paintings come to life, or half-way to life as he walks us through various tableaux and describes to us the possible meanings of each painting, of the work as a whole, of a whole secret history behind the paintings, the scandal, the people in the paintings, the novel that may have inspired the paintings. And so on, and so on. Every room, every description, leads us deeper into a labyrinth, and all the while The Collector and The Narrator engage in their separate monologues, very occasionally verging into dialogue, but mostly staying separate and different.<br /><br />I watched this a second time, so bizarre and powerful and indescribable it was, and so challenging to think or write about. If I have a guess as to what it all adds up to, it would be a sly satire of the whole nature of artistic interpretation. An indicator might be found in two of the most amusing and inexplicable scenes are those in which The Collector poses some sexless plastic figurines -- in the second of them, he also looks at photos taken of the figurines that mirror the poses in the paintings -- then he strides through his collection, which is now partially composed of life-size versions of the figures. If we think too much about it and don't just enjoy it, it all becomes just faceless plastic....<br /><br />Whether I've come to any definite conclusions about "L'Hypothèse du tableau volé", or not, I can say definitely that outside of the early (and contemporaneous) works of Peter Greenaway like "A Walk Through H", I've rarely been so enthralled by something so deep, so serious, so dense....and at heart, so mischievous and fun.
|
positive
|
Pictures that usually glorify a hero have meaning. As an example, Bonnie and Clyde glorified the dynamic bank robbers and you actually felt sympathy for them despite their evil deeds. Why? They were two people caught up in the depression when people were desperate to survive.<br /><br />This film has absolutely no substance. The Viggo Mortensen character soon emerges as a folk hero. Why? He speeds along an Idaho highway on the way to the hospital where his stricken wife has been taking. No one bothers to understand why he is trying to flee everyone. Even worse, when the realization becomes apparent that he is not a red-neck terrorist, no one in government wants to help him as they try to save their rear ends.<br /><br />Jason Priestley co-stars as a radio emcee who builds upon the story in support of our hero.<br /><br />The ending is absolutely unbelievable.
|
negative
|
I rented this film from Netflix for two reasons - I was in the mood for what I thought would be a silly '50s sci-fi-asco and because it is the first feature-length Superman film. Needless to say, after about 15 minutes I found myself thoroughly engaged and very pleasantly surprised.<br /><br />An experimental oil well has penetrated about six miles into the earth and is being shut down by the sponsor. Lois and Clark show up to get the scoop but are disappointed that the deepest well ever drilled will no longer be in operation. A day later, strange events at the well make for a story more appropriate for Superman than Clark Kent. It seems that the radioactive Mole Men have invaded from their six-mile deep home near the earth's core.<br /><br />Supermen and the Mole Men is a simplistic but well-made piece of social realism. Released in 1951, starring a lead actor who served in World War II, the moral of the story seems to be that Americans are just as capable of becoming fascists as anybody else. To drive this point home in a typically straightforward Superman manner, Reeves even accuses the lynch mob hunting the Mole Men of being 'Nazis' at one point.<br /><br />Even in the 1950s, the science underlying this film was nonexistent. Six miles of drilling through continental crust would not have even penetrated the upper mantle, let alone the "hollow center of the earth" - which, in any case does not exist. Forgivable - keep in mind that this film is based on a golden age comic book.<br /><br />The film is a little unevenly paced. Although the Molemen are interesting, a bit creepy, and nicely portrayed, there are several Corman-esquire scenes which spend too much time redundantly showing us their odd behavior. The script is intelligent and economical. By today's standards, the costuming is poor to fair, but for its time, this film's special effects and costuming were quite good. The cinematography is also generally very good, and the acting is much better than one might expect. I was particularly impressed with Reeves, Jeff Corey and Walter Reed.
|
positive
|
Roopa (Kamalinee Mukherjee) loses her parents and other family members in a gruesome car accident. She starts living on her own as an independent woman without taking any help from her relatives. She has a boy friend named Rahul (Anuj) and is about to get married to him, but backs out due to the behavior of her future mother-in-law and due to lack of confidence shown by her boyfriend. Anand (Raja) joins her neighborhood. And he starts making Roopa feel comfortable and secure. The rest of the story is about why Anand - MD of the richest corporate house of AP - has chosen to reside as neighbor of Roopa and what follows next.<br /><br />This movie has a freshness to it which we rarely see in Indian movies to it. Although the story goes slow, you get a sense of familiarity with it. Kudos to the director shekhar kammula for such an awesome direction! Brilliant music and background score composed by K.M. Radhakrishnan adds to the quality. Kamalini mukherjee as Rupa has given a marvelous performance. I think she was the best choice for this role because of her non-glamorous looks and amazing histrionics. Anand as Raja has done well too. I have watched this movie thrice now and enjoyed it thoroughly every time. It is a class apart from the daily dose of action movies we get here. Highly recommended!!
|
positive
|
In A Woman Under the Influence Mabel goes crazy, but I can see why she does go crazy. If I lived the kind of life she lived with the family she has I would go crazy too. Everyone in her family is off their rocker and not completely with it. She is constantly surrounded by people yelling at her and telling her what is best for herself and people that aren't the sharpest knifes in the drawer.<br /><br />To start with the one person closest to her in her life, her husband, Nick, is a little off his rocker. He is always yelling at her when he is home telling her how to live her life and to stop acting like an imbecile. The rest of the time he is working long hours at his job and he isn't there to support her when she needs support. The one person in her life that should always be there for her is never there and if he is, he is just making her feel worse. She relies on him for support and always goes to him first when she feels she is acting wrong and he does nothing to support her. When she comes home from the hospital all he does is tell her how to act, instead of comforting her, he just yells at her and tells her what to do.<br /><br />The other major people in her life are her parents. Her parents do nothing in her life for her. Mabel basically runs their lives because they are afraid to stand up to her and stand up for her. In the end she even asks her father to stand up for her and he doesn't understand, and when he does get it he still does nothing. They do nothing to help Mabel recover or to keep her from going crazy because they do nothing for her period. The only person that tries to do something for her is Nick's mom. Nick's mom is adamant about having Mabel committed. She doesn't want to have Nick deal with it so she has the doctor commit her. It seems as though everyone is against Mabel and they feel that having her committed is a good idea because then they won't have to deal with it anymore. They all want to live their own lives and do nothing for Mabel except for yell at her and make her feel like she is doing something wrong when she really isn't. That is why she went crazy, and why she had to be committed, it was her family's entire fault.
|
negative
|
I look around in the video store still in shock how Steven Seagal with his track record of Bad action movies can still have 3 movies hit the shelves in less than a Year.Attack force being the 3rd no less promised the first-time entrance into the Sci Fi Genre for our ever widening Seagal.Visions of bad movie entertainment flashed before my gullible eyes.Sadly this is not the case one bit with no entertainment and a movie as bad as they come.<br /><br />Seagal rebounded a tiny bit with the Trashy-but enjoyable Shadow Man last time we saw him.However Attack force has to be his absolute worst movie ever!Don't argue for out for a Kill,Ticker,or even Black Dawn folks.This is the bottom of the Septic tank here.<br /><br />Anyone who says this is Steven Seagal's return to form should be forced to write a 100 page essay on the word Taste. <br /><br />Seagal is yet another agent/I'm a supreme bad-ass yet again named Lawson wants revenge for the killing of his Team that leads him to a nefarious plot to distribute a really bad drug to the unsuspecting public.Not to mention the dealers are not from around here.<br /><br />The whole Production from Directing to the acting is poor.Was this movie shot in the Dark?Its gotta be the most poorly lighted movie since Howling 2.The action is terrible and very badly done.<br /><br />The Producers have also unwisely decided to do what the fans hate the most:throw in stunt double after stunt double and horribly dubbed Steven Seagal.Who seems to show little enthusiasm here.Can ya blame him?<br /><br />While it has been said that Attack Force was not the movie Stevie signed on for(originally Harvester)and surely has to be better than Attack force.The post-production tampering has not made it more coherent and made Seagal look worse.I feel bad for Directer Michael Keusch and writer Joe Halpin as they are gonna be judged forever for the ill-advised production re-shoots.<br /><br />So Now This leaves Seagal in the impossible position to come up with something to atone for this mess.But after seeing how bad Attack Force has turned out do we really want him to make another movie?
|
negative
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.