review
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| sentiment
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
I must admit a slight disappointment with this film; I had read a lot about how spectacular it was, yet the actual futuristic sequences, the Age of Science, take up a very small amount of the film. The sets and are excellent when we get to them, and there are some startling images, but this final sequence is lacking in too many other regards...<br /><br />Much the best drama of the piece is in the mid-section, and then it plays as melodrama, arising from the 'high concept' science-fiction nature of it all, and insufficiently robust dialogue. There is far more human life in this part though, with the great Ralph Richardson sailing gloriously over-the-top as the small dictator, the "Boss" of the Everytown. I loved Richardson's mannerisms and curt delivery of lines, dismissing the presence and ideas of Raymond Massey's aloof, confident visitor. This Boss is a posturing, convincingly deluded figure, unable to realise the small-fry nature of his kingdom... It's not a great role, yet Richardson makes a lot of it.<br /><br />Everytown itself is presumably meant to be England, or at least an English town fairly representative of England. Interesting was the complete avoidance of any religious side to things; the 'things to come' seem to revolve around a conflict between warlike barbarism and a a faith in science that seems to have little ultimate goal, but to just go on and on. There is a belated attempt to raise some arguments and tensions in the last section, concerning more personal 'life', yet one is left quite unsatisfied. The film hasn't got much interest in subtle complexities; it goes for barnstorming spectacle and unsubtle, blunt moralism, every time. And, of course, recall the hedged-bet finale: Raymond Massey waxing lyrical about how uncertain things are! <br /><br />Concerning the question of the film being a prediction: I must say it's not at all bad as such, considering that one obviously allows that it is impossible to gets the details of life anything like right. The grander conceptions have something to them; a war in 1940, well that was perhaps predictable... Lasting nearly 30 years, mind!? A nuclear bomb - the "super gun" or some such contraption - in 2036... A technocratic socialist "we don't believe in independent nation states"-type government, in Britain, after 1970... Hmmm, sadly nowhere near on that one, chaps! ;-) No real politics are gone into here which is a shame; all that surfaces is a very laudable anti-war sentiment. Generally, it is assumed that dictatorship - whether boneheaded-luddite-fascist, as under the Boss, or all-hands-to-the-pump scientific socialism - will *be the deal*, and these implications are not broached... While we must remember that in 1936, there was no knowledge at all of how Nazism and Communism would turn out - or even how they were turning out - the lack of consideration of this seems meek beside the scope of the filmmakers' vision on other matters.<br /><br />Much of the earlier stuff should - and could - have been cut in my opinion; only the briefest stuff from '1940' would have been necessary, yet this segment tends to get rather ponderous, and it is ages before we get to the Richardson-Massey parts. I would have liked to have seen more done with Margareta Scott; who is just a trifle sceptical, cutting a flashing-eyed Mediterranean figure to negligible purpose. The character is not explored, or frankly explained or exploited, except for one scene which I shall not spoil, and her relationship with the Boss isn't explored; but then this was the 1930s, and there was such a thing as widespread institutional censorship back then. Edward Chapman is mildly amusing in his two roles; more so in the first as a hapless chap, praying for war, only to be bluntly put down by another Massey character. Massey himself helps things a lot, playing his parts with a mixture of restraint and sombre gusto, contrasting well with a largely diffident cast, save for Richardson, and Scott and Chapman, slightly.<br /><br />I would say that "Things to Come" is undoubtedly a very extraordinary film to have been made in Britain in 1936; one of the few serious British science fiction films to date, indeed! Its set (piece) design and harnessing of resources are ravenous, marvellous. <br /><br />Yet, the script is ultimately over-earnest and, at times, all over the place. The direction is prone to a flatness, though it does step up a scenic gear or two upon occasion. The cinematographer and Mr Richardson really do salvage things however; respectively creating an awed sense of wonder at technology, and an engaging, jerky performance that consistently beguiles. Such a shame there is so little substance or real filmic conception to the whole thing; Powell and Pressburger would have been the perfect directors to take on such a task as this - they are without peer among British directors as daring visual storytellers, great helmsmen of characters and dealers in dialogue of the first rate.<br /><br />"Things to Come", as it stands, is an intriguing oddity, well worth perusing, yet far short of a "Metropolis"... 'Tis much as "silly", in Wells' words, as that Lang film, yet with nothing like the astonishing force of it.
|
positive
|
Having read some of the other comments here I was expecting something truly awful but was pleasantly surprised. REALITY CHECK: The original series wasn't that good. I think some people remember it with more affection than it deserved but apart from the car chases and Daisy Duke's legs the scripts were weak and poorly acted. The Duke boys were too intelligent and posh for backwood hicks, the shrunken Boss Hog was too cretinous to be evil and Rosco was just hyper throughout every screen moment. It's amazing the series actually lasted as long as it did because it ran out of story lines during the first series.<br /><br />Back to the movie. If you watch this film in it's own right, not as a direct comparison to however you remember the TV series, then it's not bad at all. The real star is of course the General Lee. The car chases and stunts are excellent and that's really what D.O.H. is all about. Johnny Knoxville is his usual eccentric self and along with Seann William Scott as Cousin Bo the pair make this film really funny in a hilarious Dumb-And-Dumber sort of way the TV series never achieved. The lovely Jessica Simpson is a natch as Miss Daisy, Burt Reynolds makes a much improved Boss Hog and M.C. Gainey makes a believably nasty Rosco P. Coltrane, the way he always should have been.<br /><br />If you don't like slapstick humour and crazy car stunts then you wouldn't be watching this film anyway because you should know what to expect. Otherwise if you want an entertaining car-action movie with a few good laughs that's not too taxing on the brain then go see this enjoyable romp with an open mind.
|
positive
|
This may be the only film that actually comes close to capturing on film the essentially uncapturable world of the American college experience of the late 60s-early 70s. Go ahead, name another movie that even approaches this one: "Getting Straight"? "RPM"? These are caricatures. "Return of the Secaucus Seven" has its moments, but that's a retrospective film about (self-obsessed) individuals more than a film about a time and a place depicted *in* that time and place. "Drive, He Said" portrays-- with subtlety and nuance where it should, and a swift kick in the shorts where that's the only appropriate way-- the anti-draft movement, the ambiguity of big-time college sports (especially when there's a war on), the sexual revolution of the period, and the general unreality of the day. Believe me, it was like that.<br /><br />The whole cast deserves commendation (as does the director, of course) but particular praise should be reserved for Bruce Dern, as the basketball coach, and Karen Black, the hero's very unusual-- except for that time-- love interest. William Tepper, as the lead, also rates a real round of applause both for his perfect capturing of the student-athlete of the period and for actually playing real college basketball in the film (remember Anthony Perkins in "Tall Story"? Yikes!).<br /><br />All in all, a classic of a kind-- and the last film someone currently in 6th grade should be writing comments on ("boring", "repellent"-- um, right, sonny, please go back to your Arnold movies). Why isn't this film available from imdb?
|
positive
|
I think the show had a pretty good concept to work with. But the execution was poor. The script is poor and acting is bad. There were many issues that could have been portrayed in a better way, like the protest against gay marriage or finding the graveyard. The show can't be properly termed as comedy show as it lacks humor miserably. I should say this show was barely successful in putting the life of Muslim community to some extent.<br /><br />Till now second season is worse than the first one. I had my hopes high regarding this show, but I was kind of disappointed. Still I appreciate CBC for putting up such concept in front of the viewers. Anyway I wish best of luck for the future.
|
negative
|
Words are seriously not enough convey the emotional power of this film; it's one of the most wrenching you'll ever see, yet the ending is one of the most loving, tender, and emotionally fulfilling you could hope for. Every actor in every role is terrific, especially a wise and understated Jamie Lee Curtis, a tightly wound and anguished Ray Liotta, and a heart-stopping turn from Tom Hulce that should have had him up for every award in the book. (He's the #1 pick for 1988's Best Actor in Danny Peary's "Alternate Oscars.") The last half hour borders on melodrama, but the film earns every one of its tears--and unless you're made of stone, there will be plenty of them.
|
positive
|
It says a lot about the United Kingdom when television programmes like this not only get made but also run for three series. Unfunny, politically correct to the point of sickening and poorly acted and written. Meera Syal has not been funny or accomplished in anything that she has been in, go on tell me I am wrong, and Jasper Carrott, funny guy as he is, is well past his eighties prime. This is such a bad comedy that it could have been made by ITV but even stinkers like The Upper Hand and the one with James Bolam as a car park attendant look like Fawlty Towers compared to this rubbish. I would love to sit down with the writer/director of this show so that they can point out the humour in this programme. Admittedly the majority of the UK's population is made up of poorly educated chavs but this would not tickle their funny bones. That's if they could tear themselves away from Big Brother or from their mobile phones but that's another story. Complete and utter dirt!
|
negative
|
Director John Madden, of Shakespeare in Love fame, gives us another pretty bad film in Ethan Frome. The plot centers around a new reverend coming into the town of Starkfield where he learns the story of the local crippled man Ethan Frome's sick wife and one-time romantic tryst with the maid. Adapted by Richard Nelson from Pulitzer Prize-winning author Edith Wharton's novel, this film isn't interesting in the least thanks to an abysmally weak script and poor direction that turns scenes that are supposed to be poignant into laughable schmaltz. Still, there are other aspects apart of the film that work - the cinematography is well done, Rachel Portman contributes a lovely score, and while no one is at their best, Liam Neeson, Joan Allen, Patricia Arquette, and Tate Donovan work well in their roles. But overall, Ethan Frome is only marginally worthwhile and is easily forgotten.
|
negative
|
At a panel discussion that I attended after viewing this film, the filmmakers stated that one should look at this not as a movie but a provoker of thought. Well, the only thoughts that were provoked from me were of the time wasted watching the movie. The gimmicks of the film (documentary style, futuristic setting) served as distractions of what was supposed to be a thoughtful examination of the abortion debate. This film illustrates the problem when people try to use film as a platform for their political views - usually a very boring movie that preaches to the choir.
|
negative
|
Uma and Travolta were very good together, but - unfortunately - when they left the screen, the movie was nothing but a bunch of very boring and wordy secondary characters wrapped in some extremely bad writing. Occasional glimpses of greatness like the dance scene between Uma and Travolta quickly eroded when the likes of Harvey Keitel and similar uninteresting thugs came on. And the white dude who tried to act black got VERY, VERY tiresome after way too much exposure in the picture. He weighed down a fairly good performance by the Rock, the only secondary character who you couldn't wait to see leave the screen. Bad, dumb plot. The writers clearly couldn't figure out if they writing to Generation X or the 12-15 year old rap crowd, and the combination turned into a film that kept me staring at my watch!
|
negative
|
Even if you're not a "theatre person," I highly recommend that you see this. Based off of a play of the same name by Christopher Bond (which, in turn, had been based off of an old London legend), Sondheim did a wonderful job bringing it to the musical theatre stage. The score is just amazing-- by far Sondheim's best, and probably one of the best scores written for a musical ever. The show was cast extremely well, my only complaint being of Betsy Joscelyn's portrayal of Johanna. It;s good, mind you, and she's a very versatile actress, but she just doesn't sing "Greenfinch and Linnet Bird" too well. But other than that, it's all phenomenal-- Angela Lansbury *made* the role of Mrs. Lovette, and she just does it so well. George Hearn was a good replacement for Len Cariou in the title role, and Ken Jennings gives a great performance as Tobias. The ending will give you chills. Top marks for a wonderful show.
|
positive
|
You have to be awfully patient to sit through a film with one-liners so flat and unfunny that you wonder what all the fuss was about when WHISTLING IN THE DARK opened to such an enthusiastic greeting from audiences in the 1940s.<br /><br />On top of some weak one-liners and ordinary sight gags, the plot is as far-fetched as the tales The Fox (Red Skelton) tells his radio audience. You have to wonder why anyone would think he could come up with a real-life solution on how to commit the perfect crime and get away with it. But then, that's how unrealistic the comedy is.<br /><br />But--if you're a true Red Skelton fan and enjoy a look back at how comedies were made in the '40s--you can at least enjoy the amiable cast supporting him. Ann Rutherford and Virginia Grey do nicely as his love interest and Conrad Veidt, as always, makes an interesting villain. One of his more amusing moments is his reaction to Skelton explaining the mysteries of wearing turbans. "I never knew that," he muses, impressed by a minor point that is cleverly introduced.<br /><br />All in all, typical nonsense that requires you to accept the lack of credibility and just accept the gags as they are. Not always easy for a discriminating viewer as many of them simply fall flat, the way many comedies of this era do because the novelty of the sight gags and one-liners has simply worn off.
|
positive
|
A lot of themes or parts of the story is the same as in Leon, then other parts felt like some other movie, I don't know which, but there are an familiar feeling over the whole movie. It was kind of nice to watch, but it would have been fantastic! if the story would have been more original. The theme little girl, bad assassin from Leon, is just tweaked a little. The opening scenes are really good :-) It is strange that people like to fight in the kitchen, in the movies :-) My biggest problem was to remember which parts was from Leon, Nikita and if they where from the French or American version. If you have not seen Leon, then this is a good movie. If you liked this movie, then I can recommend Leon.<br /><br />Best Regards /Rick
|
negative
|
A beautiful, sensitive film that brings home the futility and cruelty of wars no matter what the so-called reasons. The performance of Cage and Cruz were quite impressive, but it is to the older Greek characters that go the highest praises. Irene Papas is as gorgeous as ever! Though some scenes seems a little long at times, this film will be a heavy Oscar contender.
|
positive
|
One of the few reasons to make these pointlss films is to give some actors a chance to hopefully star in better films if they're acting is any good. The only good thing in this movie is the acting, the three female leads are better than most horror films like this. There's 2 scenes that may cause an unexpected jump.<br /><br />Young small children are use to crawl through holes and lay dynamite to explode mines. When one does collapse causing a cave in all the children die, becoming zombies. The adults in the mine stay dead, no reasons are given as why the children become flesh eaters. When still alive they looked terrified before the cave in, innocent, so they must become enraged at any adult which exploited them int he mines (only reason that come to mind).<br /><br />A mother and her 2 daughters move into a house near the mine, along with a land devoloper who wants to build a resort and another of those creepy people who seem to know exactly what's going on yet no one believes him.<br /><br />Nothing new here, you're usual clichés, predictable, a lot of negatives for this film, very few positives.
|
negative
|
It's been 19 years since Gordon Gekko used "Wall Street" to let us know that greed is good. Now, Michael Douglas takes the GG persona and morphs it into a Secret Service agent, Pete Garrison. Guess what? It works! This is a solid political thriller that kept me guessing. The detail work in showing the security precautions taken by the SS on behalf of the President and First Lady was likewise intriguing. All the leads were pretty good but, try as I might, I could not accept Eva Longoria as a Secret Service agent. Whereas Jodie Foster just made you suspend belief and really think she was FBI agent Starling in "Silence of the Lambs", you do not get the same feeling with Longoria. Nevertheless, this is a fun film, escapist entertainment with the Beltway as the backdrop.
|
positive
|
This has the funnist jokes out of all the Cheech & Chong flicks. It's the first one I saw with these guys. I found it to be really good. My dad actually recommended me to get it. WHAT A GREAT ROLE MODEL, and my GRANDMA actually bought it for me, knowing what it was like. What a family I have. Well this movie is pretty good and great to rent when you want to see a good classic. I must warn you though, this isn't gut-busting funny. It has its moments but not as funny as There's Something About Mary. Check it out anyway. I'm sure you'll laugh. Unless your an anti-drug activist or something.
|
positive
|
The GREAT NEWS is that this film is now AVAILABLE on DVD from http://treasureflix.com for all those who wish to own it as well as on video.This is good news as it is one of my favourite films!<br /><br />I watched this film for the first time in the 80s and it is compulsory holiday viewing. Living in the small market town called Tewkesbury, picturesque and with its own traditions,of reenactments,and traditions we are also a cosy tight community. We are now also faced with large housing developments which threaten to destroy the Community and you can see why I love this film First of all-and most important, there are LASHINGS of snow!!!! Then there is the lovely legend of the Christmas Tree and also the Christian denouement as all the community cough up the money to help the destitute farmer save his farm and stay in the community. The evil developers-only after the money are sent packing as the whole town pledge their money to help protect what they have , which is very special. I love the way the whole community send their message to Santa via the post office which is misunderstood by the hero . He and his daughter have a long journey to make after the death of the wife and mother of the family. (There is a likely candidate for this)-even a sleigh ride and most heartwarming of all is that the taxi driver, whose engine is broken is mysteriously given a new one on Christmas morning and no-one had engineered it! There is a lovely moment where Denver sings a lullaby and an exciting search. Great gentle film for everything Christmas is really about.
|
positive
|
Bette Midler showcases her talents and beauty in "Diva Las Vegas". I am thrilled that I taped it and I am able to view whenever I want to. She possesses what it takes to keep an audience in captivity. Her voice is as beautiful as ever and will truly impress you. The highlight of the show was her singing "Stay With Me" from her 1979 movie "The Rose". You can feel the emotion in the song and will end up having goose bumps. The show will leave you with the urge to go out and either rent a Bette Midler movie or go to the nearest music store and purchase one of Bette Midler's albums.
|
positive
|
Much better than it is generally given credit for, this version of "Lost Horizon" not only had great music and beautiful scenery, but also some stunning mountain photography. A special edition laser disc was released some years ago which added more than 30 minutes of previously deleted material, extra music, and lots of bonus material. So why isn't this on DVD?! Hard to figure the studios out sometimes. Certainly the roles could have been given to people who could sing better than Peter Finch, Liv Ullman, George Kennedy and Sally Kellerman, but what do you want in a movie, good acting or melodious pipes? Song and dance man Bobby Van is great fun, Michael York is a suitably tragic villain, and seeing Sir John Gielgud decked out as Chang may sound silly but actually works very well on screen. Trust me, you need to check this movie out - if you can find it!
|
positive
|
Bill Paxton stars in and directs this highly original film. Having watched the first time I was by how good it was. The reviews I had heard were OK . As a result I was expecting an average thriller at most .However because of Paxtons excellent directing and acting the film is well worth watching , especially if you are a horror film fanatic.The film is also helped by the plot twists which keep coming until the closing credits . The films strongest point is the storyline which I have to say is highly original and is like I have ever seen before. Well done also to the 2 young leads which perfectly convey the emotions if these confused boys. I give this film 9/10 and I highly recommend that everyone catches it.
|
positive
|
About the movie itself, there are ample comments. <br /><br />I just wanted to say something about the German version, which I have seen recently on TV. It is heavily cut. From 103 to 76 minutes! It is usual that the most bloody scenes are cut for German TV. I understand the reasons for that, but this movie was something else. They did not only cut "gore-shots" - they have cut entire sequences, sparing only glimpses. Like: "WE have to attack THEM" - one 5 second shot of explosions in the camp - protagonist running away.<br /><br />When the assault on the island begins, it isn't even possible anymore to follow the storyline. All the cuts create something that amounts to a string of erratic, disconnected scenes that don't make any sense anymore.<br /><br />I could not stand to watch the end after spending 60 minutes on this nonsense.<br /><br />I think I would have given the original 7/10 The German version is worth only 1/10<br /><br />Get it on DVD (and check the runtime first) or forget about it.
|
negative
|
This movie is one of the worse examples of hype. People who read IMDb comments might be tempted to view this total waste of time, as I was, by false tag-lines like " A throwback to 80's horror" and what-not. This movie sucks, from the acting to the directing to the story. Horrible, all across the board. And I really like GOOD horror films, I am not at all a snob. This sucked. For reference, I loved The Grudge 1 and 2, Black Sheep, Planet Terror, Texas Chaisaw Massacre The Beginning, The Others, The Ring, Jason X, Slither, Planet Terror, and really hated The Ring 2, Texas Chainsaw Massacre(re-make)Wolf Creek, The Hills Have Eyes(re-make)Hostel 1 and 2, and this movie. Gore doesn't trump fun or originality.
|
negative
|
I gave this a 2, and it only avoided a 1 because of the occasional unintentional laugh. The film is excruciatingly boring, and incredibly cheap. It's even worse if you know anything at all about the Fantastic Four.
|
negative
|
I really liked this movie. If other people want to give it an average around 5.0/10 that's their choice. I would give it 10/10. Sutherland's performance as a private eye is totally awesome. The story is amazing, human, exciting, intelligent. The dialogue is good. The story might not be perfect but anyway - the mood of the movie is good enough to compensate for that. Moreover, the ending is incredibly cool and their the jig-saw puzzle really comes back to together. So anyway I liked it. I also thought the female lead actress performed very well. I'm not a big fan of detective movies but this one was really good, also because it doesn't give a damn about conventions of the supernatural.
|
positive
|
Robin Williams and Kurt Russell play guys in their 30's who put their marraiges in jeopardy by deciding (Russell somewhat reluctantly) to replay their heartbreaking tie with rival Bakersfield years after the fact. Williams is ok, but Russell is flat-out great as legendary Taft quarterback Remo Hightower. Holly Palance does a nice and attractive turn as Williams' wife, who could live without this rematch. Film is worth watching just to see the famed Remo in action. Highly recommended.
|
positive
|
Got this the other day from the Creators on DVD. I saw this advertised in a free magazine whilst family were stopping in a hotel, had never heard anything about it. After reading it was filmed on Balmedie beach i just had to buy it. I used to take the kids to the dunes in the film all the time whilst living in Aberdeen.<br /><br />1st off Im not a big Sci-Fi fan (baring Star Wars) I was really just wanting to see what they had done with this film location, I was presently surprised. This didn't turn out to be a standard Sci-Fi, more like a mix of sci-fi and survival horror.<br /><br />Had a good storyline, which was different, had great special effects for the budget that it was produced with £8000. Acting was better than average for a low budget film. The way they have edited out the whole coastline to make it feel like the dry desert planet that they are on was nice.<br /><br />Weapons in the film were realistic and the creatures were cool kinda like predator in invisibe mode.<br /><br />All in all I will buy any future releases from these guys, maybe a all out horror next (Hint Hint). The extras on the DVD were very informative on giving background for the producers, I would like to see some of them shorts included as extras on a next DVD release.<br /><br />Excellent work keep it up
|
positive
|
I guess I am coming late to the party. I just saw this 1995 version of Bye Bye Birdy on Sky TV. I didn't know it existed and was fully prepared to see the 1963 film version when I turned it on.<br /><br />I played Albert a long time ago and I am thinking of putting on an amateur production of the show because I remembered it as being so much fun to do. I was not impressed with this newer version. It just wasn't enough fun. It was not colorful. It lacked the exuberance of youth. The lighting was bad. No one seemed to mention this fact. This is not a moody musical, it is bright and up beat. The lighting decision was a poor creative choice.<br /><br />Bye Bye Birdy is a farce, a comedy of errors. I got no sense of that in this version. The lighting was awful and it dulled the overall performances. The dance numbers seemed anemic as well. We do have music videos these day. At least the dance numbers should have measured up to some of the best of those, or how about some of the best of Broadway. The choreographer was asleep at the wheel it seemed.<br /><br />Although all the actors were supremely talented, there were some really bad casting choices. Vanessa Williams is not Latin, and with so many talented Latin performers out there, wouldn't it have been more correct to cast one of them in the role of Rosie. Vanessa is African American, lovely and talented, but bad casting. Jason Alexander's effort was astounding, he always does intelligent work, but he just wasn't Albert. He was miscast and I think that is obvious to most people who see this version.<br /><br />The medium of film is not the medium of stage. There needs to be translation from one medium to another. The exuberance and the flash of stage musical must be TRANSLATED to film. There is no merit being faithful to a stage script when it is being filmed. The spirit, the essence of the production must be brought forth. To me the 1963 film production of Bye Bye Birdy was bright and lively, while the 1995 production was as gloomy as the lighting and as lackluster as the dance numbers. It turned out to be an unfortunate waste of effort by many really talented people.
|
negative
|
I recently rented this video after seeing "Final Ascent" by the same writer. I wasn't prepared for how intense this film would get. I found it engaging from start to finish, and was rooting for the teenagers to get away with their attempted crime. The ending was definitely disturbing with some of its implied violence, but well-done. I highly recommend this picture.
|
positive
|
My first question after seeing this film was, "Why is the title LIAM?" If the intent was to tell a story from the boy's perspective, it was not carried out well. Of course there was the formulaic use of camera angles in the boy's scenes, but much of the crucial action took place outside of his field of view. Having a "main" character unable to speak (obviously suggesting the mute, powerless position of a child) makes it difficult to give that character much depth.<br /><br />Melodrama is defined as: "dramatic or other literary work characterized by the use of stereotyped characters, exaggerated emotions and language, simplistic morality, and conflict" LIAM fits this definition to a T. The viewer is hit over the head with the typical stereotypes of the fire and brimstone Catholic Church in the stern school marm and the well-fed priest squeezing money from parishioners. (A stereotype which is becoming very tiresome.) What's more--the Jewish characters are money lenders and factory owners!<br /><br />Much of the film was predictable...Who didn't think that we'd see Theresa scrubbing the toilet after her mother had told her "No daughter of mine will scrub another woman's toilet!" I'm a fan of British realism if it's done well. In my opinion, LIAM is not.<br /><br />
|
negative
|
Rise of the Undead starts as some huge nuclear type blast rips through an unnamed American city, a few people survive in a building by leaning on the door so it'll stay closed & keep the nastiness out(!). They argue amongst themselves for ages, then a monster thing arrives from seemingly nowhere & begins to kill them of one-by-one...<br /><br />Written, produced & directed by Jason Horton & Shannon Hubbell one has to say Rise of the Undead is terrible. The script takes itself very seriously but makes little sense, the first thing I asked myself was if there's this huge nuclear blast type thing going on outside destroying the entire city why are these people I'm watching still alive? Why is the building they are in still standing? Then I asked myself when was something actually going to happen, the entire first 20 minutes is set in one room, actually that's a bit generous it's more of a corridor as the main character's argue. Then it turns into some Return of the Living Dead (1985) rip-off with a Government created virus which turns people into zombies before one of the most abrupt, pointless & seemingly random plot twists I've ever witnessed which renders most of what has just happened a complete waste of time. Then for the final 30 odd minutes Rise of the Undead turns into some strange sci-fi type thing as something which resembles a ball of energy floats around killing everyone, was I the only asking what this floating ball of energy thing is & where it came from? Getting back to what was happening outside what was the reason again? Oh that's right we are never told. Rise of the Undead is a mess, the character's are awful & aren't even given names, the twist about halfway through will have you tearing your hair out in frustration, the dialogue sucks, nothing is explained & there's virtually no story here. The final 10 minutes (maybe a bit more) of Rise of the Undead features no dialogue whatsoever & the film just suddenly ends.<br /><br />Director's Horton & Hubbell were obviously working on a low budget, the entire film is set in about two rooms & three corridors! The photography is awful, they use annoying colour filters seemingly at random & sometimes it really does look like Rise of the Undead was shot on a camcorder. There's no special effects, there's some fake blood splashed around but no actual make-up effects to speak of. There are some CGI shots of the city being engulfed in flames which look alright but the floating ball of energy creature thing looks terrible. There is one baffling shot early on where two people are sitting against a corridor wall & talking, for some bizarre reason their heads are cut off at the top of the screen! Just their lower bodies from the neck down are seen yet nothing else is happening in frame, they are not moving & there's no else there but for some strange reason their heads are cut off the top of the frame as they talk to each other! It's quite an odd thing to watch actually.<br /><br />With an ultra low budget of about $10,000 & according to the IMDb shot in two weeks I have to congratulate the makers for getting Rise of the Undead finished & distributed but that's where my congratulations stop because otherwise this has awful production values & is set in about three corridors which are located somewhere in New Orleans in Louisiana as that's where Rise of the Undead was shot. The acting sucks so I won't dwell on it.<br /><br />Rise of the Undead sucks, it sounds like a zombie film but in all honestly it isn't, everything about it is sub par & I know the filmmakers were working on a low budget but that's not really an excuse as far as I'm concerned. Definitely not recommended.
|
negative
|
One of the best parts of Sundance is seeing movies that you would otherwise almost certainly miss. Unless you're a real art-house devotee, you probably don't catch many documentaries. Only a handful get any recognizable distribution. Fortunately, Sundance has increased its commitment to documentaries in recent years.<br /><br />Shakespeare Behind Bars is a powerful documentary about a dramatic production group at the Luther Luckett Correctional Complex in LaGrange, Kentucky. Every year a group of inmates present a Shakespearean play. Director Hank Rogerson and his crew follow the troupe as roles are self-selected, interpreted, rehearsed and ultimately performed.<br /><br />The movie is filled with fascinating revelations for those of us that have not been exposed to prison environments. Despite the labels we know them by (convict, felon, murderer, etc.) we soon began to appreciate and respect these men as thinking feeling human beings. Serendipitously, the play chosen for the year of filming was The Tempest, with its penetrating focus on forgiveness and redemption. The actors all grapple with the relevance of the play to their lives, finding patterns and parallels with their characters and the meaning of the drama.<br /><br />For a documentary film, like a book, the best that can be hoped for is that we experience something that changes our lives. Shakespeare Behind Bars was a personal revelation for me. "O brave new world, that has such creatures in it."
|
positive
|
Jane Eyre has always been my favorite novel! When I stumbled upon this movie version in the late 90's I was ecstatic! This is the best and most complete version of the book on film! This version is a little long to sit through in one sitting but well worth it. Timothy Dalton is amazing as Rochester. I was glad that they cast a normal looking actress (Zelah Clark) as Jane and not a glamorous person. I love the sets and the location. For anyone who is a true Jane Eyre fan, this is the version to watch!!! For those of you who are interested, I just found this version on DVD. I have watched my VHS copy almost to breaking so I was thrilled to find it on DVD.
|
positive
|
I saw this cinematic wretchedness in a dollar theater with a friend in 1979 (back when the tickets actually sold for $1). This is the only film I have ever walked out on (with my friend, while the idiocy that is the "Laser Bra 2000" sketch was on screen). Evidently, my and my friend's reaction to the film was a common one. It is not that I found the film offensive (either as an 18-year-old or now), but rather that it is mind-numbingly stupid and patently unfunny, devoid even of the unintended humor that makes a Ed Wood film watchable. This is the real reason why NBC refused to air it, rather than a failure to comprehend Mr. Mike's "vision" (unless, of course, his vision was to drive the film's backers into bankruptcy).<br /><br />I remained surprised to this day that this film does not seem to have made any published "10 worst films of all time" list. It certainly makes mine. You have been warned.
|
negative
|
Yep, this has got to be one of the lamest movies I've ever seen. It's utterly tasteless, has no style whatsoever, the story is so thin that you can watch television through it, and the whole film has so many holes you could drive an oil tanker through it.<br /><br />Sure, I appreciate a good B-movie as much as most male white homo sapiens do. But this has got to be the worst I've seen. In fact it's so B that it lacks everything that makes a B-movie interesting.<br /><br />The whole movie is based around such charming artefacts as the characters beating the crap out of each other, various bodily functions and the complete lack of sanity of anything on-screen.<br /><br />It's not even funny. In fact it's quite the opposite. I found it even boring at times due to it's extreme predictability.<br /><br />I find nothing good to say about this movie. It was a waste of time watching it, and I hope others don't do the same mistake. If you also pay for it you should get a serious brainscan done.
|
negative
|
Loosely based on novels by Earl Derr Biggers, 20th Century Fox's Charlie Chan series proved an audience favorite--but when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor the studio feared audiences would turn against its Asian hero. This was a miscalculation: actor Sidney Toler took the role to "poverty row" Monogram Studios, where he continued to portray the character in eleven more films made between 1944 and his death in 1947.<br /><br />20th Century Fox had regarded the Chan films as inexpensive "B" movies, but even so the studio took considerable care with them: the plots were often silly, but the pace was sharp, the dialogue witty, and the casts (which featured the likes of Bela Lugosi and Ray Milland) always expert. The result was a kindly charm which has stood the test of time. Monogram was a different matter: Chan films were "B" movies plain and simple. Little care was taken with scripts or cast and resulting films were flat, mediocre at best, virtually unwatchable at worst.<br /><br />Thanks to an adequate cast and a few interesting plot devices, THE SHANGHAI COBRA is among the best of the Monogram-made Chan films--but even so it barely manages to achieve a consistent mediocrity. In this particularly entry, Chan (Sidney Toler) is called upon to investigate a murderer who kills with what appears to be a cobra-like bite; at the same time, he decides to make certain that a government supply of radium tucked away in a bank vault, of all places, remains secure. Do these two seemingly unrelated plot lines come together? Well... could be! Sidney Toler is always enjoyable as Chan, but most of his Monogram performances seemed "phoned in"--and that is as true of COBRA as it is of any Monogram Chan film. As usual, the really enjoyable performer is Mantan Mooreland. Changing times have led us to look upon Moreland's brand of comedy as demeaning to African-Americans, but he was an expert actor and comic, and taken within the context of what was possible for a black actor in the 1940s his work has tremendous charm and innocence.<br /><br />Fans of the 20th Century Fox series are likely to find Monogram's Chan a significant disappointment and newcomers who like the Monogram films will probably consider them third-rate after encountering the Fox films. Like other Monogram Chan films, THE SHANGHAI COBRA is best left to determined collectors. Four stars, and that's being generous.<br /><br />GFT, Amazon Reviewer
|
negative
|
This is one awful movie!! Some people told me that it was not that bad actually but I sure disagree! The monster is amazingly cheap (and funny) looking but this is something we all knew I guess. In addition to that, the dialogs are awful and the writing is just plain terrible.<br /><br />As bad as it is, this movie as the quality of being entertaining. Not always for the good reasons but it's a good "so bad that it's fun" flick.<br /><br />By the way, there's no such thing as "La Castagne". According to a secondary character in the film named Pierre (described in the movie as a French Canadian), there's a legend among French Canadians about a giant bird know as "La Castagne". As a French Canadian myself, I can assure you that I never heard of such a legend. It sure made me laugh though... :))
|
negative
|
That's My Bush is a live action project made by South Park creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone.The show was cancelled after one season, not because of bad reviews(it actually got good reviews), but because it was very expensive.That's my bush is a pretty funny spoof of an average network TV sitcom.It is also a political satire.Now, this is nowhere near as good as South Park, but it is a very funny spoof of a sitcom and also a pretty good political satire.The guy who plays in that's my bush looks a lot like him! If you can find the show, check it out.There are plenty of laughs to be had!<br /><br />9/10
|
positive
|
Full disclosure: I'm a cynic. I like my endings sad and my hankies dry. I didn't cry when Bambi's mother was shot. Will Smith's new film Happiness looks like a desperate plea for an Oscar. Basically I was born without an artistic soul. <br /><br />So why on earth did I like "10 Items or Less?" Maybe it was the double espresso I downed before the show. Or (more likely) maybe it was that even the most hardboiled of movie fans could use an occasional shot of sweetness. <br /><br />And sweet it is. From the moment "Him" meets "Scarlet" (an event far from a Nora Ephron "meet cute") the view is taken on an intimate journey with two strangers learning to care about where their lives are headed. (Aided beautifully by Phedon Papamichael's cinema verity style camera work.)<br /><br />The main argument about the film is that it's too far fetched. Is the film far fetched? I don't know. You tell me. I've yet to meet Adrian Brody at the market. (However, not for lack of trying). Do I enjoy considering the adventures that might occur should this momentous event take place? Darn straight I do . . .that's where most reviews of "10 Items or Less" fall short . . .they fail to take into account that even we cynics have fantasies. And heck, sometimes, it's worth the price of admission to vicariously live them, 82 minutes at a time.
|
positive
|
I didn't catch Gilmore Girls when it first came out, so still doing some catch-up on the first season. I read through most of the users comments and For the negative ones, I have to ask, what show are you watching??<br /><br />This show is a classic, great lines, characters and good acting. And best of all, NOT your standard formula show always with an occasional twist to the story. There are probably more women who see themselves reflected in the Lorelai/Emily relationship then in the Lorelai/Rory relationship. The people and storylines are not PC but they are real!!<br /><br />If you find the dialogue annoying, I suggest you tape the show, so you can rewatch the parts don't understand.
|
positive
|
I had high hopes going to see this, as I always enjoy Paul Bettany's performances. I thought he was very good as Darwin, and did his best considering the terrible material he had to work with.<br /><br />Darwin's book On the Origin of Species was one of the most ground-breaking, controversial and innovative publications ever, yet you'd never think it based on this tedious movie. It's like a two-hour episode of a soap opera in a Victorian setting. There is virtually nothing about Darwin's five-year voyage on The Beagle to the Galapagos Islands, for example, surely of supreme significance to the story, as it was from his investigations of the wildlife thereon that he began to form his theory of evolution.<br /><br />This is just one long, dreary, domestic drama, with Darwin portrayed as a slightly loopy eccentric, seeing visions of his dead daughter everywhere and being given the cold shoulder by his emotionally-constipated wife. Jennifer Connelly's portrayal of Emma Darwin is nothing short of awful and bears little relation to historical descriptions of the real Emma. There could have been an opportunity here to present the creationist interpretation of life on earth, from either Emma or from the local priest, as played by Jeremy Northam (a blink-and-you'd-miss-it part which is a complete waste of a talented actor) to act as a counterbalance to Darwin's views, but it wasn't taken up. <br /><br />The story focused too much on endless mawkish sentiment about Darwin's grief for his daughter Annie, and too much time was also wasted in Darwin wondering whether or not to write his book. Eventually I was so bored it was difficult to care. <br /><br />All in all, this was a bit like making a movie about Picasso and spending two hours concentrating on him having a fight with his girlfriend and not bothering to mention that he was an artist.
|
negative
|
A pleasant surprise! I expected a further downgrade along the line: The Rock (9)-->Con Air (7)-->Armaggeddon (4). Especially for such an overhyped film. Perhaps that's the reason so few approved of this new type of Bruckheimer fare. Clever dialogue instead of snappy one-liners, decent background/motivation instead of shake-n-bake stereotypes and when the chase came you really thirsted for it. Fanboys expecting an Armageddon rollercoaster: stay away. This is one for the more intelligent action fans. It didn't even bother me Jolie appeared so little.
|
positive
|
To quote Flik, that was my reaction exactly: Wow...you're perfect! This is the best movie! I think I can even say it's become my favorite movie ever, even. Wow. I tell you what, wow.
|
positive
|
Daniel Day-Lewis is Christy Brown, a victim of cerebral palsy who uses "My Left Foot" to write and paint in this incredible 1989 film. The movie also stars Brenda Fricker as Christy's mother, Ray McAnally, Fiona Shaw and Hugh O'Conor. Their brilliant performances, great script and wonderful direction by Jim Sheridan help to paint a vivid portrait of Christy Brown, an artist and writer who died in 1981 at the age of 49.<br /><br />Brown was born into a lower middle-class Catholic family where his mother was constantly pregnant (22 children in total, 13 of whom survived). His father considered Christy mentally retarded as well as physically handicapped, but he would not permit his son to go into a home. The children in the family would bid goodbye to him each day as they went off to school, and then his mother would feed him and talk to him.<br /><br />In the movie, Fricker conveys the sense of a woman who, despite being surrounded by a huge family, needs someone to talk to. Christy doesn't talk back. Eventually a cart is found for him to ride in, and the neighborhood kids, all of whom have known him since he was a baby, include him in all of their activities. The only part of his body that works really well is his left foot, and when the kids find out how well he kicks, they put him into soccer games for just that purpose. One of the nicest parts of the film is the relaxed way the in which the other children treat him.<br /><br />There are many powerful scenes, but none as powerful as Christy writing "Mother" on the floor holding a piece of chalk between his toes. "He's a true Brown," his father declares, hoisting him on his shoulders and carrying him to the pub. Walking into the pub, he announces, "My son's a genius." Things change when Christy grows older because he has a young boy's desires and emotions. He develops crushes, is rejected and goes more into himself, turning to painting. Eventually he goes into therapy in a nearby clinic and works with a therapist, Eileen (Fiona Shaw) at home. He falls in love with her. When he finds out she's engaged, he nearly goes crazy. But he survives to live, to paint, to write (three books in total) and to love again.<br /><br />Because it's a film, by necessity certain things had to be left out and characters combined. Brown wasn't actually diagnosed with cerebral palsy for some time, which was left out of the movie. The therapist Eileen is actually a combination of three important therapeutic figures in Christy's life, and though we know that his mother believed he had a good mind, in truth, she worked very hard with Christy when he was a child teaching him the alphabet, etc. Also, before Mary, Christy had a 12-year relationship with the woman to whom he dedicated "My Left Foot." And the typical Hollywood ending, 9 years before his death where neglect by his wife may have been a factor, doesn't finish the story.<br /><br />Despite all of that, Christy Brown's biopic is incredibly powerful, all the more so because of two performances: Hugh O'Conor as young Christy and Daniel Day-Lewis as the adult Christy. O'Conor's facial expression and the way he drags his warped body is gut-wrenching. One is exhausted for him and heartbroken at the same time.<br /><br />And what can be said about Daniel Day-Lewis, one of the greatest actors in the world - he brings Christy totally to life, a fully fleshed out, intelligent human being capable of swearing, becoming angry, bitter, drunk, pushy, lecherous, funny and loving. A well-deserved Oscar won in the same year that Tom Cruise was nominated for "Born on the Fourth of July." I remember someone writing a letter to the editor somewhere that Cruise was so sensational, what was wrong with the Academy? Uh, nothing for a change. Nothing at all.<br /><br />Brenda Fricker is amazing as Christy's mother, who never stops believing in him and what he can do and who holds her family and husband together during the hard times. The wonderful thing about Fricker's performance is that the support, love and work ethic seem to come naturally to the mother. The character would never consider herself a heroine or as someone doing something out of the ordinary. Fricker shows us a religious but not fanatic woman who believes her duties on earth are to be a good wife and mother. And no matter what, even when her husband is out of work, throws their daughter out of the house for being pregnant, whatever, she manages. She saves money for Christy's wheelchair, she receives photos of her daughter and the baby, she starts building a room for Christy in the back of the house. All part of a day's work. A performance worthy of the Oscar she received.<br /><br />Brown's life was more complicated than this inspiring film, but this is an amazing achievement by all involved and a must-see.
|
positive
|
I think this movie is a very funny film and one of the best 'National Lampoon's' films, it also has a very catchy spoof title, which basically sums up what the whole movie is about.... Men In White!!!! The story is a spoof of many films including a Will Smith film, as you might have guessed, 'Men In Black'. I will not give the ending away but it has a very good ending in is very funny (Leslie Nielsen style humour) from start to finish, especially the bit near the beginning when thy are in the street collecting the dustbins (Garbage Cans). Also, they have a pretty cool dustbin lorry (Garbage Collecting Truck) in that scene too. The acting is not superb, actually, it is not very good, but that is what makes the film funny, it is a comedy, loosen up!! I love the story line, partly because it is so far fetched and partly because it is interesting to see how subtle (Or should it be Un-subtle) they rip off all the other films. I am great fan of un-serious spoof films, but i am also a fan of the real thing, and with this films, it is hard to decide which is better, the film it mainly rips off (mentioned earlier i this review) or the actual film it is, but also when you are actually making a spoof of comedy films, it actually makes it even harder, but this film carries it off successfully. The two garbage men are so funny, it reminds me of a TV sketch show in the UK called 'Little Britain'. This film is a must for your collection and is one of the best, most entertaining, funniest, best storyline, National Lampoon's film to date!!
|
positive
|
(Contains spoilers)<br /><br />People who put a Lonely Heart's ad in the newspaper are often idealists. They try to put into a few words everything they are and expect. The exchange of letters is full of hope...Louis Mahe (Jean Paul Belmondo), owner of a cigarette company on the ile de la Reunion (east of Madagascar) is so affected by the letters of Julie Roussell that he proposes to her. But not the expected pretty brunette comes from board of the "Mississippi", but - Catherine Deneuve. And we know from the start that she is a marriage imposter and that a crime has taken place. She shows no interest in "Julie's" wardrobe (she does not even get her trunk open) and neglects her canary until it dies. But the most basic tricks of seduction (an open zipper) are sufficient to transform Louis into a pliable little dog. First: a joint bank account. And then, when Julie's sister draws attention to herself, the flight. With 27,850 millions of Louis' 28 millions - she would have needed his signature for the entire sum.<br /><br />Louis and Julie's sister engage a private detective (Michel Bouquet). Louis contrives to trace Marion (Deneuve's real name) in Antibes where she works as taxi-girl - her gangster-lover left her penniless, or rather centimeless. Louis finds himself unable to kill her. She tells her story: Orphan. Precocious. Lesbian experiences. Many sugardaddies. Jail - and soon she leads him by the nose again. The detective turns out to be sly as a fox and tenacious as a blood hound; Louis and Marion bury his body in the cellar. They flee to Paris, where Louis discovers that Marion has a costly taste. She worships money like a deity. He sells his firm at a fraction of its value. But when the corpse of the detective is discovered (a flood) they have to flee again - without the money. Life in a mountain lodge, together with a whining loser - Marion can think of a more cheerful life without this appendage...<br /><br />A high point in the careers of everybody involved. Belmondo's self-deceit makes him nearly endearing. Deneuve looks beautiful in her wardrobe by Yves St. Laurent, and her performance is delightful: At first she fakes the fragile wifey - too timid to ask her husband for money, that's why the joint bank account is needed - but after being exposed she sounds like Katharine Hepburn in the jail scene of BRINGING UP BABY. The scenery is spectacular - the tropics, the riviera, Paris. Truffaut directs with self-evident aplomb: the sixties were the only decade when european films were head and shoulders above american productions. After this film Truffaut was able to look his idol, Alfred Hichcock, full in the face.
|
positive
|
I love Umberto Lenzi's cop movies -- ROME ARMED TO THE TEETH is my favorite -- and his DESERT COMMANDOS pretty much legitimized the Italian Euro War phenomenon by managing to actually be a pretty good movie. Give him guns, machines, some guys to run around talking tough and it's hard for him to miss.<br /><br />What a shame it is then to encounter his EATEN ALIVE and CANNIBAL FEROX. They could have been by anybody, really, and one watches them with a sense that he was under contract, was told what kind of films to make, was assigned a cast & crew and given a budget, deadline and script. Lenzi then went out and executed his films the same way that a guy at McDonald's fixes a batch of French Fries. Of the two, EATEN ALIVE is the more original -- which is kind of amazing considering that it features extensive footage copped from three other cannibal movies -- and easier to enjoy than CANNIBAL FEROX, though not much.<br /><br />I will let others outline the plot: What fascinated me about the film is how staged it all looks, and yet what a somewhat infamous reputation this film has as some sort of all-out assault on good taste. It isn't, though the film is an exercise in bad taste, complete with a title-earning scene where two of the pretty supporting ladies are quite literally sliced up and eaten alive by cannibals which is the film's high point. The problem is that Lenzi lets us get a good, long look at the cannibal feast scene and it has the convincing ring of a 3rd season STAR TREK episode complete with a fake jungle set for the really gory close up shots. And I don't know about anyone else, but if someone was slicing off pieces of my person and eating them I wouldn't just lie there and look distressed.<br /><br />My problem with the film might be that I have a lot of respect for Lenzi as a filmmaker, and again this could have been directed by anybody. All of your cannibal movie conventions are touched on but it never feels like they are filmed with any real conviction, other than to try and bully Ruggero Deodato out of the sandbox. The two directors certainly must have known each other and either had a sort of juvenile rivalry or an actual dislike for each other's work and a conscious need to upstage them. Lenzi invented the cannibal genre with MAN FROM DEEP RIVER, Deodato blew it away with JUNGLE HOLOCAUST, Lenzi fired back with EATEN ALIVE, Deodato blew him (and everyone else) away with the superior CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST, and Lenzi fired a last parting salvo with CANNIBAL FEROX, which is about as realistic as that Krazy Glu commercial where the guy superglues his hardhat to a girder and hangs in midair.<br /><br />This film is less desperate and a bit more hesitant to push viewers into the abyss with everything holy than FEROX, which remains as a sort of misguided attempt to upstage CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST. This one is more of a mish-mash, with an interesting jungle adventure crossed with a Jim Jones like suicide cult -- the cannibals seem like they were added as an afterthought rather than the reason for making the film. I think that fans of the genre will have a better impression of the film than fans of Lenzi's films looking for something new by the formidable director. It isn't as entertaining as SLAVE OF THE CANNIBAL GOD, adventurous as his own MAN FROM DEEP RIVER and certainly lacks the wallop of CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST. Combine those considerations with the recycled footage, stomach churning scenes of animal violence, misogynistic scenes of sexual violence and stagy, wooden methodology of film-making and what you get ends up being an OK jungle thriller with two or three standout scenes, and Umberto Lenzi was capable of so much more.<br /><br />4/10; Gore freaks will go nuts however.
|
negative
|
The Last Station, director Michael Hoffman's melodrama about the last months in the life of Leo Tolstoy, begins with fog and sleep. Tolstoy (Christopher Plummer) lives with his family in a compound at Yasnaya Polyana, taking walks and writing and being seen to by his wife and the adherents to his "movement", people dedicated to his ideas of pacifism, vegetarianism, sexual abstinence and communal property who have gathered in a forest camp not far away. His wife, Sophia (Helen Mirren) wars openly with the head of his movement Chertkov (Paul Giamatti), who she claims in his efforts to convince Tolstoy to sign the rights to his works over to the Russian people is trying to steal the wealth that is owed to her upon her husbands imminent death. Observing all of this is Tolstoy's new steward, Bulgakov (James McAvoy), a naive adherent who is torn between his love of the man and concern for his wife.<br /><br />Hoffman's script, which is based on the novel by Jay Parini, quite often veers itself into confused territory, building up a complex tangle of threads and opaque motivations that ultimately don't resolve themselves in any satisfying way. The scope of the film is grand, and its story should reverberate just as Tolstoy, whose beliefs foreshadowed in some ways both the Bolsheviks' and those of pacifists like Ghandi. It unfortunately doesn't, it's un-unpickable, building up with much gusto confrontations that are constantly ravelling off into nothingness. The three-way relationship between the Church, the faithful Sophia and the unbelieving Tolstoy, for example, is referenced often. In the last section of the film a mute priest in a magnificent hat even shows up, but the script never expands on this beyond awkwardly inserting it into the story as an attempt at enriching it or providing some semblance of historical accuracy. There are a ton of details in the film, but not enough attention is paid to most of them and as a result the film feels cluttered, overburdened, energetic but unfortunately pointless.<br /><br />At its heart is the love story between Sophia and Tolstoy, and that story, as baffling and cramped as it is, is the reason to watch the film. Mirren and Plummer are, unsurprisingly, the best things in the film. Plummer's Tolstoy is vague, at once confused and resolute, apprehensive and full of joy and certainty. Mirren's Sophia is in full panic, in a righteous lather, forced to watch and expected to be mute as her husband gives away his time, his possessions and his money to people who are unquestionably devoted to him but also clearly in possession of their own agendas. They're great performances, all the more so given the vast gulf between the real importance of the couple's place in history and the script's ability to support that, both Sophia and Tolstoy seem willed into the film by Mirren and Plummer alone, both making the best they can out of what meagre material is there. Giammati and McAvoy, both talented actors, are unable to do the same and Giamatti's Chertkov seems neither a revolutionary nor a thief (and not both at once, either) but rather a cipher, a stand-in for a whole package of unresolved anxieties and aborted historical impulses. The scope of this thing never boils down to anything, it hitches along, getting by on the strength of Plummer and Mirren and not much else. It's interesting and pretty, but ultimately unrewarding. 4.5/10
|
negative
|
This cheapo remake of the terrific Five Star Final suffers from terrible acting. Humphrey Bogart stars as the manager of a sleazoid radio station that is desperate to boost sagging ratings. The owner decides to have a series of morality plays written about a famous murder case from 20 years ago. So they hire the fake preacher (Harry Hayden) to track down the murderess, who was acquitted and has been living quietly under a fake name. The preacher arrive on the daughter's wedding day, but the ruthless radio station refuses to back off exposing the mother and ruining their lives.<br /><br />Bogart is always good. Hayden is good the the slimy preacher, and Henry O'Neill is good as the father. Everyone else is just awful. Helen McKeller wins no sympathy (crucial for the role), Linda Perry is a lousy actress, Beverly Roberts is OK but always looks old, Claire Dodd and Hobart Cavanagh have no parts, Carlyle Moore is a dud as the boy friend, Virginia Brissac is miscast as the society mother, Robert Middlemas overacts as the station owner.<br /><br />This one comes in under an hour but is a pale copy of the original which boasted dynamic performances by Edward G. Robinson, Aline MacMahon, Frances Starr, and Boris Karloff. But it's always worth watching Boagrt.
|
positive
|
The film Torrent was a first and a last for Greta Garbo. It was her first American made film at MGM, the only studio in the USA that she would ever work at. It was also the last time that someone else was billed above her in the credits, that being her leading man her Ricardo Cortez.<br /><br />Torrent is based on the popular Spanish writer's Vicente Blasco Ibanez's work Entre Naranjos. It concerns a pair of mismatched lovers, Garbo and Cortez, who can't quite get together, mostly due to the machinations of Cortez's mother Marta Mattox. <br /><br />Mattox is a wicked woman who has some set ideas about who her son should be marrying. Remember this is Spain and such arranged marriages were still even in those times quite proper. Mattox has Gertrude Olmstead in mind as a daughter-in-law, she's the offspring of Mack Swain a man grown rich in hog raising. Swain provides a few moments of comic relief with his tender concern for the piglets before they grow into big old hogs to be butchered.<br /><br />Blasco Ibanez had previous novels The Four Horseman Of The Apocalypse and Blood And Sand previously filmed with Rudolph Valentino in the lead. It might have been interesting if Valentino had done this one with Garbo, but he might have been beyond film making when this was done. In any event, one of the Valentino wannabes Ricardo Cortez fills in with the male lead.<br /><br />One reason Valentino might not have wanted this film is because clearly the lead character is Garbo's unlike the other two works previously mentioned. When she gets done dirt by Cortez who is doing what Mattox and her 'adviser' banker Tully Marshall tell her, she leaves Spain and goes to France where she becomes a great opera star. And leads quite the scandalous life there.<br /><br />When she returns to Spain and tries to rekindle things, Mattox is even more outraged. She has a political career in mind for her son. Cortez is now running for the Spanish Parliament which curiously enough is called the Cortes. <br /><br />The title refers to a flood and a dam breaking causing all kinds of havoc in the countryside. Cortez in fact braves the Torrent in a row boat trying to rescue Garbo from harm's way. When they do get together they have a brutally frank discussion, the brutality coming from Garbo.<br /><br />The special effects here, primitive though they seem now are quite remarkable for their time. They look very similar to the shots used in 20th Century Fox's The Rains Came that came out in 1939 and that won an Oscar for Special Effects. Unfortunately for Torrent it came out one year before Oscar made his debut.<br /><br />I'm not going to give any endings away so you'll have to see the film to find out if Cortez and Garbo get together in the end. Garbo rightly won rave reviews for her performance and in an age when exaggerated gestures was the norm in silent screen acting, she was remarkably subtle in her role. So she would be the rest of her career, she had a remarkable face for closeups.<br /><br />Although Greta Garbo would go on to do far better work than Torrent, this film is still a fitting debut for her on the American big screen and holds up very well for today's audience.
|
positive
|
I know I've already added a comment but I just wanted to clarify something...<br /><br />I'm not some old fogey from the Baby Boom generation that grew up glued to a flickering b/w picture of Phil Silvers, Jackie Gleason etc.<br /><br />Bilko was already 20 years old before I was born but I had the pleasure of discovering Phil Silver's Bilko courtesy of BBC2. I wonder if I would have enjoyed Steve Martin's travesty if I hadn't seen or heard of Phil Silvers - I don't know - maybe I would have.<br /><br />Some of the other reviewers who think this movie is worthy of a '10' admit that they haven't seen the original. I can only urge you to spend 21 minutes of your life watching a single episode. If after watching the original Ernie, Colonel Hall, Ritzig & Emma, Duane Doberman, Henshaw, Dino, Flashman, Zimmerman, Mullin et al you still think that Steve Martin's film is woth anything above a '2' - I'll stand you a pint....
|
negative
|
Alain Delon visits swift, sure vengeance on the ruthless crime family that employed him as a hit-man in the Duccio Tessari thriller "Big Guns" after they accidentally murder his wife and child. Tessari and scenarists Roberto Gandus, Ugo Liberatore of "A Minute to Pray, a Second to Die," and Franco Verucci of "Ring of Death" take this actioneer about a career gunman for the mob right down to the wire. Indeed, "Big Guns" is rather predictable, but it still qualifies as solid entertainment with lots of savage and often sudden killings. Alain Delon of "The Godson" is appropriately laconic as he methodically deals out death to the heads of the mob families who refused to let him retire so that he could enjoy life with his young son and daughter. Richard Conte of "The Godfather" plays a Sicilian crime boss who wants to bury the hatchet with the Delon character, but the rest of his hard-nosed associates want the hit-man dead. Like most crime thrillers in the 1960s and 1970s, "Big Guns" subscribes to the cinematic morality that crime does not pay. Interestingly, the one man who has nothing to do with the murder of the wife and son of the hero survives while another betrays the hero with extreme prejudice. Tessari does not waste a second in this 90-minute shoot'em up. Apart from the mother and son dying in a car bomb meant for the father, the worst thing that takes place occurs in an automobile salvage yard when an associate of the hero is crushed in a junked car. Ostensibly, "Big Guns" is a rather bloodless outing, but it does have a high body count for a 1973 mobster melodrama. Only at the last minute does our protagonist let his guard down and so the contrived morality of an eye for an eye remains intact. Tessari stages a couple of decent car chases and the death of a don in a train traveling through a train tunnel is as bloody as this violent yarn gets. The photography and the compositions are excellent.
|
positive
|
I enjoyed this show for two reasons 1. Richard Dean Anderson 2. Amanda Tapping. These two performers carried the show with able support from the regulars and recurring actors. The replacement of RDA in seasons 9-10 was enough to take the heart out of the show.<br /><br />The chemistry between all the main characters is just tremendous. You get the feeling that the actors like to pal around after the camera stops rolling. This relationship carries over into the program we get to see.<br /><br />RDA gives his 'O'Neill' character believable personality. He never knows when to give the wiseass in him a rest. You watch the others roll their eyes in dismay at some of his utterances. Still, they know that he is the man to have around when the situation is perilous.<br /><br />There is a lot going on between 'Carter' and 'O'Neill' under the surface. They manage to keep the lid on, but often just barely. The episode 'Solitudes' in season 1 had some of the best drama ever seen on television. The love between the two made the prospect of dying bearable because they faced it together.<br /><br />'Carter' and 'Jackson' often have to smooth over some of the turbulence created by 'O'Neill'. Yet 'O'Neill's' tactical instincts always seem sound. He understands what to do without having to think about the matter. The team has several times been placed in jeopardy by the others not listening to his orders.<br /><br />The quality declined markedly in seasons 9 and 10. The original story arc was mostly used up and the new villains never really caught my interest. Ben Browder was far inferior to RDA in carrying the show. He had his rare moments with Claudia Black, but that was all. Amanda Tapping was phoning in her performances these two seasons. You could see her greatly changed appearance after having a baby. She was probably thinking more about the child than the show.<br /><br />The spin-off 'Stargate Atlantis' has a few moments, but is mostly a weaker effort. The major characters lack the chemistry of the cast of the original. The villains (Wraiths) are so improbable as to be ludicrous. Maybe Amanda Tapping can breathe some life into the program or it won't last beyond the fourth season.<br /><br />There has always been a problem for me in the special effects for the show. To have spaceships shaped as pyramids is a design monstrosity seldom equaled in Sci-Fi. The use of torches for illumination in these ships is just as bad. The campy use of decor from ancient Egypt concealing ultra-modern technology is just as hard to accept.<br /><br />I wondered about some of the continuity on the show too. In the season 2 opener, 'Daniel Jackson' is shot up and his uniform has a gaping hole where he was wounded. He crawls into a sarcophagus and it heals his body and restores his uniform like it just came off the rack in the wardrobe closet. The episode 'Hathor' has a sarcophagus fall into the hands of the SGC, yet it is never mentioned again. This device could have been used in several later episodes on 'Daniel', 'O'Neill', and 'Dr. Frasier'.
|
positive
|
"Angels in the Outfield" was originally a 1951 movie from the Ted Turner library; Disney remade it in 1994, this time, using the California Angels (now the Los Angeles Angels) as the team (Disney used to own this and the Anaheim Mighty Ducks Hockey Team; also, good use of the words, huh?????).<br /><br />This movie was about a couple of orphaned children who wanted a family. A man promised the boys a family, only if the Angels won the pennant. So, he called upon God one night about this. The boy who prayed could see the help coming on the way (and ONLY that boy); for instance, when the first angel had come down, a player hit a ball so hard not only did the bat break, so did the ball!!!!! For much of the post-All Star season of 1994, the Angels were at the top of the AL West (of which my home team the Rangers is one and it still is). However, they lost a game because the boy was at court instead of the White Sox/Angels game (there was no Central Division in Baseball back then, hence Chicago being in the West), and no angels were there to help. Thus, a new rule was created: no angels can help in championship games. But wait! In the final championship game, the Angels won!!!!! It was a miracle indeed!<br /><br />What I liked about this film: This is a good movie. I mean, I prayed every night for the last few years asking for help with school and stuff; look at me now! My work was good!!!!! So for one, this shows that if you believe, God can send His angels down to help you with any troubles that you may have in life. And second, this is a family baseball movie, which is always exciting. This is an old Disney movie, too; I've seen this just recently on the New Disney Channel (blech!!!!!).<br /><br />"Angels in the Outfield" will change your life forever once you've seen it!!!!!<br /><br />10/10
|
positive
|
William Lustig's followup to "Maniac" proves conclusively that, without Tom Savini's spectacular effects and Spinell's convincing performance, "Maniac" would never have become the cult hit that it did. "Vigilante" is badly directed, with a simple-minded script that spells everything out for you and is predictable at every turn, and also mediocre performances by all the actors. Judging from the sense of "deja vu" this film gave me, Lustig had watched "Death Wish" several times too many before making this! (*1/2)
|
negative
|
Can't liberals like Alec Baldwin get it through their heads that they lost the elections of 2000 and 2004? The ridiculous. lame swipes at WalMart, non-union workers, George W Bush and the stock market not to mention the intentional GWB accent that Balwin's character uses in the film just makes him look silly and bitter on screen. As the credits roll the sour grapes continue as "Special Thanks" are given to Ken Lay, and other CEOs from Enron, Tyco, WorldCom, and IMClone. Let me clue you in to something - if you put all your money into one company's stock YOU'RE AN IDIOT. We don't need this excuse for a movie to tell us that. What a waste of Jim Carrey's talent - from the trailer I expected a completely different movie - what I got was a 90 minute DNC commercial on how to scare people into not investing for their own future, keep them stupid, and keep them dependent on government. No wonder Hollywood is in trouble and can't make a decent movie anymore - maybe you guys could get an original idea and put it on screen for once...although I shouldn't be surprised since Jane Fonda was cast in the original.
|
negative
|
East Side Story entertains and informs about an unknown part of Cold War history. What is the purpose of any documentary? To inform the reader through commentary and footage. This one succeeds at both. You will never find many movies whose clips you get to see in here because some of them have been destroyed and some are unaccessible.<br /><br />You get to see and her music from musicals made in East Germany, Russia, and other countries under Soviet Control. It shows you that the people who made these movies and the people who watched them all look for same things a Westerner would look for, which are pretty women and men singing and dancing on the streets with smiles and (hopefully) white teeth.
|
positive
|
This is a brilliant documentary that follows the life of Herge and his creating TinTin. Its based around a series of interviews conducted in 1971, and covers every thing from his early life and "Nazi collaboration" to the final moments of his life.<br /><br />Brilliantly edited, very cinematic and fast paced enough to not get boring. This film will give you a new appreciation for the work of Herge.<br /><br />The film makers make the film more than just another documentary. Using the latest state of the art technology and for a change putting it to good use.<br /><br />Recently more and more documentaries have been making it to cinemas. But this one as to be amongst the best...
|
positive
|
Come on Tina Fey you can do better then this. As soon as the movie started i knew how it would end. Sure it was funny at times. Even laugh out loud funny. But there isn't enough laughs to save this movie. I don't recommend buying this. At the most i recommend renting it but thats all. Baby Mama has some funny scenes but is predictable and fails to have the heartwarming ending it strives for.<br /><br />Tina Fey and Amy Poalher made a good team. Mean Girls is one of my favorite movies. Tina Fey and Amy Poalher both did great in that and they do good in this. But this isn't there best. Baby Mama had a great supporting cast. Dane Cook, Sigourney Weaver and Steve Martin add to the casts greatness.<br /><br />Another pregnancy movie has hit the cinema world. After the great Knocked Up and Juno, Baby Mama looks very average when compared. Knocked Up and Juno are Hilarious, Heartwarming and have endings that leave you with a smile on your face. Baby Mama's ending was unfunny and dull.<br /><br />Baby Mama wasn't the best comedy of the year and it doesn't try to be. I recommend it but don't expect it to be totally hilarious. Expect a average comedy that doesn't give the big emotional ending it tries to have. I give Baby Mama.....<br /><br />4/10
|
negative
|
Terry Gilliam traveled again to the future (he had already done it in "Brazil") to tell this story about a virus that's destroying the human race.<br /><br />The script is totally crazy with some easy tricks on it but it's quite entertaining and Gilliam proves that he's got imagination (the futuristic scenes are just great). As for the cast, Bruce Willis and the beautiful Madeleine Stowe (whatever happened to her??) are just OK, but Brad Pitt is so annoying, whenever he plays roles that are out of his hand he results so forced and he's not credible at all. He should just play good-looking successful young men.<br /><br />*My rate: 7/10
|
positive
|
I have only had the luxury of seeing this movie once when I was rather young so much of the movie is blurred in trying to remember it. However, I can say it was not as funny as a movie called killer tomatoes should have been and the most memorable things from this movie are the song and the scene with the elderly couple talking about poor Timmy. Other than that the movie is really just scenes of little tomatoes and big tomatoes rolling around and people acting scared and overacting as people should do in a movie of this type. However, just having a very silly premise and a catchy theme song do not a good comedy make. Granted this movie is supposed to be a B movie, nothing to be taken seriously, however, you should still make jokes that are funny and not try to extend a mildly amusing premise into a full fledged movie. Perhaps a short would have been fine as the trailer showing the elderly couple mentioned above and a man desperately trying to gun down a larger tomato was actually pretty good. The trailer itself looked like a mock trailer, but no they indeed made a full movie, and a rather weak one at that.
|
negative
|
Frankly, this movie has gone over the heads of most of its detractors.<br /><br />The opposite of perdition (being lost) is salvation (being saved) and this movie is one of a very few to deal with those two concepts. The movie also explores the love and disappointments that attend the father-son relationship. It should be noted at the outset that none of these are currently fashionable themes.<br /><br />The premise is that the fathers in the move, hit-man Michael Sullivan (Tom Hanks) and his crime boss John Rooney (Paul Newman), love their sons and will do anything to protect them. But Rooney's son Connor is even more evil than the rest. He kills one of Rooney's loyal soldiers to cover up his own stealing from his father. When Connor learns that Sullivan's son Michael witnessed it, he mistakenly kills Sullivan's other son (and Sullivan's wife) in an attempt to silence witnesses.<br /><br />Sullivan decides he wants revenge at any price, even at the terribly high price of perdition. Rooney, who in one scene curses the day Connor was born, refuses to give up his son Connor to Sullivan, and hires a contract killer named Maguire (Jude Law) to kill Sullivan and his son. So Rooney joins his son Connor on the Road to Perdition.<br /><br />For the rest of the movie, accompanied by his surviving son young Michael, Sullivan pursues Connor Rooney down the Road to Perdition, and Maguire pursues Sullivan. When Sullivan confronts Rooney in a Church basement, and demands that he give up Connor because Connor murdered his family, Rooney says - "Michael, there are only murderers in this room,.., and there's only one guarantee, none of us will see Heaven." As the movie ends, somewhat predictably, one character is saved and one character repents.<br /><br />I'm not a big Tom Hanks fan, but he does step out of character to play hit-man Sullivan convincingly, giving a subtle and laconic performance. Newman does well as the old Irish gangster Rooney, showing a hard edge in his face and manner, his eyes haunted by Connor's misdeeds. Jude Law plays Maguire in a suitably creepy way. Tyler Hoechlin plays Young Michael naturally and without affectation.<br /><br />The cinematography constantly played light off from darkness, echoing the themes of salvation and perdition. The camera drew from a palette of greens and greys. The greys belonged to the fathers and the urban landscapes of Depression era Illinois. The greens belonged to the younger sons and that State's rural flatlands. Thomas Newman's lush, sonorous and haunting music had faint Irish overtones and was played out in Copland-like arrangements. The sets were authentic mid-Western urban - factories, churches. The homes shone with gleaming woodwork.<br /><br />The excellence of the movie lies in its generation of a unique feeling out of its profound themes, distinctive acting, and enveloping music and cinematography. The only negative was a slight anti-gun message slipped into the screenplay y, the movie's only nod to political correctness.<br /><br />I give this movie a10 out of 10; in time it will be acknowledged as a great film.
|
positive
|
Speed which I believe is direct copy of the Hollywood movie Cellular (I haven't watched this one) gives an impression of a test match which is very exciting in first four days, but then gets in a very boring draw at the end. I have watched this movie today on 12th January 2008 on rented VCD. It's release date is 19th Oct 2007. But still fortunately for me I didn't know or heard much of this movie before except that it is a flop at box office. So in this situation when I watch the movie, I feel that this movie could have been a very good movie, but then the director again falls in the trap for Bollywood traditions and has wasted a very good chance.<br /><br />Off course as a Bhatt movie it must be copied from somewhere else. But now days it doesn't matter for me, if I haven't seen the original movie. I just found the main theme much similar to 'Nick of Time' and 'Badshah'. In the movie Sanjay Suri is shown an intelligence agent, but his wife thinks that he is a chef. This brings back the memory of 'True-Lies'. The only new part was the use if the phone. But that too I found out now is taken from movie Cellular. So when a movie is made with the mixture of so many other movies it's future is quite clear.<br /><br />The things I like about the movie is its pace. As the name suggest the things really happens fast, and there is not much time to think about in between the scenes. But this breaks in the last 20 minutes of so where the movie goes in traditional Bollywood style of Dhishum dhishum.<br /><br />The plot of the movie is also quite interesting. Three stories going parallel, one after the other. One of the kidnapping of Urmila, the other of the Zayed trying to help Urmila, and then the plan of murder of prime minister. These three stories gets mixed up naturally with each other as the movie continues.<br /><br />But then the very ordinary acting and unnecessary extra style has killed the spirit of the movie. Except Sanjay Suri, none other makes any impression. This goes even for Urmila, who is always promising in RGVs movies. Due to this ordinary acting some scenes doesn't really convey the feelings that director wanted. E.g. the scene at the end where Urmila leaves all hope and cut the phone, should have made a good impact. But instead we just wait for the end of that scene.<br /><br />Other than acting, some unnecessary love for style demoralizes the movie. Showing so cool villains is good for Hollywood movies not for Bollywood The background of London is also only for making style and not much intelligent advantage of this background can be seen. Especially at the end, all those dhishhum- dhishhum were utterly unnecessary. May be director has an impression that the climax in Hindi movies must have such fights. They look unrealistic, increase the length of the movie and make sure that the people are leaving theater before the movie ends.<br /><br />Over and all, I find the movie once watchable. If it is coming on TV or you can get it on rent its OK. But then again make sure that you have the remote and forward button handy. Next time, when the movie is on TV, you can safely watch other channels.
|
negative
|
... And boy is it soft <br /><br />I saw this on cable channel Bravo one Saturday night and here in Britain we often have these dire " Erotic " soft core movies turning up late at night on Bravo . This one follows a WEIRD SCIENCE type plot of a couple of college geeks building a virtual reality headset that makes you have sexual fantasies . <br /><br />When you`ve seen one of these movies you`ve seen them all with a bunch of bimbos looking like they`re advertising silicone implants . Come on I`ve actually seen breasts in real life ( I`m sure some other of us have too ) and they wobble around unlike here where they defy the laws of , if not physics than at least gravity . The sex scenes are these tedious affairs where a well buffed geezer rubs himself against his co-star without any dialogue or sound apart from some muzak and when they climax it looks like they`re both having a bad attack of constipation . The girls themselves are very pretty especially Brandy Davis and Nikki Fritz but they`re wasted in these type of soft core movies <br /><br />And if it`s fantasy you`re after I recommend the LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy
|
negative
|
Five Deadly Venoms is not as bloody and violent as Story Of Ricky or Super Ninjas, but it features some of the best hand-to-hand fight sequences in Hong Kong film history. Director Chang Cheh creates what is considered by many to be his masterpiece. This movie launched the careers of the five men who play the venoms. Meng Lo plays yet another bad ass. He would go on to be in Super Ninjas. Kuo Chui who is Philip Kwok would go on to Story Of Ricky and Hard Boiled. Any chop socky fan can apperciate this. But I still think it ain't as good as Super Ninjas (also made by Chang Cheh). But all chop socky is good and this is one of the very best.
|
positive
|
I did not enjoy the film, Joshua, at all. Perhaps it is because I saw another, much better similar film titled Orphan 2 days prior but perhaps it's really just because this film was not very good. I am going with the ladder. Sure, the plot of an evil child is not exactly original but that doesn't mean the film could not succeed. It could have been suspenseful and entertaining and chilling but instead it was slow building, boring, uneventful and really didn't leave me thinking anything more than 'that wasn't very good' when it was all over.<br /><br />At the end, Joshua's motivations are revealed. I won't give that away but the reality is that he didn't really accomplish his goals since despite Vera Farmiga as his mother, Abby, disappearing about 3/4th through the movie, all arrows point to her returning home soon. She was committed to a mental institution because she was losing her mind but then Joshua's Father/Her husband was accused of tampering with her medication which tells the audience that the institution realized that she was indeed not mentally ill but rather was being dosed medically. So.. shouldn't she be coming home soon? Won't Joshua have failed? Won't his Mother be living with him and his sister and possibly his Father soon? I question the Father since his future is left open ended.<br /><br />At the end of the day, I didn't care about the characters. The evil demon child Joshua wasn't really scary. The storyline moved slowly and when it picked up it was still boring. Suspense fell flat every single time. When it was over I couldn't believe I had sat through the whole thing. <br /><br />4/10 just because the acting was good from the parents especially Vera Farmiga as the Mother but if you want to see a movie about an evil 'child' go see Orphan. Now that's a movie that took an unoriginal concept and created a brilliant movie.
|
negative
|
I grew up on the 'Superman II' theatrical version ("S2T") and as a kid, I loved it more than Part I since not only did it contain more Superman and three Superman-type villains, it started off with a bang the best Clark Kent to Superman transformations and rescue scenes. Kids no longer had to impatiently wait for Superman to appear on screen, as in part I. Now as an adult, I can see how the mighty had fallen with S2T (See: my review.) I've always heard of the back-story on how they prematurely and unjustifiably fired the original's director, Richard Donner from part II. (It must have been a rarity back then to film two separate movies simultaneously, now it's common: 'Back to the Future' and 'Matrix' 2 & 3 for example.) Unfortunately, after finally seeing the Richard Donner Cut (or, "S2RD") I still can't fully recommend it. Gone, was the great Superman change scene, the entire Paris rescue, as was the wonderful recap of part I in S2T's opening. In fact, they all but wrote the words: "Previously on Superman
" in S2RD. The special effects weren't great in either Part I or S2T , but S2RD, they were mostly downright laughable such as Lois falling from the Daily Planet window. I will admit, some new scenes worked and some they took out were welcomed departures, such as any scene in the "honeymoon suite." Overall, if you grew up on S2T as I did, and loved it as a child not nitpicking as I do as an adult, you should absolutely see S2RD as it's almost a brand new childhood experience with dozens of new scenes. (Spoiler alert) Unfortunately, the worst change comes last: gone was also the weird amnesia kiss from S2T replaced with the exact same ending as 'I.' This is not only a lazy, unoriginal copout, it doesn't make sense on why Clark would go back to that diner, if those events never actually happened. And will he continue to "turn back time" for every confrontation?
|
negative
|
Today, Bea Arthur died so I was cruising around the IMDb Web site and somehow wound up on a show called "Gloria." "All In The Family" was a brilliant show for its first four or five years and I bet I watched every episode more than once. However, I swear that I did NOT know a show named "Gloria" existed. Maybe, that's a good thing. Maybe, it means I had a life as a young adult rather than watching television.<br /><br />On the other hand, it is pathetic that the "All In The Family" franchise had deteriorated so much that it begat a show I never heard of -- and one that is rated very poorly by the previous reviewers.<br /><br />I rated the show a 1 for two reasons -- the system did not allow me to register a no vote and writers and TV execs should be condemned for starting a show that had no business being on the air and besmirches the memory of one of the greatest shows in TV history.<br /><br />Shalom, ZWrite
|
negative
|
I really love the sexy action and sci-fi films of the sixties and its because of the actress's that appeared in them. They found the sexiest women to be in these films and it didn't matter if they could act (Remember "Candy"?). The reason I was disappointed by this film was because it wasn't nostalgic enough. The story here has a European sci-fi film called "Dragonfly" being made and the director is fired. So the producers decide to let a young aspiring filmmaker (Jeremy Davies) to complete the picture. They're is one real beautiful woman in the film who plays Dragonfly but she's barely in it. Film is written and directed by Roman Coppola who uses some of his fathers exploits from his early days and puts it into the script. I wish the film could have been an homage to those early films. They could have lots of cameos by actors who appeared in them. There is one actor in this film who was popular from the sixties and its John Phillip Law (Barbarella). Gerard Depardieu, Giancarlo Giannini and Dean Stockwell appear as well. I guess I'm going to have to continue waiting for a director to make a good homage to the films of the sixties. If any are reading this, "Make it as sexy as you can"! I'll be waiting!
|
negative
|
I stumbled on this late last night n TCM.<br /><br />Hadn't seen it since it came out originally, but had never forgotten it.<br /><br />I had completely forgotten how gorgeous and talented Signe Hasso was when she was still young, ditto for Shelly Winters before she balooned out.<br /><br />Ronald Coleman, though, was the quintessential state actor of his time - I had read Othello in high school English - and HATED it. After seeing "A Double Life" I read it again and finally understood what the play was about.<br /><br />The Gordon/Kanin writing team was at its peak when this script was done -<br /><br />A movie well worth remembering and rewatching,
|
positive
|
Nick Nolte gives an excellent performance in Kurt Vonnegut's dark tale. Notle plays Howard W. Campbell who was a double agent working in propaganda during World War II. After the war, he lives anonymously until competing factions wish to dig up his past. As with much of Vonnegut's work, this is a meditation on the absurdity of war and those who use propaganda for their own aims. Nolte is fantastic - self assured and confident as the younger Campbell, and then broken and haunted as the older man who is forced to atone for the sins of his past. (7 out of 10)
|
positive
|
Don't let the name of this film deceive you, In reality Jake Speed the character is quite possibly the laziest action hero ever known to film. When Jake Speed is not saving virgin girls from evil madmen, which he is often not, he's seriously relaxing. Perhaps this adds to his charm, but in my opinion an action hero is not suppose to "chill out" whenever he gets the chance. Furthermore, unlike other daring heros who usually have an impressive list of talents, this man has none, unless of course you call sleeping a talent. Anyhow, this movie is basically worthless, the writing is sub par and the action, when there is some, is very lame. (The machine guns on the jeep weren't bad, but that's about it) So, if you're in the mood to watch a movie that is a cure for insomnia, then this piece is perfect for you - It has a hero that not only puts himself to sleep, but also his audience.
|
negative
|
*MINOR SPOILERS*<br /><br />Need any further proof that Tsai Ming-liang ranks among the most original and provocative filmmakers working anywhere today? See this film.<br /><br />Working from slight variations of a theme running through most of his work, THE HOLE represents a study in alienation and loneliness - in this case between a man and woman who are upstairs/downstairs neighbors - and how varied structures (real or psychological) of modernity wall people off from one another. Here, the woman (the downstairs neighbor) attempts to endure as her apartment is flooded by a prodigious leak from upstairs. A plumber attempts to locate the source of the problem, then disappears after creating a large hole in the floor. Already isolated and desperate (both characters are among the few residents of a housing project who haven't fled in advance of a mysterious, near-apocalyptic epidemic). The hole linking the two apartments functions first as yet another in a long line of indignities, but soon begins to take on a significance of near-mythic proportions.<br /><br />Tsai's sense of humor, and sense of cinematic history is displayed with a bit more overtness than usual - as the woman's occasional daydreams revolving around her upstairs neighbor are visualized as musical numbers (set to the music of Grace Chang) which explode from the screen in brief bits of sensualistic, surreal romance and humor - quite reminiscent of the big-screen PENNIES FROM HEAVEN. And for all of the ennui and alienation on display here, Tsai's skewering of late 90s pre-millennial tensions is funny, absurd, and gives this film a very appealing strageness. The final scene is extraordinary.<br /><br />Meanwhile Tsai - in typical fashion - subverts most of the usual expectations or preconceptions Westerners bring to Asian cinema with a nonchalant, casually-revealed directness, focusing on both the absurdist tendencies of the human mind, and the most absolute of mundanities. There's an utter, nonchalant demystification of almost everything about his characters, sidestepping backstory or most cultural signifiers (which does amplify the isolation of the characters), making THE HOLE - and his other films - rather disorienting, but also always fascinating and insightful.
|
positive
|
I saw this movie at a drive-in in 1959. Until "Howard the Duck" I considered this the worst movie I had ever seen. This movie tried to combine all the genera in one; comedy, horror, teenage angst, and the hot rod that must have sired "My Mother, The Car." Maybe it deserves a second viewing to see if it is an accurate reflection of it's time.
|
negative
|
This was one of the funniest and greatest sitcom to hit national television. Its unfortunate that the show is not placed amongst great sitcoms where it truly belongs. The actors did a superb job and seasons one thru six were the show at its peak point. Although season seven was not as great when compared to the previous six, it was still funny. Season 8 was the real problem kicked in. Without Topher grace or Ashton Kutcher the show simply fell apart. Not too say, the other actors weren't great if any of 2 main characters had left such as Danny Masterson, Wilder Valderamma Kurtwood Smith, Debra Jo Rupp, Mila Kunis and Laura Prepon ( Don Starks and tommy Chong are great too) left the show it would have the same affect. And the inclusion of Randy ( Josh Meyers) didn't help either because he was not well received by the shows fans. I believe if the show ended a year ago it would have certainly gone down in history as one of the sitcom greats. Season 8 was a little dull but the finale was excellent. I am going to miss the show, i just hope i wake up one day to find out the show is back as That 80's show with the same cast because i am going to miss the hell out of it.
|
positive
|
I also just got back from an advanced screening of Redeye and I must say I haven't had so much fun at a movie in a long time. WES CRAVEN is at his best ever. He brings us an amazing end of summer thriller I was so desperately craving. This is THE thriller of the year..no doubt. <br /><br />All the actors are amazing and the action is realistic and fun. The F/X were great. It steadily built suspense. I was on the edge of my seat most of the movie. It's been a while since I heard an audience cheer and clap and get excited in a theater. <br /><br />If your looking for thrills,action and a GOOD plot this summer, REDEYE delivers. Go see it!
|
positive
|
...they bothered making this movie? Anyone? I didn't think so.<br /><br />If you are looking for a coming-of-age movie, go rent Summer of '42. This is no Summer of '42.<br /><br />When your big stars are Nolte & Sarsgaard, & Sarsgaard gets more screen time, that is your first warning sign And, of course, for such an "artsy" movie, there is plenty of cursing & skin flung around, just to make it look "artsy".<br /><br />Sarsgaard did his usual uninteresting, cardboard character, punctuated by moments that were supposed to be intense. The intensity is that of someone with bi-polar disorder.<br /><br />Miller is most famous for her looks & what she had to say about the city of Pittsburgh after this movie. Pittsburgh SHOULD hold a grudge against her. She misrepresented an actual Pittsburgh native.<br /><br />Foster gave Sarsgaard a run for his money in the cardboard acting style. Wow! Was this his first role after high school graduation?<br /><br />So, we have this weird triangle. Foster has a crush on Miller, but is with his boss/girlfriend. He can't take Miller to bed, & won't take his boss to bed. So, he hangs with Sarsgaard & Miller, & watches them get it on.<br /><br />Then, after one of Sarsgaard's pseudo-intense moments, Foster & Miller get it on, a scene that we are "treated" to in every sloppy, moaning detail. Finally, just to round it all out, Foster & Sarsgaard get it on, with Foster in the Miller role. Now I know how 2 guys get it on (as if that was ever anything I needed to know).<br /><br />After all that, all that's left is the tragic ending for one character & the retrospective views of the remaining 2. It gets me right in the pit of my stomach. Oh, wait! That was the pepperoni pizza I just had.<br /><br />I'd like back the time this movie took out of my life, please.
|
negative
|
What is there to say about this movie? This movie is simply gorgeous. A true feast for the eyes. In the same way that the game set the standard for 3D role playing games 7 years ago, this movie sets the standard for future CG movies. Many of you have seen the trailers and the amazing details in every frame and let me tell you this movie does not disappoint. You can actually see the fibers in Cloud's sweater vest.<br /><br />The music is also very good. The movie contains several rearranged tracks from the video game that fans will definitely recognize and appreciate.<br /><br />The movie's main weakness is its story. Its not exactly a bad story, but this story is exclusively aimed for people who have played the video game. First time viewers may feel lost at times, or they may not notice the significance of certain events.<br /><br />I recommend this movie to everyone, even if you've never played the game because what we have here is a special movie. Watch it and enjoy the the beautiful show.
|
positive
|
Evan Almighty continues the mainstream Bruce Almighty franchise, this time with newsman turned freshman Congressman from Buffalo, Evan Baxter (Steve Carell), at it's center. A wholly innocuous (and not even really self-doubting) man, God (Morgan Freeman) decides to enforce some sort of quest upon Baxter, in order to illustrate the importance of... reciprocal kindness, so that Baxter can "change the world" (aka, pay it forward).<br /><br />Think of Evan Almighty as a wholesome derivative of 'Distinguished Gentlemen.' Baxter is not a con, but his colleague, Congressman Long (John Goodman) wants his unquestioned support on a bill that essentially, is harmful to the environment. And well-meaning Baxter, knowing the importance of networking and visibility, is willing to support him. <br /><br />In addition, with the new job comes more responsibility, and Baxter is in a sense, vilified, for not spending enough time with his family. <br /><br />So God, decides to give Evan Baxter some guidance by forcing him to become the modern day Noah. His orders: build an ark. Except, while it may be mildly humorous to see Baxter's transformation to the "weirdo with a beard-o," there doesn't seem to be much point to this whole thing which becomes abundantly clearer when the climax of the film fizzles. (SPOILERS: if none of the population is killed by the "flood", then what was the point of summoning the animals... or at least the ones that obviously weren't from suburban Virginia? or, more importantly, if all Baxter had to realize was that Long's projects faltered in their quality, then why did he have to build an ark?).<br /><br />So, although a comedy like this needn't be a hysterical laugh-riot, it was certainly one made far less enjoyable as it was crammed with far too many homilies (and not all from Morgan Freeman) and action that seemed intended for a film of more epic events.
|
negative
|
Bloody Birthday is a totally rubbish slasher movie from beginning to end. <br /><br />I found the acting to be pretty good considering the genre of movie and its obvious low budget. I don't know what was going on with the cinematography but it looked ghastly. Way too over-saturated. Maybe this is a bad transfer to DVD or maybe it always looked like that, I don't know. <br /><br />There really are no redeeming qualities to speak of. There are a few deaths but not really gory. I wouldn't bother with it if I was you. The best thing about the DVD was the 15 minute interview with producer Max Rosenberg who was very amusing and honest. He didn't have anything good to say about director Ed Hunt and admits the movie was a failure, but he would like to re-make it as he believes it has a decent plot. However, he died in 2004 so I guess it will be up to someone else to take on that challenge. With the way things have been going in the last few years it wouldn't surprise me, there's at least one re-make per week at the cinema these day. It couldn't be any worse than the original I suppose but I couldn't care less whether it got re-made or not.
|
negative
|
I suppose it's quite an achievement to be able to present to an audience a true tail about a frail man; a tail in which the protagonist will spend the majority of the film on his back, in a bed and totally unable to move. And yet the achievement is in the film's effectiveness as a dramatic piece; as a recollection of a true story and I guess as an argument as to why people should have the right to die if they so wish to. But the film isn't a political statement and perhaps thankfully it shies away from too many scenes of debate although it does include one for the sake of argument anyway. More-so, this is one of those foreign language films that presents its lead character as a cripple whom can do nothing but talk to the people around him and yet is able to come across as engaging and compelling anyway.<br /><br />So rather than be an out and out argument, the film is more a sweet yet timely dramatic piece about another person wanting something or in search of something; the only difference is that by attaining this 'goal', it would mean the termination of a someone's life and it would be achieved by not physically going anywhere. Javier Bardem plays real life Galician Ramón Sampedro, an individual who at a much earlier age dived into a clearing of water that was too shallow for such activity. This rendered him bedridden for the rest of his life and his wish to die is the focus of Chilean director Alejandro Amenábar's film. We've seen so many films in our lives in which characters have certain 'goals' or targets one must meet before the film is over to provide a satisfactory experience for the audience, but the change of pace in The Sea Inside is gentle; it does not involve young, energetic, attractive heroes going off to do battle in far off places but a real person after something that means so much to them.<br /><br />Even if you do have a strong policy, either pro or anti-euthanasia, you may find yourself hoping Ramón gets what he wants at the end of it all anyway. The film sets its tone very early on with Ramón giving a speech on why he wants to die to watching family members, immediately introducing the situation and subject to the watching audience who may not know what the film is about. Interestingly, some of the family members are 'anti' what he wishes which might place any audience member that feels strongly about the subject in their respective shoes. But the purpose of this set up is to tell the audience 'No, this isn't one man after something who incidentally has the whole of his family backing him to the end'. Quite easily, the film could've gone down a route in which it is the Sampedro family vs. everybody else but some are anti-Ramón's idea; some are too young to acknowledge what's really going on and others are seemingly too distraught to even have an opinion other than they just want Ramón to stick around a bit longer, they love him after all.<br /><br />The Sea Inside is a following of a story revolving around a victim of sorts. Ramón is a quadriplegic and it is his perspective we see things from. This is something that may disjoint viewers or have the film come across as quite odd given we are being presented with a film from the point of view of a victim rather than an instigator or a lead character in a film that is always inducing the cause in the cause and effect drive. But this is no criticism and it's a credit to the director for delivering such an approach in the effective manner in which it is. The film asks questions; it offers a scenario to its audience. If you were in Ramón's position: what would you do, or think about or dream of or talk about? Consequently, dreams about lawyer Juila (Rueda) are not so much shot for the audience's pleasure as much as they are an ever so slight window into one man's escapist fantasies from his predicament.<br /><br />The study of Julia intensifies somewhat later on when a she begins to share certain similarities with Ramón and that is when she begins to have strokes that are a result of a disease of her own. This trait seems timely in the progression of their relationship and adds a further ingredient of connection on top of an already engaging friendship. This is because Julia feels the physical pain and restriction, not in a sense that she isn't able to get up and walk, but I think she realises the value of life given how emotionally bad she felt beforehand. While the film is based on a true story and covers the subject of euthanasia, it feels like more of a down to Earth drama about a man in a situation in which he is prepared to fight for what he wants but must do so verbally. It's refreshing to see films like The Sea Inside as it not only references history and gives us an insight into that but as a stand alone film, delivers on an emotional and engaging level.
|
positive
|
Dysfunctional family goes home for the holidays and murder and mayhem result. Violent sexy Milligan at his most home made. Little better than a home movie (as much of Milligans films are) this is a trip into depravity 1960's style. Notable for the copious nudity and sex this film is neither sexy nor gruesome, playing now more as quaint.(though decidedly r rated). The film suffers from its uneven cast and from the cheapness of the production.(No one was ever sure where the money went on his movies since he was always broke). Its a bad bad movie thats not worth seeing except as a Milligan completeist or because its got some good looking people fooling around.
|
negative
|
Yes, this is one of the greats of the black action genre. Confusing mixture of racist comedy and racist violence (at times reaching a disturbing pitch, even for a fan of the genre) this movie isn't your Shaft in the park. Wonderful bits of Rudy Ray Moore comedy stand up that don't seem funny, at least not to a white boy like me, but great in context. Much better than its dissimilar sequel, "The Human Tornado"
|
positive
|
It's a strange thing to see a film where some scenes work rather weakly (if only in comparison to other films in its legacy), and others in a 'sub-plot' or supporting story are surprisingly provocative and strong. Sudden Impact is one of those cases, where Clint Eastwood as star/producer/director shows when he can be at his best, or at his lessor of times when dealing with a crime/mystery/detective story in his Dirty Harry fame. We get that 'make my day' line, and un-like in the first film where his 'do I feel lucky' speech was playful and cool the first time and the second time at the end tough as nails, here it's switched around. He gets into another shamble with the department, as usual, when he tries to fight crime 'his' way, in particular with a diner robbery (inspiration for Pulp Fiction?) and with a high speed pursuit with a senior citizen bus. He's told to 'take a vacation', and that's the last thing on his mind. This whole main plot isn't very convincing aside from the expectancy of the story and lines, which just adds to the frustration. But soon his story merges with the sub-plot that Eastwood develops from the start.<br /><br />Enter Sandra Locke's character, Jennifer Spencer, whom we soon learn after some (appropriately) mysterious scenes that she and her shy sister were victims of a cruel, unjust sexual assault (err, outright rape), and is sleekly, undercover-like, getting revenge. Her scenes and story are the strongest parts of the film, the most intense, and finally when it goes into Callahan's storyline (he's getting facts in the same small town she's in on a murder), the film finally finds a focus between Eastwood's classic form of clearly defined good vs. evil (though sometimes blurred, to be sure). Eastwood films the flashbacks, not to say too much about them, expertly, in a fresh, experimental style; the trademark Lalo Schifrin score is totally atmospheric in these scenes and in others. It almost seems like a couple of times an art-house sensibility has crept into Eastwood's firmly straightforward storytelling style, which helps make the film watchable.<br /><br />It's a shame, though, that in the end it goes more for the expectable (or maybe not expectable) points, and until the third act Callahan doesn't have much to do except his usual 'it's smith...Wesson...and me' shtick. However, with Locke he gets out of her a very good performance (more subtle and touching than the one in the Gauntlet) and an exciting climax at an amusement park. In a way I do and don't agree with Ebert's remark that it's like a 'music video' in Eastwood's style here. I admit there is comparisons with the simplicity of both, the directness, but the scenes where Eastwood does break form are superior to those of any music video. It's cheesy, it's hard-edged, it's not up to par with the first two 'Harry' pictures, but hey, there could be worse ways to spend a couple hours with the master of the .44.
|
positive
|
Finding the premise intriguing, and reading the reviews, and being an Angel fan, I watched this movie. It's sexy and original, and quite entertaining. David Boreanaz is Keith. He's a hunky married man, stay at home Dad, and he feels a little inadequate in his marriage. He makes the mistake of penetrating a close circle of teenage girls who are fascinated with the idea of doing it with an older man. They'll do anything to get into his bed, including beg, lie, and blackmail, but they mostly try to push his buttons. The nuttiness that ensues sends Keith reeling, and pushes friendships to the edge. David Boreanaz shows a little skin in this one-- and he's looking hot. Yes-he plays a sleazy cheat - but he shows enough vulnerability and tenderness toward the goofy teens that you end up cheering for him in the end. One more thing, when someone moans "oh yeah, oh..oh..YEAH!!", it's hard to see them as a victim of rape.
|
positive
|
Without question, the worst ELVIS film ever made. The movie portrays all Indians as drunk, stupid, and lazy. Watch ELVIS's skin change color throughout the film.
|
negative
|
If derivative and predictable rape-revenge thrillers are your thing, then you're in for a rare treat... They don't really appeal to me, so I couldn't find any single thing to redeem this peculiar tale. It seems like something straight out of the 1980s, a different age when this would have gone straight to video. Gillian Anderson and Danny Dyer do OK work with a weak script and a tedious scenario. But what is Gillian Anderson doing getting involved with a film like this after the brilliance of her performance as Lady Deadlock in the BBC TV adaptation of Bleak House last year? The director is said to have been influenced by witnessing a near-rape and by his work on documentaries, but even that's not an excuse for the bizarre scene where a pack of rural hounds beat up Dyer. I don't think I was the only person in the cinema laughing. What I can't understand is the involvement of the companies behind this film - FilmFour and Verve Pictures. Both have been involved in some great independent British films in recent years. Verve distributed Bullet Boy, Code 46 and Red Road - Straightheads doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same breath. FilmFour and Verve take note: is this really the best you can do? What are independent British filmmakers going to make of your artistic judgement? It's a big blot on both of your reputations. Listen carefully: can you hear the thousands of fans of independent British films crying in despair?
|
negative
|
I first saw this film when it was transmitted around 1988 by the BBC when I was working on UK's 2000AD. My pal Steve Parkhouse recorded it on VHS and sent it to me. Up till this point, I'd really only seen the Shaw Bros kung fu movies, with their harsh lighting (so audience could see the moves clearly), so it was a revelation to me to see something that looked like it had been lit by Ridley Scott coming out of Hong Kong. This was also my first exposure to the movies of Tsui Hark (pronounced, apparently, "Choy Huk").<br /><br />Yet for all the smoky, back-lit exteriors and ambitious special effects (Stop-motion? In a Hong Kong Movie?) at the heart of Chinese GHOST STORY lies a simple and moving love story, made all the more real by the outstanding acting talent of Leslie Cheung (what a tragic, tragic waste of a life!) and the beauty and elegance of Joey Wong. Granted Joey is gorgeous, but it's her balletic hand gestures that give her character an unattainable eroticism that's hard to analyse. And though Joey is now almost 20 years older (gawd, which of us isn't?) this will always be the enduring image of that actress.<br /><br />Some reviewers here have said that the film is simplistic and lacks any surprises, but they're missing the fact that this movie was based on a famous Chinese story written by Pu Songling around 1700! That's a bit like complaining that Romeo and Juliet has a predictable ending and just copies WEST SIDE STORY. (Just wanted to get that off my chest!)<br /><br />For me, Chinese GHOST STORY is the quintessential romantic tale. It has high tragedy, because we know that Chio Sin and Sin Seen can never be together. It's about becoming mature, for none of us can mature until we've experienced great loss. It's about sacrifice, for sacrifice is an essential component of True Love. And the comedy stylings of Wu Ma don't hurt a bit, either.<br /><br />Enjoy Chinese GHOST STORY by trying not to view it through a filter of Western culture and you'll get on with it just fine.
|
positive
|
Felt mine was while watching this...but it seems that is the reason for insanity running in the family in this film. Not that makes a lot of sense anyway, as others have mentioned, this was one of Karloff's last films and it's only his screen presence that lends it any credibility at all. It's sad that all of the great legends of the horror films in the sound era were eventually reduced to starring in low grade rubbish like this. Marginally, Boris did get off slightly better than poor old Bela Lugosi but not by much. <br /><br />Boris does his best and give him credit for trying to hold this mess together. The strident background music doesn't help and distracts from any lucid moment. Apart from Boris, the rest of the Mexican cast are dubbed into some strange, clipped, English monotone that is reminiscent of the type used in porn films of the late seventies. <br /><br />At a guess I think it's Edgar Allen Poe's 'House of Usher' that this is taken from but you'd be hard pressed to find a great deal of Poe in the finished article.<br /><br />Still, there are far better films out there with Boris Karloff at his best, search them out and give this a wide berth, unless you want the curse of the 'shrinking brain' too!
|
negative
|
Well, i expected, for all the hype and Oscar nominations, an epic Civil war drama (& something with the "magnitude" of the "English Patient" given the same director). This film isn't of epic stature, but it turns out i was relieved it wasn't. It's a love story in the midst of the horrors of war where young men are sent off to fight, deserters are tracked and killed, and the women and children at home are left to fend for themselves while the men are gone.<br /><br />Anyway i thought Nicole Kidman and Rene Zelleweger were pretty decent and not knowing much about Jude Law, he was all right, also. It seems Rene Z. had the more fun part of the 3 leads and was able to smartly play a spirited, feisty downhome woman with much aplomb. Also for me it was good to see actress, Kathy Baker...someone's who's talent needs to be more recognized/acknowledged.<br /><br />This film is worth seeing this -- i'm can't articulate why really, but maybe because it is a slice of Americana. <br /><br />
|
positive
|
Richard Brooks excellent 1967 film of Truman Capote's novel IN COLD BLOOD is a perfect companion piece to Philip Seymour Hoffman's Oscar winning performance in the 2005 CAPOTE. They really play well together (try them on separate nights). It is unusual to find films made 38 years apart that mesh so well. These two truly enhance each other. Even though different actors play the roles of killers Perry Smith and Dick Hickock, the two pieces blend well. Only the part of the writer (played by Paul Stewart) in the Brooks films is weaker, as they give him a different name then Capote. I'd suggest watching CAPOTE first, followed by IN COLD BLOOD. It makes for a powerful experience!
|
positive
|
A delightful gentle comedic gem, until the last five minutes, which degenerate into run of the mill British TV farce. The last five minutes cost it 2 points in my rating. Despite this major plot and style flaw, it's worth watching for the character acting and the unique Cornwall setting. Many fine little bits to savor, like the tense eternity we all go through waiting for the bank approval after the clerk has swiped the credit card...made more piquant when we're not - quite - sure the card is not maxed.
|
positive
|
<br /><br />I saw once No Man's Land (1987) - IMDB link http://us.imdb.com/Title?0093638 - and found it ok. The film is about a guy who steals only Porsches. Gone in Sixty Seconds comes 13 years after and adds nothing to it. In fact, it has a lot of scenes that are worthless. And the ending is very, very bad.<br /><br />The Sphinx has a magnetic screen presence that should have been better used...
|
positive
|
This film is wonderful example of the quality dramas that Channel 4 and the BBC have produced over the years. Ted Danson delivers a powerful performance of a man tormented by memories noone will accept, and a society that believes he is insane. It is a remarkable performance by a man most known for his role in Cheers, a TV comedy sitcom. The supporting cast are all very well chosen, not least Mary Steenbergen, Danson's wife, who acts the part of Gulliver's wife in the film. But above all it is the seamless and very delicate shifts between our world and Gulliver's world that make this film. The difference in perspective between giants and midgets, all acted by real actors is beautifully captured. A rare treat of cinematography and direction.
|
positive
|
This film is superb! Wesley Snipes Plays Blade the vampire hunter with pure class, he kicks butt in such a fluid and violent way that would make Bruce Lee proud. The movie is a fast paced, thrill ride of action and superb stunts. The first action scene and last are outstanding and Wesley looks like a Terminator as he runs around wiping out all suck heads. The script is pretty good and there is sharp dialogue too. Wesley should have done more action films than he has, i know he is a very good actor and in this he is not streched as much as in his more comic or drama roles but as far as action stars go he is the best actor of them all, only Bruce Willis, Stallone and perhaps Tom Cruise (if he counts as an action star) come close. Also aswell as Wesley being quality, Steven Dorff is also very good as the bad guy. It was an unexpected surprise that someone of small stature compared to Snipes should come across as menacing, but he does. Overall the film is sharp, stylish and i hope the sequal is done with the same sort of pace.
|
positive
|
Rainy day with not much to do. We were surfing the movie network channels and found this one just starting, so we gave it a chance.<br /><br />The more we watched, the more we became engrossed in the story. Its the old story of working class underdog trying to make it in a sport which at the time (1913 I think) was usually played by the wealthy upper class but this movie was every bit as interesting as Seabiscuit and this is also based on a true story.<br /><br />The acting is believable and the casting is brilliant. AND . . . . we are NOT golfers, so please don't miss this one just because its about golf. Any individual sport would serve the plot, because it's about the people. Golf works well for this story because of the class distinction and snobbery that seem to involve some who play the game.<br /><br />Bottom line . . . . Its a feel good movie. It's well put together and isn't it always fun to see those who think they are better than others get taken down a peg or two.
|
positive
|
Herbet Clutter, wife Bonnie, and their teenage children Kenyon and Nancy were much liked and respected in their tiny town of Holcomb, Kansas--but in the early hours of 14 November 1959 all four were brutally murdered. Rather unexpectedly, the crime made an impression on author Truman Capote, who rushed to the scene and followed the course of the case to its conclusion. The result was the book IN COLD BLOOD. Controversial, shocking, and exceptionally well-written, it became an international best seller and it remains a touchstone for crime writers to this day.<br /><br />The 1967 film version of Capote's work is almost as remarkable as the book itself. Filmed in black and white in many of the real-life locations, it has a slightly documentary quality, icy and detached--and the overall cast is exceptional. This is the film on which Robert Blake's reputation as an actor rests, and deservedly so. As killer Perry Smith, Blake traps you between a profound distaste and the shock of unexpected sympathy; it is a masterful performance from start to finish. As Richard Hickock, Scott Wilson is no less fine.<br /><br />Like Capote's book, the film opens with Smith and Hickock as they travel to Kansas and brings them to the Clutter home--only to suddenly flash past the crime to detail the investigation that finally resulted in their arrest and conviction. The centerpiece of the film has always been the moment at which we at last see what occurred in the Clutter home; actually filmed in the Clutter house itself, it is a spinechilling sequence, horrific and deeply disturbing.<br /><br />Director and writer Richard Brooks guides the film with a very powerful sense of deliberation, erring only in the sense that he allows the film to become slightly preachy. Given the overall power of the film, however, this becomes a trivial annoyance. Strong stuff--and recommended.<br /><br />GFT, Amazon Reviewer
|
positive
|
A real surprise. Not exactly family entertainment from "Disney". Some violence, lots of tense moments, and a great story, based on fact. The theme of "Night Crossing" is, determination wins. Never losing sight of their objective, two East German families risk it all, in their daring balloon escape to freedom. The story is both harrowing and heartwarming. Time is not on their side. The East German Police are closing in and the outcome far from certain, until the very end. If you are looking for a good evenings entertainment, that contains no nudity, and limited violence, then I highly recommend "Night Crossing". It is pure entertainment. - MERK
|
positive
|
Victor Sjöström was quite the master in this film, having starred in it, directed it and even wrote the screenplay! That's pretty amazing. While today few have any idea who Sjöström was, he might be familiar to Ingmar Bergman fans as the star one of Bergman's most acclaimed films, WILD STRAWBERRIES.<br /><br />As far as this film goes, it's a very mixed bag. On one hand, you have to respect it because for 1921, it's a very good film. The idea of the Grim Reaper sitting down with a dead man to discuss his wasted life is pretty imaginative. Plus, the special effect of the Phantom Carriage is pretty convincing and technically speaking this is a well-crafted film. On the other hand, it's an amazingly dated and preachy film--more like something you'd expect to be shown in Sunday School instead of in an honest to goodness theater. Plus, some of the story elements just don't make sense. Instead of coming off as dedicated or good, the dying Salvation Army worker seems like a sap--a very sad and confusing sap. Why is she "in love" with this man? Am I missing something?<br /><br />So, my recommendation is that if you are insanely in love with silents (like me), then by all means watch it. But, if you aren't a silent fan, this film might do nothing to convince you that this style film is brilliant because the story is so overly melodramatic and dated.
|
positive
|
'The Fox and the Child' is the new film by French director Luc Jacquet, who brought us the Oscar-winning documentary 'March of the Penguins.' It focuses around a young girl (wonderfully played by Bertille Noël-Bruneau) and her blooming friendship with a fox.<br /><br />There are some truly mesmerizing moments here; badgers mucking about, a lynx chasing the fox through a snow-littered forest; one scene in particular when the fox is being tormented by a pack of wolves is quite intense and even frightening at times. However, there's simply not quite enough of them.<br /><br />Beautifully shot; the cinematography is dazzling. The bubbly kind of look of the film is wonderful. It's undeniably a very lush production.<br /><br />The English version is narrated by Kate Winslet, but what little dialogue there already is has been very poorly dubbed. The score is also far too fluffy, or at least it is for my liking; and the screenplay, while subtle, seemingly jumps from one scenario to another, ultimately leaving me almost baffled.<br /><br />While there's a nice moral at the heart of the film, and the rather quiet performance from Noël-Bruneau is quite lovely, the real star is the fox. Those captivating moments focusing solely around our furry little friend are tremendous. However, again, there's simply not nearly enough of them.<br /><br />- To keep up to date with all the latest in film, including reviews, news, discussions and more, be sure to visit www.mybluray.com.au
|
negative
|
And it got it in France ! Why not in the rest of the world while the studios keep churning out expensive post-Grisham trash (Will anyone remember him as a fine writer, and not the most betrayed-by-the-screen author this side of Stephen King ?) this one has it all. Okay, the situations are not always original, has minor plot holes and it has a tendency to be too clever some (brief) times for its own sake, but it actually delivers and is obviously a work of love. I'd be curious to know what the budget was. AND. for once, this is not a cheap Tarantino copy ! (Well, film noir didn't started with Tarantino, you know.) Will it once again be saved by Europe, like John Dahl's movies were, so Mr Guttierez can make another one like this ? If you ever read this, Mr Guttierez, thank you and se
|
positive
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.