review
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| sentiment
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
There are a few aspects to Park's movies, and in particular Wallace & Gromit, that I would say make them so great. The first is subtlety and observation, the flagship of which is the character of Gromit. He doesn't speak, he doesn't make any noise, all he has are his eyes, brow, and body posture, and with these he commands the film. Park manages to give us everything we need from this silent character through his expression. The comedy and the emotion is conveyed through the subtlest of movements and it works superbly well.<br /><br />Watching the movie you have to be aware of the entire screen. Normally you'll be guided to things in the movies, the screen won't be cluttered too much, there won't be many things to take your eyes away from the main clue or action. Park seems to need to look the other way with his movies. He throws extra content at his audience, there's action in the background, to the side of the screen, even off screen, and there's just about always something in the foreground to catch your eye. His movies are about multiple viewing and discovery, they're layered with jokes and ancillary action.<br /><br />Throughout this film there are layers of things happening on screen, jokes in the foreground maybe on a jar label and background shadows that give away action. You can imagine that for Park the movies has always been an event, and the movies he loves are ones which he wants to watch again and again. This is what shows in his movies, and in through his most beloved characters.<br /><br />Then there are the bizarre and wacky inventions which Wallace make, something which is reflected in the storyline and the twists and turns of the plot, everything is bizarre and off the wall, yet it seems so perfectly normal in this world. You can imagine that inside Park is the mind of Wallace.<br /><br />There's also one more thing that make these movies so unique, and that's the modelling and precise hand animation. I must admit I was concerned when I knew Dreamworks was involved in the making of this movie, and I thought that they would bring their computer animation experience to the forefront. What I was scared of was Wallace & Gromit becoming CGI entities, or at the smallest, CGI being used to clean up the feel that the modelling brought to the movie.<br /><br />Not so. You can still see thumbprints and toolmarks on the characters, and far from distracting from the movie, this just adds so much real feeling to it and a feeling of physical depth to the characters and the scene on screen.<br /><br />So what of the movie? Well I must say that the plot twist was something I had thought about well before the film was in the cinema and it came as no surprise, but that did not affect my enjoyment one little bit. Actually watching the twist unfold and the comic timing of the discovery and reactions was everything, and it had me just as sucked in as if it was a thriller, yet all the time I was laughing.<br /><br />Watching the movie was fascinating in various ways. To see the animation completed, how wild the inventions are, how Wallace is going to get into trouble and Gromit get him out, where all the cross references are in the movie, and where all the jokes are! I must admit afterwards talking with my friends I couldn't believe how much I had missed.<br /><br />There's something different in this movie than with the others, there's a new level of adult humour in here, and I don't mean rude jokes (although there are a couple that are just so British you can't help laughing), I mean jokes that simply fly over kids heads but slap adults in the face. The kind you are used to seeing come out of somewhere like Pixar. This just adds even more appeal to the movie.<br /><br />Okay though, let me try and be a bit negative here. I didn't notice the voices in this movie, you know how you usually listen to the actors and see if you can recognise them? Well I was just too wrapped up in the movie to care or to notice who they were...okay, that's not negative. Let me try again. The main plot wasn't as strong and gripping as I'd expected, and I found myself being caught up in the side stories and the characters themselves...again...that's not a bad thing, the film was just so much rich entertainment.<br /><br />I honestly can't think of a bad thing to say about this movie, probably the worst thing I could say is that the title sequence at the end is quite repetitive...until the final title! Really, that's the worst I can say.<br /><br />The story is a lot of fun, well set-up, well written, well executed. There's lot's of fantastic characters in here, not just Wallace & Gromit. There's so much happening on screen, so many references and jokes (check out the dresses of Lady Tottingham), cheese jokes everywhere, jokes for all the family. The characters are superbly absorbing and you'll find that you've taken to them before you realise. There's just so much in this movie for everyone.<br /><br />There's so much I could say and write about, but I know it will quickly turn into a backslapping exercise for Park and Aardman, it would also just turn into a series of "this bit was really funny" and "there's a bit when...", and what I would rather do is tell you that this is a superb movie, to go see it, and to experience the whole thing for yourselves. I will say though that the bunnies are excellent!
|
positive
|
I've just finished seeing the film for the first time in it's entirety (although I watched some parts when it was first shown in Britain in the mid-90's), I truly believe it to be a masterpiece of late twentieth century cinema. Undoubtledly a film of this scope raises lots of questions, like why are there some narrative differences between the 60's Hermann in 'Heimat' and Hermann in this film? For example, in the first film Hermann has a fairly significant relationship with his stepfather (he funds Hermann's electronic music), whereas in "Die Zweite..." there is little mention of his dad until the final episode.<br /><br />One other point does interest me; reading up on Edgar Reitz I'm struck by historical similarities between him and the Stefan character, (spoiler coming) in the last episode it is revealed that Stefan has won a prize at the Venice Film Festival, (Reitz won an award for best debut work there for his film "Mahlzeiten"); Reitz's film company is called 'Edgar Reitz Filmproduktion' and Stefan's is also eponymously named. I'm interested in Stefan being an autobiographical character because aside from Helga he is probably the least likable of the friends. <br /><br />Maybe Stefan's a red herring, I don't know, what I do know is that I loved this film and wish that more were made like it, with the exception of Michael Haneke's "Cache" and Werner Herzog's "Grizzly Man" there's not enough ambition, audacity and passion of this sort in modern cinema. I can't wait to see number 3 now.
|
positive
|
This has to be one of the worst movies I've ever seen in my life. I can't believe people actually a) write scripts like this b) have a budget to make a film c) actually expect it to be successful. Words can't even describe how horrible this film is. I enjoy my fair share of teen movies, but this didn't even come close to being funny. In fact, it was funny for the sole reason that it was so horrible. I can probably count one (maybe two) parts in the film where I even managed to squeeze out a chuckle (other than the laughs regarding how bad it was).<br /><br />Renting this was one of the biggest mistakes I've ever made. Its been a day since I've seen the film, and I'm still in shock regarding how horrible it was. Avoid at all costs.<br /><br />2/10
|
negative
|
Has anyone found a way to purchase copies of this series yet? I can see that a lot of people have inquired but I can't tell if any of them have been successful. It's hard to believe that a series this good cannot be viewed by people today, especially one based on real issues faced by real people during what were both tense and exciting times in our country. How can this be true and what can we do to change it? As an aside I agree with all the comments other writers have made about this series on this web site. This is an excellent story about events that everyone should be aware of and know something about today. Lots of us saw this series when we were in college or around that time anyway. Now we want to share it with our children ... but we can't? If that is true what would some good written materials be that would relay the same information?
|
positive
|
Oh dear. While Chevy Chase and the gang at SNL set new highs with the sketch show format this fails miserably at every level. Fortunately Chevy is barely in this at all and can't be blamed for this utter tripe. It seriously is very, very bad. While meant to be a political comment on USA at the time of it's release (1974) it still remains neither funny or acutely observed. The sketches are all way too long and any satirical impact they may have had is lost as they're all drawn out to the point of complete boredom. This is credited as Chevy's movie debut and I'm pleased to say that everything he did after this bettered it. Avoid even if curious.
|
negative
|
Nothing is worse than the genocides of our world's history. This film attempts to describe the horror faced by one particular family - a common narrative device - in the atomic bomb world of Hiroshima. The most memorable parts are the graphic and saddening images that the people of Hiroshima face in the aftermath of war. The story, however, becomes more concerned with the effect on a specific group of people and how they cope with getting on with their lives; in other words, if you don't really care about them, the film grows boring. It's hard not to care, though, when a family's homeland is wrecked. I'm not sure if I would recommend this film, because it says very little politically and, honestly, did not keep my interest in the family's troubles.
|
positive
|
Look, I'm sorry if half the world takes offense at this, but life is confusing enough. I don't need to watch it that way. I dig Anthony Hopkins, big time. I even watched Fracture, and I knew that would be a steaming pile of Quentin. But this thing is not well shot, and it's not daring--even if it is artsy. Well-produced films have reasons for cuts and fast edits, not this "oh, but it's a realistic interpretation" excuse. This thing'll make your head hurt. It's the fastest moving picture ever to take you nowhere at all. I still love AH, and I'll always give him another chance, but if you aren't made of time to watch bad ideas on screen, skip this.
|
negative
|
This movie was sadly under-promoted but proved to be truly exceptional. Entering the theatre I knew nothing about the film except that a friend wanted to see it.<br /><br />I was caught off guard with the high quality of the film. I couldn't image Ashton Kutcher in a serious role, but his performance truly exemplified his character. This movie is exceptional and deserves our monetary support, unlike so many other movies. It does not come lightly for me to recommend any movie, but in this case I highly recommend that everyone see it.<br /><br />This films is Truly Exceptional!
|
positive
|
Joseph Conrad's novel, Heart of Darkness, had a vivid sense of description that made this book astonishing. When reading this book I had every scene totally drawn out in my head and I knew what every character looked like. This book had many pieces and when I finished reading this book it seemed as the puzzle had been completed. After I finished reading Heat of Darkness, I watched the movie, which was a mistake. The movie cut out so many substantial parts. For example, in the novel Marlow waited a very long time for the rivets to come for him to fix his boat. This was a big source of futility. In the movie that part was just left out. The movie added more parts that were useless and made no sense. For example, when Kurtz was talking to Marlow at the end of the book and Kurtz snapped the monkey's neck and killed him. What purpose did that scene have, other than to make the audience feel sorry for the monkey? It's as if the script writer didn't even read the whole book and just put the parts that he read in the movie. If I had not read the novel before I had watched the movie I would have been thoroughly confused. The book was amazing and it is truly a classic in American Literature, but the movie could have defiantly been nominated for the worst picture in the Razzie Awards.
|
negative
|
A case of being in the right place at the right time. What a fascinating film. It is easy to see why Chavez is so popular with his people. He gets things done. He is accessible. And it is also easy to see why the west hates him so much. He has control of the resources of his country and gives the profits back to the people. Mostly the poor. And it easy to see how the TV stations can portray misleading images to put there case. Just like the Iraq war, or the war on Terror. Or those missing WMD's. Or how about the axis of evil. People need to wake up. And get different points of view. Stop the neo cons ruling the world. Go watch this movie with an open mind. And make your own mind up. Then I suggest you see Aaron Russo's: America: Freedom to Fascism. It is not the people of America that are the problem. It is the government.
|
positive
|
I was an extra on this film but wish i wasn't because its rubbish. the worst thing about this film is the music but the acting, script, editing, directing and story are terrible as well. the main reason its bad is because the budget is so low and the only way to make good film on a low budget is to have a good script. the script which should have been ripped up before the film was made isn't funny, i didn't laugh once. what did make me laugh is how makers probably think the most important thing was getting the film made, who cares if its total rubbish. the film needed about million pound more budget and a better writer. the only reason i didn't give the film one out of ten is because i felt sorry for the guy who is gonna lose a few hundred grand making this, if you do go and see it just make sure your drunk at the time. ha ha
|
negative
|
This might contain a spoiler, so beware.<br /><br />If it had been 200,000 thousand or two million people, does it make a difference? Sometimes I get so angry at the apparent apathy of a small number of (strangely very LOUD) Americans, but I have to remember that many people here in the US were not bred or raised to care about anything outside of their comfort zone. God Help us for what we have done. after the relative ease of what we did to the native Americans, and the indifference to the horrors of enslaving a race, you would think we'd have grown hearts and souls in the late 60's and early 70's. But now I see it is OK as long as our ends are justified to only us. How then, can we look at any other dictator and horrible government and think we are somehow doing good to impose our will? We are contradictory and hypocritical, and I am ashamed for this. I feel sorrow for the people affected. They deserve justice and their homes back. If this was done in my name as an American for my supposed safety, I don't want it. I denounce these actions, and hope our global community understands that many Americans believe the American government is a runaway train of deceit. No one is above the law. I want my country back, and so do the Chagos Islanders. Regardless of what people post from the anonymity of their computers, no one can in their heart deny that they would be unwilling to give up their birthplace for some bombs and heliports. We can't stand to be stuck in traffic, let alone forcibly and unjustly removed from our homes. 'Not one of us, Brit and American alike forget what goes around comes around. Don't buy into the fallacy that a simpler, more natural civilization is somehow less worthy of having their rights observed, and preserved - when we turn our backs on the basic human rights and dignities of 2000, we turn away from the basic human rights and dignities of all men.
|
positive
|
Oz is without a doubt my favorite show of all time! the best word to describe it is "genius"! the writing, the acting, the story lines .. everything about this show is absolutely amazing! <br /><br />I just discovered the show and I became addicted to it right away and I was really surprised that it hasn't gotten the recognition it truly deserves. It is violent, and most of the characters aren't meant for you to like them, but the show is written in such a brilliant way that allows you to look past the violence and the criminals and see them as real people. They are the lowest forms of scum, but it still finds a way to allow you to understand a lot of the characters and even care about their stories.<br /><br />The violence in the show is necessary for it to be as realistic as possible, but the show isn't about the violence like some people might believe. It really is a work of art and I'm sure who ever gives it a chance will love it just as much as I do.
|
positive
|
This film does for Infantry what Das Boot did for Submariners. If you appreciated Das Boot then that is all you really need to know.<br /><br />This is a well done piece of cinema. On a par with Das Boot. Basically it follows a Company of elite German "Stormtrooper" infantry who leave garrison duty in an idyllic Italian seaside town and are immediately thrust into the chaos of the disintegrating Russian front. <br /><br />A good war movie illuminates both the senselessness and brutality of war and at the same time gives us insight into the experiences and essential humanity of those who fight. This movie does that. The film is full of drama and action and so is entertaining on that level as well.
|
positive
|
Our reviewer from Toronto told you what you need to know about this film (except note that it needs editing-the hand held technique gets really old, really fast). I saw this film last night in Menerbes, France-we are in the Luberon Valley, which is covered with vineyards and of course wine makers. They were all there in the Salle de Polyvalente for the showing-crammed in. Polite, patient, genial. Although my French is testy, I got the gist of the film but noted that the audience loved the "old" terror growers interviewed-esp. the one from a communist village in Languedoc. He got a lot of laughs. This is unusual in France-laughing aloud. There is no question which side of the terror-globalization war they are on! SM
|
positive
|
This film fails to capture any of the mystery and intrigue that the book offers. The main point of the book, the insights, are hardly even touched upon, leaving the viewer wondering exactly why everyone is making such a big deal about them and why they are willing to risk their lives.<br /><br />The character development is not good at all. No background or personal development leaves the audience not really caring at all about what happens to them, and so the action sequences fall flat.<br /><br />The search for the manuscripts ends abruptly, and with no real explanation, not leaving any sense of satisfaction as to what the whole search was for.<br /><br />This is one of the worst adaptations of a book I have ever seen. It is horrible and a waste of time. If you have not read the book, skip the movie and read it. If you have read the book, skip the movie and reread it.<br /><br />It is almost as if the point of making the movie was to discredit the book, that is how poorly done and ridiculous this movie is. It is a shame too, because it could have been good had they capitalized on it at the height of its success and they probably would have been able to get a good screenwriter and some good actors.<br /><br />Please don't waste your time, READ THE BOOK!!!
|
negative
|
I do not fail to recognize Haneke's above-average film-making skills. For example, I appreciate his lingering on unremarkable-natural-day-lighted settings as a powerful way to force a strong sense of realism. However, regarding the content of this film, I am very sad to see that in the 21st century there is still an urge to pathologize domination-submission relations or feelings (and/or BDSM practices). The problem that the main character has with her mother is unbelievably topical as is the alienation and uncomprehension felt by Walter (I don't mean the frustration of a lover which is not loved back in the same way, which is understandable; I mean that he looks upon her as if she were crazy, or as if he was a monk, come on!). I mean D/s is not something new in the world and I think it is rather silly to treat the subject as if it were something "freakish" or pathological; it isn't. In general, films dealing with this subject are really lagging behind the times.<br /><br />So, for me, I feel that this film ends up being quite a programmatical film, worried with very outdated psicoanalitical theories (isn't it nearly embarrassing?), and that does not really relate with real-life lives and experiences of those engaged in D/s relationships (personal experience, forums, irc chatrooms even recent scholar studies will show this).
|
negative
|
"Two wildlife photographers are traveling through the Amazon River basin on their latest assignment. While trying to capture the wildlife of the area on film, our photographers cross paths with a game hunter, who is stalking the animals for another reason. Looking to eliminate the witnesses to his illegal activities, the hunter decides to
" according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis. <br /><br />Handsome guide Peter Brown (as Jim Pendrake) takes pretty blonde Ahna Capri (as Terry Greene) and her good-looking brother Tom Simcox (as Art Greene) into the Venezuelan jungle, to admire the view, and take wildlife pictures. After they hook up with hunky big-game hunter William Smith (as Caribe), psychological dramatics surface. <br /><br />A pivotal scene, with Mr. Brown reposing in the "vee" of a tree, and sharing a cigarette with Mr. Simcox, is nicely staged. The circular direction reappears in the later "fight" between Brown and Mr. Smith; and, it is effective. Simcox' early sex romp adds nothing to the story; it could have been cut, to take advantage of what seems like flirting between the Brown and Simcox characters. An attraction between Brown and Ms. Capri could have been played up, also. <br /><br />The music, including Jim Stein's "Love All Things That Love the Sun", is fine; but the film needs to be re-tracked, to cut out animals which do not appear on screen. And, there is far too much superfluous footage on display. "Piranha" is a case where less would have been more.
|
negative
|
The Three Stooges has always been some of the many actors that I have loved. I love just about every one of the shorts that they have made. I love all six of the Stooges (Curly, Shemp, Moe, Larry, Joe, and Curly Joe)! All of the shorts are hilarious and also star many other great actors and actresses which a lot of them was in many of the shorts! In My opinion The Three Stooges is some of the greatest actors ever and is the all time funniest comedy team!<br /><br />One of My favorite Stooges shorts with Shemp is none other than Brideless Groom! All appearing in this short are Dee Green, the beautiful Christine McIntyre, Doris Houck, Alyn Lockwood, Johnny Kascier, Nancy Saunders, and Emil Sitka. Green and McIntyre provide great performances here! There are so many funny parts here. This is a very hilarious short. There is another similar Three Stooges short like this one called Husbands Beware and I recommend both!
|
positive
|
I saw this film when it came out. Let me see now--this guy who had earlier skied down Mount Fuji manages to accumulate the funding and hire personnel to document what sounds on the surface like a bold and daring act---to ski down the world's highest peak. Well--AND HERE COMES THE SPOILER--what happens, see, after a large crew of people manage to help him get near the top--and a life is lost in the bargain--he gets on his skis, manages to make it down a very very short way, at which point his PARACHUTE OPENS...and that's that. And instead of burning the footage to hide this amazingly anticlimactic ending to an embarrassing debacle, the guy goes ahead and releases it. SPOILER ENDS I do admire the amazing courage and effort it must have taken the film crew to get some of the stunning shots they got. ANOTHER SPOILER--Oh yes, one of the Sherpas is killed by falling into a crevasse. The narrator, who is quoting the "daredevil skier, casually remarks that, according to the Sherpa religion, since this man's body cannot be recovered his soul will roam the world forever and never know rest. Is it worth it, the narrator muses. YES he answers--because it served the purpose of letting this clown "ski down Everest." I can't remember ever seeing a more meretricious piece of celluloid. This is one to miss at all costs.
|
negative
|
We saw this on the shelf at the local video store, saw "Coppola" in the credits and got excited. That was the one and only time this movie raised any interest. I could never quite work out if it was an attempt at a humourous film that failed miserably, or an attempt at a serious film that failed miserably. In general, the entire production seemed incredibly amatuerish. The sound in particular was absolutely dreadful, especially in the scenes shot in the little bar; the dialogue was so corny in parts it was unbelievable. Very disappointing.
|
negative
|
OK, first of all, ignore the last person' review. They admit to falling asleep through it so it's no wonder they didn't understand what was going on!!! As thriller/horrors go, this film ain't too bad, it is certainly very watchable. Right from the opening scenes you get a general idea exactly what is going to be the cause of all the craziness that follows, and come the end you are proved right with everything being made clear.<br /><br />I enjoyed this movie, it was quite eerie at times and as old films go it was passable. Great to watch late at night! I give it a generous 7 out of 10.
|
positive
|
Man am I stoked I can leave feedback for this 10 minutes romp. I love it.<br /><br />After not seeing it in years, I happened upon it the other day and watched it over and over.<br /><br />'Stop shaking your eyes' and 'shake a rock and roll band' and 'stop sawing the table' are freaking classic lines.<br /><br />The art is delightfully raw. The dialog sparse and wonderful. Just find it and love it. Cannot recommend this enough.<br /><br />Thank you high school art teacher Mrs. Kogan for showing us this over and over. Thank you NFB for letting it be made. Thank you MTS for showing it (for free at the moment at least).<br /><br />I want a Big Snit t-shirt now. I'd love an animation cell, but at 440.00 a pop, that won't happen.<br /><br />Find this flick, and watch it.
|
positive
|
Every time I think about this film I feel physically ill. To read such a great book and later discover there's a film of it was a great feeling. Years later and imagine my joy at switching on the sci-fi channel and finding it starts in just 5mins!!! Up go the titles and then uggg. If just a couple of things had changed OK. Everything is changed. Numerous characters are removed entirely new rubbish ones are added. The main hero is shrunk and de-aged by about 30 years, and hilariously his girlfriend/wife is now his mother! Even the dog is reduced to sub-lassie capabilities. This is truly appalling cinema at its absolute worst. I would quite happily remove my own toenails with pliers rather than sit through another horrific viewing, and I urge anyone thinking of watching this - please don't. If you own a copy burn it now, right now and think how much better your life would have been had this celluloid insult never occurred.
|
negative
|
So when I first saw commercials for Greek I did have a few questions to how they were going to approach Greek life, if they were going to give away sacred frat and sorority secrets, if they were going to focus on the brother and sisterhood a fraternity or sorority brings, or what most college kids think of Greek life as a huge party.<br /><br />Luckily, it covered everything. The story plot was great, it gave you a character to love, hate, someone you want to be like, someone you don't want to be like, and of course a crazy roommate!<br /><br />It was one of my first looks at what writers believed Greek life to be like, and I can honestly say they hit the nail pretty dead on.<br /><br />I love how one of the biggest things they covered throughout the season was the relationship between Rusty and his crazy roommate. Its hard enough moving away from home, and being forced to live in a small room with someone you don't even know, then come to find out.. you have nothing in common. Probably every college bound freshmens worst nightmare.<br /><br />Rustys sister Casey was pretty much the typical girl on campus EVERYONE is jealous of. What didn't she have? Oh thats right.. Evan all to herself. Rebecca and Evan had an "affair" early into the season, which made you feel fairly sympathetic for Casey. Her character evolved, and her relationship with Rusty became more and more loving and outgoing. <br /><br />Cappie is one of the most fun loving characters, and absolutely insane. One of my favorite episodes included him getting completely trashed at a strip club, and Rusty having to call Casey to bail them out. I like how they addressed the issue of gay people in Greek houses, Calvin was a very real feeling character, and I really respected him because he stuck to his standards. So Jen K was fairly crazy, but she actually liked Rusty. It was surprising and I continued to question her from the start, but of course, I did want it to work out between her and Rusty.<br /><br />I am definitely looking forward to the return of Greek. It takes you into the truth of Greek life, something that a lot of people look past. One of the biggest things that frats and sororities are known for is parties and drinking. Greek is a great show, and the characters are easy to relate to.
|
positive
|
I saw this film at a time when I was timidly toying with the idea of moving into my own apartment and starting life on my own. Maybe that is the reason why I took it so seriously. I believed totally in the poor character's psychological degradation inside a Paris of perpetual construction sites, dust, squalor, selfishness, rudeness, malice and decay. I'm giving all the credit to Polanski's artistry in his direction, his playing and his inescapable script but I fainted during the horrible final scene and had to be revived by cognac in the office of the theatre's manager. Luckily for me, my life on my own didn't turn out as disastrous as this (so far) but I have always kept a great respect for an artist who can perform such illusions and so totally immerse himself in the (fake) reality he is trying to convey. Simply put, the man is a genius of the first order and a credit to the human race. This film is the sum of many, many instances of great acting and great casting. As some performances were done in English (the scenes with Shelley Winters and Melvyn Douglas among others) and others in French (with most other characters) and Polanski did his own dubbing in English and French, I heartily recommend, if you happen to be bilingual, to switch the audio from French to English and vice-versa, during the appropriate scenes while watching the magnificent transfer on Paramount DVD. This film is part of Polanski's so-called "apartment building trilogy" which also comprises "Repulsion" and "Rosemary's Baby". Unfortunately, "Repulsion" still hasn't made it to a decent DVD transfer in Region 1. Needless to say, the three films would make a magnificent boxset.
|
positive
|
I liked this movie, the second Naruto feature film. I enjoyed the one in the snow a tad better though as I found the story here a bit disjointed as I was not sure where certain things were supposed to be happening or when. Still, like the first film this one too has a nice run time to it of a hour and a half, plenty of time for a nice well developed movie with some really cool fights. The story starts off with ninja from the village hidden in the sand in combat with unknown assailants. It then shits to Naruto, Sakura, and Shikumaru hunting down a ferret for what they think is going to be an easy assignment. They soon find out otherwise as they are also attacked and Naruto is separated from his friends after he has a fight with a strange young warrior clad in armor. They both are injured and taken in by a caravan and soon after Naruto is invited to join this strange organization that wishes to create a utopia. Of course, all is not as it seems and there are plenty of fights to go around. My favorite was the one involving Garaa fighting this strange woman who takes him very lightly which is a very big mistake. The concluding fight is rather good too involving Naruto and this strange man who is a better villain than any of those in the previous movie.
|
positive
|
...this is, above all else, the typical Crown International Pictures drive-in (read "passion pit") programmer. The 1975 Sammy Johns hit record "Chevy Van" is heard repeatedly on the soundtrack (this movie has even been reissued with the title CHEVY VAN), despite the film's title vehicle being a Dodge. Danny DeVito makes only six minutes of on-screen appearance, but countless VHS reissues falsely credit him as the star of the flick. The movie is a comparatively sexist morality tale -- will Bobby find sexual satisfaction through the one-night-stand his customised van facilitates, or must he wait until Tina, the girl of his dreams, gives him the time of day? Still, it is representative of the prevailing carnal dream of male American high schoolers of the time, and on that basis alone THE VAN has, almost in spite of itself, become an artifact of the period that must be referenced in any honest retrospective of the period's popular American cinema...
|
positive
|
I'll give it this: I didn't stop watching, and it's not corporate, which is kind of cool. But my internal critic cut it to pieces -- I suppose I see too many movies. Wooden script, the slang just sort of clanks out of their mouths without any kind of flow. Editing, mentioned before, is hit and miss; sometimes it evokes a good ghetto feel, but mostly its irritating -- jerky, quirky angles and really dull lingering facial closeups. The actors were marginal, though Letisha had her moments.<br /><br />I'm not sure why the audience supposed to care about Curtis, he's a total screwup and the actor is entirely expressionless and not particularly funny or endearing. The directing doesn't help make you love him or hate him, even; I just wanted him to shut up and get shot already. I didn't care about his impotent vengeance when that rolled around. The completely predictable ending isn't credible at all. I'm not sure why we're supposed to believe that some erstwhile successful dealers he deposes are stupid enough to fall for his petty scams. "Oh, you just got out of jail and are on probation? Here's thousands of dollars worth of cocaine, go run it around the corner for me. Now don't steal from me, etc."<br /><br />A good sex scene in the beginning gave me hope, but it was let down in the end. Handling of a rape scene was slightly eyebrow-raising, if only mildly interesting. There are better movies in this genre that don't insult your intelligence by trying for some kind of authentic ghetto realism while more resembling a film-school offering. 4/10, an F.
|
negative
|
I remember seeing this movie 34 years ago and it was full of suspense and twists. It grabs you at the beginning and keeps you guessing throughout the whole movie. I have thought about this movie for the past several years and have checked in video stores to see if it's available, but was never able to find it or anyone who had even heard of it. I think this type of movie is timeless, and I know it would be enjoyed by a whole new generation of movie watchers. I hope this gets on video soon as it would be fun to see if it has the same impact on me as it did back in the early 70's.<br /><br />It's very rare that a TV movie can make that much of an impression, but this was did and still does after so many years.
|
positive
|
A horribly pointless and, worse, boring film. Stranger Than Fiction has nothing new to say about anything, no characters beyond the most unimaginative stereotypes, and relies on a clunky central concept that is neither particularly original nor dealt with in a vaguely innovative way. <br /><br />Will Ferrell is totally wasted in what he presumably hoped to be his answer to Jim Carey's Truman Show, and substitutes his usual shouting routine (admittedly very funny if you discount Talledega Nights) for, well, pretty much nothing. <br /><br />Emma Thompson is no more than mildly irritating (that some reviews I've read here are talking her up for an Oscar nomination is laughable) whilst Maggie Gyllenhaal does a passable job with a very weak script that allows nothing beyond establishing her character as a former law student who dropped out of Harvard to become a baker because she liked making people happy. Please. That she ended up falling for Ferrell's 'character' is utterly ludicrous.<br /><br />Marc Forster's attempts to jazz up the film using computer graphics only serve to highlight the uninspired the material he has to work with.<br /><br />I had the choice of either going to watch The Prestige for the third time or seeing this. I wish I'd opted for The Prestige.
|
negative
|
at the beginning i was happy to know about a new superman movie , i though that will be great but it wasn't.<br /><br />is a bad copy of the Richard Donner work,Lex is again a villain that makes no more else , even played by Kevin spice.<br /><br />the evil plan is the same of the first movie of Donner just a lot forced.<br /><br />the script is predictable and simple (all stuff Luthor finds in a museum or an old lady).<br /><br />the story is the wrong thing , it must be the Kevin Smith Script and may be it could be better.<br /><br />i just hope a sequel without Brian Singer and with a new talent director to do something new and not a copy.<br /><br />all read you later
|
negative
|
The prey has an interesting history, unless you remember the ads for it in newspapers in June of 1984 you might have caught it on the Movie channel back in summer 85, but little else is remembered. The plot is your basic killer in the woods again. But ironically this was filmed before Friday the 13th. The prey was actually shot sometime in 1978 according to one of the actors in an interview years later. But released for about a week at some drive ins, (yes Jim, namans drive in showed this in June of 84). But it has a dated look to it. Maybe they released it so later on to cash in on all the other terror films the market was flooded with by 1984. Now on the story, it has some kind of back story, a forest fire back in the 1940's leaves a lot of Gypsies burned to death. But one of their children survive (our monster) so flash forward to present day which would be 1978, we have an older middle age couple camping only to be dispatched by the Monster. The tag line for this picture claims ITS NOT HUMAN, AND ITS GOT AN AXE, but an Axe was only used in these first two killings. Now we have a bunch of teenagers who look like they in their mid 20's camping. We all know they are the Prey, and the monster knocks them of one by one. For an 80 minute movie it seems longer. We also have a lot of wildlife footage to fill in voids for the 80 mins. Overall for being out into an 80-'s horror movie it looks way more 70's than ever. Hey the Prey had potential to be a good horror killer in the woods movie but falls a little short.. It does however feature a pretty scary cool looking monster at the end, and we have to wait till the last 2 minutes to see him. Side note, the monster has gone on to star in the Addams family movies in the 1990's..
|
negative
|
Okay... she's on the boat with this guy, realizes he's out to kill her, knocks him out, and then finds the reason he's out to off her is this disk that got her coworker killed. So what would any rational person do? Maybe conk him over the head again to make sure he's really out?? Tie him up?? Look, Sandra honey, you've got the chance to escape while the guy is out for only so long. Until you know how long it will take you take you to escape, make sure he's not able to come after you. I HATE these stupid female victim roles. The rest of the movie was just a series of twists and turns that were completely convoluted and too unbelievable to remain interesting.
|
negative
|
Dark comedy? Gallows humor? How does one make a comedy out of murder? It can be risky business as the viewer is required to let go of their moral values and laugh at the antics of a man who kills people. So, the story has be rock solid with a good dash of suspended reality in order to make it work. So, Pierce Brosnan, the Irishman's answer to 007 is now cast as a chain-smoking, sex-addicted alcoholic who kills people for a living and is having a life crisis. He meets a struggling businessman, Greg Kinnear, and after a rocky beginning, he learns that he needs a friend. But, Greg's happily married to Hope Davis and Brosnan sees in him the basic things he doesn't have, love, home and a life. Add character actor, Philip Baker Hall as the hit-man's manager and we're off to the races. Brosnan is wonderfully crass and crude as the anti-hero and Kinnear delightful as his counterpart, the very human businessman. Hope Davis adds a sparkle as Kinnear's very conventional wife who is fascinated with this derelict who drifts into their lives. The ending is delightful and with some surprise to it. You should leave the theater feeling, at least, partly good-- if you're able to suspend being aghast at killing people.
|
positive
|
Completely agree with other review.<br /><br />I watched this movie for about 5 minutes. I looked up the one review on another site and found that it wasn't even a real sequel. This was after I slowly backed away from the TV with remote in hand, jaw dropping lower and lower. <br /><br />The quality of the filming is beyond low budget. It doesn't even look like a freaking movie. If I were watching 'home video' footage from a documentary I would expect it.<br /><br />In summary: Avoid, avoid avoid. Boooo Lion's Gate!<br /><br />Completely ashamed of myself for watching 5 minutes and I hope that I've saved others from renting or owning it.
|
negative
|
It was so BORING! No plot whatsoever! Basically a watered-down version of the Lion King mixed in with Animal Farm. Again, no plot at all. Horrible! Worst hour and a half of my life!Oh my gosh! I had to walk out of the theatre for a few minutes just to get some relief! I maybe chuckled twice. All of the semi-funny parts are in the previews. I hate movies like that. Yeah, the movie pretty much sucked. I don't know how it got such good ratings and reviews. THERE IS NO PLOT OR STORYLINE!! If you do go see this movie, bring a pillow or a girlfriend/boyfriend to keep you occupied through out. Awful. I don't think I've ever gone to a movie and disliked it as much. It was a good thing that the tickets only cost five dollars because I would be mad if I'd have paid $7.50 to see this crap.
|
negative
|
Let me be up-front, I like pulp. However it is like one of these "easier dives" that you see at the Olympics. It has to be marked down a little because it is easier to give a cheap thrill than drag you inside the world of, say, a late medieval painter.<br /><br />This is only a two hour ghost train ride and while often (or more accurately, most of the time!) ludicrous and unlikely it always goes forward and it always entertains. If not always in the right way. Check out the memorable quotes section for a chuckle.<br /><br />(However quite why it has been given a "Worst Film" Razzie is baffling - I bet there was a thousand worse films made in 2006, but this film got the treatment because it was viewed as a fashionable victim.) <br /><br />Head case and popular novelist Catherine Tramell (Sharon Stone) is now over in London writing a novel, but death and destruction follow her around like flies follow a horse during a spot of hot weather. God heavens, she can't even visit the toilet without tripping over at least two corpses and I am sure if she opened the closet in her vast penthouse flat one would come tumbling out in grand Hollywood style.<br /><br />Yes, clearly a very dangerous lady to be circling around (if you like your pulse to be above zero), but is she personally responsible? I mean why would anyone put two-and-two together and start thinking she might be a murderer? Equally her reaction to such accusations seems very casual. However is this just a personality disorder (some form of b/s risk addiction) or further evidence of her guilt? <br /><br />For reasons I cannot fully understand or explain Stone is assigned to psychiatrist Michael Glass (David Morrissey) for evaluation rather than taken down the cells following another "lover found dead in mysterious circumstances". Thankfully (for Stone) he is far crazier than any of his patients and has a troubled home/working life of his own. In the blink of an eye the relationship changes from doctor to patient and then it is hard to tell because it all becomes something of a revolving blur.<br /><br />In to this heady mix comes Roy Washburn (a strange Welsh sounding David Thewlis) who tells the love struck doctor - in his capacity of policeman of many years standing - that the lady in question may be dangerous. I mean, hold the front page. However Glass is now too glassy-eyed to realise or care. Like a dizzy boxer in front of a prime-time Mike Tyson he ripe for the big take-down, however not before finding that Washburn might have a secret or two himself.<br /><br />Now comes Millena Gardosh (Charlotte Rampling) a fellow psychiatrist and a rare example (in this film) of someone who isn't barking mad or else a murder suspect. Presuming that she has actually watched the finished film she must look back with nostalgia when her underwear came off with the ease of Stone's - thankfully (for us at least) those days are long gone. Strangely she doesn't think Stone is quite as dangerous as everyone else - or else she doesn't think the script is good enough or her cheque large enough to do any proper acting.<br /><br />After several laps of the track roughly outlined above it comes to a climax that mixes provincial rep with a cliff-hanger/twist, that while as farcical as the rest of the movie, gives us enough elbowroom for Basic Instinct 3 - highly unlikely this may be at this point in time.
|
positive
|
Well I guess it supposedly not a classic because there are only a few easily recognizable faces, but I personally think it is... It's a very beautiful sweet movie, Henry Winkler did a GREAT job with his character and it really impressed me.
|
positive
|
I am Puerto Rican and this is one of the worst documentary of I've ever seen of any type. You can see that the people on it are clueless. They don't know much about Puerto Rico and its culture. They claim to be Puerto Rican because they are from Puerto Rican descendants, but they probably know less than others who are not from there. You can see while they are talking that they are contradicting themselves. If you would like to see a real, and I mean a real, genuine documentary from Puerto Rico, then you must see "Mi Puerto Rico". That's a serious, real documentary. Not like this piece of junk. Rosie Perez based this documentary on herself. I thought it was suppose to be about Puerto Ricans. They keep repeating I didn't know. Well, that's about the only thing they got right on this so called documentary. I hate to see such a piece of garbage being done using the name of the Island. It brings down the standards.
|
negative
|
These writers are trying to re-create the characters they have on "scrubs" in a different occupation however the characters they are stuck with have no charisma or acting ability not to mention the writing seems poor and effortless. These guys are trying to create something that would be good if the writing wasn't so disgusting which is leaving the shows only lifeline to be two attractive teachers that that are barely keeping it alive. The humor in this show seems like it is trying to target an audience with an I.Q. of 40 or below. Another reason why this show is becoming a failure could be that the writing on the show "scrubs" is excellent and this show has to follow it up leaving the viewer in an odd position not knowing whether to cry or to just lose hope in new sitcoms all together. This is just my opinion but i think these guys should stop now before they humiliate themselves anymore than they have already.
|
negative
|
Once again, Pia Zadora, the woman who owes her entire career to her husband, proves she can't act. This disaster of a film butchers the Harold Robbins novel. Ray Liotta must have been hogtied and carried to the set to appear in this one.<br /><br />Avoid this at all costs. I doubt even doing the MST3K thing would save it.
|
negative
|
Here is one the entire family will enjoy... even those who consider themselves too old for fairy tales. Shelley Duvall outdid herself with this unique, imaginative take on nearly all of the popular fairy tales of childhood. The scripts offer new twists on the age-old fables we grew up on and they feature a handful of stars in each episode. "Cinderella" is no exception to Duvall's standard and in my opinion it's one of the top five of the series, highlighted by Jennifer Beals (remember her from "Flashdance"--and she's still in Hollywood today making a movie here and there) in the title role, Jean Stapleton as the fairy godmother with a southern accent and Eve Arden as the embodiment of wicked stepmotherhood. Edie McClurg ("Ferris Bueller's Day Off") and Jane Alden make for a hilarious duo as the stepsisters. Matthew Broderick is an affable Prince Henry. You'll all keep coming back for this one!
|
positive
|
My wife and I endorse all the positive comments below, made by other IMDB members. While this is no box office smash hit it has a special charm all of its own. Genuine and heart-warming.<br /><br />We saw this on video, at the end of a long day. We were very tired, and in bed. Normally in a situation like this my wife drops off to sleep within minutes, that is, unless it is an exceptional movie and this one kept us both entertained right to the very end.<br /><br />Perhaps younger viewers in their teens and twenties would not like this, but for the rest of us it is a true gem! See it!
|
positive
|
This may not be the worst movie ever made, but it is absolutely the most boring. Wonder why it is shot mostly in the dark, and mostly with Vincent Gallo walking away from the camera, or looking down? Because he doesn't want to show his face for actually agreeing to being in this movie. I liked his early stuff, but the pretentiousness of the "Brown Bunny" and then being cast in this drivel knocked him down a peg in my book. And Val Kilmer? I actually want to send him a sympathy card. The "doors" to this??? Actually the casting was the only reason I watched this movie, and Val doesn't even show up until the movie is more than halfway over. Simply a sad movie.
|
negative
|
Honestly, my expectations for Little Bush were low. I was expecting a little cartoon series with lots of fun (but rehashed and overdone) Bush jokes. Apparently I should have lowered my expectations even more.<br /><br />The writing was absolutely pathetic. Aside from the Cheney-Chicken-Eating joke, and some giggly-little swipes, it was really boring and unfunny.<br /><br />The animation was about as sophisticated as a thirteen-year old's Flash Project. It's disgraceful that they used Macromedia's product for this, because it's capable of so much more.<br /><br />I don't like Bush that much, and I enjoy a Bush-joke as much as the next guy, but this was just a half-hour swipe at the President with several painfully un-funny moments. Trey Parker and Matt Stone did so much more with That's My Bush.<br /><br />Do yourself a favor, skip "Lil' Bush" and go buy a copy of the short-lived comedy "That's My Bush". You'll thank me.
|
negative
|
This movie is a great example of how even some very funny jokes can go terribly wrong. i really expected at least something from this movie after seeing the add which was funny as hell but the movie wasn't half as good.<br /><br />The weird part is that the jokes are actually funny, the spoofs of the smoking ban, Jo Bole... etc. are genuinely good jokes but i don't know whom to blame this movie flop on.<br /><br />The prime candidates may be:- 1) The hammers ( actors) and hammeresses (actresses) and not even the funny kind 2) The director 3)The guy who cast the actors and/or the director Anyway if you are really really bored and i mean really see this movie, or else get a copy of each and every ad or teaser of this movie and laugh your butt of because those will be far funnier than the film.<br /><br />p.s the only saving grace of this film is mahesh manjrekar and the funny chappu bhai
|
negative
|
I haven't seen the original "Incredible Journey" since I was a child, so I can't really compare the two versions. This version tells the story of three animals, two dogs and a cat, whose owners leave them with friends in the countryside when the father of the family has to take a new job in San Francisco. The pets, believing that they have been abandoned, escape and set out on a long homeward journey through wilderness.<br /><br />This story might have been most easily filmed as a cartoon, but both versions are in fact live-action films made using real animals. One major difference is that in the later version the animals speak in human voices, giving each its own distinct personality, something that was not done in the original film. (A similar device of talking animals has been used in other recent children's films such as "Racing Stripes"). Some critics have been rather sniffy about the use of this device, but my own view is that giving the animals distinctive personalities of their own helps to strengthen the film rather than weaken it. The animals were voiced by big-name stars, Don Ameche, Michael J. Fox and Sally Fields.<br /><br />Both dogs are male, and their relationship parallels that between many humans in "buddy-buddy" movies. Shadow, a golden retriever, is the wise, experienced older dog; Chance the younger one is brash, cocky and impulsive. To British eyes Chance looks like a boxer, but is actually an American Bulldog, which is apparently a different breed to its British cousin. Sassy the cat is female with a rather prim and proper personality. She is very proud of her status as a cat, which in her eyes makes her vastly superior to any mere dog. ("Cats rule, dogs drool!").<br /><br />From an adult viewpoint the film has a number of faults; it can be sentimental, some of the incidents (such as the one in which the animals manage to catapult a mountain lion into the river) are quite incredible, and the human characters are all completely forgettable. This, however, is a film which is mainly aimed at children, and I suspect they will enjoy it immensely. Certainly, any animal-loving child will do so. (Comments by some professional critics such as James Berardinelli, who complained that the animals' voices lessened the film's "grandeur", only serve to strengthen my view that professional critics are not always the best guides to children's movies. I doubt if many playground conversations about "Homeward Bound" concentrated on its supposed grandeur).<br /><br />One thing adults will appreciate is the photography of California's Sierra Nevada mountains. They may also appreciate the film's blend of humour and excitement as the runaway pets encounter perils such as bears, mountain lions and porcupines in the wilderness. This is a very enjoyable family film. 7/10
|
positive
|
**************Possible spoilers********** There is only one reason why I saw this movie and that was because I have a massive crush on Richard Belzer.(I don't know that much about humor) There were some part that were funny Like the Barbie and Ken Spoof and the dealers and the president skit. Mind you this is sometimes raunchy(Dare, I say crude?) It was at times funny, but it could have been better. Probably if they spent more time in the humor and less time getting women undress, the movie would had been funnier. Some skits just make you want to gag, and cringe, others skits make you laugh and oddly enough think. Sadly this movie is dated. If you have a mad crush on Richard Belzer(So worth it) it's worth checking it out and seeing chevy chase.
|
positive
|
Beaudray Demerille(a weak Peter Fonda, who also directed), an aging gambler, wins young teen Wanda "Nevada"(pretty, but not talented Brooke Shields) in a poker game. Together the unlikely pair(of course)embark on a search for Indian gold in the Grand Canyon.<br /><br />That's the story and there really is no need to search for a deeper meaning in it. It just isn't there. The acting is very weak too, which was quite a surprise given the fact that Peter Fonda was in the lead.<br /><br />If you're looking for something interesting in this film, take a look at the nice scenery and some good looks of a young Brooke Shields. Her character however is so irritating(especially at the beginning)and dumb, that she never quite comes off as sexy or appealing. Too bad, but, given the story, I doubt anything more could be made of this. I wonder why Peter Fonda directed and starred in this film. He must have even talked his father(Henry Fonda)into a (useless) cameo in this ridiculous mess. Unfortunately, this was their only film together. Couldn't Henry be in EASY RIDER for example? 3/10
|
negative
|
I watched the unrated version of this movie and as a person who has studied the life and crimes of Speck closely, I must say this movie is a flawed but ambitious take on the real story. While capturing the true horror of Speck and the murders this film makes the following factual errors. 1. Speck did not inject drugs at the crime scene as depicted in the movie. In fact he was mainly an alcoholic and pill popper who rarely took drugs via syringe. 2. The Asian nurse who survived Speck's massacre did not squirm her way down stairs and under the couch in the living room as depicted in the movie. This would have been impossible. In real life she hid under a bed while Speck methodically eliminated his 8 victims. 3. The movie depicts Speck as being violent and brutal with the women as soon as he meets them. Not true. In reality Speck was at first calm and gentle, reassuring the women he wasn't going to hurt them. This is how he was able to tie each of them up. 4. The real Richard Speck was not the deep thinker the movie depicts him to be. FBI profiler Robert Ressler interviewed Speck in the 80's and said that Speck not only DID'NT know why he committed the murders but that he wasn't interested in learning why nor could he shed any light on why. Speck was known to be of below average intelligence and not the philosopher king who narrates this movie. If the story wasn't so tragic and horrifying, the voice over would be laughable. All in all, Doug Cole's performance is adequately menacing and cold-blooded even though I don't think the real Speck was so forward in his violence. No doubt he was a very violent person when under the influence but he was also known, after all, for being a fairly slick con man who was able to put people at ease before victimizing them. Beverly Ann Sotelo's performance as the surviving nurse is the finest in the film. She is a very good actress. If you are at all squeamish, do not see this film. It's very graphic and disturbing.
|
negative
|
A man named Jerry comes into possession of an ancient Aztec doll.However this creepy little figure is possessed by an evil spirit,which takes over Jerry's body and pushes him to spill the blood...I have seen two other horror movies "The Dorm that Dripped Blood" and "The Kindred" made by Stephen Carpenter and Jeffrey Obrow and I must say that "The Power" doesn't disappoint either.The plot is slow-moving,but there are some effective human goo effects and a little bit of gore.The scene of a female tabloid reporter being attacked by arms that come ripping out of a mattress is a hoot.I liked this low-budget horror movie and you should too,if you are into 80's horror genre.8 out of 10.
|
positive
|
Seriously, where is Al Pacino's Oscar nomination for this one? Is it that we take him for granted at this point in his career? Pacino here is extraordinary.. He gives a complex, heartbreaking performance as Shylock, the Jewish money lender.. the movie as a whole was quite great, with beautiful shots of Venice to look at and a pitch perfect score to listen to.. the other actors all do a fine job as well, but the real reason to see this is Pacino.. I have seen all the nominated Oscar performances of 2004, and I must say that Pacino was snubbed.. blame it on the anti-semitism associated with the play, the lack of campaigning by the studio, the late release date with no major push, or most likely, all of the above.. in my mind, the best performances of the year belong to Jamie Foxx in Ray, Don Cheadle in Hotel Rwanda, and Al Pacino in The Merchant of Venice..
|
positive
|
toplines this ok comedy about an aging father (C. Aubrey Smith) who decides to gather his grown children from around the world. Davies is working as a chorus girl in New York when she gets the news that "daddy" wants her. Hmmmm, sounds familiar. Davies' considerable talents as a comedienne save this otherwise so-so comedy as she upsets the staid British countryside with her brazen American personality. Not as sharp as some other Davies comedies, but still worth a look. Ray Milland plays her long-lost "brother." Doris Lloyd, Elizabeth Murray, and Halliwell Hobbes are all fun, too.
|
positive
|
In this tale of a tightly wound Christian family that has three of its four members "born again" after a cake-caused car crash, what really stands out is how grounded most of it is, where there is so much potential to go over the top, and how truly inspired most of the acting is. Where most of the film's moments, particularly its frank and "innocent" discussions of sexuality after three of the four family members have their guilt and shame removed, is hilarious, it is also thought-provoking and the characters stay with you.<br /><br />How often, for example does a character in a comedy spin from near caricature to full-bodied emotional being in the course of one scene? How often do we see a cast that can pull back from showboating mid-sentence, in order to show a bit of the humanity beneath the character's skin? Even many of the "bad guys" in this film have moments of heart-breaking honesty, even while much of what they do can be absolutely ridiculous and horrifying. There is truth and history behind even the most questionable acts in this film, which is a difficult task in satire.<br /><br />How refreshing it is to see a darkish comedy that can dare to be humanistic. How nice to see actors so fully committed to character that they can dare to let them be ridiculous and sublime.<br /><br />And as a gay person, I do not think I have ever been quite so touched by a heterosexual sex scene as I was by the first sexual encounter between the parents of this family after their accident.<br /><br />Bravo. Bravo. One of my favorites at Outfest this year.
|
positive
|
There are so many goofy things about this movie that I can't possibly name but a few:<br /><br />BOGART's character: 1. His name Whip McCord (too easy, so I'll leave it at that. Boy, it makes `Humphrey' sound good.) 2. His long, curly hair and silly sideburns. 3. His Black Bart get-up, complete with spurs! 4. Not sure what shade of lipgloss they've got him wearing, but it ain't none too flattering.<br /><br />CAGNEY's character (Jim Kincaid ): 1. His lipstick doesn't do him any favors, either. 2. The man is being swallowed by his hat during the entire film! Could they not find a hat to fit him? Even a LITTLE?!!?! 3. His pants are too tight in the rear. 4. He blows the smoke off his gun one too many times, if you know what I mean, and I think you do.<br /><br />If you are a casual Bogart or Cagney fan, and figure it might be a change of pace to see them in a western, do yourself a favor and forget that thought. EVEN THE HORSES LOOK EMBARRASSED! (That is, when they don't look bored.)<br /><br />In all fairness, I admit that westerns are my least favorite film genre, but I've still seen much, MUCH better than this.<br /><br />On a comedy level, or as high camp, The Oklahoma Kid works. Otherwise, it's viewer beware. Therefore, see this only if a) you must see every western out there b) you are a TRUE Cagney or Bogie completist c) any of the above comments appeal to you. Woah
..
|
negative
|
Right at this moment I am watching this movie for the second time (on television) and for the second time I fell into it when it was running for an hour already (I think I saw 2 minutes more this time) This movie is really impressing, the way Goldsworthy looks at nature, changes nature in a way that you yourself would never think of, really is amazing. This whole movie gives you a warm feeling, seeing him play with the world around him with such love. Or only seeing his hands, covered in dirt and with broken fingernails, it just touches you.
|
positive
|
The Darkling was a very interesting and entertaining film while F. Murray Abraham was in it. Spoilers: About halfway through, F.Murray gets zapped, because The Darkling is some kind of demon-like creature who enjoys living vicariously. He takes bums and losers and perverts them further while giving them all they want in terms of success. He feeds from their enjoyment of the Seven Deadly Sins. However, part of it is that he needs to get people who may be flawed but not completely evil. Otherwise he cannot "pervert" their natural goodness. That's what the little guy said in his Barry White voice, which I found both charming and amusing. Mostly amusing. Like imagine Barry White if he were a little dwarf and he was telling Aiden Gillen "Dee Plane, Dee Plane, Bos, Here eet come, Dee Plane!" All through the movie, Dee Dwarf (actually a robotronic cherub) talks to Aiden Gillen in the Barry White voice, saying things like "It's OK to be bad, you know you want it." "Now you've committed murder, you're really moving up in the world" and other remarks that sound like commercials for "Being Evil" Stores or something. It really is hilarious in a sick way.<br /><br />Anyhow, Aiden Gillen is no F. Murray Abraham, and the movie tanks as soon as Murray gets the axe (or knifed?). F. Murray brings a certain happy malevolence to his role in this film. He is a good actor. Aiden Gillen on the other hand has a permanent happy smirk on his face, and he looks like maybe his remedial English Comp. class had never hit the Mythological Characters and he could not imagine what the movie was about. The ENDING is really creepy and yet almost comical. If this movie were a parody, the ending was perfect. If it was not a parody, then it was creepy; but a cheap use of a little girl to deliver a gross-out that the movie itself could not deliver. The people who made this movie lost whatever it was that they wanted to do with it somewhere before the ending. It just ends like they just realized that they had run out of money and had to film a quickie ending.
|
negative
|
For what it is, "Raising Victor Vargas" is about as close to perfection as a film can get. Either sheer genius from a fledgling auteur or just one of those lucky mixes where everything clicked (probably some of each), this simple little slice-of-urban-life ethnic first love flick fleshes out its young characters with such depth you can almost read their minds. The film begins with a strong flavor of "street" but works its way into a Latino family affair and then focuses on a story which speaks volumes about the uncertainty of youth and the profoundly natural desire to love another. In my experience, never has so much been done with so little (cast of tyros, novice director, etc.). Praised by the critics but not for everyone, "Raising Victor Vargas" is recommended for indie lovers and realists into simple tales rich in humanness. (A)
|
positive
|
This is not a bad movie. It follows the new conventions of modern horror, that is the movie within a movie, the well known actress running for her life in the first scene. This movie takes the old convention of a psycho killer on he loose, and manage to do something new, and interesting with it. It is also always nice to see Molly Ringwald back for the attack.<br /><br />So this might be an example of what the genre has become. Cut hits all the marks, and is actually scary in some parts. I liked it I gave it an eight.
|
positive
|
I'm not a huge Freddy Krueger fan,but that doesn't mean that I don't like Robert Englund and his other Nightmare on Elm Street movies.I think that Robert is a very good actor.Nobody plays a better Freddy Krueger than he does.But,no offense Robert, this movie sucked.The acting is terrible,the plot is really weak,and Freddy Krueger is the only part of the cast that's even worth watching.Sometimes sequels can be better than the first,such as the Friday the 13th franchise(I thought the remake was the best in the series.)But this isn't one of those movies.The original was good,the 2nd in my opinion was better,the 3rd was okay but I haven,t seen the others.Whatever you do,don,t make the same mistake I did by watching this piece of crap.
|
negative
|
This film would be a great piece of history if in fact it was a real film of the Kennedy assassination. The are far too many mistakes in this film for me to point out. It is a film of the Kennedy assassination, but many of the important facts have been altered. There are missing scenes, and many of the scenes, after the president's limo passes the sign, don't fit in. Both Kennedys move noticeably slower then the other four people in front of them. Next time you watch this film look for things that don't add up, such as the Texas Gov. and his, along with the SS men in the front, lunge forward but you can see that the limo is not stopping or slowing down, in fact is is accelerating. This film is clearly an attempt at a cover up.
|
negative
|
Well, at least my theater group did, lol. So of course I remember watching Grease since I was a little girl, while it was never my favorite musical or story, it does still hold a little special place in my heart since it's still a lot of fun to watch. I heard horrible things about Grease 2 and that's why I decided to never watch it, but my boyfriend said that it really wasn't all that bad and my friend agreed, so I decided to give it a shot, but I called them up and just laughed. First off the plot is totally stolen from the first one and it wasn't really clever, not to mention they just used the same characters, but with different names and actors. Tell me, how did the Pink Ladies and T-Birds continue years on after the former gangs left? Not to mention the creator face motor cycle enemy, gee, what a striking resemblance to the guys in the first film as well as these T-Birds were just stupid and ridiculous.<br /><br />Another year at Rydell and the music and dancing hasn't stopped. But when a new student who is Sandy's cousin comes into the scene, he is love struck by a pink lady, Stephanie. But she must stick to the code where only Pink Ladies must stick with the T-Birds, so the new student, decides to train as a T-Bird to win her heart. So he dresses up as a rebel motor cycle bandit who can ride well and defeat the evil bikers from easily kicking the T-Bird's butts. But will he tell Stephanie who he really is or will she find out on her own? Well, find out for yourself.<br /><br />Grease 2 is like a silly TV show of some sort that didn't work. The gang didn't click as well as the first Grease did, not to mention Frenchy coming back was a bit silly and unbelievable, because I thought that she graduated from Rydell, but apparently she didn't. The songs were not really that catchy; I'm glad that Michelle was able to bounce back so fast, but that's probably because she was the only one with talent in this silly little sequel, I wouldn't really recommend this film, other than if you are curious, but I warned you, this is just a pathetic attempt at more money from the famous musical.<br /><br />2/10
|
negative
|
While I score the movie a 7, I also should point out that it is both interesting historically (as it stars Mae Marsh, Lillian Gish and Lionel Barrymore when they were all younger and less well-known) and features pretty exciting action for its day.<br /><br />The plot is odd for a Western, in that all the trouble with the Indians begins for the weirdest reason I have ever seen! The Indians decide to have a giant dog banquet (no, they are not feeding dogs, but feeding ON dogs) and when two Indians arrive late, there are not pooches left! So, they steal two dogs belonging to two orphans from the nearby White settlement and this actually touches off an all-out war!!!! Not only is this silly, but seems to play on the prejudices of audiences. I don't know if American Indians actually ate dog, but it sounds like the sort of stereotype that later was applied to other ethnic groups. All this over dogs! The movie has some excellent battle scenes and exciting moments--such as when Ms. Marsh crawls across the battlefield to save a baby! Exciting stuff! But, STRANGE, too!
|
positive
|
I wonder why I haven't heard of this movie before. It's truly a magnificent comedy (I'd say farce, but it's too well acted and I'd hate to denigrate it's quality). A comedic character study about the travails of mid-life crises, the inequity for gays who can't have their long-time unions recognized, and the general differences of people who can't fit nicely into society, that pairs Kathy Bates and Rupert Everett to a wonderful effect. Forget Julia Roberts and Rupert; Kathy Bates and Rupert should do another movie together. The anxiety-ridden, acerbic and outrageous daughter-in-law, Maudie (Meredith Eaton), is a truly wonderful character. If you liked the Tales of the City films, you'd like this quirky charmer.
|
positive
|
Tiny Tweet and Sly the sneak are locked up in cages for a train ride to who knows where. Swinging Tweety begins belting out an insufferable song as soon as the train leaves the station, so lets hope that Puddy Tad gets him this time. Sly tries out a couple of funny hand tricks but spoil sport conductor man puts the bird in a safer place amongst the baggage. The cat's next attempt has him ending up in the coal oven of the steam engine. And the chase is on. Of course there's a bulldog too, and silly Sly just cant keep his big mouth shut.<br /><br />Next up the persistent pussy tries the old-stacking-of-the suitcases-bit (twice) producing a payoff Tex Avery would be proud of. Unfortunately for Sylvester, that bulldog seems to be everywhere. He even displays a talent for shape shifting and producing enormous clubs from his back-pocket. Not even Sylvesters ability to outrun a speeding train can save him when he is thrown off, Silver Streak style, several times in a row. Arriving at Granny's new place, (Gower Gulch, population 86) the cat's final attempt involves cross-dressing. But you know what happens to men in dresses, they always get more attention than they bargained for.<br /><br />7 out of 10
|
positive
|
I finally watched the third film in Mehta's trilogy: "Fire". To begin, I'd say that "Water" was the unquestionable masterpiece, on all levels. Fire comes next with Earth close behind in order of quality. Fire: there is so much going on in this film that I'll need a few more viewings to drink it all in. The writing is superb, the script creating friction that starts the entire process of "heat" from the beginning until the end when it really does erupt into a fire, the conflicts moving into complete rupture of relationships. <br /><br />Mehta is one brave lady: she sees with a clear eye much that is jaundiced, false and repressive about the great society from which she came from. India is rapidly changing these days but much of this is economic change. That she met with such ferocious opposition to the making of "Water" after having had the script cleared, shows that there are still many taboo subjects which Indian people more than less cannot look squarely in the face, cannot examine or discuss them. Worse, if someone like Mehta has the courage to hold up a mirror to these issues, she faces death threats. So, as much as India thinks of itself as a pluralistic, tolerant society, the facts are not always so. Whereas "Earth" was merely a historical setting of the carnage of the civil war after Indian independence, Fire and Water are pointing at personal, social and religious issues, which as I say are considered so strongly (in a negative sense) that an open artistic dialog is still many years away. As I write this "Water" is scheduled to actually be shown in India later this year. I'll believe it when I see it. <br /><br />Fire confronts a similar sexual and emotional conundrum that I saw in "A price above rubies". Whether it's arranged marriages (which it used to be like among Jews about 150 years ago, or like it is among many modern Indians), they have the risk of having a bad match forced upon both men and women; or, just plain loveless marriages..... However, this is not the real issue. Mehta is clearly impatient with the totally rigid religious attitudes that either keep widows in misery (Water) or else keep women enslaved to loveless marriages (Fire). I am no expert regarding either the secular or Hindu laws concerning divorce. The film seems to imply that the stigma (of divorce)is almost as bad as the sad marriage. In any case Mehta's film is a very moving, powerful attempt at sexual discourse that holds modern Indian relationships up to probing scrutiny. That all three of these films have made themselves felt in India as an unwarranted attack on their culture sounds to me like the predictable clamor of a repressive mindset. Mehta is forcing the issues to be looked at no matter how much flack. I admire her work and cannot highly recommend her films enough. Superb, disturbing, provocative, taboo shattering.
|
positive
|
"Atlantis: The Lost Empire" was everything the previews indicated it would be. It is not often you find that. Most of the time, the previews show only the best parts and then the rest of the movie is terrible. Not so with this one. I was pleased with the original plot, even though the sub-plots were not. The animation was not break through like "Shrek" but it was good, none the less. The plot and the story line were well presented and there were only a few slow spots in them. This keeps you interested. I found myself enjoying this one. "Atlantis" gets and keeps your attention. You also have to think a little bit, but not too much. Once you think about it a little, you can figure out what needs to happen but you really don't know for sure how it is going to happen.<br /><br />The casting was also good. Michael J. Fox, as Milo was an excellent choice. His personality fits nicely. The gruff natured Commander Rourke was also well chosen with James Garner. His character reminded me of his performance in "Maverick" which I also liked. I really liked the casting of Claudia Christian as Helga Sinclair. Her ability to play a no nonsense personality makes the film more interesting. It's just too bad she is a villain.<br /><br />Over all, definitely worth you while (8 out of 10).
|
positive
|
OK, I didn't have high expectations but this film descending into depths I could not imagine.<br /><br />The plot, as it were, involved a priest of an obscure 2 member order investigating the death of the founder of the order by a Sin Eater. The Sin Eater allows for Catholics to achive salvation outside the authority of the Church and is yet another immortal in film with loads of ennui. Nevermind that this makes no sense since then a Baptist could give you salvation....we'll move on.<br /><br />I'll layout the plot w/o giving much away: the priest goes to Rome with his buddy to investogate. He brings with him a mental patient (I'm not making this up) who shot him during an excorism and who loves him (not one lick of this BTW is explained), a drunk Irish priest and Peter Weller as a Cardinal. They get to Rome, find some creepy kids who do nothing in the film, meet with a bondage gear S&M anti-pope that the drunk Irish guy knows (not explained) and who gives information by killing people (oh, BTW, he's a bad guy so he has an industrial/techno soundtrack) and then...umm, seriously, I'm not sure. the plot meanders about. Heath chills with the Sin Eater, flies to New York with the Sin Eater for an overnighter and then some other stuff happens and then (all off camera) the anti-pope falls and the film ends.<br /><br />About 1 hour into the film one really wonder if anything has happened. By the end something has happened but you can't be at all certain that it matters and since most of the drama takes place either before the movei or off-scren you're really feeling cheated.
|
negative
|
The film begins with promise, but lingers too long in a sepia world of distance and alienation. We are left hanging, but with nothing much else save languid shots of grave and pensive male faces to savour. Certainly no rope up the wall to help us climb over. It's a shame, because the concept is not without merit.<br /><br />We are left wondering why a loving couple - a father and son no less - should be so estranged from the real world that their own world is preferable when claustrophobic beyond all imagining. This loss of presence in the real world is, rather too obviously and unnecessarily, contrasted with the son having enlisted in the armed forces. Why not the circus, so we can at least appreciate some colour? We are left with a gnawing sense of loss, but sadly no enlightenment, which is bewildering given the film is apparently about some form of attainment not available to us all.
|
negative
|
Let's go straight to the point: this is The Movie I would take with me on a desert island (with dvd player). It's just perfect. If a reason for you to see a movie is that you love the actors, you like to see them free to involve in the space and feelings, this movie is for you. See the scene when Myrtle (Rowlands) come on stage drunk and Maurice(Cassavetes) has to improvise because she doesn't follow the script anymore. If you're sensitive to the camera's movements, you'll be fascinated by the way the camera moves on stage, the particular flow, that give you the impression camera follow the actors as if it was lead by the theatrical principle of "private space"... amazing. And the story is just a brilliant mix of tale and realistic drama. Cassavetes is again arguing with Hollywood and the majors' politics, but this time, he do it through Broadway, making one of the most exciting movie about theater. Well, this movie is a bliss.
|
positive
|
"De Dominee" is based on the life of a real dutch gangster,Klaas Bruinsma! In the movie he is called Klaas Donkers! I have my doubts that events presented in the movie have something to do with what really happened! But that doesn't really matter! Because it failed to grab my attention! This movie bored the crap out of me! It lacks substance and style! The substance part could have been forgiven if the acting was any good and if the director tried to do something original! Without the substance you at least have to bring some style or decent action! Don't we need to be entertained? It would have helped if the director had seen more gangster movies! It is obvious that he didn't! Otherwise he wouldn't have made this the way he did! This movie got a lot of publicity because of a little scandal surrounding Klaas Bruinsma and a member of the Dutch Royal family! This scandal has nothing to do with the movie what so ever! Without it "De Dominee" never would have been successful! I am sure of it!
|
negative
|
Bunny Comes Home 'This Man's Navy' deserves more credit than it gets, a clever script by Borden Chase, directed by 'Wild Bill' Wellman, the film has just the right feel for early post WW11 euphoria and goodwill, and none of the blind terror that came into play few years later. Produced in 1944, the Japanese defeated, the battle scenes a little déjà vu, Tom Drake's melancholy attraction for radiant young Jan Clayton has solid chemistry, plays real and validates Drake's career at Metro. The following year Jan opened on Broadway in 'Carousel.' Wally Beery, a little bleary-eyed, boasts to an always incredulous Jimmy Gleason
his memories an improvement over reality, and give Beery a Ulysses-like shadow to play against. The Navy LTA (Lighter Than Air) shots are authentic, photographed at Tustin and Lakehurst, and the P-38 squadron is out of March AFB. Lot 3 doubled for India, and Bunny's U-turn
Bunny Comes Home
gives back to Beery an authentic slice of his past, something he had wanted to believe was true
then, the future we spin into again is fantastical
now on a grander scale, a newly designed Navy LTA with launch capabilities for a reconnaissance plane
how expensive, blissfully optimistic
still, "You got to believe in it, that's the way you make things come true
"
|
positive
|
**Spoilers contained**<br /><br />I'd heard from various sources that this film was controversial and that the ending in particular was horrific. What I didn't expect was the complete change in tack with about twenty minutes to go. What starts off as a typical cowboy/indian western suddenly descends into a very dull romantic 'comedy' about Honus (Soldier Blue of the title played by Peter Strauss) and Cresta (Candice Bergen) who escape an onslaught of the cavalry by the Cheyenne. The majority of the film then focuses on these two mismatched people hence the romantic comedy bit. Donald Pleasance then turns up and abducts them both for no real apparent reason. They then escape and both turn up (separately) at the cavalry base on the eve of an attack on the Cheyenne base. As Cresta used to be married to one of the Cheyenne chiefs she escapes the cavalry base and joins up with them. So far so ordinary. Then comes the ending. After enduring well over an hour of poor acting involving a cliched will they/won't they get together storyline, the movie then transforms into over the top exploitation involving among other things a decapitation and a child being shot in the back of the head. Similarities can be drawn with the Wild Bunch at this point of the film but the Wild Bunch kept the same tone throughout and didn't resort to extreme gratuitous violence. In some ways, Soldier Blue reminds me of Frank Perry's Last Summer which also completely changed tack for a shock ending. I didn't hate Soldier Blue nor find the ending particularly disturbing but just found it to be pretty dull with an unnecessarily violent ending. If you want to see a film with a truly disturbing slaughter of the innocents, I would recommend Elem Klimov's Come and See.
|
negative
|
You know, I'm sure the boys were sitting around the office one day and said, "HOW CAN WE MAKE MORE MONEY?" They had made every possible variant of toy they could make with their current characters. So they decide, let's steal the star wars idea, A PREQUEL, and we can make up all new characters, and sell them as toys. Incidently something they did in puppet master 3, but who cares? Anyway they pick a point in time before the first movie when Toulon is still alive, he and the puppets are sitting around, and a wooden head roll on the floor and the puppets want to know if that is a dead family member or something, it doesn't matter. So the tale of the puppet master ancestry begins. It's long, it's boring, no body cares.<br /><br />The funniest part is, they tell the origin of these new characters in the movie, but give no clues of their fate. SO GUESS WHAT, once the revenue from the new toys pays off, they can fundsa new (and 4th straight rotten) sequel, called "PUPPET MASTER 8 THE SEQUEL TO THE PREQUEL OF THE FATE OF THE DEAD RETRO PUPPETS!" hold your breath!
|
negative
|
This was/is an incredible movie, with incredible cast, music, singing, story, etc. It is a tragedy that some arrogant families (the Gerswhins or Premingers) can keep it from being available to generation after generation. I have wanted to see it again all of my life. I just found this site and read why it has not been available. Shame on these families for their pettiness. My wife is from Germany and she has never seen the movie. Neither have my step-children or my grandchildren. It is very sad that a movie of this depth and quality is not available for them to see. Where do these families get off making such a conceited, self-important, egotistical, condescending decision to prohibit generations from enjoying this film, these stars, these performances, this music! Release the video and let them world judge and enjoy!
|
positive
|
Its Hollywood imitating Daytiem Soap Operas at its finest! Its the fun that we never see. Great characters and great lines. Whoopi is hilarious.....Sally Field is so over the top....Gary Marshalls lines are a riot....this is what I love about good comedies. Never afraid to poke fun at themselves!!!!!!The sets were great....wardrobe was on point and the backstabbing "Montana Morehead" was a devilish delight. Terri Hatcher as "Dr. Monica Demonico" didn't have enough lines but none the less still gorgeous and fun when on screen. I would love to know how the idea for this movie came up. Never have I seen a cast of people have so much fun in making comedy work! Soapdish is a must have and I am waiting for the DVD!!!
|
positive
|
There I am sitting at home in the morning, suddenly my brother flips on what appears to be the stupidest looking movie i have ever seen. Considering it was the 70's and special effects weren't to sharpe, this movie just about equaled the definition of crap. The stupid monsters, the stupid story line, and the stupid setting made this the worst movie I have ever seen. So bad in fact I didnt even finish it, I made it up to a certain point then proceeded to see how long I could go without putting a rope around my neck and hanging myself. (im just kidding haha) AWFUL MOVIE
|
negative
|
At first,this movie seems so bad that i almost fell in a trance the first time i saw it.It was like a bad dream.A cosmic bore.But i gave it a second chance,then another and another,etc...I finally got addicted to this film,due to it's dreamlike slow pace,wonderful natural sets,bathed in a mellow autumn light and especially the musical score,which is made of some 70's progressive rock and absolute exquisite folk songs by actor/singer/songwriter Derek Lamb(the Troubadour).You should notice the song about hazel wood,silver trout and lady vanishing in the air...,heard in the middle and near the end of the film.There are some carnal scenes in the beginning ,wich allow us to appreciate the natural charms of Elizabeth Suzuki.If that movie had been made by some "repertoire" directors like Bergman,Lars Von Triers or Jean-Luc Goddard,critics would have rolled on the floor,raving about that movie as if it were a cosmic masterpiece.I personally think this film is one million times superior to any of Fellini's cinematic sh#¤@t!Definitely not for the pretentious.
|
positive
|
And so the great rewriting of history continues Hollywood style.<br /><br />This was senseless ridiculous rubbish.<br /><br />Its shocks me that such an amazing amount of money can be spent to produce what is the most contrived, poorly acted inaccurate film I have ever seen. It is appalling.<br /><br />Nic Cage's brief flirtation with serious acting appears to be over. I can only assume that Leaving Las Vegas was a glitch in an otherwise litany of dreadful films.<br /><br />Diane Kruger proves that her performance in Troy was no fluke, she really can't act.<br /><br />Harvey Keitel should be ashamed of himself for working on such tripe.<br /><br />Only recommended for those either recovering from a recent lobotomy or people of an opinion that America invented the world.
|
negative
|
This movie is by far the worst movie ever made. If you have to create a film costarring the guy who plays Lars in heavyweights than don't make the damn film. I have to say that I could watch Leprechaun in Space 6 times before I could watch the trailer for this POS of a movie. Adam sandler should be restricted from any movie after this disgrace. Watching this movie is like a mix of listening to Cher and willingly putting your dick in a blender. Anyone with half of a brain cell will realize that this movie is not worth a dime. If I had an extra dollar and had to spend it, I'd give it to the support Lorraina Bobbitt foundation before buying this movie.
|
negative
|
Just when you thought it was safe to go back into the water...<br /><br />Another computer generated mutant croc on the prowl for human lunchmeat, let loose by another one of those facilities conducting mad science. Gereco Biotech company is fooling around with growth hormone research, accidentally releasing a baby crocodile which is evolving at an accelerating rate.<br /><br />B-movie cast add a deal of fun to this run of the mill "genetic mistake monster movie". Costas Mandylor evokes Mick Dundee, Aussie accent, hat, big ass knife, the works, as a croc specialist hired by Gereco executive Joanna Pacula(..wasted in the stereotypical role of corrupt administrative executive who denies any involvement with the gigantic beast her facility let free on innocent people). Charles Napier is the local sheriff whose town is in danger and Jane Longenecker is his hot daughter, who works at the animal shelter. Soap opera star Matthew Borlenghi is Longenecker's love interest, a local artist who welds sculptures(..his brother is a victim of the croc). Of course, this skill will come in mighty handy when our heroes set up a created trap for the croc, hoping to poison it with carbon monoxide.<br /><br />The croc itself is never the least bit convincing as it rampages through a reserve looking for food, the special effects of a low grade variety. In regards to Roger Corman productions dealing with renegade dino-monsters, I stick with Carnosaur. The monster here is essentially a crocodile standing on it's hind legs, often upright as it pursues potential victims. I felt Mandylor and the filmmakers were spoofing Crocodile Dundee with his croc hunter, and this imitation might amuse where the monster itself fails. Borlenghi and Longenecker actually have pretty good chemistry together on screen. As expected, Pacula gets her commuppance in hilarious fashion(..gulp).
|
negative
|
I rented it because the second segment traumatized me as a little kid. I snuck downstairs really early one morning, started watching HBO, and The Raft (segment 2) terrorized me good. This time around, I still enjoyed The Raft, although I couldn't tell whether it was for nostalgic reasons or if it was actually a good short. The other two segments were complete trash. I can't believe a producer somewhere payed to make this junk. All I've accomplished by watching this was to ruin one more childhood memory. Creepshow 2 will now join Rad among my list of tainted childhood classics. 4/10
|
negative
|
***Possible Spoilers***<br /><br />When I saw this today I had some expectation of how it would be like, not too high, but not low either. This was nothing like I expected at all though, it seems to me like the movie makers couldn't make up their mind of what kind of movie to make.<br /><br />In the begining of the film it's somewhat mysterious and kinda exciting, but that'll soon change to some ridiculous scenes - very obvious scenes... As I watched further I almost fell asleep a couple of times.<br /><br />The ending is the most ridiculous of all though, almost splatter/comedy...<br /><br />I'm not saying it doesn't have some good scenes it's just that the film never becomes "whole".<br /><br />4/10 Movie-Man
|
negative
|
An old man who lives in the mountains wakes up one morning and loses his cat. He wanders the woods to witness a murder but did he see the murder or is he losing his mind? Is he just getting old? The movie so great because the viewer has to make up their own mind on what is going on. There is very little dialog in this movie but it doesn't need words, the whole movie speaks for itself. You knew what was going on and I liked it.<br /><br />The other part that I liked were the shots of the woods in late fall and winter. Those were pretty but the only thing I didn't like was the view of the old man in his underwear. He could have tied the robe a little tighter but other than that, it was a pretty deep movie.
|
positive
|
I really enjoyed this movie. It succeeded in doing something that few movies do now; it provided family values while entertaining me. Nancy Drew is a heroine for all generations and a role model for young girls to look up to. The little girls I was with throughly enjoyed the movie and kept talking about Nancy as we walked out of the theater. The movie has relatively few problems for families and I don't think parents will get bored sitting in the theater. No, it won't win an Oscar and it did not showcase magnificent special effects or even provide a horribly spooky mystery, but it entertained me and it stood true to the the spirit of the books. I would definitely recommend this movie to anybody with a young girl (she will love it!) or any fan of the books. You will not be disappointed.
|
positive
|
I wouldn't be surprised if Soderbergh was pressured to avoid making pre- revolution Cuba as graphically corrupt as it was. Merely reciting a few statistics isn't going to make it with the younger crowd. Still, part one, which is almost entirely shot in the jungle, does capture the feel of that place, especially when traversing the mountainous areas of Cuba. I liked Del Toro's interpretation of Che Guevara's personality. And the actor who plays Castro, Bichir, also did a great job, against all odds. It's clear Soderbergh doesn't look down on these people, but it's also clear he's not going to plea their case to 'yanquis' far removed from the recent past. Some of the more important historical aspects contradict what I've read. To my knowledge Castro did not court the Soviet Union until all attempts to gain acceptance from the United States were exhausted. But on other aspects he is right on, especially as to the looting by the expatriates as the island went other rebel control. The country's treasury was left empty.
|
positive
|
I would like to comment on how the girls are chosen. why is that their are always more white women chosen then their are black women. every episode their is always more white women then black one's. as if to say white women are better looking then black women. I would like for once see more black women then white. and it not just your show it's like that in a lot of shows always more white's. but i would have thought since you as the head honcho of the show you would see this yourself and have more black women on your show. but you are just like the rest trying to act like you are so fair and nice. you are just a big fony hypocrite.
|
negative
|
This is yet another gem from the pen of Daniele Thompson - in fact that same year (1999) she wrote and directed La Buche, the first of three writer/director credits so far. Belle Maman is first of all 'French' whatever that means which is, of course, different things to different folks. The premise is simple: At the altar where he is marrying Mathilde Seigner, the groom, Vincent Lindon, gets his first glimpse of her mother, Catherine Deneuve, and suffers what the French call a coup de foudre which we know as love at first sight. In theory the story is either 1) over right then and there assuming he called the wedding off or else 2)just the beginning as he goes through with the wedding and thus lives a lie until it is resolved one way or the other. Thompson veers towards #2 but not without hitting us with the odd subplot along the way like, for example, Deneuve's cigar-smoking lesbian mother Line Renaud (in real life, if anyone cares, Renaud is in a long-term relationship with Stephane Audran, who co-stars here) and throws in a brilliant set-piece in a luxuriously appointed Men's Room at the wedding reception, which takes the form of a hilarious song-and-dance. Consummate writer that she is Thompson also leavens the comedy with drama like the brilliant climactic scene where Vincent finally spews out his feelings for Deneuve at a family gathering whilst simultaneously wrecking the joint. This is one to savour. Again and again.
|
positive
|
My summary refers to the fact that this film has 1479 votes--just 21 short of making it eligible to be on IMDb's infamous Bottom 100 list--the 100 lowest rated films on the website. With a paltry score of only 1.8, this would place the film at approximately between #38 and 46 on the list--talk about a very dubious achievement!! My score of 3 isn't that bad--but it does bring the film that much closer to the dreaded list.<br /><br />As for the film, it stars the once-cute Aaron Carter--yet another prepackaged and forgettable pop star of the 1990s. When he first broke onto the scene, he was a cute kid with some songs that appealed to pre-teens and tweeners on Radio Disney. His songs, look and image were all scrupulously groomed and created by marketing folks and did the trick--leading to some huge album sales. Unfortunately, by 2005, sales were in decline and Carter had hit his awkward stage of life--something ALL kids his age have to deal with eventually. To put it bluntly, he isn't cute any more in this film and is at a very tough stage of life. I assume now he's a gorgeous young man...but in "Popstar" he's no longer the heart-throb he once was. Here, he is just very normal...a death sentence for a kid in his position as a "pop sensation".<br /><br />Interestingly, the film has some appearances by some other ex-teen heart-throbs from the last few decades--including a roles for David Cassidy and Leif Garrett--two guys who also know what it's like to disappear from the limelight. Cassidy managed to pick up the pieces and make a niche for himself, while Garrett is a great example of a pop star whose life after stardom has been a bit of a joke. Hopefully Carter will take after Cassidy in the future and so far, thankfully, he's managed to avoid the negative publicity and court appearances of many ex-pop idols. I was far from thrilled with the film but seriously wish him best in this department. It's not his fault he was plastered across the radio and television throughout the early to mid-1990s.<br /><br />In this film, Carter doesn't exactly need to stretch himself--he plays a pop star. However, despite making millions and being adored by girls, he doesn't "have it all". He's quite dense--mostly because he has little interest in learning. The problem is so bad that his mother decides to no longer home school him--forcing him to go to public school. The problem, though, is that he is rather phobic about taking tests...and making the grade in school is difficult. So, he gets the idea of finding a smart girl to date--one who would naturally be obliged to help him out in school. He picks the cute but bookish Jane (Alana Austin) and pretends to really like her in a sad attempt to make this scheme work.<br /><br />This plot, by the way, isn't bad and could work even though it seems a lot like an episode of a show like "The Brady Bunch" or a Nickelodeon sit-com. Sure, it's predictable and you KNOW that the formula will mean that she will eventually learn his plot and be hurt AND he will eventually realize that he actually does care for her AND by the end of the film, all will be forgiven and they'll be a real couple. But, given good acting and competent direction, this could be worth seeing for his teen fans, as predictable isn't always bad. And, as it turned out, this ISN'T exactly where the plot went...but it was awfully close.<br /><br />There are a few good things I liked about the film. Seeing Tom Bosley and Stella Stevens playing Jane's grandparents was very nice--their role was quite sweet and it was good seeing them again. Also, 1970s made for TV movie star Andrew Stevens appeared in the film--it was nice to see him again--though part of me hated him, as he looks so great after all these years and I look ever bit of my 45 years! He did a fine job and it was nice seeing him in the same film as his mother (Stella).<br /><br />As for Carter, with his many prior experiences on TV, he was, not surprisingly, pretty good. While his relationship with Jane didn't seem very believable, he and Ms. Austin gave it their best. The film wasn't great, but they did try and I think most of the problems with the film were in the writing--with a better and less formulaic plot, it could have worked much better. Plus the whole "testophobia" angle seemed pretty contrived...and rather insignificant. Who cares if a mega-millionaire star gets anxious taking tests in school?! Overall, not a rotten film as the current rating would imply, though there isn't much here to attract a wide audience. People who grew up loving Carter probably will enjoy the film. Older folks will probably care less as well as really young people who probably haven't heard of him. For them, there is no nostalgia value in the film.<br /><br />My favorite part of the film...Leif Garrett giving Aaron advice. I felt like screaming "don't listen!!" but didn't!
|
negative
|
If you are planning to rent or buy this movie don't. It's the worst thing I have ever seen. I would comment on it more but It has been 10 years since I saw it and have blanked all of it from my mind. Save yourself some time money and well being and stay far far away.
|
negative
|
Realistic movie,sure,except for the fact that the characters don't look like to be scared. When Billy Zane tries to kill someone, he feels bad...but he doesn't look like to. That's why I don't like his performance in this movie. Tom Berenger is again playing a soldier. No good thrill, realistic sequences. Not always shooting, that is one great thing. Well filmed. I hate the helicopter sequence, cause only one terrorist kills almost the whole marine bunch...I give it **and a half out of *****
|
negative
|
I can't believe I waste my time watching this garbage! I did because Leonard Maltin gave it an "AA" rating, and for TV movies this is usually a reliable indicator of some quality entertainment.<br /><br />The acting was OK, but whoever wrote it should be forever denied access to any medium of communication. The plot is ludicrous, the motivations of the "bad guys" totally absent, and the various family interactions silly and shallow. For example, Dad preaches that violent reaction to aggression is BAD, but he turns out to be an "admirable" person NOT because of his "ignore the idiots" philosophy, but because he's pretty good with his fists...<br /><br />The ONLY message I was able to glean from this pap was that the nuclear family is Good and alternate living arrangements are Bad. Oh, and Bad people happen to Good people.
|
negative
|
I'm biased towards any movie that paints a luxuriant picture of Italy - in my opinion the most romantic country in the world. Unfortunately the movie was rather short, unusually so for a period piece, and a little sparse on the cinematography aspect. However, the excellent story makes up for it. The four ladies embark on a much-needed relaxing vacation with problems on their minds. Over the course of the movie, they realize their problems and begin fixing them. They believe San Salvatore, the castle they stay in, has an enchanting effect on people. "It's a tub of love," says Lottie Wilkins. You can watch their gradual change from dissatisfied to exuberant as the Italian seaside works its magic on them.<br /><br />All their problems and their solutions are plausible. The actresses were great. The background music seemed very appropriate for an romantic Italian locale. All in all, a 10/10 movie for me.
|
positive
|
My father was the warden of the prison (he is retired now) showcased in this documentary and I've grown up around the prison life, so perhaps my views will be totally different from everyone else who watches this movie. I will say this, the filmmakers who brought us this 93-minute miracle are fantastic artists and even better people. They were brave enough to A) Show up and tell this story, B) Get inside these inmates minds and hearts, and C) Do all of this responsibly. Responsible to their art and, more importantly, responsible to the inmates and staff of Luther Luckett Correctional Complex. They should be commended without end for this work. To take 170 hours, yes HOURS, of footage and be able to cut and whittle it down to 93 riveting minutes is nothing short of extraordinary and they have my utmost respect.<br /><br />I saw this film under circumstances that only a very, very few were able to see it. I was at the inmate screening. I was in the same room with these men as they watched their hearts being poured out on screen. I saw men crying on television crying in the chair in front of me and let me tell you, it was a very profound experience. These men have committed horrendous crimes in some cases, yet have found ways to try to redeem themselves, even if they view themselves as unredeemable. How many of us have the courage to do this? How many people could do what they have done in such a harsh environment? To see them react to the film was an experience I am eternally grateful for, and I will never forget that. I thank the men who allowed me this glimpse into their lives, I thank my father for making ALL of this possible, and I thank Philomath Films for taking the time to pour their blood, sweat, soul, and tears into this project.<br /><br />This movie will change everything you think you know about prison life, and the inmates held within it. 'Oz' is not real, television is not real. 'Shakespeare Behind Bars' is.
|
positive
|
Oh, CGI. A blessing when used properly. A sin with it's used by people who have no idea what their doing. Sadly, that's not the only thing that's used poorly in this umpteen Jaws rip-off.<br /><br />Ok, anybody who has read any number of my posted reviews has probably noticed 2 things. 1: I like low-budget horror movies. And 2: If there is a cute guy in said low-budget movie, I'll usually point them out. So, let's just get this out of the way right now. This is one low-budget horror movie I didn't like. The acting, for the most part, is horrible, effects laughable, and the script rivals Battlefield Earth as the worst I've witnessed this year. As far as the resident cute boy...Dax Miller (Bog) wins that prize hands down. This boy is hot! And surprisingly, he's not just a toned body with nice eyes and a cute butt...he can actually act (well, as much as he can in this odious film). Now that we have the housekeeping chores out of the way, let's get on with it.<br /><br />In Cliff Notes version, here's the story (don't worry, I'll try not to give anything away)...<br /><br />A film crew travels to a remote island to film a documentary about two surfers (established cute boy and his buddy) who surf with sharks. Unknown to them is a rather large salt water crocodile lurking around the island. Croc shows up, mayhem ensues, and people are eaten. Roll end credits.<br /><br />As I said earlier, this film pretty much blows. It started pretty well, but soon devolved into being silly and stupid. A main character becomes lunch (in a rather humorous way), and our remaining heros utter one-liners at the victims expense. Also, if this croc is at the top of the food chain on both the land and in the water, what's with all the sharks around? If this thing can eat a 40 foot boat, I don't think a few skimpy sharks would stick around. The FX is some of the worst I have ever had the displeasure to see. The CGI is horrendous, and they've even managed to screw up the animatronic crocs. Attention, filmmakers. National Geographic. Discovery Store. The Croc Hunter. They know what crocodiles look like. You obviously didn't reference any of these judging by the monstrosity seen towards the end of the film. And what's with the pirate/drug pusher gang? Did you just need another reason to rip off a woman's top? <br /><br />It's funny how we get little sub-genres in the movie world. With Alligator and it's sequels, Lake Placid, Crocodile, and now Blood Surf, it now looks like "over-sized crocodile/alligator" movies should now get their own category at Blockbuster. Alligator was good. Lake Placid was good. I even thought Tobe Hooper's Crocodile was good. Blood Surf, sucked.<br /><br />My grade: D-
|
negative
|
When I first saw this I thought it was a joke. All I could think was "You get the 8MM camera, I'll get my little brother's monster toys, we'll make a movie!" Why would anyone in a modern time like 2001 make a sci-fi movie like this, it looks like it was made in the early 80's. With actors that are as wooden as a cigar store indian, a script that was written by the director's 4-year-old son, a camera that was stolen from a burning pawn shop, poverty-row special effects, and to top it off, a director that thought making this crap would make them famous. The end result wasn't spectacular, complete with scrappy dialogue and continuity. From Venus must have been fun to make and I'm sure everyone involved had a blast with their silly little movie.<br /><br />A 2 out of 10 for a valiant, hopeless effort.<br /><br />
|
negative
|
Shuai is a burly and uncouth young Beijinger with a punkish haircut, who ekes out a living selling cheap books from a stall in an indoor market. He wouldn't appear to have anything in common with the wiry, middle-aged, would-be intellectual, Zhang - and yet the two of them wind up in a restaurant together discussing the pro's and con's of murder (the Chinese title would perhaps be better translated as 'Talk It Over'). If that makes it sound kind of pedestrian, don't be misled: this film is profusely inventive in its plot, and mostly races along at breakneck speed (although the pace does flag quite badly towards the end).<br /><br />If you only know Zhang Yimou's worthy historical dramas like Raise The Red Lantern and Shanghai Triad, or his more recent martial arts epics, Hero and House Of Flying Daggers, you'll be amazed; in fact, whichever of his other films you've seen, you'll be surprised, pleasantly surprised - this is far and away his most original, most quirky, most experimental work. It was shot within a couple of weeks on a minimal budget, almost entirely on location in Beijing (and making use of many ordinary Beijingers in the smaller supporting roles - there's even a fleeting cameo by the director himself), and mostly with a hand-held camera, in a jerky, hyper-kinetic style which is a million miles from the elegant formalism of his best-known films.<br /><br />OK, I live in Beijing, so I find an additional delight in all the bizarre little details of everyday life that I am coming to recognise and relish (even though it was shot in '97, and things are changing so rapidly here), but I really think this film can be appreciated by anyone. I saw it, as I have so many other Chinese 'comedies', at a movie club that screens sub-titled versions of recent Chinese films for an almost exclusively expat audience; and it is the only one I can recall where the audience was laughing out loud. Some non-Chinese audiences might find it a little too strange, a little uncomfortable at times, in that it does include some violence, and, after opening as a breezy, offbeat romantic comedy, mutates into something much darker in its second half. It is, however, very, VERY funny.<br /><br />It's also superbly acted by the two leads, especially long-time Zhang Yimou collaborator Jiang Wen, who is probably mainland China's foremost film star, and has a brooding screen presence reminiscent of a young Depardieu or De Niro.<br /><br />Watch this film - for proof that the Chinese have a sense of humour that CAN translate to other cultures, for proof that Zhang Yimou is far, far more than a one-trick pony...... and for a thoroughly good time.
|
positive
|
But it's not. The plot isn't all that bad, the actors aren't all terrible so it should be decent. Instead though despite a good starting point the plot just drags on and suffers from a lot of those "I can't believe he/she is so dumb" moments so often used in horror movies to keep things going. It frustrated me at times watching some of the decision made by the lead character. Also it took way too long to get to the good part of the movie. Anticipation is great but you can't spend over half the movie building it up. A shame too since it got decent exposure upon release and hit right before the big Halloween season. Even so I have a feeling this is going to get at least one sequel, if not more so maybe they'll be able to build on the strong general plot to eventually release something decent.
|
negative
|
I love a good war film and I fall into the "been there, done that" category. So I would like to think my review is an accurate one (IMHO). Having just watched this film on DVD I can safely say that it was a pile of rubbish. There is no way I can recommend this film to you.<br /><br />It started off with me shouting at the TV saying "you wouldn't do that" etc...but I soon realised that having a bit of job experience would be a hindrance so I chilled a bit. But on the opening scene when the trailer wheel fell off I got a nasty feeling that this film would be a predictable dud...I was right.<br /><br />There simply wasn't any logic to the EOD scenes. I just know that the army team had some of the most patient insurgents ever at the other end of the command wire or remote trigger. So much so I was left scratching my head all the time. Then just when you think you know where the story is going the guys in the Humvee are off out on their own driving around the desert. One of the most valuable assets in theatre out on a jolly bumping into some SAS wannabe contractors.<br /><br />The sniper scene was just so laughable. It just made no sense at all and made me want to switch off there and then. Then for them to drag it out so long really did test my patience.It started with the "Contact Right" and went down hill fast. If you had a Brit accent then you got shot but if you were part of the EOD team then suddenly you were a great shot and saved the day. Then just as you thought it was over it stretched on for an inexplicably long period without adding anything to the story at all. You are just left watching and asking why hasn't it ended yet?<br /><br />Then we had the booze scene where they just hit each other for a laugh..another scene where you just wanted it to end. It added nothing to the film.<br /><br />Then just as my life seemed very dull the main star went outside the wire to hunt someone down. This most be the most ridiculous scene I have ever watched. It defied all logic and ability to write a good storyline...it was senseless and awful. I still don't understand why they wasted time on it. Then to watch him just jog through the busy streets heading back to camp had me rolling on the floor with laughter. Pure comedy :)<br /><br />The sad fact is that this storyline is all over the show without really deciding what it wants to be. I thought it was going to be stupid illogical EOD scenes but then it kept going off on tangents trying to be something different. But as hard as it tried it just bored me to death. All I wanted was for it to end. It was a messy compilation of stupid scenes mixed into a batch of stupid, senseless, action(ish) scenes.<br /><br />There is no way I can recommend this. Maybe my work experience compromised the enjoyability but even the naive must realise this just doesn't make sense. The only thing more stupid than this film is the artificially high IMDb rating...which must be the 24/7 work of the box office PR team who seem to use this website as a way of making everyone think it is good. Sorry folks...it just ain't!<br /><br />Not recommended...it will just bore you.
|
negative
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.