review
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| sentiment
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
Yeah it may not be for adults, and some adults may find it stupid, but if you don't think about it it's really not that bad.<br /><br />The story has Alvin and his gang, going across the world, in search of jewels for a bad person, and the misadventures that they come in contact with.<br /><br />So the animation is good, and the story is cute, and the songs are forgettable but it's a good movie.<br /><br />I give it a 6 out of 10 or *** out of 4 stars.
|
negative
|
We all know that special effects cost money, but it seems as if they could have used the money they saved writing the script to get some better shots. The train is obviously a model in most moving shots, the helicopter is obviously computer generated, the alien looks like the one from the end of Spaceballs, except it's a decade later and Spaceballs had an excuse.<br /><br />The only smart thing they did was blur all of the special effects to make them harder to see.<br /><br />Not even the actors could compensate for such a poorly written script and it's pretty obvious they didn't really try either.<br /><br />Please, don't waste your time. Please.
|
negative
|
This is a powerful film which seems to have never re-arisen after the Joe McCarthy censorship period. It influenced me as a Jewish teen-ager who had friends of various colors and whose father's family had suffered under the Fascist regimes in Europe during the second quarter of the Twentieth Century. Unlike the later rip-off, "On The Waterfront" which seemed to take some of the same themes and twist them to fit the enforced Hollywood political correctness of the time, it told its story direct and with respect for the characters and for the reality it fictionally reflected. It was an antidote to "Gone With the Wind", "Birth of a Nation", "Triumph of the Will" and so many other glorifiers of hatred and violence. I would place it alongside the recent German film (also virtually hidden in the US), "Rosenstrasse."<br /><br />I remember that the TV version, also black and white in format as well as story, was blacked out by some stations because the black hero's wife appeared white. As a young civil rights worker, it produced a conflict for me because on the one hand I was opposed to smoking cigarettes and on the other opposed the boycott in Georgia of a sponsor of the TV show, a major tobacco company (I no longer remember which one -- does anyone else?).<br /><br />I would love to find a CD of either the film or the TV show to let my sons see something that informed my opposition to racism universally (as opposed to only fighting racism against Jews) and recognition of the inherent connection between racism and militarism.
|
positive
|
Hak hap(Black Mask)is what I'd like to call a ballet with fists and explosions. Sure the plot has been tried and heard before, (A biologically engineered soldier that is part of a elite fighting force of supermen that decides he feels that killing and brute force aren't the ways to settle every thing and becomes a pacifist, and a librarian. But when he learns that the rest of his group is trying to get an antidote that will keep them alive by taking on the police -his best friend is a cop- he becomes the black mask.) the style that the movie goes for, very visual, works and at least for me is entertaining. I love martial arts movies that are a spectical. People flying around lighter than air and recovering a split second after impact keeps the pace and action non stop. But that is what this movie is about anyway right, a showcase of Jet Li doing what he does best, and that is spectacular showmanship of his skills, which to say the least are top notch. As with most of the fast action martial arts movies ala. Jackie Chan and Sammo Hung that are just now showing themselves here in the states for the first time, these movies are low on plot and high on amazing physical feats. But I must say, even with the large holes left in the plot (like how do we see him safe in his apartment when just one scene before he had 20 men that are no more than 15 feet from him with sign of escape? Who knows the scene just cuts to him in the apartment.......ohh well suspension of belief I guess) , the movie to me stays interesting. It is only until the last 20 minutes that the film seems to feel like it could have been a little shorter. But still all around a great high paced action movie.
|
positive
|
This film story is bad enough, which can happen in real life. I'm very can not understand when they show us this bad film. I say it was bad because there is some reason. 1. if Madonna was rich and can do everything she want, then why she falling in love with that bad man. 2. How can the story script is so weak? She was so rich, can do everything she want, but not dare to divorce her husband that is very impossible.<br /><br />The words I LOVE YOU, it doesn't meant anything in this film.
|
negative
|
Robert Wuhl is teaching a class of film students at New York University in Manhattan, New York.<br /><br />He covers fallacies of history and truths that are no longer generally known. I would like to see much more of this show. It is very entertaining. Mr. Wuhl uses examples and "show and tell" to get his points across. He explained that the person who actually rode the Midnight Ride of Paul Revere was not Paul Revere! Henry Wadsworth Longfellow used Revere's name because it sounded better.<br /><br />I've watched Robert Wuhl for many years, from the time he was doing stand-up comedy and all the way through "Arli$$" on HBO. He's a good actor and a good stand-up comedian, but he's an excellent teacher! I highly recommend that you watch an episode of this show. It is well worth your time.
|
positive
|
In one word: excruciating. I was advised to read some articles about this film's philosophical meanings afterward, but, having sat through the movie's interminable 115 minutes and being slowly crushed beneath its bloated symbolism and lava-flowing oppressiveness, it seemed better to just report my reactions to the movie. After all, who goes to see a movie with a syllabus in hand? And this flick was dismal. Lead actor Claude Laydu, from the film's opening to its end, wears the same wearying and annoying mask of agony as to be practically indistinguishable from the film's eternal, dreary voice-over. Filming one over the other might have worked better than subjecting an audience to both, as they basically say the same thing: The priest of Ambricourt is a wretched human being. The story, about a persecuted priest who tries to help out a troubled rich family, does nothing toward making its characters remotely interesting or sympathetic, as the family are a bunch of unpleasant weirdos, and the priest, himself, comes across as a nosy pest. The last 30 minutes suggests some breath-taking message about grace and one man's suffering equaling that of others, but due to all the indulgent close-ups of a suffering Laydu and the vague subtext in Robert Bresson's script, all I felt was, Finally, it's over, let's have some ice-cream. Interesting for fans of Bresson fanatic Paul Schrader, just to see how many elements of character and setting Schrader carried into in his own scripts and movies, especially "Taxidriver", "Raging Bull" and "Light Sleeper".
|
negative
|
usually a movie that starts bad stays bad in a monotonically descending pattern. This bad movie started to seem to get better before going into a steep dive. The acting, save for the male antagonist, was awful. The plot was essentially a set up for the final main scene, which is probably good as performance art, but it was wasted in this movie. Not sure why this movie was made.
|
negative
|
I think the majority of the people seem not the get the right idea about the movie, at least that's my opinion. I am not sure it's a movie about drug abuse; rather it's a movie about the way of thinking of those genius brothers, drugs are side effects, something marginal. Again, it's not a commercial movie that you see every day and if the author wanted that, he definitely failed, as most people think it's one of the many drug related movies. I, however, think something else is the case. As in many movies portraying different cultures, audience usually fully understands movies portraying their own culture, i.e. something they've grown up with and are quite familiar with. This movie is to show what those "genius" people very often think and what problems they face. The reason why they act like this is because they are bored out of their minds :) They have to meet people who do mediocre things and accept those things as if they are launching space shuttles on daily basis. They start a fairly hard job and excel in no time. They feel like- I went to work, did nothing, still did twice as better as the guys around me when they were all over their projects, what should I do now with my free time. And what's even more boring? When you can start predicting behavior not because you're psychologist, but instead because you have seen this pattern in the past. So, for them, from one side it's a non challenging job, which is also fairly boring sometimes, and from another they start to figure out people's behavior. It's a recipe for big big boredom. And the dumbest things are usually done to get out of this state. They guy earlier who mentioned that their biggest problem is that they are trying to figure out life in terms of logic (math describes logic), while life is not really a logical thing, is actually absolutely right.
|
positive
|
To be fair, it has been several years since I watched the bile committed to celluloid known as "Here on Earth," so forgive me if my memory of the film is a little sketchy. I'll stick with the main points which plague the soul of the unfortunate viewer.<br /><br />Scene One: Chris Klein, after having been thrown out of prep school (because he looks like a seventeen year old--yes, very believable), gives what I assume is his valedictorian speech...to a field. Let me repeat that for you--a field. I think we're supposed to be moved by the combination of shame and eloquence he is failing to express. Klein has the delivery and facial expressions of a cardboard cutout. He is a decent looking piece of cardboard, but little more.<br /><br />Scene Two: After some joyriding and teenage pyromaniac hijinks, Chris Klein and Josh Hartnett do some damage to the local diner, of which he is forced to rebuild. Of course. Because who better to help with construction than some random moron who crashed into it/ burned it in the first place. Better yet, let's have said random moron move in on Josh Hartnett's girl, Miss Sobeski, the girl he fancies for...her equally wooden line delivery? <br /><br />Scene Three: Chris Klein's character is making out with Leelee Sobeski's character and decides to name her various body parts after the states on the eastern seaboard. My soul weeps. Really, how can this scenario turn out well? Surely you must alienate several million people if you imply their home is equivalent to Miss Sobeski's more...erm...feminine areas. Secondly, naming her breasts after New York and New Jersey prompts some confusion as to whether Miss Sobeski is actually freakishly disproportionate.<br /><br />Scene Four: Leelee is running. She falls down. This gives her...knee cancer. "We always knew it could come back," her father(?) says. Right. Knee cancer. From tripping. Perhaps I missed something. As I said, it's been a few years. Surely I missed something. Didn't I? For the love of God, please tell me the girl did not contract KNEE cancer from falling down. <br /><br />That scream you just heard was my soul dying.
|
negative
|
Looking back on Jim Henson's works years after his death is like taking a look back into another time. For unlike most so-called creative types attempting to sell to, or worse yet cynically exploit, children nowadays, Jim never seemed to really forget what it was like to be a child. And if there ever was a moment in which he demonstrated this, Labyrinth aside, it is 1979's Muppet Movie. Filmed as an allegorical story about how Henson came to work in children's television as a puppeteer and ended up with a half-hour show of his own on primetime television, The Muppet Movie ends up an affirmation of everything more progressive, understanding sorts would say to children who did not quite meet the expected norm during the 1980s. And as we enjoy the fruits of an era in which we are gagged and bound from speaking about anything lest someone might get offended, the open celebration of difference or diversity that formed a large part of The Muppet Show is on offer here. I have said it in other comments, but I must say it here. A great light in the world went out the day Jim Henson died.<br /><br />The Muppet Movie begins with its cast sitting down to see the premiere of what were about to see for the next eighty or so minutes. In short, precise strokes, we are introduced to the major players as well as some of the minors. And when the story proper begins, boy are we given a great song to bring us into the moment. The Rainbow Connection painted both a beautiful and sad image of what the Muppets, especially Kermit, were. These were not just a bunch of felt puppets with singular personalities who combined to put on a show. They were living things based upon a part of all of us, only writ so much more boldly than we are used to. As each Muppet was introduced to us in turn, we saw another reflection of part of ourselves, and of course the children in the audience would respond differently to each character. Hence, everyone had a favourite. When Animal appeared behind a drum kit and attempted to eat a cymbal, I knew I had found one of mine. Nowadays, I am more of a Swedish Chef fan, but what the hey.<br /><br />Complementing the characters was a string of musical numbers that further developed their motivations and personalities. Can You Picture That? shared an insight into Dr. Teeth and his band as well as the creative soul of Henson. But the most relevant song to me was Gonzo's number, asking what he is and where he came from. Many of us would spend a lifetime gazing into the stars and, like Gonzo, saying we knew we would be going back there someday. Not that all the songs were so deadly serious, of course. Fozzy and Kermit share a number after they decide to combine their talent (or lack thereof) and hit the road. If any evidence were required that present-day "musicians" have lost the ability to use the pop structure to create something listenable, this number would be it. Never before, and never again, would the group dynamic of a cast and the music so perfectly complement one another. With the puppeteers and voice actors so perfectly on top of their game, the human cast had a lot to live up to.<br /><br />Which makes it all the more amazing that the human element also lived up to their end of the deal. Cameos literally pepper the film, with everyone from Steve Martin to Telly Savalas popping in to offer their support. Even Richard Pryor, the last man one would expect to see in a film about the Muppets, appears to set up a hilarious moment. Mel Brooks' cameo is just as disturbing to me as an adult as it was when I was a small boy, but I suspect that is because Henson knew why I would find it disturbing now. The big acting strength, though, comes from Charles Durning, who as Doc Hopper embodies everything both Henson and his audience determined to resist. At every junction, Hopper comes to either offer Kermit the chance to sell out and betray his own kind. Or perhaps offer stops being the right word when Hopper's attempts to ensure Kermit's compliance become progressively more forceful and violent. The whole thing is one big metaphor for how every artist has his heart broken by the world.<br /><br />Of course, Animal also shows up to remind us that just because our friends are not sweet and cuddly does not make them any less of a friend. In point of fact, Animal turns out to be the best friend that Kermit has in that moment. And that has been the core message of every good show or film Henson has been involved in ever since. That shunning or dismissing others simply because of linguistic or cosmetic differences could literally be the worst mistake one ever makes. There can be little doubt that in today's world where a moron in a purple suit can tell my sons they are not good if they do not have good feelings for fifteen seasons and still not come under serious investigation by child welfare authorities, Henson's creature workshop could never have got off the ground. To misquote the album title, daring to be stupid is one thing, but enforcing the choice upon others is another matter. The Muppet Movie demonstrates how Henson dared to ask us all to think, both inside and outside of the proverbial box. There will never be another entirely like him, but he never would want us to stop trying.<br /><br />Therefore, The Muppet Movie is the epitome of a ten out of ten film. If we were to send a film out into the cosmos to prove to intelligent life that we are worth more than being obliterated, this would be it.
|
positive
|
The sitcom "The league of Gentlemen" follows the lives of several bizarre inhabitants of the fictional village "Royston Vasey". The different scenes are linked together by their common setting.<br /><br />In the first series, a sketch show, the main plot deals with a new road which is going to be built through Royston Vasey. Consequently, more foreigners visit the small town. But Edward and Tubbs, the owners of a "local" shop, which is actually far away from the town, do not like foreigners. Whenever a visitor enters their shop, they kill him. In my opinion some scenes are kind of tasteless and not funny at all, for example, when the couple absorb two engineers who want to build the new road. Edward drums, while Tubbs is dancing half naked around the victims. <br /><br />Moreover Pauline lives in Royston Vasey. She works at the local Job Centre. Although Pauline hates the people she has to work with, the woman does not want to loose her job. So when an unemployed man gets an interview as fireman, she does not allow him to go because he is not ready for the job yet.<br /><br />Then there is Barbara Dixton, a transsexual taxi driver who goes into great detail about "her" sexual conversion.<br /><br />Furthermore the vet, Mr. Chinnery, always kills animals instead of curing them. In one case, he comes to a farm and is leaded into the sitting room, where a dog lays in his basket. The farmer goes outside. On the assumption that the dog is the sick animal, Mr. Chinnery euthanizes him. A second later, the farmer opens the door, holding the "real" sick animal, a sheep, in his hand.<br /><br />Some more inhabitants are a husband and his wife who are visited by their nephew (his friend is killed by the shop owners, by the way). The couple is very tidy. They have, for example, towels in different colours. Each colour stands for one part of the body. Besides, they have thousands of keys, marked with different colours and precisely classified.<br /><br />In my opinion, the actors play very well. By playing women, the scenes become comical. The costumes are suited to the actors, too. Tubbs is wearing a scarf and some crazy characters, for example Edward, have unappetizing black teeth. The show has a great deal of dark humour, typical British. The set design reflects the mood of the series. The village and all the houses look grey and are decayed. Around the local shop there is often fog which strengthens the threatening effect. Even the village sign is ominous: "Welcome to Royston Vasey. You will never leave."<br /><br />Although I think that the actors do a great job, this type of series is not my taste.
|
negative
|
It is sad to have to say that a film is truly awful and one tries to find ways around saying this. However, this is a dreadful film. Gene Hackman wastes time (and one suspects, many dollars) on re-playing his most famous, and oft recreated, role as "Gene Hackman". Otherwise, television actors are given the chance to become film stars, and successfully, resist the temptation. Patrick Swayze has a minor part and went on to greater things, for which he must be eternally thankful.<br /><br />I watched this film, as a result of someone else's review and I felt that another point of view was merited. You may not agree with my review but now, at least, you have been warned.
|
negative
|
We always watch American movies with their particular accents from each region (south, west, etc). We have the same here. All foreign people must to watch this movie and need to have a open mind to accept another culture, besides American and European almost dominate the cinematographic industry.<br /><br />This movie tell us about a parallel world which it isn't figured even for those who live in a big city like São Paulo. All actors are improvising and they are very realistic. The camera give us an idea of their confuse world, the loneliness of each character and invite us to share their world.<br /><br />It's a real great movie and worst a rent even have it at home.
|
positive
|
What is it about certain films that generates such polar opposite reactions?<br /><br />Some people here have called High Roller "disgusting." Some have called it "extraordinary" (as would I, actually).<br /><br />Why? I think it's because films like this don't make heroes out of jerks, or glamour out of degeneration, and some people just can't deal with that emotionally. They NEED a hero. And I'd also add that if they're gamblers or poker players, they might feel personally betrayed when their existence isn't justified.<br /><br />High Roller in NOT a poker movie. It's a PEOPLE movie. It's not perfect, but it looks good, is well-written, and wonderfully acted. And best of all, it generates an emotional response and inspires reflection.<br /><br />And maybe that's what makes some people so damn mad.
|
positive
|
In this film we have the fabulous opportunity to see what happened to Timon and Pumbaa in the film when they are not shown - which is a lot! This film even goes back to before Simba and (presumbably) just after the birth of Kiara. <br /><br />Quite true to the first film, "Lion King 1/2 (or Lion King 3 in other places)" is a funny, entertaining, exciting and surprising film (or sequel if that's what you want to call it). A bundle of surprises and hilarity await for you!<br /><br />While Timon and Pumbaa are watching a film at the cinema (with a remote control), Timon and Pumbaa have an argument of what point of "The Lion King" they are going to start watching, as Timon wants to go to the part when he and Pumbaa come in and Pumbaa wants to go back to the beginning. They have a very fair compromise of watching the film of their own story, which is what awaits... It starts with Timon's first home...<br /><br />For anyone with a good sense of humour who liked the first films of just about any age, enjoy "Lion King 1/2"! :-)
|
positive
|
The brilliant Chuck Jones, master of Warner Bros. cartoon comedy, brings us the first (?) Pepe LePew cartoon. An alley cat, tired of being pushed around, paints himself in the colors of a skunk, and with a healthy dose of Limburger, turns the tables on his tormentors. Then along comes Pepe, and you know the rest. Many of Pepe's famous gags were born here, including his chase/hop, in which he hops casually along while his prey runs himself to exhaustion.<br /><br />In my opinion, Warner Bros. cartoons became less inventive and more ho-hum in the 50s. This 1947 'toon is one of the few examples of Mel Blanc putting his absolutely crazy voice into Pepe's mouth. But the kicker is the ending, where Pepe is revealed to be an American "wolf in skunk's clothing"! A must see! Classic Warner Bros...
|
positive
|
Picture this. Someone makes a film about the Columbine or Virginia tech massacre only the film is directed by the guy who did home alone (i know this isn't but bare with me) and stars Sean Astin off of Goonies!! picture the terrorists being overpowered by buckets of water on top of ajar doors and marbles and this is why you need to see the film. unfortunately it doesn't go all the way by actually having the skateboard lying on the floor for the evil Mexicans to trip on but its halfway there you have to give it above 7 for that but not a 9 because it didn't go crazy enough. Pity, its seemed like it would be comical cheesiness, well worth a cult status
|
positive
|
This is the first time I feel the need to comment on IMDb, to write some sort of a review and, as it so often happens, it's not because of a really excellent film, but a truly appalling one.<br /><br />Take the narrating style the youngest might relate to the Max Payne video game series, a cast of virtually unkonwns (which is not a bad thing in itself), poor dialogs, some dark scenes but not many enough, and make a film out of it. Don't worry about the bad acting, the length (way too long), the lack of immersion (the lead character has to be one of the lest interesting I've seen in a long time - couldn't care less if he died) or the often ridiculous solutions they find to certain problems the lead character finds himself in.<br /><br />I wouldn't have written anything if it hadn't been for another review here, giving it 10 stars. I gave it four, but maybe three is closer to what I feel about it. Not only do I not wish to see it again, but the mere thought of it takes me dangerously close to wanting to kill myself. Oh, and a so called noir film is nothing without a good soundtrack - not the case here. The ending song sounds like it was more suitable to a western movie.<br /><br />It's not romance, it's not action, it's not noir, it's not good. That would be my review if it weren't for the minimum of 10 lines.
|
negative
|
the single worst film i've ever seen in a theater. i saw this film at the austin film festival in 2004, and it blew my mind that this film was accepted to a festival. it was an interesting premise, and seemed like it could go somewhere, but just fell apart every time it tried to do anything. first of all, if you're going to do a musical, find someone with musical talent. the music consisted of cheesy piano playing that sounded like they were playing it on a stereo in the room they were filming. the lyrics were terribly written, and when they weren't obvious rhymes, they were groan-inducing rhymes that showed how far they were stretching to try to make this movie work. and you'd think you'd find people who could sing when making a musical, right? not in this case. luckily they were half talking/half singing in rhyme most of the time, but when they did sing it made me cringe. especially when they attempted to sing in harmony. and that just addresses the music. some of the acting was pretty good, but a lot of the dialog was terrible, as well as most of the scenes. they obviously didn't have enough coverage on the scenes, or they just had a bad editor, because they consistently jumped the line and used terrible choices while cutting the film. at least the director was willing to admit that no one wanted the script until they added the hook of making it a musical. i hope the investors make sure someone can write music before making the same mistake again.
|
negative
|
Delirious, near plot-less mood piece and if it's more LSD inspired than the Devil then we must remember when it was made! After a startling SM opening (which even itself is not what it seems) we move to soft focus and dream or imaginings or remembering
. Lots of literary and cinematic references and indeed this is the Franco film that Lang himself praised. Beautiful and mesmerising the film unfolds at a leisurely pace but has a richness within each fold. A rare movie to languish within. Old Jess could make 'em when he tried. Fine central performances too including the indomitable Jack Taylor and Howard Vernon. I haven't even mentioned the Lisbon locations - ah!
|
positive
|
..IT'S THIS ONE! Very cool premise, right off the bat.<br /><br />Has an excellent first scene, gotta give credit where credit's due.<br /><br />Has solid characters and a decent enough script for a ghost story but here are the things that bothered me: Whenever the ghosts appeared, which I really liked by the way; how it was done, how it looked...the only thing was the ghost's relationship. Because of the way things went down in the first scene you'd think their dynamic would be different.<br /><br />Things slowed down a little too much in the middle I felt, and the crab/spider scene was just not good. BUT then the ending is actually very good! Sure, 'The Grudge' basically told the same story with a polished lens but no samurai's and that's what I liked about this movie comparatively.<br /><br />Please, someone one with a tempered style remake this movie.<br /><br />Fans of 'Silent Rage' would absolutely love this movie.
|
negative
|
Although this is generally a cheesy jungle-adventure movie, it does have some highlights - the settings are quite beautiful, and the pacing of the adventure is good. You won't be bored watching it.<br /><br />Keith is as breezy as possible playing the eponymous lead, an unabashedly drunk jungle guide shanghai'd into escorting rich boy Van Hoffman and his gorgeous wife Shower on a hunting expedition in cannibal country. He never takes things seriously . Shower is there as decoration and Keith makes extensive use of her - she doesn't really have to act much. She's not the only female to show off her body and the prurient aspects of the film make it about halfway to a T/A picture.<br /><br />There's nothing in this film that would draw specific attention to it, or away from it. Produced to be shlock, it succeeds without too much fuss. A good 2 AM cable programmer.
|
negative
|
In a future where an industrious travel agency uses time travel technology to send wealthy clients back in time for explorations to the age of dinosaurs, the future is inexplicably changed when one of their clients breaks the cardinal rule not to stray off the path. In an attempt to fix the damage done, a seasoned time scout (Edward Burns) teams with the inventor of the technology (Catherine McCormack).<br /><br />The premise is pretty good and engaging. It may have a few flaws in it but it could still make for an interesting movie. Unfortunately, A Sound of Thunder fails to really hook the audience in. It suffers from a number of problems and it takes itself way too seriously so it's hard to actually have any fun while watching the movie. Personally, I thought the script was the film's biggest problem. The were more plot holes than expected and the movie was kind of lazy in explaining things. I was hoping for a more in depth look into "the butterfly effect" but the film was more escapist fun than anything else. That's okay with me since 90 minutes of mindless fun is still a nice way to spend an evening. However, all the fun this film offered was unintentional and lame. There were a few scenes that kept me entertained but I was pretty bored.<br /><br />The acting isn't much better since most of them seem more interested in a paycheck than anything else. The only person that gave a good performance was Ben Kingsley. He kept the first half of the film enjoyable and he seemed to be having the most fun as well. Edwards Burns was pretty pale and bland. I don't think he has what it takes to be a leading man. However, he could make for a decent supporting actor. Catherine McCormack was just really annoying and not very believable. I haven't really seen her in anything else but she could have potential. The rest of the actors also give bad performances though most of them are relatively unknown so it shouldn't effect their careers too much.<br /><br />Looking at the message boards, most people are complaining about the special effects. There's no way to sugarcoat them and they are terrible. All the dinosaurs look really bad. The Gibbon-lizards (part monkey, part dino), while a creative idea, become stale after awhile and they are most likely to encourage laughter rather than fear. The green screen work just looks awful and unprofessional. I was really wondering what director Peter Hyams was trying to accomplish here. He fails to deliver the suspense, action and thrills and makes this movie a long sit. For the most part though, the film is pretty harmless and it's far from the worst movie of 2005. Hopefully they will remake this film in the future. There is potential in this project but for now this is the best we got. In the end, unless curiosity gets the better of you, there is no reason to see A Sound of Thunder. Rating 4/10
|
negative
|
There is no such a thing as perfect murder.Lieutenant Columbo knows that.Ken Franklin, who is the other half of the writing team of detective stories doesn't know that.He kills his partner Jim Ferris who had plans on going solo.Now Columbo steps into the picture and asks all sorts of questions from Mr. Franklin.And returns for one more question.Columbo: Murder by the Book (1971) is directed by the young Steven Spielberg before his days of fame.Steven Bochco wrote it.Columbo is a fantastic character with his shabby look.It's hard to believe this man could solve any crime.But he could.Each and every one of them! Peter Falk is the one and only person in the world that could portray this character.So no remakes, please.This part is a very good example of how Columbo worked.Jack Cassidy plays the murderer and Martin Milner plays the victim.Rosemary Forsyth plays the victim's wife Joanna Ferris.There's something endearing in the scenes between Columbo and her.How he makes the omelet and everything.Barbara Colby plays Lilly La Sanka.She actually met a tragic fate when she died after a homicide like she does here.I've been a fan of Columbo since childhood and I still enjoy watching them.There was a break for many years that they weren't showing Columbo stories at all but now he's back.Back for one more question.
|
positive
|
To start off, this happens to be my favorite of the ST OS.<br /><br />In addition to StuOz's critical comments I'll throw in some more: Getting technical, when the Enterprise fires it's photon torps at a blind target, they'd have to be mighty close to direct hits (I believe) in order to cause any disturbance much less damage to the Romulan vessel with the vacuum of space to contend with.<br /><br />I had somewhat of a problem with the Romulan commander questioning his faith in the Romulan "protocol" or their leadership, unless it has to do with attacking vulnerable targets (outposts in the neutral zone) that are not at war. Also, I don't think commander would fall for the basic, or simple tactics that Kirk played, such as "playing dead," or falling for the ploy that the subordinate puts on him about whether or not to attack the Enterprise when it is playing dead.<br /><br />On the Enterprise: I'm surprised that after seeing the Romulan vessel's method of attack earlier, that Sulu would say, "Are they surrendering?" when it attacks the Enterprise the first time.<br /><br />Funny how Spock can only get the repair done on the weapons control right when the emergency is over.<br /><br />Also in the final attack, I thought the Romulan vessel was uncloaked too long (so long that Spock could run down a couple aisles and back to the weapons room and activate and fire the photon torpedoes. I would have used phasers at this point, but I'm sure it had to do with the technicians and budget).<br /><br />On the positive side: It's a good drama played on the Romulan vessel, in which to introduce us to the Romulans. Great scenes with Stiles telling a good deal of the human knowledge of the Romulans. Also his conflict with Spock is right up there. I wished Stiles' character would have stayed on the show for a while, if for nothing else than the energy he added.<br /><br />It's only in fun that I point out the negatives and goofs, (I'm sure there are more). But for me this is as good as it gets!! "Balance of Terror" is always the one I place at the top in my ST rankings.
|
positive
|
The story of Sweeney Todd evokes memories of the work of classic writers like Charles Dickens, and more contemporary writers like Edward Gory. As a musical, it naturally becomes more like the musical Les Miserables. Both deal with the grim effects of poverty in the Industrial Revolution, and the breakdown of organized society. But this musical is different from Les Mis in one very important aspect: Stephen Sondheim, the songwriter who can adapt to any style. To be sure, he's had his successes and failures, but one thing about his shows you can always count on: They will be something unique. Who would have thought someone would write a musical about a barber who slits people's throats and makes them into meat pies? Sondheim did, and he did it marvelously. The entire show is set in a factory, to suggest the ever-present catastrophic effects of the misery of those at the bottom of society, and this serves the needs of the show perfectly. The catwalks and railings are moved throughout to suggest streets and walkways and bridges. Techniques are borrowed from Kabuki and Noh, with the visual stagehands and set changes. Then, to top it all off, cast the great Angela Lansbury as the gruesomely practical and humorous Mrs. Lovett, and George Hearn, with his operatic baritone voice, as the murderous Todd, and you've got yourself a stellar musical vehicle. The rest of the cast moves smoothly through the clichés of the love story perfectly, except for Johanna and Pirelli, who sound a bit too forced. If the Johanna and Pirelli from the Broadway show could be here, it would be perfect. Hearn acts while he sings more than Len Cariou on the OBC album, and the accents don't sound as forced here. Through it all Sondheim's score never fails to underline the dark seriousness of the story. As I said, he can adapt to any style. In Follies he imitates the '30s '40s style of showtunes, in Pacific Overtures he captures the subtle art of Asian music, Into the Woods knocks off the 32 bar Disney style songs, and Assassins covers a history of American music. Here, however, he does wonders in making his score distinctly English, from parlour songs to operatic duets and soliloquies to society waltzes to Gilbert/Sullivan style patter. And yet still, the show remains deadly serious, even though it provokes more laughs than any musical comedy. In it still, is a grim warning on the evils of taking revenge. Here is where this movie makes a mistake, in cutting the Judge's solo in which he flagellates himself out of guilt for his crimes. Without it, the Judge is just a conventional villain, and this movie's point is that there are no straight villains. Both Todd and the Judge learn, too late, the horrors of having to accept responsibility for their actions, and Todd loses everything in his obsession. This is well brought out by the chilling reprise of the grim yet rollicking Ballad of Sweeney Todd, ending the show with Todd and Lovett rising from the grave to tell us that the end is the same: in a world full of Sweeneys, vengeance begets only vengeance. "Attend the tale of Sweeney Todd. He served a dark and a vengeful God. To seek revenge may lead to Hell, but everyone does it, and seldom as well as Sweeney, as Sweeney Todd, the Demon Barber of Fleet Street."
|
positive
|
I think that the costumes were excellent, and the hairdressers also performed well. It has the very authentic feeling for that period of time.<br /><br />I don't know if it was the computer magic or if it was real. Some of the big scenes have hundreds of extras in the background. I was especially impressed with the scene of that bridge.<br /><br />the main character the actress also performed well, she showed us a nervous, witty woman who knows how to use herself to seduce men to get what she wants.<br /><br />some of the scenes were hilarious. Even though it was about 2 hours long, but it was never boring. a very good entertaining movie.
|
positive
|
I love this movie. At first, I didn't expect much of this movie since I didn't hear anyone talk about it and it seemed like it went on video soon after it had just opened in the theatres. I also didn't think David and Minnie would make a good on-screen couple. (I've expected a lot out of on-screen couples since I saw "You've Got Mail" and "Sleepless in Seattle" with Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan.) Personally, I think Joely Richardson should've played Minnie's part and vice versa. I don't know, I just think Joely should've stayed in the movie longer with David. They seemed perfect for each other. But it just figures that in a movie, the girl next door always gets the guy. :) (Like in "While You Were Sleeping".) I was very wrong though. This movie was fantastic!!! Everything was done brilliantly. Bonnie Hunt did a great job of directing. The lines were perfect with the wise cracks everywhere.<br /><br />***WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD!!!***<br /><br />I love how everything intertwined with each other. For example, in the beginning, Elizabeth and Bob were talking about going to Italy, and in the end, Bob meets Grace in Italy. Sydney (the ape) doing the hand thing with Grace like he had done with Elizabeth is an example too.<br /><br />***NOTICE: SPOILERS END NOW!!!***<br /><br />One thing I didn't like about the movie was it was a little unrealisitic. Well, I just don't think a man could get over his wife in a year when she was the only woman he had ever been with his entire life. You'd think he'd isolate himself from the world for years before even coming out of his house to talk someone. Instead, he goes on a blind date a year later and falls *instantly* in love with a woman he's never seen in his life but feels a connection with.<br /><br />Over all, it was a splendid movie. It had me crying two or three times, and it had me laughing countless times (the scene in the restaurant with Bob's picky date for bottled water was hilarious!). It is definitely up there with great romantic-comedies like "You've Got Mail", "Sliding Doors", and "While You Were Sleeping".<br /><br />GO RENT IT TODAY!!
|
positive
|
Others have already commented on the "decline" of director Tobe Hooper, but what about Brad Dourif? He was perfectly capable of selecting good projects (as he proved by starring in the same year's "Exorcist III"), so why did he agree to appear in this? Sure, he gives a suitably demented performance, and the film is not outright bad; it's just uninvolving, uninteresting and unappealing. That's three "un-"s too many. (*1/2)
|
negative
|
Okay, the story makes no sense, the characters lack any dimensionally, the best dialogue is ad-libs about the low quality of movie, the cinematography is dismal, and only editing saves a bit of the muddle, but Sam" Peckinpah directed the film. Somehow, his direction is not enough. For those who appreciate Peckinpah and his great work, this movie is a disappointment. Even a great cast cannot redeem the time the viewer wastes with this minimal effort.<br /><br />The proper response to the movie is the contempt that the director San Peckinpah, James Caan, Robert Duvall, Burt Young, Bo Hopkins, Arthur Hill, and even Gig Young bring to their work. Watch the great Peckinpah films. Skip this mess.
|
negative
|
I really didn't see this one coming. Roy Andersson had me pegged out, I am the perfect sucker for a static camera (long live King Borowczyk!) and I was laughing hysterically for the first fifteen minutes of the film, he hit me straight between the eyes. You have to be a brilliant man to make self-pity hilarious. Andersson reminds me of the third mate on the Pequod in Moby Dick, Flask, a man who took the whole of life to be a practical joke that the good lord Himself is playing on us. And the web of egotism in this movie is truly hilarious.<br /><br />The level of satire is at fever pitch, you have one deluded self-pitying dreamer harp on about the cruelty of the world and then totally ignore a spiritual self-reflection crying out in agony. The very depths of egotism are plumbed. I really never thought it possible to go further than Bergman's "The Silence" in this respect. However the grotesqueness of the self-love and self-regard, by every single character in this film, is staggering. We are shown an existence where the talentless and the idle rail against a world they believe has been unjust towards them, they truly are legends in their own living rooms. The human beings in this film make self-deception and self-delusion a great artform! <br /><br />Only one woman in the film appears to have any sort of understanding of what is going on. An old woman who refuses to leave a chapel, knelt down praying for the forgiveness of all mankind, her speech is the most electrifying condemnation of the modern world I have ever heard. She reveals through her prayers that what is wrong with the world is not to be fixed by mere tinkering, there are not a just a few faults, there is an abyss of corruption that can only be mended by immolation, and judgement day. Watching this movie puts me in the mind of a naked monk, stood waist deep in a cold river at midnight screaming out a thousand Kyrie eleisons for the sins of humanity. Another grand jape is that it is clear that her prayers are futile, and in fact she is stopping everyone going home at closing time.<br /><br />This is not a film for the smug, no-one is spared, no idols are left on the altar, no one group of humans is harangued to the glory of another group. Never has there been a greater more transcendent more astonishingly beautiful summation of our sins. It is a film for the end of the world, it is the grand jest, the great hideous practical joke of human life! <br /><br />From the catalogue of images it is too difficult to pick a favourite, I slapped my thigh and almost fell off my chair in the cinema, screaming with laughter as a man attempted to pull the tablecloth from under a set service. I won't spoil what happens, but the suspense builds up, and something truly unexpected occurs. It is probably the funniest thing I have ever seen in a cinema. I am quite reserved and I just couldn't control myself: that is the measure of the greatness of this film.<br /><br />The shooting of "You, the Living" is impeccably formalist. We are shown the palette of an artist, dingy browns, yellows, greys, and sky blues set alive by the shock of luminous brass textures. There is never a tone out of place, it's like an hour and a half of symphonic Whistlerian colour-meld. The obsession that must have gone into putting that colour scheme in place is extraordinary. And no shot is wasted, as with all great movies, there is not a spare inch of celluloid.<br /><br />Perhaps the best film I've ever seen.
|
positive
|
This movie was Hilarious! It occasionally went too far, but isn't that what we expect from them? The theater roared with laughter and ooooooed at all the incredibly crazy stunts. It's rude, crude, and occasionally frighteningly intense. The whole gang is back and even more out of their minds, which in turn provides for some great entertainment. I don't want to give anything away, but the little snippets of clips going around the net are nothing compared to what comes after. <br /><br />This is a great movie to go see with friends. Try to see it with a big crowd. You will not be disappointed. Just don't go with anyone who can't take it (see above). It will not go over well, you can be sure of that. But that's pretty obvious in the first place. If you enjoyed the first one, you will loooooove this one.
|
positive
|
When Family Guy first premiered, I was not in a discriminating mood. With the 1990s containing a wealth of clever, surreal cartoons, why should I be? Nickelodeon produced Doug; Ren and Stimpy and Rockos Modern Life among other fine cartoons(Yes, this includes Spongebob).All had quirky, dreamlike animation and surprisingly sophisticated stories and dialog. The Simpsons became an outright phenomenon, perhaps not as brilliant as its biggest defenders claim it to be, but a very fine investment of your time and certainly dismisses the false axiom that all TV is junk. South Park started out as a crude but hilarious attack on everything with unique and intelligent satire underneath. It evolved to become a Monty Python- esquire show with outrageous concepts and brutally swift and sharp societal critiques(Such as their defense of the noble underpants gnomes) and eventually settled to be entirely self referential and "meta" like the Simpsons did, and has unfortunately jumped the shark. Family Guy is superficially like The Simpsons and South Park. It pushes buttons and is a favorite among college students and bestiality enthusiasts. However, what it has in loquacity it lacks in true wit.<br /><br />The show is famous for its use of gimmicks, especially for flashbacks. Many are references to bad TV sitcoms or commercials. Some are funny(Especially from the first two seasons), most are not. Are references inherently funny? I'm not sure, but they are mostly what the show stands on considering that its characters are painfully uninteresting. Where Homer and Bart have charm, and Cartman has an artillery of self awareness and pure outrageousness to back up his awful behavior, Peter Griffin has no excuse. He's just a loud, obnoxious pig. Anything funny coming from his character is only because the writers forget how to be unfunny that day. Lois is also very shallow and dull; Meg is a prop, only to be abused; Chris is borderline retarded and only occasionally funny, and the two main stars of the show(Stewie and Brian) are so inconsistent in their characterizations that it all really kind of pointless.<br /><br />Other gimmicks I can't stand are when a character points to something obviously and lingers on it for an uncomfortably long time. This happens a lot lately, and I can't bear it any longer. Not just the oft mentioned chicken that likes to beat Peter up, I'm talking about the painful moments where they talk about pop culture and prod it as if they are alien spectators. That's not wit or even ironic humor, it's totally boring and lifeless.<br /><br />Not that the show can't be funny, in fact some of the earlier episodes had me rolling. Highlights include the pilot episode, where Peter loses touch with reality after losing his precious television; when Peters religious zealot father shows up and wreaks havoc; When Peter becomes a narc at Megs school, and the "pancake" episode. I suspect these are the episodes that accidentally incorporated actual human traits in its characters, or merely were times the writers had actual comedic inspiration.<br /><br />One last thing, the show is not offensive. It's only offensive to those who wouldn't watch the show in the first place, so it's almost like a circle jerk to the choir of hipsters.
|
negative
|
I can't say how closely the film follows the novel, never having read the book, but since this clocks in at some six and a half hours it's a good bet that most of the base are covered or, at least, we can say with some certainty that this isn't a Reader's Digest condensed version.<br /><br />The production values are high, well up to the standards of other BBC classic series like Inspector Morse and Sherlock Holmes. We can believe Dickens' London looked, sounded, and thought a lot like this. There are some occasional minor lapses -- some sportsman firing a pistol with a percussion cap in 1840 or 1820 or whenever this took place.<br /><br />The acting too is to be applauded. Suzanne Burden is the polite and honest heroine who quietly goes about doing good. She's cute too, in a mature way, her beauty in her compassionate nature not in any flirtatiousness. Denholm Elliott is her guardian (and more than that, as it turns out). Burden and Elliott are two of the very few characters who are good in an unalloyed way. Another is a former sergeant forced to do evil by evil people. Another is a poor and helpless young boy.<br /><br />I don't think anyone else could have written this. It's got all the earmarks of Dickens -- poverty, tragic deaths, capitalism in the raw, the generous rich guy in his gated home, hidden parentage, shadowy motives, and the impotence or outright maliciousness of the justice system. Well, not the justice system as a whole but the chancery, which was evidently a court that decided matters having to do with the distribution of property. (So I gather from Wikipedia.) It became so notoriously rigid and dilatory that it was thoroughly revamped in England in 1973. Twice, Elliott's character describes it as "a curse." The most impressive scene involves a money-scrounging creditor hounding a retired soldier in the latter's gymnasium during a fencing lesson. The sergeant is more masculine in the traditional sense than any other male character I remember from Dickens. The apoplectic money lender and renter is screaming threats from his seat and the sergeant turns towards him and does one delicate exercise with the saber after another, each advancement bringing him closer to his tormentor, while the scarlet-faced old creditor shrinks back into his seat.<br /><br />A couple of things are missing. Often Dickens will stick in at least one or two amusing lines of dialog. ("Humbug!" or "The law is a ass.") Not here. "Bleak" house is the right title. Second, there are practically no Weberian "ideal types" -- no Mr. Micawbers or Artful Dodgers or Scrooges. Third, the atmosphere, the whole ethos, is relentlessly dismal. One tribulation follows another, usually having to do with money or some shameful peccadillo out of the past.<br /><br />My God, it's depressing. It's as if the author were venting his spleen on everything he hated in the world he knew. Poverty, okay. He KNEW poverty. But one wonders what the chancery did to Dickens to deserve this kind of treatment.<br /><br />Maybe I should add that I've just watched the first episode of the 2005 series -- and it's better in two ways. There is more zip in the direction, so the pace is a little faster. And the business of Jarndyce vs. Jarndyce is explained satisfactorily right up front, instead of lurking about in the shadows as that mysterious "curse," so the plot is easier to follow.
|
positive
|
First off, I would like to point out that while I am not an expert, the way the trial was handled will insult your intelligence. Firstly, the prosecution never proved that 'facilitated learning' actually works. Irresponsible for both the prosecution(because they can get an appeal) and the defense for not acting on this. As another commenter said, facilitated learning was proved untrue. Secondly, they used Terry as the translator who has personal interest, and even will testify, in the trial which is just stupid. If the court had allowed him to testify that way, they would have brought in someone neutral otherwise they would be just asking for an appeal. Thirdly, this child was never asked specific questions about the defendant by the prosecution(birthmarks, details of the event, etc.) and even when asked by the defense specific questions like when it started, he could not answer. If that isn't reasonable doubt I don't know what is and a competent lawyer would have gotten an acquittal.<br /><br />Bottom line, it starts off well with the pressures of being the parent of a child with autism, but the trial makes this movie wholly unbelievable.
|
negative
|
A stupid young man becomes obsessed with a woman--so obsessed that he loses perspective and common sense. An evil magician approaches him and informs him he can give him great wealth that he can use to win the lady's heart IF he agrees to give him anything he wants that's within their room. The dumb guy agrees and the magician steals the man's reflection out of the mirror--and bad things naturally occur as a result.<br /><br />If this film had been made just a decade later, I am sure I wouldn't have been so charitable in reviewing and scoring this film. After all, the film's plot is a bit vague in spots and the acting is, at times, a bit stilted. However, when you consider that in 1913 "full-length" films were rare--and often only 20 to 30 minutes long! Plus, the whole idea of a complex story like you get in this film is very unusual--as stories were very short and broadly acted. So, given the limitations of the time, this film is pretty good and is one of the earlier horror films known.
|
positive
|
I found this DVD in the library and based on the jacket notes, it looked like it might possibly be interesting: a black comedy set in 1940 France, just as the Germans are marching in. ("Boy, that should have them rolling in the aisles
") But it does! This is a clever, original, suspenseful and funny film. I don't recall seeing anything like it before foreign or U.S. That the writer/director can find humor when we know part of the outcome (the Germans will occupy France for four years) is remarkable. That he does it with such charm is part of the delight. What starts off as black comedy and fluff even ends up having a couple of serious moments including a race to spirit out a cache of "heavy water" (which was part of the preliminary research for the A-bomb) and a quick History 101 intro to the beginnings of the collaborationist Vichy Government that would govern Southern France for much of the German occupation.* But don't let any of that that scare you off: the movie itself is funny, charming and romantic and races ahead at steady clip.<br /><br />One of the best things about it is the combination of actors we've seen many times (Adjani and Depardieu) and others we've never heard of before. Along the way, there are two star-making turns: Virginie Leydoyen and Grégori Derangère. Both are impressive, but Mr. Derangère is especially so. According to IMDb, he was in ten films before this one but he also won the Cesar as "Most Promising Actor" for this role, so apparently he was not all that well known even in France. He is a combination of romantic lead and comic actor and he makes it all seem so effortless. You may be reminded of Cary Grant in "Bringing Up Baby" and "Arsenic and Old Lace" it's hard to do comedy on film because the risks are enormous that the actor can come off looking inept. But Grant pulled it off charmingly, and this guy does also. I should think we're going to hear more about him in the future.<br /><br />To be sure, this film won't please everyone there's a little bit of violence, although nothing you don't see on TV every day. But if you're up for something original, you may feel after you've seen this that you've unearthed a cinematic gem.<br /><br />* The so-called "spoiler" in this comment.
|
positive
|
I agree with all the comments posted so far: This movie was a waste of time and energy, for viewers as well as those who made it. Terrible CGI, awful script, stupid plot and hey, the setting is Alabama but it looks like California. But the worst thing has got to be the Native American angle on this, which pulls in every stereotype you can think of, from the chief surrounded by smoke, the angry warrior, people speaking without using contractions ("Do not do this thing!"), Native American pipes playing in thin air, etc. It just shows such a lack of respect and understanding that I was tearing out my hair. A Native American with any ounce of self-respect would have tossed their TV out the window at this trash. So in closing, I'd say this movie is pretty much an offense to everyone.
|
negative
|
It's great to hear the 3 or so comments, that point out what 'Footballers Wives' signifies for women. The title alone, washes away any supposed equality women have in the media industry or society, reducing them to two dimensional cartoon caricatures of how men think women should behave . It is a post modern moronic farce. It might as well be called, 'Footballers Wifey who stays at home and knows her place'.<br /><br />On one hand, it could actually be some sort of parody on the U.K.'s, gutter trash press representation of celebrities and the role they have in maintaining a patriarchal society. So women can undermine stereotypes by acting like those stereotypes and own the image that has been created for them by mens desire. Nah, that would be to ironic and clever. I also sound like I should be praising it.<br /><br />Zoe Lucker is simply too camp and over the top to be taken seriously. Just like an even cheaper Cruella De Ville. She just needs some maniacal, condescending, yet at the same time, self appraising laugh to show off her true acting range. Oh she does? Right. Anyway, it just about sums up whom this is aimed at. Either 'clever clever' journo's, who think its an up-roaring send-up of vaudevillian proportions, or people who think its 'real'. "Finest actors"? OMG!! Stop watching this afterbirth of a pantomime and get a life.<br /><br />Its utterly sexist and is of such low quality, that maybe those who enjoy it think they are "in" on the "joke". Do the actors really care or understand what they are communicating? Its so demeaning to women and men. They are not all self centred, selfish, football loving materialistic jerks, who think women are nothing but another trophy to be put on display for the public. It's so humiliating. I am sure Ms Lucker would easily stand up to them in her "real" life, and twist them round her finger as so easily done in 'Footballers Wives' .<br /><br />But of course, its doesn't really matter. I mean its only a T.V. programme after all. So please let it stay axed. It's dreadful and will only be looked back on in the same disbelief that 'Prisoner Cell Block H' was so fondly remembered for.<br /><br />How did it come to exist? It sure ain't subtle or complex. It could only come from the same mind set who read FHM magazine, and think its "alright" to look at soft-porn, and "do" as many women who bow to their "will" and chant patriotic and racist comments whenever "their" football team losses/wins. It's totally crass.
|
negative
|
This is breezy highly entertaining drama with an excellent cast. Garfield is fine as a boxer hiding from the police with that motley crew the Dead End Kids. Most notable of these is the beautiful Billy Halop who has some very moving moments. Gloria Dickson, who in real life died very young in a house fire, is strong and very attractive as Halop's sister, and in the early scenes Ann Sheridan, on the brink of stardom, is a knock-out. May Robson is very funny as a crusty old granny, but Claude Rains proves here that even a great actor can flounder if mis-cast (whoever thought of casting him as a tough New York cop?).<br /><br />Busby Berkeley proves here that he was a fine director with or without musical numbers. The film moves at a terrific pace and the water tower sequence is very suspenseful and well photographed. The ending is contrived, and the plot nothing startling or original, but I still found this a highly enjoyable experience.
|
positive
|
While this film certainly does possess the stench of a bad film, it's surprisingly watchable on several levels. First, for old movie fans, it's interesting to see the leading role played by Dean Jagger (no relation to Mick). While Jagger later went on to a very respectable role as a supporting actor (even garnering the Oscar in this category for 12 O'CLOCK HIGH), here his performance is truly unique since he actually has a full head of hair (I never saw him this way before) and because he was by far the worst actor in the film. This film just goes to show that if an actor cannot act in his earlier films doesn't mean he can't eventually learn to be a great actor. Another good example of this phenomenon is Paul Newman, whose first movie (THE SILVER CHALICE) is considered one of the worst films of the 1950s.<br /><br />A second reason to watch the film is the shear cheesiness of it all. The writing is bad, the acting is bad and the special effects are bad. For example, when Jagger and an unnamed Cambodian are wading through the water, it's obvious they are really just walking in place and the background is poorly projected behind them. Plus, once they leave the water, their costumes are 100% dry!!! Horrid continuity and mindlessly bad dialog abounds throughout the film--so much so that it's hard to imagine why they didn't ask Bela Lugosi or George Zucco to star in the film--since both of them starred in many grade-z horror films. In many ways, this would be a perfect example for a film class on how NOT to make a film.<br /><br />So, while giving it a 3 is probably a bit over-generous, it's fun to laugh at and short so it's worth a look for bad film fans.
|
negative
|
This movie starts out the way every movie should start out, with a bunch of hot babes in a dorm walking around in their undies and/or topless. A couple of them take showers. I'm liking it so far! Unfortunately, we then meet or main characters. They're just not particularly likable. Usually in these movies, the actresses aren't really acting, they give very "natural" performances, and they're quite sympathetic, fun, and likable. Not here. They don't have much of any personality and I didn't care for them much.<br /><br />Some of the girls go on a camping trip for school. On the way they stop at a backwoods gas station and meet a biker gang. The biker gang should really have been left out of the movie - it was cheesy before, but now it's just plain stupid. The head biker looks like a middle aged guy dressed up as John Bon Jovi for Halloween. The girls go out to the woods and later the biker gang follows them.<br /><br />I don't really know what the heck happens after that. There's a bunch of stuff about the world ending because it's the end of the millennium, then some of the bikers get killed by a mysterious Indian dude who keeps disappearing. Somebody gets eaten by a cheesy Lock Ness Monster thing as he's swimming across a lake. Some guy in silly makeup is apparently a Druid, and he needs to sacrifice some of the girls in order to forestall the end of the world. Or maybe cause the end of the world, I'm afraid I wasn't paying much attention. First he dresses the girls up in animal skin lingerie.<br /><br />It could have been a really fun cheesy movie, but the biker gang kind of ruined the atmosphere and the plot was so scatterbrained that it didn't even live up to my grade Z schlock expectations. They really should have eliminated half the plot elements and just focused on one or two things. Instead it's all over the place. Overall, if you're looking for late '80 schlock, I imagine you could do worse. If you tried really hard. There's plenty of nudity at the beginning, but the characters are kind of crummy and the plot is too nonsensical to be even the least bit satisfying.
|
negative
|
I really enjoyed the pilot, it was as amazing as I hoped it would be, if not better. Patrick Warburton was a riot, although at first i thought that I wouldn't be able to stand his character. Him and Megyn Price Had little chemistry at all, but hopefully as the season goes on they'll get more comfortable around each other. It must have been weird for Megyn to go from being the star on her last show ["Grounded For Life"] to being a co-star. <br /><br />Bianca Kajlich and Oliver Hudson seem really new to the whole Sitcom scene, but I think in time they'll get better. David Spade's character, to my surprise, wasn't the whole focus of this pilot. The way he delivers his lines is so different from anyone else i've ever seen on TV, but I think that it is just his style. It works for him.<br /><br />I think that couples, or even singles, will be able to relate to all the doubts and fights and being unsure about your decisions, that this show is about. All the situations that the characters are put in just feel like real life, not sugar-coated like most shows.<br /><br />I hope for all the actors sakes that CBS gives them a chance. This show has the potential to be one of the best series, if just given the chance and time.
|
positive
|
The night of the prom: the most important night to any shallow girl composed almost entirely of plastic. And so the characters kept reminding us every ten minutes when some head-peckingly miniscule event occurred in their miniscule lives.<br /><br />There really is no excuse for Prom Night. There is less than nothing original about it and I truly would have given it zero or less stars were it possible on IMDb. The only part of my viewing that I enjoyed was when a group of teenagers sitting in front of us decided to play a game of 'ghosts'. It was a lot more exciting than whatever was going on on the screen in front of them.<br /><br />The plot was basically some guy going on a rampage. And the thing was, it wasn't even a slightly exciting rampage. Maybe if the guy had been remotely frightening rather than a tame Robbie Williams lookalike with a baseball cap, I might have sat there feeling slightly anxious. The fact that I cared less about the characters than I did about the colour of the cinema carpet didn't really add to the effect, either. And to make matters worse, the rest of the characters were equally one-dimensional and oblivious. The hotel staff didn't seem to notice or care that one of their maids had vanished and are further proof that a murderer is unrecognisable after he has had a shave. I was incredibly surprised that the bitchy, stereotypical girl in the blue dress was the only person to notice who he was. She realises this and then proceeds to fall down the stairs, entangle herself in a plastic sheet and then knock over a pile of paint buckets. Nice one.<br /><br />The worst thing was, I hold the belief that that the director was trying his absolute hardest. He really pushed all boundaries by not showing any killing actually happening. Shocking! And the music, don't even get me started. It was almost as appropriate as stripping at a funeral.<br /><br />I really wish that Prom Night was a joke. It was terrible and stupidly predictable. No one, in their right mind or otherwise, has any reason to see this film. Mainstream cinema seems to be going downhill and films like this worsen the situation. If you get the urge to see this absolutely awful film, hear my plea. Don't do it. There are better things to spend six pounds on. Like a sheet to play ghosts with.
|
negative
|
"Holly" is an issue-driven film, but it is neither manipulative nor overly sentimental. At its heart is it is a character-driven film, which wouldn't be nearly so successful without the fleshed-out portrayals of Patrick (Ron Livingston), the lost soul with the gradually awakening conscience, and Holly (Thuy Nguyen), the strong-willed but ultimately over-matched young Vietnamese girl. From the vibrant locations and photography to the effective editing, everything is forthright and well-done. The contemporary classical score may put some off at first, but it is top-notch composition and underscores the admirable restraint which is evident throughout. This film, which raises many issues but provides few clear-cut answers, ultimately succeeds in raising awareness of and compassion for Holly and the many who share her plight. Kudos to those who managed to get it made.
|
positive
|
And this somebody is me. And not only me, as I can see here at IMDb or when leaving the theater. Why did the people love it? It's obvious: Everybody knows zombies by now (at least the Horror fans by heart and the others through the "Dawn of the Dead" reinvention or Resident Evil movies etc.) <br /><br />Or at least they thought they knew everything about zombies ... that is until this movie came along. And you'll see zombies in a new light (perhaps). This is not a horror movie, although it does contain some violent scenes, but is rather a comedy. A satire to be precise. And it never runs out of steam! That is why I rated it so high. Pacing wise it's incredible, the acting is great and the script has no (obvious) mistakes ... quite the contrary: It's a gem and if you're only a little bit interested in zombies you ought to see it! And even if you dislike them, watch it! Because it's a great (comedy) movie!
|
positive
|
This adorable dog (called various names during the film) is seemingly loved by the whole town...but he's alone. He is friends with two children (Cindy and Paul played astonishingly bad) but their father won't let them have a dog. Then Benji meets Tiffany--ANOTHER adorable dog. They (instantly) fall in love and it leads to a hysterical montage of the two of them frolicking in the grass, drinking from a fountain...in slow motion no less! Also Benji lives in the cleanest abandoned house I've ever seen. Then the two kids are kidnapped by the most inept, unfunniest kidnappers I've ever seen and--wouldn't you know it--they hide the brats in the exact house Benji lives in! <br /><br />WOW was this bad! A huge hit (for some reason) in 1974 which led to many sequels (which I will NOT see). The film is just terribly acted with "humor" so unfunny and badly done that you just stare at the TV in amazement. The film also has a song that is played NONSTOP during the movie--so much that you want to scream. It was inexplicably nominated for Best Song at the Oscars--it didn't win. Yeah--the dogs are adorable and much better than the human actors--but I need more than cute dogs to keep me interested.<br /><br />You might think I'm being a little hard on a kids film but I saw it with my 5 year old nephew. Within 20 minutes he was bored silly and basically stopped watching. I kept watching in hope that it would get better--it didn't. Really lousy--but VERY patient kids or dog lovers might like it.<br /><br />Note to parents: It's G rated but a dog is viciously kicked a few times. You don't see it--you just hear it and the dog survives but this might bother real young kids.
|
negative
|
Boston Blackie movies have some strengths -- mostly in that the pacing is swift and the hero is cheerfully unfazed in even the worst circumstances. But the plotting is frequently atrocious, and the unrelenting comic bits often kill the pacing (if the plot happens to be atypically good) or are just unfunny and inappropriate.<br /><br />This one involves Blackie chasing an escapee from the asylum (Steve Cochran in a really poor performance) who has become fixated on beautiful Nina Foch (who puts in a nice, rather subtle acting job). Inspector Farraday, of course, believes Blackie has gone homicidal maniac (he at least has some evidence in this one for that), and is incompetently trying to jail him as Blackie goes after the real killer. The plot has possibilities, but any time any real tension gets going, we a get a not funny comedy routine. It doesn't seem like anyone at Columbia understood that, in a movie about a pursuit of a really dangerous maniac, cute little comedy scenes about hiding an inconvenient body from the inspector disrupt any willing suspension of disbelief. (One just concludes our clever hero is an idiot -- deadly for a film like this.) <br /><br />This one is not worth the time. For a well plotted episode of this series, see Alias Boston Blackie.
|
negative
|
Hulk Hogan stars as a champion wrestler (A real acting stretch...) named Rip, who is forced to defend his honor, his title and his girlfriend from a greedy corporation that wanted him to sign for their network (Because wrestling sells!) however when Rip declines, the network gets a circuit fighting championship called (and i'm totally serious) "Battle of the tough guys" who's champion Zeus (Played by Tiny Lister Jr) maybe the deadliest man alive. Rip refuses to fight, until his brother is attacked and put in a hospital. No Holds Barred is pretty much what I expected from Vince McMahon production starring the least versatile actor in the action genre (Hogan) it is basically lots of unintentional humor, tons of awkward sequences, a couple okay action sequences and tons of stupidity. In other words it's not unlike wrestling itself, so I give it a fair rating mainly because anyone renting this knows what they're getting. The movie is cheap but well made enough for what it is and really wrestling fans will probably enjoy this. I myself found this to be ultimately hilarious. They're are moments of such absurdity that you only chuckle to yourself. (Such as the way Hogan jumps 20 feet in the air after being stuck in a limo, how he forces a guy to crap himself and of course the way Hogan recites from his cuecard. (I.E:"I'm not going to be around when this check clears!") No Holds Barred is a lot of fun, true, though it's mainly because of how ridiculous it is. Fans of camp should really enjoy this clever clinker.<br /><br />* * out of 4-(Fair)
|
negative
|
"Tourist Trap" is among my favorite late 70's/early 80's horror flicks. A group of young people are heading somewhere, one pair in the car ahead, & that car has a flat, and our film opens with the young man, Woody, pushing the tire along looking for a service station. He finds a seemingly abandoned place, and yet hears voices and investigates, and ends up with a piece of pipe through his stomach for his efforts. Along comes the rest of the young folks (in a VW Thing) and they pick up Woody's girlfriend, and find this very same place, Slausen's Oasis, or some such thing..and then Mr. Slausen happens along while the girls are enjoying a dip in the stream. Of course, the VW Thing has mysteriously died at that point, so odd Mr. Slausen (Chuck Connors) offers his help. Mr. Slausen has a museum, with lots of wax figures, and he lives in the museum but behind is a big house, where he says Davey lives. And who is Davey? Why, Davey Crockett, he says...but if it were Davey Crockett, they'd all probably be safer. The girls are left alone while Slausen goes to help with fixing the car, but of course curiosity gets the better of one & she goes to investigate, and finds the house full of creepy mannequins and one rather animated one named...Davey. What follows is a rather creepy night of terror as one by one, they're taken prisoner by Davey, who says he's Slausen's brother. One girl (kidnapped earlier) is treated to a plaster facial, which results in her death when it covers up her air supply. At any rate there's somewhat of a twist to this and kind (but weird) Mr. Slausen is not exactly what he appears to be. A good, creepy late 70's horror flick, and lots of mannequins make for a very creepy atmosphere. 7 out of 10.
|
positive
|
After a long hard week behind the desk making all those dam serious decisions this movie is a great way to relax. Like Wells and the original radio broadcast this movie will take you away to a land of alien humor and sci-fi paraday. 'Captain Zippo died in the great charge of the Buick. He was a brave man.' The Jack Nicholson impressions shine right through that alien face with the dark sun glasses and leather jacket. And always remember to beware of the 'doughnut of death!' Keep in mind the number one rule of this movie - suspension of disbelief - sit back and relax - and 'Prepare to die Earth Scum!' You just have to see it for yourself.
|
positive
|
When I first heard that this movie was going to be made, I was very excited to see it. The ideas to make a movie of this caliber, as good as it was, must have been very difficult. I wasn't really sure if anyone could encompass all of the Pope's many amazing qualities in a movie, but the movie did his memory justice. In my opinion the most important task was to reveal to the people who the Pope started out as. To his days in Poland, all the way to his last days in the Vatican, this movie followed every aspect of his life. Thomas Kretschmann, the man who played the Pope in his adult life and on, did a very good job at getting the emotion across. Overall this movie was educational, but also very entertaining.
|
positive
|
This is a story of a long and awkward love. The daily life of a woman of 50 years old and some people around her is depicted. Her daily life is so ordinary and routine that I doubted who was the real lead character in the beginning. Then the audiences know that the woman and a man who was her high-school class mate had very tiny connection. The woman has been doing the same job - a milk-woman and a supermarket casher - so long. There are so many slopes that delivering milk bottles is a very hard job. The man had married another woman, who is now dying of cancer. He works at the City Hall and devotedly cares her at home. They never look straight nor talk each other, but they never forget each other. <br /><br />The original Japanese title means "At some time the days you read books". But of course when the man said "Now I want to do what I've always wanted to do", it was to hug her and make love with her. She writes to a radio disk jockey that "If God gives us time to talk, we need at least a whole day". Dreaming of that day, she has been sublimating the desire in hard work and book reading. I personally know a woman who has loved a man for long years, even after he married another woman and died for an accident. Therefore the story setting is not that special. Rather, this movie well portrays unspoken romances in many ordinary men and women. Through this movie, you will recall your romance that is lost long ago. This is a movie with lasting effect.
|
positive
|
This sequel is a total rehash of the first film. A completely pointless movie. It basically just took every single sceanrio of the first film and they redid it in Omen IV except with a female antichrist this time. It even ends the same way as the first one! The music is too busy and interfering, and because its pretty much a copy of Omen I, it's extremely predictable. It's not a horrible movie, it's not terribly made, there is much worse movies out there, this just had absolutely no point in being made. The Omen remake from 2006 is much worse, even more pointless than this, so I guess it has that. If you someone pointed a gun to your head and you had to choose to watch this sequel or the 2006 reamke, I guess I'd choose this.
|
negative
|
I just purchased An Zhan (Running out of time) on DVD and it was an excellent film I must say. Not really action-packed, in terms of gun play, but definitely exciting and witty. I do not think I have seen Andy Lau in better form. And the editing on this film was very well executed. Go watch this now if you are a fan of Lau or HK thiller/action film!
|
positive
|
In the periphery of São Paulo, the very low middle-class dysfunctional and hypocrite family of Teodoro (Giulio Lopes), Cláudia (Leona Cavalli) and the teenager Soninha (Sílvia Lourenço) have deep secrets. The religious Teodoro is indeed a hit-man, hired to kill people in the neighborhood with his friend Waldomiro (Ailton Graça). He has a lover, the very devout woman Terezinha (Martha Meola), and he wants to regenerate, going to the country with her. Cláudia has a young lover, Júlio (Ismael de Araújo), who delivers meats for his father's butcher shop. Soninha is a common sixteen years old teenager of the periphery, having active sexual life, smoking grass and loving heavy metal. When Júlio is killed and castrated in their neighborhood, the lives of the members of the family change.<br /><br />"Contra Todos" is a great low budget Brazilian movie that pictures the life in the periphery of a big Brazilian city. The story is very real, uses the usual elements of the poor area of the big Brazilian cities (drug dealers, hit men, fanatic religious evangelic people, hopeless teenagers etc.), has many plot points and a surprising end, and the characters have excellent performances, acting very natural and making the story totally believable. The camera follows the characters, giving a great dynamics to the film. In the Extras of the DVD, the director Roberto Moreira explains that his screenplay had no lines, only the description of the situations, and was partially disclosed only one week before the beginning of the shootings. The actors have trainings in workshops and they used lots of improvisation, being the reason for such natural acting. My vote is eight.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Contra Todos" ("Against Everybody")
|
positive
|
I first saw "The Knowledge" during a Thames Television marathon on one of the local independent stations in Los Angeles back when it was new. I enjoyed it very much along with danger UXB.<br /><br />That a movie I saw once over twenty year ago should stick so well in my memory is a testament to it's originality and the quality of the performances by the cast.<br /><br />I looked for a DVD copy here in the U.S.A. And found none. I finally gambled and bought a UK DVD off Ebay and was delighted to find that it has no Region Code. So those of us that would like to see this little gem can get a copy.
|
positive
|
Not often it happens that a great director´s last movie becomes such a moving, brillantly performed and filmed masterpiece. The cast is excellent as well as the camerawork. What starts up as a merry coming-together of a group of well-educated citizens of an early-20th-century- Dublin turns into a dark, philosophic narration about all our fear from death and the sometimes dark shadows of the past. Thank You, Mister Huston, for this last piece of great cinema!
|
positive
|
This movie is being shown over and over on cable lately, so..<br /><br />There is no excuse for these 2 attractive women to fight over either Luke Wilson or the equally vapid 'villian' in this movie. The female actresses are very cute, and that's the only reason to watch this movie. I suppose it is 'funny' that Luke's even uglier/dorkier/stupider friend is around, but well, that is what we get.<br /><br />Neither of the female leads would ever, EVER talk to any of the males in this movie for more than 5 minutes. What we get is them sobbing and crying and fighting and so on over 2 guys that were best described in Friday the 13th 4. Dead *@$#
|
negative
|
My Comments for VIVAH :- Its a charming, idealistic love story starring Shahid Kapoor and Amrita Rao. The film takes us back to small pleasures like the bride and bridegroom's families sleeping on the floor, playing games together, their friendly banter and mutual respect. Vivah is about the sanctity of marriage and the importance of commitment between two individuals. Yes, the central romance is naively visualized. But the sneaked-in romantic moments between the to-be-married couple and their stubborn resistance to modern courtship games makes you crave for the idealism. The film predictably concludes with the marriage and the groom, on the wedding night, tells his new bride who suffers from burn injuries: "Come let me do your dressing"<br /><br />V I V A H - showcases a lot of good things - beauty of arranged marriage, beauty of Indian culture, beauty of Indian woman, last but not least a nice IDEALISM of the about-to-be-couple waiting to get married .... playing by the rules ! Simple yet Beautiful; Such a Simple story .... no plot ... no villain - as is the case with most of Sooraj Barjatya films. Sooraj sir is back to what he does BEST. He has made the movie with FULL CONVICTION. Its a very sweet film - which teaches the current generation a lot of good things bout Arranged Marriage & the Union of 2 Families. I think AMRITA RAO - looks very good & she has acted very well. She has most of the good scenes - although i thought the last half hour was completely to Shahid Kapur - who for a change gives an awesomely restrained performance. I also liked the acting of all others for ex. the Choti i.e. Amrita Prakash, Alok Nath, Anupam Kher, Shahid's bro & sis-in-law. It almost seemed as real and recognizable as it could. Sooraj sir has got another nice family film to his credit after Maine Pyar Kiya, HAHK & Hum Saath Saath Hain. The chemistry between Shahid & Amrita is AWESOME.<br /><br />Stuff like Sanctity in a Marriage/Relationship, Avoiding Courtship, Mutual Respect, Care & Space, Waiting for getting Married "officially", Praying/Sacrficing for Ur Beloved - all these and more get SHOWCASED in Vivah. There's still some good audience who r going & enjoying this film. Some of the folks/audience are already excited after seeing, that they r thinking bout Arranged-Marriage :) Thats Success if you ask me. it seems AMRITA RAO - our actress-from-Vivah {Result for a nice performance} has been bestowed the prestigious DADSAHEB PHALKE award for 2006 !! Hats off to her for this achievement Chalo, even though Vivah , Shahid or Amrita didn't get any of the film-fare & other awards; @ least this is news to CHEER about !! Congrats to AMRITA RAO- for showing us a visual of Indian Bride-to-be in the purest form and Of Course to Sooraj Barjatya for portraying her the best way :) Shudn't forget Shahid Kapur and all others who make VIVAH as sweet and legendary as it is today !! Imagine, to share the same pedestal as the legendary Dilip Kumar .......... Its no mean achievement !! Congrats to Amrita Rao - for taking her Career to another level with this award .... I personally feel - she should keep doing movies only with Shahid Kapur !! They make a cute couple and their on-screen chemistry reminds me of {SRK-Kajol} or {Aamir Khan & Juhi Chawla} ................. <br /><br />Some points that I observed,few of the elements :- #1 If u notice carefully, Amrita Rao looks so good because shes always wearing traditional dresses. She gives every bit of the Indian Woman essence - in this film !! Perfect Fit #2 Shahid Kapur is like most of us - not exactly ready for marriage or early-marriage .... but PREM listens carefully to the step-wise talk given by his DAD - having full faith in Anupam Kher. Eventually "Honesty" & "Trust" are the keywords that he reflects in his first talk with Amrita. Most people would think such a first meeting with a total stranger plus for a limited time is never enough to judge a person. But according to what I saw in this film, I have a feeling - that Two people who are made for each other can connect within a 1st meet also, Its possible !!! #3 In the entire movie - there are basically 4 or 5 sequences where Shahid & Amrita are together - or shown to be together. Its unlike most other romantic/wedding-based movies where Hero & Heroine are always singing/dancing or nowadays - doing cheap stuff. But the beauty of each of these 5 sequences :- Characterized by restraint, innocence & respect for the other ! #4 I really liked the relationship shown between Chacha ALOK NATH & Amrita Rao. These kinda movies should highlight the indifference shown to daughters/girl-kids in some parts of India. #5 Romantic scenes between lead couple are shot very nicely - no cheap scenes,songs are beautifully pictured !! Words like "Jal","praarthana" e.t.c. are going to be buzzwords for all girls who liked this film :) Personally, I really am fond of many dialogs in this film. #6 Last but not the least - The entire Hospital Scene where Shahid puts "sindhoor" to Amrita when shes struggling for Life - is terrific. Those dialogs between the couple are so touching and U feel the LOVE/I-cant-do-without-U ; Its a Hats-Off feeling !!! <br /><br />*** In many ways, VIVAH reminded me of Maine Pyar Kiya, DDLJ, Qayamat Se Qayamat Tak, Hum Dil De Chuke Sanam - for the freshness/on-screen-chemistry of the LEAD pair :) :) *** IF U ASK ME :- Along with films like Rang De Basanti, Lage Raho Munnabhai, DOR, CORPORATE and Kabul Express, V I V A H ranks among the best films made in 2006. IN FACT - i think Vivah does deserve better viewing/business than Dhoom2 or Fanaa or Golmaal or all those time-pass/fuzzy/style/crap movies !!
|
positive
|
OH MY God I am lost Now I know everything this guy does is Pointless R J A wrote at August 13th, 2006 (posting no. 881): What an awful experience. It looked like a bunch of 3rd graders stole a video camera, borrowed some old editing software from 1995, and played a joke on each other. Trash RGC wrote at August 1st, 2006 (posting no. 747): This movie is a piece of @$#@#@. It sucks Calling this a movie would be misleading. This was a group of friends having a good time and videotaping one another. The storyline was very hard to follow. The attempted artistic camera angles detracted from the story and in to themselves made the entire time a dizzying experience. The acting although comical was very amateurish. The concept is OK, I guess. Perhaps next time, the producers should raise some capital and hire actual professionals and try again. I must say that I'm sick and tired of so many thinking that making a good movie is easy. It is not easy... This fact seems to be lost or ignored by many that believe that without any training/experience and talent that they can make a good product. I guess in the end they will learn just how difficult it is I am so disgusted I HAVE NO COMMENT Chrisite wrote at August 5th, 2006 (posting no. 762):
|
negative
|
Picture Bride has an excellent look into Hawaii's past and the people who lived there in that time. The time, money earned and the hours that these people had put into their lives to survive and live, takes a whole new meaning to blood, sweat and tears.<br /><br />The concept of dating/matchmaking is something like what we do similar today via the net. Just that is more of snail mail. Very slow snail mail.<br /><br />The singing of the plantation's songs from the workers reminds me of the southern plantation workers' songs of their demise and future goals.<br /><br />The movie shows the hardship as well as soft romantic scenes that Hawaii can bring. Like the stillness of a storm coming and the sudden chaos of the rain and then the tranquility.
|
positive
|
How can anyone not love this movie ? I think it's a hilarious spoof of all the old gangster movies; if you've never seen them, watch this instead. Michael Keaton has a ball in this role as anything goes. One guy mangles the English language everytime he talks and Griffin Dunn plays a clueless D.A., but my favorite role has got to be Joe Piscopo. He has all the best lines. Danny DeVito, Alan Hale, Ray Walston are in this star-studded movie that lampoons gangsters a lot funnier than "Mafia" did for the criminal underground.
|
positive
|
<br /><br />Very good 1970s movie about mob operations in New Jersey. When a "maverick" gangster doesn't play by the rules of the neighborhood, sooner or later, it's time for elimination.<br /><br />Joe Pesci was true to his character -- smooth and funny. He only gets better with age. His face and present day fame should not have been used on the DVD cover to sell this "B" grade movie as he was only the third billed star.<br /><br />Dated 1970's printed wide lapel shirts and lesser quality background music make for a distraction. Nice to see the 1970's big cars. <br /><br />However, the acting is good. <br /><br />Nakedness on the part of Anne Johns was not needed to make this mob story work. And, she does not show up in the database as every acting again in any film other than this one. Too bad; she did a good job!<br /><br />Moral of the story: Don't get your "Don" upset with you.<br /><br />If you are wanting to see something different when you wake up in the middle of the night then check out this DVD. It was part of a three-movie-on-one DVD $5.88 special at the local discount store.<br /><br />
|
positive
|
Worry not, Disney fans--this special edition DVD of the beloved Cinderella won't turn into a pumpkin at the strike of midnight. One of the most enduring animated films of all time, the Disney-fide adaptation of the gory Brothers Grimm fairy tale became a classic in its own right, thanks to some memorable tunes (including "A Dream Is a Wish Your Heart Makes," "Bibbidi-Bobbidi-Boo," and the title song) and some endearingly cute comic relief. The famous slipper (click for larger image) We all know the story--the wicked stepmother and stepsisters simply won't have it, this uppity Cinderella thinking she's going to a ball designed to find the handsome prince an appropriate sweetheart, but perseverance, animal buddies, and a well-timed entrance by a fairy godmother make sure things turn out all right. There are a few striking sequences of pure animation--for example, Cinderella is reflected in bubbles drifting through the air--and the design is rich and evocative throughout. It's a simple story padded here agreeably with comic business, particularly Cinderella's rodent pals (dressed up conspicuously like the dwarf sidekicks of another famous Disney heroine) and their misadventures with a wretched cat named Lucifer. There's also much harrumphing and exposition spouting by the King and the Grand Duke. It's a much simpler and more graceful work than the more frenetically paced animated films of today, which makes it simultaneously quaint and highly gratifying.
|
positive
|
I was so disappointed in this movie. I don't know much about the true story, so I was eager to see it play out on film and educate myself about a little slice of history. With such a powerful true story and great actors it seemed like a surefire combination. Well, somewhere the screenplay failed them. It was so scattered - is this movie about his childhood? his love life? his own disability? his speaking ability? his passion for the disabled? I'm sure there is a way to incorporate all of those things into a good story, but this movie wasn't it. I was left cold watching characters that were unlikable not because of their disabilities, but because of their personalities. Other small gripes: 1. The heavy-handed soundtrack. It's the seventies - WE GET IT ALREADY! 2. If he's such a phenomenal public speaker, why weren't we treated to more than a snippet here and there - and even then mostly in montages?
|
negative
|
This movie had no parts that were hilarious, mostly just average funny units, but it did not have any parts that were really bad either. The worst part was the voice of Sid. His slothy slur was just too much for me. By about 5 minutes in I was sick of hearing him talk. Aside from the annoying sloth voice the movie was good. There were numerous side jokes which if you catch them make the movie much better. This is a good movie for kids. It has enough in it to keep adults content and enough in it to entertain kids. This one is definitely worth renting if you have kids and want to watch a movie with them.
|
positive
|
After you've seen this small likable and comical film, you will for sure feel better. Cheer to Yves B. Pelletier to have given birth to this small magnificent movie moment, that according to me, will be recognized as a marking movie of year 2004 for the Quebec. The actors Isabelle Blais, Emmanuel Bilodeau, Sylvie Moreau and Stéphane Gagnon all deliver a touching performance. I would compare the feeling that this wonderful story gives you to the ones that Le Fabuleux Destin d'Amélie Poulain have given me. So if you've like the Jean-Pierre Jeunet magnificent film, I would say that you should also like the first movie from Yves B. Pelletier, Les Aimants
|
positive
|
Someone told me that this was one of the best adult movies to date. I have since discredited everything told to me by this individual after seeing this movie. It's just terrible. Without going into lengthy descriptions of the various scenes, take my word for it, the sex scenes are uninteresting at best. Jenna in normal street clothes in the beginning was the highlight of the film (she does look good) but it's all downhill from there.
|
negative
|
Wish it would be released, as I would love to see the finished product! We saw the unfinished version before it came out. Loved all the characters and actors. Anyone know if it is out on video yet? Would love to see it again.Definitely worth renting if it's not going to be shown in the theatre. I had a hard time finding it because they renamed it.
|
positive
|
'Soapdish' is one of the best, yet least well remembered comedies of the 1990's. The film revolves around the various off-camera drama's that occur behind the scenes of a cheaply produced Daytime Soap Opera. The first of the film's various impressive strengths is it's fantastic A-List cast. 'Soapdish' features some of the greatest actors and actresses of it's era.<br /><br />The film is superbly led by Sally Field, as the neurotic ageing actress Celeste Talbert (She famously throws a tantrum when put in a costume that makes her look like "Gloria F*CKING Swanson!"). Her supporting cast reads like a who's-who of 90's Movie Greats! Whoopi Goldberg, Robert Downey Jr, Teri Hatcher, Kevin Kline and Kathy Najimy all elevate the film greatly. Goldberg is predictably excellent, whilst Downey Jr.'s and Hatcher's performances hint at the comedic excellence they would later achieve.<br /><br />In terms of writing, the film is outstanding. There is a really modern edge to the script, which strays into the wonderfully bizarre on several occasions. There also several visual gags that are quite ahead of their time. In some ways, the film is reminiscent of Mel Brooks at his best and frequently reminded this reviewer of 'High Anxiety' (1977). Much of the film's humour hinges on it's often scathing, but pretty accurate, representations of daytime television and of neurotic and pretentious actors. For example, The extras casting session featuring the exploitative executive played by Carrie Fisher, is both hilarious and honest.<br /><br />'Soapdish' is, for my money, one of the very best comedies Hollywood produced during the 1990's. It's excellent script and A-Class cast make it a must-see. It's hard not to love this film after it's kept you laughing for 90 minutes.
|
positive
|
I was p***ed when I couldn't see this one when it was screening at the Philly Film Fest last year, so when I saw that it was going to be on cable tonight, I put it on remind as soon as I could. So was it worth the wait? Well let's backtrack a tad as I have yet to give you the plot. Sean Crawley is a young man who doesn't know what his path in life is. Enter Duke (George Wendt) who introduces him to his boss Ray (Danny Baldwin). One night Ray totally hammered asks Sean to off the guy that they had Sean following around. And it goes on from there. Which leads me back to the question posed. Was it worth the wait? Yes and no, the buildup was pretty good and George Wendt stole the movie for me. He just took the ball and ran with it. But it's nowhere near as violent as I was led to believe and somewhere along the movies running time the ball is not only dropped, but fumbled and taken in the other direction. I know where this point happened exactly, but can't say without spoiling the film. But needless to say it happened. The ending doesn't save the film either. Poor Stuart Gordon nothing can be good like "Re-animator" or "Castle Freak".<br /><br />My Grade: C<br /><br />Where I saw it: Showtime Extreme<br /><br />Eye Candy: Kari Wuhrer shows her ta-tas in one fantasy and then in the next more ta-tas and it pans down and...OH MY GOD MY EYES MY EYES!!!!!
|
negative
|
Making a film for under 1 Million might be a triumph for a line producer or an accountant but doesn't do anything for the audience. The balance sheet might have been pretty but the viewing experience was poor.<br /><br />What will be a triumph for Irish Cinema is when people realise that production values and the script can't be sacrificed.<br /><br />I don't understand why people expend the energy it takes to put a film together when the production quality is worse than a low grade TV show.<br /><br />The deficiencies of the plot have been mentioned in another review on this site and I totally agree with what was written. What I would add is that the film skimmed the surface of several genres without ever settling in one of them. The film would have benefited from either going the direction of a straight out comedy or social/political commentary.<br /><br />My overall impression was that the film was rushed, thematically under developed and visually not up to standard. On a positive note the performances and music were very good.
|
negative
|
The thing with Ali G is that he takes the mick out of himself and his character. <br /><br />The humour is very much a 'like it or love it' brand of totally politically incorrect, irreverent and self effacing type.<br /><br />Personally I totally love this film, and so has everyone i have met who has seen it. You can watch it several times and pick new gags up each time. The humour is both aural and visual, and the timing is impeccable. The humour is probably very English, and specifically London, so its possible that non-English viewers may not get some of the humour. Think of yourself as a teenager and you will love it - especially if the likes of Kevin & Perry Go Large tickled you!
|
positive
|
Beware, My Lovely (1952) Dir: Harry Horner <br /><br />Production: The Filmmakers/RKO Radio Pictures<br /><br />Credulity-straining thriller from the pioneering producer team of Collier Young and Ida Lupino, aka The Filmmakers (with Lupino pitching in with some uncredited direction). <br /><br />Robert Ryan is the 'peril' and Ida Lupino is the 'woman' in this entry in the 'woman in peril' style film. Ryan plays Howard Wilton, a tightly-wound psychotic handyman drifter (noooo, Ryan? I know, hard to believe). Lupino is the lonely war widow, Helen Gordon, who hires Howard to do some work around her house. Things go downhill from there as Howard makes Helen a prisoner in her own home. <br /><br />Howard has a nasty secret, not that he could reveal it. You see, consciousness is a real challenge for him. Maintaining it, that is. He has an unfortunate habit of coming to and finding his employers dead. This is part of the film's problem. The nature of Howard's psychosis is so extreme that it is nearly impossible to believe that he's been free to roam from town to town unobstructed, even in the year 1918 (when the film is set). He can't remember anything that happened ten minutes ago. His violent, threatening, anti-social tendencies are set off by the smallest and most common of things (a young girl flirting, inadequacies involving the war, due to his being rejected for service). I don't know how he even made it past the interview with Helen. There are other implausibilities. If you were locked in your house with a madman, but nonetheless left on your own for periods of time, couldn't you figure out a way to escape? <br /><br />Ryan, I think, is defeated by the material. It feels like he's overplaying his hand. His series of tics and spasms and the tightly coiled bursts of dementia all have a been-there, done-that robotic feel to them. At this point in his career he'd probably played this character, to some degree, ten times and it shows. We are encouraged to empathize with Howard (I didn't) through shown bits of humanity, like him being stopped in his tracks by a music box and his relating to a group of children who won't judge him. Lupino just has to act frazzled and in distress, which she is more than capable of and does. <br /><br />The picture had one thing going for it; what would be the eventual resolution of the conflict? So naturally there was a disappointing ending that was abrupt and ineffective. <br /><br />Of slight interest was a recurring motif where the camera would catch Howard's reflection (in mirrors, water, Christmas tree decorations). This indicated something going on, or about to go on, in his head. Horner (1953's Vicki), who made his reputation in production design, does a fine job of making the house feel like a prison. Credit too, the always reliable RKO art department for the work on the house. In the end, sub-standard work from the principals, who all have much better films to their credit. <br /><br />*½ out of 4
|
negative
|
at a Saturday matinee in my home town. I went with an older friend (he was about 12) and my mom let me go because she thought the film would be OK (it's rated G). I was assaulted by loud music, STRANGE images, no plot and a stubborn refusal to make ANY sense. We left halfway through because we were bored, frustrated and our ears hurt. <br /><br />I saw it 22 years later in a revival theatre. My opinion had changed--it's even WORSE! Basically everything I hated about it was still there and the film was VERY 60s...and has dated badly. I got all the little in-jokes...too bad they weren't funny. The constant shifts in tone got quickly annoying and there's absolutely nothing to get a firm grip on. Some people will love this. I found it frustrating...by the end of the film I felt like throwing something heavy at the screen.<br /><br />Also, all the Monkees songs in this movie SUCK (and I DO like them).<br /><br />For ex-hippies only...or if you're stoned. I give this a 1.
|
negative
|
Blank Check is a movie that I saw on TV one day and like most movies they air on TV Blank Check wasn't that good. First of all no one I have ever met has seen Blank Check and that includes people that grew up in the 90s. Also Blank Check won't be remembered in the 00s either simply due to the fact that it will be overshadowed by pixar's films. I wouldn't call Blank Check a bad film but its not really entertaining either. (Or at least it isn't to anyone over the age of 6) Blank Check isn't a entertaining film because nothing about it is original. Everything just makes you go "what haven't I seen this before?" Blank Check rips off and tries to cash in on everything from Richie Rich to Home Alone (Which strangely enough both have Macaulay Culkin in it) Blank Check isn't a bad movie, but it deserves to fade into obscurity.
|
negative
|
I was living in Barstow Ca. in 1968 when the movie The Killers Three arrived at the local theater. The trailer was enough to get me to pay my hard earned money to see this movie. I was really expecting a Bonnie And Clyde movie and I got Dick Clark playing a shy nerdy guy while Robert Walker and Diane Varsi played an poor attempt of reinacting Bonnie and Clyde. Needless to say it never went over well. Maybe this is why it never made it to video. Even as a kid I was left some what ripped off as I left the theater. After all the best parts where in the trailer of the movie. The movie was dull and pretty much pointless. By the way, Dick Clark gets killed so it wasn't a total let down.
|
negative
|
I went to see this movie mostly because it looked so good in the trailers. Robin Williams and Barry Levinson should equal greatness. Instead it just continues Williams' bad streak of movies lately. What's wrong with the movie? More like what's right: the ensemble crew does a pretty good job around Robin, and like usual, Christopher Walken is fantastic. That being said, this movie just plain wasn't good. I really only recommend seeing it if you want to see what it would be like if Jon Stewart ran for president and won. Saying he won isn't a spoiler, since it was in the trailer. The concept and idea is really amusing, but that's all. Most of Robin's jokes are just recycled from old comedy bits of his, and there are very few laugh out loud moments, and most are just dumb. Like most comedies that turn out to suck, all of the funny bits are put into the trailer. Really no surprises there, but come on! Some of the movie reads like a Tom Clancy or Vince Flynn novel! People were expecting this to be Robin's return to greatness. Instead, it's more a Flubber.
|
negative
|
be warned: this movie tells lots of love stories without any coherence.<br /><br />The only intention of this movie seems to be showing love in many different ways.<br /><br />Each story has only a few minutes, so there is no development of characters and nearly no plot. Just an sketchy idea of a plot. The writer tried to build in turning points that aimed to surprise the viewer. However, that just didn't work out because you didn't get to know the characters in before or these "jokes" were just silly.<br /><br />This is a movie about love that fails to reach your heart. A dozen times. Or even more, I don't know and I don't care.
|
negative
|
Sometimes the Academy doesn't recognize the potential of some films, or doesn't nominate them because they are controversial or strong. Sometimes they are nominated, but don't win anything (I hope this doesn't happen this year with "American Beauty"). This is exactly what happened with "Boogie Nights", which was the best film of 1997. The Academy preferred to give the best picture Oscar to "Titanic", a purely commercial and hollow film, and other awards to the overrated "Good Will Hunting" and the irritating "Full Monty". The other pictures which were nominated in the main category were "L.A. Confidential" and "As Good as it Gets", great movies, but "Boogie Nights" is still better and should have been remembered in more categories.<br /><br />This amazing film tells the story of Eddie Adams (Mark Wahlberg, in a surprisingly great performance), a 17 year old barman who takes the attention of Jack Horner (Burt Reynolds, in a redeeming acting), a director of porn films. Eddie has a special 'gift', and this helps him to get into the world of porn movies. He changes his name for Dirk Diggler and starts to make a huge success. But fame... doesn't last forever. Other characters also have their parallel stories- Amber Waves (Julianne Moore, perfect), Buck (Don Cheadle) and others, including Rollergirl (Heather Graham), an actress who accepts to do anything, but she has to be wearing her roller shoes.<br /><br />What could have been a banal, trivial film, turns into a perfect, memorable one in the hands of Paul Thomas Anderson. What makes "Boogie Nights" such a great film is its execution, added to a clever, well written screenplay, great soundtrack, etc. Each character is very well developed, and each of them has his/her importance in the context. Each feeling, weakness, fear, emotion is explored, resulting in a masterpiece of the modern American cinema.<br /><br />"Boogie Nights" is a strong, impacting picture that should be seen by everyone who really likes cinema. Under a plot that seems banal at first impression, there is a wonderful story of highs and downs, things that we face in our lives. It is an amazing portrait of the end of the '70s and the beginning of the '80s, exactly an age of highs and downs. That's what makes this film so special and a true masterpiece. <br /><br />10/10
|
positive
|
One of the silliest movies of the 1940s, an unbearable haunted house comedy with music starring Kay Kyser. Kyer, orchestra leader and radio-star (and eternal college fraternity goof-off), was sort of the precursor to Spike Jones, hamming it up for his guests and backed up willingly by his merry troupe of musicians. He's hired to play a birthday party in a gloomy mansion, the kind where poison darts imported from Africa are framed and hung on the wall. The shindig is beset with a creepy judge, a scary professor, an ominous swami, lots of giggly females, and enough bad jokes to fill three Bob Hope pictures. The songs (by Jimmy McHugh and Johnny Mercer) are nothing to brag out, and neither is over-confident Kyser, yukking it up with elbow-in-the-ribs material that turns 1940 back ten years. * from ****
|
negative
|
With 'Twelve Monkeys' you need to pay attention, but if you do that you probably find a lot to appreciate. I know I did. The story is interesting and deals with time traveling. A virus killed a lot of people back in 1997 and a guy named Cole (Bruce Willis) is send back to 1990 and 1996 to find a cure for the virus. In 1990 he is arrested and put in a mental hospital. There he meets Jeffrey Goines (Brad Pitt), who probably has something to do with the virus. He also meets psychiatrist Dr. Kathryn Railly (Madeleine Stowe) who doesn't believe him in 1990. When Cole disappears from the mental hospital while he is chained and locked in a room and re-appears in 1996 Kathryn starts believing Cole's stories.<br /><br />The movie constantly plays with time. Cole makes a phone call and leaves a message in 1996, it is picked up in the future and "they" send someone. For Cole that someone appears only seconds after the phone call. Things like this happen throughout the movie and therefore you must keep attention. You could ask some questions but since you can't have an answer yourself it is better to agree with the movie.<br /><br />'Twelve Monkeys' works as sci-fi, with some great images and a dark atmosphere, and it works as a thriller. You are never certain of what will happen next and that helps the movie. May be it has some flaws in the story, but since it is about a fictional thing like time traveling, you should accept what the movie tells us and just try to enjoy. That was the easy part for me.
|
positive
|
This was what black society was like before the crack epidemics, gangsta rap, and AIDS that beset the ghettos in the eighties. Decent, hardworking families that struggled to get by and all the traumas and tribulations they faced. Black America was a different group of people in the seventies. Still full of hope and flying high on the civil rights movements of the sixties, times were hard but still worth fighting for. Keepin' your head above water, making a wave when you can, this show showed how black society struggled to work together as people and families, before they started to prey on each other and everyone else in order to survive the horrors of the ghettos. It is heart-breaking to see what the black ghettos were like then and what they have become now.
|
positive
|
This movie is difficult to watch in our fast-paced culture of the 21st century, but it is worth it for the messages that it conveys, chiefly the consequences and ramifications of technology upon society, specifically when that technology is used for warfare.<br /><br />This movie presents a full circle cycle of dehumanization and rehumanization as influenced by the advent of technology and the subsequent deconstruction of civilization and therefore serves as a cautionary tale against the misuse of technology, but as the circle completes itself, familiar themes and sentiments pop up again to present self-serving rather than self-destructive ways that humanity may utilize technology.<br /><br />Brilliant for it's time, the picture and sound quality may pose a challenge for some, but as a landmark in the history, development, and evolution of the sci-fi genre, it is a must. In the end, free will and free choice are once again posed to humanity as a means for controlling our own destiny rather than having it served to us by someone else or indeed, the state of<br /><br />society itself, as shaped by world events.<br /><br />Those who are downtrodden by what life throws their way sometimes tend to remain so, but yet there is always a glimmer of hope and continuity that remains, as this film posits.<br /><br />As far as qualifying as sci-fi, one of the biggest common demoninators of that genre is it's speculative nature. It asks us the questions, what if these events happened this way, and what effect would it have on society or the individuals within it? How would we react?<br /><br />As far as influence, this film projects those speculative sciences that make sci-fi as unique as it is and keeps us asking those important questions.
|
positive
|
A notorious big budget flop when released. This Robert Altman inspired comedy has some terrific moments and an occasionally inspired cast. Although it goes on to long an loses its focus completely, there are enough funny moments that will keep a curious viewer watching until the end. If you are a fan of character actors and actresses, this will be a treat for you; you will recognize so many terrific little known performers throughout this movie (you may not know their names, but you know their faces), heck even the kid from A Christmas Story turns up in a small part. Rent if from Netflix, if you read this, I bet you will enjoy it.
|
positive
|
To me there is something so appealing and nostalgic about low-budget sci-fi. As a kid in the 50s thats all there was. In 1957 I saw "The First Man Into Space" in a movie theater with my Dad. It had Marshall Thompson starring and some other poor slob who got the title role. It is also about a space mission gone bad where the astronaut turns into a grizzly killer. Scared the Good & Plenty right out of me. The memory of those heebie-jeebies still lives within me. The Incredible Melting Man is almost a re-make only in full glorious color...that is wherever the scenes were well-lit. Just gotta love it for what it is......a little over an hour of darkly lit scenes, disgusting noises, and that eerie music. Bravo !
|
positive
|
This is possibly the worst version of the play I have seen - several times on stage apart from the movie.<br /><br />A very nice idea for the set up - the American South can give a credible backdrop for the extreme reaction round Hero's supposed misdemeanour.<br /><br />But the execution! Widdoes is a very mannered Beatrice giving a particularly poor performance. Waterston, a fine actor, is not much better as Benedict.<br /><br />The poorest performance is in the role of Don John - it makes Keanu Reeves look good. Perhaps the desire to make it a caricature along the lines of the villain who ties the maiden to the train track fits with the keystone kops capers of Dogberry and his men - but the acting makes you want to cringe.<br /><br />Successful set-ups include the scene where they fool Benedict into believing Beatrice loves him - were the acting competent it would be superb. But the use of the river and the visual humour of Benedict moving closer is well produced.<br /><br />Overall I had to force myself to keep watching but it certainly didn't keep my attention.<br /><br />Very disappointing.<br /><br />With respect to latter comments above I am nearly 40. I've been watching stage and screen productions of Shakespeare for over 2 decades. Might I suggest when trying to defend your friends you speak to the piece rather than attack other reviewers when you are so inadequately armed in terms of fact. I can assume though, from your distaste regarding youth, that you are of sufficient age where the mannered acting of bygone days is more to your taste.<br /><br />My personal favourite pairing was Rylance and McTeer on the London stage. Unlike Widdoes, McTeer, a skilled and charismatic performer, can act.
|
negative
|
Whether you're a fan of the series which inspired it or not, there's no denying this is a patchy piece of work. But in the best possible sense. Keen to get away from the trappings of old sitcoms which made an uneasy transition to the big screen, Messrs Pemberton, Dyson, Shearmsith and Gatiss have gone down a different road, addressing the problems of dealing with their success along with adding other creations and, inevitably, rehashing some of their best-loved characters. It's a pity they didn't stick to just a more consistent League of Gents movie because as inventive as including themselves in the screenplay is, it weakens the finished movie. Well worth renting though.
|
positive
|
Um... Okay, I guess I get the whole shaky-cam, gorilla-style filming technique but unfortunately I think a gorilla could have made a better movie... This thing was just a complete mess from the get go. Bad acting, bad directing, bad story and horrific cinematography. How this piece of garbage was released I will never know, but it has and unfortunately I watched it. Filmed on location in Tennessee by the directing team of Greg Swinson and Ryan Thiessen (Harry and Lloyd), "Five Across The Eyes" I'm assuming is supposed to resemble a "Blair Witch" type film but falls short... Okay it nose dives off a cliff. I was actually embarrassed for these young women, whom I'm sure were promised Hollywood stardom, but ended up in this dung heap. The dialog is ridiculous, and actually aggravates you as you listen to it. How this is supposed to be a horror flick is another mystery, as there is nothing even remotely scary about it, except for the fact that I watched it... Try this one on for size: There is 5 of you and 1 of her, do the math and beat her ass... "The End". Saddly it went on (and on) for 95 more minutes of mind-numbing stupidity...<br /><br />I saw it for free, and wanted my money back.
|
negative
|
Code 46 is one of those scifi movies where the government controls who you are allowed to love, and in fact will punish you if you try to procreate with the wrong person. The haves and the have-nots live in completely separate territories, the powers that be can remove your memories, etc. We've seen this stuff before, but that's OK- no movie is 100% original. This kind of premise is always fun to contemplate. Unfortunately, just imagining such a future is more interesting than actually watching Code 46. The characters are boring and rarely say anything interesting. Maybe that's commentary on a dehumanized future, but it's still dull to watch. It's sloooow.<br /><br />At times the imagery is nice, but usually (coupled with its "evocative" soundtrack) just looks like a glorified perfume commercial. Code 46 also sometimes uses the kind of television camera-work that I find annoying. You know, two characters talk as the camera artlessly "floats" on one side. Two seconds later it's floating on the other side of them in a vain attempt to keep your attention.<br /><br />My friends liked this movie. If they tried to get me to watch it again, I probably would not do so unless they agreed to pay me $50.
|
negative
|
This is a truly hilarious film and one that I have seen many times. Drew Barrymore is brilliant as Josie Geller, as is David Arquette as her brother. You cringe with embarrassment at the thought of her returning to high school as the film is a reminder of what high school was really like! Her outfits are wacky and weird, and it brings back memories of those who dressed a bit differently! The gorgeous Michael Vartan was adorable as the teacher (wish there had been teachers like that when I was at high school!) and Josie's boss is fantastic. This is a film you could watch again and again, with a fabulous sound track! One for all those at school in the 90's to watch!
|
positive
|
I lasted almost ninety minutes through this dreadful movie waiting for some revelation about dance or spirit or inspiration or something and gave up! What possessed the filmmakers to do this? This is an old woman of limited talent who is obsessed with herself and nothing else. To fill in a story without a point we get some stuff about the other folks in her thrall, her aid to burros, and, of course, her ten cats! Do not see this film. And have nothing more to do with anybody who loved it - they do not have a clue. There are fascinating people in this world with wonderful stories to tell and insights to share - but Marta Becket is not one of them. The people I took to this movie say they have forgiven me - but that they will never, ever stop kidding me about it.
|
negative
|
This is probably the best of all of the Star Wars movies. <br /><br />The starting point of the movie was almost like Episode IV--spacey cabaret music and thoughts of a cabaret place, where the seriousness of mobster Jabba the Hutt was getting even more serious. He ordered Luke to die in a basement pit by the bone-crushing teeth of Bantha, who looked almost like a cross between a bear and a shark. Luke's Jedi powers eventually finish the monster off. Adding to the sneaky rescue of Han Solo, who was frozen alive at the end of Episode V, Jabba was very angry about this that Luke was sentenced to die at the Sarlacc pit outside.<br /><br />But all of the Star Wars "good guys", especially R2-D2, had other ideas...and those other ideas fended off Luke's execution; in the end, most of Jabba's soldiers died and Princess Leia was able to use the force to fatally choke Jabba to death.<br /><br />Like in Episode IV, the Death Star in Episode VI makes its appearance. As I analyzed the rebel fleet attacking the Imperial fighters around the Death Star, the Star Destroyer personnel, I guessed, sped up the arming of the main laser, using the Imperial fighters as a diversion. The 20-25 Star Destroyers that lined up were ready to attack but was called off and instead the laser weapon on the Death Star was fired in surprise. Once it fired, the rebel fleet's only hope was that the Death Star's deflector shield was going to be knocked out, and this affected Lando so much because he wanted to destroy the Death Star but he couldn't until the shield was taken out. And it was taken out with Lando's increasing impatience.<br /><br />Like in Episode V, the Imperial Walkers make their menacing appearance with their twin cannons, killing at least one of the Ewoks...but the Ewoks found ancient yet unusual way to deal with them. For instance, Chewbacca, as well as another Ewok, was able to commandeer one of the walkers (and actually used that to destroy from behind one of the walkers), and the other Ewoks used logs to knock out two other walkers.<br /><br />It is amazing what Luke could do with his Jedi powers on his Light Sabre, like, for instance, the scene on Endor where Luke deflects incoming laser shots from a Storm Trooper speeder bike, and using the Sabre to knock out part of the bike. Or, in a climax, using the Sabre to break off his own father's arm during the final Sabre fight with Sith Vader.<br /><br />You probably know the Ewoks celebration after the Death Star was blown, complete with a short display of fireworks, drumming on the spoils of victory (e.g., Storm Trooper Masks), and Luke finally meeting up with Leia after Luke's own nemesis---Darth Vader, now dead, is burned on a pyre. The celebration include Ewoks singing but I think Lucas did not buy that--even with the strong respect of film composer John Williams.<br /><br />On the home movie version, I think Lucas himself wanted a different ending. In addition to the celebration on Endor, he wanted shots of celebratory scenes on the several surviving rebel planets, including a celebratory laser shot that destroys the statue of the Sith. The Ewoks song was replaced by an alternative instrumental piece. He probably wanted the extra stuff to prove that with the Death Star's destruction, balance had been restored to the rebel galaxies.
|
positive
|
I don't really know why so many persons love this movie: maybe it's funny, OK, but it has totally ruined one of the best novels ever written. As the author himself said, this movie has betrayed the book: not only the story is violently cut to about 1/3, but all the symbols, all the complexity, everything is lost in a very 80's-fashioned fantasy/adventure film for kids. Today we have effects, directors, a new attention to books: I hope that someone (Tim Burton, Peter Jackson, Hayao Miyazaki...) someday will direct the REAL Neverending story. A great dead writer, a wonderful book and many literature lovers deserve it.
|
negative
|
FLAVIA THE HERETIC is a strange entry in the nunsploit genre - equal parts sleaze, feministic journey, and "history" as we follow Flavia on her strange trip.<br /><br />We start off with Flavia in a convent...she ain't too happy there cuz she doesn't believe in all the male-dominated "rules" and macho-ism of the world around her and escapes from the convent with her Jewish pal, Abraham. They are both eventually caught and Flavia is brought back to the convent where she joins another "non-believing" nun in hastening a Moslem invasion. Flavia hangs out with the Moslems who take over the convent and get "busy" with the nuns in a strange set of scenes. Eventually the Moslems roll-out and Flavia is punished as a traitor to Christianity in another singularly brutal scene...<br /><br />This one has pretty much all the stuff that I like to see in a 70's era exploit film - some good gore, including nipple-removal, and a nice leg-skinning scene, some decent nudity - including the requisite full-frontal, and a decent storyline as well. I will say that it sorta dragged in a few points, but not enough to get truly bored with it. I would definitely recommend this one to nunsploit/70's exploit fans...8/10
|
positive
|
"Foxes" is one movie I remember for it's portrayal of teenagers in the late 1970's. As I am exactly Jodie Foster's age, I related to this movie. It deals with the frustrations, temptations, relationships & rebellion of youth. The soundtrack is great with inspiring rock eg. "More Than a Feeling" by Boston and sad numbers like "On the Radio" by Donna Summer. The music of my late teens. Yep, I'll always remember this one, even if it wasn't huge.
|
positive
|
At the end of this episode Holmes asks Watson not to record the case for posterity.For a good reason! The super sleuth left his little grey cells(sorry Agatha)at home for this tale. There is no deductive reasoning,no acute analysis of signs at crime scenes. Holmes bumbles along fifty yards behind the plot. The dastardly CAM is finally dealt to by an old frail-in a manner that would have made Charles Bronson's heart swell with pride-six bullets in the breadbasket.In an ensuing chase a pursuer gets hold of one of Watson's shoes.Mercifully the writer didn't decide to tack on the story of Cinderella to lengthen the film.The murderess,Holmes and Watson,escape scot free. Oh well,it is a bit of a change of pace in late Victorian London.A bit of sixgun law:-)
|
negative
|
i came across this film on the net by fluke and i was horrified by its content of vivid abuse violence and torture scenes. it was a relief to know it was not real after reading the comments. what dangerously sick animals of a person make something like this and for what purpose goes beyond belief. i was even more shocked to see people appraising the film in the comments section of this site. this is a extremely disturbing film indeed which could change your life forever. the people behind this should be bought to justice asap. today they shown a girl getting raped and butchered on screen tomorrow it could be a child. even its fake or not its very very deathly disturbing,nauseating indeed.
|
negative
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.