review
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| sentiment
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
This is another of those rare movies one feels grateful to be introduced to instead of the usual Hollywood tripe. It really is a roller coaster ride, as we follow the effects of a a forged 500 Euro note on a multitude of people. One asks 'what if' all the time but it certainly is a butterfly effect captured on film. It'll have you laughing, crying and biting your lip. I loved every minute of it! And thank you SBS Australia for showing films that are truly entertaining, even worth the effort to read the subtitles. The only downside to my mind is that I wont be booking a holiday to the Frozen Land - they all seem to be far too depressed - must be all that cold weather. Either way, watch it - it's worth every second.
|
positive
|
Just a short comment! I want to say that I like this movie very much! Sandra Bullock is my favourite actress. I like the whole story, from the beginning until the end! I have it on tape and I can watch it a 100 times, it doesn't matter!!!
|
positive
|
I just blew four dollars renting this movie! Why Alliance Atlantis would promote such a poor excuse for a film is beyond me. But even more surprising was the reasonably good reviews that a couple of Canadian newspaper critics gave this film. I'm tired of our media justifying a film simply because it's Canadian and low budget. It's like they expect Canadian films to be lousy, so they give it a good review regardless.<br /><br />Now about the movie: The acting was below average (with the exception of the lead male character, who was actually pretty good). The film quality was poor, which I guess could be expected from the extremely low budget. The script was absolutely horrendous. An example is the story, which revolves around one of the lead characters, a female drug dealer who flirts with one of her clients so that she can recruit him to fix and steal bicycles for her gang, whose only purpose is to randomly destroy SUV's. Supposedly many of her gang members' bicycles are destroyed in these activities (I don't know how she can't afford to just buy new ones, since she is supposed to be this big drug dealing connection from Vancouver to Toronto).<br /><br />Anyway, the point of the story (which isn't revealed until well over halfway through the movie) is that the drug dealer plans to firebomb buildings in the Toronto area to attempt to make houses more affordable - as no one will want to live in the area.<br /><br />- Need I say more.<br /><br />Shame on the Toronto Film Festival for accepting such a film, Telefilm for supporting it, and the Globe and Mail and Georgia Straight newspapers for giving such biased reviews.<br /><br />A film shouldn't get special treatment just because it's Canadian!!!!
|
negative
|
I liked this movie. I saw it to a packed house at the Toronto International Film Festival the day after the gala opener which must have gone over well. The director, Gavin Hood was supposed to be present for today's screening, but alas his twins were born just hours before, so he had to jet on a flight back. '2 birthings in 24 hours' was how he joked about it.<br /><br />Rendition refers to 'extraordinary rendition' -- a term whereby suspected terrorists in the US can be sent, without the legal consent of their parents nations, to prisons abroad to be questioned and detained.<br /><br />It's fairly predictable -- innocent Egyptian-American man wrongly accused of being a terrorist 'goes missing' while en route from South Africa to Washingon DC. He is sent abroad, while wife at home (Reese Witherspoon) fights to find him and free him. But what makes this movie special are some nice choices in story-telling: 1) a human-touch story of what is going on in the locale where a suicide bomb-detonated; 2) the humanity of a CIA agent trying to understand and be honest with what is really going on; and 3) the chronology of story-telling which makes it a tight, taut tale that moves and jerks at the right moments. Ah -- relief! And a mix of emotions that swirl around as the story fights for an ending.<br /><br />All-around strong acting with Meryl Streep as a standout vixen.
|
positive
|
Yes, this movie make me feel real horror, when i realized that i paid for it and spent more than 1 hour of my life trying to watch it. The bald guy just give me the impression of being a psycho - Junkie actor and the girl is the worst actress i ever seen . Believe me if you appreciate your time avoid this movie, i understand a movie requires money to be created and some movies do not have that money but that is no justification for a stupid plot and bad acting. I'm always supporting independent movies, when it deserves the support, but movies like this makes a bad name for this kind of movies. I'm still traumatized. I will not trust in any nice cover anymore.
|
negative
|
WOW! Why would anybody make a sequel to an already rancid film? Half Past Dead was a bad movie but at least at had an idea of what it wanted to be. HPD2 has no clue of what it wants to be. It just exists on screen for reasons I cant explain. Spoiler: The whole movie is this: Twitch(played by Kurupt of Tha Dogg Pound) gets transferred to another jail where there might be a box filled with gold bricks buried. In the jail, a riot breaks out between rival inmates, one of them gets shot by a guy named Cortez and Cortez plans his escape. During a conjugal visit, Twitch's fiancée and Burke's(played by Bill Goldberg)daughter get kidnapped by Cortez and are held in an execution room. Burke reluctantly befriends Twitch and they end up getting into trouble with the idiotic inmates while finding out that Cortez has their loved ones.<br /><br />Opinion: This is the most unnecessary sequel since Universal Soldier: The Return. The script is terrible, the acting is horrendous, the dialog is a joke and everybody in this movie is a caricature. Look, I know it was low budget film but that is not an excuse for these guys to not put effort into what they do. Nobody in this "movie" believes in the characters they play. Nobody in this "movie can be taken seriously as an actor. Kurupt should be ashamed of himself. His character "Twitch" is pretty much a spineless minstrel puppet who spends most of his time posing while getting jacked up by Burke or the other inmates. Bill Goldberg spends most of his time sulking throughout the movie as if he had to take a PHD(pretty huge dump). The fight scenes are poorly choreographed and pathetic and for an action movie HPD2 is pretty boring even when action is happening! Don't let anybody tell you that this movie is somewhat decent. It stinks and is a prime reason why people despise Follywood.
|
negative
|
"Stripperella" is an animated series about a girl named Erotica Jones (voiced by Pamela Anderson) who lives a double life as a stripper at a gentleman's club known as "The Tender Loins" and as a sexy crime-fighter known as Stripperella, a.k.a. Agent 69 who works for a government organization. As Stripperella, Erotica fights crime and the forces of evil such as a plastic surgeon who gives women breast implants that either explode or make them fat and Cheapo, a criminal who steals from 99 cent stores and makes his two henchmen share a gun. The creator of the character and the series is Stan Lee of Marvel fame (and creator of Spider-Man).<br /><br />Back in late June of 2003, Spike TV (then known as The New TNN) premiered a Thursday night block of three animated shows. Those shows were "Ren & Stimpy: Adult Party Cartoon"; new adventures of classic kids show characters Ren and Stimpy for adults done by original creator John Kricfalusi, "Gary the Rat"; about a lawyer who is turned into a human sized rat starring Kelsee Grammar of "Cheers" and "Fraiser" fame, and "Stripperella"; the adventures of a stripper who doubles as a superhero voiced by Pamela Anderson and created by Stan Lee. I remember seeing all three of the premiers. I was anxious to see Ren and Stimpy as I love the original show. I was a little let down. It was alright but it seemed to take things a little too far; seeing the two have gay sex together was a bit much. Though Gary the Rat wasn't bad, the best of the three was easily Stripperella. The animation was really good, it had an awesome intro song, it had some good talent behind it, and it was funny as hell! The show was just so silly, I don't even know how to begin explaining it! After four of five weeks (if not a little less) the animation block disappeared, which was weird because I know it got good ratings and it was advertised everywhere. I was disappointed to see Stripperella go but several months later I found out about new episodes that aired at like 1:00 AM. I only got to see one and though it was funny as hell and I was glad to see the show back after all that time, something seemed a bit off....<br /><br />In the beginning of it's short run, "Stripperella" had great animation. It was dark, moody, realistic, and somewhat sexy too. The Stripperella costumed looked good too, the character was drawn well. After the long hiatus and during the rest of the episodes, the animation was very different. Instead of dark and realistic look it originally had everything was now really colorful and cartoonish. Stripperella received the biggest changes though. Before she had normal long hair, now she had hair bigger than Peggy Bundy's (Married with Children) if even possible. Also, the eye mask actually shows her eyes now; before it was just white you saw which was cool since it was more superheroish. Also, the upper part of her costume was kind of a vest-type thing with a collar and her costume was dark blue; that changed to her costume being a bluish-violet color and her upper costume being really crappy looking in comparison. In short, the show was a cartoon and very over the top silly beforehand, but the second-half it became more cartoonish looking and though still laugh-out-loud hilarious, it became more zany as well; for example, there was a later episode about a were-beaver...yes, a were-beaver. <br /><br />Anyway, instead of complaining about the mid-series changes, "Stripperella" only ran one season but it was a very good show. Like the Tales from the Crypt film "Bordello of Blood", it may be really campy but it's really fun. As long as your not a prude you'll find yourself laughing repeatedly at this show. I haven't seen every episode because I haven't got the DVD yet for two reasons: #1. Paramount released and they have this screwed up policy about not including any extras on nearly all released TV shows, even though this was the entire show (I would have liked to see some commentary's maby explaining the animation change and interviews with Pamela Anderson and Stan Lee) and #2. the awesome Kid Rock song during the opening was replaced. Now I'm not a fan of his, but that intro sang WAS the theme for the show! If your not going to pay to have any extras at least pay to have the original intro song you jack-asses. The show also had a few interesting guest stars such as John Lovitz as Cheapo and Mark Hamil as the plastic surgion who hates models. Also Tom Kenny (SpongeBob) was on the show as the owner of the strip club in most every episode. Stan Lee has a cameo in one episode too.<br /><br />The Breakdown: <br /><br />PROS: Had a great look to it at first, FUNNY AS HELL, a very fun show, great voice talent for the most part, Chief Strogenoff (watch the show and see some of the stuff he does), and was easily the best of the three animated shows mentioned earlier.<br /><br />CONS: The mid-series animation change and the crappy DVD described earlier. Aside from the fact that some of the humor could be kind of dumb at times I have nothing really negative to say about this.<br /><br />OVERALL: Stripperella is a huge guilty pleasure of mine and it's a shame it only ran one season. It was a very funny, sexy, actioned packed cult series that I hope to see air on Adult Swim someday with the original intro intact and possibly give it another season like Family Guy. Check it out even if it is on the lousy DVD. You will laugh yourself silly.<br /><br />Rated TV-MA: Crude and Sexual Humor and Nudity, Runtime: About 25 minutes per episode, Score: 9/10
|
positive
|
The crew of an American submarine discover it's HELL BELOW while fighting in the Adriatic in 1918.<br /><br />Although nearly forgotten, this excellent war film still delivers solid entertainment, thanks to a literate script, superior performances and highly believable action scenes.<br /><br />Robert Montgomery & Walter Huston play submarine officers under the stress of war who quickly are at odds with each other, with dramatic and tragic results. Since Montgomery is in love with Huston's daughter, Madge Evans in a well-played role, the situation becomes even more complicated, both on shore and beneath the waves. The viewer is torn between the two strong characters, one of whom is governed by his heart and the other by the rules.<br /><br />Robert Young makes an effective appearance as Montgomery's buddy. Sterling Holloway creates a brief, vivid, portrait of a doomed seaman.<br /><br />Eugene Pallette as the torpedo master & Jimmy Durante as the sub's cook make for a very funny comedy team and provide the story with plenty of laughs. Durante's nose comes in for lots of ribbing and his obsession with amateur dentistry leads to some chaotic encounters with British tars.<br /><br />Movie mavens will recognize Babe London as an obese Italian miss; Maude Eburne as the wife of a British admiral & Paul Porcasi as an Italian admiral - all uncredited.<br /><br />MGM has given the film absolutely first-class production values, with the undersea sequences especially well produced. Both the claustrophobic compactness of the ship and the inevitable tension associated with submarine warfare are accurately portrayed. Other moments of unexpected drama (Montgomery & Miss Evans caught on top of a stalled Ferris wheel during an air raid) and hilarity (Durante boxing a kangaroo) are expertly threaded into the fabric of the movie to provide a totally satisfying viewing experience.
|
positive
|
I managed to sneak away one night and go to the movie theater to see this one, thinking I was in for a treat. Boy, was I wrong. Considering the talent involved, this has to be one of the worst movies I've ever seen. Everyone in it was miscast, and I find it incredible to read on this site that there are people out there who actually liked it.
|
negative
|
Have just seen this film for the first time after purchasing it on DVD<br /><br />It comes across as a cheap attempt to cash in on the two Conan movies.<br /><br />Unfortunately, this film didn't appear to have the same budget as the Conan films and hence some of the sets and effects aren't as flash and some scenes seem hurried. <br /><br />Nielsen is OK to look at but unfortunately she couldn't act if a gun was put to her head. <br /><br />Arnie's supporting role looked like it was done as a favor to director Fleischer, who also directed Conan the Destroyer. Maybe Arnie wasn't confident that he would go on to headline films like Predator, Total Recall, T2, etc.<br /><br />Some of the female guardians of the talisman early in the film looked like they were struggling to lift their swords and the looks on their faces suggested they were having great fun making this film. I couldn't be so jovial if I was fighting for my life.<br /><br />All this aside, this film required very little concentration to watch and was mildly entertaining. I've seen a lot worse. Two stars.
|
negative
|
I must admit this is one of Cameron Diaz's unheard of films and i was also surprised that she had an important role but she was not the lead. I was very touched by it as i really can identify the pain of the loss of a loved one as i have experienced it from close quarters.<br /><br />Both Camilla Belle and Jordana Brewster were really good in their portrayal of the protagonist Phoebe and i must also hand it to the casting people for finding two actresses who look so alike that i really thought they were sisters(in real life). This is one of those movies Cameron did for the sake of acting and not for star billing.She looked the part of the gorgeous ,rebellious hippie who wants to change the world though sometimes she comes off as a rebel without a cause.<br /><br />Coming from a dysfunctional family where her only source of strength being her big sister Faith, little girl Phoebe is understandably very upset when faith leaves for Europe. As she grows up she goes off in search of her sister and gradually gets disillusioned by the truth about her sister and falls for her sister's boyfriend.<br /><br />Great story and equally great location shooting around European.I will watch it again.
|
positive
|
...well, pop this into the DVD, waste an hour and a half of your life that you will never get back, and find out.<br /><br />Acting? What acting? <br /><br />Production values? ...Production? ...Values?<br /><br />Story? Don't get me started.<br /><br />After many years of posting on IMDb, I never thought I would see a film so bad that I truly wished for a lower rating than one. I always have found at least a reason or two to see merit - if only in the intent or the effort of the writer, the director, the cast, or the producer?<br /><br />In this case, they're all the same guy (!) who really needs to get a handle on the fact, at least as demonstrated by this worthless waste of video tape, that he has no talent. I mean it would be a reasonable excuse if this were some junior high schooler's "production" for his first cinema class, but the referenced "artist" behind this dreck was twenty-six at the time of this miscarriage. <br /><br />Just how did this ever get made? Who in their right mind ever wrote a check for this? Moreover, don't let the box cover fool you: there's not even anything that remotely resembles a good sex scene or any good "exposure" of the hunk on that cover.<br /><br />Two final items: there was one second when this "film" had redeeming value: the aforementioned "talent" gets roundly punched out by his lover. I cheered! And, I did learn one thing from this "film.". There are times when something is so very bad that it is, indeed, truly very funny. But not in any comical manner; it's just sadly humorous. Very sadly humorous.
|
negative
|
This movie was bad on so many levels. The writing was horrible so even the best actors could not have made this movie watchable. It's a shame because they did have some good actors in this movie. I mean if anyone has seen any of the Police Academy movies, you would know that Steve Guttenberg was good. His Character in this movie was very serious, which was a big difference from Characters i have seen him play before, so that was a plus. And I did think that Steve Guttenberg was extremely hot in this movie. With or without the shirt you can not deny that he has a GREAT body! Sexy face too. Loved the 5 o'clock shadow look, it made him look dangerous. At one part in the movie he is lying in bed without his shirt and i have to say, I would have gladly jumped in there and tried to take his mind off of his problems! So honestly i would watch this movie again just to fantasize!
|
negative
|
I was expecting a documentary covering the 1950 to 1965 era of Sci-Fi and received a big ol' commercial laced with leftist political innuendo by James Cameron and movie mogul baby boomer's pushing the own works. 'Watch the Skies' has in the past referred to the 'Giant Bug' and 'Space Exploration' movies from the 1950's including such favorites as "Earth vs. the Flying Saucers, "Thing from Another World" and "Forbidden Planet" as well as "Them", "Deadly Mantis" and "Tarantula". There are lower budget examples that rarely get mentioned like "Space Monster", "12 to the Moon" and "Cosmic Man". <br /><br />This would have been a much better documentary had the few remaining actors, directors, stunt men and collectors plus the non-Hollywood 'boomer's from the era been interviewed. I only wish there was a "0" rating available since a "1" is much to generous.
|
negative
|
This well conceived and carefully researched documentary outlines the appalling case of the Chagos Islanders, who, it shows, between 1969 and 1971, were forcibly deported en masse from their homeland through the collusion of the British and American governments. Anglo-American policy makers chose to so act due to their perception that the islands would be strategically vital bases for controlling the Indian Ocean through the projection of aerial and naval power. At a time during the Cold War when most newly independent post-colonial states were moving away from the Western orbit, it seems British and American officials rather felt that allowing the islanders to decide the fate of the islands was not a viable option. Instead they chose to effect the wholesale forcible removal of the native population. The film shows that no provision was made for the islanders at the point of their ejection, and that from the dockside in Mauritius where they were left, the displaced Chagossian community fell into three decades of privation, and in these new circumstances, beset by homesickness, they suffered substantially accelerated rates of death.<br /><br />Following the passage of more than three decades, however, in recent months (and years), following the release of many utterly damning papers from Britain's Public Record Office (one rather suspects that there was some mistake, and these papers were not supposed to have ever been made public), resultant legal appeals by the Chagossian community in exile have seen British courts consistently find in favour of the islanders and against the British State. As such, the astonishing and troubling conclusions drawn out in the film can only reasonably be seen as proved. Nevertheless, the governments of Great Britain and the United States have thus far made no commitment to return the islands to what the courts have definitively concluded are the rightful inhabitants. This is a very worthwhile film for anyone to see, but it is an important one for Britons and Americans to watch. To be silent in the face of these facts is to be complicit in a thoroughly ugly crime.
|
positive
|
I haven't seen this film for over 20 years, but it had such an impact on me that I remember sitting through the credits and for several minutes after in complete awe. This is one of the most underrated films of the entire decade in which it was originally released. I just ordered a copy of it on DVD and paid for overnight shipping and can't wait for it to arrive. It is uplifting at times, and also very dark and somewhat disturbing. It's a story of a close-knit band of regular kids growing up in the inner city and makes one feel as though they are actually sitting on the sidelines, rather than watching on a movie screen or television. Hard to explain, but it is something that must be experienced. The story starts at childhood and tracks the lives of the four main characters through high school and as they embark on their separate journeys in life. The entire cast did an incredible job and it's by far the best work of Jodi Thelen's career. I'm hoping that the DVD lives up to my memory and plan on watching it this Friday with a good friend.
|
positive
|
whomever thought of having sequels to Iron Eagle must be shot. In this case once was enough. Iron Eagle was a good movie to watch. Even though it is unrealistic, it is still entertaining. Iron Eagle II has a senseless plot and can be used to as a cure to insomnia. I didn't even bother to watch Iron Eagle III, but from looking at the R rating, I assume it's more violent than the past 2 movies. Well, Iron Eagle IV is probably the most inane sequel. Lou Gossett Jr. returns as the always delightful "Chappy" Sinclair. Another Jason returns to fill the role of Doug Masters (Canadian Jason Cadieux, who looks just like Jason Gedrick from the first Iron Eagle). But wait(Here comes a possible spoiler).....Wasn't Doug killed in Iron Eagle II? The writers must've been desprate for a story so they revived Doug Masters by saying he was a prisoner of the Russians. This movie was the cheapest done of all the Iron Eagle films. Why do movie makers find it neccessary to make sequels to unappealing movies? (ex. Police Academy movies). I have always liked Gossett Jr.'s work in these films. He was the only one holding this turkey together. Let's hope this was the last of the Iron Eagle sequels. let it rest in peace.
|
negative
|
I don't understand why this movie was released, it looked like something that you show your mates after you borrowed your mums handycam she bought in 1987. I am Australian and work for a video store in the UK and thought that if an Aussie film made it into our store it can't be all bad... boy was I wrong!<br /><br />If anyone writes a good comment about this movie they are either lying or the makers of the film.<br /><br />The picture was BAD, the sound was HORRIBLE and the acting, oh the acting, it was the WORST acting in the HISTORY OF FILM. <br /><br />It makes me embarrassed and offended that they used the word 'Aussie' in the title because I am proud to be Australian and this movie is seen in other countries and may give people the wrong idea.<br /><br />Please anyone who reads this and has seen this movie, take the time to find other Aussie movies to watch because you could choose any one of them and it would be better than that one.<br /><br />I could have made a better film if I took a camera, filmed my but for an hour, ate the film waited for it to pass through my body then threw what came out at the television... no offence.<br /><br />DO NOT WATCH THIS FILM!!!!!!!!!!
|
negative
|
The two leads, an Englishman and an Aussie filming an American Civil War story in Romania, have not the slightest spark between them, are utterly unbelievable as lovers, and wholly unsympathetic. There is no story, no characterization, virtually nothing to keep the eyelids separated during this interminable bore fest. Renee Zelwegger, also hopelessly miscast, practically chews the fence posts, but at least watching her embarrass herself provides some comic relief. Nicole Kidman is a decade too old for the role and has not the slightest idea what's going on. Jude Law's moron role could have been played equally as well by any of the Romanian extras. The only requirement is to wander about the forest looking stupid while watching a parade of guest stars steal the show. Not that it mattered, because all of the guest star roles were completely unnecessary as they did not advance the so-called plot by one iota. And as if all that wasn't enough, the auteur felt it necessary to throw in some spinning, whirling, kung fu jumping off horses. What was that about?
|
negative
|
There is a scene near the beginning after a shootout where horses are running. If something red catches your eye it is because a white van is parked behind a bush by the trail. I thought I had seen bad but this is it. A white van in a western. Did they not catch this? Oh well, and I paid top dollar at the rental. It will make you want to grab your buddies and have them all put in 10 grand and make a better movie. The talking was so so slow, the acting was mostly OK but couldn't be taken seriously due to the poor nature of the filming. There is a door at the sheriffs that looks like a door today with the particular trimming. I say watch this movie, and move Cabin boy into #2 on the worst of all time.
|
negative
|
Sandler is amazing again... I have already become a Sandler fan. This movie is the saddest Sandler story. Its expression is fantastic. I cried more watching Click but there are some similar points. To consider the value of the family before losing it and to be able to say 'I love you' are a few of the most impressive truths in life... It is tough, it is real... and actually there is a real owner of this success, Binder. I don't think another director could give these emotions in such a way. <br /><br />Cheadle and Burrows are also amazing... Cheadle is one of my favorites since Crash. Don't expect laughing or much positive atmosphere... If you are ready to face the realities of life, don't miss this movie.
|
positive
|
this was made in that beloved age known as the 80s and shot in my hometown of New York City. actually, this has become one of my favorite b sci-fi movies. Oh, sure, it really stinks to high hell, but there's so much to make fun of, laugh, and enjoy that it becomes more tolerable after every viewing.<br /><br />Such as:<br /><br />Try to find the similarities between this and...well, OK, there is nothing similarly bad as this. Well, except Castle of FuManchu.<br /><br />Sock puppets can be dangerous to your health<br /><br />Create supense by describing through voice over rather than showing any imagery<br /><br />Have leading villainess "Valeria" (played wonderfully by Angelika Jager) deliver some of the most riveting lines ever!!<br /><br />Lots of men and women in post apocalyptic fashion (aka leather bikinis, loin cloths, and dead animal fur)<br /><br />Do be horrified by the end!<br /><br /> I'm off to have a salad. Toodles!!
|
negative
|
Yeah I watched this mini series with My Mom and dad as a kid. It was one of the few mini series that my 9 year old mind actually could follow. I recall it was very well done, and didn't necessarily have the feel of the typical crap mini series. It was more or less an original concept that really grabbed your attention. I would recommend this miniseries to anyone who is a fan of history and plot twists. Although most twists in this movie are either spelled out or predictable, it is still worth the time. I haven't checked to see if you can get it through netflix yet however. I would imagine not. They should play it on the history channel or something.
|
positive
|
I was expecting a lot more of this film than what I actually got. The acting was just awful from everyone and the story was far from impressive. It took a lot of something I don't to even follow what was going because it was so jumpy. An example of the acting is when Paxton's character, Vann, is upset the South Vietnamese colonel for so he throws some of the sand from the "sand map". It was impossible to get any idea of what he was feeling and his actions were robotic. To make things worse, I have no idea how I'm supposed to feel about Vann. He's obviously presented as the protagonist but as soon as he gets to Vietnam he starts an affair with an Vietnamese English teacher. The only thing the movie had going for it was that it wasn't particularly boring. I give it 4 stars out of 10.
|
negative
|
1 hour and 40 minutes of talking--boring talking, and more talking and then some. It is hard for me to grasp how an actress like Anne Parillaud, who shone superbly in Femme Fatale, would sign up for such a piece of crap! Unbelievable. If you need a nightcap, this movie might help, although I would prefer some nice classical music. unfortunately, i just found out that i have to write 10 lines for my comment to appear--that's almost as unbelievable! so, short and succinct one or two sentence commentaries expressing one's core take on a movie is not enough. geez, people. i made my point and don't to waste your time with more, unnecessary words--as this movie does. Wolfgang
|
negative
|
"Christmas In Connecticut" is a gem of a Christmas movie classic. While lesser known than some others -- it is nonetheless a delightful way to spend an evening at holiday time. I watch it every year.<br /><br />Barbara Stanwyck is perfectly cast as, Elizabeth Lane, the single, career girl. Way before it was popular, Stanwyck embodies the single girl on the rise. Her NYC apartment, and her friendly "uncle" restaurateur around the corner typify the single girl in the city existence. She can't cook yet she writes a homemaking column for a magazine!<br /><br />Dennis Morgan is also perfectly cast as our wartime hero, Jefferson Jones, who wants to meet the amazing Elizabeth Lane. After being lost at sea, all he wants is to spend Christmas in a "real" home. Which sets up the delightful, madcap story that evolves. It is fun from beginning to end. We should all have an Uncle Felix too!
|
positive
|
Allen and Julie move into a cabin in the mountains after their daughter is murdered one night. No one knows who killed the little girl but it's why they moved to the mountains. So the couple moves into this cabin and it's haunted by people who killed themselves there and no one in the nearby town wants to talk about it.<br /><br />This movie has a lot of creepiness to it and it has a lot of parts that made me jump. Some of the parts are predictable but once in a while there is a part I didn't expect. It was a pretty good movie that wasn't the scariest movie in the world but it was still scary enough to make it pretty good.<br /><br />I also liked the ending because it left the viewer to decide how it ends. It is also kind of a sad movie as well but a well done horror movie.
|
positive
|
Pretty funny stuff. Charlie was still working towards his peak when he made this rather daring short about soldiers in the trenches of World War One. Daring because, after all, the war was still going on and this was a comedy about a serious business.<br /><br />The gags are amusing without being either hilarious or tear jerking. One successful scene follows another, as Chaplin and his comrades try to sleep in a bunker that is knee deep in water. (That's where we got the term "trench foot" from.) Probably the most ludicrous episode has Chaplin disguised as a tree and foiling any number of German soldiers as they try to execute an Allied soldier caught behind the lines. Edna Purviance, Chaplin's main squeeze at the time, is a woman who cooperates with the Americans and is saved from execution too.<br /><br />Chaplin would go on to do funnier and more ambitious things but this is better than most of his shorts during this early period.
|
positive
|
Almost a two-person play, and as such the dialog and the performances of the leads will be important. Neither are particularly good. This might have been stronger, in fact, if it had first been crafted as a two-person play, and then worked into a film.<br /><br />Anyway, a twitchy vampire who seems slightly autistic becomes infatuated with a stripper (as a result of watching too much porn in his crappy home). He wants to have her tell him about the daylight. He would have been better off finding someone with a day job, or someone who excels at painting a picture with words like a poet, but then they might not have a hot bod.<br /><br />After he gets her to do whatever he wants (and he's not terribly good at it), he intends to feed on her at 6 AM, at which point the sun rises. Much is made of that deadline, despite the fact that he also says that he can go without feeding, it will just make him hungrier. Additionally, he claims he can't let the stripper go, since she knows about him, but he lets a number of other people go who learn what he is. There are a lot of inconsistencies.<br /><br />Why this vampire chooses to live in a house so poorly boarded up that light from streetlamps and neighboring buildings pours in as if it were daytime, I'm not sure. With all the time in the world, you'd think he'd have done a better job, or fixed the place up a bit. He's clearly not a wealthy vampire.<br /><br />This is supposedly a remake, and I'm curious to see the original version of this, Dance of the Damned. Although, that was directed by Katt Shea, and the other films she directed for Corman (Stripped to Kill, StK II) were pretty bad.
|
negative
|
Arnold once again in the 80's demonstrated that he was the king of action and one liners in this futuristic film about a violent game show that no contestant survives. But as the tag line says Arnold has yet to play! The movie begins in the year 2019 in which the world economy has collapsed with food and other important materials in short supply and a totalitarian state has arisen, controlling every aspect of life through TV and a police state. It's most popular game show is The Running Man, in which criminals are forced to survive against "Stalkers" that live to kill them.<br /><br />The movie opens with Ben Richards (Arnold) leading a helicopter mission to observe a food riot in progress. He is ordered by his superiors to fire on them, refusing to gets him knocked out and thrown in prison, in the meantime they slaughtered the people without his help. The government blames Richards for the massacre earning him the name "Butcher of Bakersfield". Eighteen months later Richards along with two friends William Laughlin (Koto) and Harold Weiss (McIntyre) breakout of a detention zone they worked in. They make their way to the underground, led by Mic (Mick Fleetwood). Mic quickly identifies Richards as the "Butcher of Bakersfield" and refuses to help him, but his friend's convince him otherwise. They want him to join the resistance, but he'd rather go live with his brother and get a job. Soon he finds that his brother has been taken away for reeducation and a woman name Amber Mendez (Alonso) has taken his apartment. Knowing who he is she won't help him, but he convinces her, but is busted at the airport by the cops after she ratted him out.<br /><br />Meantime, The Running man is having trouble finding good new blood for the there stalkers to kill. Damon Killian (Dawson) the shows host and one of the most powerful men in the country sees Richards escape footage and is able to get him for the show after his capture. Richards refuses to play, Killian threatens to use his friends instead of him, so he signs the contract. You'll love that part. But soon he finds they will join him as well and makes sure Killian knows he'll be back. The Runners begin to make there way through the Zones and fight characters that are memorable, Sub-Zero, Buzz Saw and many others. Eventually Richards is joined by Amber who suspected he was set up but was caught and thrown into the game too. Together they find the underground and make there way back to Killian and give him a farewell send off.<br /><br />The running man is another one of Arnold's great movies from the 80's. The movie was apparently somewhat based on Stephen King's book of the same name. Some have said that the book is better. I'm sure it's not and I don't care anyway I loved the movie. As in all of Arnold's films the acting is what you would expect with classic one liners from Arnold and even Ventura gets a couple in. But without a doubt Richard Dawson is the standout in this film. Being a real game show host he easily spoofed himself and was able to create a character that was truly cold blooded. The whole movie itself somewhat rips on game shows and big brother watching you. Keep an eye out for them poking fun and some old shows, "hate boat" among others. Also the cast was great besides Arnold, Koto, and Alonzo don't forget Professor Toru Tanaka, Jim Brown, Ventura and Sven-Ole! With all the reality TV nonsense that goes on it almost fits in better now, but I'm sure the Hollywood liberals would make it into a movie about the "Evil Bush". The new DVD had mostly poor extras meet the stalkers being the only redeemable one. Some how the ACLU managed to get some of there communism into the DVD and is laughable garbage that should not be anywhere near an Arnold movie of all things. Blasphemy! Overall for any Arnold fan especially we who grew up in the 80's on him ,you can't miss this. Its one of the first ones I saw back in the 80's and it's still great to this day. The futuristic world and humor are great. Overall 10 out 10 stars, definitely one of his best.
|
positive
|
I only wish there was a grade lower than F to give it! i scored it a 1 in the vote tally.I am grading this not even as a regular film,but as a T&A film,and this is the worst,lamest,crappiest and most awful movie i've seen.the acting,story and music are all terrible,not to mention there isn't even any nudity for the T&A connisuer.it's about a male cheerleader and the viewer is made to sit through many painful scenes of him doing cheers.avoid this piece of trash at all cost! this is the worst of bad 80's teen cinema.
|
negative
|
Fascinating look behind the scenes about how a really good movie CAN get made if the producers, director, & cast simply "refuse to quit." These guys encountered serious obstacles throughout the two years of the project (miniscule budget, trouble with the script and with the script writer) so the finished product wasn't what was first envisioned, but probably turned out to be more interesting than the movie they set out to make, which goes to show that the punk mentality of "just do it" ...with or without any backing, money, or help...figure it out on the fly and do what you want to do. I really liked this documentary movie and know that viewers will see and learn things they didn't know before. This movie is truly "one of a kind...it's hard to classify because it has pieces of "sci fi" and "suspense" and also "how to make a movie." It tells the truth about how films get made, what can go wrong, and how to overcome. I especially liked the music written by Ed Ivey. These guys know how to produce a good movie on a shoe string because they're creative and know how to build props, dollys, staging, lighting with what they can scavenge up...pretty amazing stuff.
|
positive
|
This British pot-boiler has one thing going for it: the young men are uniformly good looking. The older men are opinionated, right-wing Thatcherites whose behavior brings back all the acrimony of the Reagan/Thatcher years. Young or old, however, morals in this three-part mini-series are universally suspect and no one comes off particularly well.<br /><br />Nick is a handsome young gay man fresh out of Oxford. It is not pivotal to the story, but he has an extraordinarily beautiful head of hair which makes watching this drivel much easier. Nick comes to London with a friend, whose father Gerald is a rich conservative politician, and babysits his sister Cat while the family frolics in the south of France. They neglect to inform him that, when upset, Cat cuts herself with an assortment of knives and other kitchen implements. Nick mistakes their self-serving 'gratitude' for affection and moves in, finding out too late just how much they despise and patronize him. Inexplicably, Nick lives in this house for four years but, as the plot depends on this point, it's best not to question it.<br /><br />While Nick is most pleasing to look at, he is unbearably obsequious. His coy subjection to rich bigots soon had me climbing the walls. Deeply closeted except to Cat (she guesses his big secret on sight), he does like a little anonymous sex just so we know he is actually gay. Though it hardly seems possible, Nick takes a lover who is even more closeted than he.<br /><br />Supercilious Tories scorn and insult the two blacks in the film, so imagine the venom which spews forth when Nick's sexual orientation is reported in a tabloid. Gerald, in true Tory fashion, has become involved in several personal and financial scandals, so the revelations about Nick add to his embarrassment. This gives Gerald one final opportunity to roundly castigate the hapless boy.<br /><br />Except for one brief moment of indignation, Nick takes the abuse heaped upon him in silence and tacit agreement. Denial, self-loathing, naiveté, or ignorance? You decide, if you can manage to sit through this whole thing without throwing something at the set.
|
negative
|
In many ways, the perfect movie. The "Incredible Journey" and Horatio Alger tale come together for a positive spin on the usually depressing subject of existentialism. In essence, the travails of the muppets boil down to the finale song of the movie: "Life's like a movie, write your own ending, keep believing, keep pretending." They create their own reality, which has all the trappings of every epic tale: a lofty goal at the end of what is necessarily a obstacle-laden journey; an ever-increasing group of like-minded individuals for camaraderie; a nasty set of villians who are not beyond all redemption; and a big-budget Hollywood ending because, darn it all, they CAN.<br /><br />Only Jim Henson could pull this off. He walks the line between sentimentality and philosophy without swerving too long or too hard into either. Of course it seems odd that invest such weight into a film starring puppets, but in the end perhaps they are the perfect, uh, puppet to make these points. The movie's atmosphere allows for the pure enjoyment of the Hollywood dream, the "happy" ending, unnecessary cameos, and bursting into song at the drop of a hat. Usually these aspects are anathema to quality in film, but the self-deprecating manner under which the story is delivered makes for guilt-free viewing. One of the few films that can truly be called "suitable for all ages."<br /><br />The other muppet-related films (including "The Empire Strikes Back"), while palatable, do not touch the simple grace of this film. Take, for instance, the musical number "Hope that Something Better Comes Along," the duet of Kermit and Rowlf. Amusing in its vaudevillian goofiness, yet makes a bitingly crucial point about the motivations behind life choices. Brilliant.
|
positive
|
Respected western auteur Budd Boetticher is woefully out of place with this choppy modern day cops and robbers story that suffers from a strong lack of emotional believability. Boetticher seems to have waived rehearsal time and settled for the first take as leads Joe Cotton and Rhonda Fleming put little effort into their roles, delivering lines flatly and without energy. <br /><br />Mild mannered employee Leon "Foggy" Poole works as an inside man on a bank job that goes bad and gets his wife killed in the process. He escapes from prison and immediately sets out to kill the wife of the detective who killed his. Hundreds of cops are mobilized to keep him from getting to the home of the intended who has been moved to another location but wouldn't you know in the films final moments we have Foggy trailing feet behind the victim (who thought somehow that taking a bus back to the house was a sound move) while a company of cops observe and bicker over what action to take. Sound preposterous? You should see it. It's all of that and more. <br /><br />Lucien Ballard's camera work does a decent job of bringing noir to the suburbs but the editing is lackadaisical and shapeless and it drains the film of its suspense and pace. As Poole, Wendell Corey is the best thing in the film managing to evoke great sympathy as he transitions from gentle soul to murderer. These attributes aside Killer uniformly fails in construction and execution making its message clear. Go Western old Budd.
|
negative
|
Three scumbags get their just deserts after wasting their lives in greed, drugs, ego, and bad attitudes. Interesting and well done; this style of film always makes me wonder where reality leaves off and imagination takes over. Even though these folks were the scum of the earth I still found myself pitying them. They never really stood much of a chance.
|
positive
|
I saw this in the theatre a couple decades ago, and fuzzy recollection suggests that I liked it. However, seeing it for a second time two things stand out: (1) very poor acting on the part of Michelle Johnson, and (2) very poor music throughout.<br /><br />It's not that all the music was bad. Some of the Brazilian music was fine, but the theme song and others that clanged their way in were reminiscent of the worst of '80s pop music.<br /><br />Johnson's voice seemed all wrong, possibly dubbed. This was distracting.<br /><br />On the positive side: (1) The story's not bad, (2) it's interesting seeing such a young Demi Moore, (3) Valerie Harper never looked better, and (4) Johnson did look quite fetching in various stages of disattire.
|
negative
|
I know not why people considered it trashy or obnoxious; It's not like American Pie or something. I know not why people are offended by the Universal plugs; since it's part of the plot, the advertising is excusable.<br /><br />This is a funny movie with good dialogue, good subtle wit, a good story, a good moral (that thankfully doesn't get too sappy), GREAT acting, and a cheesy ending.<br /><br />(minor spoiler) The basic premise here is the classic story of a Shepherd boy (Muniz) who lies so much that no one believes him when the Wolf (Giamatti) comes along. So he gets his best friend Kaylee (Bynes) and they go and drive the Wolf crazy.<br /><br />Frankie Muniz can be annoying in other roles, but not as Jason Shepherd. He handles the suave confidence of his character perfectly well, and what appears to be a lack of expression at first glance is really a perfectly executed nonchalantness.<br /><br />Amanda Bynes. What more can I say? The girl's got the gift. She's funny, talented, versatile, and very, very attractive. (I'm only 6 months older than her. I need to get to California sometime soon.) In fact, the 'best-friend' part was originally a boy, but became a girl as soon as the makers saw Amanda's interest. Which works out pretty well, since the part would've been pretty dull without the blessing of Bynes's abilities.<br /><br />Paul Giamatti is a very talented man. While some would play Marty Wolf as evil and diabolical, Giamatti made him-not just a jerk, mind you, but a LIKEABLE jerk, a jerk that livens up the screen, rather than intentionally dimming it. And I doubt many other actors could pull off the psychological breakdown that Wolf undergoes as well.<br /><br />All in all, great movie. Loved seeing Jaleel White able to mock himself. Loved seeing all the little references & such built into the film. (one of the guests in the party scene is the director, Shawn Levy, another is Bynes's former co-star Kenan Thompson) Loved seeing Amanda in those outfits........ Get the DVD if you can. It's got all kinds of great extra stuff, and the lovely Ms. Bynes is your guide through the menus. :)
|
positive
|
Exactly what you would expect from a B-Movie. Deritive, gratuitous nudity, boring in parts, ridiculous gore and cheesy special-effects. Of course it could have been better, better acted (defintly) better written, directed, etc. But then I guess it wouldn't have been a B movie. The actors pretty much sucked, in fact this pretty much seemed like an episode of buffy the vampire slayer or something except with a lot of blood, profanity and nudity.<br /><br />Tiffany Shepis must be singled out. She absolutely is the scream queen of the new millennium. Not that acting really matters in these movies, but she was better than any of the other actors. She's also smokin hot, in that plastic jump suit thing she wore for the whole movie - wow! Her posterior is absolutely stunning in that outfit, I mean it every single time she turns around you can help but check her out. And near then end of the film the viewer is rewarded with seeing her completely nekked.<br /><br />So if your a looser b-movie horror buff (like myself), check this out. If not, you should probably avoid at all costs.
|
negative
|
After reading a biography on the last Russian Tzar (Nicholas II), and his failure to secure the army's support, I decided to give this film a try.<br /><br />I watched it with a completely open mind, not knowing anything about it (except its reputation).<br /><br />These are the things that impressed me the most.<br /><br />1) The shots of battleships, and the soldiers used as extras. More than once I stopped to think "if this was done in this time and place, 80% of this would have been computer-generated".<br /><br />2) The Realism in it. From the maggot-infested meat to the shot of the sailor with his candle and the legend "Killed for a bowl of soup", this movie makes no concessions to the PC cause (which, thankfully, hadn't been invented yet).<br /><br />3) The slow descent into madness of the Odessa Steps sequence. From the first shot, when the limbless man appears, you get the idea something might be wrong; since the overall shots are composed, though, you end up feeling comfortable in your surroundings. Then an amputee appears, and people start falling in dramatic poses. Still, the shots are composed... until the Cossacks appear into scene, and the incredible shot juxtapositions appear. This scene is easily worth the price of admission.<br /><br />4) The fact that this movie is 100% unadulterated propaganda. Then again, when Rambo fought in Afghanistan he also was having something to do with "propaganda"; only a different kind.<br /><br />Overall: a film marred by a bit of a slow narrative. Nevertheless, Metropolis, The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari and this movie are perfect examples of inventive, edgy movies that are still remembered for their merits today. They really make modern movies look boring and repetitive.
|
positive
|
Another case of a decent DVD case betraying the shot-on-video quality of the film. <br /><br />It wasn't that bad. Rochon does a serviceable job and Damn! the cast is good looking. I've never seen that many musclebound guys hang out together on a regular basis. This movie really wanted to make you think Rochon was the killer, but it was not to be. My biggest problem with the film was that by the end, I didn't much care who was the killer, and the real killer made little sense, since it was out of the blue and the filmmakers were thinking 'ha, betcha didn't see that one coming, sucker!'. Yeah, there were continuity errors about (mainly with ms. Rochon's ever-changing wardrobe), but for an indie slasher it's not that bad. I was pretty sure at the beginning it was just a thinly veiled excuse for girls to go topless, but that was just a gimmick. The dialog was overly think and painful at times.<br /><br />Just don't have high expectations going into this, and it won't be that bad. And Lloyd Kaufman's cameo is wonderfully understated.
|
negative
|
I first saw this movie when it came out in 1994 and just watched it recently and it is STILL funny. I don't know if you have to understand hiphop in the 90's, but it helps if you do. In the 90's when NWA and Public Enemy were at the top, there were internal strife within the groups and members when their separated ways (Ice Cube, Easy E, etc). Also there were the wanna b's, accessible rappers that start making the scene (Vanilla Ice, Freedom Williams from C&C Music Factory, etc). This movie makes fun of all of that in a way that seems like it's an actually documentary. Kasi Lemmons plays an interviewer that spends a year in the life of a fictitious rap group name N.W.H. The members of the group are Ice Code (Rusty Condieff/director), Tasty Taste (Larry B Scott/Revenge of the Nerds, and Tone Def (Mark Christopher Lawrence). They are an up and coming rap group whose politics makes them controversial. Whats good about this film is that it is so thourough in its portrayal of the hiphop industry of the 80s and they way it pokes fun at it. But, if you know 80's/90's rap, you know how much of this stuff is true. Still, on it's own, without hip hop knowledge, it is still a funny funny movie. And for all of those who ask, yes Spinal Tap came first, but Spinal Tap is not the first spoof movie either. This, in my opinion is equally as funny and in some ways, better than Spinal Tap. As Spinal Tap is to heavy metal, Fear of A Black Planet is to Rap. And the songs are off the hook also. The DVD is chalk full of extras to include music videos of NWH as a group and as solo artists. Brilliant performances by Rusty Condieff and Larry B Scott.
|
positive
|
I enjoyed the movie and Kellie Martins performance immensely. It's the kind of movie I can show my family and has an example of a young woman placed in extraordinary circumstances finding the courage to do the right thing in the face of extreme danger.
|
positive
|
What can be said about Mr. Moore? He's the godfather of rap, he's the king of the Z-level blaxploitation flicks, and here, he is back as his most famous character, Dolemite! Can you dig it? This movie is one whacked-out roller-coaster ride of politically incorrect humor, trippy kung-fu, nudity, cheese, violence, and a whole lot of other stuff you'd never find in most modern movies (or any movies, really, haha!). The stand-up routine he gives early on is not to be missed! At any rate, D2 is definitely an entertaining way to waste an hour or so. Dolemite: "He think he's bad and ain't got no class! I'm gon' rock this shotgun up his *beep* a**!"
|
positive
|
If there were two more charming performers than Peter Ustinov and Maggie Smith appearing together in a more charming movie in 1968, I don't know who they were. I first saw this delightful little satiric gem 25 years ago at the age of 16, and I consider any year in which I have failed to sit down to watch it again a wasted one. It's intelligent, quirky, neat, wistful, sweet, gently subversive, and utterly enchanting. The romance of these two social misfits is both richly comic and terribly moving - never more so than in Maggie Smith's desperate attempt to bring up the right card in the deck, a scene that's both ruefully funny and a perfect thumbnail portrait of heartbreaking loneliness. And that final freeze-frame on the anxious, concerned, loving face of Ustinov as he asks, "Are you all right?" - has anyone ever made the look and sound of devotion so perfectly and nakedly honest? I would never want to know anyone well who didn't love this movie.
|
positive
|
This brings back so many childhood memories. (I'm not old, I'm 19) It's brill. The trains, the old house, the fallen runner, the really scary landslide (well it is when you're 6), the drama if the children can stop the train, or will it crash? This is a children's film without a doubt, but it offers great harmless no blood/guts/guns etc for children. And it's got Bernard Cribbins in it, who's cool. 8/10
|
positive
|
Shaky hand held cameras (this piece was shot for television mind you, not film) not only keep you utterly conscious of how horrible the cinematography is in this film, but make you absolutely unable to become immersed in the story. Poor Miss Austen must be rolling in her grave. All I can say is, if you enjoyed the novel, stop there, until the BBC creates one of their smart & sensible period masterpieces (like Pride & Prejudice with Colin Firth, which, speaking for what I imagine in my opinion, Austen would have revered). The BBC would never dare overdub cheesy saxophone solos and Indigo Girl hollers over a shot of an historic castle and a loving embrace. Giles Foster seemed to be often confused that they were editing the music to The Specialist. If you want Austen as you love her, look for the BBC logo...
|
negative
|
I stopped watching this film half way through. It was just terrible! Boring, contrived subplots. A complete lack of the pathos seen in Norman Bates, Buffalo Bill, or Steve Railsback's portrayal of Ed Gein. A movie doesn't have to be historically accurate, but the true story of Ed Gein is so much more interesting than this third-rate melodrama that was completely made up for no good reason! Ed Gein as portrayed by Kane Hodder is a cartoon sadist. The attempts to show the trauma inflicted on him by his mother are just weak exercises in recycled style. And this movie wanted to be stylish, but it even screwed that up. Fortunately, there is a better film of this story. 2001's Ed Gein told the story efficiently, and offered a few real chills as we watched a sick man not in control of himself. Steve Railsback, who played Ed Gein that time, was already famous for memorably portraying another famous serial killer: Charles Manson. His Ed had pathos. His film is the one to see. Avoid this mess.
|
negative
|
The greatest games of Kasparov or Fischer can be a mess for a total rookie. This is a great movie. There is no special agency involved in the plot. This is the clue! This is a PRIVATE plot, built as a PRIVATE enterprise. This is a self-destructive and a self organized plot. As a conclusion, the scenario described the perfect professional plot: private, self organized, self-destructive, with no trace at the end. Anyone can be behind the plot: a smart "director" with some money. All can be done just by delegation. The "director" must be just trigger. If the normal viewer cannot see the essence of the plot in the explicit sequences of the movie, a real plot has fewer chances to be discovered. All the actors' performances are well done , with some special mention for Gene Hackman and Mickey Rooney.
|
positive
|
the real plot...<br /><br />A group of post-Civil War prostitutes seek alternative housing in FORT BOOM. Lacy Everett and a close-knit family of call girls have been eating date expired sausages for days and plan to move into the former Fort McMillian. Locals warn the women of eating more of the dated sausage. Because there is a vicious pyromaniac loose in the area and he refuse to shuttle them out to the property. When they finally arrive at their destination, they discover their stomach is full of gass after all the bad sausage. It is not long before they learn why their new home is called FORT BOOM.
|
negative
|
Columbo movies have been going downhill for years, this year it may have reached the bottom. Peter Falk gives the same uninspired performance and comes over as creepy in this movie. As is usual in this series, crime scene protocols are unheard of so plausibility is always lacking. Brenda Vaccaro chews the scenery and pulls pantomime faces and Andrew Stephens is a pretty unconvincing lady's man. (His faint, though, was a hoot!)The script was by the numbers and its delivery patronising. They should never have brought Columbo into the nineties, just left us all with one or two happy memories of clever plots, better scripts and sharp characterisations.
|
negative
|
What the hell is this? Its one of the dumbest movies I've seen. I don't understand why people on this site love it so much. Its senseless &nudity for no reason. Its worst then Resident Evil. I strongly don't recomend it unless you want to watch chessy, bad acting crap. Watch real horor movies such as Stephen King's It, The Shining, Jurassic Park(kinda horor), JAWS, etc. Leave this crap for a rental when there is nothing else to rent. It is bad as Crudy vs Gayson. Attack of the Killer Tomatoes is better then this crap.<br /><br />Oh wow flesh eating zombies. How many damn zobie movies do we need. SKip this one.<br /><br />* outta ****
|
negative
|
This really should have been a one star, but there was so many, clichés, predictable twists, seen it all before slasher flick parallels that I actually give it an extra star for the fact it made me laugh...although this was never the directors intention Im sure.<br /><br />I don't often write comments about films, they have to be either sensational, or in this ones case really bad.<br /><br />To be honest, as soon as I saw Jeff Fahey in it I knew it was going to be poor as he has a unique nose for picking out the worst films.<br /><br />Somehow the farce of it all made me watch it all the way through, possibly for the hilarious voice of MR T, (not relay Mr T, but you'll know what I mean if you bother to watch this), if you do watch it, make sure you don't pay to see it. This may have worked had they actually put intended comedy into it, but Im sure you'll find the odd laugh here and there at the farce of it all...
|
negative
|
I had watched as much of the series as I could manage to watch on television, but unfortunately, started a job that got me working evenings. I managed to catch some recordings of it, at least... and, of course, purchased the recently released DVD of the complete series. Watching the DVD, you can see that the animation was a bit more crude at first, but they ironed out a fair number of the flaws after the pilot was done. The voices are well suited to the characters, and the writing is excellent. It's rather refreshing to see animation getting back to it's roots by reintroducing adult themes. Thing is, with the way society has come in the last century, you need to be a bit more blatant about it by today's standards in order to be recognised as an adult-oriented show. The characters have very realistic personalities and are placed in situations that parallel what we often face in real life. It's your typical sitcom in that regard, but the humor is more like what you'd expect from late night television like a talk show skit or Saturday Night Live... back when SNL was actually funny. Good job, Dreamworks. Perhaps you need to work with one of the more liberal networks to keep this series going... and also improve the marketing of merchandise for the series to help defray it's high costs. It's a challenge to do this for a cartoon of a mature nature though. Hmm...
|
positive
|
There was a genie played by Shaq His name was Kazaam, and he was whack His rhymes were corny, this lines were bad some stupid kid cryin over his stupid dad bad actin, bad casting, bad special effects whats next? this movie sucks Prolly didn't make 20 bucks he lives in a boombox not a lamp hurts like a cramp like a wet food stamp...<br /><br />Yeah, you get it, a stupid rhyming genie who can't act, in a stupid movie with horrible special effects. Oh, and its confusing as hell. I'm not even gonna go on. Let's just say, it belongs in the "its so bad, its funny" category. Watch it once with your buddies and get a good laugh. But don't expect anything spectacular.
|
negative
|
I'm impressed that 'Hail the Woman' was made at all; released just one year after American women got the vote, this turgid drama makes an earnest plea against the sexual double standard which judges women's sexual behaviour more harshly than men's.<br /><br />SLIGHT SPOILERS AHEAD. A prologue, set in the Plymouth colony in 1621, shows a Pilgrim girl sentenced to the ducking stool for flirting with a boy; the boy is not penalised. Now we come to Flint Hill, New Hampshire in the present (1921). Oliver Beresford (Theodore Roberts) is a bombastic bible-thumper: what we call in Britain and Australia 'a God-botherer'. Beresford is determined that his son David (Lloyd Hughes) become a preacher, regardless of how David feels about it. As for Beresford's daughter Judith ... well, Beresford is confident that women aren't important enough to be anything more than wives and mothers. Apparently, God told him this personally.<br /><br />David's evangelical career is compromised when he impregnates Nan Higgins, the stepdaughter of the local odd-jobs man. (Tully Marshall's character is identified in the credits solely as the 'Odd Jobs Man', but a close-up of a cheque reveals his name to be Jake Higgins. The prejudices of 1921 require that he be merely Nan's stepfather, not her biological parent.) To save his son from scandal, Beresford buys off Nan's stepfather with a cheque. Nan goes off to the big city, to melt into oblivion as one more unwed mother.<br /><br />Judith is naturally dismayed by the limitations imposed upon her by her gender. (Or rather, by other people's perceptions of it.) She meets Wyndham Gray (excellent performance by Edward Martindel), an author who encourages her to transcend sexist stereotypes. But Judith is informally engaged to local lout Joe Hurd, who won't put up with such nonsense. Hurd is played by Vernon Dent, a burly performer now remembered solely for comedy roles (as a second banana to Harry Langdon, and as a villain in Three Stooges movies). He gives an excellent performance here, in a role outside his usual range. Sadly, in real life Dent spent his final years in poverty and total blindness due to diabetic retinopathy.<br /><br />Eventually, Judith ends up working at an orphanage. This being 1921, I expected the orphanage to be whites-only, so I was pleasantly surprised when it turned out to include one Chinese boy. (And unpleasantly surprised when he's used as the butt for a racial joke.) The movie makes one odd error here. In a Christmas sequence, we see the orphanage mistress reciting 'A Visit from Saint Nicholas' ... but (in a dialogue title) she credits Santa Claus with SIX reindeer rather than eight. This is followed by a brief animation sequence, showing Santa with six reindeer hitched to his sleigh. I assume that the animators (either by accident, or to save money) left out two reindeer, and the title card revised the poem to match the error.<br /><br />Lloyd Hughes was generally a bland and unimpressive actor. His most famous performance is his role in 'The Lost World', where he's easily upstaged by a rampaging brontosaurus. For his climactic scene in 'Hail the Woman', Hughes gives a memorable performance as he finally rebels against his father's tyranny. In his performance as the gospel-shouting father, Theodore Roberts has been accused of overacting to the point of making his role a caricature. I disagree: sadly, decades after this film was made, I continue to encounter 'holy' fools exactly like this man ... willing to destroy the lives of everyone around them, and firmly convinced they have God's authority to do so.<br /><br />In the central role of Judith Beresford, Florence Vidor gives a sensitive, realistic and intelligent performance. I normally dislike Vidor, who tended to be cast in glamour roles but wasn't pretty enough to justify them. Here, her character's physical appearance is less relevant than usual.<br /><br />This entire film is impressively directed by John Griffith Wray, a director who deserves to be much better known. Sadly, Wray died at the onset of the talkies era, in his mid-thirties: had he lived another ten years, he would surely have helmed several early sound classics. In 'Hail the Woman' there are several extremely beautiful screen compositions: I was especially impressed by a scene in the New England forest, when Vidor and Dent have a quarrel in front of an enormous uprooted tree. (I wonder where this was actually filmed.) 'Hail the Woman' deals with unpleasant subject matter, but it deserves to be much better known, and I'll rate this ambitious drama 9 out of 10.
|
positive
|
Lily Powers works at a speakeasy until her father dies.She then goes to New York to work at an office building.There she notices that if she wants to get any higher she has to give the men what they want.And what men want is her...well, you know.Alfred E.Green's Baby Face (1933) is a movie of high sexual content.For a movie of that era, anyway.This was one of the last Pre-Code films that were made.Barbara Stanwyck gives a very sexy performance as Lily.Other actors of this film include George Brent (Courtland Trenholm), Donald Cook (Ned Stevens), Alphonse Ethier (Adolf Cragg), Henry Kolker (J.P.Carter), Margaret Lindsay (Ann Carter) and Theresa Harris (Chico).The young John Wayne is seen as Jimmy McCoy Jr.This movie deals with a brave topic and it does it good.Baby Face is historically significant movie and therefore good to watch.
|
positive
|
It took me time to really appreciate John Carpenter's Halloween. As a kid, I remember I really enjoyed the sequels, especially The Return of Michael Myers, which I still think is the best Halloween sequel. But I thought the first one was slow and took way too much time to get to the point. I watched it a couple of times recently and I know now I was wrong. Today I truly understand this film, the meaning it has, the whole feeling of this horror masterpiece. It's not about blood and gore. It's not about naked chicks and lame jokes. It's about the worst night in Laurie Strode's short life. It's about the night his demented brother comes back home to finish what he started 15 years ago. This movie is meant to be scary and I think it succeeds very well. It's also one of the first slasher movies, a horror sub-genre that I always loved. Halloween has a very dark atmosphere, creepy music and talented young actors, such as Jamie Lee Curtis in her first role. Need I say more? Anyone who's never seen it, horror fan or not, should do his cinematic homework right now. Very highly recommended!
|
positive
|
I have been a huge Lynn Peterson fan ever since her breakthrough role in the 1988 blockbuster movie "Far North", and even though I loved her in her one other film "Slow" (2004) where she plays "Francis", this is by far and away her strongest role.<br /><br />Lynn, as I'm sure you all know (or should), plays the critical role of "Driver".<br /><br />Unfortunately, other than Lynn's amazing performance, I'm afraid this movie doesn't really have much going for it.<br /><br />Oh wait - there was one other thing - the amazing creativity of the editing to remove profanity for TV viewers. Memorable lines like: "You son-of-a-gun!", "You son-of-a-witch!", "Shoot!", and "Well, Forget You!"<br /><br />O.K. Bye.<br /><br />P.S.: Does anyone know where I can get another Lynn Peterson poster?
|
negative
|
Scarlet Dawn casts Douglas Fairbanks, Jr. as a Russian baron rudely displaced by the forces of the Russian Revolution and now has to fend for himself in a world not terribly hospitable to former aristocrats. He's also not terribly suited for any kind of real work. <br /><br />Doug might have been caught by the Reds but for the fact that his former servant Nancy Carroll didn't give him away. Nancy's got a big old crush on Doug and they do marry once arriving in exile in Istanbul which throughout the film is referred to by its former Christian name of Constantinople. They marry and settle down with Doug now reduced to washing dishes.<br /><br />But Fairbanks's former mistress Lilyan Tashman who's always playing bad girls of a sort on film spots him and offers to have him get back into somewhat the style he was once accustomed to as part of a swindle against father and daughter American tourists Guy Kibbee and Sheila Terry. <br /><br />Good thing this film has the incredibly short running time of only 57 minutes, usually those were given to B westerns because it's both tedious and melodramatic. The ending is rather unbelievable. Doug knew he was in a Thanksgiving special and really overacts to cover up the defects of a unbelievable story.<br /><br />What I didn't understand was that Fairbanks was trained in the military profession, why didn't he just become a mercenary soldier after leaving the new Soviet Union? That didn't make sense to me at all.<br /><br />I'd only see this if I was a dedicated fan of any the main players.
|
negative
|
Overall, I give this film a decent 7.6. To start I'll say I love how the character was portrayed and adapted on to the screen. If you read comics occasionally or simply watch DVD extras you'll see the Blade character is drastically different from the one we see in the film. Among the changes, Blade is now most importantly half vampire, therefore acquiring "all of their strengths, but none of their weaknesses." The credit for this goes obviously to David Goyer, a fellow fan of the darker genre of comic books. Thanks to him Blade has become a much more interesting character and I find him one of my favorite anti-heroes really. Wesley Snipes is born to play this role, although some would've probably pererred Dezenel Washington or Will Smith (lol). His acting here doesn't need to be exactly Oscar winning per say considering the character but I'm glad he decids to play the DayWalker in the two sequels. Also starring is Stephen Dorff as our main villain and Kris Kristofferson as Blade's Alfred so to speak. The acting is good actually and the action keeps the plot going for sure. The opening scene in the club is one of my favorite parts I've got to say. As much as like this movie there are few things that bother me which take away from this film ranking with something like "Spider-Man" or "X-Men". Stephen Norrington had the villains portrayed in a way I didn't like so much honestly. Their lines were so full of foul mouthed comedy it didn't really feel like a comic book film to me. Plus "La Magra" a bit disappointing as the final villain but the intense sword fight makes up for it I guess. Not to mention a sense of extra non-realism: a black man in a leather coat with a sword beaing the #$%^ out of a cop in broad day light some how going unnoticed by the crowds walking by seemed kinda..well...dumb. Moving away from a few of its flaws, the music by Mark Isham was great and fitted the film nicely. Luckily all these problems are fixed and improved on in the stunning sequel, "Blade 2".
|
positive
|
This movie is hilarious, not in good way. The fights are awfully bad done, while sometimes they will try to shock you by breaking some bones, and even this happens only two or three times, definitely not enough to call it a shockmovie. A gunfight means a hero can walk into an open field with 10 people shooting at him with uzi's, pick up a gun, start shooting back and not get hurt. <br /><br />The story empty, guy waking up, lost his memory, starts fighting cos that's what he's good at. Five years later memories come back, takes revenge blablabla. <br /><br />Not worth your buck, not really worth your time unless you're drunk and bored.
|
negative
|
I got a chance to talk with the co-creator, Rebecca Cammisa at the 2002 High Falls Film Festival in Rochester, NY. She said that her style is to be completely open and uninhibited in filmmaking but was very happy to be so severely constrained in the tight quarters of the group home. The narrow hallways and small rooms were expertly shot with a realism that would have been lost with more controlled and deliberate camera work.<br /><br />Sister Helen herself is a remarkable character, coming from tragedy in her own life to being an unusual combination of caring, tough, and street smart. The way the film introduces us to her past is excellent, spending only a few carefully selected minutes sprinkled throughout.<br /><br />In all, I can't begin to correctly heap on praise for this film. It really is a treasure of cinema and the subject a treasure of humanity.
|
positive
|
As a fan of Science-fiction movies, I have been aware of The Matrix since its release in 1999. From the little bit I would allow people to tell me about it, I assumed it was highly original and sophisticated. I am also a devotee of Alice in Wonderland. I could never quite figure out how I missed The Matrix when it was released. With the imminent release of The Matrix Reloaded, it was time to buy the DVD and watch it.<br /><br />The disappointment was too great. The premise of the matrix (the controlling device as opposed to the movie) was clever. The philosophical premise of parallel worlds, alternate realities is shopworn. However, I could still have bought into the film, as science-fiction, if it stayed firmly in that genre. Unfortunately, it turned into a standard, "will they or won't they escape, break through, rescue those in need of rescue, etc." To make matters worse, it turned out to be another martial arts exercise. The problem is that science-fiction and martial arts films are really two different types. To the purest, the devotee of one or the other, mixing the two doesn't work. It is like mixing science-fiction with romance. You can have one or the other, but not both in the same film, or, at least, not both to the same extent in the same movie.<br /><br />If there were such problems with The Matrix, The Matrix Reloaded really compounded the problems. At least thirty minutes of the film were either martial arts sequences or the protracted car-chase. (This observation ignores the question, made in every professional, negative review of the movie: If Neo could do the Superman thing, why bother to fight at all? The answer, of course, is that's what draws the young, male demographic group into the theatre.) Then there is the "redemption through love" aspect. That plot device was worn out by Richard Wagner over a hundred years ago. It was actually handled better by him in Die Gotterdammerung.<br /><br />So where does that leave those who saw the Matrix Reloaded. Martial arts fans probably groaned through the trite, but arcane sci-fi philosophizing. Science fictions fans were wondering why they were sitting through a kung-fun fest. Most of the males in the audience where probably bored by the silly romance aspect of the film.<br /><br />Just what are you supposed to be getting for your bucks when you see The Matrix franchise films: Science fiction, martial arts, or soap opera? A bit of each does not make for a whole lot more of any of them, nor for a satisfying film for the afficionados of each.
|
negative
|
Bogmeister and others have pretty much nailed this. Shore Leave is really TOS' first attempt at lightweight sci-fi (which they would later perfect with the classic Trouble with Tribbles). It gave both the crew of the Enterprise and its TV viewers a needed respite from the universe threatening consequences of, for example, The Corbomite Manouever.<br /><br />Looking for a place to chill out for a while, the Enterprise happens across a seemingly idyllic M Class planet, and sends an exploratory team down to take a closer look. Soon enough all kinds of absurdities begin to take place - some seemingly perilous - but it all seems a morass of human emotional extremities played out in a weird blend of fantastic mystery (McCoy has gone through the looking glass), psychological thriller (Kirk is stalked by an indefatigable bully from his past), and romantic comedy (no comment).<br /><br />TOS was the least serialized of all of the series in the Trek franchise, so it is easy to forget how many episodes in the first season focused on heavy-handed, potentially calamitous drama. Unlike later series franchise writers, TOS' production team was not afraid to literally go where no TV series had gone before. And Shore Leave, despite its occasional problems, is an example. My only criticism of this episode is that the cast (particularly Shatner - ironic given his legendary sense of humor) didn't seem to know how to handle this new wrinkle on ST's themes. The last scene is possibly one of the worst scenes I can remember from the entire TOS run - both compositionally and in terms of acting.<br /><br />'nuff said. My recommendation - see it while watching the entire first season as it was meant to be seen - it order.
|
positive
|
This is a nicely-done story with pretty music, lots of dancing, lots of big sister/little sister interaction (almost all of it positive), and lots of wishes granted. There are funny moments that older children and adults will enjoy, such as when King Randolph exclaims, "They're just SHOES! Aren't they?" And tender moments such as when Princess Genevieve comforts her youngest sister, Lacey, after a blunder.<br /><br />The animation is perhaps not as good as Disney, but it still is very good. The facial expressions are nuanced, particularly for Genevieve, King Randolph, Duchess Rowena and her servant, Derek the cobbler, and little Princess Lacey. My only quibble on the animation is in the dance sequences where the dancing princesses become absolute carbon copies of each other without the slightest deviation -- even the three youngest copy the dance steps perfectly. I would have liked to see a little more individualism in the dancing, considering that these girls are not professional ballerinas or chorus dancers.<br /><br />The resolution of the story is handled cleverly to get rid of a villainess without actually hurting her. There is some violence done to guards in the story, and the villainess's monkey is mean to other animals in the story.<br /><br />My 4-year-old daughter loves this movie and has watched it repeatedly, and I have found it to be quite acceptable for her to watch.
|
positive
|
Spoilers.....<br /><br />I saw the original on TV sometime ago and remembered this production as less gripping than most Beeb costume drama. I rewatched on DVD this week and still have the same impression of it. It's a good story at first, but weakens when the heroine becomes oh so terribly brave and noble and returns to her utterly vile husband when he's ill and I got so totally irritated with her saintliness. I suppose this was the "right thing to do" when the story was written as well as contributing plenty of angst, and it was difficult for a woman to be independent of her husband as marriage made her no more than his possession, let alone to carry on scandalously with a lover as I expect a lot of the modern audience would have liked to see. But it's hard to take the santimoniousness nowadays and especially when this heroine had a strong, brave admirer ready to defend her against anyone and everyone. So re the story as in the film I'm equivocal. It's well done as per the novel, but somewhat irritating as per today's kind of life.<br /><br />Steadfast hero Gilbert was certainly a saint to put up with his ladylove's variable and often cryptic behaviour and persistent self-denial and to be so consistently supportive. So I felt it a great shame that when Helen was at long last free to be with him, the script didn't allow him a bit more than about one minute to fall on each other for a quick hug before the titles came up. This was completely ridiculous when we'd been waiting all this time through all that dripping sentiment over the undeserving husband for a decent bit of dialogue and a good embrace between hero and heroine. Instead, the ending was as though the film makers had run out of time or finance or just couldn't be bothered. "Here you are - one minute, do what you can in that, then cut as the director wants to go home now....." I was left feeling totally dissasatisfied.<br /><br />However, very high commendations to the acting of Toby Stephens a perfect and very handsome hero, and Rupert Graves a superbly nasty and self-pitying villain. Tara Fitzgerald was satisfactory within the confines of the script that forced her to be a depressing and rather sanctimonious victim so much of the time.<br /><br />That said, I love these classic dramas and virtually all of them are a sight better than much of the "modern" drama on TV these days. So 7 stars because in spite of the irritations it's still a good watch.
|
positive
|
this film needs to be seen. the truest picture of what is going on in the world that I've seen since Darwin's Nightmare. Go see it! and If you're lucky enough to have it open in your city, be sure to see it on the big screen instead of DVD. The writing is sharp and the direction is good enough for the ideas to come through, though hardly perfect. Joan Cusack is amazing, and the rest of the cast is good too. It's inspiring that John Cusack got this movie made, and, I believe, he had to use some of his own money to do it. It's a wild, absurd ride, obviously made without the resources it needed, but still succeeds. Jon Stewart, Steven Colbert, SNL, even Bill Maher haven't shown the guts to say what this film says.
|
positive
|
My sincere advice to all: don't watch the movie.<br /><br />Don't even go near to the theater where this movie is being played!! even a glimpse of it is bad for health. serious. no jokes. it's 3.30 am in the morning. and i returned from this crappiest movie on this universe. FOUR HOURS DAMN!!! I am proud that i survived after all of it! If this is called survival.<br /><br />i am highly frustrated. annoyed. disappointed. it was sheer waste of time! money went in drain! no plot. Hope i wake up tomorrow sane and with no memories of this night!! RUBBISH MOVIE.<br /><br />Happy Republic day to one and all :)
|
negative
|
This is one of the greatest films ever made. It's an all-time classic. The character played by Ned Beatty undergoes one of the greatest on screen transformations ever portrayed. He is a shallow, almost useless, overweight insurance salesman. He is proud of his ignorance, and yet judges the "backwards hicks" to be the ignorant ones. When he compliments the old man on his hat, and the old man responds, "you don't know nothing'," the tone is set. It's true. He really doesn't "know nothing'." But one backwoods anal rape later, the man is practically a warrior. His shallow fake bravery is toned down into serious resolve. The old self is forever dead, left in some far off woods, soon to be under hundreds of feet of water. And what of Lewis, our intrepid guide? Lewis is a philosopher/hunter/warrior, and he's just about nuts. Burt Reynolds proved himself as an actor way back in 1972 in this film, completely giving himself in to this wonderful role. Who wouldn't want to have a friend like Lewis if one was to venture into the dangers of a forgotten/soon to be left behind world like the one our hapless travelers find themselves in. This film speaks to us on so many levels. The story feels real. It works as a complete action/adventure, with wonderful cinematography, and deliberate, grinding pacing. It works as a bit of a horror film, with the danger and almost surrealism of the encounter with the vile rednecks who objectify their "sow" Ned Beatty. But it also works as an art film, using incredible amounts of symbolism to convey truths that go to our very core. I have seen this film at least fifty times, and every time it comes on, I find I have to watch it. You have to watch it quite a few times to even begin to comprehend it. This is one deep movie. This is one well-acted movie. And this is one hell of a story. I gave it a 10 out of 10, and put it in my 10 all time greatest films ever made, along with Schindler's List, Casablanca, Taxi Driver, and Sling Blade, among others. Movies that make you think. Movies that take you beyond having to think. Movies that use a STORY to make their point, without trying to preach to you. If you think you know Deliverance, you might, but again, you might not. It really is that good.
|
positive
|
In the Belarus of 1942, two Soviet soldiers are captured by Nazi-friendly Belarusians. In captivity, the attitude of the two men toward their fate differs greatly. One of the soldiers manages to find an inner strength and spirituality, incomprehensible to the other man. Larisa Shepitko's last film is one of the most beautiful war films in cinema history. The cinematography, by Vladimir Chuchnov, is incredible - particularly in the opening sequence, where long, slow, tracking shots depicting the solitude and almost desperate nature of winter landscape in rural Belarus set the mood perfectly. It is easy to draw comparison to Tarkovsky's films, even more so since Tarkovsky's alter ego Anatoli Solonitsyn has a small but important part in The Ascent. The acting is overall brilliant, especially by Boris Plotnikov, in the part of Sotnikov. The film reveals an old-fashioned belief in the strength of religious passion, which feels related to characters such as Dostoyevsky's Prince Myshkin, or Tarkovsky's Stalker. However, this is not a weakness of the film, but rather one of its greatest strengths. The religious content seems so honest, and human, that it is impossible not to be moved. The emotional richness of the film cannot be overstated; the answer is not as simplified as a short summary of the plot would make you think. The slow development of the characters, and the emphasis on their complicated relationships to each other, are somewhat reminiscent of The Commissar, another great Soviet film. The Ascent deserves a second watching, as well as a third, and a tenth. It continues to provide interesting ideas, beautiful images, and emotional complexity.
|
positive
|
This deserves a 12 out of 10. An absolutely refreshing show with real characters and real stories. This show needs to come back, I've seen every episode and this is real quality.<br /><br />The show centers around a couple of New Yorkers, plays around with the concept of the six degrees of separation and cleverly intertwines their lives. Bridget Moynahan and Jay Hernandez are stunning and so is the adorable Caseman. The scenery is amazing and wardrobes are exquisite.<br /><br />We need more shows like this that makes viewers feel like they are intelligent individuals not mindless drones.<br /><br />If it never comes back, six degrees will be sorely missed.
|
positive
|
I have seen this movie only once, several years ago. But I remember liking it a lot.<br /><br />**Spoilers ahead** An old famous opera singer is retired and she decides to give all the money she has to her cats. Her butler hears this and plots to get rid of the cats so he can have the fortune. He puts knockout drops in their milk. When they wake up, they find themselves miles away. They must journey back to their house before it is too late. With the help of an independent-minded tomcat and other animal accomplices, while evading the butler and foiling his plan.<br /><br />Could have been better, but it also could have been a lot worse.<br /><br />My Score: 7/10.
|
positive
|
I had been interested in this film for a long time, especially after reading a couple of online reviews of the DVD edition; however, I kept postponing its purchase because of the excessive price-tag and utter lack of relevant supplements. When it went out-of-print earlier this year, I finally gave in - but the entire order (which included a number of other highly-desirable titles) got lost in transit!; luckily, the DVD has been re-issued at bargain-price - and I'm sure glad I picked it up! <br /><br />Anyway, this is one strange film, and a genuine sleeper: initially confusing but striking occult tale which manages to hit bullseye with respect to both its forbidding small-town atmosphere and the inherent eeriness of the sinister goings-on. A small cast responds perfectly to a terse, absorbing and intelligent script: lead Strother Martin, in particular, makes the dialogue sound better than it actually is with his nuanced performance as the town doctor/head of the witch's coven; L.Q. Jones and Alvy Moore (both of whom also produced the film!) offer solid support as the no-nonsense sheriff and his comic-strip aficionado assistant.<br /><br />The plot merges elements of various earlier films dealing with witchcraft and the supernatural, and not only the obvious titles: the fact that the town is held under a spell which can't at first be identified, for instance, brings instantly to mind the similar affliction of one specific bourgeois household in Luis Bunuel's sublimely surreal THE EXTERMINATING ANGEL (1962)!; the 'possessed children' angle was borrowed, perhaps, from VILLAGE OF THE DAMNED (1960); there have been many films - especially of a recent vintage - where the satanic rites of a witches' coven are shown: from THE CITY OF THE DEAD (1960) to THE DEVIL RIDES OUT (1968) but, since the proceedings take place in modern-day America (albeit in remote surroundings) and revolve around elderly witches (seeking a 'renaissance'), the film they recall most of all is ROSEMARY'S BABY (1968).<br /><br />The occult scenes (accentuated as much by foggy exteriors as by the shadowy lighting of the garishly-decorated house where the diabolical events take place) are presented in a completely matter-of-fact way as to make them unsettling and extremely effective - particularly the opening sequence involving an army tank crushing a car(!), the rampage of a devil-doll (a concept which has been done to death over the years but, here, it raises an undeniable frisson), a surreal dream sequence (set inside the ice chamber where all the victims are kept, since they can't be buried!), a sequence where the witches attack a doubting member of the coven, a beheading committed by a horse-riding medieval knight(!) and the lengthy 'black mass' finale (with the witches, accompanied by the respective child they will be 'taking over', all dressed in red - except for a black-clad Martin presiding over the ceremony) which culminates in ritual mass suicide! <br /><br />The film also has the guts to deliver a downbeat 'curtain'; it's so refreshing to come across a title (albeit a low-budget production) from a major Hollywood studio, Columbia, that contrives to go so completely against the grain (like, I said, the film is quite weird - extending also to the editing and the score)! It's odd, too, that such a classy - and cinematic - horror offering {sic} should come from a TV director most often associated with Westerns and other family fare! By the way, the same theme was dealt with almost contemporaneously in the nth Christopher Lee/Peter Cushing collaboration NOTHING BUT THE NIGHT (1972; which Lee produced himself!) - a film I foolishly missed out on some 20 years back when it was shown on local TV, and which has been M.I.A. ever since!! <br /><br />P.S. This review of THE BROTHERHOOD OF Satan will certainly contain spoilers but, then, the synopsis and artwork featured on the DVD cover manage to give everything away anyway!
|
positive
|
More TV movies ought to be made like this one. I saw it way back in '93 when it was first on TV. Helen Hunt and Steven Weber were both terrific, giving very gritty and realistic performances. Weber was especially good, turning in an exceptionally creepy and understated performance as the child molester/killer. This film really increased my respect for Hunt as an actress. The director also directed "Hoosiers," which was somehow both formulaic and exciting. But the direction in both of these works has the same stark, simple realism that is so appealing. If you like TV movies that aren't predictable and filled with overacting, see it if you can. The side story about Hunt and Fahey's affair is also appealing without detracting from the main story.
|
positive
|
I would like to submit the following goof.<br /><br />During the bridge scene, soldiers are seen wading out in the river, asking to be taken away and seeking to escape. Some of the soldiers approach Captain Willard's boat and attempt to board carrying with them suitcases. Soldiers are not issued nor do they ever carry suitcases into a combat zone. They have duffel bags, packs and footlockers but not suitcases. The use of a suitcase in this scene is absurd and out of keeping. Additionally, if you look closely, you will see that the suitcase is floating on top of the water. This is probably a very good indication that it is empty,otherwise it would sink.
|
positive
|
I stumbled upon this movie whilst flipping channels on the teevee late one night. It has continued to hold my interest some twenty years later, because of the important real-life lesson it teaches us about the dark side of human nature. And although it tells a true story that takes place in WWII, it is amazingly apropos to the ugly things happening in Europe today.<br /><br />If you thought "ethnic cleansing" as it's called today, has anything to do with race or ethnicity, you'll think differently after viewing this story.<br /><br />I guess I'd been pretty naive in thinking that evil follows any prescribed set of rules. Evil is as evil does.<br /><br />This movie teaches a valuable lesson, and I recommend it especially to e.g. church groups or civil rights organizations.<br /><br />I don't expect it will be too easy to find and rent, but I'd really like to see it again, because there is one amazing scene in it which gives a totally unintentional yet interesting glimpse of the banal intricacies of "race expertise". In this scene, the protaganist, who was taken prisoner by the Nazis at the beginning of the war, is "discovered" by an SS race authority, and ushered into a room. There the two play a sort of guessing game, where the SS officer is able to determine where our hero (Anthony Quinn's character) came from -- and where his ancestors came from. Well "come to find out" that Quinn's character isn't a member of an "inferior" race after all, but to the contrary, he's a perfect, archtypical Aryan! Which doesn't mean a whole lot to Quinn's character, who is more interested in talking about the towns, rivers and mountain ranges that the SS guy had just been naming... Nevertheless, being a perfect Aryan archetype has its perks. Among other things, he gets to leave his job in a slave labor factory where he wears striped rags, and into a slave modeling job where he gets to wear tailored Nazi uniforms. Yeah, it's a better gig for sure for a guy who always did appreciate wearing nice clothes... until the Allied armies arrive, and recognize his face from magazine covers.<br /><br />
|
positive
|
On the surface, this movie would appear to deal with the psychological process called individuation, that is how to become a true self by embracing the so-called 'dark' side of human nature. Thus, we have the Darkling, a classic shadowy devilish creature desperately seeking the company (that is, recognition) of men, and the story revolves around the various ways in which this need is handled, more or less successfully. <br /><br />However, if we dig a little deeper, we find that what this movie is actually about is how you should relate to your car like you would to any other person: - in the opening scene, the main character (male car mechanic fallen from grace)is collecting bits and pieces from car wrecks with his daughter, when a car wreck nearly smashes the little girl. Lesson #1: Cars are persons embodied with immortal souls, and stealing from car wrecks is identical with grave robbery. The wicked have disturbed the dead and must be punished. - just after that, another character (Rubin) buys a car wreck intending to repair it and sell it as a once-lost-now-found famous race-car and is warned by the salesman. Lesson #2: Just like any other person, a car has a unique identity that cannot be altered nor replaced. In addition, there is the twist that Rubin actually sees a hidden quality in what most people would just think of as junk, but eventually that quality turns out to be a projection of Rubin's own personal greed for more profit. Lesson #3: Thou shalt never treat thy car as a means only, but always as an end in itself. - then we have the scene where the main character is introduced to Rubin and, more importantly, Rubin's car: The main character's assessment of the car's qualities is not just based on its outer appearance, but also by a thorough look inside the engine room. Lesson #4: A car is not just to be judged by its looks, it is what is inside that really counts. There is punishment in store for those who do not keep this lesson in mind, as we see in the scene where another man tries to sell Rubin a fake collector's car. This scene by the way also underlines the importance of lesson #3. <br /><br />There are numerous other examples in the movie of the 'car=person'-theme, and I am too tired now to bother citing all of them, but the point remains (and I guess this is what I'm really trying to say) that this movie is fun to watch if you have absolutely nothing else to do - or, if you're a car devotee.
|
negative
|
I saw this film recently in a film festival. It's the romance of an ex-alcoholic unemployed man who just came out of a big depression and a single middle-aged woman who works in an employment office (INEM). I found the story very simple and full of clichés, taking the 'social' theme of the movie and turn it in to a romance comedy. The lead actor did a good job, he definitely looks like an alcoholic man, but Ana Belen is not believable as a working class woman, she looks, acts and talks very much like a 'high-standing' woman. What I mean is that Ana Belen plays herself. She does it in all her movies anyway. The whole mise-en-scene of the film was very poor. The photography is ugly, not using well at all the panoramic aspect ratio. The dialogue sounds totally scripted and dull most of the times. The comic situations are typical from Gomez Pereira, but in this case they are not funny at all and are resolved poorly. In my opinion this film is not worth watching. Only if you really love Pereira's previous films you might enjoy this one a little bit. Anyway, I walked out of the theater because I felt I was wasting my time. The film-maker was by the door. I wonder what a director feels like when he sees someone walking out of one of his films, specially one that is made to please everybody.
|
negative
|
Garson Kanin wrote and directed this look at "modern day" Las Vegas and the gap between generations, his first directorial effort since the 1940s! David Janssen is somewhat miscast as a big-shot casino owner who reunites with his son (Robert Drivas, who looks disconcertingly like an older Jason Bateman). Janssen approaches every scene the same way: defensively, with a chip on his shoulder. Playing this role cool and laid-back is asking too much from Janssen, who barks at everyone like a grouchy put-upon husband (he even chews out Don Rickles and makes him cry!). His son, a ne'er-do-well in search of his own identity, makes hip comments about how young people look down on Vegas (give them another ten years), and his disapproval of Dad's lifestyle causes friction. Brenda Vaccaro is cute as a self-conscious secretary and Edy Willaims has a fun bit as a showgirl at an audition. Unfortunately, "Where It's At" doesn't have much else going for it other than the now-dated ruminations on ethics between adults and their kids, some quick T&A shots and amusingly jaded satirical bits on the high-stakes world of gambling--most of which has been covered by now, ad nauseum. ** from ****
|
negative
|
This movie is so predictable when you know the modern American dream: Do nothing, be a loser and then suddenly... whoah! You're a genius and an obnoxious one and the world is kissing the ground you are walking on.<br /><br />And surprisingly all the other smart people are losers. They don't know anything and are bitter when our wonderkid solves problems so easily. And what kind of problems? They are so difficult but still these professors can analyse the results in less than 10 seconds.<br /><br />Every movie has something good in it anyway and Robin Williams is it in this one.
|
negative
|
I loved this movie. I'm a Mexican and was in the least offended by it. In fact, I think this movie should be shown at police headquarters all over Mexico. It's a sad truth that our police system is as rotten as a 3 month old corpse. It angers me to read in the news how killers, kidnappers and other slime go free by paying a laughable fine or live like kings inside prison cells. We should have someone like Creasy, Denzel Washington's character. A bodyguard turned vengeful vigilante. Kidnapping is flourishing industry down here (at least in the big cities). I actually wish real life kidnappers could suffer the same fate as the one's Creasy did his fine job upon. That would be so marvelous (Sorry, I am THAT resentful!). MAN ON FIRE is a gripping film that you can't miss. It might be hard on some of you, if you aren't used to reading subtitles (Mexicans do that ALL the time while watching American movies) but the effort will be well worth it. Some of the editing is a bit fuzzy...kind of like TRAFFIC, remember? (another brilliant take on how corrupt Mexico is). The movie starts out a bit slow but the pace picks up frantically by the second half. I swear you'll be cheering as you watch Denzel Washington dispatch the wrong doers. His performance is nothing short of Excellent. The ending (no spoilers, OK!!!) is a bit sad, but I'm sure you'll like it anyway. MAN ON FIRE is one of the year's best movies. A "must own" for a DVD collection! 9* out of 10
|
positive
|
This is a cut above other movies of the genre: genuinely suspenseful, intelligent, brilliantly acted and visually stunning. Yes, the plot can be confusing - but that's partly what makes it pack such a punch. Watch it twice if you can. You'll get almost as much out of watching it when you know the twist than you do from watching it the first time.<br /><br />Don't be put off by the fact that this film comes from Korea, a country not too familiar to most Western audiences. While there are elements of the film that are culturally specific, the underlying themes are all too universal - guilt, anger, loss, madness and retribution. All of these are handled superbly by Lim Su-jeong as Su-mi, the lead character. Also worthy of particular mention is Yum Jung-ah, who delivers a deeply creepy and unsettling performance as the stepmother. <br /><br />While it has its scary moments, this is not really a horror flick as most people would imagine it. It's more a psychological suspense story with an element of mystery. It grips you from the start and will keep you guessing until the end - and possibly beyond!
|
positive
|
I had the misfortune to catch this on a flight recently. I had the bigger misfortune of having it played on my RETURN flight as well. Obviously Demi's attempt to get some "arty" cred, the movie is a shambles because of her lousy acting ability. A better actress might have made this work, but a simple look at the face of Moore shows the emptiness within. At least she's not ruining American literature this time out.
|
negative
|
This was god awful. The story was all over the place and more often than not I was confused because of horrible editing. I felt no sympathy for anyone because their characters were not developed enough. They were extremely superficial people with no dimension. Cheesy, cheesy stereotypes with subplots that went nowhere. The stripper chick was just a distraction, even if she was decent looking. I don't know what this was attempting to be, but how shocked was I when they showed this trash on Sundance? I almost cancelled my subscription. You'd think a channel like that would show more quality films. There are much, much better gay and lesbian themed films out there. "The Celluloid Closet" is an excellent documentary. I thoroughly enjoyed "Wigstock: The Movie". I'm sure there are others that have slipped my mind at the moment, but what I'm trying to say is that this just wasn't worth it. If you catch it on TV, ok, but otherwise don't bother.<br /><br />There were maybe three or four shots that looked really nice (sad I can count them on one hand), otherwise the cinematography was pretty crappy as well. The lighting was way off in a lot of places. I think some of the effects were used to try and add to something that just had practically nothing going for it.<br /><br />I can't deny Johnny Rebel is pretty hot (without the blond hair of course). Too bad his acting did nothing for me. Stick with real porn, buddy.<br /><br />3/10.
|
negative
|
There wasn't a dry eye amongst the audience yesterday afternoon after I left the cinema, having seen this gem of a film in a sold-out house as part of this year's Hamburg Film Festival. And the tears shed were all of laughter. This film was hilarious, there's no other way of saying this. There wasn't one boring bit in it, I laughed right through it and with me everyone else of us three hundred lovers of French cinéma.<br /><br />Alain Chabat was absolutely terrific. A great clown if needs be and serious if the situation calls for it. The performance was of course completely over the top, but this was exactly what the story needed and what made it work so well. Equally great was Charlotte Gainsbourg who I love to see a lot, and the mother was also a very strong performance. The sisters could have been a bit more detailed in character script-wise, but apart from that there is nothing to moan about. I had a great afternoon seeing this film while Hamburg was drowning in rain outside, and I wish films like this from France would get a regular release in Germany. But the distributors is this country don't seem to understand that the French make good films. I at least can't wait to find a DVD which offers subtitles (Hello Australia? Please?) because that film I need at home to watch several more times!
|
positive
|
He now has a name, an identity, some memories and a a lost girlfriend. All he wanted was to disappear, but still, they traced him and destroyed the world he hardly built. Now he wants some explanation, and to get ride of the people how made him what he is. Yeah, Jason Bourne is back, and this time, he 's here with a vengeance.<br /><br />OK, this movie doesn't have the most elaborated script in the world, but its thematics are very clever and ask some serious questions about our society. Of course, like every Hollywoodian movie since the end of the 90's, "The Bourne Suprematy" is a super-heroes story. Jason Bourne is a Captain-America project-like, who's gone completely wrong. In the first movie, the hero discovered his abilities and he accepted them in the second one. He now fights against what he considers like evil, after a person close to him has been killed (his girlfriend in "Suprematy") by them. That's all a part of the super-hero story, including a character with (realistic but still impressive : he almost invincible) super powers.<br /><br />And the interesting point is that the evil he fights all across the world (there's no frontiers in the Bourne's movies, characters are going from one continent to another in the blink of an eye), is, as in the best seasons of "24", an American enemy, who's beliefs that he fight for the good of his country completely blinds him. Funny how "mad patriots" are now the N.1 enemies of paranoiac Hollywood's stories.<br /><br />Beside all those interesting thematics, the movie isn't flawless : the feminine character of Nickie Parson is for now on completely useless and the direction is quite unoriginal when it comes to dialogs scenes. But all that doesn't really matter, for "The Bourne Ultimatum" is an action movie. And the action scenes are rather impressive.<br /><br />Everyone here is talking about the "Waterloo scene" and the "Tanger pursuit" and everyone's right. I particularly enjoyed the fight in Tanger, that reminds my in its exaggeration and craziness the works of Tsui Hark. Visually inventive scenes, lots of intelligent action parts and a good reflection on American's contemporary thematics : "The Bourne Ultimatum" is definitely the best movie of the series and a very interesting and original action flick.
|
positive
|
As a massive fan of DM, it goes without saying that I have seen this film numerous times. However, I watch it purely for the concert footage...the rest of the film is, um, pretty dreadful, sad to say.<br /><br />Famed rock music film director DA Pennebaker followed Mode around on their late 80s Music For The Masses tour, which promoted the superb album of the same name. The title 101 derives mostly from the fact that the concert material included is from the 101st and final concert of the tour at the Pasadena Bowl, but is also a reference to the movie being a 'beginners course' on the band and how it ticks ie Depeche Mode 101. Amidst footage of the quartet playing live and exploring America is a second story thread covering a group of DM fans who've won a competition to meet the band, go on the tour in their own coach bus and attend the finale gig.<br /><br />Now, as I said above, the concert footage is great. Mode are here on top of their form as stadium rock gods, which was a somewhat unusual achievement for an electrorock band back in the late 80s. Though the film catches the band before they recorded their 1990 masterpiece "Violator", there are still countless excellent tracks seen and heard here eg Behind The Wheel, the majestic Never Let Me Down Again, Everything Counts, Just Can't Get Enough from the Vince Clarke years, Shake The Disease and many more.<br /><br />When Mode are onstage, they are brilliant. When they are not, they're, well, very boring. Nothing even vaguely of interest happens to the lads as they check out the US in the dying days of the Reagan administration. As an example, the probable "highlight" of the material is a visit to a country music store to buy cassettes. Not exactly thrilling stuff. I know all bands don't have to be wild and reckless idiots, but these guys make the Mormon Tabernacle Choir look like Rammstein.<br /><br />The only real excitement comes from various clips centring on the band's lead singer Dave Gahan. Gahan comes across in 101 as being mildly psychotic, talking about a violent power inside himself he can't control, recalling a bizarre rage attack involving a taxi driver and so on. There's one point in the film where he throws a prima donna tantrum at some poor guy backstage - truly embarrassing. The man clearly had issues back then, which thankfully have been resolved. Songwriter Martin Gore and keyboardist Andy Fletcher are presented as very articulate, clearly massively talented, but also utterly colourless men; while the somewhat enigmatic fourth member Alan Wilder is the only one of the quartet who pulls off the rock star persona with any sort of aplomb.<br /><br />And as for the 'fan tour' thread, well it's unwatchable dross. Let's not kid ourselves. Maybe it's just because it's all so *very* late 80s, but the gaggle of young devotees do little for me but raise a feeling of irritation. They are, to a person, singularly shallow and vapid people, whose antics are banal when they aren't hide-your-face cringeworthy. Let me reiterate....*nothing* happens in the footage that isn't onstage that is of any interest. Nothing. Endless scenes of kids spraying their hair, arguing pointlessly, changing their clothes, getting lost in cities on the way to gigs and finding their partners in bed with another competition winner makes me wonder just one thing - if Cure fans were this mind bendingly dull back in '88/89. The love the youngsters have for the band is something I can definitely relate to, and is at times infectiously joyous, but if what we see was the most interesting stuff out of what was filmed of them, then I'd hate to see the outtakes.<br /><br />But the music is all that matters, and in this regard 101 excels. The Pasadena concert, one of their all time best gigs, makes the film worth seeing. The recent DVD edition of the movie comes with a bonus disc containing what remains of the unedited concert footage (a good 80% of the performance), and thus makes the DVD an absolute must for fans. The audio commentary by the band (minus Wilder, who left Mode in the mid-90s) on the first disc is also, oddly, far more interesting than the film itself.<br /><br />As a document of the boys from Basildon during their amphitheatre idol period, Depeche Mode 101 is invaluable. But if you're looking for excitement, you're better off getting the accompanying double live album (now available in Super Audio CD format).
|
negative
|
Having enjoyed Joyce's complex novel so keenly I was prepared to be disappointed by Joseph Strick's and Fred Haines's screenplay, given the fabulous complexity of the original text. However, the film turned out to be very well done and a fine translation of the tone, naturalism, and levity of the book.<br /><br />It certainly helps to have read the original text before viewing the film. I imagine the latter would seem disjointed, with very odd episodes apparently randomly stitched together, without a prior reading of the text to help grasp the plot.<br /><br />It's amazing to see how "filthy" the film is, given that it was shot in Dublin in 1967. The Irish film censors only, finally, unbanned it for viewing by general audiences in Ireland as late as 2000 (it was shown to restricted audiences in a private cinema club, the Irish Film Theatre, in the late 1970s). Joyce's eroticism is not simply naturalistic and raunchy, it offers many wildly "perverse" episodes. Never mind that so many of these fetishes were unacceptable when the book was published in 1922 - they were still utterly taboo when the film was made in 1967.<br /><br />It is astonishing and heartening to watch the cream of the Irish acting profession of the 1960s, respected players all, daring to utter and enact Joyce's hugely transgressive text with such gusto.<br /><br />Bravo!
|
positive
|
This is without a shadow of a doubt the absolute worst movie Steven Seagal has ever made. And that says a lot. Don't get fooled by the rating, it's way too good. This abomination hadn't even been worthy of a 0/10 rating, if such a thing existed. <br /><br />- Absolutely no plot <br /><br />- Worst action scenes ever, and there aren't too many of them either <br /><br />- Seagal doesn't do anything himself, including the fighting, talking (lots of dubbing), and so on. As always. <br /><br />- Seagal is fat, lazy and couldn't care less about this movie. Something which is very obvious all the way through<br /><br />Take all the other garbage DTV movies Seagal has made, multiply them with each other, multiply this with a thousand billions, and all the badness you then get won't even describe 1 % of this absolute crapfest.
|
negative
|
Good luck finding this film to even watch - it's not yet released on tape or DVD. I saw on release in the early '70's, was lucky enough to catch it via American Cinematheque's preservation efforts, and it still has some tangible moments that stayed with me for thirty years.<br /><br />No reason to repeat rwint's accurate comments here. As a come-out Director soon after the soaring success of Five Easy Pieces, Jack N has been said to have managed the low budget effort as best as possible, and it certainly shows in the wandering and meandering that could have used some re-cutting. But it's also a memorable icon for it's time: the all very intense clashes of late 60's college sports, student movements, sexual revolution, and more. <br /><br />Why see this film? It was probably a ground breaker in some scenes: the frisky male bonding in the after-game showers; Karen Black's scene with Tepper in the car will catch you a little off guard - but it's the first use of a word I hadn't witnessed in film before; and the casual and unexpected use of nudity overall. There are probably others I'm omitting.<br /><br />Look for a nice surprise of a young Cindy Williams in one of her first films; a thin David Ogend Stiers; Mike Warren fresh out of his powder-blue UCLA uniform and readying for a dark-blue TV uniform; Robert Towne - Actor; and a whole lot of folks simply playing themselves.<br /><br />Now: any connection between Harry Gittes last name, Robert Towne, and a certain character in Chinatown and the Two Jakes?<br /><br />It gets a "7" based on Karen Black. You'll see why.
|
positive
|
Biodoc on the enigmatic singer/songwriter who, according to friends' accounts, spent the last 15 years of his relatively short life seemingly on a mission of self-destruction. He died at 52, overweight and dissipated, of heart disease, after a protracted rampage of virtually non-stop overindulgence in alcohol, cigarettes, marijuana and cocaine, raucous partying, and flagrant misuse of his vocal instrument (he confided to a friend that he shouted out his lyrics at one performance with such force that spattered blood was left on the microphone).<br /><br />All of this despite the fact that he was: (1) widely considered to have perhaps the most gifted pop singing ability of his generation; (2) successful, after years of effort, in terms of industry acclaim - a Grammy, an Oscar, a decent recording contract with a top label, and at least two stellar albums - 'Nilsson Schmilsson' (originals), and 'A Little Touch of Schmilsson in the Night' (standards); and (3) very happily married (for the third time), with a lovely young family that he seemed to adore.<br /><br />The film's strengths begin with the completeness of its account of Nilsson's life, including fine use of archival film footage and many stills of Nilsson; the editors do an especially good job of bringing movement to the stills. We learn of his close ties to John Lennon and, later, Ringo Starr (Lennon often said that Nilsson was his favorite American musician).<br /><br />Even more impressive are the talking heads, often a documentary's weakest aspect. Here we get people like Perry Botkin, Jr., Ray Cooper, Mickey Dolenz, Terry Gilliam, Mark Hudson, Eric Idle, Rick Jarrard, Randy Newman, Van Dyke Parks, Jimmy Webb and Robin Williams, all telling amazing stories about Nilsson many uproariously funny, others deeply pathetic - and everyone conveying their deep affection for him. Equally informative and moving are interview segments with Nilsson's wives Annie and Una, his son Zach, and cousin Doug Hoefer. Best set of heads I can recall in a biodoc.<br /><br />The most glaring deficiency of the film is that it crowds out Nilsson's music. Even the performance of his greatest hit, "Without You," is cut short after about 8 bars. Arrrrgh!! There is no excuse for this, not given that the movie runs a full two hours as it is. Lose a few head shots and we could have heard at least that song through, and perhaps one or two more, like "One," or his Oscar winning cover of "Everybody's Talking.'" The filmmakers are simply too intent on plumbing Nilsson's psychological mystique and not attentive enough to his music. My grades: 7.5/10 (low B+) (Seen at the NWFC's Reel Music series, 01/07/07)
|
positive
|
Let me be clear. I've used IMDb for years. But only today I went through the trouble of registering on the site, just so I could give this movie the lowest possible rating. I've seen hundreds of films, some of them bad, a few awful. Never, though, have i seen such a contrast of pretense and incompetence, of high intentions and failure.<br /><br />Mira Sorvino is horribly cast as the princess, but entirely unbelievable as Phocion, a young boy. Fiona Shaw is always an entertaining character, but the dialogue in the film is much worse, even, than in the insipid French play that is the source (Marivaux never reached Hollywood until now, and we should keep it that way).<br /><br />To illustrate, for example, that Leontine is a brilliant, passionate philosopher and scientist, she is shown frantically pouring chemicals from beaker to beaker, shouting out names of famous scientists. And the romance between Agis and the princess is played even sillier. For this, the pair should receive a joint 'Clair Danes' award, which in a just world would be awarded for gratuitously anachronistic and uninspired re-interpretation of interesting teens from literature as brats of the 1990's (see Miss Danes in Les Miserables).<br /><br />Aside from the atrocious plot and dialogue, there are some attempts to introduce artistic tropes into the filming. For example, there are moments when a handful of spectators are faded in and out of view of the action, sitting in chairs, watching the principal characters. The Director wants us to realize she's adapted a play. I get it. But it doesn't happen at all until far into the film. At that point, seeing a crowd of people sitting in chairs for a moment, then disappearing, is creepy and distracting. They're like some sort of un-scary zombie crowd, appearing through the mists, filling us with dread. When you see the horrible frolic and song that ends this movie, you'll want to rouse your own crowd of zombies and kill them all for the grave injustise of poisoning your mind for 112 minutes.<br /><br />-Matthew McGuire
|
negative
|
My God, this is funny stuff. Yes, it's puerile in the extreme, but also rather witty ("Here's the page with all the wines on it." "It's a little early for us, I'm afraid." "Well, what are you doing up then?") and the fight sequences are second to none. Despite what you may have heard, the laughs *do* keep coming, and at a surprisingly generous rate. The sheer comic abilities of Rik Mayall and Adrian Edmondson help keep it riotously funny. wringing every drop of comedy from the script. I can only compare it to "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" - you either find that film hysterical throughout or not at all; the same applies here. It's probably the funniest British film since "Withnail and I", but to say it's an acquired taste is something of a gross (sic) understatement.
|
positive
|
"The Incubus" is a mix of the good (an interesting murder mystery), the bad (a disconnected script, a sloppy resolution, badly made attack scenes) and the weird (strong incestuous overtones, a strangely sleepy and stiff performance by John Cassavetes - was that character really meant to be so "wacko"?). Not nearly as offensive as it's reputed to be, but not particularly successful, either. (*1/2)
|
negative
|
Nathan Detroit (Frank Sinatra) is the manager of the New York's longest- established floating craps game, and he needs $1000 to secure a new location. Confident of his odds, he bets the city's highest-roller, Sky Masterson (Marlon Brando), that he can't woo uptight missionary Sarah Brown (Jean Simmons). 'Guys and Dolls (1955)' is such a great musical because it deftly blends the contrasting styles of film and stage. During a dazzling opening sequence, crowds of pedestrians move in rhythm, stopping and starting as though responding to backstage cues. Even the walking movements themselves are stylised and angular, halfway between a walk and a dance. Mankiewicz's New York City is a glittering flurry of art deco colour and movement, a fantasy world so completely removed from reality that even the business of underground gambling and criminal thuggery seems perfectly genial. <br /><br />As I write this review, I've just received word that Jean Simmons has passed away, age 80. This, unbelievably, was the first time I'd seen her in a film, yet she dazzled me from the beginning. Her idealistic and sexually-repressed Sarah comes out of her shell following an alcohol binge in Havana, letting loose with an adorably playful rendition of "If I Were A Bell." Even though both Simmons and Brando were non-singers, producer Sam Goldwyn decided not to dub their vocals, contending that "maybe you don't sound so good, but at least it's you." Despite Goldwyn's backhanded confidence, the pair both do well to carry entire musical numbers themselves. Simmons suggests the same child-like liveliness that Audrey Hepburn might have brought to the role, and Brando exudes such self-assurance and charisma that it doesn't matter that his singing voice isn't quite there.
|
positive
|
This is a fair little show about the paranormal although it feels as if Art Bell and his ilk figured out how to carve a career out of the attitude that Carl Kolchak exemplified. Of course there probably wouldn't be an X-Files if this show hadn't prepped this audience for it so well. Darren McGavin is not exactly the super-heroic type but he is a plausible(enough) guy to deliver heroic deeds. Check out his work on some of those old Alfred Hitchcock Presents. Here he is the main attraction, there doesn't seem to be a girlfriend or wife who's a distraction. In fact there isn't a whole lot of sex appeal to the show. Something I'm noticing as well is that the pacing isn't really suspenseful in a typical way. There's a lot of throwaway humor to this show. Sometimes its just pokey to get to the climax. There's a thread from this show coming all the way up to the present MAD MEN show in terms of style. Not that David Chase writes Mad Men but the people that worked under him on The Sopranos definitely have emulated and inherited his serio-comic tone.
|
negative
|
I'm not a fan of this brand of comedy - stereotyped characters over-acting their way through a cops and robbers farce. But there are enough likable characters to sustain interest. Michelle Pfeiffer is adorable, but the person really carrying the film is Dean Stockwell, who steals every scene as the head mobster (named Tony, no less). <br /><br />Stockwell's performance is the reason I'm writing this review (and the only reason I'd recommend it), in fact. You'll be tickled by his screen time. He's plays the mob boss perfectly, with comedic touches in the right places, managing to avoid becoming an overbearing cliche. In fact, Stockwell's a complete delight to watch - a master of the 'double take,' and a real 'looker' in those classy suits and fedoras. <br /><br />Meesa Says: A good film to watch while folding laundry or eating leftovers.
|
positive
|
Too fractured to be enjoyable, too loose to be interesting and too clumsily photographed to be tolerable MR LONELY is an interesting idea ruined by really bad film making. Like a Ken Russell film at its worst, or DAY OF THE LOCUST remade by amateurs, MR LONELY might have seemed like a good idea on a few scraps of paper (no script, you see) and a free holiday to somewhere, but in the end we have a widescreen film that seems as if it was made by film students whose parents told them that EVERYTHING they did was a brilliant creation. Or did I get the film maker right? MR LONELY is a waste of resources, trying to be (gawd!) quirky and deliberately off kilter. It ends up being annoying and indulgent.. and pointless. What's the point of going to a commune in Scotland? What a stupid idea in this film about Hollywood delusion. Maybe Korine wanted to remake GODSPELL ... well the result is GOD-AWFUL. Oh and there is some subplot like leftover footage from FITZCARRALDO including Werner Herzog, nuns and a plane. Add slo-mo drifting and violin music all wistful and melancholy, add James Fox who seems to hope he might be seen as daring (like in PERFORMANCE) and the result is amphetamine fantasy alphabet soup in widescreen. It might have been fun to film but the result on the screen is a mess. Imagine American PIE BAND CAMP with food poisoning.
|
negative
|
What can you possibly say about a show of this magnitude? "The Sopranos" has literally redefined television as we know it. It has broken all rules, and set new standards for television excellence. Everything is flawless, the writing, directing, and for me, most of all, the acting. Watching this show you'll find yourself realizing that these characters are NOT real. The acting tricks you into thinking there is a real Tony Soprano, or any character. This show is also very versatile. Some people don't watch the show because it's violent, it's not all about the violence, it's about business, family, and many deeper things that all depend on what you, as a fan see. For me, I don't like when people refer to the show, a show about the Mafia. For me, it's a show about family. A family who, through generations, happen to be apart of the mob. Overall this is a masterpiece of a show. This is what television should be. Right here. Complex characters from stunning acting, magnificent story lines from brilliant writing, and what do you get when you mix these ingredients together? A show that defines excellence, and dares to be different.
|
positive
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.