review
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| sentiment
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
I was duped into seeing this movie after reading a positive review from another website and man was I p.o'd!!! it took me at least 15 minutes to pick it up off the shelf b/c I didn't want anyone to see me. then another 10 minutes to build the courage to take it to the counter and actually use real money to rent it. I thought that all my stress would pay off by the time I got home to and watching the movie b/c the review I read said the movie was a pleasant surprise; what a joke! if you can make it through the first hour of the movie then your in luck! b/c it's not until then the movie turn's into a horror. don't bother with this one folks, your better off watching "dankness falls"
|
negative
|
Watching Josh Kornbluth 'act' in this movie reminds me of my freshman TV production class, where the 'not funny' had the chance to prove just how unfunny they really were!<br /><br />OBVIOUS is the word that comes to mind when I try to synopsize this wannabe comedy. The jokes are sophomoric and telegraphed. The delivery is painfully bad. OUCH!!!!!!! The writing is simply dorkish. It is akin to a Bob Saget show. <br /><br />Watching this movie is as painful as watching a one and a half hour long Saturday Night Live skit (post Belushi). <br /><br />I hated this movie and want my money back!!!
|
negative
|
this movie wasn't good. i thought it'd be a cute disney movie just like the original. wrong. it was awkward for christina ricci, whom i expect so much more than this, you could just tell by watching. i think doug e. doug did the best he could. sit 5 year olds in front of the this, any older, and they might start to fall asleep.
|
negative
|
Rip off of "Scream" or especially "I know what you did last summer", there's some entertainment here, and a little scary, but they needed some originality.<br /><br />An entertainment score? 6.5/10 Overall? 5.5/10
|
negative
|
This is the worst war movie I have ever seen, possibly the worst ever made. I find it incredible that some people have actually rated it as a 10. It has a stunning lack of even rudimentary traces of realism. Almost every war movie cliche appears in this film and is done badly. On the other hand, I wouldn't have watched it to the end if it hadn't been so remarkably bad that it amused me.
|
negative
|
I enjoyed this film. It was funny, cute, silly, and entertaining. Had a fine cast and really got hammered by some critics for reasons that I truly don't understand. No, it wasn't "The Grapes of Wrath" or "Casablanca" or even "Moonstruck", but it was an enjoyable film.<br /><br />Julia was excellent playing the psychotic 'man behind the man'. The story is a little silly to be sure, but it this isn't high drama, folks. I happened to see a review of the film, probably the only good one it got and then ran into it one night when looking for a movie. I never heard it was supposed to stink until after I saw it, and I'm glad I saw it. Eventually bought the VHS tape on the bargain pile, and I watch it a couple times a year.
|
positive
|
This movie was two and a quarter excruciating hours. Someone please tell me what the point was?<br /><br />I mean, I understand the historical setting. It's supposed to be about a ragtag group of Confederate bushwhackers (terrorists?) on the Missouri-Kansas frontier, taking revenge against all northern sympathizers and abolitionists during the U.S. Civil War. But aside from gratuitous violence there wasn't really much of a point to this movie. Perhaps it was a political statement? That war is really nothing much more than gratuitous violence? If that was the point it was done quite well, but I don't think that was the point. I think the producers really thought they were making a worthwhile movie here, but as far as I was concerned there was a complete lack of any plot. It seemed like I was watching a paperback novel come to life, with the characters looking like what you would see on the covers of such novels.<br /><br />This movie should be burned along with some of the towns this gang torched!
|
negative
|
Before she went into politics or public service, Glenda Jackson was one of Britain's finest film actresses. This film displays her talent despite having a supporting role in a stellar cast that includes Julie Christie as Kitty, the wife of a British Royal Captain who has lost his memory of the last 20 years, and Jenny played by American Ann-Margret in an almost unrecognizable role as the doting sister. Alan Bates plays the captain who suffers from memory loss triggered by the shell shock during World War I. Sir Ian Holm has a smaller role as the doctor treating him. You see familiar faces like Sheila Keith, Patsy Byrne, and Frank Finlay. You can't help but watch Glenda play a dowdy housewife and the first true love of the Captain but they came from different classes. It's not the greatest movie but it's good to see Glenda's amazing talent. She is still a fantastic actress, comedy or drama. She makes Margaret Grey into a likable character and you see why a regal captain fell in love with her.
|
positive
|
The ruins is to Turistas as Deep Impact was to Armageddon, a worse version of a mildly entertaining movie, except much much worse. One of the characters is supposed to be going to medical school, so why are they all retards? "you can't keep cutting." -best line form this movie. This is an awful movie. I like horror movies, but fully appreciate that most of them are terrible, but had a bit of high hopes for this movie after seeing the reviews on IMDb. The situation they are in is stupid and how they handle it makes them stupid. It is awful, the one thing that makes it somewhat palatable is its cool Australian backdrop, despite the fact that they spend the vast majority of the movie in one place.
|
negative
|
When I was 10 (currently 14), I vowed to never see a movie that I knew would not have a happy ending. And until a few weeks ago I had done pretty well, except for Shakespere for English class...etc...I was still only watching things that ended happy. But then I saw Ramola Garai in Havanah Nights, which was cute, not good but entertaining enough to watch. After seeing this a few times over the two or so years since I first saw it, I grew to like it, especially the music. So I did a search on her and found IMDb...I saw "Inside I'm Dancing" and assumed she had done another dancing movie, and over looked it. It was later on an image search(of Rory, looking for Gilmore Girls poster for locker) I picked up an image from this movie...I then searched for a trailer, I found the trailer and when I saw the hospital and heard Rory say "You've got the future" I remembered my vow and realized this would not be a good movie for me. But it just stayed in the back of my mind until we were at the video store and there it was for $5 used, so I went ahead and bought it. After seeing it I just wanted it out of my head because it was so sad. I still wouldn't go near it until I had cerebral palsy as a vocab word. Then I just had to see it again and this time all I did was laugh, even at the saddest parts I no longer felt depressed because I realized that over all this movie was happy and uplifting...I love it and it is now one of my favorites, I;m sure this is the worst comment you have ever read. But watch the movie it's worth it.
|
positive
|
I know...I know: it's difficult (if not paradoxical) for there to be such a thing as "believable" fantasy. But, to me, there is also such a condition wherein TOO MUCH UNbelievability interfere's with, or distracts from my overall opinion of the movie. The latter was the case for me with regard to Goliath Awaits. Not only did I have too many unanswered questions concerning the storyline, but some of the acting, too, I thought, was a bit over-the-top. (Maybe, though, it was the writing: asking them to recite too many trite, predictable, cliched (over-?) reactions.) Others have said enough about the plot. I just wish that it was done - and, I think that it COULD have been - more convincingly. P. S.: This is a FRESH comment about this film - I just finished watching it a couple of minutes ago; not a recollection from years ago.
|
negative
|
Why would I say that? Because when the movie ended, I was in a good mood. So many people exclaim at the end, wow! Bruce Willis can be funny. For those of you who believe he learned how to act after the sixth sense, you must be very new to his career. He won an emmy for best actor in a comedy series before he did Die Hard. It's like saying, wow, the sky learned to deposit snow on the ground just because it's your first winter in life. The movie was hilarious. What boggles my mind is how some other comments made about this movie claims that there are no memorable lines or scenes. Spoiler...<br /><br />The waaaambulance? I am not a loser? Have you ever seen a grown up scream I am not a loser before?<br /><br />I thought this movie was great. It was funny, it was never boring and in a cheesy Disney sort of way, it had a point to make. Something to do with life and of course any kid movie trying to do that is in over it's head but for once, I didn't care.<br /><br />If you haven't watched it. Do so. You'll like it.
|
positive
|
Close but no cigar! - that's what my opinion of this film is! TAG PURVIS both wrote and directed this script which should have gone through a re write before shooting. At times, laughable because or a corny script, this film's shining star is Dan Mongomery Jr and the Director of Photography. Both of these talents are ones to watch out for in the future. My recommendation is to wait until it hits your local cable station and use the rental money on a classic!
|
negative
|
This film set the standard for African-American film excellence when it was made. I heard on various stories on the film through time, that there was a push for an Academy Award nomination when it was released. This film plays on various emotions, and you definitely feel for all of the characters. Sure, some of the acting is a little wooden, but fortunately, those parts aren't pivotal. The music is sensational, and if you don't think the ending is a tear-jerker, you have no heart in your chest. If you watch "Cooley High", you will see that many, many films have copied various elements from it in order to strengthen their own films. The biggest example of this is "Boyz N The Hood".
|
positive
|
This would definitely not have been my kind of movie, but my husband saw it on TV and said it was really good. So, on his recommendation, I bought a copy, since I didn't know if it would ever be on TV again. I had never heard of anybody in it except Armand Assante. At first I had a hard time getting into the story, because the first part of the movie is a jumble of images-- and it doesn't make much sense. It is only later in the movie that it all comes together. The scene-cutting- if that's what it's called, is a bit jarring-- it sometimes looks as if a few frames have been cut out of each scene, and the scenes are jerky--but I guess that was done to add to the unusualness (if that's a word). The story veers here and there, and just about the time you have it all figured out, everything turns upside down and you have to readjust your thinking as to who is the bad guy and who is not. Or bad woman. The acting is very good-- I kept thinking how much Norman Reedus looks like Leo Decaprio. The ending was a real twist, totally unexpected, which I liked. A good show.
|
positive
|
As a kid I did think the weapon the murderer wielded was cool, however I was a kid and so I was a bit dumb. Even as a dumb kid though the movies plot was stupid and a bit boring when the killer was not using his light knife to kill people. What amazes me is that the movie has a really solid cast in it. What script did they read when agreeing to be in this movie as it is most assuredly boring and only a means to show off a light saber on a very small scale. The plot at times is incomprehensible and the end is totally chaotic. The whole film seems to rotate around aliens and the one weapon. The plot has two kids and some dude having an alien encounter, flash years later and there seems to be a return as it were in the mix. Dead animals and such to be explored and for some reason the one dude gets the weapon of the aliens and proceeds to use it to go on a very light killing spree. Seriously, you just have to wonder why this movie was made, if you are going to have a killer have some good death scenes, if you are going to have alien encounters show more than a weird light vortex thing, and if you are going to have light sabers then call yourself star wars.
|
negative
|
Carson Daly has to be the only late night talk show host that isn't a comedian. What was NBC thinking! He's not funny! The writing is horrible to! All of the sketches are painful to watch. The current new karaoke isn't funny at all, especially since he tells you what they are going to sing before they sing it! The escalator interviews is just stupid and needless to say not funny at all. All he jokes, especially during the monologue, are the least clever, dumbest, not funny jokes ever put on television! I mean, anytime he makes a Jessica Simpson joke he ends it with "because she's stupid," which cancels out any funniness that was in the joke, which was already very low. Any 3 year old could have come up with any of the jokes and sketches they put on this lame excuse for a show. Seriously, don't watch this show, unless you're on the edge of suicide and want something to push you over the edge.
|
negative
|
Gregory Peck's acting was excellent, as one would expect, and the cinematography quite stunning even when playing directly into some melodramatic "moment." But, the rest of the film was overacted and hard to watch, for me anyway. I tried to like it, but had to fast-forward through the last thirty minutes or so. I feel I wasted a couple of good hours. Had it not been for Gregory Peck, I wouldn't have lasted fifteen minutes. 4/10.
|
negative
|
At least the seats in the theater were comfortable and I ate the pop corn as loud as possible to drown out the inferior dialogue. This is absolutely not a girls film. Any blokes who like it, are the ones us ladies can be sure to stay far away from. Dumb story, mediocre dialogue and an overall cheap looking film. I've seen many, many movies but this one is the new winner in the bad category. If you do happen to see it, the one thing you'll look forward to is the ending. So you can finally run out of the theater as fast as you can.
|
negative
|
Quite a heartwarming little film and not just for the kids. John Thaw is brilliant as always (without any hint of Inspector Morse about him). The boy playing William did a good job as well though I didn't find him convincing in every scene. I loved the whole feel of the small village and the slower pace of life in those times. I also felt the scenes in London where historically accurate, as far as I could tell.<br /><br />It strongly reminded me of a Scandinavian film I saw a couple of years ago called Mother of Mine. That film featured a boy being evacuated from Finland to Sweden during WW II. The wife of the family taking him in asked for a girl because (as it turns out)she lost her daughter. Getting a boy instead she completely ignores him. The fact that the boy speaks Finnish complicates matters even further. I highly recommend that film to anyone who enjoyed Goodnight Mr. Tom, it has the same feel to it.
|
positive
|
Tired, garbled dreck. The chemistry between Argento and Madsen was as exciting as a wet doughnut. Their dialogue was dramatically uninteresting. The storyline was a mess. The acting forced. The cinematography lingered on the uninspired. Lazy and pointless. Kim Gordon and her character had no reason to be there. Nor did anyone else for that matter. I couldn't have given two farts for any of the 'characters'. Their emotions skipped and jumped like a junkie who hates his heroin. Empty and dull. Why do I have to write ten lines of text on here to make my point? I think I summed it up in the first three words. But, obviously it's not enough. I think this is the last time I'll bother to waste my time critiquing a film. Anyway, I saw 'Clean' and thought that was quite ineffectual as well. Again, I cared not for the characters, whether they lived or died.
|
negative
|
I notice that most of the people who think this film speaks the truth were either not born before the moon landings (1969-1972), or not old enough to appreciate them. I think it is much easier to question an historic event if you did not live through it.<br /><br />I was a youngster at the time of Apollo, but I was old enough to understand what was going on. The entire world followed the moon landings. Our families gathered around the TV to watch the launch. Newspaper headlines screamed the latest goings-on each day, from launch to landing, from moonwalks to moon liftoff, all the way to splashdown, in a multitude of languages. In school, some classes were cancelled so we could watch the main events on TV. During Apollo 13 the world prayed and held its collective breath as the men limped home to an uncertain fate. You couldn't go anywhere without someone asking what the latest was. The world was truly one community. <br /><br />Now with a buffer of 30-odd years after the fact, it is easy to claim fraud because worldwide enthusiasm and interest has died down. We are left with our history books, and anybody can claim that history is wrong and attempt to "prove" it with a bunch of lies and made-up facts while completely ignoring the preponderance of evidence showing otherwise--not to mention the proof that dwells in the souls and memories of those who lived through these wonderfully heady and fantastic days.
|
negative
|
I agree with most of Mr. Rivera's comments, and I just want to ad a couple of caveats. This film, "The Mascot" is criminally neglected in its current form. For that matter, so is "Vampyr". "The Mascot" isn't a "bonus feature"-- it's tacked on as a chapter in "Vampyr". Even though it's made very clear that this is a separate movie, it should have been treated as such by the manufacturers. And while I"m at it, "Vampyr" needs some of that same respect and cleaning up as well. I got the feeling the decision to put The Mascot on there went something like this.<br /><br />Dude A: "We just transferred Vampyr to DVD, but it comes up about 20 minutes short. We need to put something on there that won't cost much money. Can you believe film critics want to be paid to talk about films!" Dude B: "Not to worry. I have this little animation thingy that's been sitting in my drawer. Just go ahead and throw it on as an additional chapter." Dude A: "You're awesome, Dude B." The animation's of The Mascot is great, and there's no need for me to repeat what Mr. Rivera's done so well. However, this thing needs some major cleaning and restoring, especially the audio. The plot comes through in the dialogue. And in my copy there were so many hisses, pops and places where the sound just dropped right off (I would have had no idea what the dog was going after without having read the box). No amount of volume was going to make the words more understandable, it just brought up the tinniness and made the hisses and pops louder.<br /><br />Bottom line is: Starewicz's films need to be put into a respectful collection, cleaned up, spiffed up, liner notes and the whole nine yards. In other words, they need to be "Criterionized" 9 out of 10 for the movie, not the product which would get only a 5.
|
positive
|
Well, it was funny in spots. This film is a 4 or maybe a 3. Its a film that sits on the video shelf and gathers dust. Rent this one after you seen everything else. Beats boredom, but not by that much. My wife like like this film better then I do, maybe its not that bad.
|
negative
|
I often wonder why this series was slammed so much. I thought it was brilliant and also very cleverly written and performed. I think in time to come it will be seen in the light it deserves, that is if they ever issue it. Many up and coming young comedy actors appeared in this and all went on to greater things. Maybe this fact will make people aware of its value and it will have to be issued. Sally Phillips, Simon Pegg, Peter Serafinowicz and not least Julian Rhind-Tutt of the hugely successful Green Wing. The writers Graham Linehan and Arthur Matthews are two of the finest comedy writers of the modern age. Anyone that can produce comedy like Father Ted couldn't be capable of writing something not worthy of publication. If it is ever issued I will certainly buy it.
|
positive
|
According to the book The Last of the Cowboy Heroes which is about Joel McCrea, Audie Murphy, and Randolph Scott, the author says that Albuquerque was the only film he personally did not review because he claimed it was lost. Hadn't been seen in years.<br /><br />Good thing for western fans somebody was doing some spring cleaning at Paramount because a print was apparently found and now it's out on the open market. Albuquerque is a pretty good western too with Scott involved in a family feud with Uncle George Cleveland.<br /><br />George Cleveland sends for his nephew Randolph Scott with the intention of making him part of his freighting business, headquartered in the fast growing settlement of Albuquerque. Cleveland is more than just a business owner, he's the town boss which he runs from a wheelchair. He even has the sheriff in his pocket. <br /><br />Randolph Scott is not a cowboy hero for nothing. That includes not backing relatives up when they're villains. He goes to work for a rival outfit headed by brother and sister Russell Hayden and Catherine Craig.<br /><br />Cleveland is full of all kinds of tricks and he even sends for a western Mata Hari in the person of Barbara Britton to worm her way into the confidence of his rivals. Barbara's great as the homespun vixen who develops her own agenda.<br /><br />Randolph Scott's original home studio was Paramount, it was where his first studio contract was with. Albuquerque marked the last film he ever did for Paramount and they gave him a good one.<br /><br />Note also Lon Chaney, Jr., who is George Cleveland's chief henchman, a rather loathsome bully of a man and Gabby Hayes, who is just Gabby Hayes.<br /><br />Albuquerque must have been loved by Republicans across the nation in 1948 with its chief villain as a town boss who rules from a wheelchair. A certain Democrat from a wheelchair had made hash of them for four straight presidential elections and he was gone. They had high hopes of winning the White House that year too, but things went awry and they had to settle for an ersatz boss getting his comeuppance in Albuquerque. I'm not sure why Cleveland was in a wheelchair since nothing was really made of it in the plot. My guess is he was injured and played the part that way because he had to.<br /><br />Still Albuquerque must have had great appeal to the GOP market.
|
positive
|
I only saw it once. This happened in 1952, I was seven, the movie 13.<br /><br />We were so young... But I kept in mind, forever, the strong moments of Gunga's sacrifice.<br /><br />I realized that time how much a people can be hardly submitted and used by a foreign nation. Under these historical circumstances, in the movie, the personal relation of friendship, a kind of friendship that ignores itself, the one raised between people who share daily life, who see each other faces, who knows each other names, but belong to different worlds, can only make appears. Then, in the most critical moments a troubling question emerges: "Whom are we, in first, supposed to be loyal?", which People, family, motherland, the person you know close to you?. You do not have time to give a perfect answer, urgency is there, and it is for life or death. Gunga-Din gives his answer with sacrifice of himself. Somewhere, in a confuse manner, a problem remains unsolved, the emotion grows with the rhythm of the movie until somebody dies, just one life, nothing compared to so many other fictions or realities we can see today, because this death, this unique vanishing life I lived it, I shared with my child unconditional friendship. It was lived by the spectator I was. That day I loose Gunga-Din for ever. As I left behind, later, my pretty childhood, as I left from then so many worlds I lived in. I left all that for good and these lines are today a short visit I didn't expect to do this morning when getting up.
|
positive
|
The film's executive producer is none other than that messenger of peace thru transcendental meditation, David Lynch, the director's father. I wonder what David's guru, His Holiness Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, would have thought of this production. The hypocrisy here is as repugnant as is the film itself. It's a safe bet that Samuel L. Dieteman, Phoenix serial killer and devotee of recreational violence, would have loved every minute of it.<br /><br />I doubt if many would fault this film for its cinematic craft; on that level it's quite good. But on a moral level, it's the most disheartening movie I've ever seen.<br /><br />SPOILER COMING<br /><br />I guess it's the phoniness of the thing that saddens me the most. Morally-numb Generation Xers learn a craft and a little post-modern aesthetic theory at art school or film school and then get involved in the arts-and-entertainment industry; and here's the result: a film which wallows in human suffering, injustice and carnage, much of which is witnessed by a nine-year old who sees her entire family brutally murdered by a couple of recreational-violence killers who, at the end, ride off into the sunset.<br /><br />NO MORE SPOILERS COMING<br /><br />For whom are films like this produced? Narurally, sadists are going to adore this - why wouldn't they? But who else? As I noted above, there's some really good film craft here, but good craft can be applied to any subject matter. Why apply it to stuff like this? Also, the movie is very suspenseful, but that's not because of the graphicness & grossness of the violence; it's suspenseful because it's well-directed & well-acted. I'm sure the ghost of Alfred Hitchcock could explain this much better than I can.<br /><br />So what has been put before us here? And above all, why? <br /><br />Yes, our world can be an ugly, dirty, even evil place, but shouldn't we dissent when an "artist" makes it her/his business to rub our faces in it? Or worse still, to stick it in the faces of those nine-year olds who will, one way or another, end up seeing this on home DVD? <br /><br />I hope that people will see to it that this film is not seen by their kids. Yeah, I know - dream on, bernon...
|
negative
|
Maybe I'm reading into this too much, but I wonder how much of a hand Hongsheng had in developing the film. I mean, when a story is told casting the main character as himself, I would think he would be a heavy hand in writing, documenting, etc. and that would make it a little biased.<br /><br />But...his family and friends also may have had a hand in getting the actual details about Hongsheng's life. I think the best view would have been told from Hongsheng's family and friends' perspectives. They saw his transformation and weren't so messed up on drugs that they remember everything.<br /><br />As for Hongsheng being full of himself, the consistencies of the Jesus Christ pose make him appear as a martyr who sacrificed his life (metaphorically, of course, he's obviously still alive as he was cast as himself) for his family's happiness. Huh?<br /><br />The viewer sees him at his lowest points while still maintaining a superiority complex. He lies on the grass coming down from (during?) a high by himself and with his father, he contemplates life and has visions of dragons at his window, he celebrates his freedom on a bicycle all while outstretching his arms, his head cocked to the side.<br /><br />It's fabulous that he's off of drugs now, but he's no hero. He went from a high point in his career in acting to his most vulnerable point while on drugs to come back somewhere in the middle.<br /><br />This same device is used in Ted Demme's "Blow" where the audience empathizes with the main character who is shown as a flawed hero.<br /><br />However, "Quitting" ("Zuotian") is a film that is recommended, mostly for its haunting soundtrack, superb acting, and landscapes. But, the best part is the feeling that one gets when what we presume to be the house of Jia Hongsheng is actually a stage setting for a play. It makes the viewer feel as if Hongsheng's life was merely a play told in many difficult parts.
|
positive
|
Large corporations Vs. Conscientious Do good-ers. We seem to witness events (both real life and reel life) of this sort all the time and most of the time greed wins by employing every means (dirty) necessary and the truth gets suppressed. At least in this movie Jack Godell (Jack Lemmon) got his points across and paid for it dearly. We have seen several more movies of this sort being made in the recent years, the most memorable of which was 'The Insider' where Russell Crowe played a tobacco industry scientist who tried to blow the whistle claiming that the Industry added more nicotine in cigarettes to make smokers addicted. There was also this reporter-protagonist angle where the reporter is looking for the scoop of his/her dreams and the protagonist is faced with this moral dilemma where he/she has to choose between righteousness and his livelihood and sometimes his/her life.<br /><br />Jane Fonda played reporter Kimberly wells to perfection. She plays a reporter who wishes to pursue serious news whereas her bosses value her more as an 'Eye-Candy'. She and her crew (the cameraman played by post-'Coma' Michael Douglas who is also the producer of the movie) witness an accident in a nuclear power plant while they were on a visit. Cameraman Michael Douglas sneakily/illegally gets footage of that event on tape in spite being a no-photography zone and smuggles it out of the station. The station refuses to air it and informs the corporation that owns the nuclear station. <br /><br />In the mean time the chief engineer Jack Godell launches an investigation of his own and discovers a lot of irregularities in the equipment that's being used for the reactor. This starts all the dirty politics of corruption and greed.<br /><br />This is a good thriller and it managed to create a lot of tension in the audience till the end and the funny thing was that there was no background score to suggest all the scary moments. Now that's great and unusual in movies. Performances were all good and I love Jack Lemmon. We primarily know him for his comedic roles but he is equally good in dramatic roles. I give this movie an 8/10.
|
positive
|
A friend once asked me to read a screenplay of his that had been optioned by a movie studio. To say it was one of the most inept and insipid scripts I'd ever read would be a bold understatement. Yet I never told him this. Why? Because in a world where films like "While She Was Out" can be green-lighted and attract an Oscar- winning star like Kim Basinger, a screenplay lacking in character, content and common sense is no guarantee that it won't sell.<br /><br />As so many other reviewers have pointed out, "While She Was Out" is a dreadfully under-written Woman-in-Peril film that has abused housewife Basinger hunted by four unlikely hoods on Christmas Eve. Every gripe is legitimate, from the weak dialog and bad acting to the jaw-dropping lapses of logic, but Basinger is such an interesting actress and the premise is not without promise. Here are a couple of things that struck me:<br /><br />1) I don't care how much we are supposed to think her husband is a jerk, the house IS a mess with toys. Since when did it become child abuse to make kids pick up after themselves?<br /><br />2) Racially diverse gangs are rare everywhere except Hollywood, where they are usually the only racially balanced groups on screen.<br /><br />3) Sure the film is stupid. But so are the countless "thrillers" I've sat through where the women are portrayed as wailing, helpless victims of male sadism. Stupid or not, I found it refreshing to see a woman getting the best of her tormentors.<br /><br />4) I LOVED the ending! <br /><br />5) Though an earlier reviewer coined this phrase, I really DO think this film should be retitled "The Red Toolbox of Doom."
|
negative
|
I fail to understand why you would give this film anything over 4... Fair enough it does take me back to the 80s and to the 'good old days of horror comedy' but that genre has not got any better since then - it is still so 'LAME Low budget - low tech - bad acting - bad story line - not at all scary and not funny enough... in fact there is not much good I could say about it. The so called monsters are just hideously bad! I mean we have gone back in time to when they used to make the monsters out of plasticine and shoot the scenes fame by frame... I really fail to understand why someone would invest any money in order to make this script to a film - but I guess it might have been almost OK if it had been a bigger budget film.<br /><br />Recommendation would be - please do not make the mistake of wasting your time on this unless if you wish to get tips for a bad Halloween make up! Personally I enjoy independent films and anything outside the box but this just did not do it for me in the least.
|
negative
|
Of course, the story line for this movie isn't the best, but the dances are wonderful. This story line is different from other Astaire-Rogers movies in that neither one is "chasing" the other. The dancing of Fred and Ginger is what makes this movie.
|
positive
|
The Thing is a milestone in movie-making and remains one of my favourite films of all-time. Despite the film's roots in science-fiction it is ultimately a horror film that brilliantly balances splatter with psychological trauma. Today, Over twenty five years after its release, the special effects stand up as an example of sheer brilliance and effects man Rob Bottin suffered a complete physical breakdown for his art. It would be impossible to make the same movie today as the Studio would most certainly insist on casting a female character or a Paul-Walker type.<br /><br />An all-male American Science team in Antarctica are thrown into turmoil when an alien lifeform able to perfectly absorb and imitate other lifeforms infiltrates their camp. Their trust in each other steadily crumbles as they become increasingly unsure who is real and who is an imitation, and this 'body-snatchers' scenario sees their numbers steadily dwindle as one-by-one, they fall victim to The Thing. When cornered, it manifests itself as a different nightmarish creature, the metamorphosis always horrific and compelling.<br /><br />The helplessness, isolation and claustrophobia of a team of desperate men with no way out of their situation and no way of help reaching them is expertly sustained. The long hours of darkness and the mounting snowfall provide a bleak backdrop to the terror that unfolds. Director John Carpenter selected with great care a team of brilliant character-actors and each member of the team fits perfectly into the part they play, whether it be the young and street-wise chef, the elderly and wise Doctor or the bitter and cynical helicopter pilot. The point is that no-one here comes close to being an all-American badass superhero with blonde locks and a six-pack and the film's real strength is thanks in no small part to this stark realism. The people suffering on-screen are recognisable in our daily lives.<br /><br />The Thing remains consistently enjoyable and affecting even after repeated viewings. I have now seen the film on more than twenty separate occasions and my amazement at the quality of the direction, the acting and the special effects is unwavering. My girlfriend prefers the high-school spin-off of the film -The Faculty- which is good and solid entertainment but far more light-hearted and whistful. She still loves and acknowledges the brilliance of The Thing however, and thank goodness for that... Because I could not remain in the company of someone who didn't love this movie.<br /><br />A classic and then some.
|
positive
|
A really funny story idea with good actors but it misses somehow. The actors are older but none of them looked particularly good. They needed better make up,photography or something.It is supposed to be a love story and yet the film had more of the rough look of a street film. I liked the cast but I think the performances were rather bland. This is where the weakness of the director shows. Perhaps if Mrs. Spielberg had Mr. Spielberg directing it would have been a much better film.
|
negative
|
This show has been performed live around the country with a wide variety of casts. I saw it first in the Provincetown production the first summer it was in P-town (2001)--before it was, curiously enough, banned in that overwhelmingly gay resort (the codes which resulted in its closing have since been amended). I saw it again later in the off-Broadway, long-running production in New York. Oddly enough, the P-town production was far better than the New York one--fresher, cuter, more spirited and funnier--but that was only in the 2001 showing; subsequent attempts to clone the production ("Bare Naked Lads" in 2007) were definitely third-rate. This filmed production features a Los Angelos production cast, and it is, as other comments have suggested, not the best. I would rate it somewhere in between the top-notch 2001 P-town production and the third-rate "Bare Naked Lads" P-town show from last summer.
|
negative
|
The greatest compliments to the other commentator here at IMDb who asked himself why this series didn't "get stuck" in its time to last a lot longer like many other series in the 80s did.<br /><br />It is not true the series would have gotten worse if further continued.<br /><br />I will at the end of this my comment post some thoughts about the other movie realizations, rather: attempts of the Robin Hood legend.<br /><br />First of All, Robert Addie (Gisburne), you are among us all, you live forever.<br /><br />Nothing is as fun as the entire two, if one wants, three seasons of this absolutely unique series. And at the same time absolutely agreeing with the mostly new and revolutionary findings of Terry Jones' history documentations about Egypt, Greece, Rome, Konstantinopel, the Goths and Barbarians, and the middle ages and crusades (...yes, THE Monthy Python-Terry Jones):<br /><br />If you have seen those brilliant and funny Jones-Docs you will better, much better understand all the historical background stuff Carpenter, the writer of the Robin of Sherwood-series (which happens to be the brother of John Carpenter, who made "The Thing", their third brother makes music), intended to tell us.<br /><br />The writer of "Dick Turpin", "Catweazle" and the first two seasons of "Robin of Sherwood", called "Kip" Carpenter, is my movie overlord. He's better than all those others who criticize his "sword-and-sorcery" element or "defectiveness" (taken from the Robin of Sherwood Webring) of this series (that I can not see) or have other non-fundamented criticism of which there existed a lot back then and still now.<br /><br />That's why, when you get to know this "Robin of Sherwood" better, you'll be severe. You will at first loathe the third season. Not only that: I did myself go thru this, and on top of it, I have only taken up the first two seasons into my deepest heart - DESPITE the fact that Praed, the actor of Robin, left this series, because after the series had enormous success, he was offered a probably better paid role in an absolutely ridiculous Canadian series called "The new Adeventures of Jules Verne" - already the title reveals the emptiness of the whole project. Praed went for money, and not for fame, he didn't stick with his gang and kin, I mean: as actors.<br /><br />Actors who personally represent the afterwards "really", in our present time famous and legendary faces and characters of the Robin-Legend. The potential of this series could and should have been let blossomed a lot more without any degrading niveau of content and historical message and rebellious accuracy regarding current political issues.<br /><br />Again, obligatory to say: A change of the main role was forced by Praed's stupid decision of leaving Robin of Sherwood for a silly remake-series of the Verne-tales and brilliantly woven into the filming of the story. Still it is in some aspects a catastrophe.<br /><br />Anyway: If one is informed about this, and that Connery was maybe really advertised by his father, but that the young Connery DID NOT AT ALL "chase Praed away", how I prejudicially thought in the first place, then one can absolutely enjoy the 3rd season. Sad here is that the script was not anymore written by Superman Kip Carpenter, so we don't have anymore that critical and free-thinking historical background like i.e. in "The Witch of Elsdon", or in "The King's Fool", two episodes of the first series that is A) funny, B) historically educating and C) brilliantly acted. ===<br /><br />"Don't trust the Lion!"<br /><br />Unlike many other characters that wished him dead for the sake of their own gain of power, Richard Lionheart, as shown in RoS and as in real history, was a greater authority than John or others, but used it only for his wicked idea of the crusade and the war against Normandie in France. He slaughtered and had slaughtered much more than tens of thousands of Christians, Muslims and Jews in the "wholy" crusades, and his soldiers even devoured the children they slayed out of hunger or poverty. On top of that, after his capture by the Saracens (muslims) in the crusades, Britain was squeezed out for his ransom, 100.000 marks (at that time, 11th century, comparable to approx. 30 Billion - 30'000'000'000.- Dollars of current value), to get him safely back, and then he just visited England for a month to return to Normandie (in France, where the Norman Invaders went first) for the crusades (one learns that in the episode "The King's Fool"). For this new crusade, possibly kind of a revenge for his capture, Richard Lionheart again "drains the country of money" (cited out of Clive Mantle's mouth, when he lectures Robin in being critical with even the King). Robin criticizes this warfare unsocial ruling of Richard's, he addresses Richard himself, telling him "The poor gave everything to set you free, how CAN you ask more of them?" - Richard: "...Give me your courage and strength, not your words!" ...Later, in private, Richard orders the assassination of Robin...<br /><br />So, the crusaders were the real "barbarians".<br /><br />P.S: Already when I watched Kostner in 91, I got upset, because after-wards, I found out in history course in school that Richard was not that good just man as displayed by Sean Connery in his appearance at the end of "Prince of the Thieves". Well, as Terry Jones would put it: It is a lie, a treacherous lie!" Sean plays humorist and charismatic, and his son does a better job than expected in the third season of "Robin of Sherwood".<br /><br />Again: Praed is, according to my info up to now, the one who left Sherwood for a stupid Verne-series nobody with brains will EVER remember or want to remember.
|
positive
|
Once again, I was browsing through the discount video bin and picked up this movie for $4.88. Fifty-percent of the time the movies I find in the bin are pure crap (I mean horrible beyond belief) but half the time they turn out to be surprisingly good. This movie is much better than I expected. I found it very engaging, though it was obviously made by an amateur.<br /><br /> The direction is nothing special, but the story is intriguing with some good thrills. I expected it to be more of a comedy, but I wasn't too disappointed.<br /><br /> For a thriller, this movie is surprisingly good-natured. There's no bloody violence, no profanity, no nudity, no sex. Usually, these movies require all four of those elements. The PG rating is well-deserved--not like "Sixteen Candles" where the "f" word is used twice and there's a brief gratuitous nude scene.<br /><br /> I just wish the romance between Corey Haim and his love interest could've been developed more. The film does tend to be plot-heavy, and the potentially good subplots are pushed off to the side. Instead of developing a chemistry between the two of them, we end up watching a careless three-minute montage of them on their romantic endeavors. They end up kissing at the end, but there's so little chemistry that it seems forced.<br /><br />"The Dream Machine" is no gem, but it's good, clean entertainment. It's quite forgettable--especially with a cast of unknowns, except for Haim--but it's also much better than you'd expect.<br /><br /> My score: 7 (out of 10)
|
positive
|
As a long time fan of Peter O'Donnell's greatest creation, I watched this film on DVD with no great hopes of enjoyment; indeed I expected to be reaching in disgust for the remote control within fifteen minutes. But instead I thoroughly enjoyed this production, and I especially enjoyed and appreciated how the producers and director succeeded in telling the Modesty Blaise back story. They managed to avoid the trap of making a (bad) film version of the books we are all so familiar with, choosing instead to concentrate on a period in Modesty's life only alluded to in the novels.<br /><br />As for the production values (and I am no student of cinematography!): yes, the film was filmed on a tight financial and time budget and maybe that shows... but does it spoil the viewer's enjoyment? In this case I think not. Instead we are introduced to one of the world's greatest literary heroines and given a taste of her capabilities.<br /><br />In regard to the casting: because we in unfamiliar territory the only people who really matter are Modesty and (perhaps) Professor Lob. For me they were totally credible. Alexandra Staden, described by some as wooden, and too thin to be an action heroine, brought to the screen Modesty's poise and coolness; her technique (when martial arts were needed) but most importantly personified the integrity which is at the core of the Modesty Blaise canon.<br /><br />OK, so we all know this film was produced to stake Miramax's claim to the Modesty Blaise character, it was made quickly and cheaply, BUT... I for one cannot wait to see the next production in this series by these producers - as long as they keep to the core values and characterisations of the original stories!
|
positive
|
It's like what other Dracula movies always do, the minions of Dracula always on Dracula's side, which is what disappointed me at the ending. Regardless the person wants to stay a vampire or not, I would like to see something like in the first movie that the minion fights against her master. It is much interesting (since you can almost predict how the story goes) than just either the priest or D. win the game (we need some surprising plots!).
|
negative
|
The world is a terrible place. But this movie is farce and it's fun. And if you don't like it... you don't get it... and if you don't get... it doesn't matter. It's up to you if you want to play along. Every actor in this one had fun. It's only a joke. And that's good enough for me. Gabriel Byrne is priceless. Byrne and Paul Anka doing MY WAY is, as "Vic" puts it, "...the best version ever". Okay... it's no masterpiece, but it's not bad. I was warned against seeing it, but I'm sure glad I did...
|
positive
|
Wow. That's about as much as I can say right now. Who writes this stuff? Who produces this stuff? What self-respecting actor would agree to 'act' in this stuff? Oh my GOD! I don't know how I made it through this movie, but I assume the fact that I had had like 8 cups of coffee that day was the key element in keeping me awake. Good Lord! It was one of the most droned-out and predictable pieces of cinematography I have ever witnessed...and for the record, I don't EVER plan to 'witness' it again.<br /><br />I first saw the film when I bought the DVD (MISTAKE #1). I mean...I figured, hey! Julia Stiles. I like her. She's cool. I'll watch it as soon as I get home (MISTAKE #2). I tried to watch it without groaning every five minutes wondering when this bunch of crap would come to an end, really I did. But I was unsuccessful. It was one of the worst things I had ever seen. I mean...what is with that thing where he imagines what would happen then snaps back into real life? That was annoying enough when the father used to do that in 'Parenthood' like ten years ago. The 'jokes' - and BELIEVE me, it takes a LOT out of me to call them that - are stupid, the characters are trite and forgettable, the storyline is entirely predictable...altogether this makes for a movie that should be WIPED FROM HISTORY RECORDS! I should have figured something was wrong when I realized that I'd never heard of this movie. It was most likely a straight-to-DVD.<br /><br />To anybody who may be thinking of watching this, I have one piece of advice. DON'T! For the LOVE of God...DON'T!!! I'm ashamed to have it in my DVD collection, and I can't get rid of it...Nobody, and I mean NOBODY wants to buy it from me! And I'm talking second-hand and third-hand thrift shops that would buy the mud off your shoes and stick it in the store window. That should let you know just how CRAP it is.
|
negative
|
Copy cats have copied this movie from a 1974 Hindi movie called "Call Girl"! "Call Girl" had an identical story line. The way in which the protagonists fall in love, then rebel and the climax all same in both these films! "Call Girl" is better than Water, at least from the story telling point of view. It was not as agonizingly slow as Water! Water on the contrary does not progresses at all. The aim is perhaps to make the audience sympathize with Kalyani for ever! Are Indian film makers any better than just being great copiers these days? Well they call it "being inspired". In their language it is: "getting inspired (without any citation that is!)"! :)
|
negative
|
I'm a next generation person...i've never saw the original doctor who but i have heard about the series that sparked a great fan base in the past and still making its mark in the 21'st century; the new "Doctor who" started in 2005 but for those that live here in the states like myself we pretty much see it as new episodes on sci-fi channel or BBC America; from season one we are introduce to a new player Rose Tyler (Billie piper) and a pretty cool new doctor played by Christopher Eccelson (misspelled last name sorry). these two go on some many amazing and very extremely dangerous missions to save the world...every now and then they have companions from rose's ex-boyfriend mickey to the now ever present Jack harkness (who can now be seen on the spin off "Torchwood"). From season one to season two the pace is just about right...the stories can be from the outlandishly weird to the most action packed paced driven but either way its one rollercoster ride from the start of the theme song which is very catchy.<br /><br />in season two he becomes different and changes and now the new doctor (David Tennant) continues the fight to save the world with rose and from this point there can be some that say some of the season wasn't as good but i have to disagree and it was sad to see rose and the doctor part ways but it leaves the opening "companion" role to Martha (played by the very sexy Freema Agyeman) who helps continue the fight to save mankind...season three now is more on the action/adventure level and sometimes on the emotional but not as much as the first two seasons; here the relationship between the doctor and Martha is fitting but the attractiveness CAN be rushed into at times and the obviousness comes into play that she's NOT rose Tyler being that you experienced her company in the first two seasons and not in the third season it can be a bit awkward it was for me cause you get use to rose and her ways and now to see someone who at times don't really question the doctor on an emotional level but all the same makes the pace very exciting for viewers which keeps you at the edge of your seat.<br /><br />all in all this is one thrill ride of a television show i would give it more but there are some flaws to this show as well that i can't mention cause its sometimes hard to pick up but just one does which is the doctor and Martha's relationship is rushed and not leveled on the get to know you base; I've seen good shows on British TV but this is by far one of the coolest sci-fi adventures for the old and new generation to experience but you don't have to take my world for it...step into the tardis and join the adventure.
|
positive
|
Well, it has to be said that Monster Man is a huge mess of a film, but somehow multiple different genres and a clichéd plot come together to make one of the most enjoyable modern horror films I've seen in ages! The two biggest styles that the film mixes are a 'Road Trip' style teenage comedy and a 'Texas Chainsaw Massacre' style redneck horror vibe, and while one gets in the way of the other quite often; director Michael Davis manages to keep things moving thanks to the fact that the constant shift in tone means that we're never quite sure where the film is going to be taken next. Things start out worryingly as we're introduced to two characters, both irritating in different ways. Adam is a wussy virgin, while Harley is a fat big-mouthed "A-hole". They're both driving across the desert to attend the wedding of some chick they both liked in high school. After a couple of strange events, they pick up a hitch-hiker, and then find themselves being chased by some maniac in a monster truck for reasons unknown...<br /><br />The idea of someone being chased by someone else in a bigger vehicle is hardly original, but the way the monster truck is used here is one of the film's biggest assets. The truck itself looks spooky because it's so haggard and rusty, and the fact that it bounces around the screen makes the unfolding action exciting and suspenseful. After a while, you begin to get used to the characters and once Aimee Brooks enters the fray, things start to look up. The teen comedy side of the movie actually works pretty well, as Justin Ulrich is always on hand to deliver some entertaining lines of dialogue and the scenes between the dorky virgin and the hot female hitch-hiker are interesting enough. Just when you think the film couldn't possibly get any messier, things take a turn for the weird in the final third. Without spoiling things, it has to be said that Monster Man features the sort of ending that couldn't possibly be seen coming, and along with the twist, is a big surprise. Some people may feel ripped off by the sudden turn at the end - but I actually thought it worked quite well as it fits the film in that nothing here really fits... Overall, this isn't a 'great' film by any means - but if you're looking for some silly entertainment, Monster Man should hit the spot!
|
positive
|
Carol, the young girl at the center of the story, is transplanted to a foreign land, Spain, at the height of the Civil War conflict in the late 30s. For this girl, everything is new, in it's foreignness. The war and her father are her constant worries, while she has to immerse herself in a provincial culture that is years behind what she has in New York.<br /><br />Imanol Uribe directs this film by the numbers. Carol's family is obviously divided, while Carol's mother is married to someone that is an air force pilot with the leftist faction, the rest of the family's sympathies are with the Franco and the fascists that won the conflict.<br /><br />The story adds nothing to what has already been told, much better, but it's an easy film to watch. Northern Spain's magnificent landscape is shown. Don't expect a lot of action since most of what happens revolves around Carol and the young boys she befriends.<br /><br />Clara Lago plays Carol with sincerity and innocence. Maria Barranco is Carol's mother Aurora, the one that went away to America. Rosa Maria Sarda is Maruja, the teacher who befriends Carol. Carmelo Gomez, plays Alfonso, the man that Aurora left behind when she left for America. This actor, who usually has lead roles in most Spanish films, doesn't have anything to do, as he remains an enigma throughout the movie.
|
positive
|
I couldn't not recommend a Christmas movie more than this worthless piece of drivel (trust me, double negatives are required here -- it's that bad). This film was in trouble from the opening credits when it was revealed that the screenwriter was the same person as the songwriter. The musical numbers are all far too long and none of them any good ("Thank You Very Much" has a decent melody, but the lyrics are stupid beyond words). I would gladly bear the chains worn by Scrooge in the film's bizarre hell sequence than sit through this insult to movie musicals again.<br /><br />The only entertaining part of this movie (completely unintentional by the way) involves Alec Guinness as Jacob Marley. Dressed in a silly powder white costume, Guinness foppishly prances through his scenes in what was either an attempt to make it appear as though he was floating like a ghost, or to show his utter disdain with having to be in this dreadful movie. Albert Finney, meanwhile, blends the best of Alistar Sim and Charles Laughton to create his hopelessly loathsome character of Quasimodo/Scrooge. Finney's Scrooge is so hideous a person, it's impossible to believe his transformation.<br /><br />Steer clear of this abomination of filmmaking at all costs.
|
negative
|
Although I am sure the idea looked good on paper, and it appealed to me when I first heard of it, this movie often lumbers along and falls flat, and when I watch it, I just want it to end. The bookend beginning and ending of the film about Lou having to babysit a troublemaker is contrived at best, although I found the tall cop part to be humorous. However, I found little to laugh at with the bottom of the barrel script that was thrown together for these two great comedians. I thought that it was a mistake to put them in a musical, and it reeks of "Wizard of Oz" rip-off (with the songs and black and white to color format). I wouldn't recommend this film to anyone but die-hard A&C fanatics. Anyone else will be disappointed, and they have many better films.
|
negative
|
Drew Barrymore gets second chance at high school, on undercover assignment as newspaper reporter. In flashbacks, we see that the first time around was, to put it mildly, a major disaster. David Arquette is amusing in modest role as Drew's brother, who also enrolls to help out sis. Lots of subplots endanger but never overwhelm simple charm of movie. Drew keeps making her niche as major innocent-sexy light comic actress.
|
positive
|
Barbara Stanwyck plays Lily Powers. She's a waitress for her father's speakeasy in a little crummy mining town. He also sells her to men. She escapes to New York and literally sleeps her way to the top.<br /><br />Originally I had only seen the 71 minute version but it's pretty extreme--for its time. Nowadays it's pretty tame. The movie moves very quickly and has tons of sexual innuendo--some of it comes off as pretty silly (but fun) today. It moves so quickly you can easily ignore that most of it could never happen--even in 1933. There's nothing classic or monumental about this--it's just a quick, gleefully dirty little film that's lots of fun. It only falls apart at the end with a little "moral" ending that the censors demanded. It comes across as unbelievable and stupid (I saw it in a theatre and the audience laughed at it--one guy quite rightfully said "No way") I just saw the uncut 75 minute version which has a different, somewhat tragic and MUCH better ending. This version was thought to be lost until 2004 when it was discovered by mistake! I believe this is the only one in release--but be aware. <br /><br />The acting is good--Stanwyck jumps into her role and plays it WAY over the top. She makes you believe that she enjoys being cruel and sleeping around. There are also strong supporting performances from handsome Donald Cook and George Brent. Also look for a pre-stardom John Wayne in a hilarious bit as a meek and mild office worker! Fun, dirty and fast. I give this a 9.
|
positive
|
Any film in the early days of Orson Welles is a triumph all the way to The third Man with Joseph Cotton. He is also wonderful in a Touch Of Evil. Please see them all! He tends to get pompous and self serving in films like F is for Fake, really stupid waste of film.Don't waste your time watching it. it is really ignorant. Orson Welles is a film icon and anyone studying film should see everything he has filmed. All his leading ladies are tremendous but in the end Welles became a fat drunk, like his character in A Touch Of Evil! For some reason Orson Welles had a way with women, I see how he could be considered attractive in his youth, not like Gary Cooper or Joseph Cotton, or Cary Grant,John Wayne, I could go on and on but I digress... and because I am a woman,I can see the attraction to him. He (Orson Welles) is one of the last true film makers and unless you count the film-makers of today: Tarantino, Scorscese, Spike Lee, most of the film makers just don't measure up to the film makers of the Forties! I know there are many more great film makers of today but in such a short amount of time I can't name them all. No Offense to any of the great film makers of this millennium! August 21,2006. Please remind me of some current up and coming film makers, I don't want to be stuck in the past! I love some of the films out now, but rarely are there any that I would put on a "100 best" list.. "Hustle and Flow" was great, so was "Fargo", and "Oh, Brother, where art thou," from a line in Sullivan's travels; another fine film from the forties! Can anyone give me a best list for the 90's and on up to 2006? I would like to know who to watch! Thank you! Also Props to this website! Where else can you plug a film or boo it! i love the ranting and raving from regular folks like me who can say what I want and I promise not to spoil any film for someone who hasn't seen it yet!
|
positive
|
Far from combining the best bits of Pontypool and 28 days this managed to ignore them. Whilst shamelessly copying them. (if that makes sense?) Pontypool was different and got progressively tenser, this just stinks. The Radio DJ, "we must stay on air" spends effectively no time on air. He sits on his bottom and watches the TV for news. This is by far the worst excuse for a zombie movie ever. Is there a single person in the USA or indeed the world who doesn't know what a zombie is? Or ever heard of the word "zombie"? Well, by the 50th minute this bunch of misfits are still calling the zombies, "the infected ones" or the ones with "rabies'. The word "Zombie" might make a guest appearance later, I could care less. Maybe there's a copyright where you have to pay to use certain words? Like the Bluetooth earphone is called "the ear-thingy" I kid you not! To finish, no plot + no acting = no-one cares. A waste of time, a shameless, poorly executed rip-off.
|
negative
|
"Dope Sick Love" is a really remarkable documentary made for HBO about two pairs of heroin addicted lovers roaming the streets of NYC. I managed to catch it one night by accident and found it absolutely mesmerizing. There is no narration and we never see any interviews with the subjects, the camera just follows them around, like a third eye, completely detached. The people being followed don't even seem aware that they're being filmed! (or, at least, they don't seem to care). The footage is amazingly candid. Some of the most candid I've ever seen. This is as real as it gets. The nuts and bolts of what its like to be on the street and addicted to heroin. We watch them score dope, shoot it, make up, hustle, and even impersonate cops to rob people, and about a million other tiny details that less observant documentary filmmakers would leave out.<br /><br />Some of the footage is truly horrifying. Like watching one guy frantically searching for fix he lost. I found myself praying that he would find it, just so that his misery would temporarily end. And when he does find it, the guy literally dances in the street.<br /><br />The cyclical nature of drug addiction becomes very apparent while watching this. EVERYTHING is about getting the next score to these folks, yet the next score seems to be well worth the immense trouble they go through. <br /><br />I would love to get a copy of this, if anyone knows where it is available. Highly recommended, if you can catch it on HBO.
|
positive
|
This film rocks...so hard...<br /><br />The cameos...the drug references...the sharing...the love...the ROCKING!!! When Jack and Kyle first met in Tim Robbins' "Actors' Gang" theater company years ago, who knew that such a legacy of awesome music and hilariousness would ensue?? All that door to door rocking paid off...<br /><br />Although anyone who enjoys classic rock will get a major kick out of this film, I would definitely recommend renting the original 6 HBO episodes at your local video store before going to see the film in the cinema. They're on the Tenacious D Masterworks DVD, which is available for rent at pretty much every video store. There are some inside jokes in the film that refer to these earlier episodes that will add something more enjoyable to the overall viewing experience...
|
positive
|
I have been a Star Trek fan for as long as I can remember. When they announced the planning and premiere of the fifth series I was very excited.<br /><br />The premiere of Enterprise was well worth the wait. It was well done with the perfect setting and a great acting job done by all the characters. The NX-01, Enterprise is the perfect vessel to show the beginnings of what many people have come to love.<br /><br />Scott Bakula was just superior as Captain Jonathan Archer. Jolene Blalock gave a commanding performance as Subcommander T'Pol. That it just two people of this wonderful new crew that is boldly going to take us into the great history of Starfleet.<br /><br />Enterprise looks like it's going to be a good series well worth watching, and I recommend that. Watch it.
|
positive
|
This was the first Mickey Mouse cartoon released and the first cartoon with sound. It was based on a silent movie called "Steamboat Bill, Jr." starring Buster Keaton. Back in this early Mickey short, Mickey did not talk nor did he have gloves. He could just whistle and play music. The song that he played was "Turkey in the Straw" using several barnyard animals as musical instruments. He plays a cow's teeth as a xylophone and he plays a nursing sow's teats like an accordion keyboard. Captain Pete, however, is very mad and makes Mickey peel potatoes in the galley. Pete's parrot flies up to the window and orders him to peel the potatoes. Mickey throws a half-peeled potato at the parrot and laughs, thus closing the cartoon. I was able to get this cartoon on tape and I really like it. I think the Disney shorts are much better than the feature length movies.
|
positive
|
This film starts out with a family who were all going in different directions and their teenage daughter Martha MacIssac (Olivia Dunne) was very much in love with Joe MacLeod,(Zack). The mother is played by Mitzi Kapture,(Jill Dunne) who suddenly walks in on her daughter and Zack making out and then all kinds of problems seem to surface. Jill Dunne has a husband who is always traveling or staying away from the home quite often. There are also big problems that occur when the family decides to go on a camping trip which their daughter Olivia dislikes and just cannot adapt to sleeping outdoors and requires a tent to be kept out all the bugs. In many ways, Olivia does an outstanding performance as the teenage and Nick Mancuso,(Richard Grant) gives a great supporting role as a hotel owner. This film will keep you guessing how it will end and you will enjoy a film filled with plenty of horror and terror. Enjoy
|
positive
|
Wilhelm Grimm (Alexander Knox) stands trial for Nazi crimes. Three witnesses give evidence - Father Warecki (Henry Travers), Wilhelm's brother Karl (Erik Rolf) and Wilhelm's former lover Marja (Marsha Hunt) - before Wilhelm speaks in his own defense. The film ends after the court sums up....<br /><br />The film is told in three flashback segments as each of the witnesses takes the stand. The story is mostly set in a small Polish village and memorable scenes include the village reaction to the death of Anna (Shirley Mills), who Wilhelm is accused of raping; the treatment of the Jewish villagers as they prepare to be moved to concentration camps; and the church service where Willie Grimm (Richard Crane) denounces his Nazi upbringing whilst mourning for his girlfriend Janina (Dorothy Morris), Marja's daughter, after she has been shot at a brothel.<br /><br />Throughout the film, Knox is unrepentant and is very convincing as a bitter, resentful and evil man. Martha Hunt has some powerful moments and matches him with her strength and Henry Travers is also very good in his role as a priest. This film delivers an effective story that stays with you once it has finished.
|
positive
|
Avoid this one! It is a terrible movie. So what if it is very exciting? All it is is just pointless murders. And the whole thing with Thorn and Michael's curse, that was the absolute worst thing they could possibly do to the series! Why couldn't they leave Michael's story a mystery? He's supposed to be the Boogeyman, not part of some stupid cult!! Ugh! Thank God for Halloween H20, which wiped out Halloween 3-6! They all sucked! But anyway, if you see this movie, please expect no more than pointless murders and gore.
|
negative
|
This story is beautifully acted. It is both sad and heartwarming about a young girl's journey to discover where she has come from and where she is going. Stephanie was adopted by her mother's best friend after her mother and father were killed in a car crash, and ever since she has been labeled the 'miracle baby', she is dyslexic and is finding life a bit tough. Her findings along the way affect those closest around her. Her relationship with her guardian and her guardian's ex boyfriend are handled very delicately and sensitively, and the whole of the supporting cast are genuine, 3 dimensional and believable. Set around a peach canning factory in small town Australia, this is a warm gentle, erotic film, and leaves you with a pleasant feeling when the credits close. After reading some of the other rather shallow comments about Hugo Weaving, I would like to add that I think he was brilliantly cast, and was extremely sexy. No, he is not Brad Pitt, but that doesn't mean that he isn't attractive.
|
positive
|
Magicians is a wonderful ride from start to finish, thanks in large part to the magic that is generated by the stars. Alan Arkin is fantastic in one of his best roles in decades. Like any really fine film, it's a journey in which the theme is redemption and the results of dreaming. I can't believe this film is SO difficult to find -- I'd buy it on DVD in a heartbeat but have yet to find an outlet.
|
positive
|
Awful Star Wars knock-off with a slightly more comic tinge. Robert Urich stars as the leader of a group of ice pirates, who steal ice because water is the most valuable substance in the universe now (how all the poor people stay alive is a mystery). He hooks up with Mary Crosby (Bing's daughter, around 25 and a total cutie), a princess looking for her missing father. Also in the cast are an embarrassed-looking Anjelica Huston in some hilarious sci-fi get-ups and a pudgy, short-ish Ron Perlman (whom I thought was seven feet tall from his other roles!). And John Carradine, who looks days from death and Hollywood Squares funnyman (relative term) Bruce Vilanch. If you ever wanted to see Bruce Vilanch get decapitated, here's your film. But, then again, even that's not worth seeing, as it doesn't shut him up at all (think he might have been a robot, but I nodded off a couple of times).
|
negative
|
The story of Ed Gein is interesting, VERY interesting. This movie, however, interesting only in the fact that it was actually made. Kane Hodder's portrayal of Ed Gein is so far off, it's not even the slightest bit funny. Ed Gein did not behave psychotic in public, he was very calm and collected and always extremely polite to everybody and talked to anybody who would listen, this is one of the major things this movie failed to show the audience. But the biggest mistake of this movie, side from even one frame ever being shot, was that Ed never killed anyone without having been told to do so by his dead mother, whom he thought was speaking to him from beyond the grave. He killed only the people who his dead mother said he had to because it was God's will, and he was very remorseful about it, though that didn't stop him from experimenting with cannibalism and wearing people's flesh. I officially gave this movie a rating of "1" simply because "0" wasn't given to me as an option.<br /><br />I highly advise all to stay clear of this movie. If you want to see a movie that accurately depicts Ed Gein and doesn't try to put in a sub-plot love story between a cop and a fictional woman who never existed, i HIGHLY advise you see the original movie, which unfortunately seems to not be on IMDb.com though i could be wrong, but i have yet to find it here. The original doesn't stray from the actual events and doesn't try to twist the story. I can understand telling the story from a different perspective, but this movie just tried to straight change the true story itself, something that i find as horrible as if someone made a movie based on 9/11, but gave it a twist that Canada was behind it. Or a WWII movie saying Hitler was a good guy and helped fight the Nazi's.
|
negative
|
The often misunderstood Zabriskie Point is Antonioni's political film, Antonioni's American film. Stylistically, it follows suit after "Blow-Up", meaning that the pace is faster than the previous epics, though certainly no less idiosyncratic.<br /><br />Basically the common mistake is that the film glorifies the hippie generation. Not so.<br /><br />The two protagonists come from vastly different environments. Mark from the "rebel" youths, Daria from an estate agency corporation. But in true Antonioni fashion, they are both alienated, both trying to escape their surroundings. Mark leaves a meeting of rebel students and Black Panthers disappointed with the verbose empty rhetoric, while Daria keeps uneasily being on the move with her car.<br /><br />Antionioni, the master director, after portraying the rebelling youth as confused and shallow, then moves to the city. An environment saturated by corporatism, billboard advertisements, meaninglessness, that has to keep expanding to accommodate the similar expansion of the population, generating a profit at the same time. It is this environment that the two protagonists escape from, though it seems mostly out of coincidence.<br /><br />Indeed, when Daria stops by a small village in the outskirts of the desert, the environment is just as suffocating, and the people just as lost cases, best exemplified by an old boxing champion, now reduced to a shadow of himself, sitting around drinking and smoking and talking nonsense. A stunning melancholy sequence, made even more powerful with the inclusion of some half wild children living around, brought in by some "benefactor" but "destroying a genuine piece of American history". In a not-so-obscure symbolism, there is Antonioni's opinion on the hippies. Just a half-positive glimpse in the canvas of human alienation.<br /><br />And then there is the desert, the landscape used to devastating effect, by turns pure and terrifying, primeval, wild and dead. The sequence where the two protagonists make love, "joined" in fantasy by the "flower" generation reflects the similar sequence in "Red Desert", where Giuliana tells her son a story. It is a colourful intermission in a colourless landscape. A vivid half-fantasy in a suffocating reality.<br /><br />The ending probably belongs to the pantheon of great endings in cinema, the Western civilization blown to pieces. A catharsis, an exorcism.<br /><br />Antionioni's two "international" films (the British "Blow-Up" and the American "Zabriskie Point") are lesser efforts than the previous masterpieces, but that is largely because of the faster pace and the inevitably contrived settings (swinging London, flower-power America). But when it comes down to it, it's clear he hasn't lost the edge.
|
positive
|
I remember this movie getting a lot of flak from reviewers when it was new. Letterman and Leno themselves had objections. Letterman called it (paraphrasing) the biggest waste of film he'd ever seen, and Leno objected to the simpleton portrayal of himself. But Letterman had John Michael Higgins as a guest on his show so it seems he didn't take anything too personally. A DVD re-release, with opinions and such from those involved, could be interesting, though I suspect the days when late night talkshow wars captivated the nation are gone and not returning soon.<br /><br />I preferred the Letterman impersonation to the Leno, but could never buy in to either. They never rose above caricature, and I never simply accepted them as actors. For comparison: Paul Sorvino as Kissinger in Oliver Stone's "Nixon" comes to mind as an impersonation which may have seemed laughable in the first few moments but which seemed at least plausible after the first moments of amusement wore off.<br /><br />The highlight of the show for me was Treat Williams as Michael Ovitz. Williams' speech to Letterman was not as great as but reminiscent of Alec Baldwin's entrance (and quick exit) as Blake in Glengerry Glen Ross.<br /><br />They could have done more with Johnny's role in all this. I know he was mostly uninvolved in the events portrayed in this movie, and most audiences will be familiar with his reputation such that Johnny Carson needs no introduction. But more context about why Dave and Jay and all comedians revere Johnny would have given this flick the substance it lacks in being a gossip film.<br /><br />Guess I should read the book...<br /><br />Rich Little imitating Johnny Carson, unfortunately, came across as nothing more than Rich Little imitating Johnny Carson.<br /><br />I tell you what, after watching this movie, then watching either the Letterman or Leno show, all I want to do is crack open my Johnny Carson DVDs and see the real thing.
|
positive
|
For the first time in years, I've felt the need to log into IMDb today to cleanse myself of this movie by writing a review, because it was just such a let-down to watch. The plot sounded awesome when I read it, I expected a minimal mystery thriller, a claustrophobic phantom hunt. Unfortunately, it all gets watered down so bad by a mundane, tiring love story and too many contrived and teeth-gnashingly stupid "no-one-says-things-like-this-except-in-bad-movies"-dialogs that it's just agonizing.<br /><br />Here's a quick run down of the worst offenses of this piece of film: <br /><br />- The script relies so heavily on coincidences and the inexplicable and inexcusable stupidity of the main characters that it's just laughable. No, actually, it's angering. And lazy.<br /><br />- Related to that: Cheap thrills. A long parade "just in time" moments.<br /><br />- The main characters. Alright, it seems that the screenwriter has never experienced actual human beings in real life, but instead has gained all his knowledge from bad movies. Thus, his characters are boring, lifeless second generation clichés. They are mere plot-devices, place-holders without the slightest bit of personality. They are "man and woman in break-up who still love each other". Never seen that one before except in 100,000 movies and it's not getting any more realistic or enjoyable. Think of the blandest two-dimensional Hollywood fare and you've got it. There is not one character in this movie that is even remotely fresh, charming, or interesting.<br /><br />- The far-fetched, vague resolution that's swaying very bad and needs just one nudge to topple, though the word "resolution" might be ill-fitting here, because the movie is a swampy mess that isn't going anywhere anyway. By the time you're through, though, you don't care anymore. The last third of the movie I just fast-forwarded, because it was just so unbearable to watch.<br /><br />Okay, that's it. Whatever redeeming features this movie has, it all gets buried under incompetence. Don't watch this turd.
|
negative
|
I went to the cinema in 1973 when the film was released, I was 11 at the time. I remember how much I enjoyed it and wanted to live in Shangri-la, that's how naive and young I was. I recently came across a video of the film I had recorded off television some years ago. I watched it again and am not ashamed to admit I still enjoy it as much now as I did 29 years ago. I also enjoy listening to the words of the songs, because it makes me think that one day we could live in a place where the sound of guns don't pound in our ears and if we look at our reflection - we should be happy with what we see. This is what I call a "feel good" film because I feel happy after watching it. Maybe I am still naive but it makes me happy and I'm sure it will make you happy if you watch it with an open mind and enjoy it for what it is - a good, family film. I must be one of the few people who has this film on VHS PAL video - and DVD (self-made). I recorded it on DVD as the videotape recording from TV was starting to wear thin. I still watch it from time to time.
|
positive
|
Considered by many to be a strangely overlooked Chabrol it seems to me the reason it has been cold shouldered is its sleaze factor. Not as overtly sexy, violent or gory as many films of this period it nevertheless starts rather startlingly and although becoming more measured continues to ooze a rather unpleasant odour. Ms Audran, not here the ice maiden but a drunken mother, Donald Pleasence does a cameo as a child molester, David Hemmings has his eyes on underage sex and the central theme involves the relationship between a brother, sister and niece. No not very nice at all and Chabrol treats it all as if it is very normal (like it might be in some small French village!) instead of Ed McBain's New York City. Had this been treated in a more sensational manner then it would have been a more acceptable but lesser film. Here we really have to choose between the likelihood of various unpleasant options before the final denouement. Very watchable
|
positive
|
My Mother Frank begins as a warm, amiable comedy about a middle-aged Catholic woman (Frank, short for Francis, played by Sinead Cusack) who shakes herself out of the doldrums by enrolling as a student in her son's university. Most of her friends and family are horrified, not least her son (Matthew Newton), who is busy falling in love with his best mate's girlfriend (Rose Byrne). Meanwhile Frank has raised the ire of her disapproving English tutor (Sam Neill).<br /><br />Matthew Newton is utterly disarming as David; relaxed and natural in the role, even when the character's uptight. He generates valuable goodwill, steering the audience through some of the film's more awkward, broad comedy moments. Not long after the half-way point, first-time writer-director Mark Lamprell expertly steers his film into darker emotional territory and gives Cusack a real chance to shine.<br /><br />The supporting cast is full of familiar and welcome faces (Lynette Curran, Sacha Horler, Nicholas Bishop) and all the principals (including a more animated than usual Sam Neill) are excellent. While it meanders a little towards the end, My Mother Frank delivers more than it promises and is a genuine Australian crowd-pleaser.
|
positive
|
A group of adventurers travel to the 'dark continent' to try and locate a lost heiress named Diana, who disappeared years before in a plane crash, and who is now believed to be living with a savage tribe that consider her to be their goddess.<br /><br />Once again, my search for sleazy, European cannibal movies has taken me deep into Jess Franco territorya seemingly endless cinematic wilderness swarming with sub-par scriptwriting, crawling with crap camera-work, and abundant with awful acting (Franco regular Lina Romay taking the prize this time for her pitiful performance as an ailing, elderly woman). It is here, in this hellish place, that I finally stumbled upon Diamonds of Kilimanjaro, an abysmal jungle-based exploitationer so stupefyingly bad that it took me three successive evenings to finish watching it.<br /><br />Tawdry and unrelentingly dull, even by Franco's standards, this wearisome piece of trash fails on almost every level: the story is a dreadfully dull derivative of Edgar Rice Burrough's Tarzan, albeit with a feminine twist; the film appears to have been filmed in the local botanical gardens, although grainy stock footage is poorly integrated into the film in a pointless effort to convince viewers that the action is really taking place in Africa; and the death scenes are virtually bloodless (Franco can usually be relied upon for some splatter, but despite initial appearances, this isn't a cannibal movie and it isn't that gory).<br /><br />Where the director does succeed, however, is in his casting of sexy young Katja Bienert as jungle jail-bait Diana. Running and leaping through the undergrowth in nothing but a skimpy loin-cloth, her curvaceous bod belying the fact that she was only sixteen at the time, this nubile beauty makes quite an impression. Franco also throws in some further nudity courtesy of Mari Carmen Nieto as treacherous traveller Lita (who gives us a glimpse of her untamed regions), and Aline Mess as topless warrior woman Noba, thus narrowly avoiding getting yet another rating of 1/10 from me (although I'm sure he'll be receiving plenty more in the futureI have loads of his films yet to see).
|
negative
|
This movie was a real disappointment to me. I have been a fan of Gram Parsons for a long time, and when i found out they were making a film about him i was very exited, I got the movie on VHS when it came out, and was sickened by what i saw, This film wasn't about his life, it was about the aftermath of his death. I thought it would be a descent film about Grams Life and Music, but they had to make a film about his death. I am tired of hearing about his deaths in books and movies, i wanted a film about his life, not his infamous death. I was very Disappointed. I wish people would look at his life, more then his death. The only thing good about this film was its soundtrack. This film is a disappointment to any Gram Parsons Fan.
|
negative
|
Throughout this movie I kept thinking why on earth did they make this as a "documentary," yet not include real footage of the people who were interviewed? Sure, it would have been just like any other documentary, but then it would have been up to the film makers to find the meaning for the movie to deliver.<br /><br />Using a host of well known movie stars (many of whom apparently asked to be in it) to portray "real" people gave me the feeling that there was a pre-determined message to be delivered, and the director was so intent on it that real people couldn't be trusted so actors and rehearsed scenes were used. (Yes, I know this was also a play, but a documentary should be a documentary.) I really found myself getting put off by the various stars, and kept expecting one of them to drop character for a moment and say "I'm a good person because I'm in this."<br /><br />This movie could have had a much more powerful social commentary had it been more objective or let us see Matthew Shepard and his murderers as people rather than symbols. (The much superior "Boys Don't Cry" had an unflinching view of those involved--good and bad.) Instead The Laramie Project gives an almost relentless lecture that someone's sexuality should be accepted regardless, and little else.
|
negative
|
No this is not an Ed Wood movie. "Angora Love" is Stan Laurel's and Oliver Hardy's last silent movie. The end of an era! In the '20's Laurel & Hardy left a real mark on the silent movie genre with movies that are still popular and being watched and aired regularly, this present day.<br /><br />It's a shame that this movie is however not among their best.<br /><br />The premise of the movie sounds good and is good. The boys team up with a goat this time, which of course leads them into trouble and for us some hilarious situations to watch. It however at the same time is extremely silly and just totally unbelievable to watch the boys doing comedy stuff with a goat. Most of the jokes in the movie still work good but the movie just however never gets truly hilarious or memorable. The comedy and story really feels lacking at times and is mostly too simple and predictable.<br /><br />Of course still good and fun enough to watch for the fans but still a slightly disappointing last silent Laurel & Hardy entry.<br /><br />7/10
|
positive
|
I am really surprised that this movie get a ranking like this! I haven't seen such a bad movie for years.Omg this was a really bad movie. Splatter, is not enough to describe the unnecessary (nearly funny) blood scenes). If you didn't like hostel2 or Wolf Creek or Halloween (2007) ..well this is 10 time worse. The story remind me RL Stine goosebumps.!<br /><br />I can't tell about the acting since the script was so terrible.Cliché all the time. (why i must write 10lines? i never understood this.)<br /><br />==Here comes spoilers==<br /><br />The story is about a butcher killing people all the time in metro. We are talking about thousands of killings and no one gets notice. Actually those people are just missing. And There is the good guy that tries to solve the mystery (well there is no mystery for us because we know from the beginning the bad guy) and as usual no one believes him! what a surprise! In the end he puts butcher clothes and fights to death with the killer butcher!
|
negative
|
Writer/Director Brian Burns has obviously seen a few romantic comedies, and he seems to think that he's discovered the formula for success: plenty of location shots in New York (preferably in the winter), allusions to old Hollywood films (especially musicals), enjoyable musical soundtrack. Alas, all of this is mere compensation for Burns' lack of talent as a writer. (The great mystery of many writer-directors making independent films is not why they cannot get on with major studios, but how they get any backing at all for their films.)<br /><br />Normally our interest in romantic comedy is motivated by the lead characters, but the couple in this film simply has no appeal. This is not the fault of either David Krumholtz or Milla Jovavich; their characters are just poorly written. What we respond to in such classics as When Harry Met Sally or Annie Hall or older films such as His Girl Friday are quirks and flaws of the lead characters' personalities. Lacking the ability to create individuals, Burns gives us an after-school special inspired by Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus.<br /><br />How anyone can see Burns as the successor to Woody Allen is beyond me. I did not laugh once during this film, and the screen-play is full of echo chamber dialog ("I want to paint the town red." "You want to paint the town red?"), which is the most tell-tale sign of someone who has no business writing for a living. In one of the early scenes, we see Krumholz's actress girlfriend filming a mindless TV sitcom. It's the only moment in the whole film that the dialog feels right; maybe that indicates what Burns talents are really suited for.
|
negative
|
I sat (uncomfortably) through this film becoming more and more staggered at just how it got made at all. The script itself makes the acting look embarrassing, and it fundamentally becomes a waste of time for everybody concerned. If you avoid seeing one film this year, make it this one.
|
negative
|
I've tried to reconcile why so many bad reviews of this film, while the vast majority of reviews are given a rating of between 7 and 10. The reason may be this film is kind of hard to describe in a positive review, although a few have done that quite nicely already. This film is confusing, depressing, and doesn't have a happy ending. I still gave Pola X a rating of 10, because it is basically for me literature and art combined on film. That is really my favorite kind of filmmaking. I've only seen two of Carax's films: this one and Mauvis Sang. As with this film, I'm being somewhat pretentious when I call this one of Carax's best films- but I am. Carax has a minimalist style. If that type of film does not appeal to you and is boring, then it would be best not to watch this. But Pola X was less minimalist than Mauvis Sang, so it had quite a lot of intensity for a thriller- at least for my taste. I found it quite interesting and absorbing. The two lead roles did an excellent job acting. (I mean the lead and the young woman he thought was his half sister.) Catherine D. is always great, but her role was not very large or significant in the story. But everyone did a fine job. I thought the cult stuff was great. It may have not been very believable, but that is due to its being rather abstract. There is a lot going on between the lines in this film. This is a very Freudian psycho-thriller.
|
positive
|
I thought this movie was great, if you didn't take it too seriously. Just sit back and enjoy Hilary Swank in all her greatness and laugh when the monks go to Boston, MA. I also think this movie has a great message about self control and inner strength. Plus Mr. Myagi was so sweet, I wish he'd teach me karate!
|
positive
|
I guess if you like watching dudes get "pumped up" to outrageous sizes,this is right up your alley.Otherwise,it's an exercise in ego. I don't need to do either.Anyhoo,it's of historic interest,I guess,to see how these muscle positive and brain negative chumps got that way(before/after/and in between steroids)-but otherwise,this isn't going to influence many guys and,as for women,well,I'm not one so I can't say....
|
negative
|
Umberto Lenzi hits new lows with this recycled trash. Janet Agren plays a lady who is looking for her missing sister. It turns out the sister is part of a Jim Jones type religous cult in New Guinea. She hires a scruffy guide played by Robert Kerman to help her get to the cult's compound located in the jungle. This is another (!) cannibal movie, and I probably would have liked it if not for Lenzi padding this film out with scenes from his superior "The Man from Deep River." I mean every cannibal scene is directly lifted from this film, which I guess makes him about as credible as Al Adamson. I felt ripped off. ***SPOILER*** 1/2 star and that's for the dildo scene.
|
negative
|
In a nutshell: this is a cookie cutter romantic comedy that really WANTS and TRIES to be something more. It wants to be Harold and Maude, Annie Hall, The Graduate. It wants to be deep and human. It has interesting camera shots, lighting, music, editing, all of which give it the feel of an important movie. The dialog is smart -- at times. There are some "laugh out loud" moments.<br /><br />But here's what keeps it from ultimately being anything more than a formulaic late-night-cable, in-flight, time-killer: <br /><br />1. David Schwimmer -- how many times can Joe sad-sack puppy dog stare blankly into space with his jaw hanging open before it starts to get annoying? Maybe some drool would have helped.<br /><br />2. Gwenneth Paltrow -- she's really flat here and not just in the chest. Her role is supposed to be this lively, nice, caring girl who just keeps getting herself into wrong situations, is very confused as a result, and that is why a sad-sack loser like Schwimmer has any chance with her. But Gwenneth plays her very dull. Combine this with puppy-dog drool-face (above) and you have very little chemistry to care about.<br /><br />(I kept picturing someone else in this role -- Kate Hudson for example.) <br /><br />3. The script and the plot -- the stuff that happens just basically doesn't ring true; all the problems get wrapped up in the end with such a neat and tidy bow on top that it seems like a whistle blew and the script writers just said "oops, time to wrap it up, got a train to catch!" So they pulled out the Hollywood formula book, checked off all the boxes, and went home.
|
negative
|
Pinocchio's revenge is not a good movie. Nor is it terrible.<br /><br />The acting was wooden at least on Pinocchio's part.The puppet had all of 2 expressions.As did most of the actors,except strangely enough...the secondary characters...most of them were enjoyable over the top.<br /><br />The special effects in this are pretty "B" and as I said earlier the puppet really blew.<br /><br />The 2 best scenes in the movie are the knife through the hand...looked pretty good,i think they spent about a 1/3 of the budget on that...and the shower scene...WOW...I think they must have spent the other 2/3rds of the budget on talking the actress who did that scene to do it.Outstanding.<br /><br />Seriously this is a slightly below average "b" horror puppet movie...rent Chucky if you have a urge to see puppets kill.<br /><br />The story had a few interesting idea's, enough to keep me watching it to the end.
|
negative
|
I saw Five Fingers at the Drive-In in...what, 1973, '74? It was the the first Kung-Fu movie I'd ever seen and I was greatly entertained. I recently bought it on DVD and watched it again. I was greatly entertained the second time, too. I believe this is probably the one most Kung-Fu movies are modeled after. Rival Schools, different styles, revenge, "white hat" good guys and "black hat" bad guys. They even threw in the Japanese (VERY bad guys) styles of Karate and Judo. I remember being amused by the dubbing dialog, along the lines of "Hey You! You are a very bad guy!" and "They should not get away with this! I will have a go at this bad crowd!" This time it wasn't so distracting, I guess I'm used to it. If you have even the slightest appreciation of this genre, this is one you should see.
|
positive
|
Even die hard John Wayne fans will have to concede that this film is a mess. Wayne's character, John Tobin is after the gang that killed his parents, led by half Apache, half white renegade Pandro Zanti (Earl Dwire), posing as a Mexican. <br /><br />There are almost too many silly plot points to count, but those that stand out include Sheriff Williams (Jack Rockwell) cuffing a captured Zanti around his boot, so all Zanti has to do to get free is remove his boot! Tobin's friend Dusty (George pre-Gabby Hayes) takes a thrown knife in the back, and comes back good as new for the rest of the story. In a chase scene, Tobin rides a makeshift log flume through a drainage trough surrounded by log walls in the middle of a desert, and missing his mark, chases (actually walks after) Zanti on foot through the desert. Zanti seeks relief and drinks from a pool of water, but OOPS!, he didn't see the sign above the waterhole that states "Don't Drink Poison". As Zanti collapses dead, Tobin resumes his chase after the remainder of the gang, and captures the whole lot by blowing up a rock wall that seals a secret passage into Dusty's cabin - how convenient.<br /><br />In the closing scene, the new Sheriff Tobin is seen on the phone talking to the new Mrs. Tobin (Sheila Terry), Dusty's daughter Ruby, who earlier in the film was a kidnap target of Zanti's gang. Apparently, the studio was intent on Wayne's getting the girl in virtually every film they made with him, as this type of ending is completely predictable for almost all of Lone Star's films.
|
negative
|
I first saw The Buddy Holly Story when I was about seven years old. I had no idea who Buddy Holly was, nor can I remember what it was that made me sit down in front of the television, tuned in to HBO, and watch this engaging biopic. What I remember was realizing that it was a (somewhat) true story, about someone who actually lived. I recall the music, great songs that I still love today (I can't believe Gary Busey sang his own songs and so well - What a stud!) Then, came the end. He died. He freaking died. I couldn't believe it. I had no warning, no prior knowledge like most coming into this film. It taught me a harsh lesson about life and how it doesn't follow the rules that most movies teach us. I just watched the film again tonight and was engaged all over again... and a little saddened.<br /><br />8 out of 10, but I'll admit to a little bias.
|
positive
|
So ya think you've seen every Mafia movie ever made! Here's one that nobody every heard of. It's a low-budget, quickie B-movie - shot in the swamps of Jersey. For us mob-movie fans, it had a little bit of everything - sex, violence, cursing, and wise guys acting like "gafones". While violence dominated the movie, I found myself laughing at some familiar scenes I've since seen on The Sopranos and Goodfellas. Look for a 1977 version of the "Badabing Girls" in the beginning of the movie. <br /><br />All our favorite mobster stereotypes were featured here. And, as for realism, "fugettaboutit"! Joe Pesci was superb, portraying the classic wise-guy character like we seen him do so many times over the years. This was probably his first shot, and it was a gem. Pesci fans should run to the video store to check out this flick. You have to look carefully for it since it goes by different names. My copy called it "The Family Enforcer". Here it is known as "The Death Collector". But whatever name it goes under, it's should be called - A Winner.
|
positive
|
Artistically speaking, this is a beautiful movie--the cinematography, music and costumes are gorgeous. In fact, this movie is prettier than those directed by Akira Kurasawa himself. In this case, he only wrote the movie as it was made several years after his death.<br /><br />So, as far as the writing goes, the dialog was well-written and the story, at times, was interesting. However, the story was also rather depressing yet uninvolving in some ways--after all, it's the story of a group of women who work in a brothel. It's interesting that although prostitution has been seen as a much more acceptable business in Japan, the women STILL long for a better life. This reminds me a lot of the movie Streets Of Shame, though Streets Of Shame's characters are a lot less likable and more one-dimensional.<br /><br />So, overall it gets a 7--mostly due to everything BUT the writing. It's too bad that the weakest link in this movie is the story by the great Kurasawa.
|
positive
|
This exploration of a unique decade in US cinema begins with the fall of one ailing, out-of-touch empire and culminates with the unstoppable rise of another, equally associated with escapism and box office receipts. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Or, as Peter Fonda observed in Easy Rider, "We blew it." In between, from Bonnie And Clyde to Star Wars, the young Turks (some under the guerrilla tutelage of Roger Corman) were creeping under the wires to produce some of the greatest artworks of the 20th century. While the story is already familiar from Peter Biskind's Easy Riders, Raging Bulls directors Demme and LaGravenese are less concerned with muckraking than in providing a platform for the filmmakers and stars themselves.<br /><br />Everyone from Martin Scorsese to Francis Ford Coppola and Julie Christie is interviewed and a roster of well edited clips places the decade in a socio-cultural and economic context. If their responses are self-congratulatory (to say the least), they're also highly quotable, funny and revealing, making this something of a cinephile's wet dream. Director William Friedkin reveals how the original The Exorcist poster was to feature a little girl's hand holding a bloodied crucifix and the legend 'For God's sake, help her", before he complained. Former Warner Bros.' head John Calley recalls that when he first saw Robert De Niro in Mean Streets he assumed Scorsese had secured a psychopath's day release for the shoot.<br /><br />Happily, a certain amount of hard perspective has crept into the mix, as might be hoped from a politically motivated, consciousness-expanded generation; Hopper stresses "there's a lot of real crap in there too". Julie Christie observes that 1970s US cinema was "not a good time for women". But if Demme responds with a spoonful of sops to women's movies - brief clips of Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore, They Shoot Horses, Don't They and Klute - we're soon dragged back to the usual male wall-pissing contests.<br /><br />The shift from tough, socially-conscious film-making to no-risk crowd-pleasers like Jaws for 'Nam-weary, fantasy-craving audiences is also documented, though a little rushed. But kudos too, for the inclusion of lesser-sung, but equally relevant films like Panic In Needle Park and Joe. "We weren't handsome," muses Bruce Dern on his contemporaries. "But we were f****** interesting."
|
positive
|
Due to the invention of a "The Domestication Collar", flesh-eating zombies are brought under control, and become productive members of society; however, they perform menial tasks. The servile dead attend to those living in fenced US 1950s-styled small towns, while untamed zombies roam around in "The Wild Zone". In the town of "Willard", pre-teen K'Sun Ray (as Timmy Robinson) lives with parents Carrie-Anne Moss and Dylan Baker (as Helen and Bill Robinson). Alas, the Robinsons are the only family on their street who do not own a zombie; their new neighbors, the Bottoms, have six. So, to keep up, the Robinsons obtain zombie Billy Connolly (as Fido).<br /><br />Unfortunately, Mr. Connolly's "Domestication Collar" is damaged by an old lady's walker, and he eats her; then, new and hungry zombies infest the town. Meanwhile, young Ray has grown attached to Connolly (the boy and his zombie are like TV's "Timmy and Lassie") and, the Robinson family find it difficult to cooperate with the controlling "Zomcom" authorities. <br /><br />"Fido" doesn't go far enough into its own intriguing "Wild Zone"; but, it is a colorful, stylish, and amusingly satirical addition to zombie film lore. Ray and the cast perform well, individually; with nubile zombie Sonja Bennett (as Tammy) and owner Tim Blake Nelson (as Theopolis) the most memorable pair. Director Andrew Currie and crew, including Rob Gray (design), Jan Kiesser (photography), Don MacDonald (music), and James Willcock (design), deservedly won awards.<br /><br />******* Fido (2006) Andrew Currie ~ K'Sun Ray, Carrie-Anne Moss, Billy Connolly, Dylan Baker
|
positive
|
This Aussie flick filmed in 1999 does an OK job of portraying a bunch of small-time crooks in Kings Cross, Sydney. The plot focuses on the plight of a young would-be crim who's life is in danger after botching a job for his future boss. Very well acted by Heath Ledger and Bryan Brown. The plot is fairly believable with some very humorous moments in one scene which revolves around a bank heist. The setting-up of various themes central to the story is quite well done. Eg. When one crim is searching for bullets for his gun. I personally have a dislike for gratuitous violence in movies, and in this regard, the movie did not offend. It attempted and succeeded in showing us the human side of the baddies such as Bryan Brown. The rest of the cast did an OK job, without any real stand-outs that I remember. The direction was very good in succeeding in making a believable movie that provided good entertainment. The main overriding feature that makes this a good movie is the acting and direction of Heath Ledger and his successful portrayal of a naive young man who makes stupid mistakes for short-term gratification, thinking he is indestructible and not realizing that there are sinister people waiting to pounce on any mistake. The director, Gregor Jordan, deserves special mention. Rating in my book - 7 (of 10).
|
positive
|
A complete and utter waster of my precious two hours. The entire movie could have been made in less than 60 seconds by simply showing people getting coked up, a car crashing, people getting more coked up, people having sex, people crying, and people getting more coked up. The tagline for this movie should have read "Come see how f*cked up our characters are! They're stoned! They're coke addicts! They're a mess! Who are these people? Do you really care? Does it matter? Just give us your money please, because we sure don't care about anything else!" An absolutely terrible movie. It never went anywhere, you never got to know the characters (they never even said what these people did to earn such a big house and so much money and cars and coke), and it was just downright boring. You might like the movie a little more if you're a stoner yourself, but for the vast majority of us that aren't, this movie is a waste of film and of time.
|
negative
|
This movie is a real gem. The arc of the the plot is defined in the first 3 minutes, the characters are sympathetic and clearly drawn, their motives completely believable. The dialogue is fresh, and oh so real. The situations are unique to the characters and not at all cliched or hackneyed. Until the climax, that is. Then it's as if the movie went off the rails a bit and it got a bit hokey and unbelievable. But I don't want to discourage people from watching this film. The first 3/4's of it are truly remarkable. I gave it an 8. There are some remarkable performances here. Check out this movie.
|
positive
|
Pinjar is a genuinely good film, with great acting, good narrative, good presentation, touching emotions, etc.<br /><br />It seems to me that the quality of films that Bollywood is producing is quite improving these days, and this film is one evidence.<br /><br />No Bollywood movie that I can remember of made such an impact on me - I was literally thinking about the movie for hours - marvelling at the various emotional situations that test the human in a human.<br /><br />The film rests on the great acting of Urmilla Matondkar, and also some from Manoj Bajpai. Urmilla plays a girl in North India in the background of the partition, and all troubles seem sweet if compared with the problems she happens to face. <br /><br />A must-see film. A technically superior Bollywood product, which I feel is comparable to the best movies coming out of other countries in the world.
|
positive
|
Don't even bother with this movie, it's bad when judged on it's own merits, but when compared to the 1972 original (which IS a classic) it's down right awful. And BTW, somebody commented that the 1972 movie is bad when compared to the book. This is silly, movies should never be judged against the books they are taken from. They are 2 completely different art forms (as if this needed to be pointed out but apparently it does). If you used this criteria for all movies then "2001" would suck and so would "Forest Gump" and "Silence of the Lambs".
|
negative
|
In this peculiar movie, the themes of the end of days and Satan versus Jesus are treated in a new fashion. Jesus doesn't want to open the two last seals, and Satan is thwarted in his attempt to get another soul into hell... Armageddon, Armageddon and Jehosaphat turns out to be a - company!, and the book of life is a little hard to open.<br /><br />What's memorable about this movie are the slanted image, out-of-focus shots and light effects, which are effective, but sometimes irritating. And of course, Donovan is great as a disillusioned Jesus trying to come to terms with what the world and its people have become! So, do see it if you get the opportunity!
|
positive
|
I see that C. Thomas Howell has appeared in many movies since his heyday in the 80s as an accomplished young actor.<br /><br />I bought this DVD because it was cheap and in part for the internet-related plot and to see how much older C. Thomas Howell is; I do not recall seeing him in any movies since the 1980s.<br /><br />In just a few words: what a very big disappointment. I give some low budget movies a chance, but this one started out lame. Within the first 15 minutes of the movie, this elusive woman is chatting with an Asian guy in a chatroom. They basically stimulate themselves to their own chat, she then insists on meeting the participant in person. She meets him, has sex, ties him up and then murders him in cold blood. The plot then deteriorates further.<br /><br />The plot is thin and flimsy and the acting is very stiff. Do not bother renting it much less purchasing it, even if it is in the $1 DVD bin. I plan to take my copy of the DVD to Goodwill. I am truly amazed that any of the prior reviewers here gave this movie a bad rating.
|
negative
|
Frequently voted China's greatest film ever by Chinese critics, as well as Chinese film enthusiasts from the outside, and, frankly, I don't get it at all. What I saw was one of the most generic melodramas imaginable, blandly directed and acted, with a complete shrew for a protagonist. Wei Wei (don't laugh) is that shrew, a young married woman who has suffered alongside her tubercular husband (Yu Shi) for the past several years. It is post WWII, and they live with the husband's teenage sister (Hongmei Zhang) in a dilapidated home with not much money (the man had been wealthy when they married). Along comes the husband's old best friend (Wei Li), who also used to be the wife's boyfriend when they were teens. She considers running away from her husband with this man, while the husband pretty much remains oblivious, thinking he may engage his little sister to his friend. That's the set-up, and it doesn't go anywhere you wouldn't expect it to. I've actually seen the remake, directed by Blue Kite director Zhuangzhuang Tian. It runs a half hour longer, and is actually kind of dull, too, but at least it was pretty. This supposed classic is pretty intolerable.
|
negative
|
The word "boring" gets thrown around way too often when referring to exactly how bad a low-budget Horror movie might, or might not be. I've seen many a B-movie. Many horrible, terribly inept B-movies. Some with a production value of a few hundred bucks. Does ineptness, lousy acting, worse continuity, and embarrassing budgets really make a movie unwatchable? Some would no doubt way yes. Most of which are probably huge fans of The Matrix. Well, I hate big-budget movies, so I say no. Bad can sometimes be funny (Blood Freak), sometimes even mind-blowing (Troll 2), but Boring will always be unwatchable... Hey, kinda like Bloodthirsty Butchers, which reminds me, I'm writing a review for this pile of garbage... Uh, yeah, anyway. This is one of late British director Andy Milligan's many alternatives to sleeping pills. This one is based on Sweeney Todd... Great. Milligan takes a boring story, and still manages to "butcher" it. Hey, that's pretty funny, I said bu... sorry, I keep getting distracted. This isn't exactly easy. On second thought, I'll make it easy. No gore, no scares, no entertainment, just unlikeable, annoying people having incoherent conversations. that's Bloodthirsty Butchers. Oh yeah, and something about a barber killing people, and something or other about meat pies. I don't know, it's not important.<br /><br />For something a little more rewarding from Andy Milligan, there's always the only other one I've seen, The Rats Are Coming, The Werewolves Are Here. Yeah, you heard me. But hows about we forget about this Milligan guy all together, and pick up something sweet like Sick Girl or Teenape Goes To Camp. Whatever you decide, just know, Bloodthirsty Butchers sucks, possibly even more than any other version of this already lackluster tale. And that, B-movie fans, is really saying something. 2/10
|
negative
|
Back when I was a kid and I lived with my sister, she bought every horror movie she could find and this was one of them. VCR'S had just became a household item and we didn't have but about 150 movies and we watched the hell out of all of them.<br /><br />I was at a yard sale the other day and I saw this VHS copy of BLOOD LEGACY and I buy any horror movie I don't have and I knew this movie looked familiar. I thought for a second and realized it was one that my sister had bought. She had sold it years ago in a yard sale I am guessing - who knows.<br /><br />I didn't recall anything at all about it and I watched it the night I bought it and it refreshed my memory because of a few scenes. I am not sure how I felt about it as a kid but I am sure I enjoyed it because it was new to me and I'd watch and enjoy anything back then.<br /><br />I am a horror freak, but there are certain requirements in order for me to consider it "good" and this one fell very short. It was one of those talk talk talk and bore me to death types. What death scenes you see are done using the shadow on the wall followed by blood splatter and thats if you're lucky you get that much.<br /><br />The story is good and I have seen a few with similar plots, so I think this one should be buried and forgotten. Don't watch this people unless you're hard up.
|
negative
|
I'll keep this short; thanks to Greg for helping me to put this succinctly: Captivity is about a guy who drugs a girl's drink, imprisons and tortures her, then poses as a captive to have sex with her. That is the single twist and punchline of the film. It's torture as slow motion date rape. And, it's not even a good movie. It's not so bad it's good; it's just bad.<br /><br />It should also be mentioned that among critics, there is a "spoiler code" that they dare not break, even though some were tempted to on this one because it is so vile. Why NO ONE had the cojones to step up and say, "this is garbage, and this is why," is beyond me.<br /><br />Don't give your money to these poop-peddlers.
|
negative
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.