review
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| sentiment
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
The fire gives all...<br /><br /> This is one of film's most masterful meditations on artistry. Set in 19th century Korea it tells the story of the famous painter Ohwon, but rather than stick to saucy anecdote, melodrama, or psychological egg hunting, it portrays a series of episodes throughout his life, all of which are beautiful works of art in themselves. It gives no interpretation of these episodes, but leaves them for the viewer to ponder along with the paintings of Ohwon himself. In this way, the viewer enters into the same sort of contemplation as Ohwon, and minus his talent can "feel" their way into the inspiration of his paintings.<br /><br /> Part of why this is so effective is the utterly masterful evocation of 19th century Korea and the musical/artistic world that Ohwon moved in. There are so many gorgeous shots of the world outside the paintings that we get a mirror effect where we see the beautiful world inspiring Ohwon, Ohwon living and looking in that world, and the works of art he creates, all mirroring off one another.<br /><br /> The story is told with extreme economy. A feeling evoked is hardly ever lingered with or explained, it just appears quickly then is gone for the next one to appear. As an analogy it is a sort of Mozartian work of art (endless and quick succession of great ideas) rather than Beethovinian (Obsessive lingering on one great idea). It has a classical restraint, much like Ohwon's paintings. There is really no music hinting how to feel except a few classical Korean pieces used with great effectiveness in several scenes (and mostly played by characters in the movie). One haunting image, if I remember correctly, is of a flock of birds soaring away over the blue mountains while a female singer croons<br /><br />"This life is like a dream, and only death will awaken us"<br /><br /> One telling line of advice in the film, from one of Ohwon's teachers, is that "the painting lies between the strokes." The film follows that attitude as there is so much matter *between* what is spoken and described in the film. I have seen it twice and it was very rewarding on the second viewing. A very terse film, with little in the way of obvert explanation, one could see how it is Im's 96th film. It is an artistic masterwork. Like Ohwon's great friend and mentor tells him in describing one of his paintings, "Not a single stroke is wasted."<br /><br /> I compare it to Andrei Rubylev in quality, though in style it is very different. It is much easier and more directly entertaining to watch, but classical in form where Andrei is gothic.<br /><br /> All in all highly recommended to almost anyone except appetite junkies. Both times I left the film I felt a wonderful spiritual renewal.<br /><br /> One point of Ohwon's life that intruiged me was that his mad drinking and raving began suddenly after visiting the noble who told him that "Good art can come only from great knowledge and learning." The next brief scene Ohwon was very angry, and the next blasted drunk as he often remained for the remainder of the film. I am curious why the nobles words effected him so much and drove him to the drinking that dominated the rest of his life. Or was it just a coincidence?
|
positive
|
Dr. Chopper starts shortly after teenager Nicholas' (Robert Adamson) mum has died, he is still cut up about it but every cloud has a silver lining & in this case it appears that his mum owns a log cabin at Lake Tatonka the self proclaimed 'friendly place for happy people' that she didn't tell him about. So Nicholas together with his girlfriend Jessica (Chelsey Crisp) & three friends, Jimmy (Butch Hansen), Reese (Chase Hoyt) & Tamara (Ashley McCarthy) head out there for a fun weekend. Unfortunately things don't go according to plan, the cabin turns out to be little more than a run down shed & their neighbours turn out to be Dr. Chopper (Ed Brigadier) & his two nurses who go around killing anyone they meet to use them in horrible experiments...<br /><br />Going straight-to-video/DVD Dr. Chopper was edited & directed by Lewis Schoenburn & this film seems to be having a hard time here on the IMDb with some pretty harsh reviews, while I think Dr. Chopper as a horror film is pretty worthless I don't think some of the criticism I've read is entirely justified. The script which takes itself very seriously is credited to Ian Holt (whether he likes it or not...) who has a role in the film as Detective Crocker according to the IMDb cast list although I can't remember any character of that name, maybe he was one of the cops at the start? Anyway, the basic story is alright I suppose although it's a tad dull & lasts for too long, it's typical slasher fare with some sort of evil character running around bumping off our annoying American teen cast, you know the drill by now. Besides some brief & undeveloped nonsense about Dr. Chopper using body parts to replenish his own deteriorating body there's not much story here & the script seems to exist solely to invent situations for girls to take their tops off, there's the inevitable sex scenes, there's a sequence where some girls have to complete a sorority house initiation topless & there's even a couple of lesbians here as well one of whom is seen without her full compliment of clothing. Oh, & when I say topless I mean they aren't wearing any tops but they all keep their bras on so you may want to bear in mind there isn't any actual full frontal nudity in Dr. Chopper at all. So there you have it really, it's an average story that has a mildly surprising twist at the end which is wasted, is populated with poor clichéd dumb character's that exist only to showcase some cheap gore scenes & girls in bras. To be honest I expect a little bit more from my films but then again maybe I'm just being picky.<br /><br />Director Schoenburn does OK actually, this is by no means the worst looking film I've seen although it still looks cheap. There's no style here, I didn't think it was scary & there's no atmosphere either. The gore is restrained & restricted to some dead bodies & severed limbs, there's nothing new here or any particularly convincing special effects. Dr. Chopper is also one of those films where character decisions & motivations are ridiculous.<br /><br />Technically this is a little rough around the edges but is reasonably well made on what was probably a really low budget, the forest locations are suitably isolated although the cops office looks like someones front room & the two nurses outfits at the start look like stripper outfits. The acting is alright, it could have better but I've certainly seen worse.<br /><br />Dr. Chopper indeed features a doctor who rides around on a chopper motorbike but unfortunately that just isn't enough to satisfy me, despite it being a reasonably competent production the lack of any real gore, nudity or a decent plot sinks it without trace.
|
negative
|
this is one of the more poorly made movies I've ever seen. One has to take anything by Truffaut seriously; it's not just some B-movie cranked out by hacks.<br /><br />evidently Truffaut couldn't decide whether he was making a noir or a sentimental chick flick. and neither could Deneuve, whose dozen (?) character flip-flops are simply unbelievable -- not even badly acted; just not acted at all. Among other things, how a woman as beautiful as Deneuve could be a person such as Julie/Marion is simply beyond anyone's ability to suspend disbelief; the role absolutely demands someone not so beautiful. Belmondo's acting also suffers although imho his character is not quite as unbelievable as Deneuve's. The cliché ending (which I won't describe) is unfortunately all too appropriate for this complete mistake.
|
negative
|
This is a superb movie, suitable for all but the very youngest, though accessibility for younger people was marred (at least in the print which I saw) by the use of some unfortunate choice of English sub-titling! For much of the film it is almost impossible to guess in which time-period it is set - there is no modern technology shown, not even the ubiquitous Chinese bicycle, just a drab, almost monochrome, everyday life, against which is contrasted the dazzling display of the Sezuan Opera and of celebratory fireworks. Even when a group of soldiers refer to their imminent departure for a theatre of war, this could still be any time in the past 150 years.<br /><br />But then we briefly see a motor car - late 30s, early 40s style - and we realise that we are watching a China on the verge of huge upheavals, and that much of the world we are seeing is about to be swept away in the cataclysm of World War 2 and the Communist revolution.<br /><br />Which makes the central character's desire to adhere to old customs and traditions all the more poignant.<br /><br />But the film also raises issues which are of vital importance even today, both within China and in other parts of the world: the inequality between boys and girls, men and women; the trade, for various purposes, in young children; corruption in society; injustice; the importance of friendship.<br /><br />Maybe I'm reading too much into this film; but I don't think so! I also think that it is a scandal that films of this calibre are often not shown in the United Kingdom, whilst dross is passed off as quality material.<br /><br />But don't get me started on that...
|
positive
|
First of all, this film was not released to theatres (TESTED POORLY THEY SAY),I say they figured the story of crooked cops, politicians & dedicated newspaper people had been done to death,just send it DVD & cable TV> & take the money & run.<br /><br />That being said I usually like this type of movie, especially with this named cast. Morgan Freeman, Justin Timberlake, Kevin Spacey,<br /><br />L.L.Cool J, Cary Elways, John Heard & on the distaff side, Piper Perabo & Roslyn Sanchez.<br /><br />The plot & story have been done to death, BUT the above cast brings life to this violent movie & it is actually watchable.<br /><br />Justin Timberlake Is good as the dedicated young reporter for a throw-away newspaper edited by Morgan Freeman, The others are either crooked Cops,& Politicians or somewhat decent guys, The 2 ladies are the girl friends of LL COOL J & JUSTIN TIMBERLAKE & do whats required, It is quite violent, many killings etc, not for children. By no means is the a great film, BUT for what it is & the cast It is definitely good,<br /><br />Ratings *** (out of 4) 86 points (out of 100) IMDb 8 (out of 10)
|
positive
|
This is a fun movie with subtle intention. Its off-beat comedy is hilarious to me, unfunny to my friends. The soundtrack is perfect.<br /><br />I own this on VHS and I have watched it many, many times, because it's simply a fun and funny love story with great performances by all the principals (though using Joan Cusack solely as a perch for big hair was a waste of her talent. I know, I know, she was still young...).<br /><br />On a sad note, I decided to check out the DVD last night (instead of watching my VHS tape), and was SHOCKED to find many crucial scenes cut. And on the copy I watched, there was no special feature of deleted scenes: it was as if the deleted scenes never existed!! I am so glad I bought the used VHS at a flea market.<br /><br />It is clear there was a great deal of choreography in this, which is another reason I love it so much. It takes great skill, talent, and genius to move around the scenes like Mercedes Ruehl, Dean Stockwell, and Matthew Modine do from scene to scene (Note the scene when the grocery carts converge, the rolling on the floor during the shoot-out in Miami, the Chicken Lickin' debacle, the foot massage, the salon hair-washing.) There is a very "theatrical" feel to this film, which may be the turn-off for so many whose poor reviews follow: I know some viewers who don't quite understand this style mistake the exaggerations and over-the-top performances for poor acting and worse direction. Not so. Jonathan Demme does a great job bringing to life the entire company and their respective roles.<br /><br />The opening credits and first scene rank among my all-time favorites, as well (another favorite opening credits/first scene: Fly Away Home).<br /><br />Too bad Matthew Modine so ardently skipped out of the public eye; I really like him, and found his casting PERFECT in the role of Mike Smith. Actually, this film is well-cast from soup to nuts: everyone is believable and true to his role. As for the question of expecting audience to accept Pfeiffer and Stockwell as Italians - why not? I thought they pulled it off perfectly well.<br /><br />Charming, fun, exciting... what is there not to like? If you want a little fun, watch this quirky, colorful adventure-mob-love story. If you are looking to learn more about organized crime and families, tune to HBO's The Sopranos.
|
positive
|
I just called my brother Paulie on the phone and he said he was watching Hoods and it was funny. So, like I said, never go against the family! The demand for more lines is OK since I like to express my own opinions quite frequently. If something is misspelled it's most likely my eyesight and not my brain. This gives me yet another chance to take my shots at "The Departed". When one knows exactly what is going to happen in the last scene with no prior knowledge, that usually means it wasn't all that suspenseful. All you need is a good directer,the same guy I believe who did my favorite mob movie, "Goodfellows), but in a completely different way.And then just throw in Jack the great and you got yourself an Oscar. Easy as pie. I have to see hoods to make sure it wasn't better than "The Departed" Gibbs
|
positive
|
Is this a good movie? It's hard to say -- but in 1953, for many people, it was a remarkably effective movie, suspenseful, scary and then, amazingly, actually touching when "the old gentleman" meets his unhappy death at the end of the movie.<br /><br />Yes, what lurks in the Maze turns out to be something of a surprise and, for a lot of people, a hilarious one. But the basic idea (ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny) was a very real one at the time the book was written, and does have some basis in fact. Not that it would ever result in what we see in the movie, of course.<br /><br />But working on what must have been a very low budget, one of the greatest production designers -- and the person for whom the term "production designer" was invented -- creates a very eerie mood that was strangely compelling. At times, of course, the movie is very silly, but it has its moments.
|
positive
|
This pathetic excuse for a movie doesn't have a decent structure or a sensible closure. The characters were confusing and the entire plot kept getting off track. I'd have to say that Pixel Perfect was a disgrace. This is what happens when you let Disney channel make movies.
|
negative
|
'Mojo' is a story of fifties London, a world of budding rock stars, violence and forced homosexuality. 'Mojo' uses a technique for shooting the 1950s often seen in films that stresses the physical differences to our own time but also represents dialogue in a highly exaggerated fashion (owing much to the way that speech was represented in films made in that period); I have no idea if people actually spoke like this outside of the movies, but no films made today and set in contemporary times use such stylised language. It's as if the stilted discourse of 1950s screenwriters serves a common shorthand for a past that seems, in consequence, a very distant country indeed; and therefore stresses the particular, rather than the universal, in the story. 'Mojo' features a strong performance from Ian Hart and annoying ones from Aiden Gillan and Ewan Bremner, the latter still struggling to build a post-'Trainspotting' career; but feels like a period piece, a modern film incomprehensibly structured in an outdated idiom. Rather dull, actually.
|
negative
|
Sick of the current cinema output, particularly American cinema, I've been making an effort to see the Oscar-winning foreign films. That's when I came across this gem. Slow to start, it picks up nicely once war is declared. Basically an old fashioned girl-waits-for-boy-to-return-from-war-story, the performances, the cinematography make this so very much more. Why Tatyana Samojlova as the young woman didn't become an international star after this is beyond me(though she has remained successful in her own country). You take the journey with her: young, defiant impetuous young girl, who, through the ravages of war becomes a very sober, somber woman who keeps a glimmer of hope (her final scene is devastating). We love her as much as the camera does. And the camera-work! Was this the pioneer in hand-held camera work? It truly adds an immediacy to the story. And the beauty of it (like when Tatyana's character is running up stairs and next to a slatted fence). I am humbled and grateful to see this film.
|
positive
|
This is the story of a news investigator who hates his job - which prove why actors - even as weak as Tom Cruise and Denzel Washington - are on the big screen and your neighbors are not!<br /><br />I'll say this though - the better moments show some basis for being really funny (not just wacky), to keep trying, maybe taking some classes, and using the time to keep learning how to make a good movie. ("Dude, Where's My Car" and the "Scary Movie" sequence have it all over this ... college attempt.)<br /><br />The lighting wasn't; the production wasn't; and the script had moments (the conversation from space - very nice try unconvincingly executed). (This reminded me of "Dark Star" - which is about being "lost in space" - but this movie is just lost.)<br /><br />The talent was the bartender (he said 'dog' so annoyingly that I knew he had to be acting... wasn't he? ... now THAT's acting!), the Mark Hammond guy, and Marty. I guess I gave the movie a point for each one of them... 3/10.<br /><br />-LD<br /><br />______________________________________________<br /><br />my faith: http://www.angelfire.com/ny5/jbc33/
|
negative
|
The Bill was essentially a cultural fountain from which a beautiful rainbow-haze of socio-introspection emerged, inspiring such famed derivatives as Cop Land, The Departed, The Godfather 3, and most recently of course, The Wire.<br /><br />With multi-faceted characters and story lines that have been described as '4-dimensional Shakespeare', The Bill grabbed you by the collars from episode one and just would not let you go.<br /><br />The show covered, anticipated, and even occasionally caused all the major global events between 1984 and 2010. The most famously prescient moment being episode 19 of series 5, which aired on the eve of the second Gulf War. Detective Jim Carver's misguided - and ultimately career ending - drugs raid on Craig 'Fun Boy' Richardson's flat in the Jasmine Allen Estate in early 2003, was widely viewed as a predictive allegory for the coalition's failure to find weapons of mass destruction following the invasion of Iraq several months later.<br /><br />However, it was the work the Bill did to try and highlight some of the lesser-known problems experienced by police officers that won it the most praise. This was sympathetic drama covering such sensitive areas as helmet-phobia, under-uniform cross-dressing, in-van homosexuality, lost truncheons, casual drunken bestiality (regretted), siren aversion syndrome (SAS), groin chaffing caused by chasing suspects while wearing an overly starched uniform and many, many more issues that still trouble, disturb, haunt and excite officers to this day.<br /><br />The last word should go to one of The Bill's most famous fans, Nelson Mandela: "
it is no exaggeration to say that I would not have made it through the dark void of loneliness that summed up my last years of incarceration on Robben Island if it wasn't for the heart-warming, casual buffoonery of Reg Hollis."
|
positive
|
I am so disappointed in this movie I can't express it. I was so excited when I started watching this film to see Mickey Rourke all leather faced and that kid from Third Rock From The Sun acting like I psycho. I thought, wow, this is going to be a winner, freakin' Natural Born Killers style. And it got better. The production value was great, the directing was great, the acting was great, the cinematography was great, and the plot was, well, the plot, well, what WHAT PLOT? About half way through this film I was pulling my hair out yelling "What the hell is going on?" and I mean that quite literally? Nothing makes any sense whatsoever. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. Aaaaaaahhhhhhggg!!!!
|
negative
|
I tried to watch this movie twice and both times I still couldn't make it to the end credits. First time I managed to sit through the first fight sequence then lost interest. Second time I managed to force myself to digest over an hours worth of shoddy acting, lame SFX and extremely poor direction. Pales in comparison to the original.<br /><br />Anyone ever hear about the old ET Atari 2600 fiasco? For those who haven't let me fill you in. It's 1982...ET is one of the biggest box office smashes of all time...Atari decides to release a movie tie-in game on their 2600 home console system. To cut a long and financially painful story short the game flopped big time and resulted in thousands upon thousands of Atari 2600 ET games to be dumped in landfills because they couldn't even give them away let alone sell them.<br /><br />What does Universal Soldier: The Return have to do with this story? Look at the 3.2 rating and figure it out for yourself.<br /><br />Awful film...IMDb forced me to give it a 1 out of 10 because their rating systems doesn't go as low as 0 let alone into the negatives.
|
negative
|
I love this movie, but the music at all the alumni gatherings is just stupid.<br /><br />The fateful game took place in 1972. That means that the protagonists graduated in 1972. But almost all of the music played at the dances etc. is from the 1950s and very early 1960s.<br /><br />Having just attended my 30th high school reunion, I can assure you that the last music to be played at a reunion or dance of former high school people is their parents' music.<br /><br />I understand the difficulty of finding relevant 1970s music -- we all know what a desolate time it was musically. But it wasn't completely bereft, and the producers of the film should have taken more care. I found those dance scenes very jarring to my otherwise willing suspension of disbelief in the rest of the film.<br /><br />This was a bad director and/or producer decision.
|
positive
|
The commercials for RAT RACE made it look too juvenile for me to enjoy, but since my boyfriend adores this movie (and the soundtrack), I finally relented and watched it with him tonight. I make him watch David Lynch films and all sorts of obscure indie stuff (I recently forced URBANIA on him), so I felt I owed him an innocuous Hollywood product.<br /><br />I didn't want to hurt his feelings, so I saved my bitching for y'alls. Yeah, RAT RACE has its moments, but a great deal of it irritated me. Let's start at the beginning. RAT RACE was marketed as a "family film," so I was a little surprised to discover that the first scene centered around a porno movie. (I can hear it now: "Mommy, what does AFRO WHORES mean?") This scene has no purpose in this movie other than to cram some naughtiness into a PG-13 movie.<br /><br />And while we're still on the segments in the casino, it's pretty convenient that all the characters happened to play, within the same time frame, the slots that held the gold coins. What would have happened if they didn't? Would those millionaire gamblers just sit around and wait? And how did they get those gold coins in the slots in the first place?<br /><br />But I'm belaboring a plot point that's necessary for the movie to exist, so I'll press on. About Whoopi and her long-lost daughter: they're meeting for the very first time, yet throughout their whole ordeal they don't discuss with each other anything about themselves. Why make their relationship such a presumably complicated one? Couldn't they have just been, say, a mother and daughter on vacation together? Why the business concerning a long-ago adoption? And why portray the daughter as a hard driving career woman chained to her cell phone who never again needs contact with her business? Did the screenplay just forget about this subplot and character trait?<br /><br />This illustrates the main weakness of this movie - the characters are inconsistent and interchangeable; it's exhausting when everyone is equally zany and with no identifying traits. And another thing - the events aren't plausible. Oh, sure, the characters can do some quirky things, but the characters themselves have to be believable. Take THE NAKED GUN (another Jerry Zucker movie) for example. Frank Drebin has some pretty exaggerated moments, but everything he does is, in theory, possible in his world. (Jane is also funny, but it's a different kind of funny, which makes all the difference.) A character in RAT RACE defying natural laws by leaping onto a speeding train destroys any plausibility the movie may have; these clearly aren't real people, so why should I care about them?<br /><br />Another problem I have with RAT RACE is a moral one. The characters obtain their modes of transport almost totally by theft. I know, I know, this is just a silly comedy, and the same actions didn't bother me fifteen years ago when I saw MILLION DOLLAR MYSTERY, but there's a lot of lawbreaking in RAT RACE, and it bothers me now. And I won't delve into the whole airport-sabotage sequence other than to wonder if the screenwriters didn't consider the real-life implications of such an action; was that scene funny before 9/11?<br /><br />I'll skip over the distasteful bits concerning the heart, the drugging of one's family and the Nazis (whose buildup and payoff worked better in an episode of "Seinfeld"), and move on to complain about the acting. Rowan Atkinson started out annoying and ended insufferable; I don't know when I liked a comical character less. And the three Oscar winners need new agents. Whoopi came off best, but she didn't have much to work with (loved the copper perm and purple lipstick though); Kathy Bates' part was shrill but mercifully brief; Cuba, was...oh, man. Cuba, babe, please fire your agent! Following INSTINCT and CHILL FACTOR, this is your third strike (be glad I haven't seen PEARL HARBOR or SNOW DOGS) - it's time to give your '97 Best Supporting Actor Oscar back to its rightful owner (Edward Norton, for PRIMAL FEAR). An actor of your stature has no business running half-naked through the desert and being checked out by a transvestite Lucille Ball impersonator. Do you even read the scripts to your movies anymore, or are you reaching into a bag and pulling your next project out at random?<br /><br />There's other small points that bother me (how did Grisham and the hooker get to the loot so fast?), but, basically, RAT RACE amounts to little more than your basic batch of character types being hindered by arbitrary obstacles on their way to a rather underwhelming and inexplicable ending. They give the money to charity? What kind of ending is that?!? Yeah, it's the "noble" thing to do. Never mind the probability of cross-promotion/licensing whores Smash Mouth (do they ever say no to selling out?) putting on a benefit concert in the middle of the New Mexico desert, but who would honestly do such a thing? Yes, they say it's the journey, not the destination, that makes a trip worthwhile, but there's no journey without a destination. If there was ever an example of a "wrong happy ending," this would be it. What a bummer end to a movie that, despite my nitpicking here, I did enjoy parts of (I confess to enjoying the bit with the cow and some of the Lucy stuff along with the character with the tongue piercing - at first I thought his indecipherable speech would run me up a wall, but he grew to be my favorite).<br /><br />But as far as my boyfriend knows, I found RAT RACE quite funny and charming.<br /><br />
|
negative
|
Shwaas may have a good story, but the director is utterly devoid of talent. He does not know when to stop. When the story calls for people to act confused, there are ten minute scenes of people miming the act of confusion. When the story calls for a little background history, there are ten minute scenes of Konkan's greenery. When the story calls for a kid throwing tantrums... you get the idea. <br /><br />Not to mention the extreme closeups so that you can count people's nose hair. There are movies that should be seen on a big screen, this movie should be seen on a 13" TV. Also Amruta Subhash who plays Asavari is the worst actress I've seen in quite a long time. A normal human being would need to practise overacting for years to achieve what she does so effortlessly.<br /><br />I give it 4/10 solely because the subject matter is different, and the story is not bad. The fact that a movie like Shwaas gets to be India's entry to the Oscars tells volumes not about the state of Indian cinema but the state of Indian judging committees. A movie is not good just because its subject matter is arty.
|
negative
|
Come on people. This movie is better than 4. I can see this happening...wealthy people have done crazier things than this. And it was funny.<br /><br />I watch a comedy to be entertained, escape from the pressures of the world for a short while, and not to have to take anything too seriously. This movie fully suits that purpose. I judge a movie on its own merits and am not about to compare Surviving Christmas to Blazing Saddles. I watched totally dysfunctional people grow into caring, likable individuals who could easily live down the street from my home. It will remain on my list of "favorite.....must watch for the holiday season". If you just want to have a fun 90 minutes, watch this one.
|
positive
|
I was really disappointed by this movie. Great actors in it, and potentially a great plot, but it just seemed to limp along.<br /><br />Charlize Theron was masterful in her role and beautiful, but it seemed like 90% of her on-screen work was in car chases done with Austin Minis. Product placement gone wrong, so very wrong.<br /><br />The direction seemed off, too. Edward Norton is the bad guy, and it was so obvious right from the start. Every time the camera would pass over him, it would linger too long and Norton would grimace or something. C'mon, Hollywood, give us a little credit! It's okay to surprise us with a plot twist without having to telegraph it.<br /><br />Sorry, but this movie was just below average. I have always been one to appreciate the work and talent that goes into a movie, but this one just didn't have it.
|
negative
|
I have just recently been through a stage where I wanted to see why it is that horror films of the 90's can't hold a candle to 70's and 80's horror films. I have been very public in this forum about the vileness of films like The Haunting and Urban Legend and such. I feel that they (and others like them) don't know what true horror is. And it bothered me to the point where it made me go to my local video store and rent some of the classic horror films. I already own all the Friday's so I rented The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, the original Nightmare On Elm Street, Jaws, The Exorcist, Angel Heart, The Exorcist and Halloween. Now the other films are classics in their own right but it is here that I want to tell you about Halloween. Because what Halloween does is perhaps something no other film in the history of horror film can do, and that is it uses subtle techniques, techniques that don't rely on blood and gore, and it uses these to scare the living daylights out of you. I was in a room by myself with the lights off and as silly as I knew it was, I wanted to look behind me to see if Michael Myers was there. No movie that I have seen in the last ten years has done that to me. No movie.<br /><br />John Carpenter took a low budget film and he scared a generation of movie goers. He showed that you don't need budgets in the 8 or 9 figures to evoke fear on an audience. Because sometimes the best element of fear is not what actually happens, but what is about to happen. What was that shadow? What was that noise upstairs? He knows that these are the ways to scare someone and he uses every element of textbook horror that I think you can use. I even think he made up some of his own ideas and these should be ideas that people use today. But they don't. No one uses lighting and detail to provoke scares, they use special effects and rivers of blood. And it is just not the same. You can't be scared by a giant special effect that makes loud noises and jumps out of a wall. It's the moments when the killer is lurking, somewhere, you just don't know where, that scare you. And Halloween succeeds like no other film in this endeavor.<br /><br />In 1963 a young Micael Myers kills his sister with a large butcher knife and then spends the next 15 years of his life, silently locked up in an institute. As Loomis ( his doctor) says to Sheriff Brackett, " I spent eight years trying to reach him and then another seven making sure that he never gets out, because what I saw behind those eyes was pure e-vil. " That sets up the manic and relentless idea of a killer that will stop at nothing to get what he wants. And all he wants here is to kill Laurie. No one know why he wants to kill her, but he does.( Halloween II continues the story quite well )<br /><br />What Carpenter has done here is taken a haunting score, mendacious lighting techniques and wrote and directed a tightly paced masterpiece of horror. There is one scene that has to be described. And that is the scene where Annie is on her way to pick up Paul. She goes to the car and tries to open it. Only then does she realize that she has left her keys in the house. She gets them, comes back out and inadvertently opens the car door without using the keys. The audience picks up on this but she doesn't. She is too busy thinking about Paul. When she sits down, she notices that the windows are fogged up. She is puzzled and starts to wipe away the mist, and then Myers strikes, from the back seat. This is such a great scene because it pays attention to detail. We know what is happening and Annie doesn't. But it's astute observations that Carpenter made that scared the hell out of movie goers in 1978 and beyond. <br /><br />Halloween uses blurry images of a killer standing in the background, it has shadows ominously gliding across a wall, dark rooms, creepy and haunting music, a sinister story told hauntingly by Donald Pleasance and a menacing, relentless killer. My advice to film makers in our day and age is to study Halloween. It should be the blue print for what scary movies are all about. After all, Carpenter followed in Hitchcock's steps, maybe director's should follow in his.<br /><br />Halloween personifies everything that scares us. If you are tired of all the mindless horror films that don't know the difference between evil and cuteness, then Halloween is a film that should be seen. It won't let you down. I enjoy being scared, I don't know why, but I do. But nothing has scared me in the 90's, except maybe one film ( Wes Craven's final Nightmare ). If you enjoy beings scared, then Halloween is one that you should see. And if you have already seen it a hundred times, go and watch it again, back to back with a film like Urban Legend. Urban Legend will have you enticed at all the pretty faces in the movie. Halloween will have you frozen with fear, stuck in your seat, not wanting to move. Now tell me, what horror film would you rather watch?<br /><br />And just to follow up after seeing Zombie's version, it makes you appreciate this that much more. This is a classic by definition. Zombie bastardized his version, but it doesn't take away from the brilliance of this one.
|
positive
|
I first see this film almost 21 years ago when it was an ITV (before the days of cable and satellite) Matinée. i was off School with the Mumps and i was totally wrapped in the film. i have had it on bought video for about 10 years and i want to obtain a DVD copy of it. David Niven is my all time favourite actor and i think it is a travesty that he was over looked so many times when the Oscars came around. i also think that the queen should have knighted him as he easily did as much for the movie industry if not more than Sean Connery or Anthony Hopkins. the way the film switches from black and white to colour and back again is well done and the film has such stellar actors as Roger Livesy, Marius Goring and an early appearance from Richard Attenborough.
|
positive
|
This is a film that everyone who lives in Sweden should watch. The film shows the political riots who took place in Gothenburg in 2001 from a new perspective. It features interviews with those who were convicted where those people gets the first chance after the riots, to tell their side of the story and why they think the world can be a so much better place to live in and be a part of. I react emotionally when I see this, since I just feel so mad about how those people were treated both during the riots but also after the riots.<br /><br />I hope as many as possible gets to see this movie, as it really gets your mind thinking: Is this possible? In Sweden, a democracy, in 2001?
|
positive
|
This little film brings back a lot of memories, both fond and foul, of what can and does happen when one is a working musician. The not so pleasant accommodations for the band, the management of the venue jumping up and down telling you what to play, the sheer ecstasy of the applause.............. Far from being farcical it is, in fact, very accurate in the way it depicts musicians, professional and otherwise, who have travelled a great distance to perform a season of gigs at a venue. There are those times when everything goes perfectly, there are those other times when you immediately start to miss your partner and wonder what the hell you are doing this far from home. In the end you have to make the best of it because there is no other way out.
|
positive
|
CQ was the worst film I saw this year. Nearly every film I choose to see in the theater is at least entertaining or has something to say. This film looked like like it was directed by a film student for his Intro. to Filmmaking class. His father makes great films. His sister made a good one. But brother Roman? NO! One critic had the audacity to compare this film to Godard's Le Mépris (Contempt). While Coppola, Jr. did take the same idea, a film about film, he tried too hard to make himself seem European, artsy, and witty, when it's all really just kitsch. The lead actor carries the same expression through the whole film, like he's either in awe or in shock of this film being made around him. Schwartzman somehow manages to pull off his role as a flamboyant director. Depardieu is alright. The one scene that has any real film spoof humor at all is, surprisingly, not the B-movie scenes, but rather one which takes place in Italy; a montage of shots of several various characters inside a very small car, driving around picking up and dropping off random people. This was the only thing that reminded me of the cinema I am guessing he was trying to spoof. Or rip-off. Or both. The documentary with the lead talking into the camera and filming various objects has been played out, the ending was tagged on for the sake of a "twist" or artistic value... I suppose the funniest thing about this film was the film itself, and not in the way it intended. No wonder this film was sent back after a festival screening to be re-edited or re-shot or whatever, which makes me curious as to just how bad it was before. I can't believe it could have been worse than this. If you want to see a good parody of film check out the Austin Powers films. Any of them. The opening to the third is more entertaining and more genius than this entire film. Lil' Romy, for the sake of cinema, PLEASE go back to directing your cousin's music videos. Leave The Godfathers to daddy.
|
negative
|
After 66 years "Flash Gordon" still has an appealing scifi/adventure/epic feel that many of today's science fiction adventures strive for and fail to deliver. The only way to fully enjoy this serial is just to sit back and not pick at anything (hokey effects, dialogue, why Flash doesn't go for Princess Aura etc.). And as for you older people who saw "Flash Gordon" back on the serial screen or on T.V. "back in the day", if you want this fine serial to remain appealing to future generations, get your kids/grandkids to watch this when they're young. It worked for me (Male aged 18 or under). 9 out of 10
|
positive
|
"Bruce Almighty" looks and sounds incredibly stupid, especially from the trailers. Nevertheless, I found in it a deeper message that actually made me like this film more. Bruce (Jim Carrey) is angry at God and is given divine powers by him to be God for a week to see if he can do a better job. Morgan Freeman plays a man symbolized here as God, and though it isn't his usual type of film or one of his best roles, he does excellent with what he is given to work with. Although crude at times, the film does have quite a few laughs, from Bruce parting his soup in half like the Red Sea and the customers' reactions to him, as well as Freeman's seemingly laid-back and wisecracking image of God. It is overly exaggerated at times, and there is some crude humor, but overall it manages to be somewhat funny. There is a decent supporting cast, such as Jennifer Aniston, Lisa Ann Walter, and Steve Carrell, which always helps. The end of the film proves to be very romantic and tear-jerking, and the message is clear, that we should do what God has called us to do and "be the miracle." The film is far from perfect, but still enjoyable, and far better than I and many people probably would have expected, especially if we see the deeper message of the film.<br /><br />*** out of ****
|
positive
|
I too like Dafoe as an actor but i wasted a few hours of my life actually watching this film, I still cant believe i managed to watch it in its entirety. Was there actually a point to the film?, and the ending, well, Im glad i never paid to see this awful pointless piece of pathetic excuse of a film!<br /><br />Im not sure without hunting the facts out but is Dafoe married or seeing the awful actress in this film in real life, if so was it an attempt to kick start her career?, if so im afraid it must have failed..<br /><br />I post this in the hope i can actually put someone off watching this film, even if 1 person takes heed of my comments and decides they would much rather watch paint drying i will feel i have made some good in the world, if only i had had the same advice...
|
negative
|
Lauren Bacall and Charles Boyer do not provide the right chemistry here in this 1945 film.<br /><br />There is a good story here about the Axis trying to obtain coal to use for the upcoming war. Unfortunately, this part of the story is not emphasized. Instead, we deal with a supposedly bungling Boyer. By the way, Bacall is as British as Vladimir Putin.<br /><br />The real acting kudos goes to veteran Oscar winner Katina Paxinou. As was the case with her memorable Pilar in the 1943 Oscar winner, "For Whom the Bell Tolls," Paxinou again plays a Spanish revolutionary but this time she is a double-crossing counter-spy for the pro-Franco group. She is quite a vicious character here;especially, when she throws a 14 year old child out the window. She believed that Boyer had given the child important material to hide.
|
negative
|
Bought for £1, Project Vampire is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. Wooden acting,lame effects and a terrible storyline all add up to be a movie you have no reason to even want to see. PV is one of those movies that don't even have the good grace to be bad in an enjoyable way, instead this bile seems to try to make itself as offensively dull,stupid and crap as humanly possible.<br /><br />A vampire has created a serum he sells to old people as a life-enhancer, and those who take it fall under his control. A former lab intern teams up with a nurse to try and stop him. Someone should have stopped the makers of this rubbish.<br /><br />No one has any reason to see this movie, and I am actually appalled at the human race on the grounds that at time of writing 2 people have given this atrocity 10 out of 10.
|
negative
|
I'm usually disappointed by what the media dubs "lesbian" movies these days: murderous bisexuals; psychotic murderous lesbians; women who experiment with other women, but end up with men at the end; ridiculously good-looking women who only get w/ each other to turn men on, etc.<br /><br />Thankfully, FINGERSMITH is on a very high pedestal above this garbage. It is a credible love story acted MARVELOUSLY by every cast member, down to the least of the supporting actors. Aside from having a very engaging central conflict, the romance between the heroines is well developed and believable thanks to Cassidy and Hawkins.<br /><br />I have also seen TIPPING THE VELVET, but FINGERSMITH is far superior to the former, both in character/conflict development and the quality of the acting.<br /><br />FINGERSMITH is both satisfying and enjoyable to watch, offering lesbians everywhere a great follow-up act to BOUND.
|
positive
|
A desperate attempt to make a "film-noir" sci-fi thriller, but the movie falls short. It has no believable plot, some of the key actors were a joke (NOT Lars Bom, he is cool!). I did like the "access restriction by bandwith maximizing" though. I finished it on principle, but went home with the feeling of having lost two hours of my life...
|
negative
|
Tess of the Storm Country was a Mary Pickford vehicle I had intended to get for some time. I finally found a VHS copy for a reasonable price and got to enjoy it.<br /><br />Mary gives her typical spunky, innocently sexy portrayal of a wrong-side-of-tracks girl who wins the heart of a rich heir. Only this time the stakes are higher: a false murder charge, an illegitimate child (and ensuing case of mistaken motherhood) and contemplated suicide.<br /><br />One can see why Pickford wanted to redo this one. The story is a real morality tale, the kind that she loved to star in. The controversial topics aren't always spelled out plainly; a viewer has to pay attention and pick up on hints to catch everything that is being implied on first viewing although everything is more or less explained in the end.<br /><br />About the only negative remark I can make would be concerning Jean Hersholt and the dog. Hersholt, whose character, Ben Letts, looks to be about 6-2, 200 pounds (bigger next to Mary, of course!), is sent fleeing in panic when a 60-pound chocolate lab charges toward him! Then, to top it off (or maybe to justify his perplexing fear of the dog), it manages to pin him to the ground and somehow injures him so badly that he is still struggling to get up much later, as a bad storm hits! This is the same lovable lab that sleeps with Frederick (Lloyd Hughes) and cuddles with Mary! Yet Mary later throws boiling water in Ben's face, which barely slows him! OK, I've vented about Ben and the chocolate lab! Other than that, the movie was quite touching and certainly held my attention. Pickford's supporting cast was strong and believable. This is certainly among her better films.
|
positive
|
I got this on a double feature DVD called "Scream Theater" and it's no doubt one of the most terrible movies I've ever seen. And I've seen some really bad ones. School's out, and of three girls (who if they're teenagers I'd eat my hat) are talking about "non-stop party", so of course they all go to the house of the girl whose parents are the most strict for a slumber party. Meanwhile, a psychotic has escaped the local bug-house where one girl's father works & is on the loose with sharp objects and wearing green scrubs, and sporting wide-open eyes...I guess that's to show he's bonkers. Of course since he has a bone to pick with that particular doctor off he goes to his house, the location of which is apparently common knowledge. In the meantime, some dumb-jock types are slamming down beers and out to scare the girls, and of course the loony shows up too and starts cutting throats. And that's about it, as the heavy metal music chugs along in the background. Or, maybe that's not it, but really, that's all you need to know. Unless you spend your time perpetually stoned or drunk, you'll find little of interest here, and even if you are wasted most of the time, you'll still probably find your intelligence insulted. 1 out of 10.
|
negative
|
One of the five worst movies I have ever watched. And I'm not exaggerating. In fact, I recommend watching it so you can get the same feeling of incredulity as you might by watching Showgirls.<br /><br />Out of 400 votes, the movie gets a user rating of 5.3/10. But there is a disproportionate number of voters who gave it a 10/10, probably due to the message of the movie - nuclear weapons are the bane of mankind. Chuck Murdock is an all-star little league pitcher who gives up baseball because there are nuclear weapons. Soon "Amazing Grace" Smith is an all-star Boston Celtic who is inspired by Chuck's story and gives up basketball. Soon all sports leagues from the professional level to college to high school to little league dismantle in a world-wide protest. Later all the children of the world go on a silence strike. This inspires the President of the United States to meet with the Soviet Premier, who in time agree to eliminate all nuclear weapons in time for the start of the next Little League season. The movie ends with Chuck about to throw out the first pitch, with the President telling his new best friend Chuck not to worry about striking out every batter, as he hasn't thrown a baseball in a year.<br /><br />Somewhere along the line a nefarious underworld boss kills Amazing Grace. When the President finds out he is told that the FBI can verify the killer but will never be able to prove it. So the President calls the underworld boss ("But it's one a.m." "I don't care, get him on the line") and tell him that he is to resign from all company boards that he sits on and sell all stocks that he has. And to not get out of line again.<br /><br />Honestly, this movie was so crappy that I couldn't turn it off. It was on television from 2:30 am to 4:00 am, and I watched it all. I wasn't turned off by the anti-nuclear weapons propaganda. I was turned off by the implausible break down of all organized sports. I don't even understand why "Amazing Grace" Smith was killed. And with all these famous athletes becoming Chuck's friends, why the father was constantly upset with his son taking a principled stand. And there was the cliché moment near the end when dad tells Chuck, "I never told you this, but I'm proud of you." Cue hug.
|
negative
|
Just got back from seeing Black Snake Moan. I had spent time reading reviews ... most seemed to focus on the obvious ... "skinny white girl chained to a black man's radiator" ... I hate when "critics" miss the point of a film. Now I suppose it helps that I live in Memphis ... and have lived in Mississippi a couple of times too. It may also help that I am the former Director of the Delta Blues Museum in Clarksdale ... but I get this movie. Brewer's simple "redemption tale" is easy to follow and could have had various themes to tell the story ... but I believe it is highly effect as a "blues". It would be my hope that people don't read all the hype ... and/or various reviews ... and miss a really good movie. Get past the various things like skinny girls in white panties ... get past Justin Timberlake, accept his character Ronnis (which he plays very well) ... get past "Snakes on a Plane" and see how mercuricul Samuel L. Jackson is ... as he has transformed himself into a very believable Mid-South blues man. If you know little about Mid-South culture a lot of what goes on may strike some as cartoonish ... but accept the fact that Craig Brewer KNOWS how to paint the canvas and let the actors tell the story and you will enjoy this film. Not one to tell endings ... so go see this movie ... and yes I will agree with one thing the critics got right ... the music is wonderful!
|
positive
|
I may not be a critic, but here is what I think of this movie. Well just watched the movie on cinemax and first of all I just have to say how much I hate the storyline I mean come on what does a snowman scare besides little kids, secondly it is pretty gory but I bet since the movie is so low budget they probably used ketchup so MY CRITICAL VOTE IS BOMB!!! nice try and the sequel will suck twice as much.
|
negative
|
Worse than the rating it has been given. This is a typical SciFi movie nowadays: bad to awful acting, a script that is poorly written, and shoddy direction. From the opening scene where DeMille is burying his set to the end, this movie is terrible. In the beginning scenes this movie has Moses (which was Charlton Heston in the DeMille film), Pharoah (Yul Brynner) and Nefretiri (Anne Baxtor) overlooking a boy burying a box in the sand. The characters that were to represent the three aforementioned icons were awful and had to resemblance to the people they were to "supposedly" be. The fact that this is in the desert away from civilization is hilarious when someone is hurt and they are all yelling for an ambulance. The screenwriter obviously is oblivious to the fact that there are no ambulances in the middle of the desert. I was sorely disappointed that Morena Baccarin decided to do a film of such low quality.
|
negative
|
please why not put this fantastic film on DVD,i have been searching just like the previous writer for years, whats the hold up, or show it on TV. its so underestimated its one of the most romantic and beautifully written books i have ever read, and believe i have read some.I seem to think it was read on radio 4, but i can't find that either. Why not try and remake it even, i promise it will be top earner, people love those sorts of stories, So please either release it and take us out of our misery or remake it,although i doubt if it could be improved upon. Has any one read gone to earth by the same author or seen the film with Jennifer Jones, this is superb, but not to the same extent may be.
|
positive
|
There is a point in the film where the female boss of the "death machines" (a multi-ethnic trio to please everyone, being inclusive I think it's called these days) talks about using leverage on a business man. Except such is her delivery that it sounds like "leatherage." At which point this viewer perked up thinking this dull film was turning a corner into new world of kinkiness. But it didn't. The boss lady had to do the talking as the "death machines" did not say a single word during the whole film and talk she does. Interminably. There is action in the film but it is not that exciting and the plot staggers from one cliché to another. The three mute "death machines" live to survive another day at the end of the film. Hopefully there wasn't a sequel.
|
negative
|
This unpleasant film has little to recommend it. Dolph Lundgren gives a performance that is better than either this script or his other action films have allowed. And there are occasional snippets of dialog that suggest the film might have been able to provide some insight into a bizarre subculture.<br /><br />But no. Motivations are either murky or trite. Most of the acting is sub-par. The script creates needless confusion. And the director's needless fascination with focusing on gore is distracting.<br /><br />It's hard to imagine who the audience is for this film.
|
negative
|
Such a long awaited movie.. But it has disappointed me and my friends who had gone to see the movie on the first day.. From the trailers it looked like a action movie, but it turned out to be a out & out comedy(a bad comedy). But one thing that deserves appreciation is the acting by these professional actors, they've done their part of the movie very well. Good acting, but i don't think that can save the movie.. India has been shot beautifully. Kerala, Rajasthan, (Ladakh?) were all saturated with color, alright. Nevertheless the way the intrinsic beauty of these places was shot made me want to find out exactly where those places were and when I could go there ;-)<br /><br />Action sequences were shot very shabbily, no one could make out head & tail of the stunts, they've used Akki(akshay kumar) very well but could've been done much much better..<br /><br />Animation is the worst i've seen in recent movies(90's movies had better animation scenes i guess(initial scene where the car is falling off 'flying should be better word' the road into lake).<br /><br />And the movies name has been mentioned nearly every 20 to 30 mins, just to make sure audiences don't forget the movie name i guess..
|
negative
|
Ever heard of a taiwanese horror movie? Or any taiwanese movie? Propably for a reason. This one was a really boring one, even though it has black magic including withered baby bodies and people exploding from the inside with thousands of eels.<br /><br />Having read other peoples thoughts, I was looking forward for some violence and gore, but there's not much at all. Some blood puking and other lame stuff, if you are waiting for graphic gore or any gruesome effects you will be disappointed. They clearly didn't use the eel exploding and other things to their maximum potent.<br /><br />Pretty much nothing good about this movie; a single character that wasn't completely bland and a few OK black magic spells, like the eel one. The plot was confusing and boring. The characters were thin and annoying, including the main character. The horror aspect didn't work at all, the most horrifying thing was an albino girl (not that scary really). This is the worst Asian horror movie I have ever seen.
|
negative
|
I am a huge Ziyi Zhang fan and will go to any film to see her which is what took me to Purple Butterfly. As much as I wanted to like this movie, I have to agree with many others who have commented on it. It is very confusing and also extremely slow. Because all of the film appears to have been shot with a hand held camera, significant portions of it are out of focus. <br /><br />The film has very little dialog and what there is doesn't tell you much. There are endless scenes of people just standing around smoking cigarettes or sitting in a room staring at each other with no conversation. The way the film time shifts is also very confusing and hard to follow. Even having read a number of reviews beforehand and having a general idea what the film was about, I still had a difficult time understanding what was going on. <br /><br />I knew beforehand that the movie was not remotely similar to previous Ziyi Zhang starring films but was looking forward to seeing her in something different but unfortunately I was ultimately disappointed. She never smiles in this film although admittedly most of the time she doesn't have anything to smile about. I could have done without the sex scenes as they were about as sexless and without any obvious feeling between the participants as you could hope to find.
|
negative
|
The most intense and powerful film I have seen in years. There have been other films before that delved into the Vietnam Vet but nothing compared to this emotionally heartwrenching film, as a typical American suburban family, circa 1972, comes apart at the seams, revealing the scars that Vietnam has left on our all of our collective souls. The cast is A++++ fantastic with all four actors(with Kathy Bates a stand-out) giving riveting performances. What is wonderful about this film is that you take no sides, but understand all four characters and empathize with them, even though all four have divergent viewpoints and needs. There are scenes in here that are so powerful as family secrets and feelings are revealed(such as the confrontation between son and mother) that will have you emotionally drained and in tears of anguish. I actually cried in this film, something I rarely do. The shocking end is a stunner! A much overlooked film that should be seen. I rate this 1996 film a 10/10 a superlative piece. Highly recommended especially in this day and age with again, our country embroiled in a hideous war, our headlines shouting of atrocities and again, our young men and women returning with deep psychological scars, with their deep pain of deeds done in the line of honor. A must see film.
|
positive
|
Josie is a reporter from a newspaper is set a task to go back to high school as she is going to be 17 again. .<br /><br />As she is there, she remembers some really awful stuff thats happened to her the first time she was in Highschool as we see in flashback scenes.<br /><br />In the flashback they show that (little spoiler) Josie was kind of a nerd in high school and was picked on a lot and one day the cool guy tells her that he is taking her to the prom, only on the prom night as she leaves her house she gets egged by the ass hole and his bitch. what a horrible thing to do (some will find this hard to watch as it so nasty and it will make you feel warmer to Josie).<br /><br />I did not find this movie that funny but there was some really funny stuff in the office scenes a lot more funnier then anything that happened in the school.<br /><br />This movie did have the perfect happy ending, as it did bring tears to my mum and sister eyes. The acting in this movie was not outstanding, it was good for the most part of the movie, there is some poor acting in some parts of the movie.<br /><br />I going to give this movie 7 out 10.
|
positive
|
My friend's mom used to work at a video store and got to preview movies before they came out, so when she brought home The Convent, a horror movie, i couldn't wait to watch it. Given that it's supposed to be scary but is actually downright hilarious, I can say that in some weird way, I like this movie. <br /><br />yes, the acting is bad, and yes, it's the cheapest movie i've ever seen, but it's so damn funny! "WHAT, ARE YOU SMOKING CA-RACK?!" i didn't know this movie even was ever released... i figured it was too bad... <br /><br />Yeah, so... overall the movie is pretty bad (you gotta admit that much at least) but I promise you, you will get a good laugh out of it.<br /><br />*this movie kinda sucks but it's good for a laugh... especially that guy that holds the 'dagger of despair'.. THE DAGGER OF DESPAAAAAAIR!
|
negative
|
This movie was on British TV last night, and is wonderful! Strong women, great music (most of the time) and just makes you think. We do have stereotypes of what older people "ought" to do, and there are fantastic cameos of the "sensible but worried children". Getting near to my best movie ever !
|
positive
|
From everything I'd read about the movie, I was excited to support a film with a Christian theme. Everything about the movie was very unprofessionally done. Especially the writing! Without good writing a movie doesn't have a chance. The writer/director said in an interview that he didn't want to give away how the title relates to the story. Believe me, it was NO big surprise. I kept waiting for the teenage/young adult back-story to unfold, but it never did. As someone who has gone through a divorce, I was very disappointed. This movie would have been NO comfort to me when I first went through the emotional turmoil that divorce can bring to your life as a Christian!
|
negative
|
It would be something to try and tell someone what Fata Morgana is very simply about. Or, maybe it isn't: Herzog goes to the Sahara desert and nearby villages to film assorted landscapes and the locals. But this is just the broadest stroke. It's a feat that you either surrender yourself to, or you don't. He gets into the form of the world around him entirely, without a story, bound only to certain aspects of written poetry, as his camera (shooting on supposedly discarded film stock) wanders like in a pure travelogue. One might even jump to that easy conclusion, as he puts up these immense landscapes, then moving to more rough civilized culture (though not the actual 'normal' culture itself), and to a point levels too abstract to be able to convey properly here. Sometimes it takes a while to get along, close to a purity through the "creation" section, but a purity in how parts are manipulated either by nature or by broken-down machines. Soon the narration, readings from the Popol Vuh (who, by the way, does the music for most of his films), with the gradual procession of actually highly stylized shots adds a whole different level to it. It's a hybrid film, and it's not easy, but the rewards are what best comes closest to Herzog's idea of "ecstatic truth", images he's been out for his whole career.<br /><br />One wonders if the images end up, by the time the second section, Paradise, leading along the words spoken, or if it's the other way around. You're eyes are moving along with the stills and pans, and the wording is close to being religious writing, but there's also the music choices, how the bizarrely spare singing and low-key classical music goes together with Leonard Cohen and Blind Faith. I think each side ends up complimenting the other, and it's something that still *seems* like it shouldn't work. Perhaps that's the draw to it, the chances taken in going through desolate wastelands and the smallest run sections of any kind of civilized life (in this case the shacks of the desert), that make it so fascinating. If only for the cinematographic sense it's a marvel, too indescribable for the casual photography fan because of molds of technique, and some of the strangest images of any Herzog film. There's pans, there's long-shots, there's hand-held while driving by the towns, there's a bus dozens of miles away that via mirage seems only a couple, there's full-on close-ups of fire and a man holding a reptile and talking about its radar (truly classic gonzo comedy), there's people holding still in fake poses, and a man and woman playing inane music. But, most importantly, it ends up feeling, at least for me, natural for the personal nature of the approach.<br /><br />I'm sure only Herzog would know for certain why he made this film, as opposed to the simple 'how'; he was already filming Even Dwarfs Started Small, and he ended up going through many perils to finish it. Yet this is what makes Fata Morgana such an amazing feat- it will appeal to one depending on what someone brings to it in actually watching it. It's definitely unsettling, but there's the temptation to want to see it again very soon after, just to experience all of the ideas and realities turned abstracted strange vibes (yes, the word 'vibes' applies here). It's one of the truly spectacular "art-films" ever made.
|
positive
|
Lapyuta (Castle in the Sky), more than any of Hayao Miyazaki's movies, brings the joy of storytelling to the audience. It is the kind of movie that makes one feel like a kid again; it's just magical. It's a crime that it took this long for it to be released in the states, but now that it's here check it out! And stick with the original language; the dub changed my impressions of the characters somewhat, which is something that should be avoided at all costs in a translation of a movie (or book, whatever.)<br /><br />I give it a ten/ten.
|
positive
|
SAPS AT SEA is evidently a pun on a Gary Cooper film, SOULS AT SEA. The title aptly describes the starring team, Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy. who go on an ocean voyage to soothe Ollie's nerves only to run into escaped killer Nick Grainger. As played by Rychard Cramer, this criminal is both amusing and chilling, making him a fine foil for the Boys' comedic characters. Despite his powerful presence, Cramer never upstages the Boys, a tribute to Stan and Ollie's beguiling charisma. That is as it should be, since the Boys are supposed to be the protagonists in this film.<br /><br />Such is the charm of Laurel and Hardy's personas that they elevate average material. For SAPS AT SEA has its slow spots. For instance, as a previous commentator has noted, a bit where a doctor (the delightfully flustered James Finlayson) tries a balloon called "lung tester" on Ollie, lacks punch. The scenario is very episodic, with the first part, taking place in the Boys' apartment, almost completely unrelated to the second part where they go off to sea. But on the whole, the film is highly pleasant entertainment with a sufficiently brief running time so that it doesn't wear out it's welcome.<br /><br />There's a certain poignancy viewing the final collaboration between Laurel and Hardy and producer Hal Roach. I haven't seen all of Laurel and Hardy's post-1940 films but those that I have seen don't measure up to even the weakest Hal Roach products. In these later movies, Laurel and Hardy seem to be in an alien environment, deprived of such colorful supporting players like Finlayson and Charlie Hall and Marvin Hately and LeRoy Shield's sprightly musical scores. They also aren't the well-meaning and optimistic bumblers we know and love but in the later films, are either exasperating blockheads or pathetic misfits.<br /><br />It is a pity that many Hal Roach Laurel and Hardy films are now generally unavailable to the public. Even in a minor entry like SAPS AT SEA, one can see that Laurel and Hardy were great comedians. This was because Hal Roach, for the most part, allowed Stan Laurel, the guiding force behind the team, complete artistic freedom. Once Laurel lost his autonomy at other studios, the team lost much of its uniqueness.
|
positive
|
Dwight Frye steals the show in this one as a foolish young man(who seems to be mentally handicapped) who gets himself blamed for vampire-like murders especially after he reveals his love for bats which he likes to stroke and give to unsuspecting friends as 'gifts'!. Besides all of that, there's an entertaining mystery tale involving the above mentioned murders. Underrated.
|
positive
|
What an incredible fall for Sean Ellis.<br /><br />You gather a bunch of your friends at home, all hyped about the follow up work of Sean Ellis. You have an vague idea of the plot, no spoilers that could kill the fun, very high expectations.<br /><br />It is late at night, perfect atmosphere for a movie of this type.<br /><br />15minutes passes and you start telling yourself it is bound to pick up, at 25mins you start wondering if you should just go to sleep and save this for another time when you can fully appreciate the expected not existent subtle touches. Over the half hour mark you realize half of your your hyped up audience is already asleep and call it a day.<br /><br />A few days later when you exhaust all other material to watch you go back to this, in the middle of the day this time, hoping your mood will keep you awake this time. 10 minutes later you find yourself fastforwarding the unbelievably and needlessly long intermediate transitions and images. Any other stuff I would have given up already but there is cashback and its legacy. But that legacy can only carry you so long, this is a new level of boring movie-making, imagine a short story extended to a novel with just descriptions, this is what it is.<br /><br />Decent cast is wasted, there is no cinematography that leaves you in awe like cashback either. There are films that annoy you, there are films that lack certain aspects, or just cheesy, unfortunately this is just a waste of time.<br /><br />Final words, stay away.
|
negative
|
The film begins with Ingrid Bergman and her two freaky servants arriving in New Orleans from Paris. Apparently years earlier, her mother was involved in a scandal and Ingrid returned in an effort to irritate kin who would have sooner forgotten she or her mother existed. That's because she reasons if they are shocked enough, they'll pay her off to get rid of her. Then, with this money, she will leave New Orleans and seek out a millionaire somewhere else, as she poses as a Countess. Along the way, Gary Cooper shows up and looks totally out of place as a love interest.<br /><br />It's amazing that this film wasn't the reason that Ingrid Bergman's film career plummeted--her performance and character were THAT bad! Instead of the classy and demure female she usually played in films, she is probably one of the most annoying characters in film. Her fake Contessa was shallow, demanding, unpredictable and stupefyingly dumb. How she was able to vamp ANY man seemed a mystery, as she seemed less vampish than just plain nuts!! I am not exaggerating to say that she behaved, at times, like someone with a combination of a severe mental illness and a personality disorder, and all these together make me think "who in the world would fall in love with this mess?!". Frankly, I couldn't stand watching her histrionics and narcissistic behavior and she looked more like a guest on "The Jerry Springer Show" than a leading lady! Confusing, awful and overacted are words that come to mind when I think about her role.<br /><br />The rest of the cast is, frankly, overwhelmed by Bergman's ranting and hysterics. While Gary Cooper is generally an excellent leading man, he is dominated by her and just looks lost. And, oddly, they cast two total weirdos as her entourage--Flora Robson and Jerry Austin. Ms. Robson is best known for her portrayals of Queen Elizabeth I, but here, for some odd reason, they coated her in makeup and the end result looked much like the love child of a cigar store Indian and Aunt Jemima! Her face was very wooden, she sported odd eyebrows and she dressed like a slave. As for Mr. Austin, he was a dwarf and while this shouldn't be held against him, his role was written like he was a court jester--a very, very thankless role for someone who is "vertically challenged"! Overall, the rotten acting, writing and limp direction make this one of the big stinkers of the age--nearly as pointless and dull as such famous turkeys as PARNELL and SWING YOUR LADY.
|
negative
|
Nothing special to see here, the animation has being outdated and the plot is a typical futuristic era. This film has an original story, but if it doesn't have an original plot or characters, so in my opinion it's not worth seeing. I'm not saying that the movie was bad, it was just a typical anime story and I thought I watched this movie like a thousand times. So if you are looking for something original see another thing.
|
negative
|
I have been familiar with the fantastic book of 'Goodnight Mister Tom' for absolutely ages and it was only recently when I got the chance to watch this adaption of it. I have heard lots of positive remarks about this, so I had high hopes. Once this film had finished, I was horrified.<br /><br />This film is not a good film at all. 'Goodnight Mister Tom' was an extremely poor adaption and practically 4.5/10 of the book was missed out. Particularly, I found that a lot of the characters and some great scenes in the book were not in this. There was not much dialogue, It was rushed and far too fast-moving, but I was mostly upset by the fact that you never got to see the bonding and love between William Beech and Tom in this film which was a true let down. The casting was not all that good,either. I thought this could have been really good, but it was so different to the book! Anextremely poor adaption, one of the worst I've seen. This deserves a decent remake that'd better be 1000 times better than this pile of garbage.
|
negative
|
If you are looking for an erotic masterpiece this isn't it. If you're looking for a comedic masterpiece this isn't it. If you're looking for something hardcore this isn't it.<br /><br />That being said if you are looking for an example of the fine art of European erotic comedy from the the early - mid 1970's this is it.<br /><br />I see many people complain about the quality please understand it was made in 1974. Yes the women do not conform to the modern ideal of attractiveness. They are by no means ugly women but they do not have the same looks which are idealized in our silicone culture. Yes the dubbing is not great but they are speaking German and anyone who speaks any German will realize it is pretty hard to dub over a word with 12 syllables.<br /><br />If you have seen the DVD prior to the latest release it is marketed with 2 covers of 80's and recently 90's adult stars. The film is an R film so those complaining about hardcore should have realized this, the film is edited from the original BUT it was also edited prior to its run in the drive-ins in the late 1970s.<br /><br />I first saw this film as a young man and judging by some comments there are many in the same boat who caught a glimpse on Cinemax. Many people become upset when later in life it doesn't live up to their previous memories. It's understandable considering the raunch and nudity packed into todays erotica.<br /><br />If you compare 2069 to a modern soft-core erotic comedy you may be disappointed. The film while outlandish is actually quite fluid and the jokes while generally innuendos and double meanings still hold up and can still garner a chuckle. If you compare it to a hardcore movie you will be further disappointed, compared to today you see very little.<br /><br />It is still one of the best examples along with Bottoms Up and The Other Cinderella of European Erotic/Comedic Cinema of the 1970's.
|
positive
|
Look, this is quite possibly one of the best movies America has to offer the rest of the world. To hate this movie is to hate freedom itself. I remember that the early 80's were a time of uncertainty. The economy was weak, communism threatened us all, and nuclear destruction was almost a certainty. Out of that confusion came a hero, Stroker Ace. Ned Beatty's performance in this movie showed he was never again to be type cast as a one dimensional victim in the wilderness. His triumph is an inspiration to all. The on-screen chemistry between Burt and Loni draws obvious comparisons to Brad and Jennifer. Jim Nabors is a poet. Go see this movie tonight!
|
positive
|
I just read a review defending this film because it had a low budget, now my take on things.<br /><br />The CGI monsters was reasonable well animated but was implemented in the worst possible way. The fight scenes weren't even fights it was just one shot of an actor then one shot of monster with very interaction at all. When the monster did interact it looked like it was done in paintshop pro. In my opinion if you have a low budget you should use models and puppets. They may not look as fancy but at least they interact, just look at Peter Jacksons early films.<br /><br />As for the acting Beowulf did an descent job but the rest of the cast were either not trying or they forgot where they where.<br /><br />The script seemed confused to me. One minute they would be talking as if it were a modern day setting the next you get drama club Shakespeare speech. I'm not say it should be all 'ye' and 'that it be' but you need to find a cohesive balance so the lines sound like they come from the same person.<br /><br />I did notice one part near the start when Beowulf was quoting the old testament which would have been find had he not spent the rest of the films talking about the gods and portents.<br /><br />In short, this film is a very slightly polished turd, but a turn none the less.
|
negative
|
That's a problem I have with movies that come on television, when there is nothing else to watch. I somehow get sucked into really bad movies.<br /><br />But this one was fairly watchable. The concept of being the only ones left on Earth after a comet, then finding out zombies are around makes me laugh. And that's why I gave this movie a 2, instead of 1. The story was stupid...but in that way that makes you laugh (too stupid >funny).<br /><br />I think I only watched it because the guy from Star Trek was the lead. I was surprised to see him as a younger guy...and he was the only funny character anyway.
|
negative
|
Endless repetition about the evil World Bank, IMF, Globalization, and the Americans are blamed for all of Africa's problemsand the movie is long, about two hours, but it seems longer. The French actually occupied Mali, the country in which the movie takes place, for centuries, but are only peripheral bad guys.<br /><br />One doesn't learn enough about any of the characters to really care what's happening to themthey are completely marginal to the preaching, which goes on and on and on. There's no plot, no character development, no humor (except for a few pokes at Bush and Wolfowitz, but that's almost cheating it's so easy) and the production values are mediocreno redemption there.<br /><br />It is amazing that a movie can spend two hours preaching about such a big topic and convey utterly zero real information. The Irish ballad "I was dying, and then the famine came" has more content.<br /><br />The movie is boring, the sub-titles are tough to read, there is no real content about the subject of the film, and the propaganda is relentless.<br /><br />Skip this one.
|
negative
|
Paulie sounds like the most saccharine, lachrymose and sentimental garbage you could ever find, yet it's actually much better than you might expect. The daftness of the plot could so easily have set the tone for the whole film, but actually in most other departments the film is charming.<br /><br />In case you're wondering, Paulie is a parrot. Bought for a little girl with speech difficulties, Paulie becomes her best friend and goes everywhere with her. He even sits on her shoulder during speech therapy lessons, and eventually becomes a super-intelligent speaker himself. However, Paulie is sent away by the little girl's mother and he spends the rest of the film trying to get from N.Y.C to L.A to be re-united with her.<br /><br />So, why does this awful-sounding film succeed relatively well? Firstly, it boasts some interesting and impressive animatronic effects. Secondly (and far more significantly) it has the courage to embrace its ludicrous premise and tells a genuinely moving, often humourous story without worrying too much about the obvious flaws in the storyline. Thirdly, it has several surprisingly strong performances, including Jay Mohr as a wily crook, Gena Rowlands as a kind old lady, and Cheech Marin (yes, the dope-smoking Cheech Marin!) as a musical immigrant. It might not be a classic, but Paulie is sound entertainment for kids of all ages.
|
positive
|
i never made any comment here on IMDb, but as i saw this movie, i cant be quiet. i just set up my account here only because this horrible movie. in two words, this movie is PURE CRAP. the movie has no sense at all! Nothing makes sense in this movie. Watching this movie was pain all the way. I don't understand why Val Kilmer agreed to do this movie. He plays a minor role as a gang leader, says few words, and he is there like 5 minutes total.<br /><br />I bought this DVD based only because of Val Kilmer name on the box and the interesting pictures on the cover.<br /><br />As was stated in other review, Moscow Zero stole my money and I want it back!!! The title of the movie itself brought the clue about the rating everyone should give it: ZERO
|
negative
|
I am amazed that movies like this can still be made. I watch all kinds of movies all the time with my friends and i can say that this is one of the best i ever seen. Never thinked that a movie of 146 minutes can make me think about it on and on.<br /><br />Washington, charismatic and intense as ever, plays Creasy, a washed-up ex-counter-terrorist agent who's taken to the bottle. Once he's assigned to protect young Pita (Dakota Fanning) in Mexico City, his emotional and redemptive arc is jump-started in the way only an adorable little girl can provide. Inevitably, Pita is kidnapped by thugs, and Creasy decides that most of Mexico City must pay the price for daring to take away his character's teddy-bear-clutching catalyst. Yes, he has become...a Man on Fire. <br /><br />You must see this movie.
|
positive
|
Did you find the title funny? Oh, you didn't? Well that's because you're uptight. Learn to laugh because if you're not laughing, you're not living. So please, lower your standards regarding to what you believe is funny to that of a mere infant. Now do you find it funny? Still no?! OK, that's because you're full of yourself and get offended too easily. If you're not laughing, you're not living. And if you don't like me then send me hate mail so that I could write another review and state how much hate mail I get and try to twist this into making it seem as if I am a bad ass. Are you laughing at my hilarious title yet? Still no?!?! OK that's it! You are a racist! You HAVE to laugh or else you are a racist. Why else would you not laugh? Oh, It's not funny!?! No, this can't be why. I want it to be funny so therefor it is!! Laugh damn it!!!! Please!!! Deedeedee!! Durdurdur!! Please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! OK that's it. Where's my notepad and pen? And where's my Richard Pryor DVD's? I need to write some jokes for my show.<br /><br />And...... scene. Thank you, thank you.<br /><br />This is basically what you'll get from Mencia for about 23 minutes. Please, do yourself a favor and change the channel when this bum's show comes on. Even basic cable channels have things 100x better than this. I'm not even saying this because I hate him. I'm for real. This show is like watching grass grow. Not sure though, at least grass doesn't steal jokes. I'm honestly trying to save YOUR time. I even tried watching his show. I told myself "maybe he isn't THAT bad.". But no, he is. I completely zone out when I watched his show. I tried to collect myself during the commercial break and focus on the show but I couldn't. I zoned out again, I think I was thinking of something more interesting like re-making my bed, vacuuming or folding my socks. Before I knew it, the show was over. Yeah, it's that bad.<br /><br />Here's my final thought - There's so many things you can do with 30 minutes besides watch this guy shout about nothing for half an hour. Don't watch a show that tries to shove racism in your face in vain. I can support shows that try to ease the tension of the race wars but this guy just provides more racism rather than stop it.
|
negative
|
This film on paper looked like it could possibly be good, after watching though i realised that this film was completely terrible!! The plot has no meaning, and i think i counted the best part of 5000 cut scenes each one making the film more annoying boring and ridiculous. I watched this late night pitch black no noise at all just to add to the SCARINESS of it but the truth is the only thing that scared me was the music, what they would call tragic music, they play opera i mean be serious!! This film sums up all of what is not good about this type of film. To be honest ill say no more but watch at your own risk this film is just complete rubbish, ENJOY!!
|
negative
|
Terrific acting by the 5 stars makes this one a must see.<br /><br />Based on a stage play, THE SILVER CORD is about "mother love" at its worst. The film was very controversial for its implied homosexuality of the younger son and the mother's unnatural "romantic" feelings for both sons.<br /><br />Irene Dunne stars as the new bride (and biologist) who travels with husband (Joel McCrea) to visit the family before heading off to New York City for their new jobs. But something seems wrong.<br /><br />The mother, Laura Hope Crews, seems rude to the younger son's (Eric Linden) fiancée (Frances Dee). But Dunne puts such thoughts aside and ignores a few of the strange things the mother says. Then she finds out "her" room is down the hall from McCrea's, and his room adjoins mother's room.<br /><br />Later she walks in as "mummy" is tucking in McCrea and kissing him (on the lips) good night. Mummy has also been working on Linden and getting him to doubt his feelings for Dee. Everything blows up and with Dee running into the snowy night toward the frozen pond. As the boys run after her, mummy shouts from the window for boys to come back and get their coats! Dee falls through the ice and is rescued.<br /><br />As the girls leave the house the following morning, Dunne lets mummy know what she thinks of her and her attachment to the boys. But mummy has a tight hold, faking illness and forever boasting of her sacrifices. The girls leave but the boys stay behind.......<br /><br />Crews is magnificent as the voracious mother (repeating her stage role); it's a part few actresses would dare play. The sexual overtones are incredible for a 1933 film and Crews take advantage of her best film role. Dunne is also excellent as she tries to maneuver the course without losing McCrea. Dee has some excellent scenes after she gets dumped by bewildered Linden. All 5 stars are terrific in this drama that is bizarrely underrated and unknown.<br /><br />A neglected gem for anyone who likes great acting......
|
positive
|
Awful in a whole new way, ANYTHING BUT LOVE probably should be seen by movie buffs--if only as a cautionary measure that proves all that can go wrong with a "vanity" production. I am guessing a vanity production, since there is no other reason on god's green earth to cast as talent-free and not particularly attractive non-singer/actress as Isabel Gold in the leading lady role--vied for yet by the likes of "lookers" like Cameron Bancroft and Andrew McCarthy--except that she also helped write this bizarre little movie. Her singing leaves much to be desired, and yet, unbelievable as it is, all the other characters in the film think she's terrific. There are a few moments here of actual charm or humor, but VERY few. Otherwise this is a silly, sad fiasco that veers from paint-by-numbers to paint-by-wrong-numbers. You know how it is when people look at a piece of modern art and someone says, "My kid could do better than that!" Well, this is a movie, the likes of which your--or anyone's--kid might do better.
|
negative
|
A rather lame teen slasher from Brisbane. While the plot hinges on a fairly decent idea, the writing is profoundly lame and two of the three main teens are absurdly wooden. The problem is that for the kids to go through with their plan they have to be far more reckless than shown, but if they were that devil-may-care, it would perhaps be hard for them to be likable, so they end up being neither really. In fact, I only started enjoying the film when I started wishing for their death. One of those movies where in about a thousand places the most sensible option would be to call the police. I realise we wouldn't have a movie if they did, but it would be nice if we could believe that they actually wouldn't. Avoid.
|
negative
|
Oh dear! Oh dear! Oh dear!<br /><br />To think that films such as this were made, and probably enjoyed by thousands at drive-ins really boggles the mind. How innocent we were in those days.<br /><br />To put it bluntly, this film is crap. The hero is so wet you can hear his squishy damp footsteps in every scene. My Lord, but he's just one of a whole slew of awful, awful actors that appear in this turkey. No wonder MST3K picked it. The story, such as it is, centres around a stock car driver (who is so incompetent, you really believe it is the actor driving the car) that he gives up and "gets in with the wrong crowd" Oooooh! Scary stuff. However, the wrong crowd turn out to be the biker equivalent of The Three Stooges and their "hand-me round" slut of a biker chick. As an example of how lame this whole thing is, the writers obviously wracked their brains to come up with a frightening name for the biker gang - if four people can be called a gang, that is. The result? The gang is called Satan's Angels! I kid you not.<br /><br />Such dire acting and dialogue, along with ridiculous scenes, make for a wonderful beer and chips movie. But otherwise its just the worst kind of rubbish.<br /><br />As I said. Once, this may have been considered good. But today it just makes you laugh (and cringe) with every minute that goes by. Avoid it except for a good laugh. And make sure you're more than half-drunk too!
|
negative
|
I grew up on this movie and I can remember when my brother and I used to play in the backyard and pretend we were in Care-a-lot. Now, after so many years have passed, I get to watch the movie with my daughter and watch her enjoy it. If you are parent and you have not watched this movie with your children, then you should, just so you hold them in your arms and watch them get thrilled over the care bears and care-a-lot! The songs, especially "Forever Young" are very sweet and memorable. Parents, I highly recommend this movie for all kids so they can learn how enjoyable caring for others can be! When it comes down to all the trash that is on TV, you can raise your children to have the right frame of mind about life with movies like these.
|
positive
|
Strong evidences and it clearly shows government cover-ups and lies. Very convincing documentary. A little bias but it hit hard on the government. I'm not very remorsed about the adults but the children............. it's very sad. Strong evidences and it clearly shows government cover-ups and lies. Very convincing documentary. A little bias but it hit hard on the government. I'm not very remorsed about the adults but the children............. it's very sad. Strong evidences and it clearly shows government cover-ups and lies. Very convincing documentary. A little bias but it hit hard on the government. I'm not very remorsed about the adults but the children............. it's very sad.
|
positive
|
Really, I can't believe that I spent $5 on this movie. I am a huge zombie fanatic and thought the movie couldn't be that bad. It had zombies in it right? Was I wrong! To be honest the movie had it's moments...I thought it was cool when the guy got his head ripped off but that was about it. Overall I think that it would be more enjoyable to slide down a razorblade slide on my bare nutsack into a vat of vinegar then watch this movie again. The movie could have been better if we could see some boob but I had to watch the trailers for the other movies produced by this company to see that. Buyer beware...unless you are into masochism.
|
negative
|
I went to see "TKIA" with high expectations, which might have influence on my opinion on it. I have seen all of the Dogme films, and this TKIA, is by far the worst. The story intertwines with themes from Shakespeare's play: King Lear, but never succeeds in capturing the audience and making them care. The directing of the actors is very loose, even for Dogme style movies, and results in poor undefinable acting. The story lacks any dynamics whatsoever, and I lost interest very shortly. There are some scenes in the film which are there to shock the viewer, but I don't think they enhanced the story at all. Mifunes sidste sang and Festen are both Dogmefilms that proved to be well directed, and had good storylines, so I shall look forward to better Dogmefilms in the future. Perhaps Aake Sandgren's "An Invisible Man-Dogme 6" will prove to lift the quality again. For he is, like Vinterberg and S.K. Jacobsen a skilled and educated director.
|
negative
|
This may just be the worst movie ever produced. Worst plot, worst acting, worst special effects...be prepared if you want to watch this. The only way to get enjoyment out of it is to light a match and burn the tape of it, knowing it will never fall into the hands of any sane person again.
|
negative
|
In a up and down career with all sorts of movies, this is Altman's one try at science fiction, and it clearly shows that it's not his forte.<br /><br />The film is practically incomprehensible. It seems a disastrous combination of experimental theater pretentiousness and a major studio trying to jump on the post-Star Wars bandwagon (not that this film is at all modelled after that one, but you can imagine that the studio signed on hoping for a much different Paul Newman sci-fi film). The story is nonexistent, the characters remain strangers to us all the way through.<br /><br />Altman has packs of dogs feeding on dead bodies throughout the movie, obviously straining to make some sort of POINT. But since the movie is so poorly thought out, starting with the lack of plot on up, it really isn't about anything at all.<br /><br />The production designed is confused, the photography is undone by the blurs on the edges, and the score is terrible. However, "Quintet" does have one redeeming feature. Not only is the movie clearly filmed out in the snow and ice, but the interiors are kept cold as well. You see the actors' breath in every scene. You really FEEL the cold.
|
negative
|
When two writers make a screenplay of a horror version of Breakfast At Tiffany's, you know something is going to go right. Drew Barrymore, Patrick Highsmith, Leslie Hope, and Sally Kellerman are excellent actors. The FBI agent was a terrible actor. The scenes where Patrick looked Holly up and down like some sort of objectifier, those was just weird. Drew Barrymore is very hot. Intimate Strangers, where Sally Kellerman worked, was a great part. The weird gummy worm was just weird. Nathan was a very handsome cat. But what was that scene where Patrick followed Holly into a cesspool and Mr. Gooding attacked him? And the scene with Dr. Wallace? What was he doing fumbling around in there? And not every male has a female, as Sally Kellerman stated. And when Patrick and Elizabeth saw Drew outside of Victor's, that was weird.
|
positive
|
Forced, cloying, formulaic. Do these adjectives make you want to run to rent his? Miriam Hopkins was brilliant in the original "Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde." A few other early movies of hers, notably "The Story of Temple Drake," are never shown but said to be excellent.<br /><br />Here, she is cutesy, bossy, and thoroughly unappealing. Ray Milland as a Greeniwch Village bohemian not at all convincing.<br /><br />The two child performers are creepy and also bear no relation to the Village as it was then.<br /><br />Speaking as a native of Greenwich Village, I find the setting ersatz, generic, and phony. Not that I was around for a couple generations but my relatives were there in 1937. It isn't funny. It isn't remotely authentic. We don't care about the characters.<br /><br />So many movies were made about the struggling masses vs the capitalists at this time, and done with elan. "Easy Living" comes to mind. It didn't take place in the Village. But it rings very true. This rings with a thudding knell.
|
negative
|
Woosh
! Man
What can I say...?<br /><br />The opening-scene, maybe? We see a bunch of mongoloid-barbarians with bad make-up jump off the walls of some ruins. They sneak around and attack some dude with a scantily clothed captive girl. The dude runs off, the mongoloids follow him and one of them stays behind seemingly to rape the girl, but instead he exposes one of her breasts and kidnaps her. Then, the dude (still on the run) sees a horse and tries to steal it. Suddenly
a blond god-like looking hero with a bad wig appears, saying "That's my horse!". The Mighty Deathstalker just made his appearance. The mongoloids arrive, Deathstalker kills all of them (including the dude) on the tunes of some rather inappropriate Mexicanos western score (this is supposed to be a Swords & Sorcery flick, so what's with the 'arriba-trompettos'?), and then goes up to Captive Girl and exposes both her breasts. He starts to rub them and Captive Girl seems to like it. She starts liking her lips and caressing Deathstalker. Just when they are about to get down to it, this old dude appears, interrupting what could have been the end of a perfect day for Deathstalker (and a possible perfect ending for a short-film).<br /><br />Now tell me
Isn't that the point where either a feminist would angrily switch off the movie, or any other male viewer would say "This is going to be one hell of a good movie!" The plot is as simple as throwing a kitten from the balcony: Deathstalker must obtain the Sword of Justice and use it to steal the Amulet of Life and the Chalice of Magic from the evil sorcerer Munkar.<br /><br />Aside from decapitations, dismemberment, random bloodshed, retarded fist fights and embarrassing sword fights, this film also contains a massive amount of t!ts & a$$ shots. I initially wanted to add one extra point to this movie for each gratuitous shot of naked boobies I could count. After 9 points (not even halfway into the movie), I had to give up counting. It was distracting me from the rest of the movie. And the rest of the movie was worth it. Totally crazy stuff. Check out this mutant cat/worm-like creature Munkar has as a pet and which he feeds eyeballs and fingers. And here's an interesting question: What would you do if a man in a woman's body would enter your bedroom and try to kill you with a knife? The answer is simple: You slap him around a bit, take away the knife and then try to rape him. Then you discover that he's actually not a woman, so you throw him out of your bed and tell him to leave your room. It works out well, I tell you. Deathstalker does it too, and the Deathstalker-way, is the right way!<br /><br />DEATHSTALKER is a wonderful movie, really, as pointed out in other comments. The villains are vile. The women are delicious. There's blood, sex, violence, rape and tasty chicken. There's a completely pointless tournament which just features a bunch of barbarians beating, slashing and hacking the crap out of each other. My favorite weapon used in that tournament was a giant wooden hammer, used to beat a poor contender to bloody pulp. And my favorite contender undoubtedly was that one brute with the Warthog-head (reminiscent of the Gamorrean Guards from RETURN OF THE JEDI). I won't reveal how the movie ends, but just prepare to ravish in delight when I tell you a 4-way dismemberment is thrown into the movie's climax.<br /><br />And of course, there's a wonderful display of ineptitude throughout the whole movie. See a guy being dragged behind a horse over a dirt road, and the next point-of-view shot shows him being dragged over grass (no road). See that awesome tattoo on the sorcerer's head magically change sides within the same scene (on shot has it on the left side of his head, the other on the right). Well, after all, Munkar is a magician. It's that, or this movie was shot in an alternate universe where things like "continuity" simply don't exist.<br /><br />As much as I enjoyed this and as much as I am looking forward to the other 3 installments in this series, I do have enough shreds of decency left in me to not let this movie pass. I am prepared, though, to give it the maximum amount of minimal points, just so I could be able to deduct a couple of more points for the possibly inferior sequels to follow. DEATHSTALKER might be a superbly fun, trashy & sleazy CONAN rip-off, it also is an abominable movie.
|
negative
|
Undeveloped/unbelievable story line,(by the time I sort of figured out where it was going, I no longer cared) bad casting.(come on... William Macy as a hit man???) bad directing,(have you ever seen Tracey Ullman perform SO badly?)(Was I supposed to care what happened to the unethical incompetent, uncaring John Ritter character?) bad script...( Really, I'm not looking for a formula script but this was really awful) the only Really good thing in it was the kid. Ten lines? It's not OK if your comment is less than ten lines? COme on-- whose rules are those? Why can't I say what I have to say in less than 10 lines??? Isn't that kind of arbitrary? Why isn't it OK to have less than 10 lines of comment?
|
negative
|
Boy this movie had me fooled. I honestly thought it would be a campy horror film with absolutely no humor in it whatsoever, boy I got the cold shoulder that time. This movie was, and I'm truthful, pretty damn good. It was not scary at all but the campiness and the sly humor really mad this movie interesting. Some to the horrible acting and cliché killings were so painful to watch, I almost laughed at how bad it was, but to some extent I enjoyed it. The killings all vaguely relate to snow sports and Christmas, which made things more intriguing. The POV camera angles were awesome.<br /><br />The movie is about a viscous killer who dies in a car accident collision with a chemical truck while being transported to prison. He is later resurrected in that very same chemical with snow spliced into the mixture. These were the ingredients chosen to make the perfect killer snowman. He than takes his revenge, as the snowman, on the police officer who convicted him.<br /><br />This movie had such bad acting, with the exception of Christopher Allport, that is was funny. I will say that I am also pretty disappointed that this movie was not a horror, but in fact a dark sitcom. They had a great story with a good plot but it wasn't executed right. All in all I like the movie at first but now it is really annoying. But this movie is way better and darker than the sequel.
|
negative
|
... because this is yet another dead one. Lifeless voice acting, second-rate animation, contrived and un-funny songs (although the bit sung by the Devil would have been worthy of Tim Curry), and a weaker plot than Land Before Time 99: Fossils On Parade.<br /><br />I have to admit, I haven't seen the first film. I'm not a big fan of movies involving Heaven or dogs, especially not in combination. Still, I hope to see the first one soon, as there HAD to be a reason someone would create such a God-awful sequel.<br /><br />If I didn't get this movie for free, I wouldn't have it at all. For a 'heaven' flick, the only good thing in this was the Devil. 2/10.
|
negative
|
I'm glad this was the last of the '40's Universal Mummy movies. The movies were all of variating qualities and this movie was definitely one of the lesser ones.<br /><br />Problem is that it's a very slow moving movie, in which basically nothing interesting or exciting is ever happening. Perhaps it would had all been better if the mummy had made his entrance earlier on in the movie. Instead now the movie once again spends its first 20 minutes explaining what had all happened in the previous mummy movies, by also once again using archive footage from this time "The Mummy" from 1932 again, to which this movie is the fourth mummy movie following the 1932 mummy story. The movie just never knows to find the right pace and even though the movie is barely over an hour long, it still feels a bit like a drag.<br /><br />It of course also doesn't help that the movie has a rather simplistic and actually very little interesting story. The movie also feels quite disjointed. The first and second half of the movie don't really connect to each other and they seemed like two separate movies on their own.<br /><br />At least Lon Chaney Jr. is still in it. He once more reprises the role of the mummy Kharis, for the third time. Too bad that he has such limited screen time this time. He gets unfortunately very little interesting to do, which is also a big waste of the mummy character itself. The movie is further more filled with dozens of silly actors who are playing around with silly accents. It seemed so totally unnecessary to me that most of the characters had to speak with such an accent and it actually gets quite distracting and annoying at points.<br /><br />The mummy movies that's least worth seeing.<br /><br />4/10
|
negative
|
With Pep Squad receiving an average of 4.7 on IMDb.com, no wonder Steve Balderson slanders this website so. But the fact is that Pep Squad is a poorly crafted "black" "comedy" (both words in quotation marks for a reason). It's a movie full of over-acting (Cherry, Beth's Mother), coupled with a couple of lethargic performances (Beth and Julie's boyfriend). A movie where you can follow cars from twenty feet away in a gaudy red Jeep and never be noticed. A movie chock full of not-so-appetizing cleavage and nudity shots that make you wonder, "Does the director think this is funny? Or clever?" Most of all, the characters are so paper-thin and poorly developed that the film becomes quite unpredictable, but probably not on purpose. Pep Squad can't decide whether to be a comedy, or a drama, or a satire (patriotic music, I get it...). The movie fails at being serious, because the idea of killing for any school position (this being Prom Queen) crosses the line into insanity (not to mention shots of flag burning and drive-by shootings, a poor attempt at being controversial and edgy), and fails at being a comedy, for all the forced and awkwardly placed jokes (big butt mama, "funky" black principal, and excessive cussing delivered poorly by the principal cast). Watching the documentary "Wamego: Making Movies Anywhere" only made this film more cringe-worthy, with praise lauded towards it by... the director and the director's father... hmmmmmm. Not a black comedy, or anything for that matter. I guess Kansas will have to wait.
|
negative
|
Maybe it gets better. I wouldn't know. I made it through the first twenty minutes or so before cutting it off and entering a period of mourning. It was obvious that the plot itself was a familiar one. A man, Paul LeMatt, a professor of entymology at Columbia, drives with his dog to a small town in Ohio in search of his ex wife, Diana Scarwid. There he encounters people who either ignore him or are hostile. Oh, they may smile but there's something going on underneath.<br /><br />That sort of arrangement is home turf for movie makers and viewers alike, and it's pregnant with possibilities. You can turn out a neatly drawn commercial success like "Bad Day at Black Rock." Or it would have made, and probably DID make, a nice "Twilight Zone" episode.<br /><br />The cast includes some seasoned performers too, as well as some formerly prominent names. Kenneth Toby, a veteran of science fiction, is the superficially amiable motel manager. Diana Scarwid can give an impressive performance, as she did in, say, "Silkwood." For some of the others, their range is limited.<br /><br />But it's poorly directed and shabbily written.<br /><br />Example of shabby direction. That dog of LeMatt's is disliked by Kenneth Toby, right off the bat. So when LeMatt walks out to the street, Toby sneaks up to the window of his room, peers in at the dog, and something zaps. Cut to LeMatt in the street. He hears his dog howling away. Then a POV shot of presumably the dog zipping along towards LeMatt then past him while the wind blows and LeMatt gawks at the camera. Cut to an identical shot -- coming from the other direction! Whatever the camera represents, whatever LeMatt is staring at, is never shown. Maybe it was nothing, because suddenly the wind stops and LeMatt is alone in the street, looking a little bit puzzled. "You should never have brought that dog in the first place," remarks a smiling Toby from the porch. Question: What the hell is that scene all about? <br /><br />Example of shabby writing. Well, TWO examples. (1) If you were to sit down and write a stereotypical waitress in a small-town diner, without the exercise of any craft whatever, you'd come up with an expressionless babe with her hair piled on top of her head, chewing gum, sauntering among the tables. Right. (2) Anything resembling believability is thrown out the window in favor of special effects. LeMatt's car chugs to a halt, then explodes while it is waiting to be fixed at the garage. Chugging to a halt: believable. Exploding: supernatural. Not even Edgar Allan Poe would endorse such an event.<br /><br />And the invaders themselves? Think of a modest masterpiece like "Invasion of the Body Snatchers." Something is going wrong in Dr. Kevin McCarthy's small town, and it takes half the movie for the mystery to be unraveled, and all the time suspense is building and doubt is growing. Here, twenty minutes into the movie, a stranger walks into a motel room and tears off his plastic face, revealing a pulsing, light-emitting, naked brain. The pregnancy is aborted.<br /><br />I won't tell you the ending because I don't know what it is, nor do I care. I suppose it had something to do with insects because why else would Paul LeMatt be an entymologist? (By the way, who's handling his classes?) But I'm not even sure bugs were involved. It's entirely possible that the bug business was adventitious. The writers may have made him a specialist in insects and then forgot all about it. It wouldn't surprise me.
|
negative
|
Unfortunately this is not one of those movies which at least make you laugh at their unbelievable stupidity. It has no entertainment value at all. It just plain sucks. I don't know where to start to explain how much this movie annoyed me. I think what really takes the cake is the unbearable soundtrack. It sounds as if someone took a simple beat and then, for the rest of it, let a 5 year old child run amok with a synthesizer and taped it. It's really that awful and as if that's not enough, there's not one scene in the movie without "music" (=noise). By the end of the movie, you're either deaf or already cut off your ears earlier. Which would at least keep you from falling asleep, since there is nothing happening in the movie to keep your attention. Just a lot of bad acting, a few cheap and unconvincing kills, no story at all (it just jumps from one scene to another and you as the viewer can try to make any sense of it) and in the last 30 minutes or so you can witness some of the worst "special effects" ever. It's extremely boring. Do not watch this movie! You could do something much more entertaining like staring at a wall or reading the phone-book. Did I mention how much the soundtrack sucked?
|
negative
|
I have been learning about the Zodiac for four years now. And I'm not saying I know much more than anyone else...in fact out of most of the people who know and read and learn about Z, I am prolly the one with the least knowledge...But I do know or at least I think I know that most of the stuff in this wouldn't happen...From how he signed his name...to how he killed people...I thought that Godfather was the worst film ever...<br /><br />The cinematography was that of a five year old...not saying that my films are any better but I am not someone who is making movies for the mass population...<br /><br />The acting I thought for the most part was pretty good really I did...the lead didn't talk that much on camera or at all I forget and don't know because I stopped watching...his voice overs where good...<br /><br />But really spend the four dollars and 70 cents on something else...like a large pizza or something...<br /><br />Until I learn how to write a review, Psycho Phil
|
negative
|
Lisa Baumer (Ida Galli) is the adulteress wife of a big businessman who inherits $1million life insurance when her husband is killed in a plane crash while on a business trip
.initially she is suspected of being responsible as her husbands will had recently been changed and so she has an insurance investigator Peter Lynch (George Hilton)and an Interpol agent on her tail just to be sure. Baumer travels to Athens, Greece to cash in her inheritance, but insists on having it in cash...a dangerous turn of events. Lynch who's identity is now known to Baumer tries to protect her against a lover of her husband Lara Florakis who nevertheless along with her henchman Sharif tries to kill them both for a share of the money that she deems she is entitled to. And this is where our Masked killer starts his/her brutal killings. Lynch as is customary with our hero is at first suspected by the Greek Police and is warned not to leave Athens by Police Inspector Stavros(Luigi Pistilli a familiar face in Giallo and Spaghettis). Lynch is then aided by the gorgeous Cléo Dupont (Anita Strindberg) a local journalist who helps him investigate the killings.To say any more could ruin the film for anyone who has not seen it, so suffice to say there are enough red herrings and most of them plausible to keep Mystery/Thriller fans happy in this story driven Giallo.The No Shame DVD has a superb transfer with both English and Italian soundtrack. It also has a very catchy score just for good measure by Bruno Nicolai that will stay in your head for a while....all in all a first rate Giallo.
|
positive
|
I saw this film as a sneak preview before the Venice opening at the Telluride Film Festival. Your reaction to it will largely depend on your attitude about respecting the text of Shakespeare. On the plus side: Pacino gives a very good performance indeed as Shylock; Lynn Collins is a fine Portia; and the film has a sumptuous look. <br /><br />The negatives are predictable. "The Merchant of Venice" is arguably the most difficult of all of Shakespeare's plays to stage today, largely because we look at it through the distorting lens of 20th century history. The romantic plot with Bassanio and Portia presents no problem. The character of Shylock does, because we lack the original frame of reference of the Elizabethan audience. Shylock is simultaneously a human character with human qualities and motivations, and an abstraction of the pitiless quality of the Old Law. When he says "Hath not a Jew eyes?" he is a character; when he proclaims "I will have my bond!" he is an abstraction. The long passage on music and cosmic harmony in the final scene (here moved and cut to ribbons) is the key to the play, in that it re-establishes universal harmony after the disruptive and evil (the Shylock of the trial scene) forces are ejected. It is possible to make psychological sense of the character of Shylock by showing his gradually going mad and turning into a monomaniac by the time the trial scene rolls around--the key is that at a point he must cease being sympathetic.<br /><br />Pacino's performance almost does it, but not quite. The film can't quite make up its mind--on the one hand, there is the right movement in the character of Shylock, and on the other there is a great deal of extraneous footage of Jews being abused and Venetian whores with rouged nipples (no doubt to show the decadence of Antonio et al). Shakespeare was not writing an Ibsen-like social drama; he was writing a comedy following the classic pattern of disruption of social order and the restoration of social order, symbolized by marriage, with a theme of love versus law at the center of the Shylock plot.<br /><br />In this sense, the film is a travesty--Radford's surgery on the play and direction almost force us away from what the play really means. (Taking the beginning of the final scene, cutting most of it, and moving it before the trial scene is the most extreme example.) There are some other significant difficulties. Jeremy Irons, a fine actor, plays Antonio as if he were overdosed on sedatives. Joseph Fiennes is pretty but shallow as Bassanio. Most of the actors, with the exceptions of Collins, Pacino, and the actor playing the Duke in the trial scene, mumble their dialogue.<br /><br />Final verdict? A pretty film with a few decent performances. It's not Shakespeare, it's poor interpretation. Not really worth your time or money--although Lynn Collins as Portia almost redeems it.
|
negative
|
I had no expectations; I'd never heard of Jamie Foxx; all I knew was that the film has some strong character actors in it. I thought it was highly entertaining; it was fun. The plot was different and unpredictable enough to hold my interest. To me, Foxx is an original. David Morse is terrific (true, this is not his finest role). I thought the chases and pyrotechnics contributed to the film and were well done. I didn't expect a lot and I was happily surprised.
|
positive
|
Cult film-maker Corbucci's rarest of his thirteen Spaghetti Westerns (of which I'm only left with WHAT AM I DOING IN THE MIDDLE OF THE REVOLUTION [1972] to catch) is one I only became aware of fairly recently via Marco Giusti's "Stracult" guide; it's an atypically bleak genre gem in the style of the director's own masterpiece, THE GREAT SILENCE (1968), complete with desolate snowy landscapes.<br /><br />Johnny Hallyday, the French Elvis Presley, whom I first saw in Jean-Luc Godard's DETECTIVE (1985) is a curious but highly effective choice to play the loner anti-hero Hud (who, like Clint Eastwood's The Man With No Name from Sergio Leone's celebrated "Dollars Trilogy", is fitted with a steel-plate armor for protection); incidentally, I had 'met' Hallyday's stunning daughter Laura Smet at the 2004 Venice Film Festival but was distracted by the presence of her esteemed director, Claude Chabrol! Gastone Moschin is another curious addition to the fold (serving pretty much the same function that Frank Wolff did in THE GREAT SILENCE) but acquits himself well and is amusingly clumsy in the presence of a bathing Francoise Fabian; the latter, then, plays a greedy nymphomaniac of a banker's widow who seduces all and sundry in the pursuit of her goals. Sylvie Fennec has the other major female role as a farm girl looked after by Hallyday and who, at one point, is entreated into Free Love by 'hippie' Apache Gabriella Tavernese (with this is mind, it's worth noting that the movie features surprising but welcome bouts of nudity from both Fabian and Tavernese)! Incidentally, the anachronistic addition of a bunch of long-haired youths (who also engage in dope-smoking and revolutionary talk) is a somewhat half-baked attempt at contemporary relevance but it all eventually adds to the fun (besides, even the black barmaid sports an Afro hairdo!).<br /><br />Mario Adorf, too, enjoys himself tremendously with the smallish role of a larger-than-life Mexican bandit nicknamed "El Diablo" who keeps a youthful biographer constantly by his side (an element which may have influenced Clint Eastwood's UNFORGIVEN [1992]) and, at one point, challenges the captive Moschin to a head-butting duel! Having mentioned this, the film also contains one very unusual 'weapon of death' as Hallyday disposes of an adversary by kicking the cash-register of the saloon into his face! As always, the enjoyably fake fistfights are accompanied by over-emphatic sound effects; equally typically for the genre, however, the wistful score by Angelo Francesco Lavagnino emerges a most significant asset. Actually, the ambiguous ending is entirely in keeping with the film's generally somber tone after Fabian's comeuppance at the hands of the locals, the hippies (who had previously idolized Hud) suddenly turn against him when wounded and terrorize the town (forcing everyone on the street and unclothed)
but the unflappable gunman manages to lift himself up to meet their challenge (they, however, scurry away at the prospect of facing him!) and then rides out of town, leaving Fennec behind.<br /><br />In conclusion, I acquired this via a good-quality Widescreen print in Italian albeit with French credits and the occasional lapse about one minute of screen-time in all into the French language (where, apparently, the original soundtrack wasn't available).
|
positive
|
There isn't much that comes close to the perfect-paced storytelling and suspenseful action-packed levels as "GoldenEye". When it came out, it was the greatest game of all-time, and even today, it stays strong.<br /><br />I will admit that this game did get boring after a few months of playing, and by not playing it again until two years later, I was thrust back into its greatest, almost as if I was playing it for the first time again.<br /><br />There are 20 action-packed levels, which is probably the most of any James Bond game to date. Probably the most unforgettable one is the Tank level, which was likely the most explosive video game sequence at that time. And the first-person shooting as well as usage of Q gadgets is what James Bond fans are always dying to use.<br /><br />Frankly, as a James Bond fan, I look for aspects of a true James Bond experience, which are now showing up in the PS2 games. So this game, while it has some great action and usable gadgets, I was somewhat expecting a little more, even back in 1997. I also disliked that this game didn't have Q or M or Moneypenny, or anyone from MI6. While watching the movies, Bond interacts with these characters at least a few times throughout each movie, but they are nowhere to be seen in this game. And vocal dialogue would have made the game more lively rather than the text dialogue they wound up using. They had the technology. They just didn't use it.<br /><br />Probably the most annoying feature of this game is that in some ways it follows the story of the movie precisely, and other ways it's incoherent. For example, there are two many levels where you have to protect or save Natalya, even though in the movie she can take care of herself. There are also some unnecessary levels, like the Boat level where you have to disarm some bombs (which is not in the movie), which adds nothing to the storyline whatsoever. There are even some levels where you rescue Natalya, but at the beginning of the next level, she's captured again. How?<br /><br />Oh well. Even those little things can't really put this game down. And while I do prefer the newer games, this Bond experience is definitely one you won't forget.<br /><br />8 out of 10
|
positive
|
In the dusty little town of Furlough in Texas, an animal is slaughtering the cattle and the locals. When the teenager Tommy (Michael Carreo) is killed, their friends Anna Furlough (Erika Fay), her Mexican-American boyfriend Miguel Gonzalez (Gabriel Gutierrez), Jill Gillespie (Sara Erikson) and Rosie (Martine Hughes) finds that a Mexican werewolf Chupacabra is the killer and they plot a plan to kill the beast.<br /><br />"Mexican Werewolf in Texas" is an amateurish crap and among the worse movies I have ever seen, if not the worst. Nothing works in this movie: the screenplay is laughable, with some of the most terrible lines I have ever heard. The direction does not exist and the camera follows the "style" of "The Blair Witch Project". The amateurish acting seems to be a prank of high-school students or a high school play. The "special effects" are gruesome and extremely poor and the "werewolf" is the cheapest I have ever seen. Ed Wood movies are cult, but this "Mexican Werewolf in Texas" is pure garbage. In the end, Jill says that no man can resist her teats (actually the most beautiful thing in this flick). But I believe the correct quote should be "no man (or woman) can resist to watch this movie to the end". I was driven by my curiosity to see how bad a movie can be and I lost 88 minutes of my life, but I believe most of the viewers will stop seeing with less than 20 minutes running time. My vote is one (awful).<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Um Lobisomen Mexicano no Texas" ("A Mexican Werewolf in Texas")
|
negative
|
Not having seen this film in quite some time, we caught with it not long ago in the nicely transferred Criterion DVD. "Le cercle rouge" is a film that owes a lot to other movies, as it keeps reminding us about "Rififi", "The Asphalt Jungle", among others, because they all deal with capers that take center stage in the movie and reproduce it in great detail. Unfortunately, one knows that old adage that crime does not pay, and from the start, these men involved in it are doomed from the onset.<br /><br />Jean-Pierre Melville was a director of few words. He didn't fill his pictures with a lot of dialog, as it's the case here. Yet, for not being "talky", they had a style of their own as proved with "Le Dolous", "Le Samurai", and his masterpiece, "Bob le flambeur", among others. Mr. Melville had a sense of style that comes across in everything he did. In this film, working with his cinematographer, Henri Decae, he takes us along for a ride through the streets of Paris that shows the vibrant city mainly at night and the bleak winter in France. The score is by Eric Demarsan that emphasizes a jazzy music that accompanies most of the action.<br /><br />Although the film shows Alain Delon, as Corey, at the center of the action, it is however, the smart inspector Mattei who is the real hero of the movie. As played by the great Bourvil, he is a man that shows a lot of patience because he has figured from the beginning how to catch Vogel, and in the process he gets involved in the investigation of the jewel heist in which he knows the escaped man he is tailing looms large behind it. Bourvil gives an enormously satisfying performance as Mattei showing equal parts of determination and tenderness, as it's the case with the three cats he adores.<br /><br />Alain Delon always responded with interesting performances his appearances in Mellville's pictures. In here he is Corey, the man who is first seen leaving prison and promising himself he won't go back, but he cannot pass a good thing when he decides to go ahead and participate in the robbery. His association with Vogel and Jansen, pays off in the way they get the job done, but it will also prove a mistake in the way they will not be able to dispose of the loot as the fence they have relied on has a change of heart.<br /><br />Gian Maria Volonte and Yves Montand are seen as Vogel and Jansen, respectively. They were excellent actors who blend well in the action of the film. Both actors were at their best moment when they took the roles in the film and it shows. Mr. Montand has the more complex character to play as we witness him in his first moment in front of the camera as a man with many demons inside his head.<br /><br />Jean-Pierre Mellville got wonderful results from his cast and crew in a film, that although feels a bit longer, but still succeeds in showing his style in one of the most memorable pictures from the director.
|
positive
|
I recently had the idea to make a short film featuring a man who is hit by a car and wakes up thinking that he himself is Chuck Norris. This meant that I would have to do extensive Chuck research, and find out as much as I could about the man. I later find out that he is not in fact a man, but an angel sent from heaven. With a face like that, who could ever doubt it? I have watched more Chuck Norris movies in the last four months than any one person should. I am proud to say that Bells of Innocence ranks pretty close to the top of the all time worst list. I spent most of the film wondering if I could return my copy to the local Wal-Mart without the receipt, which I had been biting down on to keep myself from swallowing my own tongue. The biggest reason why I chose to purchase this film was that it not only had Chuck in it, but his son Mike. I was anxious to see if Mike was a chip off the old can't-act-his-way-out-of-a-wet-paper-bag block. I came to the conclusion a long while ago; the Chuck Norris is one of the worst actors in cinematic history for one simple reason. The only character he ever plays is himself, Chuck Norris. No matter what movie, no matter what situation, he is always Chuck Norris. The one thing that he holds over his son is that he is consistent. Mike doesn't seem to understand how human emotions work. In the scene where he is talking to the little girl about his dead daughter, he seems to be extremely happy! Maybe this is because he actually pushed his daughter out into traffic, as depicted in one of the oddest flashbacks of all time. His actions confused me throughout the film, making it very hard for me to focus on what little plot there was. The other two lead actors were just as painful to watch as the son of Norris. The guy, who constantly wants to eat or tell a stupid peacock joke, was simply one of the most annoying characters that has ever graced the Direct-to-Video screen. The only thing I remember him being in other than this movie, was an episode of Walker Texas Ranger, in which he plays an equally annoying character. Maybe Chuck owes this guy something. The other guy, which is the only name I can think of because he was so forgettable, was your average Christian fanatic. I don't have anything against Christians, in fact I am one, but this guy was just too much for me. To round out the story, you have a multitude of townspeople who love to call people "friend", and a couple of villains who don't seem to be able to decide which one of them is in charge. Not to mention the creepy kids who remind me of the dollar store version of every other group of creepy kids in movies. All in all, the movie is possibly one of the biggest failures of all time, on more levels than Chuck Norris can kick people's asses. Despite being one of the worst actors of all time, I still can't get enough of Chuck. Maybe he really was sent from heaven...
|
negative
|
I don't know how I would feel if I lived in USA. I would watch some preview scenes, advertisements, I would know, Sidney Pollack directed it, Harrison Ford and Kristin Scott Thomas starring in. I would watch this film as soon as possible without reading any bad review. Would I be disappointment?<br /><br />I read a lot of review which is said how bad this film was: This is boring, long film without passion emotions and it is not interesting. Harrison is wooden, cold. The sublots should be cut. Too serious, particularly for Harrison Ford. I am interested in the subject, and I like Harrison Ford in the films which are not actions. I like Sidney Pollack and Kristin Scott Thomas too. So reading the reviews on IMDB website then in other sites then in February in the Hungarian movie magazines I was wonder and wonder what the film was. Anyway there are films, directors, stars what/who I want to see despite any reviews.<br /><br />I can understand people who thinks this film is boring and cold and has got not any passion, but I feel different. It is true I liked Sliding Doors, The Forbidden Woman (this is a French film, I don't know what its title in English, or in French). Basic of these films is development of a love.<br /><br />I think Random Heart is a nice and interesting film in its own way.<br /><br />It may be true that the sublots -the congress election and the cop's investigation after a corrupt policeman- are not written well, are not worked out in details but add something to the leading woman and man character.After his wife's death and betrayal emotion, angry of Dutch comes to the surface during his work. He will be suspicious and almost lost his best friend (then the woman too). The film shows two ways to survive the tragedy: our wife/husband's death and cheating. One of them is the woman's: this is tragedy, but the life is continuing. She doesn't want to mourn forever. What she wants to know-what her husband's lover-the cop's wife- thought about her she will not learn never. She is forced to behave in this way. The elections are comes, and anything about his husband may become scandal. She wants her daughter not to be disappointment with her father. The man is a cop.He suffering from the fact he lived in lies. He wants to know -maybe every men would want to know in this situation-when his wife started to cheat him. How long had she got lover?. He needs the woman's help but she doesn't want, but the guy is stubborn and steady/persistent. The woman can't stand him because he always steps into her life and she cannot forget. Their relationship is tense at the beginning then slowly developments a type of silent sympathy which is prefer an alliance against the outside world, the tragedy. (I said it in spite of that they made love in bed) However the cop, can't stop with investigation, can't stop close and can't allow the woman close to him but he starts the "love", and the woman wants their relationship to continue. But it can't. The woman realizes it. The end is a bit sad, but logic, and nice at the same time.<br /><br />It was pleasant for me to see again Peter Coyote-I like this man's face- Sidney Pollack. I hardly knew Bonnie Hunt but she was good.<br /><br />I think Harrison Ford did an okay job. His eardrop is unusual but at the beginning then finally I believed that the woman liked being at his company in spite of his temperament. It was pity he had not got any joke. But Ford has got a good sense of humour. A reviewer noticed (in Hungary): "Ford is charismatic against his haircut and ear drop and we are waiting for his presence and would like him to smile at us and make an ironic notice. But Dr Jones is not smiling at us".. But he smiles at the end and it is soooo good. With the rest I agree. I very like him in this role- He is good in acting of this a bit rough, cool but somewhere in his soul smart cop.. The character of Kristin Scott Thomas is a woman who is determined, self confident, but she is closed inside a ivory tower and she keeps aloof from her emotions. But she is a really woman who become indecisive and find support on the cop.The two cool, reserved- people find each other.<br /><br />Maybe the script is not good. It is full of common, banal sentence, but there are some humorous sentences from the woman and movement particularly from the man. It is a good film but not for everybody, not for the general big audience. I watched the females under 18 and males above 45 liked this film better. About the latter, maybe Sidney Pollack made this film for his age-group which doesn't go to multiplex. Anyway I advice the people who like energetic plots with action scenes, who like only Ford's action films miss this movie.
|
positive
|
This movie is an awesome remake of the original by the same title. The movie was cool,despite the fact, I hate new ones! All of the cast was awesome . It has great cast and an awesome plot!! The main plot is a man is poisoned and he has to solve his own murder , neat eh?!Dennis Quaid is the man who is "D.O.A"(in other words Dead On Arrival).He finds help with his friends, but everyone is now a suspect!!Dennis's character has several hours to find out who poisoned him. The movie is quite fast and full of action. You can see two other big stars in Meg Ryan(City Of Angels,Courage Under Fire) and Daniel Stern(Home Alone, Very Bad Things,Bushwhacked) in supporting roles in this awesome ,cool remake of a classic movie!!
|
positive
|
I always tell people that "Enchanted April" is an adult movie with no cussing, no sex, and no violence. One might think of it as "the ultimate chick flick", but I bet there are one or two enlightened men out there who love it too. Don't invite the kids, though. This movie is very low-key.<br /><br />Seeing "Enchanted April" is a very healing experience. The sound track and gorgeous scenery, along with the ladies' gentle manners, bring to mind the peace and beauty of a pre-Raphaelite painting.<br /><br />Lest anyone think yours truly only watches one kind of movie, I will paraphrase a line I heard once on "Saturday Night Live" and say that my two favorite movies are "The Deer Hunter" and "Enchanted April".
|
positive
|
This film is terrible. Every line is stolen from 8MM (the Italian dubbed version, at least). If you like trash... real trash, give it a try; but beware: this ain't the "so bad it's good" kind of flick. In its cheapness, it may really look like a porno but, believe me, if you're looking for "snuff", s & m, hardcore, softcore... or even an ordinary erotic thriller, go find something else in store! I'm telling you this, 'cause the absolutely uninspired and unconvincing shooting, acting, plot, dialogues (the only good lines, as I said before, are the ones they stolen from Joel Schumacher's 8MM!) will bore you to tears in a few minutes and the "happy ending" is absolutely revolting! I'll give it one star: a half for the sudden shot in the back scene, after "the eyes of the victim" monologue (stolen from 8MM as well) and a half for mom & daughter's sexy bodies (that didn't manage to keep me completely awake while watching this turkey, anyway!)
|
negative
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.