review
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| sentiment
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
This is a film that makes you say 2 things... 1) I can do much better than this( acting,writing and directing) 2) this is so bad I must leave a review and warn others...<br /><br />Looks as if it was shot with my flip video. I have too believe my friend who told me to watch this has a vendetta against me. I have noticed that there are some positive posts for this home video; Must have been left by crew members or people with something to do with this film. One of the worst 3 movies I have ever seen. hopefully the writers and director leave the business. not even talented enough to do commercials!!!!!
|
negative
|
This has always been a favorite movie of mine. I've owned a VHS copy, and a couple of months ago I found a DVD release which is also part of my video collection. I also happen to be a huge baseball fan, and as part of my off-season reading, I picked up a copy of Robert Whiting's excellent book "You Gotta Have WA", that profiles the ins and outs of Japanese baseball, and the challenges that foreign players have encountered playing in Japan. As I began to read yesterday, it made me think of this movie, because it appears the screenplay was based almost verbatim on this book. The parallels are uncanny. The Jack Elliot character closely resembles Bob Horner, an aging MLB slugger whose best days were behind him. Horner's teammate Leon Lee is also depicted in the character Max "Hammer" Dubois, a veteran in the Japanese league who has made his peace with the frustrations of the Japanese game, and helps keeps his teammate sane. The Elliot character goes through the same sequence of encounters as Horner, from big fanfare signing, early success that fuels an already ravenous sports media, and the ensuing slump that spurs frustration, alienation from teammates, fans and media, and the resulting disillusionment that prompts a desire to go back home to the US. The only difference is that the movie adds such Hollywood touches as a love interest and a happy ending. <br /><br />Speaking of love interests, I'm sure many viewers have come to this site (as I did) to look up the actress who played "Hiroko" (the beautiful Aya Takanashi), and what other work she has done. It only lists this movie. It turns out, based on an article I read, that the brief love scene she has with Tom Selleck (a foreigner) in this movie (mild by our standards - basically they kiss while he's in the bath and she's wearing a towel) caused such an outrage on the part of the Japanese public (males in particular) that she has never been offered another role of any kind, in Movies or television - essentially blackballed by the Japanese movie industry. It's a real shame, as she is(was) quite a talented actress in this movie. <br /><br />If you like this movie as much for the baseball elements and cultural differences as I did -- go find a copy of "You Gotta Have WA" by Robert Whiting. A good read and a great companion book to this movie.
|
positive
|
Yeah, stupidity! I just finish watching and I still have bad taste in my mouth. Too much colors, too much unnecessary "addons" to a story, too much stupid characters (I presume they wanted to achieve comic relief, but I only wanted to cry)... too much of everything. Shame to spoil one of divine stories from "Arabian Nights" like this. Childish, naive (both on a bad way) and with lot of magic-breaking mistakes, I don't think this could keep a child of five for more then ten minutes. Princess is lovely, but should be tongueless, cause actress don't know how to carry a role. Rest of the cast is even worse...our "bad guy" is REALLY bad. Shame that the "good guy" is not better. Only light in this dark is, of course, David Carradine, who goes unfortunately deeply down under his level with this, but at least keep his actor/"fighter" skills at top. I'm still sorry to see him in a thing like this, but glad that I had something to watch in whole charade, so thank you David. Only, ONLY, for him, I give this 2 stars to this fiasco...I would give more for him, but that would rise final score to entire movie. The rest is so bad, that I would, maybe, like to grade it, but there is no grade lover then 1 here, and I think that would be too much.
|
negative
|
MGM were unsure of how to market Garbo when she first arrived in Hollywood. Mayer had a lot of faith in her and her appearance in "Torrent" justified that. She did not speak a word of English so she must have found it difficult to work, also Ricardo Cortez did not make it very easy for her.<br /><br />The torrent of the title is the river Juscar that winds through a sleepy little village in Spain. Leonora (Greta Garbo) hopes someday that her voice will bring great wealth and happiness to her struggling parents. Leonora and Don Rafael (Ricardo Cortez) are in love but he is under his mother's thumb and cannot get her to consent to his marriage. Meanwhile Dona Brull (Martha Mattox) has evicted Leonora's parents from their home and they send Leonora to Paris hoping to give her a chance to further her singing career. Leonora sends a note to Rafael, urging him to remember his promise and come with her. His mother is enraged and forbids him to go - so of course he caves in to her request.<br /><br />Years pass. Leonora has a new identity - she has become La Brunna, the toast of the Paris Opera. Rafael has turned out just as his mother wished - he is running for office and is courting a "safe" young girl, Remedios (Gertrude Olmstead) who is a "hog" heiress. Mack Swain plays her father. Leonora decides to visit her old home, and I agree - why hasn't she helped her mother out. Her mother is still living at the family home, working as a skivvy and taking in washing. Leonora and Rafael meet but Leonora is full of ridicule. Garbo is so enchantingly beautiful, it is hard to believe that he could be happy with Remedios.<br /><br />The dam is bursting and the torrent is flooding the town. Leonora's house is in the path of the raging river but when Rafael attempts to rescue her he finds she is quite safe. They then re-kindle their romance. There is a "horizontal" love scene in this film, very similar to the one in "Flesh and the Devil".<br /><br />Dona Brull goes spreading gossip about how Leonora really got her wealth and Leonora's mother believes her and tells Leonora to go. Rafael meets Leonora just before she is about to tour America. Again he intends to go with her but again he lets her down. He spends so much time listening to other people destroy her reputation - "what will she do for you but drag you down". The irony is she has just secured a top government job for him if he comes with her. They meet again, years later - she is as fresh and vibrant as ever - he looks older than his years, bowed down by mediocrity.<br /><br />It is certainly a good film with a positive message to follow your heart.<br /><br />Lucien Littlefield does a good job as Cupido, the barber and Leonora's old and faithful friend.<br /><br />Highly Recommended.
|
positive
|
Robert A. Heinlein's classic novel Starship Troopers has been messed around with in recent years, in everything to Paul Verhoeven's 1997 film to a TV series, to a number of games. But none of these, so to speak, has really captured the spirit of his novel. The games are usually unrelated, the TV series was more of a spin off, and the less said about Verhoeven's film, the better. Little do most know, however, that in Japan, an animated adaptation had already been done, released the year of Heinlein's death. And, believe it or not, despite its differences, this 6-part animated series is, plot-wise, the most faithful adaptation of Heinlein's classic.<br /><br />The most obvious plus to this series is the presence of the powered armor exoskeletons, something we were deprived of in Verhoeven's film. Like the book, the series focuses more on the characters and their relationships than on action and space travel, though we see a fair amount of each. While events happen differently than in the book, the feel of the book's plot is present. Rico and Carmen have a romantic entanglement, but it's only slightly more touched upon than in the book. While some may believe the dialogue and character interaction to be a bit inferior to the book (it gets a bit of the anime treatment, but what did you expect?), but it's far superior to the film. Heinlein's political views are merely excised, as opposed to the film, where they are reversed. The big payoff of the series, however, is the climatic battle on Klendathu between the troopers and the bugs/aliens, which features the kind of action from the powered armor suits we would have like to have seen in a film version.<br /><br />Overall, I enjoyed this series because I wanted to see a vision closer to that of Heinlein. And I think they did pretty well with this. If you can find this series, give it a look.
|
positive
|
A fondly-remembered melodrama thanks chiefly to Ronald Colman's fine Oscar-winning central performance about an oft-treated theme: the nature of acting and how it can overtake one's perception of reality. In this case, we have a well-known thespian tackling Shakespeare's "Othello", so that the film's last third delves effectively into the thriller genre with press agent Edmond O'Brien (who happens to really be besotted with Colman's co-star and ex-wife Signe Hasso) 'investigating' the actor's possible involvement in the Desdemona-like strangling of a celebrity-seeking waitress (a very slim Shelley Winters). The theatrical/New York atmosphere of the immediate post-war era is vividly captured by the husband-and-wife screen writing team of Garson Kanin and Ruth Gordon and legendary "actor's director" George Cukor (all of whom were recognized by the Academy with nominations); incidentally, the film nabbed a second Oscar for Miklos Rozsa's eclectic score. Colman, forever the suave leading man blessed besides with a velvety voice, does well enough by Shakespeare gaining conviction the farther his character slips into obsessive jealousy, a murderous rage and, eventually, paranoia; however, he is not let down by a supporting cast which also includes director Ray Collins, reporter Millard Mitchell, detective Joe Sawyer and coroner Whit Bissell. Though the mid-section is a bit strained, the film makes up for any deficiencies with a remarkably-handled Expressionist denouement.
|
positive
|
When I first saw Stella on comedy central I thought "god, this is horrible!" But I loved Wet Hot American Summer. So I knew something didn't make sense. There was nothing left for me to do but search out for the Stella shorts which I had heard contained more dildos than any other comedy troupe out there. When I found them not only were my dildo expectations met, but I found probably the greatest comedy scenes I've seen in years. The set of twenty odd short films put me on the edge of my seat with water running down my legs. Not only did I laugh my ass off the first time I watched them but continued to laugh harder when I watched them over and over again. It's really a shame Comedy Central had the restrictions of cable television for the Stella series. It would have faired much better on HBO or Showtime. Their brand of humor can't be restricted by censors or popular culture. Given even if it was on HBO I'm sure the "masses" would have voted it canceled in a season or less, but still it would have been fantastic. Needless to say I'm now in love with Stella and all it's individual members. Any Stella fan should check out David Wain's site with all his short films. They are equally as enjoyable as Stella itself. So my hat goes off to Michael Showalter, Michael Ian Black, and David Wain for the unbelievable comedy they have made with Stella. I hope to see much more of the troupe in the future.
|
positive
|
Ghoulies 4 is pretty ghoulish sequel. The ghoulies look very different from the first three ghoulies, but there still cool. There are some nice flash backs, from Ghoulies the first movie. Jonathan is back once again in this one. He wasn't in parts 2 or 3 though. The movie is low budget at times, but fun to watch. You've got Tony Cox as the Dark Ghoulie and Arturo Gil as the Light Ghoulie. The ghoulies in this movie are actually good guys, instead of evil like in the first three movies. Both Ghoulies are pretty funny characters in the movie. Then you've got the very hot Alexandra! It's a great dark comedy and funny! Any fan of the ghoulies movies will enjoy watching Ghoulies 4. The DVD is finally coming out this July 2007! Hopefully one day Ghoulies III will be on DVD in the USA. I'd really like to see a sequel to this movie one day too. I doubt it will happen though. It's 2007 now and no sign of a sequel yet. If there ever is a sequel I hope Jim Wynorski will make it.<br /><br />I give Ghoulies IV a 9/10
|
positive
|
I recently watched this film at the 30'Th Gothenburg Film Festival, and to be honest it was on of the worst films I've ever had the misfortune to watch. Don't get me wrong, there are the funny and entertaining bad films (e.g "Manos Hands of fate") and then there are the awful bad films. (This one falls into the latter category). The cinematography was unbelievable, and not in a good way. It felt like the cameraman deliberately kept everything out of focus (with the exception of a gratuitous nipple shot), the lighting was something between "one guy running around with a light bulb" and "non existing". The actors were as bad as soap actors but not as bad as porn actors, and gave the impression that every line came as a total surprise to them. The only redeeming feature was the look of the masked killer, a classic look a la Jason Vorhees from "Friday the 13'Th". The Plot was extremely poor, and the ending even worse. I would only recommend this movie to anyone needing an example of how a horror film is not supposed be look like, or maybe an insomniac needing sleep.
|
negative
|
This was a weird movie. It started out pretty good. A solid sound track behind flash images of gore and mayhem as our psychopath did his thing.<br /><br />Next comes his "down fall" Here i could tell I was in for a real cheesy "B" movie. Poor acting , I mean how hard is it to hold a gun and act like a cop? These guys could not. After the death scene of our psychopath we get the opening credit and the movie starts...<br /><br />From this point on it is bad acting big boobs, the occasional bucket of blood and poorly done death scenes.<br /><br />That said I gave the movie a four because in spite of its flaws it did maintain a sort of creepiness that I just could not quite shake off.<br /><br />I do not recommend this movie but I have to admit I have seem worse.
|
negative
|
This movie had reminded me of watching the old black and white movies with my dad. More true to life characters looking for love, being in love, and loosing it. Old story fresh view. Larenz Tate was so Cary Grant in style as the character may have been in a clumsey situation, but the actor kept him from looking silly and like a cardboard cut out. Nia Long has always been a favorite of mine she is sweet even when she is tough, almost like a Kathrine Hepburn. This is one of his best work and showing that he is better than always playing an angry black man<br /><br />This movie is a classic, superb acting, well written, a real love story set in Chicago, what more can you ask for?<br /><br />SuperB Black Love Story
|
positive
|
Before I explain the "Alias" comment let me say that "The Desert Trail" is bad even by the standards of westerns staring The Three Stooges. In fact it features Carmen Laroux as semi- bad girl Juanita, when you hear her Mexican accent you will immediately recognize her as Senorita Rita from the classic Stooge short "Saved by the Belle". <br /><br />In "The Desert Trail" John Wayne gets to play the Moe Howard character and Eddy Chandler gets to play Curly Howard. Like their Stooge counterparts a running gag throughout the 53- minute movie is Moe hitting Curly. Wayne's character, a skirt chasing bully, is not very endearing, but is supposed to be the good guy. <br /><br />Playing a traveling rodeo cowboy Wayne holds up the rodeo box office at gunpoint and takes the prize money he would have won if the attendance proceeds had been good-the other riders have to settle for 25 cents on the dollar (actually even less after Wayne robs the box office). No explanation is given for Wayne's ripping off the riders and still being considered the hero who gets the girl. <br /><br />Things get complicated at this point because the villain (Al Ferguson) and his sidekick Larry Fine (played by Paul Fix-who would go on to play Sheriff Micah on television's "The Rifleman") see Wayne rob the box office and then steal the remainder of the money and kill the rodeo manager. Moe and Curly get blamed. <br /><br />So Moe and Curly move to another town to get away from the law and they change their names to Smith and Jones. Who do they meet first but their old friend Larry, whose sister becomes the 2nd half love interest (Senorita Rita is left behind it the old town and makes no further appearances in the movie). <br /><br />Larry's sister is nicely played by a radiantly beautiful Mary Kornman (now grown up but in her younger days she was one of the original cast members of Hal Roach's "Our Gang" shorts). Kornman is the main reason to watch the mega-lame western and her scenes with Moe and Curly are much better than any others in the production, as if they used an entirely different crew to film them. <br /><br />Even for 1935 the action sequences in this thing are extremely weak and the technical film- making is staggeringly bad. The two main chase scenes end with stock footage wide shots of a rider falling from a horse. Both times the editor cuts to a shot of one of the characters rolling on the ground, but there is no horse in the frame, the film stock is completely different, and the character has on different clothes than the stunt rider. There is liberal use of stock footage in other places, none of it even remotely convincing. <br /><br />One thing to watch for is a scene midway into the movie where Moe and Curly get on their horses and ride away (to screen right) from a cabin as the posse is galloping toward the cabin from the left. The cameraman follows the two stooges with a slow pan right and then does a whip pan to the left to reveal the approaching posse. Outside of home movies I have never seen anything like this, not because it is looks stupid (which it does) but because a competent director would never stage a scene in this manner. They would film the two riders leaving and then reposition the camera and film the posse approaching as a separate action. Or if they were feeling creative they would stage the sequence so the camera shows the riders in the foreground and the posse approaching in the background. <br /><br />Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.
|
negative
|
You'd think that with Ingrid Bergman and Warner Baxter that this film would have been a lot better. Sadly, the film suffers from difficult to believe characters as well as a major plot problem that makes some of the characters seem brain-addled.<br /><br />The film begins with Ingrid Bergman coming to work for the Stoddard family. Everything is so very peachy and swell--the family adores Bergman and things couldn't be more perfect. Well, that is until the mother (Fay Wray) dies, the stock market crashes in 1907 (wiping out the family's fortune) and Bergman is forced to go back home to France. This portion of the film is a bit sticky sweet, but not bad.<br /><br />Later, after the family's fortunes have improved, Bergman returns. The four boys are now all grown and there isn't really a conceivable reason why they'd hire her once again as a governess. But, briefly, everything is swell once again. But, when WWI occurs, the four all go to war--gosh! In the midst of this, one of the sons (David) brings home his new wife (Susan Hayward). Miss Hayward's character is as black and white as the others, though while they are all good and swell, she's obviously a horny she-devil. To make things worse, she comes to live in the family home while David is at war.<br /><br />Now here is where the movie gets really, really dumb--brain-achingly dumb. Hayward begins an affair with one of David's brothers but when the father sees a silhouette of the lovers, Bergman enters the room from another entrance and pretends that it was her, not Hayward with Jack! WHY?! Why would any sane person do this to save the butt of an obviously evil and conniving woman? This was exactly the sort of excuse Bergman needed to get rid of the gutter-snipe once and for all! This is just a case of lousy writing and made me mad...and most likely did the same to the audiences back in 1941.<br /><br />The rest of the movie consists of failed opportunity after failed opportunity for Hayward's evilness to be exposed. This just flies against common sense and made the film a silly melodramatic mess. As expected, however, the truth eventually comes out and everyone is swell once again---happy to be one big loving wonderful family minus the slut, Hayward.<br /><br />The film suffers because of poor writing. Hayward's affair made no sense--at least in how it was handled. And, having characters who are so gosh-darn good or evil (with nothing in between) sinks this movie to the level of a second-rate soap. The only thing that saves it at all is the acting---they tried as best they could with a turgid script. Suffice to say that the Columbia Pictures writers who did this film should have been slapped with a dead chicken!
|
negative
|
The Duke is a very silly film--a dog becoming a duke! But it's a very fun movie. It has some of those corny pranks that many kids movies have, but (thankfully!) no bodily function jokes, as so many animal movies feel compelled to have! Mostly, it's just dogs being dogs and people being. . . well, people. The 'good guys' are likeable and appealing. The 'bad guys' are ridiculous, and of course, the pun of many jokes. But there is something dignified about this movie, for even though it is silly, it's not out for every cheap laugh like "Home Alone" and others.<br /><br />Crocket, Simon and Copper do an excellent job playing Black and Tan Coonhound "Hubert" who becomes the Duke after his beloved owner, a real Duke, dies. For the most part, they just act like dogs, no 'talking,' or human-like emotions and attitudes. However, they do stereotype poodles, and Hubert does fall for her, just because she's a poodle. Come on! These are dogs--they have a different view of beauty!!!<br /><br />Overall, charming, fun and enjoyable.
|
positive
|
I'm a pretty tolerable guy, when it comes to movies, even B movies. I routinely watch some B movies for fun, and they can range from surprisingly good, to just downright awful. I usually set my expectations really low before watching these types of movies, and even after doing that, Descent was just downright awful. I really didn't mind that they were ripping off the Core to some extent, but they did absolutely nothing interesting with the material. Some scientists are worried about the earth's seismic activity, and must travel into the depths of the earth in order to stabilize the mantel. So what we get is a monotonously long set-up in which two dueling scientists played by Luke Perry and Rick Roberts have to work together on a top secret mission, named Project DEEP. The man in charge, General Fielding played by Michael Dorn, is secretly withholding vital information from Assistant Marsha Crawford, played by Mimi Kuzyk. Rounding out the cast is Natalie Brown who plays Jen, a mission specialist who created the "Mole" a drill which is used plunge into the depths of the Earth.<br /><br />Other than some pretty good special effects, and set designs, nothing about Descent is worthwhile. The movie starts out fairly entertaining, but it gets bogged down quickly in a tiresome story about uncontrollable seismic activity, which has been done to death in other movies such as the Core. Descent also has a poor script, with useless, forgettable dialog between the characters. To make matters worse, there is literally no action, no real threat or danger. The attempts at comic relief are painfully unfunny. The plot has gaping holes and some of the subplots are left untied at the end leaving a bad taste in your mouth. <br /><br />In closing this movie was just a cheap way for everyone involved to get a paycheck. There was no thought behind this movie, no innovation, it's just there. Other than some nice looking special effects, and set designs, this movie fails on every other level. The story is from the garbage can of Hollywood, and the characters are uninteresting to boot. Descent will simply descend you into boredom, and frustration. Avoid at all costs.
|
negative
|
This 1981 comedy still sparkles thanks to the combined efforts of writer/director Steve Gordon and stars Dudley Moore and John Gielgud. Sadly, Gordon, only in his early forties, died soon after completing this, his only feature film. It's an especially unfortunate loss since he shows a truly deft hand at character-driven farce that makes the whole film irresistible. It plays almost like a 1930's-style screwball comedy revamped for contemporary tastes. The plot centers on Arthur Bach, a drunken, diminutive millionaire playboy who is at risk of losing his $750 million inheritance if he doesn't marry the dowdy and boring Susan Johnson, an heiress handpicked by his old-money father and dotty grandmother. Of course, he doesn't love her and by chance, runs into Linda Marolla, a working-class waitress (and of course, aspiring actress) after she pilfers a Bergdorf Goodman tie for her father.<br /><br />The standard complications ensue but in a most endearing way with loads of alcohol-fueled slapstick executed with classic élan by Moore. That he makes such a spoiled character likable is a credit not only to his comic talents but to Gielgud's feisty, acidic turn as Hobson, Arthur's devoted but reality-grounded valet. It's the type of role he could play in his sleep, but Gielgud makes Hobson such a truly memorable character that his fate in the film brings a welcome injection of poignancy in the proceedings. In probably her most likable film role, Liza Minnelli hands the picture to her male co-stars by toning down her usual razzle-dazzle personality and making Linda quite genuine in motivation.<br /><br />A pre-"LA Law" Jill Eikenberry plays Susan just at the right passive-aggressive note, while Barney Martin (Jerry's dad on "Seinfeld") steals all his scenes as Linda's slovenly father Ralph. The one fly in the ointment is veteran actress Geraldine Fitzgerald, who overdoes the eccentricities of the grandmother. And I have to admit that I still can't stand the very dated, overplayed Christopher Cross song that inevitably won the Oscar for that year's best song. Unfortunately, the 1997 DVD, certainly in need of remastering, has no extras worth noting except some photos and production notes.
|
positive
|
After the book I became very sad when I was watching the movie. I am agree that sometimes a film should be different from the original novel but in this case it was more than acceptable. Some examples:<br /><br />1) why the ranks are different (e.g. Lt. Diestl instead of Sergeant etc.)<br /><br />2) the final screen is very poor and makes Diestl as a soldier who feds up himself and wants to die. But it is not true in 100%. Just read the book. He was a bull-dog in the last seconds as well. He did not want to die by wrecking his gun and walking simply towards to Michael & Noah. <br /><br />So this is some kind of a happy end which does not fit at all for this movie.
|
negative
|
Beautiful story of Wisconsin native, Dan Jansen, and his real life, agonizing struggle to win the 1994 Olympic Gold Medal in Speed Skating, despite his overwhelming emotional loss with the death of his much loved Best Friend and Family Member; his Sister, Jane.<br /><br />This story's main focus is to sensitively portray the real life emotional turmoil of grief, that one feels in loosing a special Loved One, and the struggle to productively cope and rise above the great loss! It is the incredible story of Dan Jansen's heartbreak in loosing his beloved Sister to Leukemia, his struggle to cope with the intensity of his grief, while still maintaining his Dream to win at the Olympics, and his ultimate triumph in winning the Gold Medal in Speed Skating for America, and in honor of his Sister's memory; thereby fulfilling his childhood promise to Jane!<br /><br />After Dan Jansen's remarkable Gold Medal performance in the Winter Olympic in Lillihamer, Norway, he established a Foundation in 1994 to help fight Leukemia, which claimed the life of his Sister, and to support youth sports programs, educational and scholarship awards. His Dan Jansen Foundation promotes the philosophy that: "as his Father always told him at a young age: 'there is more to life than skating around in circles!' Maintaining a proper perspective is key! So, too, is setting goals, and realizing one's Dreams through perseverence, overcoming adversity and never giving up!"<br /><br />Recommended for anyone who has ever suffered the great loss of someone very special, and dearly loved within your life! And, for anyone who still believes in the Achievement of Dreams, and Never Giving Up!
|
positive
|
I am easily pleased. I like bad films. I like films featuring attractive young women in small amounts of clothing.<br /><br />This film gives all the above a bad name. Yes, you know going in that what you're getting is not high art, or anything like. But, even for the type of movie it is, Beach Babes From Beyond isn't very good.<br /><br />Some people have given it 10. I can only assume that these are people who have had the organs which enable rational thought to take place surgically removed.<br /><br />It isn't very good. It simply isn't very good.<br /><br />3 out of 10 solely on the grounds of a) novelty value for the famous relatives and Burt Ward and b) some of the girls are cute.<br /><br />Oh, by the way, did I tell you that it isn't very good?
|
negative
|
What the heck is this about? Kelly (jennifer) seems to drop all moral behavior as soon as she arrives to the island. She finds this Juan P (Manuel) existing and exotic, though she witnessed when he slapped his ex in the face, which he also justify later on in the movie, right or wrong? These two guys are the first to find each other on the island. Kelly are totally lost in every sense and the great Juan P can fish and built a somewhat house. Mr handyman. They seem to have a great time. Then Billy Zane (Jack, Kellys characters husband) shows up and of course, two days without knowing what his wife has been doing whit this gorgeous Juan P, he is a little bit jealous. Billy Z is the stereotype rich guy and maybe not the nicest man in the world. He dislikes Juan P (for hitting his girlfriend at the pier, who can blame him? Hes also is arrogant, but he paid loads of money to rent that boat and Juan P who is the waiter/everything cant even fetch him a beer whit in 20 min. Wouldn't you be upset? Yet Billy is probably the guy you want to punch in the face if you meet him. But at the same time, he is, not to be blamed for, suspicious about the scuba goggles Manuel has. Kelly and Billy just lost some dear friends! How convenient he just happens to have them, no matter what!). However, for some strange reason Kelly likes this girl hitting Manuel and starts to hate Billy for being jealous. OK, Billy is overreacting, thats for sure, but Kelly isn't doing much to convince him either. She spends more time with Juan P and even wants him to sleep with them since hes been so nice (and even though Manuel yelled at her and calling her things for asking him some intimate questions. But Kelly is SO forgiving...). Yeah right. And then she starts to have sex with this Juan P. It should be said that Kelly and Billy seems to have a working relationship before this island incident, at least, they have intimate sex on the boat and talks like people do when they like each other. Now, you can think that this scenario is possible. But for real, is it? Are you cheating your husband after two days on a coconut island just because hes jealous and acts like a drunk in the bar? (i wouldn't disagree if there relationship was really bad but the director doesn't give much hints if thats the case). For Christ sake, Juan P hasn't really shown himself being a good person. Catching some fish and built a wood house to get into someones panties, is that showing a good side? Not trying to befriend Kellys husband in anyway (which would be very simple by letting them be alone most of the island-time, simply be respect) He doesn't care about their relationship (and Kelly cant figure that one out), he just want to have sex with Kelly. Kellys character is just not trustworthy (if she was stranded with Billy and another attractive girl, wouldn't she be upset or what?!). Or maybe she is? Billy Zane plays a not very nice person, and Juan P isn't actually much better if you really think about it. And poor Kelly is so confused, and believes having sex with Juan P will solve everything because her husband is so strange and so aggressive towards poor Juan P? So... for all of you who reads this... What do you think about it? If you where the Kelly character, would you consider cheating on your husband, knowing one day you'll be back in real life, and all of a sudden Billys maybe not that horrible person after all. Hes just too jealous. And if you where Billys character, what do you say, is he totally wrong in his behavior? And Juan P character what do you guys really think of him. One thing is for sure. Manuels exist! Ps... The voodoo thing is so totally wrong here! What the heck was that about?! Seriously! Anyone tell me?
|
negative
|
This is an action packed film that makes me feel very peaceful and relaxed every time I see it. The film (short of its conclusion) demonstrates that in the face of extreme odds, it is still possible to prevail.<br /><br />This film is very refreshing, and likely to be banned at any moment. Get a copy of it before the thought police burn every copy they can find. They don't want you to have hope for the future, or to think you have a chance.<br /><br />On the other hand, should Political Correctness fail to supress it, this would be an excellent movie to release on DVD. Such a release could contain interviews with the writer and director, and related goodies. I'm sure it would sell some copies, and I would be one of the first to buy it.<br /><br />- Mincka
|
positive
|
Well what I can say about this movie is that it's great to see so many Asian faces. What I didn't like about the film was that it was full of stereotypes of what typical racial characters would do in their role. The Asian girl without confidence who has to play someone else to get ahead, the white guy infatuated with Asian culture and chooses to leave his white world behind for the land of yellow and the "keeping it real" black cab driver. Plus all the coke, shanghai tang and dunkin donuts product placement was a bit too obvious. The story plot itself was fun but pretty much how I thought the story would unravel. Then again when watching romantic comedies you can't expect much but then again I would have been wanted to just be surprised at least once. The parents are the best part of the flick.
|
negative
|
one of the best and most inspirational movies about a different culture I've seen in years. tragic and touching. worth the watch. maybe a few times. We all know how brutal children can be. I know from my own and my brothers experiences as children and this movie hit the nail on the head. perfectly! The Kite running is amazing and I need to do research on the validity of that event. even though It is done in cgi it is still amazing and very interesting. to maneuver a kite like that with a single string seems impossible but they make it believable. anyway this movie has many twists and turns that are, I'm sure to many, probably easy to figure out but they hit me before I could. which makes a great movie for me! when you figure out the whole movie in the first 10 minutes it kind of ruins it. but this one does it so smoothly that it's hard to guess it even when it happens...I'm a guy and I don't mind saying that the tears were flowing at more than one point in this movie.
|
positive
|
This movie started me on a Nick Cage kick. It is a story full of twists and turns- a movie of motives and moves. Of, course, Dennis Hopper was a ham, but J.T. Walsh and Laura Flyyn Boyle are the perfect pair to catch the unsuspecting man who has fallen into their web. Everything about this movie is good - cinematography, story pace and most of all the end. Cage excels at what he does best- it's not to be an action hero but to be an everyman caught in the snares of life.
|
positive
|
I liked it but then I think I might have been ironing at the same time. This reworking of Cyrano de Bergerac/Roxanne is an utterly undemanding, formulaic romcom rescued from straight-to-video ignominy on its release by the sharp turn of Janeane Garofalo. Playing the Frasier of Pets, she finds herself caught in a love trap when insecurity leads her to pass her best friend (Uma Thurman) off as herself when a caller comes a-courtin'.<br /><br />This is an interesting film in the fascinating career of Ben Chaplin. An average British actor, he gave the Hollywood treadmill a shot with this film. He is unremarkable and his anonymity in studio productions is unsurprising on the basis of it, although he has appeared in substantial cameos in both the later Terence Malick films. Uma Thurman does a ditzy turn on autopilot and Michael Lehmann packages it all together competently. Icky phone sex though. 4/10
|
negative
|
"The Desperadoes" (1943) is a genuine classic, not for its story (which is fairly routine), but for its technical production elements. This was a landmark western, the biggest ever at the time of its release and all the more unique because it was a Columbia production-a lightweight studio with a bottom feeding reputation. Only Fox's "Jesse James" (also starring Randolph Scott) from a few years earlier gave anywhere near this lavish a treatment to the genre. Although it would be eclipsed in a few years by "The Searchers" and "High Noon", "The Desperadoes" was a ground breaking effort and a historical treasure. <br /><br />In 1863, the economy in the town of Red Valley, Utah is based on rounding up and selling wild horses to the Union Army. The script gets a little messed up here with references to the railroad (which was several years away in Utah's future) and Custer's Last Stand (Custer was busy fighting Stuart in Pennsylvania at the time) but these are not important plot elements. <br /><br />Red Valley has an honest sheriff, Steve Upton (Scott), but the banker and several citizens are corrupt; robbing their own bank each time the government pays for a herd of horses. The town is visited by Cheyenne Rogers (Glenn Ford), a famous outlaw who is an old friend Steve's. He wants to go straight, especially after falling for the pretty livery stable owner Alison McLeod (Evelyn Keyes). Cheyenne's partner "Nitro" Rankin (Guinn "Big Boy" Williams) is mainly there for comic relief as are Uncle Willie McLeod (Edgar Buchanan) and the town judge (Raymond Walburn who models his character on Frank Morgan's "Wizard of Oz" crystal ball faker). <br /><br />Taking no chances with their huge budget Columbia packed this thing with tons of action and every western movie element but Indians and covered wagons. There is the best wild horse stampede ever filmed, a spectacular barroom brawl, an explosive climax, romance, and three-strip Technicolor. All this stuff doesn't necessarily fit together but who would have cared back in 1943. Unity is a problem as it tries to be both a serious action western and a comedy. <br /><br />The cinematography was probably the best ever at the time of its filming. The indoor scenes are solid but it is the naturalistic outdoor photography that is truly impressive; both the lyrical static shots and the moving camera filming of the action sequences. <br /><br />Scott and Claire Trevor were top billed, but the studio clearly wanted to promote Ford, who would soon be their biggest star. And Director Charles Vidor utilized the film to showcase his new wife Keyes (whose portrayal of Scarlett's sister in "Gone With the Wind" had connected with audiences more than any small part in the history of films). <br /><br />The Ford-Keyes dynamic is "The Desperadoes" most unique and important feature. Rather than go for the cliché "love triangle" with Scott and/or Trevor (which it first appears will happen), the entire romantic focus is on the two younger actors. This was probably the best role Keyes ever got and she makes the most of it. Playing a tomboyish but extremely sexy young woman who looks great in both leather pants and dresses, and who rides and fights like Kiera Knightley's character in "Pirates of the Caribbean". This was revolutionary at the time and coincided with the 1942 formation of the WAAC for WWII military service. <br /><br />"The Desperadoes" is one film that has been well taken care of and the print looks like it is brand new. Unfortunately there are no special features on the DVD. <br /><br />Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.
|
positive
|
This movie is all flash and no soul. The actors put a lot of passion into the numbers, but these numbers often didn't connect with the film and felt like stand-alone music videos. And no effort was made to make the numbers sound as if they were happening right there in front of you, every single one sounds like its coming from a studio, essentially sucking all the life from the songs. Off the stage the performances were all dull and unrealized, especially Hudson, who essentially plays the same angry, "strong" (she's stubborn and selfish) black woman we've seen before. There was absolutely no depth to her character, nor any of the other female leads. Though I think the movie wants us to believe that Hudson's character faces hardship because of her weight, it is really her own refusal to do what's best for the team that lands her in trouble, making the end of the film totally meaningless. Hudson's Academy Award is a joke, there was no justification. When she sang, she put forth emotion (though it was often misplaced, but this was the writer/director's fault), but when she was just acting, she did nothing to flesh out an already underwritten character. Eddie Murphy's character is the only one with an arc, and he did a fine job, but still not Oscar worthy. The only actor who really brought something to the roll was Danny Glover, who took a small, relatively unimportant character and made something real out of it. There is nothing here to sink your teeth into, no drama or heart, or even laughs. The placement of the musical numbers was so bad that at times the movie almost seemed to be making fun of musicals instead of being one; the number when Hudson is arguing with the other girls is so long-winded if it had been any longer it could pass for a Family Guy skit. The movie has no idea what it's about, and I felt insulted by the last few minutes. It's a big, boring waste of time, and really is the worst film I saw in '06, and nothing last year was really stellar to begin with.
|
negative
|
I haven't seen the more recent 'Traffic' which is based on this, but I'd bet on this one as the better creation. I know of no other movie that has so well portrayed the intricate tragedies of the drug trade and the 'war on drugs." I've watched this one at least four times and am enjoying it again as part of Masterpiece Theatre's 30th anniversary presentations.
|
positive
|
It is definitely not worth spending either money or time. It is the same hackneyed plot of a guy and a girl meeting and falling in love. But this is with a western touch. But it fails miserably in either depicting a love story or giving it the western touch. Never do we feel that the hero and heroin are in love. There is no depth to either of their characters. Probably, with a better cast, some justice could have been brought about to the characters. Finally, it is a movie with no fun, no acting, no theme, no plot, no comedy , no action, no thrill, no romance (i associate romance to something more passionate). Definitely not a movie you would want to go with your family. Overall, if you are looking for a movie with some content, this is definitely not an option. I shall wait for the day when bollywood movies are something that i can wait to watch and i can refer to my friends as a "must watch" movie.
|
negative
|
For quite a long time in my life, I either did not like this film, or I liked this film but not as much as many more. I watched it recently (at a sleepover, funnily enough) and I liked it more than I had done since I was under 6 or something. I now appreciate it more, as I do with a few other Disney classics that I have watched recently (including "Sleeping Beauty" and "Pinnochio" or however you spell it). <br /><br />I now very much appreciate the animation, the clever "Disney" plot turns, the humour from the mice, the emotions expressed and the plot. The animation is very well done, often it seems you are wherever the other characters are, watching them. The animation also does well portraying the styles of the backgrounds, including the town (which is shown twice briefly). Disney changes this from the original fairy tale in a surprisingly good way, injecting clever plot turns ,such as the mice making the clothes and the key part (usually I do not like Disney films very much if they are not that similar to the original story, but with this I am not overly bothered. I feel they made necessary changes to make this a good Disney film. Often I do not think Disney changed the book in a good way in some of their films). <br /><br />You know the story already, Cinderella is a girl working for her horrible stepmother and stepsisters. She goes to a ball with the help of her fairy godmother and loses a glass slipper...<br /><br />This is a film very much to be watched with other people. Immediate family is not good enough. To enjoy this, I recommend you watch it with friends (and immediate family, if you like. :-) ). <br /><br />I recommend this to people who like Disney at least a little bit, people who like fairy tales and for people who like mice. Enjoy! :-)
|
positive
|
I give this movie 2 stars purely because of its slightly liberal plot line. Without going into too much detail.<br /><br />The acting in this movie is terrible. Really terrible - wooden, shallow.<br /><br />The graffiti on show is weak, so bloody weak that I can only wonder why they bothered to use graffiti artists at all. IT was obvious in the spraying scenes that they'd gotten other people in to do the 'work'. They might as well have let the actors do the painting and saved themselves a few cents.<br /><br />I would avoid this film at all costs.<br /><br />The kid loco soundtrack used to be something I listened to on my iPod, its going to be a while before I can go back there for fear of this movie coming back into my mind.<br /><br />Avoid at all costs. Unless you are thinking to yourself "Wow, its been a while since I've seen a really sh*t movie...."
|
negative
|
<br /><br />`<br /><br />5 Years ago if you were to watch an Australian film you would expect to see crocodile hunters, stories of war, drag queens, kangaroos and koalas, and Australians in general being represented as nitwits living off the land, saying words like cobber' and generally being the classic underdog.<br /><br />Luckily Australian film has evolved over the last couple years and is churning out modern day classics' such as Blackrock, Moulin Rouge, Chopper, Yolngu Boy and Sample People.<br /><br />In this evolution of film we also find Two Hands.<br /><br />Set in Sydney's Kings Cross, Two Hands is a black comedy about crime and survival in the rough end of town. Pando, played by Bryan Brown, is a Sydney Mob boss. He's the king of organised crime wearing thongs, carrying a stubby and helping his son with his origami. He's vicious, but real. As are his mob', holding gun's to someone's head in one scene and then playing boardgames in the next. They are well respected and if they ask you for a favour, you don't say no.<br /><br />Enter Jimmy, played by Heath Ledger. Jimmy is your average Aussie guy in his early twenties. He's a good guy who wants to make a name for himself without getting on anyone's bad side, so when Pando asks Jimmy to deliver $10,000, Jimmy accepts.<br /><br />Things start to get exciting when 2 teenagers manage to steal the money while Jimmy is at the beach. So now Jimmy is $10,000 in dept to a major mob boss. From here we start to see all the interconnecting stories with Jimmy and his attempt at a bank robbery to recover the money, Jimmy and Alex (the love interest, played by Rose Byrne), Pando trying to find Jimmy and, of course, the two teenagers and their new found prosperity. The concept is deepened by the narrator, Jimmy's dead brother, Michael, who was killed by Pando and his gang years earlier.<br /><br />In the end all the storylines connected really well with a surprise twist to shock and stun the audience. I thoroughly enjoyed it.<br /><br />
|
positive
|
I saw this film when it premiered in LA. I think I laughed 2 or three times. The rest of the time I was in shock at how ridiculous/poorly shot and poorly written it was. Kirby is in fact the only saving grace in the film. I was disappointed at the performance of Larry Bagby , whom I usually find entertaining. If you enjoy watching your friend's crappy homemade short films that they shot on their mom's 8mm video camera then there's a slight chance you might enjoy this film. Then again part of what makes those movies enjoyable is that it's your buddies playing all the parts. You don't know these people so you'll probably find it as dull and stupid as I did. Dear Mr. Nelson, go back to film school, intern for a while as a PA or a grip or some low level job so you can see how things are properly done in film . Then look for as long as you must to find a Director of Photography who knows what f. stop means, make sure he has ND filter on hand. Then try again. Repeat as many times as needed.
|
negative
|
I don't care if some people voted this movie to be bad. If you want the Truth this is a Very Good Movie! It has every thing a movie should have. You really should Get this one.
|
positive
|
Without a doubt, the biggest waste of film of the year. This movie is poorly structured, sadistic, cruel and filled with unlikable characters. On top of that, and maybe the worst crime, it's uninteresting and vastly predictable. As soon as Bill Pullman's character doodled on the photo changing the word from "evidence" to "violence," I had the entire plot figured out. There are no surprises and there is no compelling reason to watch this trash. The only redeeming feature for me is that I saw this thing for free on my HDNet cable and didn't waste any money. I would truly be angry if I had paid to see it in a theatre.<br /><br />Anyone that labels this thing a thriller really needs to get out more. An awful, awful film in every way that matters.
|
negative
|
Alas, poor Hamlet. I knew him, dear reader, and let me tell thee, THIS VERSION SUCKS! I don't know who of all people put up the money for this flotsam, but I hope that they're proud of themselves. They took THE classic play and turned it into the most boring melodrama imaginable. This version is quite literally so bad, that not even the presence of a great thespian like Maximilian Schell in the title role can save it. This movie's only redeeming quality is that it made great fodder for "MST3K"; Mike, Servo and Crow had a lot of fun with this one.<br /><br />But either way, I'm sure that Shakespeare, had he been alive when they made this, would not have wanted his name associated with it. This "Hamlet" is not even so bad that's it good; it's just plain bad. Absolutely dreadful.
|
negative
|
I say remember where and when you saw this show because I believe if Fox gives Talk Show a chance Spike will be right up there with Conan in a few years because like Conan he is incredibly funny and seems to be just grateful at having his own show which adds to the humor.<br /><br />The funniest bits Spike has had so far are The Idiot Paparatzi and Comedy For Stoners and if your not high and get CFS what does that say about you. <br /><br />In summary this show is funnier in 25 minutes than SNL in an hour so lets hope Talk Show gets the attention it deserves such as an extra half hour, more money and a band.
|
positive
|
"An evil spirit takes over a girl and diffuses panic in the Louvre museum" that's all I think, the summary of the movie and the movie itself ! Which I think it's one of the worst French or non French movies ever made in the history of cinema ! <br /><br />Nothing good in here except the music (of the credits only !), some tender moments of (Sophie Marceau), and of course the movie's finale shot.. Not because it ends ages of what seemed to be a countless years we had in watching THAT CRAP but also for being so perfect as one magical C.G.I work that was too good to be true in here ! <br /><br />By the way I want to change the plot summary to be like this "An evil spirit takes over some cinema artists to make lousy movies".. Just like this one for sure.
|
negative
|
this was a get up and go horror movie with an intelligent cast and a director with great vision to really capture the mood of the story i highly recommend this movie
|
positive
|
www.petitiononline.com/19784444/petition.html An excellent TV series that should be captured on DVD. This was a show I rarely missed. I found a petition to bring it back on DVD. I recall one show where this obese lady wore a pair of glasses that let her food talk to her. Needless to say she could not eat her friends so she starved to death. Another episode had an accountant visiting an underground sewer & subway security branch. The accountant wanted to shut down the funding for the project. As it turns out the security branch was underfunded to fight the cannibalistic creatures that lived in the dark. www.petitiononline.com/19784444/petition.html
|
positive
|
The plot was quite interesting, with the Russian revolution background. I also enjoyed seeing Budapest as the movie was partly filmed there. Sadly, there was zero chemistry between the 2 main characters so it was hard to believe the love story between them. The love scenes were forced and mechanical. Jordan kirckland was really stiff, almost icy. Rob Stewart was quite charming and boyish, so she looked like his older sister rather than his girlfriend. The ending, when we finally figure out who was actually after them, was quite weak and made no sense whatsoever. I think I would have enjoyed this movie a lot better if the relationship between the 2 actors was slightly more credible.
|
negative
|
Venice, in 1596.Jews are separated from the good Christians.Bassanio, a young but poor Venetian loves the fair Portia, who is a wealthy heiress.So he approaches his friend, a merchant called Antonio for three thousand ducats to travel to Belmont and propose Portia.All of Antonio's ships and merchandise are busy at sea, so he turns to the moneylender Shylock, the one of Jewish faith.Shylock does not like Antonio, for he spat on his face.He offers Antonio a three-month loan at no interest, but if he will not pay the money in that time, he will own a pound of his flesh.Also, Shylock's daughter Jessica elopes with the Christian Lorenzo.The Merchant of Venice is based on William Shakespeare's play that's believed to have written between 1596 and 1598.I read the play last summer and now I've seen the movie, made in 2004 by Michael Radford.I liked the play, and I don't quite agree with the accusations of it being anti-Semitic.The Jewish character does not appear as an inhuman monster, even though he's ready to cut a piece of Antonio's flesh.There's a lot of depth in his character, which all comes out in his speech where he asks "If you prick us, do we not bleed?" and so forth.There is much more human in Shylock's character than in one of Antonio's, who spits on the good Jew.Al Pacino is unbeatable as Shylock.He gives such a strong performance.Jeremy Irons is also terrific as Antonio.Lynn Collins is most beautiful and brilliant in the role of Portia.Zuleikha Robinson does great job as Jessica, and Charlie Cox as Lorenzo is also very good.Kris Marshall plays Gratiano, and he does a good job.In the role of Nerissa we see Heather Goldenhersh.Mackenzie Crook plays Launcelot Gobbo.As in Shakespeare plays usually, also this one contains most brilliant dialogue.The movie paints a fantastic portray of the era.It deals with some great issues, in a Shakespearian way.
|
positive
|
It's a very good movie, not only for the fans of Lady Death comics, but also for those who like animated movies/series of adventure and fantasy.<br /><br />The film is about a innocent girl who is about killed for something she hadn't done, but for be who she is daughter of the ruler of hell, Lucifer himself.<br /><br />Then she seeks revenge...and the rest you better see it from the movie.<br /><br />I liked the movie a lot, the characters are like the original comics, form Chaos. I never had the chance of read the the first parts of the story in comics, only the last ones, after the passages in the movie, so I cannot tell you if the events are exactly like the comics, but...one way or another it's the story of Lady Death!
|
positive
|
How many disaster movies can there be before we get tired of them. Come on, we can see them on the Discovery channel all day long.<br /><br />I agree with the comment that the first part of this movie is just a soap opera. The Great Predictor's grandson makes a prediction and everybody starts moaning about how he is ruining the family name. The evil mother-in-law convinces the wife to throw him out into the arms of his mistress, whom she wants to meet. Can you believe that? The wife wants to approve the new wife! At the same time the mistress' has someone in love with her that doesn't have a wife, but she sends him packing.<br /><br />Now, that the soap opera is over, the earthquake appears.<br /><br />The special effects are really good, but the dubbing is bad. That is why I like subtitled films. The actors are all very experienced and have won many awards, so you will get to see some of Japan's best in an oft-repeated story.<br /><br />But, the soap-opera story returns with a kitchy ending.
|
negative
|
This is truly, without exaggerating, one of the worst Slasher movies ever made. I know, it came out in the 80's following a tendency started by "Friday the 13th". "The Prey" copies the fore-mentioned movie in many aspects. The woods setting, the killer, the dumb teens, the gore, etc.<br /><br />But "The Prey" is as bad as you might expect. I didn't even remember about it if it wasn't for coincidence.<br /><br />Well, the killer is in fact human so don't expect a supernatural killer in the likes of Jason. The situations rather boring and lack of tension, gore, violence, etc. It just does not works for a slasher flick.<br /><br />The acting is simply horrid. The score is horrible! a combination of boring instruments with cheesy 80's tunes?! I won't even mention the technical aspects of the movie because believe me, it seems that it cost only 20 dollars.<br /><br />Please avoid this one like the plague. It's one of the worst movies I've ever seen, and that's something to say. Thank God it seems to have vanished from earth.
|
negative
|
The tenuous connection between this film and the first Grease is established right at the beginning of the film when Didi Conn one of four cast members repeating their roles approaches young Maxwell Caulfield who is a British exchange student. Although in the previous film Olivia Newton St. John's foreign speech pattern is not explained, it's explained here Caulfield is her cousin. What's Conn still doing in school, I guess she just likes hanging around Rydell High even though now she's a beautician.<br /><br />Caulfield's a smart kid, so of course the hood types led by Adrian Zmed have him labeled as a nerd. And that's especially bad when Zmed's girl friend decides she likes Caulfield. But being a nerd just isn't going to cut it.<br /><br />That's when Caulfield decides to put on a modern day Zorro act. He gets a junked bicycle and puts it back together and teaches himself to ride. He gets himself a leather biker outfit with a set of goggles to hide his face. If getting Michelle Pheiffer is not in the cards, Caulfield won't have any trouble making friends at any gay male leather bar the way he's outfitted.<br /><br />Grease 2 introduced Michelle Pheiffer and Maxwell Caulfield and started them on the successful career paths both have enjoyed. If you saw the first Grease film, a much better film, than you definitely have an idea how this film will turn out.<br /><br />In addition to Conn, Eve Arden, Sid Caesar, and Dody Goodman, all faculty members from the original Grease return in their roles. The music score isn't remotely as good as the songs that come from the original.<br /><br />It's not that Grease 2 is bad, it's just not all that great.
|
negative
|
Mystery Science Theater 3000 would have not been able to bring any redeeming quality to a showing of this "gem." <br /><br />This one is like a cheesy pirate copy of 80's porn you could have purchased on VHS from an arcade on 42nd st. before Disney bought the whole smash and closed them all down. <br /><br />But, wait - all the sex scenes have been cut. I challenge anyone to find a worse film. This film could replace water-boarding as a humane method of interrogation. <br /><br />No, I take that back - I would prefer water-boarding. <br /><br />The only credit this movie could earn apart from being the worst movie ever made would be to threaten the middle east into solving its problems under pain of having to watch this movie.
|
negative
|
I saw this film knowing absolutely nothing about both it and its stars, Chris Farley and David Spade, and I have to say that this film is a comic classic. It is so stupid at times that it can only be hilarious. Farley is brilliant as the bumbling idiot who takes to the road with his dad's right hand man (the equally excellent Spade) to find the funding to save the families 'auto parts' business. Relax, put your brain on auto-pilot and soak up the fun. A great supporting cast features film favourites such as Brian Dennehy (Cocoon), Rob Lowe (Wayne's World) and Bo Derek ("10"). Highly recommended for a good laugh.
|
positive
|
When Ben (Red Foxx) discovers his wife Beatrice (Pearl Bailey) has run off with his own brother, he rushes to his son Norman (Michael Warren) to unload his tale of woe--only to discover that Norman has a secret lover: the effeminate Garson (Dennis Dugan.) Needless to say, Ben does not take it well, and numerous complications follow--including Ben's attempt to get Norman over being homosexual by fixing him up with a hooker (Tammy Dobson.) Unfortunately, this description of the movie sounds a great deal more entertaining than the movie itself.<br /><br />Originally written for the theatre by Ron Clark and Sam Bobrick, NORMAN... IS THAT YOU? was an absolute disaster on the New York stage. To give the play its due, I actually saw it staged in the 1970s as a community theatre production--and while no one would accuse it of being anything other than a shallow farce, the cast played so broadly and in such drop-dead manner that it proved quite amusing. It is a pity the cast of this film didn't do the same.<br /><br />This is an atrociously performed motion picture. Red Foxx, one of the most hilarious comics of the 20th century, is about as funny here as yesterday's wash, Michael Warren (who later appeared on the television series HILL STREET BLUES to much better effect) competes with Foxx to see who can give the worst performance, and Pearl Bailey is not far behind; truth be told, only Dennis Duggan, Tammy Dobson, and a cameo by Wayland Flowers have any spark--and sadly, that is only in comparison with the rest of the cast.<br /><br />Not only is the film badly performed, it looks bad. According to film lore, this was the first big screen effort to be filmed in videotape, which was then transfered to celluloid for project purposes--and believe me, it shows. The film has the look of a bad 1970s sitcom right down to the painted skyline seen through the windows of Norman and Garson's apartment.<br /><br />Some films are so bad that they become funny, but NORMAN... IS THAT YOU? isn't one of them. I can sum up my reaction to this film in two words: miss it. Don't buy it, don't rent it, don't touch it with a ten foot pole. Just back away slowly and then run like hell.<br /><br />Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer
|
negative
|
I would have been about 11 years old when this movie was first released. All these years later at 37 and I had no qualms hiring it on DVD. Great entertainment for all ages. And what about the song The Rainbow Connection? See:<br /><br />Why are there so many songs about rainbows And what's on the other side? Rainbows are visions, but only illusions, And rainbows have nothing to hide. So we've been told and some choose to believe it I know they're wrong, wait and see. Someday we'll find it, the rainbow connection, The lovers, the dreamers and me.<br /><br />Who said that every wish would be heard and answered When wished on the morning star? Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it, And look what it's done so far. What's so amazing that keeps us stargazing And what do we think we might see? Someday we'll find it, the rainbow connection, The lovers, the dreamers, and me.<br /><br />All of us under its spell, We know that it's probably magic...<br /><br />... Have you been half asleep? And have you heard voices? I've heard them calling my name. ... Is this the sweet sound that calls the young sailors? The voice might be one and the same I've heard it too many times to ignore it It's something that I'm s'posed to be... Someday we'll find it, the rainbow connection, The lovers, the dreamers, and me.<br /><br />Laa, da daa dee da daa daa, La laa la la laa dee daa doo...
|
positive
|
What is it with studios like Paramount that have a proven hit film series on their hands, and figure it can screw around with the budget and formula? Paramount spent less on this film than they did on TMP, which doesn't sound bad until you realize that there's a 10 gap between when the films were made. The $40 TMP cost to make would be equivalent to about $75 million in 1989. This film is the reason that Shatner has never been given a fair chance to direct other films, as well. Every time he turned around, the studio was slashing the budget and making demands regarding the storyline. The fact that this was the one storyline that Roddenberry and Shatner could agree upon for the most part made the freshman directorial task tough enough, but after all the machinations were done, all anyone ended up with was an uneven story and a load of badly executed special effects not worthy of the original series, much less a major motion picture. The most glaring examples: - All of the Phaser effects were severely ashed out and fake-looking. - The shot of the Enterprise going into the great barrier was so obviously a still-frame shot being zoomed away from. At least the popsicle stick that held the Enterprise cut out up was successfully matted out. - God "chasing" Kirk up the mountain... Egads, they may as well have just cut in shots of Godzilla climbing the volcano at the end of "Godzilla 1985," and used thumbtacks to scratch the emulsion off of the film to make electric bolts come out of his eyes at the imperiled Captain Kirk.... Yes, friends, I have a real problem with the look of that last scene, especially.<br /><br />Thank goodness Star Trek VI was such a redeemer of a film...
|
negative
|
Wow! So much fun! Probably a bit much for normal American kids, and really it's a stretch to call this a kid's film, this movie reminded me a quite a bit of Time Bandits - very Terry Gilliam all the way through. While the overall narrative is pretty much straight forward, Miike still throws in A LOT of surreal and Bunuel-esquire moments. The whole first act violently juxtaposes from scene to scene the normal family life of the main kid/hero, with the spirit world and the evil than is ensuing therein. And while the ending does have a bit of an ambiguous aspect that are common of Miike's work, the layers of meaning and metaphor, particularly the anti-war / anti-revenge message of human folly, is pretty damn poignant. As manic and imaginatively fun as other great Miike films, only instead of over the top torture and gore, he gives us an endless amount of monsters and yokai from Japanese folk-lore creatively conceived via CG and puppetry wrapped into an imaginative multi-faceted adventure. F'n rad, and one of Miike's best!
|
positive
|
This movie is about a fictional soap opera. It is very fast and funny. To say anything else would ruin the movie. There are several plots and sub plots in the movie. This movie has ensemble cast with today's hottest stars. They all gives over the top performances. This movie is favorite of mine from the year 1991. Soapdish is perfect for fans of either daytime soap opera /or prime time soap opera!!!If you watch soap go check this movie it's hilarious!!!
|
positive
|
Half of the movie is is flashing lights and shaky camera. The rest is made up of predictable characters (think science vs. government, 'know-how' vs. authority, etc.) <br /><br />What is the worst aspect about this movie? Is it the cars being thrown around in the first 5 minutes, is the horrible 'Russian' accent of the 'cosmonaut', is it the uninspired characters, the poorly integrated Top 40 hits, or the "US will save the world" vitriol? No. It's the fact that regardless of the "sad" ending - there is very little suspense in this movie - we basically know what's going to happen.<br /><br />The one good part of this movie: "American components, Russian components: all made in Taiwan!"
|
negative
|
"Love and Human Remains" is one of those obviously scripted, obviously acted, obviously staged flicks which is so obvious that the escape velocity from its contrivances and fabrication is beyond me. Not worth explaining, this amateurish flick tries to cram every clever line, every misanthropic overtone, every peculiar sexual predilection into one film with an absence of concern for making the pieces fit. In short, sensationalistic crap without the sensation...which pretty much just leaves crap.
|
negative
|
Nothing positive to say. Meandering nonsense, huffing and puffing with a "message". New Russian (post-Soviet) films can be very good (Cuckoo comes to mind), yet many have the bouquet of cardboard and the aftertaste of asbestos (Nochnoi Dozor would be a good example). This is a "dozor" type of emptiness. Acting would be horrible if not for the saving grace of utterly unappealing direction and incompetent editing that sometimes is so awful that it distracts from the impotence of the actors. Special award to the cameraman for making sure that every shot is shaky (would someone please realize that Blair Witch has had its 15 seconds of undeserved fame?) and takes are geared towards attention-deficit pre-teens who subside on CounterStrike and masturbation. The female lead poses and tries to look seductive too often, male antihero need a diction coach (although genetics aren't bad: rather expressive eyes.) One (middle) finger for this irrelevant pile of non-art. Anyone who reviews this positively better be a (distant) cousin of the "auteurs".
|
negative
|
It was so terrible. It wasn't fun to watch at all. Even the scene where the girl is using a vibrator, even that's not fun to watch in this movie. I say again, the scene where a girl is masturbating with a vibrator is not even fun to watch. Or maybe if that was the only part of the movie that you watched, just girl on couch using a vibrator. Maybe they should have just released that one scene in theaters, maybe then the movie would be enjoyable on a certain level. My advice, fast forward to that point, watch it, rewind the movie, watch it again, rewind, repeat. Maybe you could enjoy yourself for 2 hours that way. This movie ranks alongside I spit on your grave and Doom generation in the category of worst movies that I have ever seen.
|
negative
|
This film is one of those that can't be regarded by its outwardness. Indeed, at a first sight, it seems that the story simply focus the desire of have more money. But..let's take a look on the other side...What do you see? You see that the money is only a metaphor for the ambiguous feelings the human being have:Should I do the right thing, or should't I? And... what's the "right thing"? Le's make a deeper analyses... -What does it mean a little town in the border? - It means that sometimes we can go too close to the border of doing something we thought we couldn't... - What does it mean the arid soil shown in this picture? - It means the dryness that sometimes take possession ot our offensed hearts... - What does it mean the phrase of the character (KRISTEN) :"Now I belong to him"? - It means the loss of our free will, due to our unpremeditated deeds. In MY OPINION that's the writer of the story and the director tried to "tell" us. By the way...do you remember what another character (JACK BARNES)said:"Nothing is so simple..."
|
positive
|
you must be seeing my comments over many films under Evren Buyruk ..I am off to make another comment over a movie that is not even worth a minute of talking though..This film is basically two hours of Dafoe's character drinking himself - nearly literally - to death. The only surprise in this film is that you didn't have enough clues or character knowledge to be surprised. It was just a grim, sad waste of time.<br /><br />Willem Dafoe is excellent actor. Peter Stormare is an excellent actor. But this film just sucked. Slow doesn't make the movie bad, it was just bad. The sketchy plot mixed with artistic ramblings of anamorphic detail aren't cohesively drawn together in a meaningful way for a plot except to highlight some gore which is illustrated from several perspectives, finally at the end. I really appreciate the artistic vision, but as entertainment, it put me to sleep. (Seriously, I fell asleep and had to re-watch the film - which was even more disappointing.) I generally don't like to make negative comments or reviews on the works of others, even when they suck, but this film warranted one. It's just too bad that these great actors were shamed with this end result.
|
negative
|
This film with fine production values features secrets and how friends use each other. Henry May Long is a very well-acted, dimly lit, depressing turn-of-the-century period piece about a friendship between a fatally ill man and a melancholy, indebted junkie. Talky drawing room dramas are not my cup of tea, and all the crying wears thin. Recommended if you like independent, slyly intellectual, slow-paced Merchant Ivory-type features. <br /><br />I suspected that the main characters were in love, but their connection was so intimated, it didn't really have the emotional impact of 'Brokeback Mountain.' It features some good writing with a scene discussing how to disappear in life, but it is truly a dark and depressing film.
|
negative
|
"Men of honor" - true story about a proud and persistent black navy diver (fabulous Cuba Gooding Jr.) is definitely a great movie that both touches and entertains and it's part of the absolute cream of the new millennium cinema. Wonderful acting is the main reason to make this movie something truly special and pretty enjoyable, splendid experience. Charismatic Robert De Niro is marvelous as rough, fierce and pitiless chief Billy Sunday - role is practically written for him. This film alongside with fantastic "15 minutes" (2001) are two of the latest proofs that he's still one of the very finest actors of our time. On the other hand "Men of honor" includes a fine performance from Cuba Gooding Jr. who has been one of the most promising young black actors since "Boyz n the hood". "Men of honor" goes straight into the company of "Jerry Maguire", "As good as it gets" and "Instinct". Cuba Gooding Jr. is a skillful and fantastic actor and I'm prepared to get lots of more terrific movies from him. "Men of honor" has also quite an excellent story-line and probably the most exciting diving sequences of the movie history. This is a great, fascinating movie and I can only recommend it.
|
positive
|
This movie was a confusing piece of garbage. You never knew what was going on. The characters were poorly written and for the most part they were totally unsympathetic except for Gus (played masterfully by George Eads). I hate this movie but compared to others (Dark Harvest, Dracula's Curse) it should have won an academy award. It was particularly sad to see a talented actor like George Eads in such a disgraceful and tacky film. Lifetime you have sunken to whole new low. Someone needs to make sure that this director never works in movies again. Also was this supposed to be a horror film because it was a lot more funny than scary. For shame Lifetime, For shame.
|
negative
|
Okay, so Robbie's a little hokey-looking by today's standards, and some of the acting is pretty stilted, and most of the special effects could now be duplicated by a bright 12 year old kid with a decent computer editing program. And don't get me started about the poster.<br /><br />This is STILL a great movie, 40 years after it was released. I grew up watching "science fiction" on the local TV station's "Science Fiction/Adventure Theater" on Sunday afternoons, so I've seen quite a few SF movies from the '50s. At a time when most movies were content to slap a rubber costume on somebody and have him demolish a miniature model of a city, Forbidden Planet forever raised the bar and showed that it was possible to make a science fiction movie which actually had a plot.<br /><br />I doubt that many SF movies made in the '90s will still be considered worth watching in 2030.
|
positive
|
People call a 976 "party line" to talk dirty to strangers, and perhaps meet up for a sexual liason. A deranged, somewhat incestuous sister and occasional transvestite brother use the line to find people to kill, usually married men, but they don't discriminate! A pair of sixteen year old girls also call the line for fun, pretending to be older, of course. One of them works as a babysitter for a married man who's hot for her (or anyone).<br /><br />Meanwhile, a vice cop is borrowed by homicide when he's the first to discover one of the siblings' victims. He's teamed with a female assistant of the District Attorney.<br /><br />Nothing too special here. Richard Roundtree has little more than a cameo as the police chief. One of the dirty-talking sixteen year olds is played by an actress who also voiced Peanuts character Peppermint Patty! According to the IMDb, the other died quite young, just several years after this movie: sad.
|
negative
|
I had a vague idea of who Bettie Page was, partly due to her appearance in the very wee days of Playboy (apparently, when she got her photo taken of her and her Santa hat, just that, she didn't know what the mag was). The movie, co-written and directed by American Psycho's Mary Harron, fleshes out the key parts of her life well enough. A southern belle of a church goer has some bad experiences and leaves them behind to seek better times in New York City, where she gets into modeling, and from there a lot more. Soon, she becomes the underground pin-up sensation, with bondage the obvious (and "notorious" of the title) trait attributed to her. The actress Gretchen Moll portrays her, and gets down the spirit of this woman about as well as she could, which is really a lot of the success of the film. She's not a simplistic character, even if at times her ideas of morality are questionable ("well, Adam and Eve were naked, weren't they?" she comments a couple of times). Apparently, the filmmakers leave out the later years of Page's life and leave off with her in a kind of redemptive period, leaving behind the photo shoots for Jesus.<br /><br />In all, the Notrious Bettie Page is not much more than a kind of usual bio-pic presented by HBO films, albeit this time with the stamina for a feature-film release. The best scenes that Harron captures are Page in her "questionable" positions, getting photos of her in over-the-top poses and starring in ridiculous films of whips and chains and leather uniforms. This adds a much needed comic relief to the film's otherwise usual nature. It's not that the story behind it is uninteresting, which involves the government's investigation into the 'smut' that came out of such photos and underground magazines. But there isn't much time given to explore more of what is merely hinted at, with Page and her complexities or her relationships or to sex and the fifties. It's all given a really neat black and white look and sometimes it seemed as if Harron was progressing some of the black and white photos to be tinted more as it went along. It's a watchable view if you're not too knowledgeable of Bette Page, and probably for fans too.
|
positive
|
A trash classic! Basically what we have here is a story about a couple of American teenagers (one male, one female both beautiful people of course) who seem to be psychically linked, in that every time both of them fall asleep, they can inhabit each others dreams and express each others innermost desires... think Mills & Boon meets X-files and you'll be somewhere near the mark. Actually, its more like an unhappy hybrid between one of Ed Wood's famously bad B- movies and a particularly silly episode of Melrose Place, so tacky are the special-effects and so amateurish is the acting. The actors who inhabit (I wouldn't say act in) this flick say their lines like they're reading from cue cards and pout when they're supposed to be showing an emotion, and it comes as no great shock (or loss to the industry) that they have since faded into obscurity. The whole thing is just a laughably misguided mixture of styles that don't go together at all, and the end result is a intriguing curiosity that no doubt will be lapped up by purveyors of so-bad-they're-good films in years to come. I'll probably be the only person who ever comments on this film, but if you are reading and have seen it please get back, it gets kinda lonely round here...
|
negative
|
Yet again not quite bad enough to make it enjoyable. In fact this one is just boring. It's reasonably well made, even though the script is bad, the effects are OK and the acting average. (Apart from James Mason who is always great, but in this one underused)<br /><br />I suppose it is hard to write anything about this film because it didn't evoke any reaction in me what so ever.<br /><br />Dull, dull, dull, dull, dull.
|
negative
|
Seeing that this got a theatrical release nowhere around the globe, it only serves as a reminder of were the careers of those talent-free ladies Denise Richards and Milla Jovovich went. It also is a particular grating kind of movie, the kind that think they are smart, funny and original while being poor in every aspect. Full blame can go to Brian Burns, who wrote and directed this potboiler. His script takes a quite unoriginal situation and goes exactly nowhere with it. The situations develop completely without any inner logic, besides that of a desperate scriptwriter. Characters are thinner than cardboard cutouts, behave stupid and without any real motivation. Nowhere is this more obvious than in the inclusion of Mrs. Richards. We don't believe her relationship with David Krumholtz's character for one minute and the way she is brought back into play after the one-hour mark is particularly pitiful. Why would anyone fall for a egocentric, self-obsessed, arrogant b**ch like this in the first place, much less a second time? Especially after having supposedly found his..erm...true love? And if any of these things aren't enough to completely sink this movie, than the central couple is. The coupling of Krumholtz and Jovovich is only slightly more believable or developed than the Richards-one, but it is to no avail. There is no chemistry, no spark, nothing that we might loosely accept as a credible couple. Worse, these two central characters are particularly annoying and irritating, doing annoying and irritating things the viewer finally has no interest in, whatsoever.<br /><br />Overall, a very poor showing. Even die-hard rom-com fans might want to pass on this one, as there are dozens of movie made with more skill or more charm.
|
negative
|
I first saw this film in the mid 60's when I was a teenager, and it moved me so much, in fact the end scene where Han Suyin hears of Mark's death, and then rushes to the hill in disbelief, where you then hear Mark's voice saying "Give Me Your Hand", and then the image of him disappears, the butterfly with it's superstitious meaning, the music, the shattered emotions of Love of Han Suyin, just left me sobbing my heart out. I was outwardly crying bitterly, my mother and sister looked up and were shocked at my reaction. I just left the room to be on my own. Fortunately I do not react like that any more BUT I always cry at the end. I love everything about the film, the music mostly, the costumes of Han Suyin, and location. The beauty of Jennifer Jones and the handsome William Holden, they were both at their best. I have the VHS and DVD of this wonderful movie. I also have two versions of the Music & Lyrics by Arthur Newman and Sammy Fain. I also have the book A Many Splendored Thing by Han Suyin. I recommend this film 100%
|
positive
|
Here we have a miniseries, which revels in in its flaws, and doesn't make us cringe because of them...it is excellent story-telling, which fuses black comedy, mateship (in a positive way), the pathetic waste of war, without the sheer unadulterated manipulation of a con-job like Life is Beautiful...it is an entertainment, not the meaning of life...and showcases the talents of actors both young and old...give it a go and tell us what you think...
|
positive
|
The first half was OK, but the last half really, really disappointed. It's funny the producers even admitted they didn't have a clue for the ending, and it really showed. Whats really sad is i have to write ten lines of comment minimum to be able to post this. I really didn't want to include spoilers to qualify my remarks since the show isn't really worth that effort. When Battlestar galatica first came out I was really excited with the prospect of a better remake, it didn't happen that first season border on being space porn. They eventually cleaned it up a bit and actually had some pretty fair drama, so I started watching again. But to end the series with kara being a cyclon god angel, same with baltar and six was pretty dumb.
|
negative
|
Ah, Bait. How do I hate thee? Let me count the ways. 1. You try to be funny, but are corny and unenjoyable; every joke is predictable and expected, and when it comes, does not inspire laughter. Instead, I want to hurl. 2. You try to be dramatic, but are unbelievable; the woman overacts to a terrible degree, and the "bad guy" looks like Bill Gates, and is about as scary as...well, Bill Gates. (Just try to imagine Bill Gates trying to intimidate somebody with a gun. Doesn't work, does it? A lawyer, maybe, but not a gun. Doesn't fit.) As for Jamie Foxx, well, just watching him try to deliver a dramatic and heartfelt dialogue is ludicrous, and makes me want to hurl. 3. You try to be action-packed, but instead are dull and dragging too many times. And when the action heats up, the tripod for the camera must have been lost, for the scenes wobble more than those in The Blair Witch Project, and I find myself nauseated, and once again I want to hurl. 4. You try to be a good movie, but you failed, you FAILED, YOU FAILED! I would rather walk barefoot across the Sahara with a pack full of beef jerky and no water, no sunscreen, and only Meryl Streep for company. This hell would be lovelier than a single minute more spent watching everyone in Bait overact their way through an idiotically written story with Bill Gates for a bad guy, and let's not even talk about the massive bomb that goes off in a car that Jamie Foxx's character has just driven OFF A CLIFF, but somehow manages to escape...just kill me now, or do the right thing and promise me that somehow I'll never have to watch a movie that is this bad, ever again.
|
negative
|
Kol, space prisoner on space death row, manages to hijack a space shuttle and escape to the woods of America where he, along with some new found friend try to escape from the 'Alienator" a female cyborg killing machine. Made one year after the best movie of Fred Olen Ray's career, "Hollywood Chainsaw Hookers", this one can't help but feel like a bit of a letdown. Just as low-budget as that earlier film, but not nearly as fun as I had with it. None of the actors really stood out at me. The film is alright for the undiscriminating viewer during a rainy Saturday afternoon, but that's pretty much all it's good for.<br /><br />My Grade: D+ <br /><br />Where i saw it: Showtime Thriller
|
negative
|
This movie is a perfect example of an excellent book getting ruined by a movie. Jacob Have I Loved is quite possibly the worst film that I have ever seen. There is no storyline, plots disappear, and the editing is awful. To top it all off, the music is straight from a synthesizer and sounds unbelievably terrible. Bridget Fonda's acting is decent, but everyone else's acting is totally amateur. I would suggest this movie to someone who is studying to be a producer as a study on how not to produce a movie as it is chock full of bad cut-scenes, bad transitions and acting that should have been re-shot! Read the book and don't waste your time with this film.
|
negative
|
The songs are fantastic and the story-line is good. Like many other acting schools, mine also produced HAIR. For most hair production it's a golden opportunity to do nude, but my production was fully dressed... I don't think full frontal nudity in a movie or a play guarantees artistic quality... And so did the creators of the movie. The movie version is great with classic hits following each other while letting the plot develop to the chilling climax. A great cast of actors, dancers and singers.
|
positive
|
Set in 1976 for no apparent reason other than to keep the set dressers busy, 'The Box' was directed by Richard Kelly ('Donnie Darko'), and stars Cameron Diaz and James Marsden as Norma and Arthur Lewis, a young couple who are supposedly struggling financially even though they both have successful careers--she as a high school teacher, he as an optical specialist at NASA's Langley, Virginia, Research Center. They have one child, Walter (Sam Oz Stone).<br /><br />One day the Lewises find a parcel on their doorstep, containing a black box with a big red button. There is a note from a 'Mr. Steward' indicating that he will return at 5:00 PM to explain about the box.<br /><br />The mysterious Arlington Steward, played by Frank Langella, shows up at the appointed time, nattily attired in an elegant Savile Row suit. He is polite but businesslike, however his most noticeable feature is his face, half of which appears to have been blown off and improperly attended to. Langella is the only thing worth watching in the movie, however he is unfortunately upstaged by his own makeup, which resembles that of Harvey 'Two Face' Dent (Aaron Eckhart) from Christopher Nolan's 'The Dark Knight.' It's like the elephant in the room: one can try to ignore it, but it's more than a little distracting.<br /><br />Steward explains that he will return in 24 hours to collect the button. If, during that time, they decide to unlock and push the button, he will give them $1 million cash. The only catch--and it's a big one--is that somewhere a stranger will die. It might be across town, it might be on another continent, however Steward assures them the victim will be someone unknown to them. As a show of good faith, he leaves them with a crisp $100 bill, theirs to keep whether they push the button or not.<br /><br />Arthur and Norma are skeptical, believing the whole thing to be a scam or an elaborate hoax, however it isn't long before they begin to wonder what would happen if they did push the button? Would they really get a million dollars? Would somebody really die? Weary of the speculation, Norma slaps the button. Nothing happens. However, their initial relief gives way to alarm when Steward shows up the next day with a briefcase full of cash. They decide to call the whole thing off, however Steward tells them it's too late. "You've already pushed the button," he explains. As Steward's limo pulls away, Arthur notes the license number, which he later discovers is registered to the NSA (National Security Agency).<br /><br />At this point the film begins to veer deeply into unfollowable territory as the secondary characters start springing nosebleeds and flashing peace signs. Meanwhile, the town becomes invaded by pudgy, slack-jawed geeks in bad shirts who start following Arthur around like an advance scouting party for a race of zombie alien nerds. Arthur eventually becomes trapped by the menacing bookworms in the library (?), where Steward's spinsterish wife shows up--whom we haven't seen till now--and informs Arthur that in order to get out of the library he must step into one of three vertical columns of cheesy-looking digital water effects. 'What happens if I choose the wrong one?', Arthur asks, seeming far less baffled than he ought to be under the circumstances, and certainly far less baffled than the audience is by this time. 'Eternal damnation,' the spinster says ominously.<br /><br />Arthur steps into the middle column of digital liquid effects, and after a brief absence suddenly appears, still in his water cocoon, hovering over Norma's bed. When she wakes up and sees him, the water bubble bursts and Arthur tumbles onto the bed in a shower of water which, oddly enough, continues to drip from the overhead water pipes just out of camera range while a sodden Marsden and Diaz flop around on the bed.<br /><br />It's confusing, I know.<br /><br />We eventually learn that Steward was once the public relations officer for the NSA, until he was struck by a lightning bolt that destroyed part of his face. He was pronounced dead, but later came back to life, having been transformed into a sort of superman who now serves 'the ones who make the lightning,' and whose powers have enabled him to take over the CIA, the NSA, and NASA all by himself.<br /><br />And what is the point of all this nattering rubbish? Apparently, Steward's mission is to subject humans to a kind of biblical character test (e.g., the 'Binding of Isaac'), to determine whether humanity is worth saving. If enough people pass the button test by refusing to push it, Steward's god-like overlords will spare the race. Unfortunately, those people who do push the button, such as Norma and Arthur, must be punished for their moral spinelessness, to which end they are subjected to a series of dreary 'Lady or the Tiger' ordeals that play out like one of those 'Saw movies,' except without the entertaining gore or the benefit of a coherent plot.<br /><br />'The Box' represents the sort of pointless mental masturbation that freshman philosophy students like to blather on about after a few beers. Richard Kelly's tedious exercise in existentialist pettifoggery eventually collapses under the weight of its own incomprehensibility; the tortured melange of insupportable ideas eventually congeals, as with the mixing together of too many colors, into a meandering gray goo of a film as insipid as one of those narcotizing in-flight movies the plot of which suffers no more or less from having been interrupted by a leisurely nap.<br /><br />There is a point in 'The Box' where Arthur, who is a technically-minded guy, becomes curious about how the button works. Opening up the unit, he is disappointed to find nothing inside.<br /><br />Having seen The Box, I know exactly how he feels.
|
negative
|
This movie had potential, but what makes it really bad is Lindsay Crouse's acting. I've never seen her before in anything else and maybe there are some Crouse fans out there that like her in something else, but her performance in this movie is bad.<br /><br />Her delivery is robotic. When she delivered her lines it appeared that she was trying to make sure she had the lines right and was simply reading off the list in her head. So, her voice has very little inflection. I can't believe someone that bad at acting was given a lead role in a movie. She has to know somebody in the biz.<br /><br />Now I hate to be this mean about her, but the comment has to be "this" long and her performance is what sticks out more than anything else.<br /><br />However, I liked where the story was going so I continued to watch it. The first part of the script has the makings of a good movie. But the end was disappointing as well. Maybe if her acting had been better, I would have liked it.
|
negative
|
I believe that this is one of Elizabeth Montgomery's best performances in a movie, and I have seen most of her movies.I saw this for the first time on television when I was around fourteen, and I was so scared.I watch this movie every now and then, and I still enjoy it very much.I know that these days that this movie would probably not scare people too much.That just goes to show that the public movie and television audience has seen too much graphic violence in the last thirty years or so.I love movies that do not show the graphic details, you let your imagination do the work for you. The cast in this movie was top notch. Jess Walton, who played the sister in the story was very good, even though her part was rather small. She also played in a terrific made for television thriller around the same time called You'll Never See Me Again with David Hartman.I got the biggest kick out of Eileen Heckart's performance as the housekeeper. Eileen was so good as a lady with a very bad disposition.George Maharis who played the husband was quite effective.This story obviously had a lot of so called mistakes in the plot, but I love the movie anyway. I highly recommend this movie to people who love a good thriller without graphic violence.I gave this movie a vote of seven.
|
positive
|
What an unfortunate mess is "Shiner." I wanted to like this over-the-top, anti-film aspirant, and in fact found a number of moments with powerful resonance. Sadly, those moments are few and far between. While I appreciate some of what Calson was attempting, any advantage aspired to by bare bones, no budget cinematography was destroyed with some truly atrocious editing that benefited the movie not at all.<br /><br />While bad acting abounds in low budget (and big budget) cinema, Shiner has some remarkably bad performances that are nearly painful to watch. In particular the "straight" couple Linda and Young Guy. These are the two most poorly written characters offering almost nothing to the story. The acting is so abysmal and neither actor seems capable of resisting smirking or cracking up as they drearily drop their lines with an appalling lack of skill. The choppy editing almost lends the feeling that these roles were entirely gratuitous and dropped in to avoid the films being stereotypically cast as an oddball gay film. It would have been better off as such.<br /><br />With all that is going wrong for it, there are several performances that seem to capture what Calson was hoping to get. In particular the story centering on Bob and Tim. These are the two most richly drawn characters and offer the most rewards with genuinely captivating performances by Nicholas T. King (Bob) and David Zelinas (Tim). Tim is a boxer with some serious issues. Remarkably low self esteem is disguised by an almost cartoon like arrogance that he wears like armour plating. Obsessed with Tim, the seemingly harmless yet ultimately creepy Bob, stalks the boxer in classic cat-and-mouse fashion. When the tables are turned and hunter becomes the hunted, the resulting in the film's only genuine emotional catharsis. In a film so artificially hard-edged (that's a compliment) one character MUST have that revelatory break through (or breakdown, as the case proves here) and the final confrontation between Bob and Tim provide Zelinas and King opportunity to display some real acting chops.<br /><br />As played by Scott Stepp and Derris Nile, Tony and Danny seem to be the focus of the movie, and despite some bravado moments of their own (including one truly disturbing scene revealing the sex/violence obsession), but they can't seem to escape a cartoon-like artifice and it's difficult to look at - or beyond their seeming one note symphony and find anything other than the obvious.<br /><br />Ultimately this same raw material could (and should) be used to tell this story in better fashion. Alas, there really isn't much to recommend this yet, the performances by Messrs. King and Zelinas, really do offer something special and a glimpse of what might have been and are ultimately worth seeing.
|
negative
|
This film was released the year I was born and will be, like me, 70 in 2007. I watched it again last night having not seen it since high school. While it was full of 30's sentiment and the acting was a bit stereotyped, nevertheless, it was superb. Pearl S. Buck's story did come alive through the magic of the chemistry of Luise Rainer and Paul Muni. The novel which earned Ms. Buck the Nobel Prize for literature comes alive under the baton of Sydney Franklin which along with an excellent script recounts the story of peasant farmer, Wang Lung, whose father obtains a bride for him, a slave girl from the kitchen of a local landlord. In Buck's story, Wang's success is underwritten by his willingness to listen to his wife, most of the time, and the love of the land. In the end he comes to realize that his wife, like the land, is the source of his wealth, happiness and immortality. Buck's stories always had strong women cast in a critical spot to influence the outcome of events in the pre-feminist world. The German-born Luise Rainer brings a tentative but determined Peasant Chinese woman to life in her portrayal of Olan. Muni likewise captures the naive but honorable Wang, eventually caught between the two worlds of the wealthy and the peasant. Other classic characters include Charlie Grapewin, Dorothy Gale's Kansan Uncle Henry from the Wizard of Oz, Walter Connelly as the mewing, conniving uncle and Keye Luke as Number One Son-- but this time, not Charlie Chan's.<br /><br />A classic might be defined as a movie you can watch time and again and never tire of. If that's indeed the case, this film is a classic, no doubt whatsoever.
|
positive
|
The best thing about camp films in general is that you know what to expect. It's like watching a professional wrestling match or a day time soap opera or a Jerry Springer show: you immediately can follow the skimpy plot, identify the cardboard characters, and watch in satisfaction while all the cliches are being fulfilled. However, at times, the director does something real unexpected. It may be something extraordinarily stupid, or something weird, or something insightful. The director Makinen is up there with the best camp directors, and this is his best movie.<br /><br />In Yon saalistajat, everything seems to come together. There's nothing good about it, but still manages to be a coherent whole. Not once does the movie slow down - the action flows on and punches keep on coming.<br /><br />The weirdest thing is that there's no sense of time: some characters seem to take months doing something while other characters have only spent one hour at a bar. This is partially due to Finnish summer where the sun never sets, so you don't experience the day turning into a night at all.<br /><br />Finally: there is a plot, there, somewhere. You may have to watch the movie three times before you realize it, though.
|
negative
|
I watched this with my whole family as a 9 year old in 1964 on our black and white TV. I remember my father remarking that "this is how it could have happened - Adam and Eve." I vividly remember the scene when Adam finds Eve, her eyes were blackened. I asked my father why were her eyes blackened and he told because she was tired and hungry. Having not seen this episode in 45 years, I still remember it vividly - the TV transmissions back and forth with the home planet, scenes of bombs shaking the headquarters, with the final scene of the two walking off, Adam carrying his pack and Eve following. It may not have been a theatrical work of art, but it certainly left an impression on me all these years.
|
positive
|
I was fairly lost throughout most of this film, and I am the one who usually understands the works of such enigmatic cinema greats as David Lynch (Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me) and Darren Aronofsky (Pi). Not to say that Northfork doesn't make sense on some level, it just doesn't combine to form a wholly coherent film. As time passes from watching the film, its themes and intentions become clearer, but during my initial viewing, I was really confounded, and I find that this is the major fault of the film...its lack of direction. The plot centers on the town of Northfork, Montana in the year 1955. The town has been emptied and will soon be flooded to make way for the creation of a hydro-electric dam. The major problem is that not all of its inhabitants are willing to be evacuated and relocated. A group of men are hired to coerce the remaining residents out of the town before it will be drowned, and for the most part they succeed amidst some fairly odd situations and townspeople. Simultaneously, the film tells the story of Irwin, a very sick young boy (or is he a fallen angel?) whose adopted parents gave him back, due to his illness, to the Northfork orphanage that they adopted him from. Father Harlan (Nick Nolte) cares for the dying Irwin, but Irwin imagines (or does he?!) that a group of angels (including Daryl Hannah and Anthony Edwards) have arrived in the desolate and empty town looking for a fallen angel. Irwin has scars on his back and on his head, and he tries to convince the angels that his scars are where the humans amputated his wings and halo. Oh yeah, and during all of this there is a strangely surreal walking animal on stilts that roams throughout the backdrop of the landscape. There are a lot of other small events that happen in the film, but none of them end up amounting to much more than momentary intrigue. One can appreciate the artistic quality of the film (it's obvious that the filmmakers cared deeply about this film) and its rich cinematography, but the film still tries too hard to be different and then gives up and whimpers to an end without making much of a statement. Like I wrote earlier, it becomes clearer, long after viewing, what has possibly taken place in the film. Irwin is dying, and so is Northfork, and in coping with his own loss and death, Irwin has most likely created characters, from ideas he gets from the objects that surround him at the orphanage, to console him as he is abandoned and his life nears its end. But then again, maybe he really is an angel, and he has found his kind and can now return home. I must emphasize that there are some truly beautiful moments in the film, heartbreaking, vivid and full of loneliness and sadness. Unfortunately, the film as a whole just ends up feeling disconnected and somehow incomplete.
|
negative
|
The kids, aged 7 to 14, got such a huge kick out of this film that we gave a copy to all of the other kids on our birthday list this year. They all loved it! Kids from 2 to 7 watch it repeatedly and frequently, and we get a kick out of watching it with them.<br /><br />It's rare that a film entertains the kids for so long, and offers laughs for the adults, too. Most enjoy it more than the first.<br /><br />Top-quality production and an excellent cast, led by Christopher Showerman as a superior George--athletic, energetic, and wholly credible, with a lovable innocence and a particular knack of taking a tree in the face--well supported by the inimitable Christina Pickles as the evil mother-in-law, Thomas Haden Church as the evil jerk rival, and everybody else. This is fun.
|
positive
|
I saw this piece of garbage on AMC last night, and wonder how it could be considered in any way an American Movie Classic. It was awful in every way. How badly did Jack Lemmon, James Stewart and the rest of the cast need cash that they would even consider doing this movie?
|
negative
|
I have been waiting for this movie a long time. Especially because Juhi Chawla is in this, she's a great actress.<br /><br />This movie contains six stories. It's a new concept flew over from Hollywood. So it's not a new item.<br /><br />1. Khamini (priyanka chopra) is a dancer. She wants to get famous and makes up a boyfriend to let news reporters be interested in her. But then Rahul (Salman Khan) appears and he claims to be her boyfriend.<br /><br />Priyanka Chopra is still not a good actress. When she yells, I get annoyed. Salman khan cannot play comic roles. But in his serious parts he is marvelous.<br /><br />2. Vinay (Anil Kapoor) is married to Seema (Juhi Chawla). He gets in a midlife crisis and gets attracted to a much younger woman, with forgetting what he really has in life; his wife and kids.<br /><br />Anil kapoor en Juhi are natural born actors / actresses. They are great. But this story is to thin for them.<br /><br />3. Shiven (Akshaye Khanna) is going to get married to Gia (Ayesha Takia), but he gets cold feet and blows the wedding off.<br /><br />4. Ashutosh (Joh Abraham) is married to Tehzeeb (Vidya Balan). She gets an accident and suffers a memory loss. Now she doesn't know that she loves her husband anymore.<br /><br />5. Raju (Govinda) is a cab driver. He meets Stephani (Shannon Esrechowitz) who is a white woman who is in love with an Indian male but he is about to get married with an Indian woman. Raju has to bring Staphani to that man, but falls in love with her.<br /><br />I never liked Govinda's movies. He is very annoying, not funny. But in this movie I liked him very much, like he has been growing up the last years.<br /><br />6. Oh yes! There is Sohail Khan! He plays Ram Dayal who is just married to Phoolwati (Isha Koppikar). He want to get some serious action with her, but every time her family comes in between.<br /><br />Sohail Khan is not a handsome actor, but he is funny! I like his movies.<br /><br />Now here's the problem. All these stories aren't interesting. To make one story from six not interesting stories does not make the whole movie interesting! Here and there the stories touch each other, but is not significant for the characters.<br /><br />My conclusion; Priyanka cannot act! Loose that woman in the bollywood industry. Sohail Khan should make more movies, this role for him was too small. Salman Khan cannot act comic roles, but real serious movies. That's written on his life as an actor. This movie sucks, and is a waste of a cast of good actors and actresses like Anil Kapoor, Juhi Chawla, Akshaya Khanna and John Abraham.<br /><br />It's just like you have the ability to make a movie with Amitabh Bachchan, and you only let him sing a lullaby.
|
negative
|
Maria Braun got married right in the middle of combat all around her and her husband Hermann. An explosion ripped through the building, to begin with, and she and Hermann had to sign the papers on a pile of rubble on the street. Perhaps this may strike some as a heavy-handed metaphor for what's about to come: marriage on the rocks, so to speak. It's a betrothal where the husband goes off to war and is held in a Russian prison camp, unbenownst to the helpless but hopeful and proud Maria, who keeps standing by the depressing rubble of the train station as some come home, others don't, with a sign awaiting Hermann.<br /><br />Trouble arises, as happens in Rainer Werner Fassbinder's melodramas, and as its one of his best and most provocative, we see as Maria (uncommonly gorgeous Hanna Schygulla in this role) will do a two-face: she'll stand by her man, even if it means working at a bar for American GI's and, even still after she hears from a fellow soldier that Hermann has died will still stand by him as she sleeps with a black GI and comes close to bearing his child (that is, naturally, until he reappears and a murder occurs and he takes the rap so she can be safe), or working for a German businessman (effectively sympathetic Ivan Desny) and becoming his sometimes mistress and rising star in the company. Maria will do whatever it takes to be successful, but she'll always be married.<br /><br />It's hard to say there's anything about Maria that isn't fascinating. Money, sex, power, all of these become interchangeable for Maria. She's like the feminist that has her cake and eats it with a sultry smile: she gets to have a husband, more or less (actually a lot less until the last ten minutes of the film) while obtaining things- a man who dotes on her whenever he can, a new and expensive house with servants, a secretary, money- that others around her aren't getting due to already being with a man or too weak in a position to rise anywhere (such as the secretary, played interestingly enough by Fassbinder's own mother).<br /><br />Maria is sexy, confident, and all alone, with an idealized life going against a life that should be made in the shade. She says of the two men- the American soldier and poor old and sick Oswald- that she's fond of them, and at the same time will stick by those roses the confused and soul-searching husband Hermann sends from Canada, after being released from prison. She's casts a profile that a feminist would love to trounce, but understand where she's coming from and going all the way.<br /><br />Fassbinder employs this inherent contradiction, and moments with Maria appear to go against the conventions of a melodrama (for example, Hermann walking in on the jubilant and half-naked Maria and GI is just about a masterpiece of a scene, with Maria's reaction not of surprise or guilt but pure happiness to see that he's there let alone alive), while sticking to his guns as a director of such high-minded technique with a storyline that should be predictable. But it isn't really. It's like one big metaphor for a country that, after the war, couldn't really move on to normalcy. A few times Fassbinder puts sound of the radio on in the background, and we see Maria walking around her family house, hustle and bustle going on around her, and the radio speaks of a divided Germany, of things still very unsettled, of a disarray. Maybe the only way to cope is excess, or maybe that's just my interpretation of it.<br /><br />It's hard to tell, really, under Schygulla's stare face and eyes, anyway. It's such an incredible performance, really, one of those showstoppers that captures the glamor and allure of an old-time Hollywood female star while with the down-and-dirty ethic of a girl of the streets. Most telling are the opposing costumes one sees in one scene when she finally is with her husband, where she stars in one of those super-lustful black lingerie pieces and high heels, and then moves on to a dress without even thinking about it. That's almost the essence of what Maria is, and Schygulla wonderfully gets it down, a headstrong but somehow loving figure who is adored and perplexed by the men around her, sometimes in a single sentence. This is what Fassbinder captures in his wonderful first part of his "trilogy"; while I might overall prefer Veronika Voss as a masterpiece, Maria Braun is perhaps just as good as a character study, of what makes a woman tick and tock with (almost) nothing to lose.
|
positive
|
A montage prologue, quite obviously manufactured by the blessed maniacs who actually chose to distribute this thing, tries to convince us that the comic impact of this staggeringly incompetent bit of nothing is entirely deliberate. Don't you believe it: this is to Lloyd Kaufman as Andy Warhol is to Herschel Gordon Lewis. It is so thoroughgoing in its project of torturing its hypothetical audience that it seems like some kind of misanthropic negationist art installation, only it can't be because it is so completely bereft of self-consciousness. As obnoxious and ugly as "Things" or "Frozen Scream", this manages to up the ante by recycling itself with a maddeningly bald insistence that has to be seen to be believed. A Hitchcock-style shot-by-shot analysis of, say, the attack on the cardio girls might yield twenty edits and perhaps three minutes of footage - only the sequence is ten minutes long! You WANT to believe that this started life as a slightly more bearable short subject, except if you took away the repetition what's left would be far less fascinating: eg. when the 'fiend' does enter the room, he only inspires extended, highly apathetic, utterly blank stares from his imminent (offscreen) victims. Repeat this scenario about four times, in marginally varied settings; bridge these with perhaps thirty lines of dialogue total; offer up actors even more hateful and lethargic than those in the above mentioned classics; and grace us with a monster comprising gauze, ketchup and one yellow Spock ear, and you've got a movie too mind-boggling to refuse, a working definition of bad. I'm proud to own it!
|
negative
|
I'm a huge fan of zombie movies and this is just a pathetic attempt at one. I find the best features of zombie flicks to be the sense of solidarity and a need to survive. This movie focused more on a "let's just make it gory" view.<br /><br />The movie was full of bad acting and even worse special effects. When the zombies emerge from the floor and take the guy down, there is blood just spraying out of the hole. I wasn't aware that holes in airplane floors bleed so extensively. And the original zombie lady, Kelly or something, displayed the worst acting I have ever seen when she woke up and began feeling sick. I laughed quite hard when she died. Deserved it in every way.<br /><br />I was a little confused as to why Dr. Kelly could talk after becoming a zombie, but then there wasn't anything uttered by another zombie because annoying screams and shrieks. And they seemed to be killing the zombies pretty efficiently by shooting them in the abdomen, yet when Dr. Bennett is expelled from the airplane and into the engine, removing most of his lower half, he is still able to live at the end.<br /><br />I kinda felt that they altered things to make a "good" scene. When one of the bitchy girlfriends (I didn't take the time to learn their names. They played a pointless role) was in the bathroom, she was attacked by a zombie behind the mirror. Was it a two-way mirror to watch Mile-High Clubbers? I've never broken a mirror on an airplane (bad luck and all that) but I doubt there is that much room behind there, with the insanely confined space of the actually bathroom and all.<br /><br />The few redeeming qualities were too little too late, sadly. One thing the movie had going for it was the smoking hot flight attendants, yet they felt the need to kill all but one off. And I will admit that I laughed pretty damn hard when the old lady chomps down on Frank's arm and he says "She's gumming me to death" or something to that degree.<br /><br />Honestly, I'm sad I wasted my nine dollars on this movie. The fact that I bought it underage kinda redeems that but still... It failed on so many levels. Stick with Dawn of the Dead and 28 Days Later.
|
negative
|
Peter Bogdonavich has made a handful of truly great films, and THEY ALL LAUGHED is one of his best. The cast couldn't be better equipped to play this light but slightly bittersweet screwball comedy. Interestingly enough, the witty, light touch Bogdonavich so effortlessly employs gives the film a rather disarming emotional core. Fresh and immediate, the film starts with absolutely no explanation. There's no soundtrack music to cue us. We meet the characters in action, and as Bogdonavich glides down the streets of New York, the film unfolds effortlessly. Robby Muller's camera captures it all with an understated simplicity that seems accidental, but surely isn't. The cast is terrific. In every way, a classic.
|
positive
|
Well, what can I say.<br /><br />"What the Bleep do we Know" has achieved the nearly impossible - leaving behind such masterpieces of the genre as "The Postman", "The Dungeon Master", "Merlin", and so fourth, it will go down in history as the single worst movie I have ever seen in its entirety. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is impressive indeed, for I have seen many a bad movie.<br /><br />This masterpiece of modern cinema consists of two interwoven parts, alternating between a silly and contrived plot about an extremely annoying photographer, abandoned by her husband and forced to take anti-depressants to survive, and a bunch of talking heads going on about how quantum physics supposedly justifies their new-agy pseudo-philosophy. Basically, if you start your day off meditating to the likes of Enya and Kenny G, this movie is for you. If you have a sense of humor, a crowd of people who know how to have fun, and a sizable portion of good weed, then this movie is for you as well. Otherwise, stay away. Take my word for it.<br /><br />The first thing that struck me about "What the Bleep do you Know" is that is seemed to be edited and put together by the same kinds of people that shoot cheap weddings on camera, complete with pink heart effects, computer-generated sparkles across the screen, and other assorted silliness. Who let these people anywhere near a theatrical release is a mystery to me. I guess this is what too much Kenny G does to you. The movie was permeated with cheesy GCI, the likes that you or I can produce on our own computer via over-the-counter video editing software, but never would, because it's just way too ridiculous.<br /><br />The script was _obviously_ written by someone with no writing experience whatsoever. Not only were all the characters and conversations cumbersome and contrived beyond belief, but the "writers" felt like they had to shove every relevant piece of information, or rather disinformation, which is what most of this movie was all about, all the way down your throat. Well, given the target audience, that may not have been too bad of an idea. The main character, for example, spends half the movie popping pills. Apparently, though, it was deemed not convincing enough, so there are at least a couple of dialogs in throughout, which refer to her anti-anxiety pills specifically, just in case the viewers should not be able to connect her overacted pain and suffering with little white pills she takes whenever she feels down. The acting... Well, I've seen better acting in Ed Wood movies, and no, this is not an exaggeration. Heck, the little play I was in when I was 12 featured much more inspiring acting than this. It really did.<br /><br />The story is interrupted here and there with a bunch or random talking heads, a strange mix of kooky scientists, kooky doctors, and self-proclaimed mystics, go on and on about how quantum physics supposedly provides an "explanation" for how ever man or woman created their own reality just by participating in the experience of life. Reality, you see, is a probability-field of a bunch of different possibilities, and is only set in stone once you the Observer chose to notice it. What happens when more than one Observer Observes they didn't say, but then again who cares. Listen to Enya, meditate, Observe, and you shall be God, and nobody gives a damn about such silly and archaic things as critical thinking, logic, etc. All reason is immediately dismissed as people being stuck in their ways and unable to achieve a "paradigm shift" and "go down the rabbit hole". Furthermore, the Heidelberg Uncertainty Principle supposedly is proof positive of alternate realities, parallel universes, and such.<br /><br />Speaking of rabbit holes, the analogy permeates the movie. All of these people keep talking about going down rabbit holes. I'm not sure what that had to do with anything else they were saying or showing, but one thing I'm certain of is that it somehow involves anal sex. Actually, the movie is _extremely_ anti-sex. Throughout, sex is presented as dirty, ugly, and anti-enlightening.<br /><br />In any case, the talking heads talk, the main character achieves harmony and enlightenment by painting hearts all over her body with a magic marker, and proceeds to walk around with an even stupider look in her glazed over eyes than she started with.<br /><br />I want 2 hours of my life back.<br /><br />Here's a couple of random quotes which I happened to remember:<br /><br />"What I think of as unreal has become a lot more real to me, and that, which I used to consider real, is oftentimes a lot less real than the unreal." - Some talking head on the spirituality of quantum physics.<br /><br />"What does it take for one man to have an erection? It takes just one thought. Nothing changes on the outside, all the changes are within. An yet he has an erection" - Some self proclaimed mystic, head of her own school of enlightenment.<br /><br />[while looking at herself in the mirror] "I hate you! I hate you! You're fat! You're ugly! I have you!" - main character, the fat and ugly photographer.
|
negative
|
Director/screenwriter Allan Burns seems to have patched two different scripts together before coming up with this minor outing: a comedy about infidelity and a melodrama about loss and sabotage. It results in a wincingly unfunny film. Christine Lahti plays a crass, cynical TV news reporter who makes friends with aerobics instructor Mary Tyler Moore and is soon having dinner with Moore and her family--only to discover Mary's husband (Ted Danson) is Lahti's secret affair! Burns has a strange, stop-and-start rhythm to his dialogue which is neither realistic nor effective (just increasingly annoying, because nothing important ever seems to get said). Rail-thin Moore, looking alarmingly frail in her leotard, has a radiant smile but doesn't convince as Danson's wife, and Danson gets stuck with a paltry, thankless role (he's just there to be a cad). The movie attempts to cover all the bases in a classic case of overreaching (woman's role in the workplace, the TV news-biz, the cheating family man, the working wife and mother who wants more, a woman's need for female friendships, et al), but nothing substantial comes out of these ideas since Burns only half-heartedly examines the issues. As a writer, he is surprisingly free of punchlines, but is devoid of a purpose as well, and the heavy plotting just gets all fouled up. *1/2 from ****
|
negative
|
No words can describe how awful this film is. Its like the director literally took a s*** in a roll of film and sent it out to the viewing public.<br /><br />The acting in this movie is horrendous, The plot is so dumb, and the deaths of each character is laughably bad. Some stupid scenes include Akshay Kumar pulling a gun out of nowhere to kill a hologram (yes a hologram), Akshay Kumar carrying a bazooka around the town, Rajat Bedi getting beaten up by a poorly animated skeleton, Rajat Bedi and Siddharth double penetrating Monisha Korella (How did they think this was straight?). Also i'd like to point out that the animations are absolutely terrible. The scene that supports this statement is when Kapal has the motorbike and somehow gains the glasses. The shopping job looks like it was done in microsoft paint.<br /><br />The best parts in this movie are with Sunny Deol. This man is so strong that he makes even god feel scared. In one scene, he literally breaks open a jail door by kicking it. Chuck Norris' round-house has nothing on that! He is even so powerful, that he can fly from London to India in a matter of 10 minutes! Overall, this movie is perhaps the most poorly made movie in the universe. If you were to watch it, watch it for the hilarity that ensues throughout (BTW this movie is supposed to be serious)
|
negative
|
This film was so predictable, that during the entire time you're hoping that the obvious suspect is innocent, and there's some other big twist still coming. However... it doesn't. He just continues to act creepy, and she continues to ignore it. Mary found very incriminating evidence at his place, and she still trusted him? And what was that "baiting the trap"? There was no trap. She confronted him, he said "excuse me. I have to go kill someone" He left, and that was the end of it. They make attempts to use other suspects, (like that one older carnival girl at the end) but they're completely underdeveloped. Actually, all the characters are underdeveloped. They have no depth, and the setting is just plain strange... who hangs out in a recycling factory?? Its choppy and nothing is well developed. For example: When she leaves his place after having the beer, and he finds the pics and she runs out and he catches her and they end up having sex in that car... what was that? Her reactions weren't portrayed. In the car she acted scared like it could have been practically rape- but then all we see is her showering the next morning. booooooooo It could have been so much better.. sooo much better.
|
negative
|
This movie is one of the only historical documents displaying the talents of so many black singers, actors, actresses, and dancers. Many who are no longer with us. Those which we are blessed to be able to enjoy today in 1999, through this film lets us recognize the talents that existed then. This is why those individuals still living today as well those who are deceased are super star icons. Due to the educational history in music, drama, filming, design, singing, etc., this movie alone belongs to the people of this country.<br /><br />I viewed this movie recently. The sound was excellent! The movie appeared to be complete, color and clarity was fare, but good considering how old this movie is without any repairs on frames. I agree with all prior positive reviews. I do not have any negative views.<br /><br />I only would like to make one request. Please to whom it my concern, please make this movie available so all can have this historical experience.
|
positive
|
The Wicker Man. I am so angry that I cannot write a proper comment about this movie.<br /><br />The plot was ridiculous, thinly tied together, and altogether-just lame. Nicolas Cage...shame on you! I assumed that since you were in it, that it would be at least decent. It was not.<br /><br />I felt like huge parts of the movie had been left on the cutting room floor, and even if it's complete-the movie was just outlandish and silly.<br /><br />At the end you're left mouth agape, mind befuddled and good taste offended. I have never heard so many people leave a theater on opening day with so much hatred. People were complaining about it in small groups in the mall, four floors down from the theater near the entrance. It's that bad.<br /><br />I heard it compared to : Glitter, American Werewolf in Paris and Gigli. My boyfriend was so mad he wouldn't even talk about it.<br /><br />Grrrr!
|
negative
|
This film took up three hours, including commercials, on the History International Channel last night. But it felt like three weeks. It wasn't the cheap, stagy and unintentionally funny depictions of the bombing of Dresden. It wasn't that the film is stripped of almost all context surrounding World War II. It wasn't even that the bombing itself was often made to appear as nothing more than a major inconvenience for a goofy love story. No, it was the wooden featureless characterizations that sucked the life out of the story. Oh, and the fact that if it is possible for a movie to be obsequious, then Dresden is that movie. Perhaps a better title would have been DRESDEN--AS URIAH HEEP WOULD HAVE EXPERIENCED IT.<br /><br />It is especially the latter point that so irritates. Was the bombing of Dresden a war crime? The makers of this movie believe so. But in the typically emasculated way that Germans have come to approach World War II, they can't bring themselves to say so without braying about "peace" and "no more wars--anywhere" like they're Mother Teresa. And, also typical of German obsequiousness towards the British in particular, there is an unwieldy effort to grovel before "Britishness", while loading all the "guilt" for Dresden on to one person, Arthur Harris.<br /><br />Did I say one person? Well, not quite. At the beginning of the movie, there is an exclamation from the leading character, Anna, with whom we are all supposed to sympathize. "Damned Americans!", she screams, while watching as far off bombs fall. And a few minutes later, a radio voice intones warnings about the "American Terror Bombing" being inflicted upon Germans.<br /><br />Note the word, "terror". Got that? It's really the Americans behind the inhumane targeting of German civilians. No matter that the American strategy for almost all the war in Europe was the "precision" bombing of industrial and war manufacturing sites. No matter that it was the British who enthusiastically adopted "area" bombing of civilian targets in Germany--before the Germans had themselves even targeted English ones. No matter that the Americans bombed during the day, suffering more casualties in the process than the British, in order to hit precision targets, while the British bombed civilians under the cover of night. No matter that the Americans, essentially, were brought into the RAF's true terror bombing campaign kicking and screaming against it. No matter that most American officials, from FDR to Gen. Dolittle, opposed targeting civilians, while Churchill and his generals couldn't wait to do so.<br /><br />No, in DRESDEN, both the Germans and British, except for "Bomber" Harris, are innocent of a doctrine, it is intimated, created by the evil Americans. And only the might and power of a love story between a German nurse and a downed British bomber pilot can adequately explain the "truth" of the atrocity. Right.<br /><br />Oh, by the way, for the younger and likely less well read readers of IMDb, the first and still so far only major literary effort to give a thoughtful voice to Dresden's bombing was the pacifist novel penned by Kurt Vonnegut--an American POW in Dresden at the time of the bombing. I guess Germany's ZDF couldn't find a pretty nurse for Billy Pilgrim.
|
negative
|
It has started quietly. If your are looking for an action-packed movie this is absolutely not the right choice. All characters are slowly depicted on the scene. Stroke after stroke on the scene canvas. None can take away his hands to the priest and so the sisters lifespan devotion can only remain into the village. Philippa and Martina know their destiny, belong only to the village. So when you understand that, you are on the movie scene, in the village that becomes the whole known world in that time. When, no technology can let you imagine anything else than the campaign, the village, the sea. You feel the rhythm of that ancient village's life. Watching the movie in a cold snowy late afternoon can cause you to approach this evening dinner with some sumptuous expectations ...<br /><br />The final sentence that give a title to Babette's sacrifice far from Paris: An artist is never poor.<br /><br />Superb photography. Many situations depict portraits and landscapes as they were styled on canvas there, in Jutland, in 18th century.
|
positive
|
A lot of the problem many people have with this movie is that they seem to think that the story should have been more entertaining (ignoring it is based on a true story) or ranting against a film that glorifies Che (which it really doesn't). This film is very close to Jon Anderson's definitive bio on Che and gets the story right. Soderburgh does an excellent job of setting the mood for the unraveling debacle that was Che's Bolivian adventure. You really get the impression of the total timidity and bewilderment of the Bolvian peasant to Che's revolutionary ideas or of the difficulties that his men faced with hunger and the terrain. Sorry to bore the attention challenged movie fan out there but that was how it happened. So don't go into this movie expecting a Rambo shoot em up, its a true story!
|
positive
|
This show started out with great mystery episodes. I think everyone is in the first 15 or 16 episodes. After that, the show started playing short episodes with Shaggy, Scooby doo, and Scrappy doo.<br /><br />I think Hanna Barbera Productions had to change 20 minutes episodes into short episodes. Some of the voice actors became unavailable. After 15 or 16 episodes, Frank Welker (who played Fred) became unavailable. I think the voice of Velma changes after first 12 episodes, because the first voice actress who played Velma was unavailable.<br /><br />And the network ordered the Hanna Barbera studio to make more shorts with Shaggy, Scooby doo, and Scrappy doo, because the ratings were high. So they had to make more shorts. I wish they were mysteries like 15 episodes. Still it is a good show.
|
positive
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.