review
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| sentiment
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
But if you like the muppets I defy you to dislike this one. Basically the same plot regurgitated (this time New York, not LA) it features a lot of fun cameos and muppet hi-jinx. A lot of the muppets leave the film pretty early on as it centers around Kermy and Miss Piggy. I happened to have enjoyed it greatly. Fun to watch with your kids.
|
positive
|
I saw one of the stage performances in Denver and have never been less impressed. The word "vagina" says it all. A body part. Nothing shocking here. I could say to my doctor, "My left arm has been hurting a bit after tennis" or "My vagina hurts after cycling" with equal or more social commentary. It could be the "Tricep Monologues" for all the entertainment or radical comment I heard. The monologues were dull but delivered with drama, the topics were outdated, and I was alternately bored and annoyed. Once I think I laughed but apparently it wasn't when I was supposed to. Surely this isn't really a hit. Oh, and spoilers: there was a LESBIAN! - oh, wait, maybe not, come to think of it. And Inappropriate Fondling! And a Crack Mama! That about covers it.
|
negative
|
It looks b grade and you will probably think there is no reason to rent this film! But do! I expected nothing from this movie, just something to pass the time, but I was hooked from the start! Two interesting premises - A bank robbery gone wrong, a million dollars missing and two girls on the road to start a new life - How will these two stories collide? Just when you think you know what direction the movie is headed, it does a 180 and you are left blown away by the great twists in the plot! It has a great but unexpected ending, and you are left wanting more - always a good sign - rent it or even buy it, you will not be disappointed!
|
positive
|
I think we are supposed to think what wonderful salt-of-the-earth characters. Unfortunately, this is lame and laboured.<br /><br />As always with any production set in Newcastle, there are numerous shots of the Tyne Bridge and frequent attempts to show what great 'characters' Geordies are. The viewer is never allowed to forget where the film is set, as though the rest of the world cared about Newcastle and its inhabitants.<br /><br />If you like well observed, literate and original work stay well clear.
|
negative
|
And so it started with "Shreik" a send up of horror films, then we had Scary Movie, a genuinely good attempt at a new kind of genre, the illustrious send up. however....now we have: Scary Movie* Scary Movie 2 Scary Movie 3 Scary Movie 4* Date Movie Meet The Spartans Not Another Team movie* plus many more (genuinely funny movies marked with *)<br /><br />and.....Super hero movie.... it seems the people that make these movies cannot yet grasp what makes the send-ups funny. using the rip-offs from other movies in a funny way is all well and good if done properly, but not many producers seem to know how to do that. Scary movie(1) did it well, the following sequels were then horrendous as the tried to over play the franchise, but it was redeemed by Scary Movie 4. Not another teen movie was good because it used the spoofs well...and to its credit i am sick of teen movies. however, this movie plays like a bad version of all of these. it relies on slap stick the would make even the 3 stooges cringe, violating the image of Stephen hawking, and then when people begin to get bored (and the producers knew when this would be) we are treated to Pamela Anderson in a skin tight suit. to conclude, spoofs should be about making a homage-like mock-up of an original movie with an original storyline, not plastering random take offs of legitimate film onto the storyline of a real film. <br /><br />...i shudder at the thought of "SCI-FI MOVIE" and get my seppuku knife ready
|
negative
|
I must have seen this on the television when it was first broadcast some decades ago. I thought it was brilliant then, and as I remember so much of it now I may have been right. While I have lived in and around London I cannot call myself a Londoner and do not know it at all well - who does other than taxi drivers? Once the viewer understands the premise; that here is a group of men trying to learn the seemingly unlearn-able and rise to the status of demigods, then the rest is sheer joy. The characters are well contrasted, their family relationships are equally diverse, and so differently affected by the events of the film. Don't think this is a documentary - it is pure drama, and The Knowledge is one of the characters. I have never seen anything like this film, before or since. Watch it!
|
positive
|
This movie can be described in those 2 words "just unbelievable". This is the best movie ever made, I just cant see why this movie isnt in the top 250. I also can't see why anybody would not love Scarface. Anyways, if you havnt seen it, it is a must buy.
|
positive
|
Brown returned to his role from the year before (in "Slaughter") for this rough follow-up film. In the original, he had avenged his parents' slaying by wiping out a huge mob organization in Mexico. Here, he is the one being pursued (retaliated against) by a money launderer portrayed by McMahon. When the first assassination attempt fails, Brown is back in action once more, kicking gangster butt all over the place while trying to protect his new girlfriend Hendry. While the original film was, overall, a better and more coherent movie, this one delivers all the exploitation aspects in far heavier doses, making it more pleasing to fans of the genre. Aside from a fairly dreary opening on horseback and a downright deadly car ride down a city street at night, this movie clips along at a very brisk pace. Every few minutes there appears one or more of the following: drug use, sex, nudity, gunplay, murder or some other action. Brown is his usual reliable, amiable self, helped by his amazing physical presence which goes a long way in glossing over any stiffness in his acting. McMahon is a riot! With tinted glasses and his hair parted down the middle (!), he is shown meting out orders to his gang of thugs and is overheard making passionate love to his fur-clad bimbo. Seeing Johnny Carson's sidekick in a role like this is a perverse thrill. Stroud makes an impression as an intense, racially-bigoted hit-man while Peters adds just a tinge of class as an upright police detective who enlists Brown's aid. Sadly, no mention at all is made of Brown's original sidekicks Don Gordon and Stella Stevens. Suddenly, Brown now has a girlfriend (Hendry) who is likable enough, but lacking in the voluptuousness and personality that Stevens had before. Williams does an outrageous turn as a pimp who can seemingly pick any girl out of a bar and make her an instant member of his harem. The cinematography and overall direction is less polished than the first film, but this one does have a drive and a sense of danger that exceeds the original's feel. The film spends a lot of time in the sewage of organized crime, drugs, prostitution and other vices, but it retains interest through the creativity of its action scenes and the now-startling lack of political correctness. One odd note: A key supporting player in the first film was shown getting shot to death, but pops up here in a different role.
|
positive
|
I admit that I am a vampire addict: I have seen so many vampire movies I have lost count and this one is definitely in the top ten. I was very impressed by the original John Carpenter's Vampires and when I descovered there was a sequel I went straight out and bought it. This movie does not obey quite the same rules as the first, and it is not quite so dark, but it is close enough and I felt that it built nicely on the original.<br /><br />Jon Bon Jovi was very good as Derek Bliss: his performance was likeable and yet hard enough for the viewer to believe that he might actually be able to survive in the world in which he lives. One of my favourite parts was just after he meets Zoey and wanders into the bathroom of the diner to check to see if she is more than she seems. His comments are beautifully irreverant and yet emminently practical which contrast well with the rest of the scene as it unfolds.<br /><br />The other cast members were also well chosen and they knitted nicely to produce an entertaining and original film. It is not simply a rehash of the first movie and it has grown in a similar way to the way Fright Night II grew out of Fright Night. There are different elements which make it a fresh movie with a similar theme.<br /><br />If you like vampire movies I would recommend this one. If you prefer your films less bloody then choose something else.
|
positive
|
I am a kung fu fan, but not a Woo fan. I have no interest in gangster movies filled with over-the-top gun-play. Now, martial arts; *that's* beautiful! And John Woo surprised me here by producing a highly entertaining kung fu movie, which almost has *too much* fighting, if such a thing is possible! This is good stuff.<br /><br />Many of the fight scenes are very good (and some of them are less good), and the main characters are amusing and likable. The bad guys are a bit too unbelievably evil, but entertaining none the less. You gotta see the Sleeping Wizard!! He can only fight when he's asleep - it's hysterical!<br /><br />Upon repeated viewings, however, Last Hurrah For Chivalry can tend to get a little boring and long-winded, also especially because many of the fight scenes are actually not that good. Hence, I rate it "only" a 7 out of 10. But it really is almost an "8".<br /><br />All in all one of the better kung fu movies, made smack-dab in the heart of kung fu cinema's prime. All the really good kung fu movies are from the mid- to late 1970ies, with some notable exceptions from the late '60ies and early '70ies (and early '80ies, to be fair).
|
positive
|
"Dead Man Walking" is a film not about the death penalty, but about the people involved in a death penalty case -- the killer, the families whose kids were killed, the nun who becomes his spiritual advisor, and what happens. It tells the story with little fanfare but a lot of compassion and sensitivity. I have it on DVD, and every time I watch it (not often, it's never an easy film to watch) I'm more impressed by what Tim Robbins and the entire cast did here. So revealing that it could be a documentary, so compelling you can't take your eyes away, so subtle and yet so powerful... "Dead Man Walking" is nothing short of a masterpiece. It doesn't matter whether you're for or against the death penalty (or even have no opinion), this movie will have you thinking about the issues for sure. It takes a courageous screenwriter and director to look this material in the face without flinching even once, and everyone involved in the film pulls it off -- there isn't a single scene that rings false. A masterful film, but don't expect light viewing... to some, the final scenes could be more graphic than anything imaginable, even though no blood or violence is shown. You get drawn into this film and become a participant, and there's a character for just about everyone to identify with. 10/10.
|
positive
|
If you ever watched the Dukes of Hazard you know that you never had to worry about drugs or cussing or crude behavior being seen by young children. If you've seen the movie you know that is no longer the case! This movie was HORRIBLE! Main characters doing drugs and thinking it is funny and cool is certainly not what I call entertainment. They took a wonderful show and just turned it into trash. Daisy who was a little flirtatious in the original show now looks and acts like she belongs on the street corner getting paid for her services. I was so excited about seeing this movie before it came out, 15 minutes into the movie I was ready to leave. I stayed thinking it had to get better but instead it got worse by the minute. I wish I had never seen this movie. It trashed a good show and left nothing but horrible taste in my mouth when I left. Do yourself a favor, go see something worth your money, cause it's not only a waste of money but a waste of 2 hours of your life you will never get back!
|
negative
|
This film was basically Velvet Goldmine if the writers of party of five got a hold of it and made it a t.v. movie. The film lacks what Velvet Goldmine had which was good acting, writing, and basically everything else. The film had some of the worst writing I've seen since Wild Wild West. It definitely needed to be interesting. I know vh 1 has become a household name for their behind the music shows. which are a lot better than all this which would have worked if it was a behind the music episode but didn't and feel flat on it's face.
|
negative
|
The centerpiece of Lackawanna Blues is the character Rachel "Nanny" Crosby, who runs a boardinghouse and provides unflagging support to a young boy, Ruben, the narrator of the film. Based upon the experiences of writer-actor Ruben Santiago-Hudson, the film lovingly recreates the upstate New York boardinghouse and evokes the cultural climate of a world in transition in the 1960s. <br /><br />The first half of the film is virtually non-stop music. The second half addresses more completely the various characters in the boardinghouse. Nanny's ability "to take fragments and make them whole" affects everyone within her sphere. An especially vivid scene is when she confronts an abusive husband, telling him firmly, "If you ever touch that child again, we're going to dance!" As delivered by actress S. Epatha Merkerson, that line is so steely and filled with such resolve that the husband with the hair-trigger temper is frozen in his tracks. <br /><br />From start to finish, Merkerson delivers a commanding presence Her character binds together the disparate lives of the borders in her home. This was a touching, heartfelt film with a wonderful cast. As played by Merkerson, the character of Nanny simply radiates love. This is a film experience that I will remember for a long time to come.
|
positive
|
I really hope the makers of these "movies" read these reviews so that they know that people just dont want their movies. They are just trash and an embarrassment to the killer clown genre of horror. whether or not this was better than the first doesn't matter cause theyre both just plain terrible. I'm surprised they didn't learn their lesson from the first movie. Stop Now!! Warning to horror movie watchers, DONT WATCH, RENT OR LOOK AT THE BOXES OF "URBAN" HORROR FILMS, AND ABOVE ALL, DON'T BUY THEM!!!!
|
negative
|
This movie is like Happiness meets Lost in Translation with a Sixth Sense ending (or maybe a Crying Game surprise), and the best soundtrack I've probably ever heard...if that all make sense.<br /><br />The first 30 seconds pretty much tells you you're in for a twisted ride. (I was surprised no one walked out right away during the Brooklyn premiere.) But from there, the film settles down into a talk-fest between two really damaged people, Daphne and Buddy.<br /><br />They're lonely, mess-up, and boy do they talk about sex. Daphne brings to life her most interesting tales of escorting, some are quite funny (Mr. Chang) some disturbing (the Harlan scenes with music that tells us what we see might now be what's going on, or what Daphne is really feeling), and because I have a friend who used to escort, I might add, most seem quite real. <br /><br />You Are Alone is multi-layered and mostly brilliant. Okay, maybe a couple minutes less of the talking, and I don't know that we'd have missed anything. <br /><br />Then again, I need to see it again knowing the ending.<br /><br />I like this movie.<br /><br />(The director asked people in the Brooklyn audience to write a review on IMDb because a lot of people read them. Request granted.)
|
positive
|
This is an awesome Amicus horror anthology, with 3 great stories, and fantastic performances!, only the last story disappoints. All the characters are awesome, and the film is quite chilling and suspenseful, plus Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee are simply amazing in this!. It's very underrated and my favorite story has to be the 3rd one "Sweets To The Sweet", plus all the characters are very likable. Some of it's predictable, and the last story was incredibly disappointing and rather bland!, however the ending was really cool!. This is an awesome Amicus horror anthology, with 3 great stories, and fantastic performances, only the last story disappoints!, i say it's must see!.<br /><br />1st Story ("Method for Murder"). This is an awesome story, with plenty of suspense, and the killer Dominic is really creepy, and it's very well acted as well!. This was the perfect way to start off with a story, and for the most part it's unpredictable, plus the double twist ending is shocking, and quite creepy!. Grade A<br /><br />2nd Story. ("Waxworks"). This is a solid story all around, with wonderful performances, however the ending is quite predictable, but it's still creepy, and has quite a bit of suspense, Peter Cushing did an amazing job, and i couldn't believe how young Joss Ackland was, i really enjoyed this story!. Grade B<br /><br />3rd Story ("Sweets to the Sweet"). This is the Best story here, as it's extremely creepy, and unpredictable throughout, it also has a nice twist as well!. Christopher Lee did an amazing job, and Chloe Franks did a wonderful job as the young daughter, plus the ending is quite shocking!. I don't want to spoil it for you, but it's one of the best horror stories i have seen!. Grade A+<br /><br />4th Story ("The Cloak"). This is a terrible story that's really weak and unfunny Jon Pertwee annoyed me, however the ending surprised me a little bit, and Ingrid Pitt was great as always, however it's just dull, and has been done before many times, plus where was the creativity??. Grade D<br /><br />The Direction is great!. Peter Duffell does a great job here, with awesome camera work, great angles, adding some creepy atmosphere, and keeping the film at a very fast pace!.<br /><br />The Acting is awesome!. John Bryans is great here, as the narrator, he had some great lines, i just wished he had more screen time. John Bennett is very good as the Det., and was quite intense, he was especially good at the end!, i liked him lots. Denholm Elliott is excellent as Charles, he was vulnerable, showed fear, was very likable, and i loved his facial expressions, he rocked!. Joanna Dunham is stunningly gorgeous!, and did great with what she had to do as the wife, she also had great chemistry with Denholm Elliott !. Tom Adams is incredibly creepy as Dominic, he was creepy looking, and got the job done extremely well!. Peter Cushing is amazing as always, and is amazing here, he is likable, focused, charming, and as always, had a ton of class! (Cushing Rules!!). Joss Ackland is fantastic as always, and looked so young here, i barely recognized him, his accent wasn't so thick, and played a different role i loved it! (Ackland rules). Wolfe Morris is creepy here, and did what he had to do well.Christopher Lee is amazing as always and is amazing here, he is incredibly intense, very focused, and as always had that great intense look on his face, he was especially amazing at the end! (Lee Rules!!). Chloe Franks is adorable as the daughter, she is somewhat creepy, and gave one of the best child performances i have ever seen!, i loved her.Nyree Dawn Porter is beautiful and was excellent as the babysitter, i liked her lots!. Jon Pertwee annoyed me here, and was quite bland, and completely unfunny, he also had no chemistry with Ingrid Pitt!. Ingrid Pitt is beautiful , and does her usual Vampire thing and does it well!. <br /><br />Rest of the cast do fine. Overall a must see!. **** out of 5
|
positive
|
Well, this movie started out funny but quickly deteriorated. I thought it would be more 'adult oriented' humor based on the first few moments but then the movie switched into a bad made-for-Disney Channel type mode, especially a go-kart racing scene that was incredibly long. Alana De La Garza is gorgeous but has a really fake Italian accent. The movie looked and sounded very independent and low budget. There was one very cute moment which I'll just call the serenading scene but overall this one was a yawner. The laughs are very few and far between. The end surprise for "Mr. Fix It" is so ridiculous it left me more mad than anything else. Might be worth a look if you can catch it for free or TV but don't waste your money buying or renting this movie.
|
negative
|
Some of my favorite Laurel and Hardy films have very, very little plot. Instead, they give them a rather mundane situation and just let them be hilarious! Films such as HELP MATES and BUSY BODIES are among the funniest as you see the boys working or cleaning house. Here in DIRTY WORK, most of the film is akin to these other two films--Stan and Ollie are chimney sweeps and spend most of the film trying (quite unsuccessfully) to clean a crazy professor's chimney. Seeing Ollie fall through the chimney, the boys making the house a total mess and the insane behaviors of Stanley all work together to make a very pleasing film.<br /><br />However, in an odd twist, there is also a really weird subplot that begins and ends the movie. It seems that the professor is truly a mad scientist and he is working on a formula to make things younger. Late in the film, you see him make a duck into a duckling and even a duckling into an egg! Given that he then leaves the boys alone in the room, is it any surprise what happens next? While this subplot was unnecessary, it worked well enough. What worked exceptionally well was the middle portion. Give the boys nothing exciting to do and you'll be amazed at the hilarious results. One of the team's better films and it almost earns a 9.
|
positive
|
I'm not gonna lie. To say that this movie is confusing is like saying the sun is hot but not really. And if you've seen cult director Richard Kelly's previous films, "Donnie Darko" and "Southland Tales," you know that's gotta mean something. When I went to see this movie, there were about 50 people in the theater. Before an hour into the film, about half of the audience had already walked out. By the end, there were only 15 people left wondering what in the hell did they just see. I for one could only comprehend roughly 40% of what I saw on- screen, and even then it can only be called interpretation. So why did I give this movie a generous seven stars? Because for one, we get some spectacular performances (Marsden's great and Langella returns as a familiar creepy character), and most importantly two, because it's entirely original and Richard Kelly, undoubtedly one of the bravest directors alive, uses his creative vision to tell a story that dares to be different. Quite frankly, it's the ONLY way - only through Kelly's unique style could this story be told the way it's intended.<br /><br />In the end, if you're not willing to spend some serious thought into an intelligent movie (and even then it may all amount to nothing), stay FAR away from this one. But if you want to watch a deep, rich, complex and thought-provoking piece on spirituality, existentialism, and the predictability of human nature, go see this. Be prepared for lengthy discussions with your partner however.<br /><br />*Note: If by chance you've read this review, taken my recommendation, have actually seen the movie and STILL believe you've wasted 2 hours of your life, I'd be happy to share my views on the whole meaning and plot of the film. See, that's why I liked it so much - it promotes discussion! As hard as it is though, I'll try summing it up by paraphrasing a rather depressing quote by Langella's character, who explains the significance of the simple box to an employee: "Your house is a box which you live in. The car that you drove to work is a box, on wheels. When you return home from work you sit in front of a box with moving images. You watch until the mind and soul rots and the box that is your body deteriorates, when finally you are placed into the ultimate box... to rest under the soil and earth."
|
positive
|
I watched "Fuckland" a long time ago. I lied if I'd tell that I remember it in detail; what I remember most vividly is the irritation it provoked me and the feeling of a total waste of precious money and time, not only my time and money invested in watching the movie but also the director's.<br /><br />Supposedly, "Fuckland" is a critic of Argentinians, presenting us (I'm an Argentinian too) as little people who take credit for and even boast about petty, ridiculous victories, and think we're the best thing that God (who is also an Argentinian) created. I'm not going to argue that. It's probably a true statement about a quite big part of the population (the part I despise, by the way). And even if this weren't true, that's not my point. The worst sin "Fuckland" committed was to express such a statement about its own director.<br /><br />The continuous impression I received was that the director was too busy trying to impress us for sneaking a camera inside the islands to worry about making a good (even a mediocre) movie. Many of the takes made with a hidden camera are pointless. The director chooses to show off with a silly edition of old war takes and his own ones. And there's no plot at all.<br /><br />Moreover, this movie proudly presents a Dogme certificate before the opening titles, only to disrespect its principles afterwards (for example, by including the director in the credits - another sign of his pride?).<br /><br />I found the movie offensive, not as an Argentinian, but as a watcher. I felt underestimated. "Fuckland" is simply one of the worst movies I've ever seen.
|
negative
|
I didn't expect much from this movie, it was just one of those movies I thought I'd just watch because it was on television. i certainly underestimated this movie. <br /><br />It's about a guy who kills his girlfriend and brags to his friends. I was very happy with the acting, they had the characters played well. It was a particularly great scene when Feck(Dennis Hopper) and John(Daniel Roebuck) are talking to each other about why John killed Jamie. It's upsetting to hear how he explains that he wanted to feel control and thats why. But Feck had loved the girl he had killed. Feck felt remorse while John felt nothing, hell he was proud of what he'd done. It really makes you think about people. Keanu Reeves did a great job as Matt, and Ione Skye was good. It's weird to see her as a valedictorian in 'Say Anything' and her as Clarissa. Every actor did great at .....acting. It was real nice for a change. It was a great movie and I would definitely say I recommend it.
|
positive
|
I first saw this movie about 20 years ago and have never forgotten it. It's beautifully filmed and the story keeps one riveted for the entire time. It's difficult to believe this was made in 1946, as the tale is still fresh today, and really makes one think. I'm not very knowledgeable regarding film technique however the special effects in this film are terrific considering when this was made. In addition, the acting is superb, and the use of English and American actors quite astounding. I recently purchased the DVD so now I'm able to watch whenever I wish. I highly recommend anyone interested in post-war British films to watch this.
|
positive
|
Containing Billy's famous humor, this more modest comedy with heavy bittersweet overtones is a big departure, pleasantly unexpectedly so for Billy Crystal. This movie has different tear-jerker, dramatic, serious underlying themes (particularly with a scene with Steven Seagal). This movie was both entertaining and serious, a movie about lost love, about relationships with father-son, husband-wife, about friendship and values with a good dose of humor thrown in, especially at the beginning. The balance between drama and comedy isn't always maintained as with the new classical genre of this type, but the real message and motivation for this movie remains solid. The discovery of Billy Crystal's talent scout/agent character in Romania of a giant human is revealing and the behind the scene's view of movie agent is fascinating. Yet the focus remains on sensitive ties of both love and learning about one's self. Eight out of Ten Stars.
|
positive
|
If you just want gore, and nothing but gore and torture, you've come to the right movie. If you want a at least a sliver of good acting, logic, story, consistencies, or even a good guy ending, go elsewhere.<br /><br />I couldn't help but to think to myself, "Jeeeez, are those people mentally challenged?" Example, after being chased around and seeing other people mutilated, the main actress meets a police officer and spills out her story to the cop with tears and everything and told him about the psychopath that drives in a yellow truck. THe yellow truck pulls up and the officer just walks to it, talks to the guy and the truck drives off without any trouble. The actress comes out and says why didn't you arrest him? And then the truck runs over the police officer... after being rammed the truck stops on the road about 20 feet way just standing there while the actress tries to drag the cop away but he's too heavy. (At the time) At that time the truck backs up and runs over the cops leg twice. The truck then drives off. Why didn't the actress get the gun is beyond me. (WHich later she shoots the cop in the head twice because the psychopath was about to burn him alive) Once through the mouth, which didn't kill him (Duuuumb) and twice to finish the job. *Roll eyes* Right after that, she turns away to escape the bathroom which was going to explode and when she climbs near the roof, she turns around and the cop isn't there anymore... OK...<br /><br />Another example, The main actress meets a trapped woman in the bathroom, she spits out like a gallon of blood on the floor, covering about 1/3s of the room. (Probably more) After the main actress goes outside to grab a towel, she comes back in and everything is gone. :/ They don't explain why everyone keeps disappearing either. Dumb dumb dumb.<br /><br />I like horror/thriller/gore movies, but this one was just way too dumb. I lost brain cells watching this dribble and you shouldn't too.
|
negative
|
Well the name in the summary should tell you everything. FRED OLEN RAY - the modern King of low budget flicks, be it for TV or direct to video (I doubt he produces for the silver screen anymore - with the death of drive-in B-movie double features and all).<br /><br />Creator of such cult(?) classics, like Hollywood Chainsaw Hookers and Dinosaur Island....<br /><br />Well I kind of like this guys stuff. Its mostly entertaining (in a distinctly cheesy, campy and especially cheap kind of way) and if he's one thing, he's a pro - something you can't say for all guys in the movie biz.<br /><br />But this one flick here is among the weaker ones in his oevre. Insipid acting, an uninspired script and lame jokes conspire to make your brain go numb in a matter of minutes. If you are out for real F.O.R. goodness (or rather badness), look out for the above mentioned ones, and generally his stuff from the 70s and 80s (I think he lost a bit of his edge lately).
|
negative
|
It begins with a couple of disgusting sex-comedy gags, but soon it reveals its true colors: it wants to be a "Death Wish" clone. I say "wants to" because the script gets so increasingly laughable by the minute that it ends up looking like an absurdist "Death Wish" spoof! From a love scene in a room inexplicably filled with candles, to "heroes" who dress up as commandoes and wave their machine guns because they don't want to attract attention to themselves(!), to bad guys who drive around the city in a black van long after it has been recognized as their vehicle, this film has too many ludicrous points to fit in a list. The other major problem is that you can't tell most of the characters apart; of course, you know who Borgnine and Roundtree and even James Van Patten are, but all the other roles could have been played by different actors in various scenes, and you wouldn't know the difference. (*1/2)
|
negative
|
This moody, creepy horror flick begins on a castle atop a cliff overlooking the sea, a great setting, as a vampire bat flies in and creeps toward a sleeping doctor (Onslow Stevens). The bat changes into a man known as Baron Latos, in reality Count Dracula (John Carradine). He seeks Dr. Edelmann's help to cure him of his vampirism. Eventually the good doctor also wants to help his hunchbacked nurse-assistant (Jane Adams), the Wolf Man (Lon Chaney), and Frankenstein's monster (Glenn Strange). But Dracula's trickery contaminates the doctor's blood, and he becomes a Jekyll/Hyde vampire himself. This is somewhat better than the prior year's "House of Frankenstein", being less episodic and more exciting visually. There's a haunting scene where Dracula tries to lure the second nurse (Martha O'Driscoll) into his world, where she is initially playing "Moonlight Sonata" on the piano, which soon gives way to terrifying music. Director Erle Kenton uses expressionistic shadows and eerie music to frame many sequences, including a wonderful montage sequence that the studio frequently used in their horror features. Two performers are of note: Stevens, with his wonderful voice, is at first sympathetic, then convincingly menacing. Adams, her beautiful face in alarming contrast to her twisted body, exhibits great pathos and sympathy. It all ends in a slam-bang climax, typical of 1940s Universal horror, a little abrupt, with footage borrowed from "The Ghost of Frankenstein" (1942). I hope Universal releases it soon on DVD (it was left out of their Double-Feature releases).
|
positive
|
Labored comedy has I.R.S. agent Tony Randall investigating eccentric farm family in Maryland who have never paid their taxes; Debbie Reynolds is the tomboy farmer's daughter who puts the squeeze on the not-so-disinterested tax-man. Debbie certainly made her share of inferior theatrical sitcoms during this period--and this one's no better or worse than the rest. Picture begins brightly but flags at the halfway point, becoming frantic and witless. Randall isn't a bad match for Reynolds, but the vehicle itself defeats the chemistry. Based on the novel "The Darling Buds of May" by H.E. Bates, with a poor sound-mix causing all the actors to sound as if they're stuck in an echo chamber. ** from ****
|
negative
|
This is a dry and sterile feature filming on one of most interesting events in WWII and in history of warfare behind the front line. Bad drama composition is worst about this film as plot on killing Hitler suppose to be pretty dramatic event. There is no character development at all and idea that Tom Cruise suppose to play a high rank commander that questions his deepest inner thoughts on patriotism and treason is completely insane. I believe that Mister Bin would play it better. Generally speaking, film pretty much looks as a cheep copy of good German TV movie "Stauffenberg" from 2004, but can't get close to that film regarding any movie aspect whatsoever. However, movie obviously gets its financial goal with pop-corn audience that cherishes Hollywood fast-mood blood and shallow art values.
|
negative
|
This movie was extremely depressing. <br /><br />The characters were so cold. The mother, who is he main character, is everything but "motherly". OK, she was unhappy in her marriage and always put her husband and children first. Her husband dies. She then goes to visit her son and meets this hunk who is sleeping with her daughter and ends up sleeping with him. Until this part, the movie is all right. Not excellent, but it can be watched. The guy is charming and who can blame her? OK it's not very motherly to sleep with your daughter's lover but let's blame that on the shock of losing her husband. <br /><br />She becomes totally obsessed with the guy. I think this is the part where I started to dislike the movie. She's always there wanting to please him in an "old fashioned way" with snacks while he is working on her son's house (I guess this is the only thing she ever learned to do), as if it was the only way she could get his attention. The guy obviously is not very interested (actually, it seems more like he considered sleeping with her a charitable activity) and instead of being insulted by that, she continues to beg him to go to go to bed with her and to be nice to her when he becomes very abusive. "I want to please you", she tells him in a desperate way while he is insulting her very badly. <br /><br />What outraged me in this movie, is the utter lack of self-respect the mother has for herself. She tells Craig something like "I am just a shapeless lump" the first time they sleep together. <br /><br />This movie is an insult to women kind. If it had been me, I would have bought myself a little object that would have brought me the same satisfaction and a lot less emotional pain... :)
|
negative
|
The interesting aspect of "The Apprentice" is it demonstrates that the traditional job interview and resume do not necessarily predict teamwork skills, task dedication, and job performance. And they certainly don't reveal any hidden agendas. In other words, a good indicator of potential may be to see a job applicant in action which is the point of "The Apprentice". People vying for a corporate position may hand over a sugar-coated resume and put on their best personality attire for the interview, but these are not necessarily the best indicator of strengths, weaknesses, and performance.<br /><br />Briefly, "The Apprentice" involves 16 job candidates competing for the ultimate career opportunity: a position in real estate magnate Donald Trump's investment company. "The Apprentice" refers to the winner who will win a salaried position, learn the art of high stakes deal-making from the master himself, and, presumably, gain prime corporate connections. The position is a dream-come-true for those wanting to make more money than the GNP of some foreign countries. To entice the candidates, Trump shows off his private jet, his private luxury apartments replete with statues and artwork, his limos, his connections to celebrities, and other aspects of the life of a billionaire magnate.<br /><br />The road to success is not easy. The group is divided into two teams that compete against each other. Each has a corporate-sounding name, such as Versacorps and Protégé Corporation. The teams are assigned tasks that entail an entrepreneurial venture such as creating advertising, selling merchandise, or negotiating. Teams select a project manager who provides the leadership and organizational skills to complete the task. If they win, the manager receives a lot of credit, particularly in the eyes of the final arbiter. If they lose, the manager may also become the scape-goat. Some of the tasks are monumentally difficult with only a day or two to complete. Tasks may involve creating a TV commercial, or print ad. Others may involve selling at a retail outlet or on the street.<br /><br />The tasks bring out the best and worst in the participants. They often show immediately who is the most reliable, who is the most trustworthy, and who is hard working. And the tasks also expose who is not a good team player, who is inefficient, and who seems only out for themselves. The tasks invariably reveal in unexpected ways the strengths and weaknesses of the participants and in particular the project manager. How well the manager communicates with the team, delegates work, organizes time, and sets specific goals will largely determine the outcome, but it does not necessarily predict the winner.<br /><br />The single-most telling aspect of someone's potential is when he or she is assigned as a project manager. Their real abilities as opposed to their self-propagated abilities immediately show through the veneer that cannot be hidden by a $100 silk tie or a beautiful makeover. Leadership qualities and/or weaknesses often become agonizingly obvious after only a few minutes. Those promoting themselves as top-notch leaders are not always as strong when put into a real-life leadership situation. It is always easier to "toot your own horn" than to actually engage in leadership. Project managers, even those on the winning teams, often do not formulate a cohesive strategy. They often believe that by diving off the deep end to complete the task at the first minute rather than taking a little time to organize and discuss how the task will be completed is more efficient. More often than not, members of an ill-strategized team are running around like headless chickens figuring it out as they go along, and in the long run they end up wasting far more time.<br /><br />The winning team gets a taste of the high life, such as eating dinner at an exclusive restaurant, flying in a private jet, and/or meeting a celebrity. The losing team comes to the dreaded board room where Trump hears the lame excuses of the members and knocks off one or more of the contestants like pieces off a chess board with the now infamous "You're fired". Often, the project manager is held partially responsible for the team's loss, and may be the target of Trump's accusatory rhetoric. Every week, at least one person becomes a casualty from the losing team. <br /><br />My least-favorite aspect of "The Apprentice" is the board room. While the tasks themselves bring out the strengths and weaknesses in the candidates, the board room often brings out the worst. Unfortunately, the rules of the game insist there is one winning team and one losing team, even if the competition was close. Members of the losing team start accusing each other, often ruthlessly, about who was at fault. And sometimes more than one person gets fired. I seldom see an under-performing candidate take responsibility for their actions in the board room. Kristi Frank and Kwame Jackson were possibly the only candidates who took full responsibility for her team's losses and received no recognition for this selfless act. For me, Kristi Frank and Kwame Jackson had the most integrity of all the candidates. However, Trump saw Kristi as weak and fired her, claiming she wasn't standing up for herself, which may mean he values ego more than integrity. No one should sacrifice their integrity for this. Kristi Frank may not have become the apprentice but she can live with herself knowing she did not blame others unjustly. Isn't that worth as much as "winning"?<br /><br />The strength of "The Apprentice" is also its weakness. Because team performance is evaluated strictly by winners and losers, other evaluation opportunities are overlooked. Barring huge gaps between the winning and losing teams, sometimes a losing team exemplifies a high standard of teamwork and efficiency. I have seen losing teams sometimes appearing better organized than the winning team. We Americans are so often obsessed with winning and losing that we often overlook excellence.
|
positive
|
To my eternal shame, I've never seen a silent movie - not even the mother of all vampire movies, "Nosferatu". However, if they display half the creativity and sheer joy of this effort from Buster Keaton then I'll probably try to watch a few more. This is genuinely funny as well as being a stunning introduction to the world of the silent comedies. The premise, such as it is, focuses around an unfortunate case of mistaken identity as Keaton is mistaken for renowned bad-guy Dead Shot Dan (co-director Malcolm St Clair). This leads to a number of chases and escapes as the authorities get ever closer to the increasingly desperate Keaton.<br /><br />You're left amazed and entertained in equal measures. Keaton is a natural comedian but also an accomplished stunt-man, judging by the way he leaps and jumps around like Jackie Chan on speed. And the comedy is also of an exceptionally high standard - my Better Half had to cut short a phone call to her parents because she was laughing too much! If you've never experienced a silent movie like this then it is nothing short of a revelation to watch - it certainly blew away any ideas I may have had about silent films. Naturally, it isn't as polished as today's movies - the acting is pretty awful, truth be told but that doesn't matter because you're enjoying the movie regardless. Anyone with a passing interest in movies in general should make the effort to watch this because they will not be disappointed. Brilliant!
|
positive
|
I think the film makes a subtile reference to rouge of Kieslowski, as the whole atmosphere gives me a feeling of red. It seems to be that a lot of the backgrounds contain red, think of the tea-room f.e. I also think this is one of the greatest movies of the last years.
|
positive
|
Spoiler: Bunch of passive-aggressive people having family reunion. The script has them saying and doing things people would never do, at least anyone with a shred of decency. The hero falls for a woman he sees as his soul mate at a bookstore the day of the reunion, unaware she will show up as his brother's girlfriend at the reunion. He tries to defer to his brother's claim, but she, knowing our hero is clearly infatuated with her, teases him mercilessly by wearing sexy clothing and behaving like a stripper, rubbing all over the brother in a ruse excuse that she is showing him how to stretch. At one point, she actually disrobes and gets into a shower with him. He tries to cover his eyes. His heart is breaking. She thinks it's funny, until she suddenly decides she doesn't want the brother and leaves the reunion.<br /><br />The movie really drags. The audience coughed and fidgeted its way through the long haul. The writing is unintelligent and unbelievable. We almost walked out, but kept thinking surely something would happen that would perk things up, but nooooo. All the lovely reviews must have been written by paid shills, out to dupe poor suckers like me into seeing crap like this. Comparing it to Little Miss Sunshine??? Jeez. Shame on them, the writers, the actors, the producers, and the theaters for letting anything this bad make it to the screen!
|
negative
|
There's nothing new here. All the standard romantic-comedy scenes, even down to the taxi sprinting to the airport to stop the woman flying away. The only thing that saves this is the acting of Alison Eastwood & some of the minor characters (blink and you'll miss Gabrielle Anwar), who obviously had some fun.<br /><br />Turn it off when the pair are in bliss, and you won't have to go through the inevitable plot pain.
|
negative
|
There is no reason to see this movie. A good plot idea is handled very badly. In the middle of the movie everything changes and from there on nothing makes much sense. The reason for the killings are not made clear. The acting is awful. Nick Stahl obviously needs a better director. He was excellent in In the Bedroom, but here he is terrible. Amber Benson from Buffy, has to change her character someday. Even those of you who enjoy gratuitous sex and violence will be disappointed. Even though the movie was 80 minutes, which is too short for a good movie (but too long for this one),there are no deleted scenes in the DVD which means they never bothered to fill in the missing parts to the characters.<br /><br />Don't spend the time on this one.
|
negative
|
The basic premise of "Miami Golem" most definitely deserves a spot in the top, say, fifty of most demented cinematic plots ever scripted down! I know top 50 doesn't sound too impressive, but I've seen a lot of really weird films with lunatic plots. I was prepared from something convoluted, because the film was directed and co-written by Alberto De Martino, who was one of Italy's most ambitious and creative but sadly underrated film makers. De Martino steals multiple ideas from successful blockbusters, like most Italian directors did around that time, but he always adds a lot of stuff to make it even more complex, confusing and overwhelming. Not all of De Martino's films are worthwhile, but some of them are extremely underrated, like "A Special Magnum for Tony Saitta", "Holocaust 2000" and "Formula for a Murder". The concept of "Miami Golem" contains elements from numerous great Sci-Fi and adventure flicks (like "Alien", "Starman" , "Close encounters of the Third Kind", "ET",
) but I wouldn't exactly call it a rip-off. The only thing that is really shamelessly stolen from another film is the opening synthesizer theme song that sounds almost identical to Harold Faltermeyer's Axel F. from "Beverly Hills Cop". The rest of the film is an amusing hodgepodge of fantasy, Sci-Fi, action, horror and superhero-movie gimmicks. It certainly doesn't always make sense (most of the time it doesn't, actually) but "Miami Golem" is undeniably an imaginative and multifaceted film that kept my mate and I fascinated from start to finish.<br /><br />The plot is extremely difficult to briefly summarize but I'll try anyway. Sceptical journalist Craig Milford is reporting the story of a German scientist who allegedly discovered extraterrestrial DNA inside a crashed meteorite and managed to clone it. The DNA cell belongs to an evil alien force that already exterminated another interstellar race in the past and it will unquestionably destroy the whole of mankind as soon as it grows large enough in size. If this isn't problematic enough already, the rich Mr. Anderson ordered to steal the slowly growing evil fetus because he thinks that he can manipulate it and use it to obtain world domination. With the help of some good aliens in an earthly disguise, Craig Milford has the difficult task of safeguarding the planet from the evil fetus. Okay, I know all this sounds grotesque and silly, but I assure that "Miami Golem" is in fact a light-headed and easy digestible flick. The first half of the film may come across as overly hectic and confusing, because Alberto De Martino attempts to keep the plot secret through the use of preposterous red herrings. There are subliminal ghostly appearances, supportive characters behaving exaggeratedly mysterious for no real reason and at a certain point there are even speculations about the lost continent of Atlantis. This is all misleading padding material, however, and as soon as the set-up is more or less clear "Miami Golem" turns into an ordinary early 80's popcorn action movie with bloody massacres, flamboyant chase sequences (in the Florida Everglades!), explosions, gratuitous sleaze and nasty little fetus-monsters in jars.<br /><br />Now, I really don't want to raise the impression that "Miami Golem" is a lost and undeservedly obscure gem of Italian exploitation cinema. Make no mistake, this is a pretty bad movie! The events only become endurable if you accept the stupidity and incoherence of the plot and if you don't succeed in that, well than this is just a non-stop spitfire of negative aspects. The acting performances are painfully awful. Particularly B-movie veteran John Ireland, as the archetypal James Bond villainous character, doesn't seem the least interested in the script. You can tell from his grimaces and by the way he delivers his lines that he also thinks the whole production is retarded and simply signed up for the paycheck. Laura Trotter is probably the least sexy female lust-object ever, and the person who drew the marvelously chaotic VHS cover must have felt exactly the same way, because the ravishing girl on the cover does not appear anywhere in the movie. What an embarrassment this must be for Mrs. Trotter. Still, her completely gratuitous nudity sequences compensate for this, as she's quite hot from the neck down. And, finally, there's the unforgettable scene where David Warbeck takes down a helicopter from a moving school bus with a regular pistol! I don't think even John Rambo can do this, while he's a beefcake Vietnam veteran and Warbeck's character is a simple TV-reporter.
|
negative
|
When I first saw this movie back in the middle of January (2005) I didn't like it. I thought it was too weird and thought that some parts that the main star, Judith Light, acted were so unlike her. (Which of course is true) And then I watched bits of it the next day when it re-aired and I felt pretty much the same. Then I watched it again two Sundays ago (March 20th, 2005) and I began to really enjoy it and this time I taped the entire thing. I even cried the first 2 times, but mainly because the actress was actually crying and I am a big fan of hers.<br /><br />It is a very well acted and done TV Movie. Judith Light is one of my favorite actresses and I think she does a superb job in this film! I keep watching it over and over. It's a sad movie, but very good.<br /><br />If you have not seen this movie, I definitely recommend it! It's not usually my type of movie, but I did enjoy this one! A+++
|
positive
|
Lately, I've been watching a lot of westerns from the 1930s to the present. There are some great low budget spaghetti westerns from the late 1960s and early 1970s. This movie had all the elements of a decent western: a good story with talented actors and everything else. Although, it's a spoof of this genre, and for me the way it was done just didn't work and made for a disappointing movie.<br /><br />This movie can easily be divided into two parts.<br /><br />The first part is great; it has a great opening scene and an interesting story develops of a bounty hunter (a.k.a. the stranger) going after a bandit who is going after a large bank shipment guarded, in part, by a banker. Over the course of the movie these three characters form shifting alliances in an attempt to get the money. There are subtle comic nods to the contrivances of earlier films from this genre, but the comedy doesn't disrupt the overall story.<br /><br />The second half of the film is where the comedy goes over-the-top and essentially ruins the movie. The turning point is right at the part where the barmaid causally scolds the dwarf to stop shooting the customers as she goes about waiting on other patrons seemingly oblivious to the four dead bodies laying about the place. From this point onward the movie shifts from a decent spaghetti western with comic undertones to a stupid-silly spoof.<br /><br />There are three horrible fist-fight scenes (one at the river, one in the market and one at the baths) that follow in rapid succession as if one wasn't bad enough. The fighting is so fake it's ridiculous, and since the sound is out-of-sync with the picture it makes it even worse. In the market fight scene the banker bounces about the place on hidden trampolines and twirls around on poles like he is in the circus; it's clownish. Although, the worst part of these fight scenes is the music; it's this light-hearted, sprightly mix more suited for a square dance or a cheesy episode of 'Hee-Haw'. These scenes practically derail the main story.<br /><br />Overall, this movie was disappointing because it had a lot of potential as a decent western, but the comic turns just mucked it up. If you want to see a good western spoof then see 'Blazing Saddles'. If you want to see a good spaghetti western, then avoid this movie.
|
negative
|
David Lynch shot his first film, 'Erasurehead', over several years, adding new scenes each time he managed to raise a little bit more cash. Kevin Smith made 'Clerks' at work, while working as a clerk, and Robert Rodriguez has boasted that 'From Dusk Till Dawn' cost precisely $30,000. But $30,000 is still a hell of a lot of money to raise if you work as a cleaner in a cemetery. And what if an aspiring film maker not only had such a job but also had all the ambition of such luminaries, and all the dorkishness of Smith, but absolutely none of the talent. Such a figure is Mark Borchardt, the subject of this hilarious documentary which chronicles his attempt to make a pair of movies over many many years. Borchardt combines his lunatic dreams with flights of depression and a fatal inability to call it a day; one senses he almost prefers the endless labours of searching for an impossible perfection to an accommodation with the reality that he's simply (on the evidence presented in 'American Movie') not very good. And like a modern day Ed Wood, he surrounds himself with an epic crowd of fellow losers, his genuine affection for whom is his greatest redeeming feature. The collection includes his warring parents, his best friends (one a criminal, the other a reformed drug addict), his own hapless children and best of all his aged Uncle Bill. Bill may live in a trailer park, and just about have given up on life, but he is the owner of a small fortune ($280,000 to be precise) and the touching but potentially exploitative relationship between the two men lies at the heart of the film. Borchardt manages to enlist a few actors to perform (alongside himself, of course) but in the main he is wholly dependent on friends and family to complete his work (even Bill has a role on camera). On British TV, the BBC brilliantly scheduled a screening of 'American Movie' back-to-back with 'Lost in La Mancha', the story of Terry Gilliam's ill fated attempt to film 'Don Quixote'. In that film, one was impressed by the huge amount of professionalism on display (inadequate as it was to the task in hand), and just how damn difficult it is even for experts with millions to spend to make a film; whereas Borschadt is not only penniless, but also such a clown that he can't even pronounce the name of his own work ('Coven') properly. Ultimately, Borschadt is human enough for you to want him to succeed, but awful enough for the viewer to still be able to laugh at his failures. If this film was fiction, you'd dismiss it as unbelievable; but as it is, it's one of the funniest documentaries you're likely to see.
|
positive
|
I cannot believe how bad this piece of garbage is! I want my $3.99 back! Words defy description of this poorly made piece of crap! The dubbing in no way shape or form aligns with the actor's mouths. The movie looks like it was filmed with a 1970's vintage camcorder. I have shot better movies with my cell phone camera. The gore is laughable due to the silly unbelievable plot. The acting is what one would expect if you called all your friends over on a Saturday afternoon and proceeded to get completely ripped, then tried to put on a play in your garage. Don't get me wrong...I wasn't expecting O'Neil and I love Zombie movies, but the production values are so low in this film as to make it unwatchable. Avoid!
|
negative
|
A movie I've seen and enjoyed possibly more than any other movie. I first saw it as a kid and loved the drama and the great climactic battle. As I got older, I enjoyed it as much or more than before, but now due to all of the components that work together to make a true classic. The acting is great (especially Keith as T. Roosevelt), the cinematography spectacular, the script is full of gems, and the directing pulls it all together wonderfully. It's loosely based on an actual event, and it shows rush of Europe and a newly emergent America to carve up the 'Sick old Man' (the Ottoman Empire) as it collapses in a fashion unlike any other 'historical' movie I've seen. Humor, drama, action, love...it's got it all and deserves far more acclaim (much like 'The Great Waldo Pepper').
|
positive
|
Well its about time. I had really given up any and all hope that there was going to be a standout episode among this season's entries. While there have still been far too many drab to hohum entries, at least this episode turned out well. Its rather funny that director Rob Schmidt who only has the not bad Wrong Turn to his credit and writer John Esposito whose only scripting chores to date have included Tale Of The Mummy and Graveyard Shift should be the ones to give us the best written and most thought provoking episode of the season. In "Right To Die" we are treated to the story of Cliff and Abbey. At the start of the episode the couple are having a conversation. Abbey has caught Cliff cheating and he is desperately trying to win her back. While they speak, they find themselves in a car accident where Cliff is left with only scratches and bruises, but Abbey is thrown from the car and catches on fire when a spark ignites and gasoline that had dripped onto her catches her on fire. And this is just the setup people. Once in the hospital Cliff must decide whether or not Abbey should live in this state with no skin and only nerve reflexes. There's also a side effect too. Every time she flatlines, Abbey goes a walking as a ghost and causes trouble for all sorts of people. Hands down this is the best episode of the season and certainly ranks as one of the top episodes ever. From the gruesome effects to the taut script which threw in a few twists I never saw coming and suspense so palpable you can almost touch it, Right To Die should have the right to go on living forever.
|
positive
|
"Revenge of the Zombies" is a pretty weak and barely passable zombie effort.<br /><br />**SPOILERS**<br /><br />Traveling in the Bayou, Larry Adams, (Robert Lowery) and Scott Warrington, (Mauritz Hugo) are informed that a friend has deceased. Meeting with local Dr. Von Altermann, (John Carradine) he repeats the notion that they mysteriously died. While they are staying there, they realize that the help consists of zombies, reanimated dead people who are doing the bidding of their master. As the bodies pile up, he reveals that he has been making the creatures for use in various experiments and all try to stop him before it's too late.<br /><br />The Good News: This here gets very little right. The opening is easily it's best, as it's got several great marks for it. From where it starts, with the creepy silhouettes walking in the dark all the way through to the revelations, this one works wonders for both it's mystery and great imagery. The big one is a really scene where the creature emerges from a coffin in a long, slow and creepy shot. These here are all done before the opening credits and is a fun sight. The scenes in the middle where the creature reawakens inside the coffin is pretty chilling and looks really great. The last big positive is the really fun ending. With the sort of ending that feels reminiscent of so many Universal attempts, this one fits in with that style. From the creepy reanimation to the real action involved near the swamp, this one is fun and really works with the others to give it's only real positives.<br /><br />The Bad News: This one here only has a couple flaws, but they are major ones. The first one is the film's major boredom from inactivity. Almost nothing happens in here, mainly due to the tendency to do everything with talking rather than anything else. There's only intermittent scenes relegated to the zombies, yet there's nothing here that devotes any action to the film. This one simply doesn't have any action, and that's what hurts the film. It rarely generates a scenes that keeps the interest going, and at times this makes it feel a lot longer than it really is. The last flaw in the film are it's pathetic excuses for zombies. Those used to more modern fare will have a hard time getting any fear out of these creatures, and they really only serve several scenes. This here doesn't treat the zombies as threats, making them even less frightening. Little screen-time, nonthreatening nature and un-modern behavior from these zombies really destroys this one. These here are what really hurt the film.<br /><br />The Final Verdict: With bad zombies and hardly anything worth watching, this one here is a curious effort. Those used to modern zombies will find little of interest in this one and come out the same as this one is, while only classic horror fans are advised to give it a shot.<br /><br />Today's Rating-PG: Mild Violence
|
negative
|
I saw this by accident one lazy summer afternoon. It was playing on the family programming channel of HBO. At first I was drawn in, by what I thought was a Disney animation. But then, after a few minutes, I found myself searching for the remote, so I could find the 'INFO BUTTON', to find out what in the world was on my TV. I have nothing against Harvey F., I enjoy him in many of his films, but one thing he is not, is a voice-over artist. Sure he has one of the more unique voices in Hollywood, but it works only as a part of a bigger visual package. Attaching his voice to a cute duck made watching somewhat difficult. As for the rest of the cast, uninspired. I suppose working on this film didn't appeal to the really good voice over talent out there.<br /><br />So, weak voice talent, strong animation...who was this film targeting? Gay adolescent ducks? I don't get it. Is there really such a dearth of role-models for young up and coming homosexuals, that we must resort to animated ducks? Cute story, and like the title, this movie I found hard to love, just like an ugly duckling.
|
negative
|
There are a number of problems with this movie, but the bottom line is that it tried to do too much with too little. The base story is quite good, but the money just wasn't there to do the story justice. The non-existent budget really killed this movie. Stuart Gordon (the writer/director) has writing credit on 'Honey, I Shrunk the Kids', which was a box office smash. However, that movie had some serious cash backing from Disney. Honestly, this is a good example of when to not make a movie. Had he waited a few more years, technology would have made it cheaper to do many of the effects. (not to mention he could have found a company with money.)
|
negative
|
Well, the movie isn't exactly "funny."<br /><br />Okay, I admit, there are a few HUMOROUS lines, but definitely nothing that is laugh-out-loud funny. For example: Right before a steamy sex scene between Eleniak and one of her male costars, sh is handcuffed to the bedpost and he cannot remove her shirt. Before leaving the room to retrieve the key, he tells her, "Okay, don't go anywhere."<br /><br />See, humorous, but not funny.<br /><br />The plot and acting are pretty good.<br /><br />But Erika Eleniak definitely steals the show. She's hot and sexy and there is a really steamy scene with her that one can't help but rewind and re-watch.<br /><br />There are also some other very sexy scenes with her and she has some very provocative lines.<br /><br />Overall, 5 stars. I'd only give it three if not for Erika Eleniak.
|
positive
|
I caught this one on cable and I was very surprised. Steady direction and some good performances accent a twisty and very engaging story. This one will keep you up all night thinking about what was real and what wasn't. Check out Jason Scott Lee in the Lou Diamond Phillips role!
|
positive
|
Oh, Man, talk about the effect of advertising. Apparently, all that you have to do to enjoy box office succes is title your movie after a revered 19th century novel. Horrendous acting, directing, and cinematography in this sham of an effort.
|
negative
|
It's a shame that quality actors like Baldwin and Booth have to succumb to lousy stories and scripts just for the money. But, hey, it's a cruel world...<br /><br />This is just another one of a long line of assassin thrillers that use all the usual narrative twists to try to make it appear more appealing than it is. Sure, it has some nice locations, it's a slick production, there is some good camera work and editing, and it's fairly well paced, overall.<br /><br />So, what's the real problem? Quite simply, the whole premise is just totally unbelievable. However, instead of spoiling a rotten story for you, I'll let you find out what it's all about, that is, if you can get through it. I managed, but only because I like Baldwin and I kept hoping that it would get better.<br /><br />It didn't. And, it had one of the most anti-climactic endings that I've seen for a long time. In fact, maybe never...<br /><br />But, it's harmless fun, I guess, if you've got nothing better to do.
|
negative
|
It is obviously illegal. Pedophiles pray on stuff like this. How did they get away with making such a movie? This movie is all summed up in one word, SICK. Where do people get off making, and watching these kinds of films. As I was watching the movie I didn't actually think they would allow this kid that is say maybe 12 if that actually sleep with this woman. Sorry if this is a spoiler to you but I would have rater not seen this. Where has the sanity of these people gone? Maybe the makers of this movie are pedophiles? Our society today is filled with all types of sexual predators that pray upon children, yet film makers make these types of movies that do nothing but provoke this type of behavior. I noticed that on a previous comment someone asked if there was a version where it showed them naked. This is a kid here, and someone is asking something like this? What is wrong with this picture?
|
negative
|
Wow. I thought, Eskimo Limon was the most awful and embarrassing first-sex movie ever. But I had forgotten that Germany always tries to compete. In this case, the well-known German film producer Bernd Eichinger was successful in producing even worse crap. Harte Jungs is stupid, not believable and predictable, and above all: not funny. It's almost a tragedy that so many kids went to see this in Germany (and, I'm afraid, also Austria).<br /><br />Tobias Schenke, 19, looks too nice to have no girlfriend and too ripe to be 15, and his character is too dumb to be true. Schenke tries real hard to make us believe that he doesn't know ANYthing about sex, but that doesn't help. Harte Jungs seems to be made by someone who watched Al Bundy and took him too seriously.<br /><br />The best actors in the movie are Sissi Perlinger and Stefan Jürgens who play Schenke's semi-liberal parents. Perlinger and Jürgens are stand-up comedians who are not particularly talented in movie acting. Still, their performances are the `best' and `funniest' in comparison.<br /><br />A complete failure.
|
negative
|
I got this in The Horror Six-Pack from Echo Bridge Home Entertainment. This one is not the worst movie ever made, but it still sucks. In fact, this movie sucked so hard, I don't know how I'm gonna write this review, especially since 1. I popped it out of the DVD player because I couldn't even watch another second and 2. Hurricane friggin' Ike is coming and God knows how long 'til it take for me to get this review done. <br /><br />The movie starts off with a scientist and his wife. The scientist receives a valuable artifact and examines it when this supposedly Urban Legend known as the Skeleton Man kills him, and later on his wife. Then... <br /><br />I'm sorry, but there's really not much else I can say about this POS except don't bother. I'm currently using the disc as a coaster, and if you see this, you might want to do the same. Casper Van Dien and Michael Rooker must have needed cash...BADLY! <br /><br />PS. I'll pretty much be reviewing the movies in the boxset and might do a new review on Ghoulies IV.
|
negative
|
Not really all that much to this movie...either a stunt racer or a stock car racer has a flaming car in the beginning of the movie, goes to bar, is approached by a biker gang who ruins his chances with a very lovely lady, offer him a job, he goes back to their place, refuses, the police ask him to accept their ya go!!! What plays out is a very annoying little film that sees the hero not really do all that much and a biker gang that can kill and for some reason the police can not pin a crime on them. I am not sure why the female biker did what she did at the end, but hey it is a bad movie, you always get scenes that make little sense. I am still trying to figure out if I misheard it when they said the hero of the piece was a stunt car driver. They may have said stock car driver because why would a stunt racer be racing and I wouldn't think it would be all that uncommon for a stunt car to crash. The actors are bad, and all the bikers are pretty annoying and the hero is kind of incompetent...really this movie is not full of kicks but it is the pits.
|
negative
|
We showed this movie at the local Film Society, and the art-house crowd had the time of their cinematic lives. It's tasteless, groovy and very funny in a sixties kind of way. The Kraft Kitchen recipe sketch had them laughing like maniacs. The rest is a mixed bag, but the highs definitely beat the lows. By the way, whatever happened to Ken Shapiro??
|
positive
|
I can't say that Wargames: The Dead Code is the worst movie I've ever seen, as it had one or two decent moments, but I can easily say it's the most transparent movie I've ever seen. Not once did a plot device present itself without me guessing it 10+ minutes in advance. There was no subtlety to anything the movie did, no intelligence evident at all behind the scenes. Every spoken or typed line's intent was so glaringly obvious it was impossible to "get into" the movie.<br /><br />I found myself laughing at the horribly thought out plot line, and the bumbled attempts to reclaim the audience, far more often than I found myself enjoying the movie.
|
negative
|
I agree with all the strenghts mentioned in the other reviews but there are some beats missing here that keep it firmly inside the genre of crime drama or film noir and limit it from being a great drama beyond the limits of the "elements" that make up film noir--not to say that the great film noirs aren't/can't/shouldn't be also great dramas, but this one isn't.<br /><br />One other note the music in the film is used sparingly but I would say is used to accentuate the action more frequently than the wife elements.<br /><br />Great set up to this film by the way with an abrupt sort of non ending ending that is either just right or a let down depends.<br /><br />Spoilers follow as to some specifics.<br /><br />The big turn in the story involves the children seeing their mother die, or it should be the big moment. But the children are never shown to react one way or the other. Neither cries, neither asks their father what happened, the kids are good actors and the reactions of the father are I suppose what matters but this is a big misstep. This is the heart of the story and the kids are kept mostly blank in their reaction. They really just have none, in the next scene they look as if nothing happened.<br /><br />In like fashion there is a bond that forms between Belmondo and Ventura's characters. Belmondo says he knew the partner who was killed--but this is never explained and has no impact dramatically on Belmondo or anyone else. The Belmondo romantic subplot also strains credibility though it's convincingly acted. Ventura's character just lets Belmondo involve a total stranger in their escape plan for no reason. He doesn't even comment or seem to notice. Another gap.<br /><br />The ending to the movie, and I won't spoil it, the ending happens off screen with a perfunctory voice over to tell you what happened. I guess this tries to make it feel more true to life, but again like these other missteps leaves drama off screen.<br /><br />What's the point of not dealing with these issues? I don't know, other than maybe the goals of the film were limited to giving the audience what it wants from a crime melodrama--suggest some deeper elements, then move on to ignore them.<br /><br />Too bad there is much to recommend this film, Ventura is very very good, but too bad it could have been a great drama as well as a crime story--as with IMDb favorite movie of all time THE GODFATHER. This film had potential. Would make for a good remake though if done in the U.S. more problems would probably sink the film, but in the hands of the right director this would be a good remake,though it's doubtful Ventura's performance could be topped.<br /><br />So worth seeing but frustrating as a whole
|
positive
|
I'ts like going around in a museum. You can appreciate the great talent of the main composer, Michael Cimino & this fabulous art desinger of light ..Vilmos Zsigmond. As I said I'ts like being in heaven discovering all the creation this man can applied to a single frame. Imagine when you can look at a moving picture of this artist. I can say: this film is one of the best.
|
positive
|
This movie is important to those of us interested in western history because it makes use of authentic techniques in its production.<br /><br />The scenes of the wagon train are particularly authentic; so far as I know, it contains the only scenes ever filmed illustrating the techniques for river crossings at a bluff. The horses and mules have to be lowered to the river level and the wagons let down by ropes and pulleys. The scene is such that I could watch it over and again just trying to get a feel for what a crossing was like...and the early travelers did it time and time again while crossing the country.<br /><br />Melodrama aside, this picture is as authentic in dress and style as they come and worth watching for that alone.
|
positive
|
i really loved this version of Emma the best. Kate beckinsale was awesome as Emma and mark strong was very good as knightly. the only complaint that i had was on Mr. woodhouse..i can't believe that a man could whine so much or be so selfish with his daughter's life..she was a smart girl in the end though. as always, i love the places in which these Jane Austin movies were shot. the settings are so spectular. it makes me want to visit england so much 9as well as Ireland and Scotland) i think the actors chosen for this movie were a good choice as well and all the other story lines interwhined with Emma's most excellently! i am glad that i got to see this one as well.
|
positive
|
People who say that some of what the Looney Tunes cartoons show is inappropriate for children have apparently forgotten something: they weren't originally intended for children. They were produced for the cinema, to be shown before feature films, and so they could show anything that they wanted. "Tweety's S.O.S." has that bad puddy tat Sylvester finding Tweety aboard an ocean liner and boarding the ship to try and get him. But two things work against Sylvester: Granny is vehemently protecting the canary, and Sylvester easily gets seasick (we don't see him throwing up, but with his green face, they make it perfectly clear that he was doing just that!). And then of course, the seemingly cute Tweety has a bad-ass streak.<br /><br />It's just great to see how these cartoons weren't afraid to go all out; whatever they thought about showing, they showed. We need to understand that cartoons weren't always supposed to be cute entertainment for children. Really funny.
|
positive
|
Age cannot tarnish the beauty of this East-west love story for me. Ignoring the famous and lovely title song and its lyrics, what we have is a dramatized biography of two remarkable people caught in a moment of counter-currents involving social conformity, bigotry, war, doubt, and the need for immense courage. With Hong Kong as the backdrop, this movie tells the story of a Eurasian doctor and a U.S. journalist who meet and fall in love during the Korean War. As Mark Elliott, William Holden is intelligent, breezy and a bit weak; Jennifer Jones is perhaps well-nigh-perfect as Dr. Han Suyin, by turns doubt-torn and ecstatic, eager and hesitant. Others in the large cast include Torin Thatcher, Isobel Elsom, Murray Matheson, Virginia Gregg, Richard Loo, Soo Yong, Philip Ahn, Jorja Curtright and Donna Martell; many of Hollywood's best oriental actors played smaller uncredited parts also. The script by John Patrick followed Han's exquisite novel closely; the direction by Henry King was solid as always. The thrust of the storyline is how unwilling Han was to fall in love with Elliott, with her busy and demanding schedule as a doctor and her doubts about their future; and how unafraid he was, despite the intolerance and interference they faced as their affair became known. The film is unarguably physically busy, interesting and often beautiful also. The hill to which the lovers go to be apart, the lovely bay where they swim are set against an already busy and crowded business city, large social events, and teeming streets, hospital corridors, and traffic-filled arteries. With cinematography by Leon Shamroy, Ben Nye's makeup and Helen Turpin's hairstyles, the great work by set decorators, sound and lighting, art department and all concerned, this has to be one of the most memorable productions set in a major non-U.S. city of all time, and one of the most difficult to capture on film. Yet what one remembers most here is the lovers, thankfully not extremely young, facing the odds against them and assessing exactly what they are--then going ahead as if love mattered and those conditions which are set up as barriers to love do not., The climax of the affair is Mark's going back to war; thereafter Han receives his letters, even after she knows he is has been killed; they seem messages from a better wold. A world where hope is all that matters, courage is the price of admittance to that world, and it is always summer on a high and windy hill set apart and above a zone where beauty and individual desires can be victimized, made subject to ill-fortune or brushed aside by militant forces of evil. Truly, love is a many-splendored thing, Dr. Han says; and this movie stands as one of that doctrine's shining proofs, lucent as a pearl, timeless as a Chinese proverb and lovely as polished jade set against a rough background.
|
positive
|
What can you say when you see a good French movie which tries to draw a suspenseful story in line with the social background of the characters? The major point is we believe in those characters and once they've met each other we want them to stay together. It's simple and really efficient. The background story is less important. Why does the screenplay go on the side of a half-developed thriller? It helps not to get stuck in those social demonstrations most French film-jerkers like to make. Not too much ambition, right: Sur mes lèvres is only an entertaining French film with good characterization.<br /><br />For all the clever noir points in the screenplay the end is by far too easy. It goes quite as easy as in Rear Window (an obvious reference and definitely not a noir film) but with a less compelling context. Where I am amazed it's to see that the character of the probation officer has not been erased. He brings very little to the story; when he appears alone we wonder if we've not missed a part before. Jacques Audiard is not a new-comer yet. Strange and weird.
|
positive
|
The original Boogeyman was a silly but entertaining supernatural slasher flick. It was by no means a great film but fun in the right frame of mind. The third instalment in this series, Return of the Boogeyman, on the other hand, is simply atrocious. It consists of two things. Firstly, cheap and lifeless new footage. Secondly, LOADS of recycled bits from the first movie. The new material is unbelievably amateurish but not in an amusingly inept way, simply incredibly tedious. This footage has clearly been knocked together quickly and without any effort. It serves as a framing device for the endless clips from the first (and possibly second) movies. And boy, do they milk those clips from the earlier films; sometimes reusing sequences over and over again. The only new addition to these parts is a voice over that pointlessly describes exactly what we can see with our own eyes. The whole experience of watching this is truly mind-numbing.<br /><br />Return of the Boogeyman is an example of the very worst kind of exploitation flick; the kind that exploits the audience in a highly cynical way. I want to keep this review brief and to the point because this film deserves no more. There is nothing here of value at all. This is worthless.
|
negative
|
Schieder delivers a semi-believable part as the President of the United States with politically correct Maria Conchita Alonzo as the female Vice President. The movie just stinks. with so many plot holes its a wonder they got it to stick to the film it was shot on. Relegated to late night HBO time schedules, this film is not worth seeing at all. 10 minutes into it, you are asking yourself why it was written. 40 minutes into it, you are wondering why you are watching it. Save the effort and watch a re-run of Hee Haw or something. Anything is better than this clunker.
|
negative
|
"Tapeheads", a scrappy, intermittently funny spoof of the music video business, might have been the perfect comedic short, and stars John Cusack and Tim Robbins are effortlessly in the swing of the nonsensical chaos involved. They play two semi-savvy security guards in Los Angeles who start their own company, Video Aces, making hilarious videos for groups, parties, and one deathbed star. It's too bad the filmmakers had to invent a dim side-plot to pad the running time (shenanigans involving a crooked politician and his henchmen which doesn't do much except take away from the movie's primary strength, sending-up the music culture of the late-'80s). Still, Cusack and Robbins create a couple of originals here: nerdy but loose, street-smart without being hipsters or posers, these guys are on the same nutty wavelength, and they never put each other down. They're the real thing in buddy-comedies. *1/2 from ****
|
negative
|
Holy freaking God all-freaking-mighty. This movie was so bad, I thought I was on drugs. In a bad way... The character acting is the poorest thing I've seen in quite some time. This movie was more akin to Lord of the G-Strings, IMHO(it's a real movie). Most of the movie appeared to be done on a horrible green screen. My favorite part was when they are in the carriage, and you can tell there's no horse. They're fleeing from alien monsters, and going about the same speed as a swift jog. Then it switches to a far-shot with a ridiculous CG horse. And the CG in general seems to be sub-par to 1992's Beyond the Mind's Eye. I mean, Come on, really. It felt like a horrible episode of Hercules, only without Kevin Sorbo there to save the day. Worst. Movie. Ever.
|
negative
|
Why is it that Instant Noodles aren't instant, this was the perplexing problem I placed in the lap of the one legged angry Sherpa; he angrily retorted that noodles weren't his bag, equally I replied "What bag?" He looked further perplexed.<br /><br />Some of you will be wondering, why has the Sherpa only one lower appendage.<br /><br />The Sherpa, who we shall call Sherpa 5, for data protection reasons, injured his toe. "How!?!" I hear you ask, I will proceed, as we have learnt from the review of Donkey Punch (2002) Irene via sly nudges and dirty winks etc tried in vain to teach the slight peculiarities of checkers to all the angry Sherpas. Sherpa 5 who is known only for his violent tirades against democratic principals during the post revolutionary years of the now United States of America and it's consequential affect on the mind sets of it's population in the post modern empire that now exists, through the invasions of countries smaller than it, got carried away in a river of violence due to his lack of comprehension of checkers. According to an eye witness , he sprung around like a feckless banjo string at Mardi gras wielding a stick with nail through it, after the struggle that ensued 5 llamas were each found to be missing their left testicles, 3 Sherpas were discovered spooning beneath a gooseberry bush and Sherpa 5 had the nail stuck in his big toe.<br /><br />A Sherpas lifestyle is as modest as a nuns, with only rudimentary health care facilities at 15000 ft above sea level. Consequentially when the first aid hut was opened only an IOU for a tin of spam, and some crotchless knickers were found. Sherpa 5 hopped around like a dark on a noose in agony, until Irene burst forth like a cock from a hen house and suggested soaked his ailment in llama spit. Sherpa 5 agreed to the procedure , to sedate him, a bottle of 100 yr old Glenfiditch was produced, some say it was left by an angry Scotsman, who is thought to be an ancestor of the angry Sherpas. One under the influence, the toe was bathed until ridged, dressed with Irenes slightly soiled diaphragm and some blue tack. Some of you may feel that this procedure wouldn't do the Sherpa any good and you would be fully vindicated for holding that view. Only four days later gangrene set it and a week later the leg was removed through the use of even tighter elastic bands
|
negative
|
Generally over rated movie which boasts a strong cast and some clever dialog and of course Dean Martin songs. Problem is Nicholas Cage, there is no chemistry between he and Cher and they are the central love story. Cher almost makes up for this with her reactions to Cage's shifting accent and out of control body language. Cage simply never settles into his role. He tries everything he can think of and comes across as an actor rather than real person and that's what's needed in a love story. Cage has had these same kind of performance problems in other roles that require more of a Jimmy Stewart type character. Cage keeps taking these roles, perhaps because he likes those kind of movies but his own energy as an actor doesn't lend itself to them, though he's gotten better at it with repeated attempts. He should leave these type of roles to less interesting actors who would fully commit to the film and spend his energy and considerable talent in more off beat roles and films where he can be his crazy interesting self.
|
negative
|
Considering the limits of this film (The entire movie in one setting - a music studio - only about 5 or 6 actors total) it should have been much better made. IF you have these limits in making a film, how could the lighting be so bad? And the actors were terrible, were talking a hair below the acting in Clerks, except that was an enjoyable movie, this had no substance. Well it tried to, but really fails.<br /><br />It makes attempt to be self-referencing in a couple parts, but the lines were delivered so poorly by the actors it was just bad. And the main character Neal guy, what a pathetic looser. Clearly like 10 people total made this 'film' and they all knew each other, and it probably was a real rock band that they had, but unfortuntly these people really have no idea how terrible they are all around. This was made in 2005, but they all look so naieve it smacks of just pre-grunge era.<br /><br />Thankfully I didn't pay to see this (Starz on Demand delivers again!) but it was under the title "The Possessed" not Studio 666, it doesn't matter what you do to the title, it can't help this. This could have been a much better made movie - there is no excuse for this bad film-making when you have the obvious limited parameters the filmmakers had when they made this, working within those limits you should make the stuff you can control and the stuff you can work with the best you can. Instead they figured mediocrity would be good enough. And that music video, wow that was bad, I fast fowarded through that.<br /><br />So 2/10 is fair, if you are into the whole b-movie crap I suppose you'll go and see this.
|
negative
|
Following on from the huge success of Nick Park and the Aardman team with the Wallace and Gromit short animations we now have the first (hopefully of many) feature with the plasticine characters that so many love. The DVD of the movie has proved to be the most durable and best used of my two children's many Christmas presents by a long way. The plot of the movie is straightforward enough but the beauty of the W & G films for me is the background gags. There are plenty of up front gags and slapstick for kids and adults to enjoy but the background is the killer for me. All in a classy addition to an already classy filmography for Nick Park etal and I would recommend fans and new watchers to see this film....often.
|
positive
|
This is one of my all time favourites. All the actors do a great job. Comparing this movie to "Lawrence of Arabia" does no justice to both movies. "The Wind and the Lion" levels a much lower budget with fantastic actors portraying heartwarming characters in a heartwarming atmosphere. Action and beautiful pictures are provided as well, which all together guarantees a favourite movie to me.
|
positive
|
OK, so one night me and some friends decided to get really stoned and watch a movie. Unfortunately for us, we chose 'Ernest Goes to Africa.' I have never laughed so hard in my entire life. This movie is beyond bad. I have literally pooped out better films than 'Ernest Goes to Africa.' (I poop films) <br /><br />The highlight of this movie, for me at least, was the opening sequence, when Ernest is making silly faces. When they showed him with a head the size of a peanut, I lost it. Perhaps I found this so funny because at that point I was the most high. Perhaps you are right.<br /><br />If I had to guess what George W. Bush's favorite movie is, I would guess 'Ernest Goes to Africa.' Never before have I seen a movie rely more on 1950's stereotypes of people of color. There were times when words escaped me and I just stared in awe.<br /><br />As I was watching this, I couldn't help but wonder, is this movie meant for children? Do literate adults actually watch this? How could there possibly be a whole franchise of 'Ernest' movies? Is this really my life? Is this real? <br /><br />I hated this movie.
|
negative
|
Ok, basically this is a popcorn sci-fi movie, but from the outset its obvious that it has been directed with a great deal of intelligence. You can count about 10 clichés that the film is building up to, but it only delivers on about three of them, and a couple of them have a twist to them that lets you know once again that the director hasn't assumed that you are an idiot. Kurt Russell's acting is truely superb and brings a depth from the character that is suprising and rewarding. Recommended if you've just seen something really stupid, and want to rebuild your faith!
|
positive
|
There's no shortage of bad dialogue in David and Bathsheba "I was quite a hand with a slingshot," "The King of all Israel out there in the darkness exposing himself to the enemy" (full marks to Dennis Hooey for delivering that one with a straight face), "Go and sit with the concubines." And somehow I doubt a bored David ever told the prophet Nathan "Whatever you say." He even tries the old "My kingdom doesn't understand me" routine on desperate housewife Bathsheba at one point. So it's probably a tribute to Henry King's direction that the film isn't at all bad despite the pitfalls much of the first third provide. Maybe it's the censor-baiting nature of the plot a married man kills a femme fatale's husband and gets away with it! but King brings out the growing moral and theological complexities in Phillip Dunne's script rather than upping the sin and sandals hokum. This is the conflicted David on the downhill slope, abandoned by a vengeful God he no longer understands, and the film doesn't back away from the awkward unanswerable questions about why a loving deity would choose to wreak vengeance on the innocent rather than the guilty. It even offers a genuinely surprising criticism of the sexual inequality of the law, where the failings of husbands result in the punishment of their wives.<br /><br />Unlike King David, which sidelined the king in favour of the admittedly more interesting Saul, David is firmly at the centre of the drama and despite an interesting display of shoulder twitching and a frankly gormless overlong close-up when visiting the site of Saul and Jonathan's death, Gregory Peck's performance grows in stature as David shrinks. Susan Hayward is pure Hollywood pro, Raymond Massey is an appropriately theatrical prophet (why be naturalistic when you've got a voice that makes the very heavens quake?) and Kieron Moore's Uriah such an intransigent unreconstructed chauvinist that you can't exactly blame David for putting him in harm's way, but despite threatening to soft peddle the film doesn't allow David a moral get out of jail free card over his death. With surprisingly strong but subdued design and Technicolor photography this is definitely a cut above most 40s-50s Biblical epics.<br /><br />Fox's new DVD is a good transfer, including an incredibly hokey 'candid' behind-the-scenes short and a trailer with brief shots deleted from the film's sole battle scene.
|
positive
|
This program was quite interesting. The way the program was displayed made it all the more interesting. String Theory is also very interesting to listen too. The whole three hours in my opinion were well worth it. I enjoyed listening to the ideas given by the physicists. Extra dimensions really boggle the mind. If you have the chance, watch this amazing documentary.
|
positive
|
Other reviews have talked about how frank this film is, especially in terms of male frontal nudity. Well, those who've seen Grande Ecole with its frequently naked actors and expect something similar are in for a big disappointment. Other than a few seconds in the judo team locker room, the two leads' side by side shower lasts a grand total of 15 seconds. The female lead has comparably brief frontal moments. A lot of this film's marketing is geared to the gay male audience, but those expecting even a hint of homoeroticism between the two male leads (best friends who have a three-way with the girlfriend of one of them) will be most disappointed. There is not even the hint of either one's being interested in the other, or even scarcely aware that the other is part of the menage a trois. As a film, Douches Froides is curiously uninvolving; the viewer gets very little sense of who these three young people are, of how they are feeling, of why they behave as they do. About one hour of the original cut was deleted; perhaps this is why the finished film seems frustratingly undeveloped. Stick with Grande Ecole, a French film which more than delivers on its promises.
|
negative
|
The Residents are a band known for their strange appearances and odd musical stylings, so obviously, their music videos aren't going to be exactly normal. In fact, these little videos are abnormal, and bizarre, but have a huge artistic value to them. The atmosphere is built with lighting, and thoughtful visuals. It's a great watching experience.<br /><br />Basically, Icky Flix just consists of many Residents music videos made for their songs. The music itself ranges from rock to synthesized music that sounds like it's straight out of an 80s horror film. What doesn't change is the quality of these videos. They're great!<br /><br />Any fan of art films will love these. They're so original with their visuals, and the angles they are filmed at, and the lighting especially make these so interesting. The music is creepy and catchy and highly original and these short films are mini-classics that deserve multiple watchings. This is a near-perfect collection of short videos.<br /><br />My rating: **** out of ****. 56 mins.
|
positive
|
Minor Spoilers<br /><br />Alison Parker (Cristina Raines) is a successful top model, living with the lawyer Michael Lerman (Chris Sarandon) in his apartment. She tried to commit suicide twice in the past: the first time, when she was a teenager and saw her father cheating her mother with two women in her home, and then when Michael's wife died. Since then, she left Christ and the Catholic Church behind. Alison wants to live alone in her own apartment and with the help of the real state agent Miss Logan (Ava Gardner), she finds a wonderful furnished old apartment in Brooklyn Heights for a reasonable rental. She sees a weird man in the window in the last floor of the building, and Miss Logan informs that he is Father Francis Matthew Halloran (John Carradine), a blinded priest who lives alone supported by the Catholic Church. Alison moves to her new place, and once there, she receives a visitor: her neighbor Charles Chazen (Burgess Meredith) welcomes her and introduces the new neighbors to her. Then, he invites Alison to his cat Jezebel's birthday party in the night. On the next day, weird things happen with Alison in her apartment and with her health. Alison looks for Miss Logan and is informed that she lives alone with the priest in the building. A further investigation shows that all the persons she knew in the party were dead criminals. Frightened with the situation, Alison embraces Christ again, while Michael investigates the creepy events. Alison realizes that she is living in the gateway to hell. <br /><br />Although underrated in IMDb User Rating, 'The Sentinel' is one of the best horror movies ever. I have seen this film at least six times, being the first time in the 70's, in the movie theater. In 07 September 2002, I bought the imported DVD and saw it again. Yesterday I saw this movie once more. Even after so many years, this film is still terrific. The creepy and lurid story frightens even in the present days. The cast is a constellation of stars and starlets. You can see many actors and actresses, who became famous, in the beginning of career. Fans of horror movie certainly worships 'The Sentinel', and I am one of them. My vote is nine.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): 'A Sentinela dos Malditos' ('The Sentinel of the Damned')<br /><br />Obs.: On 02 September 2007, I saw this movie again.
|
positive
|
I am an avid Julie Andrews fan and I just watched this for the first time on DVD -- the Director's Cut version. I was very surprised that it was rated G. How did they get bedroom scenes, a seduction story line, two strip tease acts, and war/shooting/blood into a G rating? Weird. I would rate it PG-13.<br /><br />Other than that I thoroughly enjoyed the movie. It was a beautiful showcase of Andrew's voice and talent. The acting was great. The storyline was a little weak, leaving gaps that could have been filled with some good dialogue. There were too many "no talking, just walking" scenes for me... I would have liked to see the the relationship between Julie and Rock blossom, so that the intense love would be more believable.
|
positive
|
After viewing the film, I was truly shocked to see such a high rating on IMDb.<br /><br />'The Fantastic Mr. Fox' is an adaption of a beloved children's classic, portraying the story of the smooth, slick protagonist Mr. Fox (or 'Foxy') as he attempts one 'last' heist to steal from the dreaded Boggins, Bunce and Bean. That's right, one short, one fat, one lean, or however it goes.<br /><br />I don't quite know where to start with my criticism.<br /><br />Well, I'm in my late teens and was never a fan of Roald Dahl, but I like his material well enough, having read a few of his books as a child and seen Matilda and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory over and over again. This film, however, struggles for an audience. Is it aimed at children? Adults? I'm still unsure! Many of the 'jokes' would bore a child, especially as Mr. Fox visits a lawyer for example, or complains about being poor. Also, an audience of (I'm assuming) children is expected to sympathise with a character who steals and kills chickens. I'm all for the food chain, but you practically see Mr. Fox biting down on their necks! Surely that's a bit much? And also, the plot... well, it's kind of boring. I stayed only with the hope of it getting better, but instead I just got more and more annoyed at Mr Fox and his son Ash for making stupid decisions.<br /><br />The humour, meanwhile, falls flat. I laughed only once or twice, even though I specifically recognised attempts at jokes. I think part of it is that the voice acting is so incredibly flat and monotoned. The voice actors have no sense of comic timing, instead aiming for the subtlety of humour that only works with certain mediums. George Clooney aims to portray Mr. Fox as charming and sleek, but his voice has no character. Meryl Streep shows no emotion, I didn't even realise Bill Murray had a role until the end credits, and Ash, twelve-years old in fox-years, sounds like he's about 30.<br /><br />I love animation, particularly stop motion, but the visual style actually creeped me out a little bit. Characters are tall, spindly and lacking any warmth of design. They move with very little fluidity and often the animation is jerky and strange. There is also a distinctive 'mixed medium' feel, as 2D components are added in sporadically and unsuccessfully. Characters look straight at the camera and talked; it was very awkward. There was one or two moments when Kylie looked straight at the camera, didn't move and had swirls on his eyeballs. It actually freaked me out.<br /><br />Fantastic Mr. Fox had so much potential. Lots of people still seem to like it - look at the reviews. Maybe it just wasn't for me.
|
negative
|
Bad movie. It´s too complicated for young children and too childish for grown-ups. I just saw it because I´m a Robin Williams fan and I was very disappointed.(
|
negative
|
Yeah, well, I definitely had regrets about giving up my Saturday night watching this strange little, yet very long, movie. Apparently neither did the main character for stealing two hours of my life. Here's the epitome of the antihero in 'No Regrets.' We have this jerk, so messed up, so wandering, so selfish, aimless and unlikable that it was extremely hard to get past the attraction a highly favored businessman's up-and-coming son, Jaemin, unless it was just that: physical attraction. He claims otherwise, that it's love. But after watching this, it's like loving Charles Manson because you dig the beard. (Alright, he's not that bad, but still no real redeemable characteristics.) I could never get past the reason Jaemin endless stalks Sumin. It was never shown, just told, that Jaemin loves Sumin. Perhaps it's a culture thing that flew over my head: crazy/stalking = mad love over in Seoul. It has to be, because a little more than half the movie is one stalking the other and the last part is stalking back and forth to the point I thought this was turning into a screwball comedy. I was waiting for a tiger named "baby" to make an appearance. Okay, so Sumin works two jobs while going to school, so far so good on someone trying to better themselves. But after his first taste of his stalker's attraction, he gives up his day job for some kind of prostitution ring. What? OK, well, as previously mentioned, the obsession doesn't stop due to the job/career change and if you throw in a bunch of other very angry characters you get one messed up movie where unbelievable occurrences just seem to happen without buildup. Basic movie, not 100% terrible, but you can do better with foreign gay-themed movies.
|
negative
|
An interesting animation about the fate of a giant tiger, a sloth, and a mammoth, who saved a baby, who was close to be killed by a group of tigers during the ice age. The morale of the film shows that good behavior with the others may bring benefits at the end. One of the tigers in the group got an order to finally capture the baby, who was hardly saved by his mother when the tigers attacked her community. The baby was then rescued by the sloth and the mammoth, but the tiger joined them with the objective of finally taken away the baby. They went through very troublesome paths with plenty of danger, and at once the tiger was to fall down and saved by the mammoth. At the end the group of tigers tried to capture the baby but the mammoth helped incredibly by his tiger colleague was able to overcome this attack and to give the baby back to his father and the community to which he belongs.
|
positive
|
This group of English pros are a pleasure to watch. The supporting cast could form a series of their own. It's a seen before love tiangle between the head of surgery, his wife, and a new pretty boy surgery resident. Only the superior acting skills of Francesca Annis, Michael Kitchen, and the sexy Robson Greene lift this from the trash category to a very enjoyable "romp". The only quibble is that it's hard to accept that the smoldering Francesca Annis would fall in love and actually marry Michael Kitchen, who like me, is hardly an international, or even a British sex symbol. You can readily understand why Robson Green would light her fire, with apologies to the "Doors". The guy who almost steals the show with a great "laid back" performance is Owen's father David Bradley. Watch him in "The Way We Live Now", in a completely different performance, to get an idea of his range. Daniela Nardini as Kitchen's secretary, sometime sex toy, is hard to forget as the spurned mistress who makes Kitchen sorry he ever looked at her great body. Conor Mullen, and Julian Rhind-Tutt, as Green's sidekick surgery buddies as I've said could have their own series. They are that good. The whole thing is a great deal of fun, and I heartily recommend it, and thank you imdbman for letting the paying customers have their say in this fascinating venue.
|
positive
|
Having to have someone hold your hand whenever walk up or down stairs? Having others taste your food before you eat it? Facing an over-bearing mother? These are only a few of the obstacles which the young Victoria has to deal with in this film (there's also the various power struggles going on, as well as attempts on her life). Needless to say, it makes for very fascinating and informative viewing.<br /><br />I had only previously seen Emily Blunt in The Devil Wears Prada (and little else). As she was in that film, she is once again the standout here. I was extremely impressed with her portrayal of the young Victoria, and thought she handled the role very well. She makes the transition from the young Victoria we meet at the start of the film to the Queen Victoria she becomes later entirely believable. Blunt is perfectly cast in the role, showing all the different sides (from the vulnerable, to the strong, from the young Victoria who makes mistakes to the Queen who takes control). Not enough can be said about Emily Blunt in this role. She's - quite simply - exquisite, commanding your attention every second she's on screen. She keeps you transfixed up to and including the final shot of the film.<br /><br />Rupert Friend proves to also be well-cast as Victoria's love interest (and eventual husband), Prince Albert. The actors have nice chemistry and you absolutely believe in their developing relationship. They have their disagreements, but you can tell that they are in love. Blunt and Friend are excellent in every scene that they share and keep you interested in what is happening between Victoria and Albert. The other actors in the film are also very good. Paul Bettany as Lord Melbourne, Miranda Richardson as the Duchess of Kent, Mark Strong as Sir John Conroy and Jim Broadbent as King William. There is not a single bad performance in this film. The less-focused-upon people are well-portrayed also, given what little screen time they have. Even Victoria's dog (a Cavalier King Charles Spaniel named Dash) is memorable and makes an impact in the film.<br /><br />Although the movie does tend to skip more than a few aspects of Victoria's life - especially at the end - and instead *tells* us what happened (with her and Albert) on screen, what matters the most is what we actually *see*. This is, after all, a film about 'The Young Victoria' (not 'The Middle-Aged Victoria', nor 'The Old Victoria'). While there are some embellishments made on history with this film, it remains focused on what it sets out to do - which is tell us the story of how the young princess rose to power.<br /><br />The movie looks amazing, the costumes Emily Blunt wears are visually stunning and the music only adds to the film, never detracts from it. It's exceptionally shot and, unlike a lot of films these days, this movie is actually a good length, as it doesn't run on so long that you lose interest or feel that it's needlessly being drawn out.<br /><br />It goes without saying that what makes this film so great is Emily Blunt. She's in fine form here, turning in another excellent performance and elevating this film above what it might have been, had another actress been cast in this rather important/historic role. This is one finely-crafted film, with excellent performances that should definitely be seen. If you have an appreciation for a fascinating look at a woman who was extremely significant in history, this is a must-see.
|
positive
|
The problem with the 1985 version of this movie is simple; Indiana Jones was so closely modeled after Alan Quartermain (or at least is an Alan Quartermain TYPE of character), that the '85 director made the mistake of plundering the IJ movies for dialog and story far too deeply. What you got as a finished product was a jumbled mess of the name Alan Quartermain, in an uneven hodge podge of a cheaply imitated IJ saga (with a touch of Austin Powers-esquire cheese here and there). <br /><br />It was labeled by many critics to have been a "great parody," or "unintentional comedy." Unintentional is the word. This movie was never intended to be humorous; witty, yes, but not humorous. Unfortunately, it's witless rather than witty.<br /><br />With this new M4TV mini-series, you get much more story, character development of your lead, solid portrayals, and a fine, even, entertaining blend. This story is a bit long; much longer than its predecessors, but deservedly so as this version carries a real storyline and not just action and Eye Candy. While it features both action and Eye Candy, it also corrects the mistake made in the 1985 version by forgetting IJ all together and going back to the source materials for AQ, making for a fine, well - thought - out plot, and some nice complementing sub-plots. <br /><br />Now this attempt is not the all out action-extravaganza that is Indiana Jones. Nor is it a poor attempt to be so. This vehicle is plot and character driven and is a beautiful rendition of the AQ/KSM saga. Filmed on location in South Africa, the audience is granted beautiful (if desolate) vistas, SA aboriginal cultures, and some nice wildlife footage to blend smoothly with the performances and storyline here.<br /><br />Steve Boyum totally surprised me with this one, as I have never been one to subscribe to his vision. In fact, I have disliked most of his work as a director, until this attempt. I hope this is more a new vein of talent and less the fluke that it seems to be. <br /><br />This version rates a 9.8/10 on the "TV" scale from...<br /><br />the Fiend :.
|
positive
|
Another demonstration of Kurosawa's genius, his first colour film is a darkly surreal look into the tragic lives of Tokyo slum dwellers, essentially a series of interweaving vignettes depicting several groups of people eking out a perilous existence in a harsh and uncaring post-war shanty town. Swinging from comedy to tragedy and back, this film shows how people deal with the worst kind of life each in their own way, mostly retreating into themselves and living in the fantasy worlds of their own heads, withdrawing emotionally from those around them or drowning themselves in alcohol. Mixing kitchen-sink realism with Kabuki-esque theatrics, Kurosawa toys expertly with the emotions of his audience, drawing tears and laughter with equal deftness. A wonderful, draining experience.
|
positive
|
Czech movie goers may have enjoyed and rated this film highly because it was Czech, but I found it to be trite, tedious, moronic, boring, and insipid. Again, I suspect "ramping" in order to increase sales of this dog of a film. Amazon describes this film as being about a couple of fellows that refuse to grow up, but I will go one further--I think it is about two fellows that have entered a state of dementia and perform actions that make no sense to anyone. I have been told that one of the actors in the film committed suicide after the film, and I would believe it. When he saw his performance he probably realized what a gosh awful job he had done and realized that the only way to avoid terminal embarrassment was to make the "big exit", which I am sure was much more dramatic and a much better performance that he had done in "Autumn Spring." Don't waste your time or money on this pathetic performance. It's nothing but a dog in a manger.
|
negative
|
This film tries to skewer the studio era in Hollywood and the morals of the 1950s. Guy Stone is intended to be a Rock Hudson type, but both the script and actor Matt Letscher end up channeling a smarmy, cruel, baritone-voiced version of George Hamilton instead, which makes for an unpleasant character.<br /><br />Guy Stone is such a reprehensible human being that the audience has trouble liking this waste of human skin. Unlike Hudson, who was sweetly promiscuous, Stone is a hateful person who knowingly uses and then throws away the sweet, handsome young men who share his bed every few hours.<br /><br />Veronica Cartwright is Jerry, Stone's celibate lesbian manager. Cartwright is very good, but the director doesn't quite know what to do with her. The fault lies in the dialogue, which is a bit clumsy, and the film suffers for it.<br /><br />Carrie Preston's Sally owes more to Ellen Greene in "The Little Shop of Horrors". As written, Preston's Sally is good for a laugh but little else. Newcomer Adam Greer is lost in this movie. He cannot act, and seems to have been cast for his hot body and good looks.<br /><br />Like many recent films, "Straight-Jacket" is a "dramedy" -- a comedy film which switches messily to a drama about two-thirds of the way through the film. And, like almost all dramedies, "Straight-Jacket" fails miserably.<br /><br />Despite the expensive services of Skywalker Sound, the sound quality of the film leaves a lot of be desired. The over-use of the musical soundtrack creates a distracting amount of cues as well.<br /><br />The film really doesn't managed to satirize anything about the 1950s. Unlike "Singin' in the Rain," which perfectly captures Hollywood's ambivalence about the advent of sound as well as the studio mentality about formula films, "Straight-Jacket" doesn't manage to depict Hollywood in the 1950s at all well. The dialogue, sets and behavior of the key characters are nondescript rather than dead-on stereotypes of the 1950s Hollywood. The same can be said for the lampooning of the general mores, social trends and fads of the 1950s as a whole. Compare the transformation of Guy's home to the dead-on satire of the 1950s home in "Little Shop of Horrors". There is no comparison; "Little Shop" hits the nail on the head, while "Straight-Jacket" doesn't even know there is a nail.<br /><br />Motivations, too, seem haphazard. Rick Foster is supposed to be a principled liberal, yet he falls almost immediately for a materialistic schmuck like Guy Stone. Rick is fine with Guy's closeted status for many months. But when it comes time to go to Italy, he becomes conflicted for reasons that are completely unclear. And even though Sally appears to fall in love with Freddie during the party, this plot point simply disappears a few minutes later without comment. Rick comes off like a gay man from the 1990s, not a gay author of the 1950s. Indeed, modern morality suffuses this film -- which it shouldn't, if it were really a satirical look at homophobia in 1950s Hollywood.<br /><br />Plot holes in this ragtag film also abound. Saul repeatedly says that he's going to turn Freddie Stevens over to the feds, but never does so -- allowing Freddie to out Guy. Jerry and Saul's plot to "in" Guy never makes any sense, nor does Sally's sudden decision to take the blame. And although Guy has admitted he is a homosexual, apparently it doesn't matter and he ends up a famous star and playwright anyway.<br /><br />Unfortunately, none of the production values manage to save this film. The cinematography by Michael Pinkey is pedestrian. At times, the film almost looks like a filmed play rather than a motion picture (especially the scenes in Saul's office). Everything is restricted to medium shots, and the film has an incredibly static. The editing by Chris Conlee doesn't do the film any help, either. Long scenes which would benefit from the insertion of close-ups or shifts in point of view remain uncut. Whether this is due to lack of coverage or bad editing is not clear, but the overall effect is to create a sense of lethargy.<br /><br />The film relies heavily on CGI effects of Guy's home, created by visual effect designer Thomas Dickens. But the CGI looks clumsy and hokey, and it is very noticeably amateurish.<br /><br />My overall impression of this film is that the jokes are cheap and easy, the plot muddled, the characterizations wildly inconsistent and way off the mark, the satire nonexistent, the performances overbroad and off the mark, and the comic timing off. It's almost an amateurish film. It is as if someone took a high school production and threw $10 million at it.
|
negative
|
What happens when an army of wetbacks, towelheads, and Godless Eastern European commies gather their forces south of the border? Gary Busey kicks their butts, of course. Another laughable example of Reagan-era cultural fallout, Bulletproof wastes a decent supporting cast headed by L Q Jones and Thalmus Rasulala.
|
negative
|
Visually interesting, but falls flat in the originality department. This tedious excercise in technique wears thin after the opening battle. Jude Law has the charisma of burnt toast, but in his defense this film contains some of the worst dialogue I have ever seen on the big screen. In fact the script is so poor that it keeps taking you out of the film, and had me thinking about work, bills, my dogs, etc. There are many moments that scream bluescreen. Paltrow is as wooden as they get. This could of been saved by snappy film noir dialogue or over the top camp. My only complaint on the technique is that Black & White film (sorry, computer) would of helped because it looks like Turner colorized black and white. Just a big dull cliché mess. I would rather break my femur than sit through this endurance test again.
|
negative
|
Sergio Martino is a great director, who has contributed a lot to Italian genre cinema and, as far as I am considered, his Gialli from the 1970s are the undisputed highlights in his impressive repertoire. "La Coda Dello Scorpione" aka. "The Case Of The Scorpion's Tale" of 1971 is one of these impressive films Martino has contributed to Italian Horror's most original sub-genre, and another proof that the man is a master of atmosphere, style and suspense. My personal favorite of the Martino films I've seen so far is still the insanely brilliant "Your Vice Is A Locked Room And Only I Have The Key" of 1972, followed by "Torso" (1973) and "The Strange Vice Of Mrs Wardh" (1971), all of which I personally like even more than this one. That's purely a matter of personal taste, however, as "La Coda Dello Scorpione" is an equally excellent film that is essential for every fan of Italian Horror cinema and suspense in general.<br /><br />The film, which delivers tantalizing suspense from the very beginning has a complex and gripping plot that begins with the mysterious demise of a millionaire who has died in a plane crash. Insurance investigator Peter Lynch (George Hilton) is assigned to verify the circumstances the insurance company which is due to pay a large sum to the deceased man's wife. Soon after Lynch begins to investigate, a person is brutally killed, which is just the beginning of a series of murders...<br /><br />"The Case of the Scorpion's Tail" excellently delivers all the elements a great Giallo needs. The film is stunningly suspenseful from the beginning, the score by Bruno Nicolai is brilliant, the plot is wonderfully convoluted, and the killer's identity remains a mystery until the end. Regular Giallo leading-man George Hilton once again delivers an excellent performance in the lead. Sexy Anita Strindberg is absolutely ravishing in the female lead. The includes the great Luigi Pistilli, one of the most brilliant regulars of Italian genre-cinema of the 60s and 70s, and Alberto De Mendoza, another great actor who should be familiar to any lover of Italian cinema. Athens, where most of the film takes place, is actually a great setting for a Giallo. The atmosphere is constantly gripping, and the photography great, and Bruno Nicolai's ingenious score makes the suspense even more intense. Long story short: "La Coda Dello Scorpione" is another excellent Giallo from Sergio Martino and an absolute must-see for any lover of the sub-genre! Stylish, suspenseful, and great in all regards!
|
positive
|
Its spelled S-L-A-S-H-E-R-S. I was happy when the main character flashed her boobs. That was pretty tight. Before and after that the movie pretty much blows. The acting is like E-list and it's shown well in the movie. Not to mention it is so low budget that Preacherman and Chainsaw Charlie are played by the same person. The whole movie looks like it was shot with a camcorder instead of half way decent film. The only other reason I liked the movie was because Chainsaw Charlie and Doctor Ripper were funny. They said many stupid things that made me laugh. Other than that if you see this movie at Blockbuster do everyone a favor hide it behind Lawnmowerman 2. Anybody that thinks this movie is good should be mentally evaluated.
|
negative
|
"Tempest" is a somewhat self-indulgent, uneven, discursive movie. But as Lord Byron, another visitor to Greece, protested to his friend John Murray about his similarly self-indulgent and discursive "Don Juan," "It may be profligate but is it not life, is it not the thing?"<br /><br />The connections to Shakespeare's "Tempest" may seem, as another commentator here claims, a bit tenuous. But watch the film again after re-reading "The Tempest," and they'll seem far closer. What makes this film flawed is its uneasy mixture of straightforward normal narrative and sudden jarring apparent improvisation, particularly between Cassavetes and Rowland. But to be honest, these scenes are the most remarkable and gripping in the film, if the hardest to watch.<br /><br />The music of this film, composed by Stomu Yamashta, is also overlooked. Particularly fine is the perfect little piece played to accompany the afternoon siesta, as people, animals, and seemingly the entire island collapse to sleep away the hottest part of the afternoon. It's a sublime moment, and representative of the best aspect of this movie and the one thing that keeps it somewhat unified, the fact that (aside from extensive flashbacks and the very end) it is the story of one day on an island, from awakening to night. <br /><br />Overall, I'd rather watch this film a hundred times than see some bombastic Hollywood piece of crap once. And in fact, I probably have watched it several dozen times. Most times, I see something I missed before.<br /><br />(Confession: I'm biased. This was the second movie I took my Greek-American goddess wife to see.)<br /><br />Trivia notes on this flick: <br /><br />- It was Molly Ringwald's first movie, as well as Sam Robards';<br /><br />- It was actually not filmed on an island, but in Gytheion, the southern tip of the remote Mani peninsula of the Peloponnesus of Greece;<br /><br />- The (by today's standards) primitive special effects were done by Bran Ferren, who later became head of Disney Imagineering, and still later was an adviser to the US intelligence community;<br /><br />- Paul Mazursky, the director, chose the title of his recent autobiography, "Show Me the Magic," from the script of "Tempest."
|
positive
|
hi I'm from Taft California and i like this movie because it shows how us little town people love our sports football is the main thing in Taft and this movie shows just how important it is i personally think they should make another one but instead of actors use us kids to play the games well show you our determination we've beat Bakersfield every game for the past 6 years and since I'm a senior next year its my last chance and then its college we've had running backs lead the state and I'm next if you want to know me I'm kyle Taylor and i average seven to eight yards a carry and about five times a game ill break away on a 75 or around that yard run so check us out at our website and go to our sports page bye
|
positive
|
What can I say? This was one awful movie to watch. I am normally not very critical of gay cinema in general, due to the fact that most are usually low-budget, but this really pushed me up the wall. I mean, is this was has happened to gay cinema? Haven't gay producers and directors learned anything from Gus Van Saints and Ang Lee's films?. Just having to sit through the entire movie was like being in a dentist's chair and having my wisdom teeth extracted. I kept on praying for moments where I would feel any sort of connection with any of the characters, but that never happened. Most of the characters performances were just not very convincing. It was like watching one of those badly produced made-for-TV movie specials on a local access TV stations. I cannot tell u how greatly disappointed It was seeing this film after being a big fan of Tori Spellings other works and the directors last work on "Latter day saints." It was definitely not worth the wait. Definitely, a few hours of my life I will never get back and will certainly not be purchasing it on DVD.
|
negative
|
Dear Mr Ram Gopal Varma, I don't know in which capacity I am writing this letter to you. I am a never-say-he's-finished Amitabh Bachchan fan, having sat through his cock-chasing act in Jaadugar. I also demand some important designation in The Godfather fan club, having watched the Coppola classic more times than you have delivered flops from your Factory. And, of course, I have been a big admirer of yours, right from the time you had Nagarjuna wrapping the cycle chain around his knuckles in Shiva.<br /><br />When you announced Sarkar and called it your take on Godfather, all one wanted to know was the date the first look would be out, the Sunday the promos would go on air, the Friday the film would be released. It was sheer wish fulfillment at work knowing that you, and not someone hovering between the mustard fields of Amritsar and the tulip gardens of Amsterdam, had taken up the task of recreating the Puzo pages on the Bollywood big screen.<br /><br />Your cast couldn't have been more you working for the first time with the legend, casting Abhishek as his screen-son, giving Kay Kay a role he has deserved for years, bringing back forgotten faces like Supriya Pathak and Rukhsar, and picking complete non-actors like Katrina and Tanishaa to join the list
Before July 1, you had made Sarkar the most-awaited film ever for any Godfather freak who worshiped Bachchan.<br /><br />The opening credits stoked the hope that your stunning sepia-tinted promos on the telly had kindled. But now, you labeled Sarkar your tribute to Godfather instead of the word "inspired" which you had been using all along. Probably you don't want the two creations to be compared but when the medium is the same, then a Kaante would be compared to Reservoir Dogs and a Reservoir Dogs to a City On Fire.<br /><br />Also, when your first and last sequences the heart of any screenplay treatment are all about the establishment and the transfer of power, you can't keep the Nagares and the Corleones apart, even if you replace the American mafia moves with Maharashtrian political power play.<br /><br />But you got it wrong, Mr Varma
You wanted to show Amitabh in his 70s avatar, as rustled up by the pens of Salim-Javed. You wanted him to lurk around larger than life. You wanted him to be his own brand(o). Then how could you steal his voice in the name of using silence? How could you keep him rooted to his chair in the hunt for interesting camera angles? How could you leave him stranded without his voice and stature, the two things that have made his B so big? Coppola's Godfather cameraman Gordon Willis masked Brando's eyes throughout the movie because it didn't have the power to match that drawling husky voice or that sudden snap of the fingers. But you tried to repeat the Malik act from your very own Company. But Bachchan is no Ajay Devgan his forte doesn't lie in the stagnant stare and the suffocating silence. You made the man look like a comatose patient, who's reminded from time to time to look at the cue cards and mouth those predictable one-liners. For that, Agneepath's there, any given Saturday.<br /><br />Which Bachchan fan would go and watch Kay Kay Menon stealing the thunder from under his nose in the scene where Sarkar asks Vishnu to leave his house? Which Amitabh aficionado would go and watch him focus on achaar and carom, in a film that talks about power with a capital P in the promos? We can't handle so much in the name of restraint and understatement! You don't even allow the camera to rest on him for five seconds when he learns that his son wanted to kill him. Give me the old-school camera-only-on-Bachchan style, any given Saturday.<br /><br />Kudos to you, of course, for making an actor out of Abhishek, first in Naach and now in Sarkar. You also allow him to show Mallika Sherawat that he can run as well as his father. Even in the short prison sequence, you really make the Bachchans come out of the text, an opportunity Shaad missed in Bunty Aur Babli. Wish the film could have been more a father-son story rather than a chaotic conflict between caricatures in the name of characters, who pop up like the ad windows on the Internet.<br /><br />You also let the women more into the script than Puzo and Coppola did and again, you deserve all the Brownie points for squeezing them in so effectively. Pathak is a welcome return as the mother in the middle, Tanishaa lovable as the lovelorn girl, Katrina a revelation as Abhishek's confused lover and Rukhsar's silence speaks volumes.<br /><br />But sub-plots do not a classic remake. When your free-flowing camera tries to make every frame look hatke and your loud background score irritates incessantly, we keep getting reminded that we are in a Factory. Well, maybe not a Nino Rota score but Sarkar certainly deserved better than those Govinda, Govinda chants and uncalled-for flute interludes.<br /><br />Mr Varma, some of your Factory directors tell me that you are involved with every project, from overseeing the shooting schedules to supervising the editing sessions. Perhaps, in the middle of all the various storyboards, the Bhiku Matre scream is being muted by the Subhash Nagare silence. Perhaps, you need to bring the shutters down on the factory and work on a single homemade product. Otherwise, your products would remain products, to use and throw, not treasure. And movie buffs like me, for whom there are no hits and flops, only good cinema, would rather choose a film without Factory finish, any given Saturday.
|
negative
|
Yes, CHUNKY, this is the nick-name that Donna Reeds' romantic lead played by Tom Drake tags her with! So lets get this clear right away. From her first ingénue role in THE GET-AWAY (1941) too her last, DALLAS (1984-1985) Ms. Reed could NEVER be described as CHUNKY. Not this attractive and slim actress. Whose roles at M.G.M. seldom lived up to her talents.<br /><br />Ms. Reed is supported by a cast of competent character actors, who unfortunately must flounder through this alleged 'screw-ball' comedy. Clearly M.G.M. was out of their depth making this type of film. A type better produced over at COLUMBIA, PARAMOUNT, RKO and even UNIVERSAL. Neither the 'touch' of Ernst Lubitsch nor the wit of Preston Sturges could save this film. A rather conventional romantic comedy that had all the markings of a pre-war (WWII) effort.<br /><br />If Irving Thalberg had still been alive the screen-play would have either gone through a significant rewrite or never seen the light of day. It did fit into Louis B. Mayer's 'safe-zone' of none challenging family entertainment. A form that could not stand up to the post-war challenges of the 'DeHavilland Decision', loss of their theater chains, television and would contribute to M.G.M.s decline. Fortunetly for Donna Reed her best days are ahead of her culminating in FROM HERE TO ETERNITY (1953) and her Oscar win as Best Supporting Actress.
|
negative
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.