review
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| sentiment
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
There are pretty landscape shots. Writers putting trite mouthings into actors mouths. With lesser actors this show would be silly. 'Art must uplift humanity or it's BS.' Not so because art of all those mentioned is also to stir humanity and express the dark side. The lead character even says those who don't drink hide the shadow side. Wrong , he lived in darkness and repressed his dark side by drinking and being one dimensional not expanding his horizons with something other than landscapes. There wasn't a breathing organism in his work nor expression of his pain. All the artist did was limit himself to dime a dozen landscapes. The discussions between the characters was grade school, trite stuff always giving the one character the upper hand the writer wanted. I tried to like it after reading all the first wow comments on here. I had to dig deep to see those i agreed with. I figure the great comments were from those connected to the movie. I was moved only once towards the end. The kid was way too passive. The scenery was nice and the music ridiculous. Just my opinion but nowhere show for me.
|
negative
|
I agree with what "veinbreaker" wrote with regards to the "Ahhhh" feeling you get at the end of this movie. I absolutely loved the locations they chose to film, the songs were well written and interesting, especially the psychedelic sounding track on which Hans Matheson sings. It's trippy. Nighy was fab in his role, Nail "nailed" it, Beano was the typical drummer, and Rea kept it together. Bruce Robinson was awesome. Helena was a lovely girlfriend. But I felt Juliet Aubrey's performance was gorgeous. The scenes between Aubrey & Robinson killed me! Perfectly played and the music behind the scene was spot on! Too bad not many more musicians have checked this movie out! They ought to!I've told all my musician friends. great quote by Jimmy Nail's character: "it's supposed to be rock & roll, not the Phantom of the f*****g opera!"
|
positive
|
This 3-hour made-for-TV miniseries came home with us from Blockbuster's this weekend. The production company clearly spent a lot of money on sets, costuming (Bridget Fonda, especially), and special effects (including a great Jim Henson talking polar bear & reindeer). They should have spent a bit more money getting a coherent script. The story line was so loose that it really never came together. One can overlook Irish-accented Germans, but not herky-jerky storytelling. With senseless loose ends which included a special guest appearance by the Devil, this one is certainly not destined to be a Christmas Classic. A shame that they wasted good performances by the two female leads.
|
negative
|
Some spoilers If you are a big horror movie fan, then you will know that Halloween paved the way for many slasher films. Often imitated, never duplicated, this movie is a true horror classic and is definitely one of the scariest movies ever made, if not THE scariest.<br /><br />I actually saw this movie after seeing the rest of the series (don't ask me why). I honestly saw the other 7 movies before seeing this one, that's just how it worked out. But I would have to say this one blows all the others away. It is genuinely frightening, and seeing Michael pop out from behind a bush or walk around in the dark sends a chill down your spine. My favorite part of the movie was when Michael stabs a guy, and leans his head to one side. It is one of the eeriest images in movie history.<br /><br />Later slashers, such as the Friday the 13th films, were more fun and less intense than this movie. I do like the F13 series better than the Halloween series, but this movie alone is better than all the F13 movies. Michael Myers is such a scary villain because he is realistic, you could imagine a crazed guy like him going around killing people. I admit this movie gave me nightmares after watching it for a few nights.<br /><br />What's great about this movie is that it doesn't rely on gore or humor to entertain the audience. It is just pure terror. It's too bad the later films of the series swayed from this one, because this is as good of an example of a spectacular slasher movie as they come.
|
positive
|
Six Degrees is a wonderful show! I watched the entire season online since I just found it and was terribly disappointed that there will not be a season 2 :'( and to top it all off, ABC has now taken it off-line, so it is unable to be viewed online anymore. Why would ABC create such a wonderful show, with a great story line and with great characters just to pull it off the air without ever completing the tale. It seems it is left to our imagination to figure out what happens to all of our connected characters. Honestly though I feel that ABC could at least place the show online for viewers who enjoied it while they continue to air overrated reality TV shows. Six Degrees we will miss you.
|
positive
|
Well the previews looked funny and I usually don't go to movies on opening night especially with my kids because ......well you never know. Here is a movie that doesn't appeal either to children or adults as the jokes are too perverse for children and falls completely flat for entertainment purposes for adults. I was actually embarrassed to be with my 9 and 6 year old and having to explain to my 6 year old what S H * T spells. Essentially what happens here is a total twisting of Dr. Seuss's classic. It adds an evil and lazy neighbor who wants to marry the children's mother for her money. If that was a subplot, then maybe that would have been fine but it ends up being the major plot around the whole movie and "the cat" plays more of a subplot role in exposing the neighbor to the mom for who he really is. Take my advice and read the book and pass on the movie.
|
negative
|
A brilliant movie about family, guilt, sacrifice, betrayal, and love. Macy is such a great actor. It was almost a shame to see him in the same scenes with Campbell, who looks the part of a neurotic sex object but doesn't have the chops to work with him on the level the script called for. But he's such a good actor that he played down to her level to make the scenes work. I highly applaud the casting of Tracey Ullman as the neglected wife. Who knew? Sutherland is also very good. The way he moves makes his character look taller (and even younger in some scenes). Almost everyone knew what they were doing.<br /><br />Macy's portrayal of the only situation in which his character is not able to be careful is nothing short of complete mastery.
|
positive
|
I too had waited a long time to see this film. As far as I know it has never been released in Australia so in the end I found a copy on the net and ordered it through there. Weeks after my order confirmation it finally arrived and I was extremely excited to finally be sitting in front of my TV ready to watch a film that sounded so interesting and controversial and filmed in an area of the world where so many good movies are. What a disappointment. Within the first few minutes I realised I'd ordered a B Grader but was still full of expectation. I convinced my son (18) to watch it with me as I love sharing when I find a movie of value with good underlying statements and/or story lines. About half way through he got up and said he couldn't stand watching it any longer, it was so predictable and amateurish. I agreed but watched to the end. The acting was atrocious even for B Grade standards. The stereotyping also predictable and I feel for the good folks of Lake Arthur, Louisianna who must've cringed after seeing the film depicting them in such a way. No doubt some racial prejudices still exist in many parts of the world not just the States but really, in this day and age I doubt they'd get away with all the ridiculous alibi's presented in this. I had to double check the date the film was made as their attempts at gimmicky filming of the more gruesome scenes was something I'd expect from a high school student's first attempt at making a film 'indy' like. I'd like to see this film put into the hands of experienced scriptwriters and film makers, its an old tale but one that could still pack a punch if dealt with professionally. So disappointed after such a long wait and with such high expectations. The soundtrack was probably the only thing I enjoyed.
|
negative
|
This film is just really Great. I don't know why. I alway have a weakness for Damian Chapa. It's not Scarface, but still I really enjoyed my self. This is a film I can see more than ten times. He really try's to make a good movie, but he just can't do it. I feel pity for him, so maybe it's a bit of a sympathy vote. I can't help it, but I just can't give it less than 9 stars. Everyone should have seen this once in his life. To see how to make a cheap film work. I live in Holland and bought this film for only one euro! That's 1,50 dollar. I would have also bought it for ten euro. Great Great Great. On a little dutch film site this film gets a 101 votes. Here only a 260. That's not so much more. So people all over the world. Buy this movie!
|
positive
|
While Rome goes mad celebrating Hitler's visit - uniforms, bands, parades - two outsiders stay home, in a large building, and wind up meeting. She is Sofia Loren, who is the wife of brutish public servant and mother of six children. He is Mastroianni, a radio speaker who's been fired because of his homosexuality. Both of them need company and understanding, both f them find it in each other.<br /><br />The movie covers a span of a few hours. The color are faded and everything takes place with a sound track of military marches and hysterical radio announcers. Strangely enough, the Nazi anthem - the Horst-Wessel-Lied - ends up becoming a romantic musical theme.<br /><br />Beautiful movie, excellent recreation of a special era in Italian history and a touching, sad story. Mastroianni is as good as we have come to expect and Sofia Loren does a superb job, very far away from her usual truck driver's pin-up, Neapolitan fishwife personas. Don't miss it.
|
positive
|
Cypher is a movie well worth seeing because it's not the run-of-the-mill Sci-Fi flick. The artistic approach is painted with dark scenes and a kind of macro view of what's going on. The close-up camera view is how the director keeps the plot illusive. The sci-fi aspect of the movie is secondary to the plot of the movie. The technology used in the movie isn't overly impressive, however, the director makes good use of the props. <br /><br />The character development is intentionally shallow. The main character, Jeremy Northam, decides to immerse himself into the world of espionage. It's up to the audience to figure out his enigmatic character and it's the enigma that keeps the audience interested right to the very end.
|
positive
|
Watching this movie was a waste of time. I was tempted to leave in the middle of the movie, but I resisted. I don't know what Ridley Scott intended, but I learned that in the army, women get as stupid as men. They learn to spit, to insult and to fight in combat, and that's also a waste of time (in my opinion). And, anyway, what the hell was that final scene in Lybia? Are they still fighting Gadafi or is it that it's easy for everyone to believe islamic people are always a danger?
|
negative
|
Remember that this came out before Gulf War I, which gave us Werner Herzog's "Lessons of Darkness".<br /><br />Le Dernier Combat is not "Sci Fi". It's more like Judgment. I've watched it at least a dozen times. It really is a fitting companion to Herzog's "Lessons of Darkness": "And in that time, men will seek death, but they will not find it, for death will flee from them."<br /><br />That someday, alas, may be today, in Iraq. <br /><br />But, back to Le Dernier Combat, make sure to watch thru the very last second of the film. I wouldn't call it a "surprise ending", but it is something you'll miss if you just assume the end won't be anything more than what you will already have seen.
|
positive
|
Human Traffic is purely a `been there, done that' experience only this time it's quite limp.<br /><br />Major themes explored are paranoia, male impotence and jealousy but only mildly and poorly.<br /><br />A lot of the movie seems to want to imitate Trainspotting (drug / `clubbing' culture) but it fails to include the low times / come-downs that Trainspotting deals with (eg: issues with death / dependence, etc). It even tries to come up with a similar monologue to Ewan McGreggor's classic `Choose Life' speech but `The Milky Bars are on me! Yeah!' what the fudge is that all about?!<br /><br />The characters try to analyse their lifestyle but when their lifestyle is so shallow their analysis becomes boring and repetitious.<br /><br />The soundtrack (for a movie that is trying to be cool) is pathetic. It includes the likes of Fat Boy Slim and CJ Bolland come on people good dance music IS be better than this!<br /><br />The characters become grating and annoying (especially half way through the movie) and the lack of care-for-the-characters soon dawns.<br /><br />There are a couple of funny scenes but they are few and far between. The mother catching the son in the bedroom was quite amusing.<br /><br />But PLEASE I'm sick to death of the Star Wars analogy scenes. I thought it was much more sharper in a couple of Kevin Smith's movies (ie: Clerks and Chasing Amy). According to the characters Yoda is a drug fiend hence that's why he is short and bald huh?!<br /><br />My score 4 out of 10 do yourself a favour and see Trainspotting or Go instead!
|
negative
|
One of the worst shows of all time. The show would begin with smart ass ed comments to each other that would be totally off the wall and uncalled for. The fat computer geek was unbelievable, the bible thumper, the bad-ass girl, who are these actors??? Never heard of any of them except Cole who was totally unbelievable in the part. Every time he opened his mouth you expect to hear, "you see kids..." Pulling the plug was a mercy killing for this horrible show. The stories were as unbelievable as the actors. Lame would be the best way to describe it. Somehow this show makes a slug like Ice-T more believable as a cop, and he wrote the worst song about cops ever recorded.
|
negative
|
Wow it's ironic since this movie has been out for awhile I think that someone else JUST reviewed it a couple days ago.<br /><br />Anyways, I watched this movie simply because it has Nick Stahl, for the record.<br /><br />The movie was ridiculous. The characters drove me INSANE, they were SO Cliché and STEREOTYPED. This movie had some of the worst dialogue I have ever heard. It had way too many plot twists too.<br /><br />There is ONE scene in the movie worth seeing however, the scene: "Warm heart, cold gun" where Nick Stahl kills the obnoxious girl in the shower. (Well, actually they were all obnoxious.) But his acting in that scene was excellent. The look on his face, it reminded my of American Psycho (a good movie). The scene is worth seeing but not worth seeing the rest of the movie for, do yourself a favor and don't watch it.
|
negative
|
I thought this film was amazing and I laughed so much that I had to see it twice to catch the bits I missed whilst bending over holding my stomach! The critic who reviewed this film for this site challenged anyone with an IQ over their shoe size to find this film funny, well my IQ is approx:135...I challenge this person to question me and then eat his own words! This film is brilliant and if the critic above wasn't such a boring idiot, he might smile for once in his life and take things as lightly as they're meant!!!<br /><br />The musical numbers were so imaginative! EVERYONE when watching any film about that period of time will notice men in tights and realise how different it is to today's attire and how funny we would find today's male population if they wore tights day in day out! The idea of dedicating a song to butch men dancing in tights was so fresh how can anyone NOT laugh!!! (Plus also, seeing hip-hop rappers doing ballet is always hysterical-as a dancer also, I've done ballet and hip hop and danced with men who've had to do both....it still cracks me up each time!!!)<br /><br />I love this film, if anyone hasn't seen it yet, don't listen to the critic above...watch it and then decide for yourself!!!
|
positive
|
Now I had the pleasure of first viewing Contaminated Man when it premiered on TV back in December of 2000.<br /><br />An infectious disease expert (William Hurt) looses his family when an unknown disease enters his home and kills them. Now some years later he is now in Russia or someplace. I'm not sure where exactly, all I know is it takes place somewhere in that area. Anyway, because of budget cutbacks at an infectious disease laboratory, they are forced to lay off most of their workers. One of them, a disgruntled security guard named Joseph Muller (played Peter Weller, best known for his role as the indestructible Robocop) goes in there and demands that they give him his job back. He needs this job because he is divorced and he needs it to pay child support. So he goes in there, a fight breaks out, and some things get knocked over, dangerous things. It's soon discovered that Muller has been infected with a deadly pathogen. In fact it's so deadly, one drop of his blood will kill a person in matter of seconds. Soon word gets out and the disease expert (Hurt) is called in to investigate and he later teamed up with an American reporter. Now Muller is determined to get home to see his wife and son and will stop at nothing even if he has to infect the entire Russian population.<br /><br />Now as I said before this film is a lot like Falling Down. We have a disturbed person (Weller here, Michael Douglas in Falling Down) who will stop at nothing to accomplish there goal even if they have to kill a few people in the process. Next we have a hero-type person (Hurt here, Robert Duvall in Falling Down) who is both sympathetic and determined to stop the antagonist.<br /><br />Contaminated Man is in fact a very good film with a good story line and some very good performances.<br /><br />8/10
|
positive
|
First off let me say, If you haven't enjoyed a Van Damme movie since bloodsport, you probably will not like this movie. Most of these movies may not have the best plots or best actors but I enjoy these kinds of movies for what they are. This movie is much better than any of the movies the other action guys (Segal and Dolph) have thought about putting out the past few years. Van Damme is good in the movie, the movie is only worth watching to Van Damme fans. It is not as good as Wake of Death (which i highly recommend to anyone of likes Van Damme) or In hell but, in my opinion it's worth watching. It has the same type of feel to it as Nowhere to Run. Good fun stuff!
|
negative
|
As a huge fan of the original Operation Delta Force, I thought I'd pick this film up. I figured it couldn't be too bad. However, here's a list of things I learnt from watching Operation Delta Force 4: Deep Fault.<br /><br />- The Delta Force, despite being the elite in American armed forces, are mostly mildly-overweight men in their late 30s and early 40s.<br /><br />- The Delta Force, despite being the elite in American armed forces, carry standard police issue pistols or AK-47s on their most important missions.<br /><br />- The Delta Force, despite being the elite in American armed forces, haven't learnt that during stealth missions, wearing bright red ski jumpers and running around in open spaces aren't exactly going to keep you out of sight.<br /><br />- When you drop a Molotov cocktail into a tank, it explodes externally like a grenade.<br /><br />- When you get hit by tank fire, you can run away, although the smoke caused may present minor difficulties for breathing.<br /><br />- You can die from one standard gun shot, but you can also live despite being hit multiple times by a sniper rifle, and a few times by an AK-47.<br /><br />- In hand-to-hand combat, members of The Delta Force, despite being the elite in American armed forces, are regularly pummeled by railroad attendants.<br /><br />- If bad guys are approaching you while on a slow-moving train, there's nothing to worry about - between the 4 of them, they can't manage to figure out how to get an automatic weapon to fire automatically, let alone hit anyone from 5 metres (16 feet) with at least 50 attempts between them.<br /><br />- If you're short on actors, just recycle them - the bad guy from Operation Delta Force 1 plays a good guy called Mac in Operation Delta Force 4, and the guy who played Mac in Operation Delta Force 3 now plays Skip Lang, a different good guy.<br /><br />- It's not OK for The Delta Force to shoot an unarmed terrorist, even if he's attempting to reload his weapon to kill you.<br /><br />- Grenades explode on impact with the ground when thrown by members of The Delta Force. When thrown by non-Delta Force personnel, they explode at exactly the point where the Delta Force members have thrown the grenades back at the bad guys.<br /><br />- Tanks can drive faster than standard trucks.<br /><br />- Militias and personal armies use the exact same chopper that the UN used in Operation Delta Force 1.<br /><br />- When a chopper arrives, a bad guy in that chopper cannot see you if you lie face-down.<br /><br />- Shooting someone multiple times in the chest will cause minor damage. Stabbing that person in the knee will kill them inside 5 seconds.<br /><br />- The Delta Force steal cars from old people to get around when in foreign countries, because the US Military do not provide them with any means of transport. This may also explain why they caught public transport.<br /><br />As you can see, this is not really the finest moment in film-making, but it's good for a laugh.
|
negative
|
This movie is a ripoff of James Cain's novel, THE POSTMAN ALWAYS RINGS TWICE. Apparently, the director and producer never bothered to pay for rights to this story--perhaps the fact that we were in the middle of fighting the Italians in WWII might account for their forgetting to consider royalties! Despite this, the movie isn't really just an Italian version of the Hollywood movie. In some ways it's a lot better and in other ways, it is definitely not.<br /><br />The three central characters in this movie are really pretty ugly people. In fact, the male and female lovers are a bit icky-looking. The male lead is pretty ordinary except for his profuse body hair (particularly on the back and shoulders) and his lady love is, to put it frankly, unattractive. They are a very, very far cry from Lana Turner and John Garfield in the Hollywood version. And the ill-fated husband is really, really obese and loves to walk around shirtless--and his counterpart in the American film, Cecil Kellaway is definitely better looking (and probably better looking than the other two Italian leads, actually). And this unattractiveness is generally a reason I actually preferred the Italian film--since I just could NOT imagine a finely coiffed "dish" like Lana Turner in the middle of nowhere married to Kellaway--I am 100% sure she would have had dozens of better offers! Whereas, the Italian wife frankly might NOT have been able to do much better and this made the marriage actually believable.<br /><br />Part of the Italian film's believability comes from the blunt way it handles sex. The sanitized American film tries to make you believe that although Turner and Garfield kill Kellaway, they never actually get around to sex! This is pretty silly and totally unrealistic. In addition to the casual sexuality of the film, it's also pretty casual in showing the seamy side of life--with lots of sweaty people, a fly strip hanging over the kitchen table and everyone appeared to need a bath.<br /><br />The movie is also pretty fast-paced compared to the over-long American film. And what you get due to brevity isn't all good. The film lacks a lot of the style and polish of the American film--with grainier footage, relatively poor orchestration and sets. It sure ain't a pretty film, but the Neo-Realistic-like style makes the film seem more realistic. But it cannot make up for the short-cuts in the plot. Many of the plot elements in the later American version are either missing entirely or glossed over. And the ending seems a lot less interesting than the American film--and misses the entire human nature dilemma when Turner and Garfield turn on each other like rats (the best part of the American film).<br /><br />So which is the better film? Well, a lot of this probably depends on you. As for me, the Warner Brothers film was simply too polished and too unrealistic (though many like this style and may dislike watching films with subtitles)--but it packed a great ending. And the Italian film was much, much more realistic--until the crappy ending that seemed too rushed. So neither film is exactly great, but I'd give my nod to the Italian one being a bit better. It's too bad they couldn't have combined the best elements of both films into one exceptional film.
|
positive
|
From the first moment, this "thing" is just an awful sequence of extremely short cuts of blurry camera work. While the overall plot has every potential for a thriller, the story is so badly told that I'm unable to buy it. From the middle of the film, the actions of characters don't make sense to me. Stop reading now to avoid SPOILERS.<br /><br />For instance, Ed's idea to have Edna make coffee for them after having shot off her son's arm is way below his alleged experience; it's just an extremely stupid idea. Domino not questioning the fragmentary orders she receives from Claremont Williams over a breaking-up phone connection just eludes me; shouldn't she be long suspicious that Williams is turning them in? Those FBI agents seem out of their minds showing up with just one single helicopter to something they have every reason to consider a capital mafia shoot-out. Besides, what they do by withholding and leaking information towards Cigliutti is pretty much incitement to murder; it seems to me like farewell to justice if that's they way the FBI does investigations. In reality, they'd have a case messed up beyond repair if they acted like this. We get to see a car accident which normally would have at least seriously injured if not killed most of the passengers but miraculously leaves all of them with just a few bruises. Quite the contrary, the accident is immediately followed by Domino making love to Choco, which is from Domino's viewpoint in no way founded by previous events but just by being drugged to the eyeballs.<br /><br />The whole sequence of scenes starting from the phone call of Claremont Williams appears to me just as want-to-be dramatic razzle-dazzle. This combined with the awful, uneasy camera work just makes a piece I hesitate to call a movie. I'm sorry for the wasted effort of the main actors, whose talent is out of question.
|
negative
|
Okay...so I am gazing through my Mom and Dad's extensive DVD collection (mostly because they don't charge late fees;-)) and I come upon "A Thousand Acres." I was stunned that here was a movie that had Jessica Lange AND Michelle Pfeiffer (with a small appearance by Jennifer Jason Leigh) that I had not seen. I don't think I had ever even heard of it before. Well, this is exactly the kind of find that I dream about since I have to admit that my parents raised two movie buffs in my brother and me. With a few exceptions (Neither of us can even get them to consider watching the Lord of the Rings movies, but my Dad LOVES the Matrix trilogy -- GO FIGURE), we have very similar tastes in movies.<br /><br />It was a particularly AWFUL day today, weather-wise. It poured rain all day, so I popped in this movie and shortly after I was mesmerized.<br /><br />This has to be one of the all-time best "sleepers" I have seen. Jessica Lange and Michelle Pfeiffer are GREAT in their roles especially since they are playing very different types. Jessica Lange's character is a people-pleasing follower who, despite her being the senior child in the family rarely takes a leadership role. Rather, she bows to her father (Jason Robards) and sister Rose (Pfeiffer) and is hell-bent on teaching her little sister Caroline (Leigh) how to follow suit. Michelle Pfeiffer plays a very STRONG willed cancer survivor who is barely able to keep the anger at her unhappy life contained. This movie is five years prior to White Oleander, mind you, so it was definitely inspiring to see her playing such a strong, angry character.<br /><br />I would have to say that this movie will probably appeal more to women. However, true movie buffs who enjoy a film for what it is, regardless of genre or target audience, will have a hard time denying the charm of this touching drama about family secrets and what they do the people involved and those who love them. I don't know how I missed seeing this movie before now, but it sure was a nice distraction on a rainy afternoon. ENJOY!!
|
positive
|
When I read the back of the DVD case, I thought that it sounded really interesting... so... I had my mom throw it into the pile of movies in the "4 for 20 dollars" section at Blockbuster. When we got home and popped in the movie... twenty minutes into it, we found ourselves turning to each other going "this sucks. Let's put in something else." I'll admit, a few of the lines from the friends at the café made us smile a little bit. But come ON, at least get some decent actors! Every once in a while in a movie, if the acting is bad and the movie isn't going at a painfully slow pace and actually seems interesting, I can gut it out and get a few laughs at how they're over(or under)doing their lines. But I can only take so much. Crying scenes looked like the actors were having hysterical fits of laughter, there was no delivery for their lines... amateur doesn't even come close to the acting in this film.<br /><br />Anyone who came on here saying that this film was good had to have been on some REALLY good drugs while they were watching the movie. It's the most pointless thing I've ever had the displeasure of watching. DO NOT WATCH OR BUY THIS MOVIE!!!!!
|
negative
|
"D.O.A" is an involving and entertaining little picture from start to finish. Dennis Quaid is at his caustic best; and Quaid is sadly one of the most underused talents in Hollywood. His then beau Meg Ryan also appears with him, but as is usually the case, doesn't really make much of an impact.<br /><br /> The film is stylishly directed throughout, drawing on a number of influences to capture its 'seamy' feel. Would you credit that it's actually directed by two people? The answer is no. The whole thing is superbly slick, from its innovative camerawork to its unabashed use of black and white photography. All these elements help to keep proceedings fresh.<br /><br /> Really the greatest thrill here is to be had with the dialogue, it's snappy yet intricate, doesn't waste a word and yet still manages to be entertaining. The screenplay for this is like a pocket work of art.<br /><br /> This went unnoticed by me for ages before I finally caught it late at night. If this is the first you've heard about it, don't leave it like I did! Catch it soon, it really is top-notch... !<br /><br /> If you're in the mood for a solid genre flick that manages to surprise at every turn, this really fits the bill.<br /><br />
|
positive
|
this is quite possibly the worst acting i have ever seen in a movie... ever. and what is up with the casting. the leading lady in this movie has some kind of nose dis-figuration and is almost impossible to look at for any period of time without becoming fixated on her nose. you could go to your local grocery store on a Sunday afternoon and easily find 50 more qualified, better looking possible leading ladies. i made the unfortunate mistake of renting this movie because it had a "cool" DVD case. This movie looks like it is just some class project for a group of multimedia students at a local technical college. i would rather have spent the hour or so that this movie was on watching public access television... at least the special effects are better and the people on there are more attractive than anyone you will see in this film
|
negative
|
Highly recommended to all those who appreciate watching movies. Great acting, perfectly surreal awkward humor, requisite prison sh-t, accurate depiction of the male condition. Music is also spot-on. I think the artist is "Dip" but not sure. The short loop of the title credit song on the DVD menu is well-timed, and sounds like Slint. (one thing to know is that IMDb maintains a ridiculous policy of a MINIMUM comment length based on, not CHARACTERS, not WORDS, but rather LINES. Measuring post quality and quantity based on LINES in the bold era of UNICODE and flexible, web-based typography, is like smoking poles.) ! Your comment does not contain enough lines - the minimum length for comments is 10 lines of text. Please see the guidelines. Attempts to pad the comment with junk words can result in your account being blocked from future submissions.
|
positive
|
I Liked this move when I was a kid, but now that I'm older I can see how absurd the plot really is. In case you didn't read the earlier reviews it's about a teenager and an Air Force Colonel who steal two fully loaded F-16s to rescue said teenager's dad.<br /><br />It does have some nice aerial stunts, even if the dialog accompanying then is basically teckno babel.<br /><br />Some unintentional humor in the edited for TV version. When the hero's dad is being held by Iran, err I mean an unnamed country, and his captors ask him for a confession (relating to why he's being held, don't worry about exactly why, or what they want him to confuse to.) he says "Tell him he can take my confession and shove it down his throat.". However his lips and, more importunely, his gesture make it clear what motion, and part of the anatomy, he was really thinking of.
|
negative
|
Thirty years prior to THE DEER HUNTER came this movie, an excellent meditation on the effects of war inflicted on the American family as seen from both the war heroes and their wives. A truly ironic title, THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES is anything but since those times have vanished into still images and all that is left is an uncertain future for those involved.<br /><br />Truly an ensemble cast despite the top-billing of Myrna Loy, THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES focuses more on the stories of the men. Al Stephenson (Fredric March) comes back to a household that has irrevocably changed as his sons have grown although he finds support from his doting wife Milly (Myrna Loy). Fred Derry, upon returning, cannot find a decent job despite being a war veteran and is trapped in a marriage that he does not want to Marie, a happy-go-lucky girl who wants more out of life and who increasingly comes to hate him. Homer Parrish, on the other hand, has greater problems due to his loss of hands at war and feels the entire world -- including the girl he loves and her family -- thinks he is a freak of nature.<br /><br />At almost three hours of length, the film never seems long and drawn out. There is so much emotions happening even in small moments that the plot breezes by; nothing seems wasted or placed on screen due to a lack of editing. Not a performance rings false, though the standouts are those of Dana Andrews as Fred Derry, Harold Russell as Homer Parrish and Virginia Mayo as Marie Derry. Even then every character has his or her moment on film, and the time was right to talk about all the pain and suffering that until then had not been seen in American films (including the ones made around World War One, which did not dabble in such topics). While there is never any overt violence, it's all there, in the haunted expressions of the three male leads' faces, in the lot where the planes now reside, ready to be turned into junk (and therefore, forgetfulness), in the cynicism of the store owners who couldn't be bothered to employ these shell-shocked men who had seen battle or even worse, to goad them into wondering what was it all worth for. This is the film in which COMING HOME and BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY are indebted to. At a time when America fled from war films, to come up with this when the end of the Second World War was still fresh was a necessity in order to make a more honest film-making.
|
positive
|
St. Elmo's Fire has no bearing on life after university at all (for the majority of us common folk anyway). Why was this garbage even made? Who can really relate to this? Who lives like these characters? I truly feel sorry for the actors having to deal with such a terrible script. There are some talented young actors in this "film" that have done a good job elsewhere. It must have just been one whole joke to them on set.<br /><br />I actually found this "film" insulting to my intelligence. The only joy I got from this is hoping that Sir John Hughes had a good ol' laugh when he saw a screening of this the same year his masterpiece of The Breakfast Club was released.<br /><br />Don't make the same mistake I did of watching this because you enjoy 80's films. It really is that offensive to the genre.
|
negative
|
It's too slow paced and complex for children, and too lightweight and dull for adults. None of our family (6 weeks to 66 years) could be bothered watching it all the way through.<br /><br />Are there jokes in it? I couldn't really tell. There was certainly some unnecessarily adult innuendo. There was probably a bludgeoning message of sorts, but I wasn't engaged enough to care.<br /><br />The live talent are just stumbling and mugging their way through it. I have to wonder if they were actually being paid, or whether it was some form of community service or plea bargain.<br /><br />"Please, keep watching," whines Daniel; honestly, I wouldn't bother.
|
negative
|
Take it from me as a camera man who worked for Republic Studios from 1946 to 1950 and then Warners Bros and Paramount from 1950 to 1993, this is a piece of crap. Sure it would be great to show it to your favorite friends at a house party but to try to sell this on a DVD is absolutely ridicious.<br /><br />I have seen bad acting in my day but this is NO acting. The hero is almost laughable and he really thinks he is something judging from his comments on the specials. I hate to see his fan club. The old films did not jive with the action in many of the scenes. What the hell was that garden scene with three of worst actresses. I never seen a garden on a ship. They could not even emote. I would not mind it if they could have once ounce of acting but the only one was the guy with the Translvanian accent. I am sorry but this is not a clever film as some persons are stating. I would think horror film buffs would be insulted by this piece of film.
|
negative
|
This movie is based on the series Street Fighter Alpha (or Zero)! It is placed in an other setting than Streetfighter the animated movie! This movie is all about Ryu who is accompanied by Ken and Chun Li. I recognized Rose,Zanghief and Birdie! There weren't any other characters used from the video game (that i could discover)! The fighting scenes were OK but nothing really spectacular! And there were not many of them! To me this is odd! Isn't Streetfighter about fighting! Streetfighter the animated movie (1994) is far superior to this movie. It tries to be more than it really is! The use of the "Hada Power" and other supernatural elemnents have nothing to do with skills the characters have in the video game! And in this case that is a bad thing! The story is so boring that you don't really care what is happening! The action is toned down considerably! Why? And what happened to the other characters from the video game! Surely they are more interesting than the villain in this story! The main attraction of the video game are the characters with their own special skills! In this movie it is all about Ryu! That is why this anime fails!
|
negative
|
"The Kite Runner" is one of the most controversial films of the year, and it's not just one of those controversies invented by PR people to sell tickets. No, this is a film that was actually pulled from release because the producers began to fear for their safety of their actors. That may give you an idea of just how sensitive and topical some of the material is. "The Kite Runner" is an important film for our modern world, because now more than ever, we need stories that show the reality of war, not just action movies that glamorize the violence. It was adapted from the best-selling book, and some critics have charged that something was lost in translation, but if you don't bring the baggage of the novel into the screening, you will be very moved.
|
positive
|
I've seen 'nurse betty' twice in september 2000 on the international film festival 'films by the sea' in vlissingen, the netherlands. It impressed me so much that I kept on smiling the whole day after I watched it for the first time and almost all evening again when I took the movie as the final taste of the festival. What I knew about 'nurse betty' was in short that renée zellweger would play a girl in love with a soap-opera-star. But what I saw was much more than that! Splendid roles for morgan freeman, chris rock ànd renée zellweger. A strange mix of romance, violence and roadmovie. And for all a story that takes other directions every moment you think you're on the track. Many soap-opera-lovers will love 'nurse betty' - the movie as well as the character!!! - but they can bring all there non-soap friends, 'cause they will enjoy the story even more for the hard and humorous lines - freeman and rock - for the cruel scenes, the thriller-aspects and for the beautiful pictures. And I'm quite sure that at the end everyone will love 'nurse betty' for her captivating and innocent charm!!!
|
positive
|
This was a very good show. I enjoyed the construction of real time and flashback, seeing the old Diggers meeting again and recalling the terrors of their captivity in Changi POW Camp. The main problem with the way the show was written is that the scenes of life in Changi are more like a holiday camp than what the place must have been like. I am old enough to remember film footage of the men being liberated from Changi and other Japanese POW camps. No actor could lose enough weight to have a resemblance of the state of those men. They made the Jews of Belsen look like sumo wrestlers. I have met several veterans from Changi over the years. Many would never ride in a Japanese car, let alone own one. The physical and mental torture those men endured was too horrific for them to even talk about. What percentage survived? John Doyle might be OK writing comedy for "Roy and HG" (I hate that too) but this is a serious sugar coating of history that should never have been tolerated. I'm happy for satirists to write "The Life of Brian" and make fun of the Crucifixion because it is obviously comedy, even if some consider it to be in bad taste. "Changi" is written as a portrayal of a real event and, as such, might be regarded by younger people as a true record. Great performances by a fine cast cannot redeem this lightweight screenplay.
|
negative
|
I have to say, Krasinski is the only reason I even watched this film. He is good. However, everything else about this film is so far below average that it's not worth the time and effort spent viewing this film.<br /><br />This film has loads of technical/aesthetic issues: namely, shot selections, framing, camera movements within monologue sequences, extremely bad editing (probably due to the total lack of fluidity in and between shots), and overall terrible acting (except for Krasinski).<br /><br />It was far too theatrical (in acting and presentation) to develop any sort of suspenseful moment in this film...which is surprising, because it's all about a bank robbery, which should be at least somewhat exciting.<br /><br />How does a film this bad get made, and then released, AND THEN distributed?<br /><br />Kind of reminds me of a C- film student's thesis project, probably not even that good though.
|
negative
|
Good, funny, straightforward story, excellent Nicole Kidman (I almost always like the movies she's in). This was a good "vehicle" for someone adept at comedy and drama since there are elements of both. A romantic comedy wrapped around two crime stories, great closing lines. Chaplin, very good here, was also good in another good, but unpopular romantic comedy ("Truth about Cats & Dogs"). Maybe they're too implausible. Ebert didn't even post a review for this. The great "screwball" comedies obviously were totally implausible ("Bringing up Baby", etc.). If you've seen one implausible comedy, you've seen them all? Or maybe people are ready to move on from the 1930s. Weird. Birthday Girl is a movie I've enjoyed several times. Nicole Kidman may be the "killer app" for home video.
|
positive
|
But then again, what ever is? I picked this up at my local 99cent store for, you guessed it, 99 cents (plus tax). I remember seeing this on video as a teen and thinking it was a cool flick. Too bad the film and my memories don't match. Regardless, its not a too horrible way to blow a couple hours, and it is neat to see some vintage Bill Paxton and Mark Hamill. Blah.... Blah.... Blah.... Man, oh man, I CANNOT think of anything else to say about this flick... (Just filling space to meet the ten line rule...) Good golly, this is pathetic, just how bad is this movie that the best I could come up with in regards to it were five frickin'lines of text? So anyway, ten lines of text, eh? Hmmm, ten lines are hard to come by when you can't remember squat about a film you just watched.
|
negative
|
I remember seeing this in the early 90's on UK TV and was hooked. The international scope of the production is breathtaking and watching how the characters develop through the five hours it runs for is magnificent. The scenes set in Pakistan and Afghanistan are of particular interest, and as a viewer you get a real sense of a grounds-eye view of the culture and vibe of these countries during the closing stages of the Cold War. The characters of Fazal and Helen develop really well throughout the series and rivals modern shows like The Sopranos and Six Feet Under in this area. In the UK, the VHS goes for about £6 and the DVD about £10 - a quality bargain. I thought Soderbergh's version was great too - but clearly owes this masterpiece a huge debt.
|
positive
|
Despite the (English) title, this seems to have little to do with Devils and much more to do with a power hungry ruler who seeks the Philospher's Stone & wants gold made from lead (& virgin's blood). Jacinto Molina plays Gilles de Lancre and seems to have little issue with having people put to death when he thinks they threaten his position or when he needs virgins for their blood. He's basically egged on by his lady love and an alchemist that he's employed and it's more greed and insanity that seems to be his problem than demonic possession (unfortunately). There are parts that are at least somewhat exciting like jousting and grown men trying to knock each other down with big sticks, and the film at least has a good look to it, but otherwise there's little about this to recommend. Little in the way of gore and nothing to be afraid of at all, and most unusual, for a Molina/Naschy film, not really any unintentional humor. Therefore, 4 out of 10.
|
negative
|
The short film which got Gaspar Noe on the movie map, introducing us to his horrific, but thoroughly interesting character The Butcher, played brilliantly by Phillipe Nahon. Noe's direction here has all the hallmarks of his later films, showing he was carving his own voice and style from the beginning. His sudden cutting along with harsh, loud noise, skipping flashbacks and many other techniques all are used to disconcert the viewer. And it certainly works. Also, he is not afraid of showing violence, as viewers of Irreversible will know. Here the violence is equally powerful, and in the sequel Seul Contre Tous, it is almost unbearable.<br /><br />The film opens with a horse being killed. It is shot in the head, and we watch it writhe on the floor, its pool of blood flowing out. We then see a human birth in all its bloody glory, the daughter of The Butcher. He was orphaned in WWII, and has grown up hating the world, and everyone and everything in it. He serves his customers, but his interior monologue constantly reminds us of his thoughts- he wants them all dead. His daughter Blandine Lenoir, who would also reprise her role six years later, is the only thing he cares about, and we watch them grow older together. She is however mute, and the subject of bullying and toying. The Butcher's relationship with her is almost incestuous, bathing her when she is old enough to do it herself etc,but this is explored more in the next film. When she is attacked by a man, the Butcher explodes with rage, stabbing an innocent man in the mouth. He goes to prison, taken from the only things he wants- his shop and daughter. In the short 40 minutes we see all this and more, his time in prison and release back to his world. Because of his daughter's state, autistic as well i think, she is bland, does little except stare, and is under the full control of her father. The film continues in the exceptionally bleak Seul Contre Tous. If you can, watch these two films, this one first. It has some truly excellent acting, but is very difficult to watch because of the relentless tone.<br /><br />7 out of 10
|
positive
|
Previous commentators have noted the similarity in appearance between this film and The Third Man, director Carol Reed's classic film noir starring Orson Welles and Joseph Cotten. This similarity strikes the viewer almost immediately. It is, indeed, high praise to be compared to Robert Krasker's academy award- winning cinematography in The Third Man. <br /><br />The plot of Stolen Identity also has been delineated fairly accurately but in rather ordinary terms. I found it highly creative and entertaining. As common as the "Mistaken - or Stolen - Identity" device is in both theater and cinema, it is only a device and not to be mistaken for the plot, itself. Consequently, while the viewer may have seen this device "a thousand" times, the plot of Stolen Identity is full of surprises and twists based upon this device. It is the unexpected turns that make this film much fresher, more original and engrossing than a plot synopsis might convey. Stolen Identity doesn't rely on the kind of suspense that characterizes most film noire, because there is no real mystery here. Instead, it relies on constant, smaller surprises. In short, the Mistaken Identity device is rather common; but this plot is not.<br /><br />Finally, although I was not familiar with the cast, I found the acting to be uniformly good, occasionally outstanding. I easily could have imagined other actors turning this film into a melodrama, with bombast, overblown gestures and obvious facial expressions. The acting is always more restrained and subtle. Donald Buka is especially restrained and credible, never "blowing his cover" with an obvious facial expression as we see too often in films that depend on the maintenance of subterfuge to sustain dramatic tension.<br /><br />The only disappointment in this otherwise fine film was the very weak development of the love story sub-plot. As it stands, it seems like an afterthought - a mild surprise, in fact - tacked on to the end. Or perhaps during their shared ordeal, the actors simply couldn't convey a palpable level of chemistry that I could appreciate. This sub-plot should have been made more apparent as the story unfolded. All in all, I thought this film was a fine little gem, and I wondered why I had not seen it before. Try it, you'll like it.
|
positive
|
What really amazed me about this film was that it ringed so false. First of all, who in the late 80's (when the film takes place)lived like this family? A college professor wouldn't make enough money to support the lifestyle I saw on the film. Hence, he and his stay home wife would be plagued by financial woes, especially when she gets cancer. Second, Streep is my age, and most women, particularly in her class (educated, white, well off) experienced the feminist movement. Yet this woman seems oblivious to her anachronistic behavior. I actually felt that she was a very controlling woman who kept her husband an emotional child by taking care of his every need.<br /><br />The fact that so many people were moved by the film is amazing. I have admired Carl Franklin's films in the past, and I actually like Meryl Streep, but gad, what a manipulative and lying film this is.
|
negative
|
I am a MAJOR fan of the horror genre! I LOVE horror/slasher/gore flicks of all kinds. Some of my favorites are the really "good" bad horror flicks. But this movies has NOTHING to warrant it's viewing!! I'm not going to spend a lot of time talking about everything that's wrong with it.<br /><br />The script is horrid. The acting is horrid. The FX are not even worth discussing. The "set" is an absolute JOKE!! The sad thing is I think there MAY be some real potential in a couple of the actors, but this vehicle left them NOTHING to work with!!!<br /><br />Suffice it to say I saw it for "free" & feel I was robbed!! The time you'd WASTE watching this would be better spent flossing your cat.
|
negative
|
I really refused to see this movie. I refused to go with the school and I refused to go with my parents. Just by looking at the trailer it looked stupid, to me anyway. One of my friends wanted to take me to the movies that day and he offered me 2 choices, "The Dukes Of Hazzard" or "Wallace And Gromit: The Curse Of The Were-Rabbit." It took me 17 minutes to decide. Time was running out. I had to choose. It came up on the screen "Few" as in a few tickets left. By the time we had to line up and get our ticket, only one of us could go in. I desperately wanted Nicholas to go in to see it. But he forced me. I crossed my arms and was very moody and disappointed that I was going in to see this childishness. I walked in, sat in the only seat that was available and prepared for the movie! must say I was very surprised that I sat through that MASTERPIECE! It was amazing. I don't know what I was complaining about. The Clay Animation was by far the most best i've ever seen in my life. The story was brilliant. About a rabbit disrupting and crashing a carnival that had been planned for over 500 years. Basically Anti Pest Control are protecting the people who are competing in the Vegetable Competition. Anti Pesto known as Wallace And Gromit (Who are in charge of this business) try to keep all the rabbits away from the Vegetable carnival. I wont say anymore. It's just too good to tell. I'll admit that the whole idea of a Were-Rabbit is ab-it unbelievable and ab-it childish, but Nick Park adds substance to it which what makes everyone love it. I mean, there wont be a 10 foot rabbit on the loose and there definitely wont be 8 foot werewolves as said in " Dog Soldiers." Then again, Were-Rabbits and WereWolves aren't actual creatures. But either way, it worked out very well. <br /><br />The jokes also were more grown up. The kids wont get some of the jokes. It goes way above their heads. It had a lot of British jokes in there. If you love British humor, this is the movie for you.<br /><br />I also loved the cast and the voices. Everything about the movie is so incredibly well done. The direction and pacing was absolutely...FANTASTIC! I recommend this to fans of the old Wallace And Gromit shorts (And no, I haven't seen them yet), and I recommend it to fans who liked "Shrek" and "Shrek 2 and most importantly, I recommend it to the people who love Clay Animation. Cracking good movie! 10/10
|
positive
|
Robert Florey and James Wong Howe gave this a frightening, Expressionistic look. Scenes are shot at weird angles -- especially scenes involving figurative and literal lady-killer Zachary Scott. His sociopathic behavior presages another superb, medium-budget movie, "The Stepfather," by more than two decades.<br /><br />The entire cast is excellent, though (though no fault of her own) it's hard to think of Joyce Compton as anyone but the singer in "The Awful Truth.") Scott, Bennett, Emerson, DeCamp (especially, and though playing an older woman looking gorgeous) -- they couldn't have been topped.<br /><br />Setting a creepy lodger-in-the-house-of women story against a background of psychiatrists is a risky trick that pays off beautifully. Nothing corny at all.beautifully. Nothing corny at all.<br /><br />The resolution is a little pat, unfortunately. Not Emerson's getting together with Bennett. That makes sense. But Scott is dispatched too quickly. I seem him more as a Mr. Ripley character, who could have escaped everything -- the botulism, the murder rap, the jealous sisters -- and disappeared into the great world beyond this story. That would not have impeded the essentially happy ending of the secretary and her boss finally getting together.
|
positive
|
It's boggles the mind how this movie was nominated for seven Oscars and won one. Not because it's abysmal or because given the collective credentials of the creative team behind it really ought to deserve them but because in every category it was nominated Prizzi's Honor disappoints. Some would argue that old Hollywood pioneer John Huston had lost it by this point in his career but I don't buy it. Only the previous year he signed the superb UNDER THE VOLCANO, a dark character study set in Mexico, that ranks among the finest he ever did. Prizzi's Honor on the other hand, a film loaded with star power, good intentions and a decent script, proves to be a major letdown.<br /><br />The overall tone and plot of a gangster falling in love with a female hit-man prefigures the quirky crimedies that caught Hollywood by storm in the early 90's but the script is too convoluted for its own sake, the motivations are off and on the whole the story seems unsure of what exactly it's trying to be: a romantic comedy, a crime drama, a gangster saga etc. Jack Nicholson (doing a Brooklyn accent that works perfectly for De Niro but sounds unconvincing coming from Jack) and Kathleen Turner in the leading roles seem to be in paycheck mode, just going through the motions almost sleepwalking their way through some parts. Anjelica Huston on the other hand fares better but her performance is sabotaged by her character's motivations: she starts out the victim of her bigot father's disdain, she proves to be supportive to her ex-husband, then becomes a vindictive bitch that wants his head on a plate.<br /><br />The colours of the movie have a washed-up quality like it was made in the early 70's and Huston's direction is as uninteresting as everything else. There's promise behind the story and perhaps in the hands of a director hungry to be recognized it could've been morphed to something better but what's left looks like a film nobody was really interested in making.
|
negative
|
This isn't the best romantic comedy ever made, but it is certainly pretty nice and watchable. It's directed in an old-fashioned way and that works fine. Cybill Shepherd as Corinne isn't bad in her role as the woman who can't get over her husband's death. She has a sexy maturity. But I can't say much for Ryan O'Neal as Philip, because he is, at best, nondescript. He may be adequate in the role, but that's not good enough.<br /><br />However, I get the feeling that some of the characters, particularly Alex and Miranda, are not written with enough in-depth thought. We don't know anything else about them because minutes after they appear the story gets thick, and the writers don't tell us much beyond what happens. But that problem was salvaged because Mary Stuart Masterson has a fresh-as-a-daisy sweetness to brighten it up, and Robert Downey Jr. is so charming that he melts the screen. Even his smile is infectious. And it so happens that his big dreamy eyes are perfect for the deja vu and flashback scenes.<br /><br />Anyway, this movie is light and easy and if you like them that way, why not give it a try.<br /><br />
|
positive
|
This was my second time watching the film (via the French-language version as opposed to the first, which was dubbed in Italian) and I feel that it improves on subsequent viewings.<br /><br />A compelling if slowly built-up character study that's beautifully shot and with the Parisian settings being equally impressive. In the long run, it's not top-grade Polanski and I would rank it at number 9 in his filmography but it's still a confident mix of subtle chills and, surprisingly, often broad comedy. It also features a fine cast, all of whom are in good form, but especially Isabelle Adjani, Melvyn Douglas and Jo Van Fleet.<br /><br />Even so, I'm a bit baffled by the sudden compulsion for Trelkovsky to 'change' into the previous tenant; apart from the owner of the café opposite the apartment building, where he is given whatever Simone used to have without asking him if he wished any different, there is little to indicate (as far as I could discern, anyway) that this is what everybody wanted of him! Okay, so he found Simone's belongings still lying in the apartment but what exactly drove him to wear her dresses and make himself up as her (even if he apparently started doing this unconsciously)? Following his nightmarish visions in the bathroom, the last section of the film (where Adjani all but disappears) is almost anti-climactic - especially the scene where the landlord and the other tenants witness his attempted suicide as if it were a night at the Opera, a concept which had already been used 46 years earlier by Jean Cocteau in THE BLOOD OF A POET (1930)!<br /><br />The ending, then, is at once predictable and unresolved: just what made the two occupants of this particular apartment jump out of the window?!; I remember this factor bugging me on first viewing as well, and I'm sorry to say it's no clearer now! Mind you, the film's first two-thirds are pretty solid but I wish that Polanski had been less reliant on obscure plot points throughout.
|
positive
|
All I can really say is that I'm glad that I was knitting socks while watching the movie, or I would be very angry for having wasted 2 hours of my life. The acting was terrible, the plot was even worse. There were some scenes that were meant to be serious that had my husband and I laughing out loud. I highly recommend this movie to people who like to do their own version of MST3K.
|
negative
|
"An astronaut (Michael Emmet) dies while returning from a mission and his body is recovered by the military. The base where the dead astronaut is taken to becomes the scene of a bizarre invasion plan from outer space. Alien embryos inside the dead astronaut resurrect the corpse and begin a terrifying assault on the military staff in the hopes of conquering the world," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.<br /><br />A Roger Corman "American International" production. The man who fell to Earth impregnated, Mr. Emmet (as John Corcoran), does all right. Angela Greene is his pretty conflicted fiancée. And, Ed Nelson (as Dave Randall) is featured as prominently. With a bigger budget, better opening, and a re-write for crisper characterizations, this could have been something approaching classic 1950s science fiction.<br /><br />*** Night of the Blood Beast (1958) Bernard L. Kowalski, Roger Corman ~ Michael Emmet, Angela Greene, Ed Nelson
|
negative
|
I'm sure that not many people outside of Australia have ever heard of the legend of Ned Kelly. I once saw a documentary about the man, but that's the only time I once saw or heard anything about him. And I guess that this might be the biggest problem this movie will have to face. No-one knows anything about it and probably not many people will care about the subject.<br /><br />The movie tells the story of Ned Kelly's life. The Irish immigrant has lived in north-west Victoria all his life, but has never been very welcome by the authorities. The police always accuses him of everything they can think of and they keep harassing his family. When Kelly is fed up with the way everything goes, he forms a gang with his brother and two other men. They start robbing banks and even hijack an entire town for 3 days. All this violence leads to a man hunt organized by the police and when they kill three policemen, they are outlawed. Finally they take over a pub in Glenrowan, where they have a party with all the visitors, waiting for a train full of police to derail at a part of the track that they tore up. But the train is able to stop in time because someone warns them and what will follow is a battle on life and death between the police and the four gunmen...<br /><br />It's very hard to tell whether all of what is shown in the movie is true or false. I guess nobody really knows, because there will always be two camps who will each tell their own truth: one camp says he was a hero, some kind of Robin Hood, the others will say he was an ordinary criminal, a murderer and a thief. I really couldn't tell you which of them is right, perhaps both are, but what I can tell you is that the facts in the movie as well as is the documentary were about the same.<br /><br />This movie was a nice addition to the documentary I once saw and I really enjoyed the performances of all the actors. Heath Ledger, Orlando Bloom, Naomi Watts, Geoffrey Rush are all actors who are pretty well known, but even the lesser known actors show in this production that they all know what good acting should look like. I really enjoyed this movie and I give it a 7.5/10
|
positive
|
You've got to admire director Todd Sheets for his dedication, drive and enthusiasm when it comes to movie-making: between 1985 and 2000, he made a whopping 34 films. Unfortunately, if his Zombie Bloodbath trilogy is anything to go by, they're probably all crap (and a quick look at their IMDb ratings seems to verify my hunch).<br /><br />Part 3 sees a group of obnoxious students finding detention a little more eventful than usual after they are attacked by hordes of the living dead, who have escaped from a top-secret army base located directly beneath their school. Working from a dreadful script by Brian Eklund (which relies heavily on liberal use of the f-bomb) director Sheets delivers yet another embarrassingly amateurish effort featuring some mind-numbingly awful performances from his talent-free cast, dreadful visual effects (some crap CGI and what looks like the front of a giant cardboard space-shuttle) and his trademark shoddy gore (handfuls of offal pulled from beneath his victims' clothing).<br /><br />Finally, after what seems like an eternity watching irritating characters running for their lives, and unconvincing undead people fondling animal innards, Zombie Armageddon finishes with a time-travel/paradox twist ending which forces viewers to re-watch several torturous minutes from the beginning of the film. Honestly... once was enough, Mr. Sheetswhat have we done to deserve having to watch it again?
|
negative
|
If you are going to attempt building tension in a film it is always a good idea not to build it beyond the point of total tedium.<br /><br />Unfortunately the Butcher Brothers haven't grasped this yet.<br /><br />This film sucks, unlike the majority of its characters who (if you didn't work out they are vampires in the first few minutes then shame on you) preference stringing up the plentiful supply of 'no one knows where I am' cheerleader types and homosexual drifters that waft conveniently and with a fast food swagger, past their isolated door.<br /><br />The only tiny bit of originality in the plot is how these vampires come to be vampires in the first place but the rest of it is ludicrous and sloppy.<br /><br />Forced to up sticks (as opposed stakes) on a regular basis due to their penchant for filling their basement with bloodless corpses, they really are none too bright. If they fed their victims they could run their own little blood farm and it would cut down on the mortality rate, thereby allowing them to settle down and get chintzy.<br /><br />Why the producers felt it necessary to introduce the incestuous twins and the homicidally gay older brother I am not sure. It added zero to the plot, which was unfortunate given that there wasn't a great deal of plot to start with and had no shock value at all.<br /><br />One was never told why the parents had died, unless of course that was explained during one of my frequent tea breaks. Clearly the social worker must have been alerted to the family for some reason or other but again, it was for the viewer to write their own reason.<br /><br />The only well rounded character was the youngest brother who emerges looking like Pugsley from the Adams Family. Indeed he was way too rounded, having the appearance of a child who has inadvertently wandered from a Weight watchers' class in to a very bad horror film. Oh heavens, he had. Never mind dear, have another doughnut with a yummy blood centre.
|
negative
|
I was very disappointed in this 1970 film based on a Bernard Malamud story. This is basically a story of possible redemption, racial bias and the unfulfillment of life based on mistrust.<br /><br />A black Jewish angel is sent to help a struggling tailor and his critically ill wife. If Morris Mishkin (Zero Mostel) will only believe in the angel (Belafonte), his wife Fanny (Ida Kaminska) will recover. The problem is that Morris has basically given up on life and just refuses to believe that Belafonte is an angel.<br /><br />When he believes it, Fanny improves but in the end he has doubts and Fanny suffers accordingly. It would have been very nice if there had been an English translation in the last scene when a dying Fanny speaks to Morris.<br /><br />Jan Kadar, who successfully directed Miss Kaminska in her Oscar nominated brilliant performance in 1966's "The Shop on Main Street" directs this film as well. Kaminska is reduced in the film to mostly bed scenes and her kindness in her speech really doesn't convey the desperate situation that she faces. She keeps calling for Ruthie, their daughter, who disobeyed them by marrying out of the Jewish religion. For most of the film, she does not realize the Angel's appearance in her apartment.<br /><br />The scene in the pharmacy is muddled and the scene where the Angel's girl friend confronts Belafonte in their apartment, is memorable but all too brief.<br /><br />We don't know why Belafonte is in danger and why he has died.<br /><br />Those viewing this film must have left the theater in a state of depression and desperation.
|
negative
|
A hint I think may be gathered by the various comments on this thread.<br /><br />I was quite amazed at the number of people who liked this film who want to make it "mandatory" or "compulsory".<br /><br />I think this gives us a little bit of insight into the reason this film and the issue underlying it is so polarizing.<br /><br />The Global Warming issue appeals a lot to people who want to force others to "do right". It appeals particularly to more "liberal" leaning people because it doesn't have to do with bedroom morality which is what usually gets conservatives who want to force you to "be good" going.<br /><br />And that's the problem with the film. Al Gore is a politician. And a very successful one at that. He just can't help himself from appealing to those people who want to force others to do as they would. The political appeal is just too great.<br /><br />And there we are left with a scientific issue that may be of huge importance, reduced to a political issue appealing to those in the body politic with a predilection to force other to "do right".<br /><br />Another interesting question is how did the Environmental movement get hijacked by such people?
|
negative
|
the worst sequel I've ever seen. really awful songs which is upsetting considering how fantastic the first films score and story is! also, which ruins the film for me is the fact there is no John Cleese so jean bob might as well not even be in it and the new villains are dreadful. it is really annoying how that old woman type thing cant string a simple sentence together properly without repeating her words over and over and over again. but to be fair Uberta not shutting up is a little bit funny. but the fact it was her 50th birthday: why do they draw her looking like an 80 year old? i was going to give this a 1 but now i think... i might give it a 2. but still the story line is no where near as good as the first film . it is similar without the humour from certain characters. Overall i disliked this film entirely because of the disappointing music, the severe lack of voice talent: having changed the voice of prince Derek and jean bob, the new villains, disappointing storyline the annoying habits of some characters, and the very simple animation.
|
negative
|
There's a certain allure I've always found in discovering the great (semi-) unknown film. These discoveries have nearly always been dramatic films - in my experience, unknown sci-fi, action and horror are unknown for very, very good reasons. I found "High Tide" on video at a junk store, mixed in amongst countless dozens of tapes of varying quality. Of course, that's the only place I would find it, as it is still not on DVD.<br /><br />While I was watching Judy Davis (as Lillie) throughout the course of this film, I was somehow certain I was watching a great undiscovered performance. Yes, I had previously seen Davis in several small parts - and one starring role in "A Passage to India". But, although she was superb in the aforementioned film, "High Tide" is a different animal entirely. Since recently watching Gillian Armstrong's later film, "Charlotte Gray", I was acutely aware of the sort of actress which impresses her. Davis draws much more than a passing resemblance to Cate Blanchett - in both manner and sensibility.<br /><br />Judy Davis' performance is stunning, I cannot say enough good things about it. She shares an amazing on-screen relationship with young Claudia Karvan (as Ally), this film's other great actress. There's a lot of drama and quiet humanity they share together, the details of which I won't presume to reveal here (see it for yourself!). There's too much good in "High Tide" to cover in one review. Indeed, I would hardly care to - the film speaks well enough for itself. In conclusion, I would like to praise screenwriter Laura Jones for her stunning dialogue, director Gillian Armstrong for her understanding of actors, and the great Russell Boyd for his brilliant, understated cinematography (please see his work in "Tender Mercies").
|
positive
|
Sammi Cheng & Andy Lau are coupled yet again in their 3rd film -- YESTERDAY ONCE MORE -- directed by HK's actioneer Johnnie To...fans of To's action films will be disappointed to find not a single gun was used in the filming...furthermore, fans of Cheng & Lau's previous films, NEEDING YOU & LOVE ON A DIET, will also be disappointed to find that YESTERDAY is no where near as funny or endearing...<br /><br />Mr. & Mrs. To (Lau & Cheng) are a divorced couple...both affluent HK citizens...both incredibly mischievous...both just happened to be professional thieves -- 'two birds of the same feather'....A couple years earlier, they divorced over an inability to find middle ground on splitting the loot...Now she's remarrying...to the son of a rich heiress -- a total momma's boy (Carl Ng) through & through...The soon-to-be mother-in-law (Jenny Woo) is suspicious of Mrs. To's past & thinks she's only marrying her son for the family jewels -- the heiress' priceless ruby necklace...<br /><br />The necklace is stolen...is it Mrs. To's materialistic eye that gets the best of her?... or is it her ex-husband, Mr. To's way of sabotaging the marriage to steal the jewels for himself?...<br /><br />This is not a movie about two pple falling in love or rekindling a love...its about two pple who have always been in love but have somehow been to foolish to realize it...they let pride & greed overwhelm them...<br /><br />Overall: YESTERDAY is one part caper/heist film & one part homage to classic Hollywood glamour from its golden years -- i.e. Cary Grant & Grace Kelly's TO CATCH A THIEF...Johnnie To is riding too heavily on Cheng/Lau's chemistry from their previous films...hoping Cheng/Lau's immense popularity & fan base will be enough justification for this third film....I think Sammi Cheng is one of the most likable/charming entertainers working t'day...& Lau is definitely the Tom Cruise of Asian cinema...<br /><br />I really enjoyed their first two films & consider the Cheng/Lau pairing comparable to those classic Hollywood couples of the 40's & 50's...but YESTERDAY falls very short of expectations...terrible writing, ridiculous situations, product placements galore, & all the subplots & supporting characters were unnecessary...come to think of it...this film was unnecessary...unless you just love celebrity watching...
|
negative
|
A movie like this doesn't come along too often. I'm surprised it took 9 years to finally see it. Politicians and civilian hawks should view this before making decisions on how the destroy peoples lives, I watched this the day after viewing the TV version of "Uprising" about the Warsaw ghetto. Even with this fresh in mind I felt sympathy for the German Soldier. I felt sympathy for all parties that this tragedy could happen. It will take awhile to thaw out from this one. I'm surprised they have not made a movie based on "The Forgotten Soldier" by Buy Sajer. This movie shares the cold with the book. Both will haunt me for the rest of my life.
|
positive
|
I like Chris Rock, but I feel he is wasted in this film. The idea of remaking Heaven Can Wait is fine, but the filmmakers followed the plot of that turkey too closely. When Eddie Murphy remade Dr. Doolittle and The Nutty Professor, he re-did them totally -- so they became Murphy films/vehicles, not just tepid remakes. That's why they were successful. If Chris had done the same, this could have been a much better film. The few laughs that come are when he is doing his standup routine -- so he might as well have done a concert film. It also would have been much funnier if the white man whose body he inhabits was a truck driver or hillbilly. So why does Hollywood keep making junk like this? Because people go to see it -- because they like Chris Rock. So give Chris a decent script and give us better movies! Don't remake films that weren't that good in the first place!
|
negative
|
The original "Cube" is a fantastic B-movie rich with paranoia, meaty characterization, and fine over-the-top performances. It's creepy, cryptic, and cool. And it stands perfectly well, on its own, without a stupid sequel like "Cube Zero." <br /><br />This third (!) film in the Cube series is part retread (most of the booby traps are sadly recycled), part aberration. It takes the bold step of explaining what the cube is - something that was never revealed in the first movie - but, since said explanation is bland, I'd rather it was kept a secret. There are some potentially interesting references to the society that exists outside of the cube, but they never develop beyond hints about some kind of political-religious totalitarian state. So, what little social commentary there is feels flat and unfocused.<br /><br />What works? Basically nothing. The acting is purely amateur hour, the pacing is slow (how much of this movie consists of two nerds watching a screen?), and the gore effects, while revolting, fail to convince. In short, "Cube Zero" reminded me of a "Cube" fan-fic, a sloppy and sophomoric clone of a good movie that definitely did not need a sequel.
|
negative
|
Jud Nelson is an aspiring actor who becomes involved with a married couple who enjoy playing sadistic games on other people. The husband gets his jollies by burying people alive. If that isn't bad enough, he has a miniature video camera in each coffin so he can watch his victims suffocate.
|
negative
|
For an indy film this is probably a bit better than a 3 out of 10, but in general it only gets a 3. The effects aren't horrible and at least they have some adults playing adult roles rather than all kids as a lot of indy low budget horror films do. The acting is very wooden, but at least they had a better "display" than some films in the shoestring budget category. It's filmed a lot inside a building rather than a friend's basement. The plot as a whole isn't the worst. It's a Resident Evil rip off about an evil corporation invading a small town and an outbreak makes people into zombies. I would have liked to have seen some sort of creatures rather than the big baddie just be another "super" zombie. I try not to write spoilers but this review has one so be warned!! SPOILER ALERT!!! Not only do some of the cast just seem to shrug past the zombies (the same ones are recycled over and over but at least they have more then 5 people playing them). But one of the plot twists really doesn't fly with me. The deputy who goes inside turns out to be on the evil corporations payroll. He kills one of the other employees in cold blood and then meets with the head bad guy in an office talking about cleaning up the mess. The deputy has just shown us that he is a real bad person too and talks like he can clean it up (meaning kill all the surviving witnesses) no problem. But then 2 seconds later, he is helping them out. There was no real "change of heart" emotion or anything to make me feel that this bad guy went from killing an innocent guy just minutes ago and then talking about taking everyone out no problem to being their savior. There was no incident or anything to make me buy into this. Worth watching if you are a fan of low budget flicks, otherwise you will not enjoy this.
|
negative
|
This is not a movie that I would typically watch at 2:30 in the morning, but I got into it and couldn't stop until it was over.<br /><br />Shia LaBeouf demonstrated that he is not just a young actor here, but could handle more demanding roles. The fact that he has been handed those roles in the last two years is testament to his ability.<br /><br />It was really his movie. Sure, there were others involved, but they pale in comparison to his role.<br /><br />This was a time when gold was reserved for the privileged. This victory opened it up to the masses, much the way that Tiger Woods has opened golf to all races.<br /><br />Like Harry Vardon (Stephen Dillane) said to Lord Northcliffe (Peter Firth): " ...if Mr. Ouimet (Shia LaBeouf) wins tomorrow, it's because he's the best, because of who he is. Not who his father was, not how much money he's got, because of who he bloody is! And I'll thank you to remember that." Go get charged up.
|
positive
|
This was the eighth and final Columbia Whistler film and the only one without Richard Dix who had retired from movies and was to die the following year. It's still a competent thriller, the machine carried on without him perfectly, but something was missing: Dix! The stories in the Whistler series were always interesting, sometimes brilliant, the screenplays often noir always atmospheric, but it wasn't only the Whistler himself that hung it all together on screen, Dix did too.<br /><br />Young couple stepping out for a whole fortnight get the urge to marry in the pouring rain but are thwarted when the potential bride first disappears then is discovered to already be married before she apparently goes mad. Is the potential groom put off, even when the private dick he's hired to find her suddenly slugs him and lams, or is love blind? Who's twisting who is the question. Michael Duane in his penultimate film is OK if a bit of a wimp, lovely Lenore Aubert's finest moments came next film in Abbott & Costello Meet Frankenstein, and Richard Lane was wonderful as ever on loan from Boston Blackie. Also the only outing where the Whistler himself must have got wet from slouching about in the rain, unless he got sprayed with sea foam in Voice.<br /><br />A lot happened in this last hour, well worth watching over and over again as usual to fans of the genre like me. The Whistler radio series begun in 1942 carried on until 1955 clocking up nearly 700 half hour shows, nearly all of which are available on mp3 and based upon what I've heard so far nearly all of which are well worth listening to as well.
|
positive
|
I agree with those reviews I have read here, and I have no words to define such a turkey like this, but despite everything, I still can find a reason for movies like this to exist. Do you remenber those happy days in which video was a prosperous business, and a lot of movies were made with the only reason of filling the shelves of the video stores? this movie comes from that period and I can imagine that was the only reason for which it was produced and the same happened with many, many, many other stinkers. Do you remember "Rambo" imitations? and so many slashers of Z grade?, I still feel nostalgia for that period.About this movie I can say I didn´t waste my time watching it because I pressed the fast forward button after the first fifteen minutes, just to find a very funny scene in which a guy was pushing an axe against heads which exploded because, as you perfectly notice, they were made of plastic. And about the end, well, it was so badly filmed I could not understand what happened. That´s the same, I had not followed the non-existing plot at all. But boy, Video-age was a great age despite movies like this.
|
negative
|
When I first saw this movie,I also expected "our boys" to be cute,and more like an extended version of the TV show. I didn't "get it" back then. But,years later,at a party YEARS later,at a 70s' type PAR-TAY,where certain substances had been smoked,inhaled,and with plenty of tequila,"HEAD" was on late at night.We watched it,and finally realized what "HEAD" was all about. It spoofed their own show,as shown in one song that called themselves,"a manufactured image". As Davy Jones wrote in his autobio,"They Made a Monkey out of me",he openly admits that everyone in the film,had been up all night smoking weed.They made fun of themselves,society,everything! Great film! Tho,as a 52 yr old granny,I no longer "induldge", I STILL watch this film when I want a good LOL!!!
|
positive
|
In my life I have seen many great and awful movies. I am not an expert in professional reviews, but I have definitely something to say about this one. Firstly, these actors are the worst I have seen... Their acting is so unreal that you even want to throw away the DVD in the first 2 minutes. I think that these actors were not interested in the quality. <br /><br />Another awful thing is about these dialogs - they are so lame. You sometimes feel uncomfortable when you hear them. It seems that your 14 year old son could act better. I feel that this movie had a budget similar to the cost of my 14 year old European car...<br /><br />Please, if my message reaches you - save your time and money.
|
negative
|
I'm so glad I taped this film when it came on BBC last month! It blew my mind, so gut wrenching and real. David Tennant is absolutely fabulous in this, even though his character isn't always that easy to like or identify with. The final scene where he plays the song just broke my heart, those eyes....<br /><br />I'm guessing that he made this film in between the Dr. Who series, and that makes it even more of an achievement for me. I just love Dr. Who and yet I saw absolutely nothing of him in Mr. Tennants portrayal of this man who knows that he has changed and struggles to create some sort of new identity and life.<br /><br />great little intense drama!
|
positive
|
I saw the first House of the Dead and expected a root canal to be more pleasant to attend, so when it wasn't as bad as that, I was delightfully surprised.<br /><br />Unfortunately, I then got my hopes up that the second one might be okay as well...and I was wrong.<br /><br />Apparently I'm one of the few people who saw this movie that thinks it was bad.<br /><br />I don't know whether to watch it again and force myself to see whatever all the people who gave it good reviews saw, or wonder if I saw the wrong movie.<br /><br />Ed Quinn as Ellis and Emmanuelle Vaugier as Alexandra 'Nightingale' Morgan did a great job in roles that were way beneath them. They deserve to be in better movies.<br /><br />The special effects were okay and some of the characters likable/hate-able and that made for a tolerable watch, but for the most part, this movie was just a waste of time.<br /><br />Oh and I have to ask this because I found myself asking it aloud ALL the way through the movie...did anyone not know how to close doors behind themselves so zombies wouldn't just wander into the rooms? Only once did it happen, (zombies wandering in) and I found that a little convenient...soldiers walk into a room, leave the door wide open, pay little to no attention to same said door so the zombies can just walk in if they feel like it (with the hapless "livings" being cornered with no way to escape) and yet only once did zombies follow them in.<br /><br />Nitpicky? Maybe but honestly...if I was fighting for my life, the last thing I'd do would be to walk into a room and leave the door wide open so zombies could swarm in and eat me.<br /><br />That is really the only thing *bothered* me throughout the movie, and just the movie for the most part was a bad sequel to a not totally abominable original.
|
negative
|
Guy Pearce looks like and acts like a Calvin Klein underwear model, or one of those bimbo guys who wear Levi's Jeans and stand in front of a herd of stampeding Buffalo because they realize that Buffalo like Levi's too. In every scene, Guy Pearce looks like he is saying, "Look at me, I am so pretty!" As a hero, his character is a total wimp. In every scene that calls for courage, Pearce gets the short end of the stick. SPOILERS: Yet, at the end of the movie, this wimpy book-worm character out-runs a pack of baboon-like Morlocks who can run and leap along the side of the walls (like Spiderman). Around the same time, the TIME MACHINE seems to cause a Nuclear Explosion of some kind that wipes out an entire valley. Strangely, even though Pearce and his gal-pal Mumba are about a foot away from the last Morlock that gets killed; seconds later Pearce, Mumba, and the tribe are watching the valley blow up from the safety of their mountain. Now THAT is FAST RUNNING!!! Jeremy Irons as the King of the Morlocks is great. He really makes the movie a lot better than it was. Mumba, the model-turned-actress is not very cute, and she does not do much acting in this movie. The scenes which take place in the 1900s lack any real atmosphere. Even though the period dress and vehicles are shown, the characters act like caricatures of how they imagine 1900s people would walk and talk. The original version of this movie was a lot better in this respect. The period characters were much more realistic, and they were much better actors. The original version of this movie made the PAST seem like the real base of the characters. This new version lacks substance and feeling. The scenes in which Pearce deals with the death of Emma and then fails to save her from her fate are very good. The issue of the Morlocks being cannibals is not very well explained, and it does not make sense that they have some large dark butcher shop filled with knives and cutlery, yet they are never seen using any weapons except for a blow-dart. Also silly is the giant pit full of water and bones. All through the underground, the Morlocks are all walking around chewing on meaty bones. So how can all those skeletons be in the pit? It seems like there are some Morlocks that Bar-B-Que their humans and eat them off the grill, and other Morlocks only like filleted flesh?? And where are the restrooms for all of these creatures? As I was watching the dozens of Morlocks who were gorging themselves on human flesh, it occurred to me that they must have a very advanced toilet & plumbing system, considering that they were tossing in lots of bones. All these issues were never addressed. At the end of the movie, Pearce is holding Mumba's hand, but you can see that he is eye-balling her friend, Mandingo. One other totally irritating thing about this movie is the non-stop LION KING music which is in the background. Once Pearce arrives in the future (802,710 a.d.); the LION KING music never stops, and every time the natives are around, there is that African Moaning Singer (Is it Peter Gabriel or Paul Simon?) that starts wailing and moaning over the LION KING jungle music. I watched the credits at the end of the movie, and the jungle music is not specifically identified, but I think that Elton John should probably look into this matter. Time Machine was a mediocre movie with some good FX. See it once, then forget it.
|
negative
|
Plot Synopsis: When his wife, a news reporter, is kidnapped & replaced with an android double, Secret Service agent Eric Phillips tracks her down & uncovers a plan by an arms dealer to create an army of invincible androids to assassinate world leaders.<br /><br />I wasn't expecting much when I first saw this sequel to Richard Pepin's low-budget sci-fi / action hybrid "Cyber Tracker". That film was nothing special, not to mention a blatant rip-off of both "The Terminator" & "RoboCop". This sequel is the same as before, with an all-out action sequence opening the film. There are plenty of explosions, heavy gunfire & a huge bodycount, as well as some martial-arts moves courtesy of the film's star, Don "The Dragon" Wilson. The whole film seems like a series of action scenes strung together with minimal plot. On the acting front, Wilson is a bad actor. He really needs a personality transplant.
|
negative
|
I must have missed a part of this movie... I found myself asking who is this? And, when did that happen? It seemed to jump around but I kept watching for fear I was missing something and it would all be explained to me. I loved Lonesome Dove but this movie made no sense to me at all. I did love all the actors but what happened to the rest of the movie? It made me go "what"? at the beginning of each part..As far as the scenery - I thought it was fine..It made me feel though like I was leafing through a book and leaving pages out.. The ending had me a little confused too although I imagine the boy was waiting for his father and was meant to leave you wondering if his father would finally come home to his son and be a father since his mother was now gone..I would like to read the book just to see what I missed in the movie..I don't expect this one to win any awards.
|
negative
|
There is, as many reviews have observed, a strong dark streak to this movie. The director it most recalls to me is John Landis (yeah, go ahead and howl about what a peasant I am). Arcand has the gift of exploring frivolous things in a bleak, gray kind of way, then turning round and exploring the horrors of life with a lighthearted touch.<br /><br />The cast is, without exception, above average. Thomas Gibson, as David, is outstanding as the moody and self-deceptive center around whom the rest of the characters revolve. He talks a good nihilist, but his actions reflect more love in his character than he is willing to acknowledge. Gibson was already a strong and subtle actor in 1993. It was difficult to look at him and see Greg Montgomery, let alone Agent Hotchner of Criminal Minds.<br /><br />Perhaps not the best scene, but the one I enjoy most, my "rewind scene," is the section where Candy is expecting a visitor, and one uninvited person after another shows up at the door. As Candy's interpersonal environment swings further and further out of control, David just grows bouncier, perkier, and more enthusiastic, like a gaunt Gen-X "Tigger."
|
positive
|
Sorry, but Jacqueline Hyde (get it??? - Jack L and Hyde - Jekyll & Hyde) has some of the worst acting this side of hardcore porn, not to mention a script apparently written by a first-grader with undiagnosed learning disabilities.<br /><br />Jackie Hyde inherits an old mansion by a grandfather she never knew she had. Guess who? Yes, an inventor of the special formula that slowly takes over one's body and mind - yes, that Mr. Hyde! <br /><br />Despite some nice skin scenes, this film fails to register any feeling or emotion other than uncontrollable laughter.<br /><br />As much as poor Jackie tries she just can't stay away from granddaddy's special formula and the result is an hour and half of wasted time.
|
negative
|
This is another one of those movies I just knew I would hate, but it ended up not being as bad as one would expect.<br /><br />It has a lot of T&A in it and even the DVD menu is chocked full of women's breast. The first few scenes of the movie has a lot of sex and nudity and I was beginning to think there would be no story at all just exploiting nudity for the sake of making money off a popular prequel 8MM.<br /><br />As I continued to watch there was just more sex and nudity and main characters that I could care less about, but then the story started to unfold and I started to see a point to it all, and it was a tad better.<br /><br />It is about a man who's fiancé is the daughter of an Ambasador and they all have a promising future until nude photos of a menage a trois sex act shows up and blackmail is in the senders cards. The man and his fiancé must now get to the bottom of who sent the pics and how to shut them up.<br /><br />The movie first of all is nothing to do with part 1, it doesn't even have anything to do with 8MM's, its about a sex video though so I can see the similarities, as small as they may be.<br /><br />The acting is neither good, nor bad, its just nobodies playing parts anybody could do. The films production value is middle of the road and its pure drama yawn.<br /><br />I did enjoy going along for the ride getting to the bottom of the blackmailers motives. I was anticipating answers which is way more than I could say for the first one which I consider garbage. This movie has some nice twists too which are always welcomed.<br /><br />It's not great, and it is very slow started, but it does ultimately entertain. I wasn't on the edge of my seat and I won't rave to my friends that this is a must see, but hey if you watch a lot of movies and always seek something new, this might entertain you for 90 minutes.
|
negative
|
This film is strictly for fans of Debbie Reynolds and Eddie Fisher.<br /><br />I get angry at TCM for showing this mess more frequently than Bachelor Mother, the delightful original. I get angrier still that some Hollywood boob thought it would be a good idea to remake Bachelor Mother, filling it with some lame songs that only serve to interrupt the flow of a cute comedy. Instead, Hollywood could have spent the time, money, energy and talent wasted on this horrible remake to give us something new and original - Wow, what a concept!<br /><br />Bachelor Mother (the original), with Ginger Rogers and David Niven is a spicy stew, simmering with sexuality. It is a 1930's wink at the Hays Office. Bundle of Joy (the remake), with Debbie Reynolds and Eddie Fisher is strictly milk and cookies. It is a 1950's handshake with Eisenhower.<br /><br />Which cast would you rather watch - Debbie Reynolds, Eddie Fisher and Adolphe Menjou, or Ginger Rogers, David Niven and Charles Coburn? For me, every member of the cast in the original version is far better than his/her counterpart in the remake.<br /><br />In the original a beautiful, young Ginger Rogers is at her peak. David Niven delivers perfectly as a somewhat spoiled, sophisticated and yet befuddled scion of a wealthy department store magnate. And I always love to see Charles Coburn in a movie. In Bachelor Mother, he is priceless as the desperate grandfather wannabe.<br /><br />In Bundle of Joy Debbie Reynolds is her usual perky self. She is fine in this role, although her performance (along with Fisher's) completely changes the tone of the story. As an actor, Eddie Fisher is hopeless. He is completely lacking in screen "presence." Here he is way too wholesome for this story. His acting is completely bland and clueless. Likewise, his singing is so bland and unremarkable that it has been completely forgotten by the world at large. The only time he is not completely painful is in Butterfield 8 - where, incidentally, he doesn't sing. Here, Fisher's lame performance alone is enough to ruin this movie. Adolphe Menjou, a favorite character actor, delivers a competent performance, but not one of his best. He is more blustering than commanding. He and Fisher are not convincing as a father and son.<br /><br />Do you see a musical for the music, the story being merely incidental? Or do watch a musical for a story, with some (hopefullly) good music used for seasoning? If the former, you might like this lame remake. Otherwise you are much better off watching the Ginger Rogers non-musical original, Bachelor Mother.
|
negative
|
Let me state at the outset that I have Cerebral Palsy and I went into this film expecting to have to make allowances for the lead performance. I left the theater half-convinced that they'd cast an actor who had Cerebral Palsy in the role, even though I knew that was not the case. The performances were generally excellent, with a special nod to Brenda Fricker and to Hugh O'Conner (I believe that's his name) as the young Christy Brown. Christy is talented, brash, arrogant, at times vulgar and petulant-in other words, human. This film, along with Gaby: A True Story and the documentary King Gimp, are excellent portrayals of life with CP. By no means a complete portrait, but fine examples of the disabled as human beings. Most highly recommended.
|
positive
|
I have seen this film on a Sunday evening and I must say there is no better way to end the weekend. I am totally pleased with the humor and the warm charm this film offers. It simply leaves me in beautiful mood. Watching this film means having a great time and keep a warm feeling.<br /><br />The film offers sharp black British humor and feels very fresh to me. You really enjoy the story and the characters. Brenda Blethyn is SO great. I don't know exactly why. She's too old to be a love interest for me and too young to be my mother. But I really feel comfortable when she shows up in the movie.<br /><br />Some may say the story was thin and predictable. But who cares? There simply has to be a happy end, dancing in the sunshine! Are the characters stereotypes or cut outs? I don't know- better I don't care! I just loved them and enjoyed watching them.<br /><br />Furthermore, I must say that I usually don't like romantic comedies. But this one is outstanding: a black comedy with a heart of gold !!
|
positive
|
This film was a big disappointment.<br /><br />I take the opposite view of the critics. This is not a case of the material not being up to the level of the actors; here the actors (Bette Davis and James Cagney) are simply not up to the level of the material. Clark Gable and Claudette Colbert were every bit as big as Davis and Cagney, and look how It Happened One Night turned out - an all-time classic. With a very similar story, Davis proves that she has no talent for comedy (good thing for her that this is just about the only comedy she ever attempted!) Davis' one-note performance oozes petulance, but none of the nuances of Colbert's acting in It Happened One Night. Cagney, who was a great comedy actor, just seems out-of-sync with his costar, Davis. The script provides some decent lines and gags, but the delivery seems better suited to drama than comedy.<br /><br />Part of the problem is the soundtrack, which, like the delivery of Davis and Cagney, seems more suitable to a light drama than a comedy.<br /><br />Jack Carson, who played similar roles throughout his career, has more capably handled very similar material. In a fairly typical supporting role Eugene Palette delivers a respectable performance. In a slightly different role as an old west relic, Harry Davenport, is very good. But in one of his poorest performances, William Frawley is quite irritating. His character's constant references to fictional cops are a poor effort at irony. <br /><br />I really love every one of these performers, and it is a shame that, as an ensemble they achieve no more chemistry and no better result than The Bride Came C.O.D.
|
negative
|
Slackers is just another teen movie that's not really worth watching. Dave (Devon Sawa), Sam (Jason Segel) and Jeff (Michael C. Maronna) are about to graduate from Holden University with Honors in lying, cheating and scheming. The three roommates have proudly scammed their way through the last four years of college and now, during final exams, these big-men-on-campus are about to be busted by the most unlikely dude in school. The plot is very stupid and there's no reason why to watch this unless your looking to shut off you brain for a little while. Slackers is just a predictable teen flick that really adds nothing new to the genre. The comedy in Slackers is either hit or miss but there's no real true funny or original moment in the movie. Its really just a collection of gags and some are actually pretty funny. Though for every joke that works there's at least eight more that don't. The screenplay is full of penis and breast jokes that some high school and college students may enjoy. Even if they do they probably won't remember this film after awhile as its not a very memorable comedy. Jason Schwartzman plays the freaky Ethan and after appearing in some good comedies he has stoop pretty low. Jaime King and Devon Sawa are the other main stars but they do a rather poor job in this film. This is directed by Dewey Nicks and this is his first film so you can't blame him too much. The funniest character was probably Laura Prepon though, she's not in the movie very much. The film is very short at only 86 minutes long however, that may be too long for some people who don't really like this type of humor. Slackers isn't the worst film of 2002 but certainly is below average. When compared to other films in the genre there's a lot better out there such as Not Another Teen Movie, American Pie and its sequels , Scary Movie 1 & 2 etc. So unless you have seen most of them and you're looking for something new then Slackers might fit that bill but its better if you just watch something else. Rating 4.3/10 a below average teen comedy that's worth skipping.
|
negative
|
My dog recently passed away, and this was a movie I loved as a kid, so I had to see it to try to cheer up.<br /><br />(Beware of Dog, I mean Spoilers.) This movie isn't just for kids and it's far from ordinary. It was set in New Orleans in 1939. First and foremost, the dog was not portrayed as an extra family member in this film, but as an adult with his own complicated life to deal with.<br /><br />In the beginning, Charlie is not too different from his dishonest and brutal business partner, Carface. He is money driven, greedy, and just escaped death row, as he states in the start of the feature. The difference between Charlie and Carface is that Charlie can learn and is willing to listen to others; Anne Marie and his sidekick, Itchy. Carface will not even listen to the fat, ugly dog with the big glasses who happens to be closest to him.<br /><br />Carface attempts to murder the hero, because he wants 100% of the profits in their business and won't settle for only 50% - a highly unusual way for a German Shepherd mix to die. Also, being eaten by a prehistoric sized alligator who ends up sparing your life because you can sing is highly unlikely whether you are a dog or not. This is a cartoon, and that's why it is logical here.<br /><br />Carface's method of revenge is through murder, while Charlie believes success is the best revenge, financial success that is. After surviving death, he starts a business by taking Carface's source of financing, a highly talented girl who possesses the ability to communicate with animals. They win a whole bunch of races, and Charlie tells her he'll give the money to the poor - hint hint: Charlie and Itchy live in a junkyard, and are therefore poor. He uses the money toward his casino/bar/theatre, and not the other "poor." The reason why Anne Marie has the ability to talk to animals is that she has compassion, and she listens carefully. She teaches Charlie ethics by pointing out his gambling, lying, and stealing. Charlie tries to make up for it by buying her dresses. She added the ethics that his business needed, while Charlie did management, and Itchy provided construction.<br /><br />Carface uses violence and property damage to tear down Charlie's business, which is unprotected by the government. Charlie loses everything and all he has left is this little girl. In the end he had to choose between her life and his own. He first grabs the watch out of self preservation, and sets it down when the girl started to sink. Both the girl and the watch were sinking, and he had to choose which one, and he chose the girl.<br /><br />The great part about this movie that focuses on a person's ability to learn right from wrong over time, and a child's ability to cope with the natural occurrence of death of their pet, is that it never shows anyone dying! The watch symbolizes his life, and the watch is shown being submerged and stopped. All the deaths were suggestive, even for the villain. I didn't cry during this movie until now, and I have gotten so much more out of it, that I had to write it down and share it with you.
|
positive
|
Holy cow, what a piece of sh*t this movie is. I didn't how these filmmakers could take a 250 word book and turn it into a movie. I guess they didn't know either! I don't remember any farting or belching in the book, do you?<br /><br />They took this all times childrens classic, added some farting, belching and sexual inuindo, and prostituted it into a KAKA joke. This should give you a good idea of what these hollywood producers think like. I have to say, visually it was interesting, but the brilliant visual story is ruined by toilet humor (if you even think that kind of thing is funny) I DON'T want the kids that I know to think it is.<br /><br />Don't take your kids to see, don't rent the DVD. I hope the ghost of Doctor Suess ghost comes and haunts the people that made this movie.
|
negative
|
The extended nuclear family, united in business as well as in personal life, is examined in this serious study of a grown son's conflict with his father's desire that he remain in the family business. This triggers a midlife crisis which may or may not be ameliorated by an affair and retreat to a shrink's couch. Very fine acting by all. A sleeper that deserves wide attention.
|
positive
|
This is by the far worst piece of cr4p I've ever seen in my life. It barely made sense. It wasn't scary at all (unless you class scary as loud noises and screaming?) Sarah-Michelle Gellar needs to stop with these sh1tty horror films. I think everyone else in the cinema agreed with me when i shouted "SHITE" when the credits rolled up. <br /><br />On my list of the worst movies ever made this is how it would go:<br /><br />1. The Return 2. Cabin Fever 3. Silent Hill<br /><br />The reason i made Silent Hill 3rd is because it showed some frightening scenes, but the rest was absolute cr4p. Same with cabin fever, made no sense, but the return topped that list. Its worse than Silent Hill and Cabin Fever put together
|
negative
|
This is a very rare example of a movie about transvestitism (of heterosexuals). The film treats the taboo theme so that even a general audience not knowing of transvestitism at all will strongly sympathize with its main character. Adrian Pasdar is very believable as Gerald/Geraldine and shall not be forgot for this brillant acting. The directing of Christopher Monger is very sensitively, treating such a difficult issue quite excellently, packed into a good story. Not a big movie, neither an "art" film, but a little, lovely motion picture!
|
positive
|
The Regard of Flight and the Clown Bagatelles as performed by Bill Irwin are some of the funniest (both in terms of physical comedy and verbal and visual gags) performances I've ever seen. My father taped this special when it first aired in the 80s and my family has loved it ever since. We quote it back and forth fairly constantly. It's a crying shame that copies are not readily available for purchase. I have a bad VHS copy that I acquired from a specialty distributer a few years ago, but Mr. Irwin's performance deserves a proper DVD treatment with a restored version of the original performance and interviews with the performers/producers as well as more examples of modern clowning.<br /><br />Bill Irwin's talent deserves more exposure to mainstream audiences than it has enjoyed in his limited wide release appearances. I share "The Regard of Flight" with friends quite often and though I am always greeted with a small amount of skepticism when I mention that it is a mixture of clowning and vaudeville I have yet to have anyone come away from seeing it without loving it. In case the powers that be ever happen upon this IMDb listing, please consider releasing this and other Bill Irwin work.
|
positive
|
Warning: contains a spoiler. Corny plot and in many cases terrible acting. Fontaine is great, but some others, particularly Richard Ney, Ivy's husband, are exceedingly wooden. Ney lies in bed, dying of arsenical poisoning, with every hair in place. Yet the movie is so juicy and so suspenseful. More faithful to the book than most movies of its era. Casting Joan Fontaine as a poisoner (and an adulteress, which was just as shocking then - I'm not kidding, kids) was a masterful stroke. She's just her usual Joan Fontainey self. As murderers were supposed to, she dies by falling "feet foremost through the floor into an empty space."
|
positive
|
This happens to be one of my favorite horror films. It's a rich, classy production boasting an excellent cast of ensemble actors, beautiful on-location cinematography, a haunting musical score, an intelligent and novel plot theme, and an atmosphere of dread and menace. It's reminiscent of such classic films as ROSEMARY'S BABY and THE SHINING, wherein young, vulnerable women find themselves victimized by supernatural forces in old, creepy buildings with a macabre past. Here, CRISTINA RAINES plays a top New York City fashion model named Alison Parker. Her happy, outgoing exterior masks a deeply conflicted and troubled soul. This is evidenced by the revelation that in her past, she attempted suicide twice- once as a teenage girl after walking in on her degenerate father cavorting in bed with two women and having him rip a silver crucifix from her neck and toss it on the floor, and the second time, after her married lawyer-boyfriend's wife supposedly committed suicide over learning of their affair. Telling her beau(played by a suitably slimy CHRIS SARANDON) that she needs to live on her own for a year or so, she answers a newspaper ad for a fully-furnished, spacious one-bedroom apartment in an old Brooklyn Heights brownstone. This building actually exists and is located at 10 Montague Terrace right by the Brooklyn Heights Promenade off Remsen Street. The producers actually filmed inside the building and its apartments, paying the residents for their inconvenience, of course. The real estate agent, a Miss Logan(AVA GARDNER), seems to be very interested in having Alison take the apartment- an interest that cannot be solely explained by the 6% commission she would earn. Especially when she quickly drops the rental price from $500.00 a month to $400.00. Alison agrees and upon leaving the building with Miss Logan, notices an elderly man sitting and apparently staring at her from the top-floor window. Miss Logan identifies the man to her as Father Halliran and tells Alison that he's blind. Alison's response is very logical- "Blind? Then what does he look at?" After moving in, Alison meets some of the other residents in the building, including a lesbian couple played by SYLVIA MILES and BEVERLY D'ANGELO, who provide Alison with an uncomfortable welcome to the building. Alison's mental health and physical well-being soon start to deteriorate and she is plagued by splitting headaches and fainting spells. When she relays her concerns to Miss Logan about her sleep being disturbed on a nightly basis by clanging metal and loud footsteps coming from the apartment directly over her, she is dumbstruck to learn that apart from the blind priest and now herself, no one has lived in that building for the last three years. Summoning the courage one night to confront her nocturnal tormentor, she arms herself with a butcher knife and a flashlight and enters the apartment upstairs. She is confronted by the cancer-riddled specter of her dead father and uses the knife on him in self-defense when he comes after her. The police investigate and find no sign of violence in that apartment- no corpse, no blood, nothing. Yet Alison fled the building and collapsed in the street, covered in blood- her own, as it turns out. But there's nary a mark on her. What Alison doesn't realize until the film's denouement is that her being in that brownstone has a purpose. She was put there for a reason- a reason whose origin dates back to the Biblical story of the Garden of Eden and of the angel Uriel who was posted at its entrance to guard it from the Devil. She is being unknowingly primed and prepped by the Catholic Church to assume a most important role- one that will guarantee that her soul, which is damned for her two suicide attempts, can be saved. At the same time, the "invisible" neighbors, who turn out to be more than just quirky oddballs, have a different agenda in mind for her. This is a competent and intelligently done film and one that surprisingly portrays the Church and its representatives in a mostly sympathetic light.
|
positive
|
My wife and I have watched this whole series at least three times. I can't imagine how it could be better. This isn't the "complete" history of WWIIno library could hold such a historybut it is the best summary of that history. Lots of detail, lots of personal stories, and still keeps the overall picture in view.<br /><br />Olivier's narration is excellently written and, of course, superbly given. The interviews are from all sides, except the Russian, because the producers were not allowed to talk to many Russians. It is very much worth owning this complete program on DVD. We treasure our copy.<br /><br />The producer's do an excellent job of providing pictures and action where there was almost none extant in any archive: There are almost no films of convoys and submarine battles, for instance, but still, the episode on this subject is very well done.
|
positive
|
As a teenager, I was pretty into the whole Bigfoot thing - I read the books and followed the reported sightings. As a more jaded adult, I've largely given up on the big guy now, but don't mind watching the odd movie when I come across one. This one had a few strong points to it - mainly, the recreations of two of the more famous Bigfoot encounters - the Ape Canyon incident of 1924 and the Bauman incident of c.1850 as related to and by Teddy Roosevelt, both of which I'm somewhat familiar with from that youthful reading I did. The movie takes for granted that both incidents involved a sasquatch, whereas both incidents have more plausible explanations, but the recreations were well done. There's also homage paid at the beginning of the movie to the famous Patterson video, again taking for granted its authenticity. The sasquatch encounter at the end of the movie was also very well done and had a very creepy feel to it as the sasquatch were portrayed mainly in the shadows or as hairy feet running past the terrified men. Unfortunately, in total those four things might have composed about 20 minutes, whereas the movie as a whole is slightly over an hour and a half.<br /><br />It's the fictional story (done in a documentary style) of an expedition to a remote area of northern British Columbia, to the suspected home range of the sasquatch. A computer had targeted this area based on sightings and - in one of the more amusing scenes in the movie - the computer also used "eyewitness sightings" to draw a picture of a sasquatch that looked exactly like the "creature" of the Patterson video! Aside from those 20 minutes I mentioned, we basically watch this expedition travel, which means we get to watch a bunch of guys go on a long camping trip. I've been on camping trips with the guys. Let me tell you - they've never been worthy of a movie. Interspersed among the long stretches of boredom are some nice wildlife shots (although one suspects that canned footage was used, or perhaps even captive animals performing as wild animals) and there are some spectacular scenery shots, except that the scenery isn't of northern British Columbia, it's from national parks in Oregon.<br /><br />I did appreciate that we were never given a real picture of the sasquatch, so we didn't have to deal with the bad makeup that would have been part of this. 3/10
|
negative
|
I read about this movie in a magazine and I was intrigued. A woman, who one day sees herself drive past in her own car. Well, I thought, this could be interesting...<br /><br />...but it isn't. First, the title. The Broken? The Broken...what? What is broken? The...oh, wait...I get it, the title itself is "broken"! WOW, clever! Unfortunately, this is virtually the only thing going for it.<br /><br />The premise is not that bad, but I think Kiefer Suderland did much better in 'Mirrors'. A cross between Invasion of the Body Snatchers and Mirrors, and a rather mediocre one at that. A more suited title would be 'The Boring', since it draws out every single scene for bloody ages. Or maybe 'The Confusing' since it doesn't explain anything at all, not in the narrative nor in the story itself, only some vague idea about evil copies and somesuch, dotted with cheap scares and scenes used to death, but nothing tangible. It's just messed up.<br /><br />On the other hand, the acting and the special effects are quite good, but then again, it's not a difficult role to act.<br /><br />After watching the movie twice, I still feel unsatisfied, a little confused maybe, and not in the E. A. Poe or Stephen King kind of way. Do yourself a favor, and don't watch this one. Simply put, there are better thrillers out there.
|
negative
|
WOW!<br /><br />I just was given this film from a friend of mine, who bought it for 1.98 at Walmart, and he felt that he got taken! It is beyond boring, most of the scenes are filmed in front of a green screen, the acting is somewhat improvised, almost as if they didn't have a script. The Martians are CGI, which look like they were done by a novice, or a Fan produced movie. I cannot stress just how bad this DVD really is!<br /><br />Example: In one of the scenes, the martians are torturing a local female captive. She goes from a woman in front of a green screen, to a CGI copy of that woman. The change is totally noticeable, and when she is killed, you can see that it is a computer figure, looking like something from a game back in 1990!<br /><br />If at all possible, avoid this movie like the plague! You can download two trailers from their site, and see how god-awful it really is!
|
negative
|
As has been noted, this formula has been filmed several times, most recently as "You've Got Mail", with Tom Hanks and Meg"Trout Pout" Ryan. Of the several versions, this is my least favorite. The problem i think is that the studio coasted on the Stars charisma, which doesn't quite cut it here.<br /><br />The chemistry betwixt the two leads never comes to a boil in this movie. There are no real sparks. Van Johnson and Judy Garland remind me of day old donuts, pleasant but bland. And when the leads are boring the rest of the movie can only follow. Judy in particular is disappointing. She looks like she has no neck! I don't know if she was having trouble with pain or something but she looks like a turtle trying to pull it's head into it's shell, all hunched up and everything. I couldn't figure out what Van Johnson was getting so hot about. I would have made a bee line for that cute violin player. And Van wasn't great either. I've always thought of him as a rather generic Hollywood leading man and he doesn't do anything to dispel that image here.<br /><br />If you're a fan of the stars or the early 1900's then you might like this movie. But there are a lot more entertaining romantic comedies out there, and they offer you much more than a mouthful of stale confection.
|
negative
|
Has there ever been a movie more charming than this? One of the reasons everything works so well is that the group of actors really seem to interact and have an effect on each other's lives. The center of it is the "romance" of James Stewart and Margaret Sullavan, who work together and can't get along face to face but who completely connect with each other anonymously as pen pals. But there are also supporting characters and unlike a lot of romantic comedies (including "You've Got Mail", the recent update of "Shop") they're not just whipped up to support the two leads and their needs. Everyone gets to be an intricate part of Ernst Lubitsch's rich tapestry of charm. One of the most heartwarming scenes in movie history takes place when the near-tragic Frank Morgan casually and humbly searches for someone to have Christmas dinner with. A must see! **** out of ****
|
positive
|
my name is Heather and i am the girl whose story this movie was based on. I want to thank all of you who saw this movie and enjoyed it. as crude and harsh as some of the things that were depicted in this movie were, it didn't really even come close to describing how bad things actually were. not to mention the affect everything had on my mother and little sister. thanks once again for the great comments that everyone had,i truly appreciate them<br /><br />Hi everyone!<br /><br />This is Heather's mom. It's hard to believe that so many years have gone by since this movie was made. Harder even to believe that people were still watching it a year ago. For any of you out there who have gone thru the same or similar kind of situation, please know that there are people out here in cyberspace that do understand completely how you feel. Our thoughts and prayers are with each and every one of you.
|
positive
|
I watched this movie, having never read the book, and took the characters at face value, but having already been introduced to them, watched it again recently. I got a whole different viewpoint out of the film.<br /><br />Without the burden of having to focus intently on each character, learning their quirks and foibles, allowed me to focus on the cultural issues laid out in the film. The farm families of Iowa are so intimately inter-related as they are in the area of Indiana where I grew up in the 40's and 50's that I immediately recognized the back-stories and motives behind the characters. Perhaps, Jane Smiley did mean for us to see beyond the superficial into the world these people had to live, but viewers are so caught up in the "Hollywood" aura of the individual actors that they miss a rich layout of a lifestyle that exists less and less as each decade passes. Another film with these characteristics is the "Bridges of Madison County". Try watching both of these films again with an eye to the whole picture.
|
positive
|
The brilliance of this film lies not in the filmmaking process, which is a conventional, but executed, intertwining tale of the lies of three servicemen post WWII, but in the fact that this story was told at all. Samuel Goldwyn deserves credit for having the chutzpah to push through a film who has for its leads a disabled vet with pincers for hands, an alcoholic, and an underachiever.
|
positive
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.