review
stringlengths 41
13.7k
| label
int64 0
1
|
|---|---|
At first I wasn't sure if I wanted to watch this movie when it came up on my guide so I looked it up on IMDb and thought the cover looked pretty cool so I thought I would give it a try expecting a movie like Elephant.<br /><br />Once I got past the fact that I am supposed to dislike the Alicia character played excellently by Busy Phillips, I realized what a good job this movie was doing toward setting up the relationship between Alicia and Deanna. Alicia is so mean to Deanna played by Erika Christensen almost throughout the entire movie but we eventually find out that they despite being polar opposites they have one thing in common besides being present at the shooting. They share loneliness and to what extent is revealed as the film progresses.<br /><br />I've just got to say how much I loved this movie and was glad to see all of the positive comments about it. I couldn't even get through Elephant because it just seemed to be exploiting the Columbine tragedy. This movie on the other hand was compelling and realistic. Busy Phillips acting is OFF the CHAIN!!! That is a good thing and I would love to see her progress into some more mature roles. | 0 |
The last Tarzan film starring Johnny Weissmuller (looking surprisingly aged a year after 'Tarzan and the Huntress') is bad, in spite of all the trivia one can add to make it look better. It is obvious that RKO tried to make a great farewell for Weissmuller, shooting in beautiful scenery in México, with a top star of that country (Andrea Palma) and multiple award-winning cinematographer Gabriel Figueroa, and bringing in prestigious composer Dimitri Tiomkin to do the score. Although it may have cost less for filming abroad, it looks more expensive than any other RKO film in the series, taking advantage of Acapulco beaches and real pyramids as Aquatania, and with impressive décors for all the scenes related to the temple of god Balu (especially the exterior, built on steep rocks.) Kurt Neumann should have stayed as director, instead of Robert Florey, who gives it a very slow pace. Neumann had done a fine work with 'Tarzan and the Amazons', 'Tarzan and the Leopard Woman' and 'Tarzan and the Huntress', and finished his career directing the classic 'The Fly' the year before his death; while Florey became a television director, after a career of few remarkable films. If Weissmuller looks tired, the chimp playing Cheeta is not as good as the others, but the worst character is Benji, an obnoxious mailman who sings horrendous songs (that have a Caribbean air, in a location supposed to be Africa and shot in México!) Boring and decidedly of dubious taste, it was a sad farewell to Weissmuller's Tarzan. | 1 |
The story is quite original, but the movie is kinda slow building up to the point where they steal the cars. Its kinda nice though to watch them prepare the stealing too, but the actual stealing should've been more in picture... However the stunt work on this movie was excellent and it is definetly a movie you HAVE to see (7/10) | 0 |
For long time I haven't seen such a good fantasy movie, magic fights here are even better than in LOTR, even considering that it's a 1987 movie and haven't computer special effects. This movie have good plot, good acting and interesting ideas. Recommend everybody to see it. | 0 |
Well, I don't normally think there's such a thing as a HORRIBLE movie, but this is pretty damned close! The best acting performance in the whole thing was Snoop Dogg, who has one line in a 10 second scene. I agree with the 'glad it was short' review. The music videos at the end were cool though. | 1 |
For those who'd like to see this movie? I'd say: go! Without the narration it might be a very good movie/documentary. But the music, the narration and some of the implemented story lines make it very hard to watch for a sceptic person like me. Following several animals, their life in several seasons one gets the feeling that it is an animal soap we're watching. But the melodramatic point of view just doesn't cut it for me, moreover if a predator finally catches up on a prey (one exception left there) the camera zooms out or skips to another scene. I ask myself why that happens, if they were to show reality, why cut the scenes that a melodramatic fairytale remains? I think the moral is important for the mass of the crowd, cause after all: it would be a waste to destroy this beautiful planet. | 1 |
With all due respect to Joel Fabiani and Rosemary Nicolls and their characters, Department S will be forever associated with Peter Wyngarde's Jason King.<br /><br />Most people remember him as this camp, flamboyant and debonair womaniser cum detective in the mould of Austin Powers but that will do a disservice to the character: He's far more nuanced than that.<br /><br />Jason King is lazy (he often lets Stewart fight all the bad guys and only chips in at the end), he is egotistical (his appreciation of people is based on whether they've read his novels or not), a lot of his detective work is speculation without facts to back them up and he sulks whenever Annabelle is right...and she often is. He's clearly a man having a mid-life crisis and drink drives but.......Jason King is brilliant. If Wyngarde had played him purely as a dashing hero, it wouldn't have worked but he shows King often as a paper tiger, led by his libido, love of finery and prone to grandstanding (and it gets in the way of his detective work at times) but he has some of the best lines and put downs in TV history. And by not playing him as whiter-than-white, the chemistry and interactions between the three lead characters is all the better for it.<br /><br />Watching it again on DVD recently, you get to see just how much depth Wyngarde put into Jason King. | 0 |
To me Bollywood movies are not generally up to much, though they are still quite desired and Bollywood is a big file maker as they have their own fans.<br /><br />The only motive that made me watch the movie was to see to what extent an American actress could change or affect the logic that Indian movie were based on. Not only did not it change the movie story also this blending caused some ridiculous series of events.<br /><br />I mean it is quite common to see heaps of illogical things through Indian movies as they have their own world in their movies. But once you see such incidents happen to an American it makes you laugh. For God's sake can you believe a famous American actress is stuck in desperate situation and feel impotent. Can you imagine an American actress falls in loves with a dance instructor whose fiancée already fell in love with American's boy friend and they met each other at the same time. There were lot of similar things to mention. the less said the better.<br /><br />Perhaps I was wrong as I expected too much from Indian Movies. | 1 |
True fans of film will love this authentic movie.<br /><br />I disagree with the trolls who are rating this movie a one-star and calling it unrealistic. While I don't have the background or come from the environment of the protagonists, I've spent many years working in lower income and working class neighborhoods and feel the acting was very real and representative of how teenagers behave. I don't know what the basis is for others' comments that the film is 'unrealistic'. The dialog is great.<br /><br />The low budget production value didn't bother me a bit. I felt that the natural lighting enhanced the character of the film. The focus was entirely on the story line and character development and not glitzy Hollywood propping or melodrama.<br /><br />I completely bought into the character's motivations and reactions. The acting was believable and impressive for new and non-actors.<br /><br />If your idea of good film is Transformers or Fast & Furious, then skip it. If you enjoy good character driven dramas, then see it.<br /><br />(Regarding the negative commenters being 'trolls': click on their names and you will see most have no other reviews or only negative reviews.) | 0 |
The most amazing film I have ever seen. I didn't read the programming and I just stumbled onto the movie by accident. I thought it was a real documentary and i felt sick at what I saw. I only found out it was a movie after it was finished and i looked on the web for more info about 'punishment park' in the U.S. It felt incredibly real and it is easy to believe that this really has happened in the US if you are from Europe. I must admit that I felt really anti-american after watching the movie and before finding out that it didn't really happen that way. | 0 |
Seeing this movie, as I just did for the first time on Turner Classic (which lists it as 'Dangerous Female'), can only multiply your appreciation for the 1941 Bogart-Astor version. Ricardo Cortez must have been getting paid by the smirk. I hope he remembered his dentist and his Brylcreem salesman in his will; they made him the actor he was. The women are all good, but no better than that. Well, Una Merkel is a little better. More interesting are the 'original' Joel Cairo and Mr. Gutman, who competently deliver many of the individual tics but almost nothing of the set-changing atmospherics of their successors in the roles, Peter Lorre and Sydney Greenstreet. Humphrey Bogart and Mary Astor somehow transcended the essential seediness of their characters in the remake; here, Sam Spade and Ruth Wonderley(!) can't. <br /><br />This movie doesn't exactly stink; it lies there like a big slice of ham. Its chief value today is as a reminder that great movies like the '41 'Falcon' don't just happen. On the 1-to-10 scale I rate it a 4, mainly for the camera work and the supporting players. | 1 |
Ouch!! What a mess we have here. Not so much of a mess as a painfully dull, half-assed excuse for exploitation. Brought to you by the one and only, J. G. 'Pat' Patterson, yeah, the same one from Moonshine Mountain. Doctor Gore, formerly known as The Body Shop, is, I guess, somewhat inspired by Frankenstein, and God knows what else. The Late Mr. Patterson also stars in this joke, as a heartbroken scientist/plastic surgeon, who has recently lost his wife in a car accident, and is driven insane from grief, to the point that it becomes clear that the next step is to slaughter countless females, then maybe rob a few graves for body parts, in order to 'put together' the perfect mate. It won't be easy, but thank goodness his pal Gregg the hunchback is available to lend a hand, and to offer moral support.<br /><br />If proof was ever needed that some peoples goals are not meant to be accomplished, here it is, gang. This Patterson hayseed obviously never had any business directing anything, much less, following in the footsteps of good ol' H. G. as a master of gore. I've never seen a gore movie that just flat-out refuses to give the viewer a single reason to keep watching. Even the gore is boring. Almost remotely humorous at times, but impossible to tell whether it's intentional or not. I pick 'not'.<br /><br />Shot in Charolotte, North Carolina (home of the California Axe Massacre), on, most likely, a 3-digit budget, by a guy, as untalented as he may have been, who probably had an appreciation for drive-in trash, so, maybe we should give good ol' J. G. a break, I mean, he tried (I assume) which is more that can be said for most, and this movie is better than any of the big-budget super-hero garbage the theaters put out these days, although, I realize that isn't saying much. Besides, Doctor Gore is quite the improvement over Patterson's previous failure, The Electic Chair, so it's slightly possible he would have improved his craft in time, had he not died, so maybe it's not all that terrible, especially compared to the other movie on the DVD, How To Make A Doll, so what the hell, check it out. 4/10 | 1 |
This film is beautiful to look at, but is like watching really bad experimental theater. The plot (if there was one) doesn't make any sense. But it is very 'artistic'. Lots of shots of half-dressed actors wrestling and looking deep into each other's eyes. Lots of arty shots through windows and with people out of frame. Mumbling and people wandering wistfully. Lingering close-ups of faces and bodies. By the time you get to the threesome on the roof with the cat, you'll be ready to throw a bottle of KY at the screen.<br /><br />It is supposed to be about a father and son's relationship, but you will just be wishing the two of them would just f*$& each other and get it over with. If you have always wanted to see bad Russian gay porn without any money shots, your wish has been granted. | 1 |
Just after the end of WWII Powell & Pressburger were asked to come up with something to try to heal the rift developing between the UK & the USA. At the time there was a lot of 'Overpaid, over sexed and over here' type of comments. Somehow they came up with this masterpiece.<br /><br />My favourite movie of ALL time. It's got everything. Romance, poetry, emotion, religion, drama and very quirky.<br /><br />I can never explain exactly why, but it hits all the right buttons and although I've seen it hundreds of times (yes, really) I'm still guaranteed to be in tears at many points throughout.<br /><br />Was it the magnificent acting, the wonderful sets, the inspired script ? Who knows. But *DO* watch it and you'll see what I mean. | 0 |
Absolutely fantastic. <br /><br />Now, before a legion of cinema purists choke on their lattés, allow me to elaborate. Much as I enjoyed it, this is quite simply one of the worst films I have ever seen and is certainly the worst film I've seen at the cinema (an impressive claim, as I remember seeing Daredevil on the big screen). The two leads (Daniel Gillies and Elisha Cuthbert) were unconvincing at best and downright awful at worst. Of course, they weren't helped by a script that had as much emotional depth as a Daphne & Celeste single and characterisation that was about as convincing as the OJ defence. The plot (to stretch the term slightly) was thin to non-existent and the 'gore' scenes, whilst undoubtedly brutal, were irrelevant and laughably formulaic. What plot there is revolves around a twenty-something model (Cuthbert) who is abducted, imprisoned and subjected to various visceral tortures, both psychological and physical. The torture scenes feel like disconnected set pieces and the emphasis was laid squarely upon shocking rather than scaring the audience. Whilst there really are very, very few positives to draw from this film, its redeeming features are the very flaws that make it such a dreadful film. I have never heard a more vocal audience in a cinema. Within twenty minutes, the entire cinema was in stitches and remained that way throughout. For my part I came out flushed with laughter, buoyed by a film that had ascended to the pinnacle of appalling film-making. Whichever way you look at it, this is truly a cinematic achievement and a blueprint for future directorial wannabes detailing minutely how not to make a film.<br /><br />P.S. I omitted to mention that I managed to get in to the film free...so I can afford to laugh about it. I was still tempted to ask for my money back...it really was THAT bad. | 1 |
I must have seen this a dozen times over the years. I was about fifteen when I first saw it in B & W on the local PBS station.<br /><br />I bought a DVD set for the children to see, and am making them watch it. They don't teach history in School, and this explains the most critical event of the 20th Century. It expands their critical thinking.<br /><br />Impartially, with the participants on all sides explaining in their own words what they did and why, it details what lead up to the war and the actual war.<br /><br />Buy it for your children, along with Alistair Cooke's America. Watch it with them, and make them understand. You'll be so glad you did. | 0 |
This overheated southern Gothic 'mellerdramer' has a few decent moments --but is too often spoiled by a novice director piling cliché upon cliché, and a star who apparently decided to take it upon himself to turn the picture into his personal showcase, rather than allowing writer/director Gabel to update Inge or Williams as a sort of contemporary 'Midnight Cowboy' meets 'Lolita' tearjerker.<br /><br />Close your eyes, listen to the exaggerated southern accents, and try to decide if you're witnessing a feature film, or an acting class -- full of eager amateurs. <br /><br />Johansson is for once tolerable (i.e. less pouty than usual) -- though by no means good, Macht is decent, though a little too pretty-boy cute to be believed, and Travolta chews the scenery as never before (with the help of a decent editor and some directorial restraint, his performance might have been really touching; as it is, he -- and almost everyone else -- is too unlikable to ever move us past the point of boredom or revulsion). Kara Unger is perhaps best of all; had her role been developed beyond a few lines, she might have even found herself with a Best Supporting Actress nomination. <br /><br />Pic is almost saved by Leonard Cohen-style growling theme song, decent production design and locations, and continual reference to literary works (which has earned the otherwise standard screenplay reviews such as 'poetic.') Also helpful are a few old pros in the cast like Sonny Shroyer, and perhaps most importantly, Soderbergh cameraman Elliot Davis -- whose fine work will no doubt be credited to the first-time director, who, ten or twenty years from now, may actually learn how to direct.<br /><br />But probably not. | 1 |
I quote below words from my favor writer, Paulo Coelho, as the comment for this movie.<br /><br />' When you really want something, all the universe conspires in helping you to achieve it'<br /><br />It is too easy to forget who we really are and what we desire to do in life. Because there are always too many comments and advice surrounding us to tell safety. I had almost forgot what the passion feel like. Despite of the adventure will take me out of safety zone, I truely believe the fear is just the price that I need to pay for the coming brand new journey in life.<br /><br />Thanks for inspiring me with this lovely story. It is the blessing for me to realize what unconditional love is. That is the most treasurable love from the light of soul. | 0 |
This motion picture comes straight out of the dark dungeon of Full Moon Entertainment. This production company gained fame and fortune during the first half of the 90's by producing terribly bad and cheesy horror movies. The most famous disasters in their ouvre are 'Subspecies', 'Seedpeople' and 'Trancers'. None of these are recommended and neither is Doctor Mordrid, actually. Hyperactive director Charles Band did come to the right company for his film. Doctor Mordrid is amazingly dumb and cheesy and almost completely humourless. I only saw it because it stars Jeffrey Combs. I learned that it can have several disadvantages if you're a fan of him. For every good movie, it seems like he has made 5 inferior ones. Anyways, the story is about the battle between 2 ancient sorcerers. One good one who's here since 150 years to protect the humans ( Jeffrey as Dr.Mordrid ) and one wicked one called Kabal. He wants to destroy every form of human life for some reason I already forgot. Combs gets his instructions from mentor. That 'guy' only exists of a pair of eyes in space. Very very cheesy, that is ! Every once and a while a blinding lightflash is shown on the screen but that's about the only form of Special effects this movie has got. The whole thing is just a piece of whining and nagging and when the two wizards finally face each other, it's over before you know it...I would have expected for the wicked wizard to at least fight back a little, but nooooooo.... In some scenes, you really can detect some originality and creativity ( like for example Jeffrey's lecture about the influence of the moon on criminals ) and if you really pay attention, you might even find some very small but nice aspects ( like the raven which is called Edgar Allen) but overall, it's a terrible waste of time and energy. I'm a big fan of Jeffrey and maybe he is a superhero in my eyes...but he sure doesn't have to put on a stupid maillot for that. | 1 |
I am curious of what rifle Beckett was using in the movie, and also the caliber of the bullet that he was suppose to be firing. If this is loosely based on Carlos Hathcock's sniping, I am guessing that it is a 7mm. round. I am also curious of the rifle itself. He also made a comment in the final Sniper movie about the rifle that the Vietnamese man let him use that belonged to his father. Beckett mentioned that he thought it was the best sniper rifle ever made. I would like to know which rifle that is also. I know that this particular rifle was made around WWII or beforehand. I just couldn't get a close enough look at it watching the movie to identify it.<br /><br />As for Mr. Hathcocks kills, his longest shot was 1.47 miles, and he had 93 confirmed kills and 14 unconfirmed kills. After his wounds somewhat healed from being burned in Vietnam, he spent the rest of his career teaching snipers in the USMC the skills that they would need in the field. His sniping career is still mentioned to our brothers and sisters that train in the USMC. I found out his name from my friend who is a former Marine. Any information would be great. | 0 |
After being off the air for a while, Columbo returned with some new made-for-TV mysteries that, while not being as good as the original series, are better than the shows that were done in the later '90s.<br /><br />'Murder Can Be Hazardous to Your Health' used the then (and I guess now, if you think about it) true crime shows as the situation for a murder. The murder is committed by a very successful, egomaniacal true crime show host, George Hamilton (in a nice bit of casting). His chain-smoking nemesis, who lost the job to him, played by Peter Haskell, attempts to blackmail Hamilton when he discovers a porno video Hamilton made with an underage actress in his salad days. Hamilton uses Haskell's cigarettes to deliver the death blow via poison, giving himself an alibi as well.<br /><br />Columbo is brought in to find out what happened. You know the rest. Highly entertaining. | 0 |
N.B.: Spoilers within. Assigning an artistic director to an operatic production naturally and inevitably means you are going to get a piece of that director's mind. But directing a Wagner opera is an especially tricky task, as he was perhaps the most explicit opera composer in terms of what things should look like and how they should unfold. Hans-Jurgen Syberberg loads this filming of 'Parsifal,' Wagner's final masterpiece, with enough extraneous ideas to cause it to nearly burst at the seams. You get more than a piece of the director: you get the whole fatted hog and then some. Syberberg is to be admired for his penchant for tearing back the covers on the uglier aspects of German history. But does it work to meld that desire to a Wagner opera already brimming with its own concepts? <br /><br />The scenes with the knights of the Holy Grail in Acts I and III are especially laden with visual allegory and symbolism. These are drawn come from Wagner's own time, from long before, and go well beyond. If you know what these things mean, they can enrich Syberberg's vision for you (but not necessarily enhance Wagner's vision); if you don't know what they mean, they're simply confusing, if not annoying. I won't bother uncoiling the plot of the opera here. Suffice it to say it is a typical Wagnerian synthesis of diverse elements, in this case a blending of the Holy Grail legend with the principles, practices, and pageantry of Christianity. The theme of redemption plays the main role here, as in nearly every Wagner opera.<br /><br />I personally had to sweat to get through Syberberg's first act (amidst my jarring acclimation, the music saved the day). But Act II picks up the pace. Here we meet Klingsor, the evil sorcerer, out to entrap the wandering 'innocent fool' Parsifal. The greatest seductress of them all, Kundry, will be used to entice him to the dark side. After an initial dalliance with more symbols, these get stripped away, and the long, gorgeous, transformational duet between young fool and temptress really takes off. Finally the film starts working a genuine magic, and it is chiefly due to Syberberg's choosing to set things naturally and simply. Suddenly the acting starts to work (the expressive actress Edith Clever and the luscious soprano of Yvonne Minton team to create a wondrous Kundry); suddenly the music seems to come to life and make vivid the inner turmoil of the two characters. The camera work stays simple and quietly fluid. In other words, Wagner is allowed to tell his story more on his own terms. And it works beautifully. For me it was the most engrossing part of the film.<br /><br />With the re-entrance of the knights in part 2 of Act III, the weird extraneous symbolisms unfortunately creep back in. Some other loony Syberberg ideas: using a huge Wagner death-mask as a major set-piece (causing the composer's protuberant proboscis to loom comically large); dressing the Act III knights in all manner of costumes, wigs, and makeup (what is the director saying? That the knights are a bunch of buffoons? That they express multiple or timeless layers of significance beyond their surface functions? It's anybody's guess); the insertion just after the incredibly touching baptism of Kundry by Parsifal of rear-projection footage of the conductor rehearsing, in modern-day realism, his orchestra in the studio (this completely snapped my dramatic thread, requiring a few minutes to regroup); the complete avoidance of having any time pass between Acts II and III (when we meet the knight and 'narrator' Gurnemanz again, he should be an old, old man, and Parsifal should re-emerge as a world-weary but wiser middle-aged man); but certainly the most bizarre stroke is to split the Parsifal character into male/female components. Some find this the most brilliant stroke. No doubt I can credit Karin Krick, who plays 'Parsifal 2,' with acting of strength and dignity (she also happens to be the best lip-syncher of the whole cast). But please...Wagner's conception of Parsifal is already so complex. His growth from a completely innocent boy who knows nothing of his past, to his breakthrough realization in Act II of what Amfortas's eternal wound means and how it has become his own, to his return as the great Redeemer of Act III this is the journey of a masterfully constructed character. The bi-sexual emphasis is just gimmicky and absurd. (And what's with this nonsense about a homoerotic Gurnemanz and Parsifal?? Can't we just accept a mentor/apprentice relationship, which is marvelously reversed in Act III?) <br /><br />The Monte Carlo Philharmonic under Armin Jordan plays with passion and beauty (though the chorus is disappointing). But after watching this film I only wanted to whip out my Solti-led recording (HIGHLY recommended) and get my Wagnerian bearings straight again. The film experience for me ranged from bizarre to entertaining to infuriating. To Syberberg's credit, he's created a visually arresting work, and he certainly offers a unique take on an important opera. But instead of sticking to 'Parsifal,' he seems to have wanted to bring in all things Wagnerian: the man, the life, the enormous influence...all of it in crude symbolic code. 'Parsifal' the opera is already full of weighty symbolism: the Grail, the Spear, the Holy Sacraments, baptism, Amfortas's ever-bleeding wound, Klingsor's self-castration, the Kiss, Kundry's Curse, and on and on. This is not to mention the *musical* symbolism sounding constantly in the score, in the form of Wagner's leitmotif system. 'Parsifal' itself is one huge symbol! Getting back to my first-paragraph question, Syberberg's whole hog is all way too much for me. But if this project sounds like something to tickle your fancy, then go for it. I won't recommend just staying away from this; you may find yourself heartily satisfied. Or if you need something to crack your Wagner barrier, try it...but please, please, don't stop here. 'Parsifal' is in a late, very ripe league of its own. | 1 |
_Waterdance_ explores a wide variety of aspects of the life of the spinally injured artfully. From the petty torments of faulty fluorescent lights flashing overhead to sexuality, masculinity and depression, the experience of disability is laid open.<br /><br />The diversity of the central characters themselves underscores the complexity of the material examined - Joel, the writer, Raymond, the black man with a murky past, and Bloss, the racist biker. At first, these men are united by nothing other than the nature of their injuries, but retain their competitive spirit. Over time, shared experience, both good and bad, brings them together as friends to support one another.<br /><br />Most obvious of the transformations is that experienced by Joel, who initially distances himself from his fellow patients with sunglasses, headphones and curtains. As he comes to accept the changes that disablement has made to his life, Joel discards these props and begins to involve himself in the struggles of the men with whom he shares the ward.<br /><br />The dance referred to in the title is a reference to this daily struggle to keep one's head above water; to give up the dance is to reject life. _Waterdance_ is a moving and powerful film on many levels, and I do not hesitate to recommend it. | 0 |
I saw this when it first came to video, my little sister got it as a gift and I was probably 12 at the time... What stood out for me was the lack of mid-movie conflict that so many movies have, where the main characters get mad at each other because when it comes time to explain themselves they just don't say the one thing that you're shouting at the screen that would make sense of the whole deal, that any person of reasonable intellect would know to say. This is what I like the most about the movie I guess, that the main characters don't do mean things to each other halfway through... they don't break up and make up, they just grow to like each other more as the movie goes on.<br /><br />These two kids team up and though they seem at first to be from opposite sides of the track, they're not that different. Loui is actually just some middle class kid that needed to realize how lucky he was to have a loving family, and Cecelia was an upper class kid that just needed to prove to her family that she existed and they would miss her if she was gone. Anyway, I saw this movie posted on Hulu and had to watch it again... sure there's plot holes if you analyze the script and no, Woog and Dweeb shouldn't be eating hot dogs since they would have been herbivores in reality.<br /><br />Now, what detracts from the film is it's unexpected scariness. Little kids under the age of 5 would probably be frightened by the scenes with Dr. Screweyes. And, the addition of him halfway through the movie (though it's blatantly obvious in the first scene that he will make an appearance) is too abrupt... there should be a glimpse of him doing his show earlier in the movie, perhaps to show that it's not that scary without the the dinosaurs. I guess it just lacked any real present danger for the entire first half of the movie, so that it lacks a little continuity when he appears for the second half.<br /><br />Considering the target audience, who I'm sure can overlook the not so mind blowing animation and dialog issues... I think I'll give it a pass on those factors too, and just enjoy the story. It's a great flick for kid and it does stick in your mind... makes you kinda think about how you treat people and it should be revisited every 10 years I think. | 0 |
If you're OK with the outlandish work of Italy's premier horror directorable to accept his outrageous story lines and flamboyant stylethen you should have a great time with Opera. If you don't, then you won't.<br /><br />Cristina Marsillach plays Betty, a beautiful young opera understudy who is given a shot at fame (in an avant-garde production of Macbeth) when the star of the show is hit by a car. As any thesp who has 'trod the boards' will know, Macbeth is a production that carries a curseand Betty soon discovers that the show in which she is now the star is no exception: a killer is systematically offing the staff at the theatreand poor Betty is forced to watch by the sadistic murderer (who tapes needles under her eyes to prevent her from closing them!).<br /><br />With the help of a little girl who crawls through her air-conditioning ducts, her director and agent, and a few ravens who have seen the murderer's face (!!!), Betty discovers the killer's identity, and the truth about her mysterious past.<br /><br />Let's face it... Opera is one crazy film, with its preposterous plot-turns, convoluted death scenes, and an ending that beggars belief. And whilst director Dario Argento has never been one for, shall we say, conventional story lines, this particular giallo is so daft, and features so many of his trademark stylish touches (all ramped up to the max), that it's almost as if, with each successive film, he is seeing what he can get away with (at times almost parodying his earlier work).<br /><br />This is exactly why I find the film such fun!!!<br /><br />Argento's camera movements are absolutely incredible: gliding, creeping and, in one amazing scene, even swooping around the opera house above the audience; the power of Verdi's music is combined perfectly with the synth majesty of Claudio Simonetti's score, providing a suitably grandiose accompaniment to the sumptuous visuals; and several outstanding set-pieces (featuring Sergio Stivaletti's nauseating gore FX) go to prove that no-one does death better than Argento (check out one character's stunning demise, in which a bullet passes through a spy-hole in a door in slow motion, and straight into their eye!).<br /><br />7.5 out of 10, rounded up to 8 for IMDb. | 0 |
Gotta start with Ed Furlong on this one. You gotta. God bless this kid. $5 bucks says the character he plays in this film is what he's really like in real life. He has a one-liner or two that made me almost blow snot because of the subtle humor in the script. You know all the trials this guy has gone through in recent years and it doesn't even seem like Furlong is even acting. Maybe that's why his performance was good. Same with Madsen. You keep thinking, 'I bet this guy is really like this in real life.' Does Madsen even have to act? Just natural. Vosloo has obviously moved on from the type-casted Mummy guy. I think the biggest surprise to this film was Jordana Spiro's performance. Her reactions are spot-on in this film. I battled if she was hot or not, but realized I would just like to see more of her. <br /><br />Not a big fan of shoot 'em out/hostage type films. But what I am a fan of are films with lots of twists and turns to try and keep you guessing. It's not just your standard robbers take over a bank, they kill hostages, and the good guys win in the end type of film. The twists keep on coming...and coming.<br /><br />The café scenes work best with the hand-held cams to show what it's really like in there. Not glossed over a bit. Think like Bourne Ultimatum 'lite' style on some scenes in the café.<br /><br />And for those Bo Bice fanatics out there - actor Curtis Wayne (who plays Karl) will make you do a double take. These guys are twins.<br /><br />As I watched I wondered why some of the actors had foreign accents and what were they doing in this small town. Made sense in the end that these people smuggled stuff to other countries/states so they might have these accents. But more is revealed in the bonus features of how some of the producers wanted to make this film for International audiences with some of their stars we might not have heard of. And some of them are smoking hot. Moncia Dean? Need I say more. | 0 |
As everyone knows, nobody can play Scarlett O'Hara like Vivien Leigh, and nobody can play Rhett Butler like Clark Gable. All others pale in comparison, and Timothy Dalton and Joanne Whalley are no exceptions. One thing that I really couldn't get past was that Joanne has BROWN eyes. The green eyes were the most enhancing feature of Scarlett's good looks, and in this sequel she has been stripped of those.<br /><br />The movie, as well as the book, had several lulls in it. The new characters weren't all that memorable, and I found myself forgetting who was who. I felt as though her going to Ireland did absolutely nothing whatsoever. It could be that I'm only 11, but I saw no change in her attitude until the last say, 10 minutes when Rhett told her she had grown up. If Rhett hadn't told her that, I would have never guessed that there was any change in her attitude. She really loved Cat, her baby. She likes this child best because she had it with Rhett, her only loved husband. Still, if you've read Gone With The Wind, you would see that children make no difference in Scarlett's world. <br /><br />Quite frankly, it seemed to me like there was way too much going on without Rhett. All anybody cares about is whether or not Rhett and Scarlett get back together, and Scarlett took way too long to get to that. It is virtually nothing compared to Gone With The Wind, but then again what isn't? If you have read the novel, you will like that better than the movie.<br /><br />I would watch it, just because it is the sequel to Gone With The Wind, regardless of whether or not it's worthwhile. It may not satisfy you entirely, but it will get you some of the way there. | 1 |
Not an altogether bad start for the program -- but what a slap in the face to real law enforcement. The worst part of the series is that it attempts to bill itself as reality fare -- and is anything but. Men and women that dedicate their lives to the enforcement of laws deserve better than this. What is next, medical school in a minute? Charo performing lipo? Charles Grodin assisting on a hip replacement? C'mon...show a little respect. Even the citizens of Muncie are outing the program as staged. Police Academy = High School Gym? Poor editing (how many times can they use the car-to-car shot of the Taco Bell in the background?), cheesy siren effects (the same loop added ad nauseum to every 'call' whether rolling code or not), and last, but not least -- more officer safety issues than you could shake a stick at.<br /><br />If I want to see manufactured police work and wise-ass fake cops, I would watch RENO 911. | 1 |
I suspect there's some revisionist history going on here,but one definitely comes away with the feeling that Patrice Lumumba was a trouble-maker who incited his people to violence from the moment the Congo declared independence.His inability to control his people and his decision to bring in Soviet help to get his military back in line was obviously what got the United States involved and led to his assassination.However,by replacing him with Mobutu,the United States didn't solve anything.They made the situation just as bad.Well-acted with excellent cinematography and a rousing score.Definitely worth seeing. | 0 |
This is a movie that I watched when I was a young girl and never forgot. It is certainly not the best movie ever made, but there is something very special about it that I can't quite put my finger on. I LOVE it. I am the kind of person who likes everything explained to me though and for that reason alone this movie drives me crazy. <br /><br />Exactly what/Who is that mysterious witch-lady and what is her relationship with Tom? WHY and HOW did he become a Water Baby ... why was he raised on the earth? It is questions like these that are just eating at me! I thought if I read the book I would get answers, but I just read an article that the book from which this story is 'based' is a lot different. So I guess I'll never know what the writer was thinking! <br /><br />I still love this movie though and I recently watched it with my two year old niece. She loves it too although she insists on calling it 'Baby Water' for reasons unknown to me. She loves the part where he jumps in the water and then declares 'I'm all clean.' (You have to understand that my niece is the cleanest 2 year old in the world!) We watched that scene over and over. <br /><br />I am so glad that we can enjoy this film together! There should be more films like this. (But what is up with the gay seahorse??!!) | 0 |
This apology for a movie is about absolutely nothing! Rachel Griffiths must have needed the money. The film must have been made on a very low budget, because the lighting was non existent. I made a vow if I ever see Pete Postlesumthingor other I'll commit suicide. I'd be happy to know if there was 1) a plot or 2)a script. My biggest regret is I wasted my time watching this rubbish. | 1 |
it's the best film that takes the first place at the sickest and an useful films ever made in this poor country. really u people even don't know what the word cinema means and u cast votes for movies, i'm really curious to know how many movies of P.P.P. or L.Bunuel have u seen. The score of this 'faield experiment' it reflects a lot of u're way of understanding things and to recognize a good/quality movie when u see it. We the Romanian people have only ONE movie and until this day the status hasn't change & that movie is 'Padurea Spanzuratilor'. But I don't lose my time thinking how many of you have seen it. That is a movie that respects all the required quality's's of an MOVIE. From the script to the frames and even to the quality/clarity of the picture even are past over him 41 years. I recommend to the voters to search for better movies and then vote. KuDos will See u later . | 1 |
While rehearing Carmen of Bizet, the middle-aged choreographer Antonio (Antonio Gades) brings the sexy Carmen (Laura del Sol) to perform the lead role. Antonio falls in love for Carmen, who is an independent and seductive woman incapable to accept a possessive love. When Carmen has an affair with another dancer, Antonio is consumed by his jealousy like D. José in the original opera, entwining fiction with reality.<br /><br />'Carmen' is another great movie of Carlos Saura's trilogy dedicated to the Flamenco dance. The dramatic love story is developed with the lives of the artists entwined with the characters they are rehearsing, and many times is not absolutely clear whether what is happening is reality (with the dancers) or fiction (of the play). Paco de Lucia is another attraction of this original version of the famous Bizet's opera, which is based on the novel of Prosper Mérimée. My vote is seven.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): 'Carmen' | 0 |
OK, this movie was cool. I don't think it was the best movie ever made but it sure was fun. My brother and I still act out scenes once in a while, and will occasionally yank the movie out of the cupboard, blow off the dust and pop it in. Enjoyable all the way until the end, but a great concept. This is a movie that one has to just forget criticism all together and just enjoy. Judgment is victory for Robot Jox. | 0 |
A truly unpleasant film. While Rick Baker's special effects are quite impressive (if stomach-turning), it has no other redeeming features. Like many 70s movies, it leaves you feeling as if you need to take a long shower, and scrub the slime off of yourself. The characters are uniformly unpleasant, and plot makes no sense. | 1 |
You don't have to be a Notre Dame football fan to enjoy this, because I am not....but, as a football fan in general, this was fun to watch. It almost makes me a Fighting Irish devotee. If you can't get caught up in the emotion in this film, gridiron fan or not, you better check your pulse because this is an emotional film with some very touching scenes.<br /><br />As a sports fan, I loved watching the classic footage of early college games. They had some pretty wild plays back then with a lot of laterals. They interspersed that footage with Pat O'Brien shown as head coach Knute Rockne on the sidelines and some of the players, such as George Gipp (Ronald Reagan). <br /><br />Reagan gets pretty good billing in this film but his part really isn't that large. O'Brien is the only actor with a large role in here. The rest - all playing nice characters - include Gale Page as Rockne's wife 'Bonnie;' Donald Crisp, as the Notre Dame's 'Father John Callahan;' Albert Bassermann as chemistry professor 'Father Nieuwland' and Reagan, as Gipp, perhaps Notre Dame's most talented and famous player ever.<br /><br />What this film does nicely is balance the personal story with the football. Neither angle is overdone. The characters in here all people you can root for, as there are no villains. On my last look, it was interesting to discover Johnny Sheffield - Tarzan's son - playing Rockne at the age of seven and to see George Reeves, TV's Superman, as one of the players. <br /><br />There have been very few football movies made in Hollywood, for some reason, and precious few good ones. This is one of them. | 0 |
After just watching FIVE ACROSS THE EYES, I gotta be honest...I just didn't like it. I had read so many good reviews on this movie, but I just did'nt get where these reviews have came from,<br /><br />I have got a lot of time for newcomers into film-making, and I'm sure the directors will do well for themselves, but the budget they had was the main problem, there was two cameras used in the entire film (which was OK) but they seemed like really cheap cameras. Another problem was the sound, you get all these girls screaming and shouting all at the same time, all talking on top of each other - it's just impossible to hear what they're saying.<br /><br />It had a good idea going for it, in a nutshell, they hit a parked car then drive off, a short while later they are getting chased by the car they hit, driven by a mad woman, who wants to kill them, and has plenty of chances to do so!...and on the other hand the girls have plenty of chances to escape, but don't! <br /><br />Very frustrating...I only just scraped through this one! | 1 |
Where to start? This is probably one of the worst movies I have ever seen. The editing is the worst ever, the sound effects were awful and the sound editing was whacked. Most of the movie all one could here is the crappy kicking effects, with muddled talking in the background. I had to turn my volume on full blast just to her what was going on....and what was I supposed to hear exactly? Probably one of the worst scripts ever made. I can't believe people actually put up some green for this film. It makes me think I could take a crap in a box, send it to producers, and then have them finance a movie for me.<br /><br />Dolph, was a usual, Dolph. Nothing else needs to be said. The villains were bad, the protagonists were bad, and the movie was a stinker. If you really want to know what NOT to do when either writing, directing or editing a movie, watch this! | 1 |
This is easily one of my favorite musicals of all time. Bette Midler comes as close to real magic on screen as anyone has in her turn as Gypsy Lee's blustery, bosomy, brave and very scary mother. She evokes a sense of desperation that is at times both comic and tragic but always genuine and quite beautiful. Such charm and grit she is indeed a pioneer woman without a frontier. That frontier is discovered for the children. Who in turn must forge their own in a world ruled by their domineering mother.<br /><br />This particular version is, as I understand it, in it's entirety including the brilliant choreography of Jerome Robbins, as well as the original stage directions. | 0 |
I thought i could see something good but... I am tired after seeing this movie, i don't know what i hated the most: the script, the acting, the FX or the music. Try to picture the worst Power Rangers episode and would still be to kind. I've seen better FX in FPS Games( The touch with the bone sword or his breath that is making the people disappear in a green smoke is touch of genius) and the music seems to come from a spaghetti western. I did liked how the women in the car was screaming, when the 'monster' was walking around the car (even if she's looking in the wrong way). So give your self a break and don't watch this thing, at least call somebody up to see a horror movie with you, trust me you will end up playing monopoly for some kicks. | 1 |
Am I the only person who thinks that the entire Forensics and Scenes Of Crime community in the USA must detest this almighty slap in their faces. A rookie cop is first to a crime scene where her back up is so slow to respond that she has time to send the kid who found the body to the local store to buy a disposable camera. By the time he returns (still no senior cops, SOCOs or other assistance for the lovely Jolie - this is New York isn't it??) it has started raining and she gets to work photographing the evidence, only after she'd stood in front of an Amtrak to stop it disturbing the scene.<br /><br />I want to know the name of that camera as the photographs were so incredibly detailed that no amount of zooming in distorted the images!! The horror continues:- not in the film itself (pretty ordinary I'm afraid) but in the Lincoln Rhyme character as played by Mr Washington. This man is a highly dedicated Forensic Crime Scene Examiner with years of experience who, instead of the highly trained but invisible local Crime Scene Examiners, entrusts the work to an untrained cop, a rookie cop, who proceeds to find the very obviously placed clues and move them before photographing them thus contaminating every item and making DNA profiling well nigh impossible. Now that was a bright idea eh? I know one should be able to suspend disbelief to a degree but those who say this film is intelligent must have entirely disengaged their ability to think in order to find this film believable.<br /><br />I have given this film 4/10 for the superb acting of Denzel Washington and for Miss Jolie's lips which are the only items requiring my disbelief to be suspended! | 1 |
First off; I'm a dedicated fan of Modesty's, and have been reading the comics since I was a child, and I have found the earlier movies about our heroine unsatisfying, but where they fail, this one ROCKS! <br /><br />Well then, here we go: Ms Blaise is working for a casino, a gang of robbers comes along and she starts gambling for her friends lives. If the robber wins one round, she'll have to tell him about herself. If she wins two times in a row, one of the staff members goes free. (Sounds stupid, yeah, well, I'm not that good at explaining either..) ;)<br /><br />She tells him about growing up in a war zone, without parents or friends, about her helping an old man in the refugee camp and how they escape, living by nature's own rules. They hunt for food, and he teaches her to read and fight. As they approach civilization they get caught up in a war, and as they are taken for rebellions, they are being shot at and the old man dies, which leaves her to meet the city by herself.<br /><br />Then she meets the man who's casino she's now working for, and there the story ends. <br /><br />What is to follow is that there's an awesome fight and the line's are totally cool. Alexandra Staden is a TERRIFIC Modesty Blaise! Just as modest and strong, graceful and intellectual as the comic-one.<br /><br />Feels awkward though, too hear Modesty speak with a slightly broken accent, but that's not relevant since the comic book- blaise can't speak out loud, but certainly must have a somewhat existing accent. (Not to mention that it's weird everybody's speaking English in the Balkan..)<br /><br />The acting is really good, even the child who personifies the young Blaise must have a applaud! <br /><br />My favorite part must be where she rips up her dress to kick the stupid robber's ass! Totally awesome! :D I can't wait until the real adventure begins in the next movie/s!<br /><br />Watch it, you won't be disappointed! | 0 |
Delightful film directed by some of the best directors in the industry today. The film is also casting some of the great actors of our time, not just from France but from everywhere.<br /><br />My favorite segments:<br /><br />14th arrondissement: Carol (Margo Martindale), from Denver, comes to Paris to learn French and also to make a sense of her life.<br /><br />Montmartre: there was probably not a better way to start this movie than with this segment on romantic Paris.<br /><br />Loin du 16ème: an image of Paris that we are better aware of since the riots in the Cités. Ana (Catalina Sandino Moreno) spends more time taking care of somebody else's kid (she's a nanny) than of her own.<br /><br />Quartier Latin: so much fun to see Gérard Depardieu as the 'tenancier de bar' with Gena Rowlands and Ben Gazzara discussing their divorce.<br /><br />Tour Eiffel: don't tell me you didn't like those mimes!<br /><br />Tuileries: such a treat to see Steve Buscemi as the tourist who's making high-contact (a no- no) with a girl in the Metro.<br /><br />Parc Monceau: Nick Nolte is great. Ludivine Sagnier also.<br /><br />I've spend 3 days in Paris in 2004 and this movie makes me want to go back!<br /><br />Seen in Barcelona (another great city), at the Verdi, on March 18th, 2007.<br /><br />84/100 (***) | 0 |
Incident on and off a Mountain Road is Don Coscarelli's entry in Mick Garris' Masters of Horror series. Coscarelli is famous for being the man behind such cult gems as the Phantasm series and the irresistibly weird Bubba Ho-Tep; but he brings none of the qualities that made those films great to this TV episode. The plot is a run of the mill one that follows the routine idea of an innocent being chased by a madman. This time, it's a young woman driving down a mountain road. After a head on crash, she finds herself being stalked by a white faced maniac. The whole chase sequence is really ridiculous, with the young lady stopping every so often to set traps; only for the maniac to show up seconds later, and this is cut with scenes showing her with her husband - who just happens to have a wealth of information on how escape insane killers; with lines such as 'expect the unexpected'. The only real highlight for me was the presence of Phantasm's Tall Man, Angus Scrimm. Coscarelli tries his best to implement as much horror imagery as possible; with things such as a rotted corpse of a dead baby - but because it's all so silly on the whole, it's difficult to take this piece seriously. This is the first episode in the series, and the first that I've seen; I really hope they get better. | 1 |
En route to a small town that lays way off the beaten track (but which looks suspiciously close to a freeway), a female reporter runs into a strange hitch-hiker who agrees to help direct her to her destination. The strange man then recounts a pair of gruesome tales connected to the area: in the first story, an adulterous couple plot to kill the woman's husband, but eventually suffer a far worse fate themselves when they are attacked by a zombie; and in the second story, a group of campers have their vacation cut short when an undead outlaw takes umbrage at having his grave peed on.<br /><br />The Zombie Chronicles is an attempt by writer Garrett Clancy and director Brad Sykes at making a zombie themed anthologya nice idea, but with only two stories, it falls woefully short. And that's not the only way in which this low budget gore flick fails to deliver: the acting is lousy (with Joe Haggerty, as the tale-telling Ebenezer Jackson, giving one of the strangest performances I have ever seen); the locations are uninspired; the script is dreary; there's a sex scene with zero nudity; and the ending.... well, that beggars belief.<br /><br />To be fair, some of Sykes' creative camera-work is effective (although the gimmicky technique employed as characters run through the woods is a tad overused) and Joe Castro's cheapo gore is enthusiastic: an ear is bitten off, eyeballs are plucked out, a face is removed, brains are squished, and there is a messy decapitation. These positives just about make the film bearable, but be warned, The Zombie Chronicles ain't a stroll in the park, even for seasoned viewers of z-grade trash.<br /><br />I give The Zombie Chronicles 2/10, but generously raise my rating to 3 since I didn't get to view the film with the benefit of 3D (although I have a sneaking suspicion that an extra dimension wouldn't have made that much of a difference). | 1 |
To even say that this film is Sebastien's work at his best just tell you everything you have to know on the man. Sebastien is a pathetic, foolish, not amusing at best, yet highly popular host on french television. If watching any of his shows is just plain torture for any normally constituted human being, his first (ans lets hope only) film proved to be even worst. Sebastien's apology of rape (the victim fall in love with her aggressor) is not only misplaced but plainly unacceptable. I highly suggest you not to bother taking a look at this picture (or any of Sebastien's future features), you would just loose your time...There is something about french television that don't smell right...and this is Patrick Sebastien!!! | 1 |
In 1925, childhood friends Marie Dressler (as Maggie Warren) and Polly Moran (as Lizzie Praskins) oversee the wedding of their children, Anita Page (as Helen) and Norman Foster (as John). Before the celebration, Ms. Dressler turns the reigns of her small town bank over to her son, Mr. Foster. Six years later, the Great Depression brings many bank closures, and financial insecurity. Banker Foster is able to survive, due to mother Dressler's wise planning. But, Ms. Moran is worried about her fortune, and loudly demands a complete withdrawal. Other 'Warren Bank' customers hear Moran's rant, and start questioning their own solvency. Soon, the family is in financial crisis.<br /><br />Dressler's huge critical and financial film hit 'Emma' had been released early in the year, and MGM had to have wanted to get a new Dressler film out as soon as possible. Dressler's 1931 hits, 'Reducing' and 'Politics' were still making a lot of money; and, Dressler had become 1932's US #1 Box Office Star, according to the industry standard list compiled by Quigley Publications. 'Prosperity' certainly celebrated Dressler's status, but the production appears uncharacteristically sloppy, and rushed. The cast does well, considering. Some more care in direction and editing, and some retakes, would have helped
apparently, they needed it in theaters for the holidays.<br /><br />**** Prosperity (11/12/32) Sam Wood ~ Marie Dressler, Polly Moran, Anita Page, Norman Foster | 1 |
Cheaply-made, poorly acted, and unimaginatively directed, Flight to Mars still is entertaining despite what its has going against it. A flight to Mars is planned with five people(three older gentleman, Cameron Mitchell as a newspaperman, and one female scientist/obvious love interest)'manning' the ship. The spaceship gets there and finds that very human-like Martians live there and have technological advances that would make Earth blush. But all is not rosy in the subterranean cities of the Martians(here shown as some caves and a few rooms). The Martians are a dying planet and one faction wants the Earthlings to fix the ship only to take it away at the last moment and then mobilize for an attack on Earth and another faction wants to talk peace and see if they cannot persuade Earth to give them living space. The special effects here are pretty lame even for 50's sci-fi standards complete with slow-moving rocket ship, pastel/neon alien garb where the women wear shorts that would make many blush(except the men of course), and little less offered. Cameron Mitchell is the journalist and is affable if nothing else. Marguerite Chapman is beautiful in very short shorts but adds little acting range. The rest of the cast is filled with some older sci-fi veterans like Arthur Franz and Morris Ankrum doing serviceable jobs. This isn't a premiere sci-fi film from the Golden Age by any standard, but it is very watchable and zips by at fast pace. | 1 |
My wife and I endorse all the positive comments below, made by other IMDB members. While this is no box office smash hit it has a special charm all of its own. Genuine and heart-warming.<br /><br />We saw this on video, at the end of a long day. We were very tired, and in bed. Normally in a situation like this my wife drops off to sleep within minutes, that is, unless it is an exceptional movie and this one kept us both entertained right to the very end.<br /><br />Perhaps younger viewers in their teens and twenties would not like this, but for the rest of us it is a true gem! See it! | 0 |
I remember this movie with feelings of sheer . . . agony. More than half of the film is commercials (no, really!). The slight excuse for a story could easily have been told in 25 minutes (and almost is!) The end result is a prefab love story of predictable schlock, all obviously thrown together in a crassly commercial attempt to wring a few more bucks from the contemporary Debbie Boone hit. Yep, that's how fast it was produced... the song that 'inspired' it was still big on the charts when the film was released!<br /><br />Despite decades of seeing bad movies, this one still impresses me for its extravagant, no-holds-barred, headlong jump into the most tedious, absurd, and indelible cinematic badness. It truly deserves to be on the IMDb list of the 100 worst of all time, and has never left the top 3 on my personal 'worst' list. <br /><br />Enjoy it for the sheer masochistic thrill! | 1 |
To put in simple words or rather a word, would be best suited by PATHETIC !!!!!! The movie starts with attracting a little interest by the plot, but, BUT as few minutes by audience is getting restless for restrooms and getting snacks, or to get a breathe of fresh air outside the closed dark hall....<br /><br />It seems like watching a movie from 1960's where colors were dull, directed by a debutant, and acted by high school students ! Movie revolves about a American high headed actress trying make a comeback into films by acting in one of the not-so-great Indian movie. Her acting is real Sad complimented by the worse dialogue delivery.<br /><br />OverAll: i would not recommend anyone to watch this movie Still want to watch: Then try watching it at home, when some TV channel airs it, believe me it would be fun as this movie would not get a Single advertisement and no sponsors.<br /><br />And better carry a aspirin, u might need it if you cant find a remote control to change channel ! p.s. I have no clue, if the other reviewers even watched the movie ? i did and wasted my $10 on the ticket ! | 1 |
'Pitch Black' was a complete shock to me when I first saw it back in 2000. In the previous years, I was repeatedly disappointed by all the lame sci-fi movies (Ex: STARSHIP TROOPERS) and thought that this movie wouldn't be any different. But to plainly put it: This movie freaked me out... in a good way. I wasn't aware that I was still afraid of the dark till I watched this movie; I must have buried my fear in the back of my subconscious when I was a kid and it rightfully deserves to stay there.<br /><br />The alien creatures sent shivers up my spine; the individual(s) who designed them have a twisted but brilliant and creative imagination to come up with something so impressive and grotesque. <br /><br />I loved how the writers gave each main character a history and showed their flaws and strengths without much confusion.<br /><br />Riddick's (Vin Diesel) gift for escaping out of any impossible situation and putting up a hell of a fight was jaw dropping. At first, you figure him out to be a coldly intelligent villain but in some brief moments, you can see something humane behind his animal side. But as soon you discover it, he does something maliciously devious. He certainly keeps you guessing right up to the very end. I didn't know whether to despise or admire him... he's definitely a love/hate type of character.<br /><br />Johns (Cole Hauser) was a perfect example of a character that puts up a good front but through a need for greed, shows his real intentions and what he's willing to do to survive. John's knack for knowing what buttons to push and the right words to say makes him as devious as Riddick.<br /><br />Fry (Radha Mitchell) is a character who, as Johns so nicely expressed, looked to her thine own ass first before considering the consequences. But what's endearing about her is that she quickly realizes the errors of her ways and tries desperately to pay penance, even while endangering her life when others discarded all human values and went for the dark hills running.<br /><br />Jack (Rhiana Griffith) simply wanted to have a hero and was the first one out of the whole group to look for that hero in Riddick; through a child's eye, good can be seen through the thick clouds of evil. I thought it was absolutely priceless when Jack shaves his head in ode to Riddick; you know what they say: Imitation is the best form of flattery.<br /><br />Imam (Keith David), like Jack, has the ability to see good in any evil. He uses philosophy to carry him through the hardships that he meets and when time permits, he rationally grieves his losses and then soldiers on. In a way, he served as a morale booster for the survivors even though most of the characters acted as though they weren't listening.<br /><br />The casting for this movie was positively perfect. Each actor shined brightly in their role and their talents blended wonderfully on-screen.<br /><br />This movie may have had a small budget but the director's leadership and the actor's performances made the movie work and allowed the audience to use their imagination instead of letting some outrageously expensive Special Effects do all the work for them. This movie is a definite Sci-Fi classic. Watch it and judge (with an open mind) for yourself. It will be well worth it. | 0 |
... when we all know, no one does it like the BBC.<br /><br />Being an avid fan of this sort of Sunday night watching, i was quite looking forward to this. How disappointed was I! In the first thirty seconds I didn't think it was looking promising and after two minutes i was finding it hard to watch.<br /><br />However me and my friends persisted only to find bad acting and a complete misunderstanding of half of the characters. The plot was hurried to the extreme and the make up and costumes gaudy and very 21st century in a 'bbc robin hood' style. This modern style may have been able to be placed within sharp camera angles and visually sumptuous cinematography but unfortunately we got neither. The direction felt decidedly sloppy for both acting and shot choice.<br /><br />After 30 mins we couldn't bare to watch it and went out and rented 'The Prestige'(which is very good btw) Maybe it is unfair that I judge this as I have watched so little of this, but rarely have I felt so compelled to warn people not to watch something! However, me and my friends did think that the house and parasols were pretty- but thats as good as it gets. | 1 |
beautifully constructed, 'Traffik' tells the story of narcotics usage and commerce from multiple points of view. From a policeman view, from a politician view, from an addict view, from a smuggler's view, and from a farmer's view. In a carefully contructed storyline, one gets the impression on how everything is inter-related. From beautiful on-location shots in the poppy fields in Pakistan, to downtown Karachi, to the entry points airports of Frankfurt and London, to the delapidated buildings where the smuggling takes place, one sees the massive dimension of narcotics consumption. | 0 |
There are many problems with Mystery Men. First of all there are too many different characters for all of them to be given complex or even interesting personalities. The special effects detract from the story and are not really that special. Paul Reubens is wasted in a pathetic, juvenile role as a character who merely farts and speaks in an inaudible accent.<br /><br />Now onto the decent parts. William H Macy, three heavenly words, and his performance as the shoveler is pitch perfect. The sphinx is an exceptionally funny character who is only mysterious and merely spouts out the traditional mystical proverbs. Ben Stiller is very amusing as well, showing a weak character trying to make it into the big leagues of superheroes. All of the characters do, and that is an area which I found particuarly ironic. That is because all of the actors are Indie film actors trying to make it into the big leagues of Hollywood.<br /><br />To be honest, the reason I thought it failed at the box-office is that America doesn't get irony.<br /><br />All in all I loved the film, but I feel it would have worked better if more effort was put into tweaking the script rather than having unneccesary CGI landscapes and effects. | 0 |
It's been mentioned by others the inane dialogue in this series and I agree.<br /><br />If Mom and daughter were really that sharp-witted they should be Queen and Princess of the Universe, not kicking around in some little town.<br /><br />I've really tried to watch a few episodes but when the witty staccato mumbling pop culture drivel starts I flip the channel.<br /><br />I watched a bit of a new episode to see if anything had changed (for the better I'd hoped) but nope, same old 'we're so clever with our references to pop culture' that I nearly barfed.<br /><br />Long time fans who aren't happy with the newer seasons might just be wising up and getting sick of the regurgitated pablum that never stops. | 1 |
After viewing several episodes of this series, I have come to the conclusion that television producers are completely devoid of any form of originality. Here is an old science fiction standby, ingeniously wrapped in the form of a truly original concept - and still they can only -almost - make it work.<br /><br />The dialog is good! The male actors are reasonably proficient at their professions. Most of the characters are well drawn, with special kudos to the hero and his more than likeable side-kick. And most of the episode plots come across as palatable. So what could be wrong? How about the, the female characters and the cosmeticly perfect actresses who are chosen to portray them. <br /><br />The producers insist on portraying the female characters in this - almost good - series, in a manner that makes the end product appear to be a misplaced cheerleader. Why, I ask, why?<br /><br />The episodes all fall flat whenever the female guest star or recurring character comes on screen. These actresses are all totally unbelievable in their roles, and you don't actually have to see them to know they are incapable of their acting assignments. A blind person could tell. Just listen to them talk. They deliver their dialog with all the drama and effect of a 16 year old at the high school prom. Who would believe these women are Phd scientist, senators, corporate executives and medical doctors?<br /><br />In a nut shell, if the producers have their choice of a Stockard Channing or a Morgan Fairchild, guess who they'll choose - every time? And of course, the series suffers for it. Too bad! | 0 |
Another Excellent Arnold movie. This futuristic movie has great action in it, and is one of Arnie's best movies. Arnold is framed as a bad guy in this movie and plays a Game of Death. This movie is excellent and a great Sci-Fi / action movie. I've always liked this movie and it has to be one of the greatest adventure movies of all time. 10 out of 10! PERFECTION | 0 |
EXCUSE ME!!! HellOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!! CUBA GOODING,Jr. Should Have Won An Oscar For His Portrayal In This Film!!! He WAS the film! While the film may be lacking in some areas, Cuba was awesome... and for me, this is the best role that he has ever played! The scene in the movie where he finds out that his mother has died made me break down and cry IN THE THEATER!! I guess I could really relate to this film because I saw the same treatment of people just like that at my own school growing up... what a tragedy! Getting to see the 'real' Radio and coach at the end of the movie was really special too! If you can watch this movie and not be moved to tears, you need a heart check! If you liked 'Simon Birch' and 'The Mighty', you'll love 'Radio' too! I wish they made more movies like this...Radio is the Real Deal! | 0 |
Cameron Mitchell plays an actor who is dating a young actress who used to date the head of a movie studio (she's too young for both of them!). At a party, when he's lighting his cigarette, the studio boss throws a high alcohol content drink in his face, and he catches fire. In the hospital, his face is entirely bandaged and he still lights up a cigarette! He becomes the resident sculptor of the Movieland Wax Museum and Palace, where he also lights up cigarettes!<br /><br />Mitchell recovers, more or less, having really poorly done burn makeup on one side of his face that looks like gray spackle and tape, and an eyepatch. When Mitchell isn't smoking, he's killing people. Well, he only kills people sometimes, since he prefers to inject them with something that puts them in a sort of waxy coma. If he doesn't administer it regularly (and he never seems to remember), they start to move again a little, although they're in a sort of hypnotic zombie state. Not all his sculptures are people, though. He evidently does have talent as a sculptor.<br /><br />The ending, which seemed to have been struck from a much poorer print than the rest of the movie, is really absurd. They seemed not to know what to do, and went back to the title for an idea. Apart from the oddly grainy final shots, the rest of the movie is in fairly good shape, except for the audio in some scenes which sounds like it was run through a blown speaker. Definitely not one of the better wax museum movies. | 1 |
I remember the days in which Kim Basinger was nothing more than a pretty face who adorned movies with typical characters of dumb Blondie,romantic interest or damsel in danger.But,everything changed when she won an Academy Award as Best Supporting Actress for her role in the excellent movie L.A. Confidential,and I think I was not the only one who was surprised by her solid performance.However,after that moment,her career did not follow the ideal path.Sure,the prestige she won thanks to that movie made her to participate on moderately prestigious movies (like People I Know or The Door in the Floor),but we have never seen her again on a substantial character.The movie While She Was Out does nothing to put her on that situation; and it is not only that her character is not too tasty,but also that the movie is really crappy.The screenplay from this movie could not be more hollow and basic.However,Basinger brings some conviction to her character,and that makes this poor movie to win a few points.This movie is full of clichés and generic villains.The work of director Susan Montford is truly disastrous for many reasons but mainly,because the movie never gets a good rhythm and tone.The ending from this movie is extremely ridiculous.I do not recommend While She Was Out at all.This film commits the capital sin of being boring. | 1 |
Admittedly, you can put a model airplane against a black background and call it sci-fi, and thats enough to get me interested, so if you are like that, Black Horizon will at least get you interested before you watch it. The best part of the movie is when they rehash some actual footage of a shuttle launch.<br /><br />The movie plays like the Naked Gun series, spoofing cop dramas with bad clichés and bad acting. Unfortunately, i don't think they meant to be funny, the actors really are made of cardboard, the dialog really does suck, so well just have to laugh at them, and not with them.<br /><br />On a side note, it is rare to see a movie that takes place half in outer space, half on earth, and doesn't mix in the expected extraterrestrials and supernatural events. I really do ache for more realistic drama based on our space endeavors. | 1 |
This is an OK film but lacks any real depth either emotionally or in terms of story telling.<br /><br />The story is based on real events and this limits the amount of action to virtually none, also no real suspense.<br /><br />Washington is believable in the lead but he is sleep walking through it, there is no scope to flex any acting muscles for him or the supporting cast.<br /><br />The story simply falls a little flat, even having never heard of the title character the ending was obvious but unlike other films about such injustices this one has no emotional impact, you don't really care about him and the motivations of those on the outside helping seem more academic than concerned for his welfare.<br /><br />There is an attempt to inject some emotion using the boy outside who hero worships Carter but this seems forced.<br /><br />It's an OK film but instantly forgettable. | 1 |
Scott Bartlett's 'OffOn' is nine minutes of pure craziness. It is a full-frontal assault of psychedelic, pulsating, epilepsy-inducing flashing lights and colours, and the first true merging of film and video in avante-garde cinema. There's no story to speak of, but Bartlett uses images of nature particularly the human face and form to provoke a sequence of emotional reactions, integrating these biological phenomena into the highly-industrial form of modern technology. In a sense, the film represents the merging of humanity into his tools, his machinery, his technology. This theme connects loosely with the subplot of HAL9000 in Stanley Kubrick's '2001: A Space Odyssey (1968),' and, indeed, Bartlett's opening sequence of images flashing colours before a close-up human eye recalls Dave Bowman's journey through the Stargate. The visuals are richly-coloured, a confronting blend of sharp, vivid photography and increasingly-grainy video, as though we're sitting too close to a television screen {as a matter of fact, the end product was recorded from a TV monitor}.<br /><br />There appears to be some confusion about the film's release date. IMDb lists the film as a 1972 release, but both the National Film Registry and the National Film Preservation Foundation give 1968 as the correct year. Perhaps this disparity reflects the time between the film's completion and its first public screening. Either way, the visuals are distinctly ahead of their time, occasionally reminiscent of a 1980s music video, and some brisk techno music wouldn't have gone amiss, either! 'OffOn' captures grainy, fragmented images, presenting life from the warped perspective of a computer processing too much information. I had a thought and please don't laugh at this free-thinking interpretation that an extraterrestrial civilisation capturing Earth's television signals might very well receive such a disjointed, alien documentation of human life, a bizarre montage of only vaguely-familiar imagery that couldn't possibly make any coherent sense. Perhaps this is where Mankind, with all his technology, is eventually heading, towards an irreversible merging of film and video, of purity and artificiality. | 0 |
Wow, just caught this movie from Blockbuster and I love finding gems like this. While it was definitely shot on a budget and misses a little bit in clumsy editing (i.e. accident, hospital scenes, second to last end scenes), for a first directorial effort, I give this 10 stars! I absolutely loved the thought provoking concepts brought forth and if you're a free thinker and open to ideas outside the box, I highly, highly recommend this movie. I think the director and writer, Jay Floyd, should be given some attention and more opportunities in the film industry. Based on his credits, he may be another Quentin Tarantino. | 0 |
I've seen both movies and I saw without a doubt the re-make is the best, I know a lot of people would disagree those who have become fans of the original will most probably not like this re-make, but i thought it was well thought out and definitely scary, It was so good I'm going to see it again tonight, the original creeped me out because they kill the children, i mean who does that in movies anyway....but in this one the children have at least half a chance...The only bad part about this movie is when the babysitter (Jill) Walks towards the sounds she hears and runs outside into the bushes to check for someone, clearly no one in their right mind would do that whilst babysitting, so that is the only thing i found wrong with the movie, and even so they probably had to put that in there to build suspense, i don't want to give too much away for all those who have not seen it, i recommend you do instead of listening to all these people saying its crap and worse than the original, it would be a better movie for teenagers, as it displays things that most of us are scared of, but when i was in the movies there were at least 10 adults over the age of 70 in there watching it, and they enjoyed it, if they enjoyed it i think you will to! I give it a 9 out of 10! | 0 |
I was looking for a documentary of the same journalistic quality as Frontline or 'Fog of War' (by Errol Morris). Instead I was appalled by this shallow and naive account of a very complex and disturbing man and his regime: Alberto Fujimori. This movie should be called 'The return of Fujimori'. The director presumes she made a 'perfect' movie because alienates both pro and anti-Fujimori factions when in fact it is a very biased and unprofessional piece of work. <br /><br />The movie has few crucial facts wrong: <br /><br />1) She uses the so called 'landslide' election of 1995 in which Fujimori was re-elected with 65% of the vote, as an example of the massive popular support of Fujimori. But we all now know to be the fruit of a very organized electoral fraud.<br /><br />2) The movie states that Sendero Luminoso (Shining Path) killed 60,000 people. In fact, the Truth Commission's final report states that there were 69,280 deaths due to political violence in Peru. 33% of those were caused by SL. That leaves the other 67% in the hands of the police, military and other groups. The fact that she uses the same misleading information that Fujimori has been using for 10 years it is another example of how terrible this movie is. <br /><br />For any person with some education on Peruvian politics and history, Fujimori is clearly a consummated manipulator, a delusional character and remorseless egomaniac. His regime was very far from being democratic. He is still a menace to Peruvians. Despite these facts the director lets Fujimori tell the story. Not only on how he wants the camera to be positioned but the narrative and direction of the film seem to be part of his political agenda. He always seems to have the last word. There are no journalistic 'cojones', just soft questions and unchallenged remarks. Where is Oriana Fallaci when we need her? The director, when questioned after the screening, didn't hide the fact that she was deeply impressed by Fujimori, his charm and intelligence. Yes, she has been definitely charmed by him, and you can tell by looking at this film. It's obvious she has a very hard time to digest the multitude of facts that point towards his responsibility on the corruption, murder and deception that took place. She assured the gasping audience that Fujimori was really a 'patriot' when few moments earlier, one of the leading Peruvian journalists was very adamant in telling us that Fujimori was, above all, a 'traitor'. She went on to say that despite all the accusations not 'a single dollar' was found on any bank account on his name, etc, etc. It was like hearing again the same gang of ruthless thugs that ruled the country for 10 years defending their master. It was a sad moment for journalism.<br /><br />This film makes injustice to history. It is an insult to hundreds of dead people, disappeared or unjustly incarcerated by Fujimori's regime. No wonder she later confessed that all the Peruvian intellectuals she befriended while making the movie felt betrayed by it. Unbiased? The words 'oportunistic', 'naïve' and 'denial' come to my mind instead. | 1 |
I think this is almost all I need to say. I feel obliged to explain my actions though. I've basically never seen such an armature production, and I mean that in all senses of the word. Although he physical camera work, boom MIC operation and other technical aspects of this film are laughable, unfortunately its not the only areas. <br /><br />Unlike some classic independent films that have been saved by their scripts great characterization and plot, this unfortunately has an awful script, awful acting and worst of all, awful annoying characters. <br /><br />It's a crime that for the every independent film that gets, distribution like Haiku Tunnel, there's a 101 other indie films that died silent deaths. I don't know who the Kornbluth brothers know at Sony, but that can be my only explanation as to how this amateur family production ever got distribution. I'm quite bemused as to why they picked this up.<br /><br />The ONLY part of this film that holds out any intrigue is its title. However, the reason for that is even a let down. I hope this review will save a few people that may be intrigued by this films title from going to watch it. I've seen a lot of films in my time, and I'm very forgiving when in the cinema, but this was too much. I'll never forget 'tunnel', for marking an important point in my life experience of cinema. Shame it's such a low point. | 1 |
Guest from the Future tells a fascinating story of time travel, friendship, battle of good and evil -- all with a small budget, child actors, and few special effects. Something for Spielberg and Lucas to learn from. ;) A sixth-grader Kolya 'Nick' Gerasimov finds a time machine in the basement of a decrepit building and travels 100 years into the future. He discovers a near-perfect, utopian society where robots play guitars and write poetry, everyone is kind to each other and people enjoy everything technology has to offer. Alice is the daughter of a prominent scientist who invented a device called Mielophone that allows to read minds of humans and animals. The device can be put to both good and bad use, depending on whose hands it falls into. When two evil space pirates from Saturn who want to rule the universe attempt to steal Mielophone, it falls into the hands of 20th century school boy Nick. With the pirates hot on his tracks, he travels back to his time, followed by the pirates, and Alice. Chaos, confusion and funny situations follow as the luckless pirates try to blend in with the earthlings. Alice enrolls in the same school Nick goes to and demonstrates superhuman abilities in PE class. The catch is, Alice doesn't know what Nick looks like, while the pirates do. Also, the pirates are able to change their appearance and turn literally into anyone. (Hmm, I wonder if this is where James Cameron got the idea for Terminator...) Who gets to Nick -- and Mielophone -- first? Excellent plot, non-stop adventures, and great soundtrack. I wish Hollywood made kid movies like this one... | 0 |
There is an interesting discussion in this movie. Is being a moral person good enough, or do you need something more?<br /><br />The movie preaches that without the guidance of God, being a morally good person is not enough. There is a line early in the movie, 'You and I can look at a person who is morally good, but both know he is going to go to hell.'<br /><br />While I am not a Christian, the discussions about this throughout the course of the movie were fascinating, but not in the way the movie intended. I left the movie with a stronger feeling that being morally good *is* enough. The arguments and discussions presented were heavily biased, so much so that they crush themselves in the weight of their own ignorance. Fanaticism can be a powerful thing, especially when inferenced in the minds of the ignorant and uneducated. As George Carlin's character in Dogma said: 'hook em while they're young'.<br /><br />The basic premise is a very interesting one also. A Bible Scholar from the 1890s is attempting to publish a book that says that morality without God is OK, as long as the morality is meaningful. Do you only tell a child not to steal? Or do you tell him not to steal because God tells you not to? (not bothering bringing up that telling the child not to steal because, well, how would he feel if it was his marbles that were stolen?)<br /><br />The author, Carlisle, wants the recommendation of his school to help sell the book (to spread the world). However, it needs unanimous consent, and one of the scholars opposes it. He brings up, in a very interesting discussion early in the film about the morality for morality's sake vs God's words argument. To prove his point, he produces a time machine (put in the movie solely to make the plot work, which I'm fine with), and sends Carlisle to the year 2002 to see where teaching morality without God will lead us.<br /><br />As should be obvious, he has his opinion, and is changed by what he sees, and has reversed himself by the time of his return (for he does return, that's not really a spoiler, this is a bible movie after all).<br /><br />As for the movie as a movie itself, it's pretty slow and pretty poorly acted. Something that was *not* needed in this movie, is that it produces two 'bad guys' who want to try to figure out who Carlisle is, even tho he hasn't hurt anyone, committed a crime, or anything. What's wrong with the movie just showing Carlisle's opinion, showing his view of this 'sinful world', and returning him with a new viewpoint? <br /><br />Also, there a few points in the movie which affirm to me that I'm happy I'm not a Christian, or at least someone who says 'It's God or nothing'. Three near the end of the movie rather disturbed me.. first, when the two 'bad guys' corner Carlisle right before he jumps, Carlisle does his *only* truly despicable act.. he fakes like his time-jump is the coming of Jesus, and makes it so the 'bad guys' (who are also Christians btw, oddly enough), think they just missed the rapture. <br /><br />Secondly, after Carlisle returns, he finds a boy in which he scolded at the beginning of the movie about not stealing (but not mentioning God, kid kept the marbles and ran away), and tells him this time that stealing is wrong because God commands it. Like the Carlin quote above, scaring kids into religion is a faux-pas in my book.<br /><br />And lastly, the epilogue. Another scare tactic. Carlisle asks the inventor how far into the future they could go, and he says he doesn't know.. the epilogue shows him trying to warp a bible into the distant future (starts at 2100), and it fails.. he keeps decrementing the years by 10, and trying again, and by the fade-out, he's at like 2030 or so. Throughout the movie, Carlise mentions that he felt the end of the world coming, because the world was rife with sin and the loss of the name of God.. scare tactics have been in use for thousands of years.. you would think in these enlightened times, the church would have enlightened as well.<br /><br />I'm glad I saw this movie. While I was fairly certain before that being morally good was enough, now I know it for a fact. Worth watching if you are not a Christian, to affirm how happy you are to not be as ignorant as the folks in this movie. | 1 |
The third Fred MacMurray/Carole Lombard film is a bit more serious than Hands Across the Table and The Princess Comes Across. It's yet another adaption of the play Burlesque which apparently was popular back in the day.<br /><br />The original play Burlesque ran on Broadway in the 1927-1928 season for 372 performances and it's the role that Carole Lombard plays that Barbara Stanwyck originated on Broadway that brought her to Hollywood. A version starred Nancy Carroll in the early days of talkies and later on Betty Grable and Dan Dailey did still another version of it in When My Baby Smiles At Me.<br /><br />In fact I have a vinyl album of a radio version that Al Jolson and Ruby Keeler did for the Lux Radio Theater. That's an interesting work, believe me.<br /><br />Anyway MacMurray and Lombard do fine by the old chestnut, the story is now set in a nightclub where Lombard is a singer and MacMurray is a jazz trumpeter. Note a nice performance by Dorothy Lamour as the Latin vixen who gets between Fred and Carole. Also Anthony Quinn is in one of his earliest films as a wolf on the make for Lombard.<br /><br />Swing High, Swing Low holds up real nice today and I wouldn't be surprised if we see yet another version of Burlesque for the Twenty First Century. | 0 |
Dreary. Schlocky. Just plain dreadful and awful. Let's be honest, when you sit down to watch something called The Double-D Avenger you aren't expecting great art or even mild mainstream entertainment. You are probably expecting a cult film type and maybe get some good looks at some impressive busts. You don't get really either of these in the video. The story, as it consistent with most of these types, is inane: Kitten Natividad runs a local pub, finds out she has breast cancer, flies down to South America for a fruit that claims to be a panacea for any ills and a super-human abilities giver, returns and fights, dressed as the Double-D Avenger, a group from a local strip club wanting to edge out the competition. As stories go, I have seen a lot worse, but as another reviewer noted the execution is horrendous. The action sequences lack zip, drive, motivation, and are tissue thin. The acting isn't even properly campy and the dialog is the pits. Nothing, and I mean NOTHING is funny from the wincing puns to the heavy-handed boob references. All could be forgiven if the girls could make up for it, but they all fall way short. Kitten, Haji, and Raven de la Croix are all quite older(still lovely in their own ways) yet expose nothing and become the antithesis of what they are trying to be: older, campy caricatures of their former selves. Instead, they look so lame and desperate - more because of the vehicle they are 'starring' in rather than their own abilities. There are some other lovely ladies, but you really do not see much of anything. PG -13 definitely could be an appropriate rating for this. The material, the actresses, and director are all tired, tiresome, and dated - and again - NOT FUNNY! It was a brutal hour plus sitting through this, and that is a shame as I was expecting something campy and fun. The guy playing Bubba by the way was the only real laugh for me. Not that he was good at all mind you, but every time he opened his mouth I kept thinking how truly awful he was. The lone bright spot here at all is seeing Mr. Sci-fi himself, Forrest J. Ackerman, play the curator of a wax museum and chatting to his wax Frankenstein affectionately called Frankie. Other than that this is a complete bust - now how is that for another tired, dreadful, trite pun! | 1 |
When the budget doesn't allow for a Cadillac or Packard or Lincoln or Imperial hearse we are talking cheep cheep. That's bird language for cheap cheap.<br /><br />What is in the hair of the forty year old teen boy? The guy who looks like a cement head who tries a couple of times to run over John Agar and provides the only scare in the movie by how close he comes. His hair looks like a shoe. A patent leather shoe. He is a shoe head.<br /><br />The nurse woman needs immediate emergency hair washing. She has lacquer in her blond locks that would ignite if the production company had been able to afford lights.<br /><br />The monster? The music was scarier. I would try to run from the music. The monster probably had better hair than the rest of the cast. Put some lipstick on that monster and you've got Divine's older sister.<br /><br />The camera work and editing and plot provided a buffer to prepare the audience for the bad music throughout.<br /><br />Hello Mr. Agar? We're thinking of doing a sequel to Night Fright and... Mr. Agar? Agar? Tom Willett | 1 |
Oh dear... as an Englishman, and a small part Welsh, a fan of Anthony Hopkins' work in the industry..... to date, I am truly disappointed. <br /><br />You see I am a nobody, who hoped for better. So my comments are as 'straw in the wind'. But, that's the point isn't it? - I have no axe to grind on the commercial value of a work. I, a full member of the great unwashed, go to see a movie to be transported to another place. To yes, suspend belief for a brief period. But not to enter a state of total disbelief.<br /><br />Had this been by an unknown author and director, I would guess that this 'production' would have been castigated into oblivion. Unfortunately, its not, and I was left wide eyed and confused. Having seen some of the rave reviews given this work I am faintly worried....<br /><br />Perhaps its that I try, without prejudice, to view each movie on its own merits. Regardless of author, director, studio or even the notoriety of the content.<br /><br />My advice, as many before me: Don't Write and Direct the same production. It is fraught with danger. Movies need to be moderated to retain a semblance of credibility.<br /><br />As they say in school reports 'Could and can do better...' | 1 |
'Vanilla Sky' was a wonderfully thought out movie. Or rather, 'Abre Los Ojos' was well thought out. I watched that movie late one night, excited about what was to come. I wasn't disappointed. By the end of the movie, I was awstruck. I couldn't get it off my mind. The whole idea of it just blew me away. The ending, was more of a surprise than Shyamalan could ever do. The plot line was also something that kept me interesting through and through. The cast, superb. It was an all around wonderful movie. The kind of movie you can watch again and again and always find something new. I've seen it four or five times and I'm always finding something new. It's a movie to keep you interested forever. | 0 |
This was really a very bad movie. I am a huge fan of Italian Horror, Argento, Mario Bava, Fulci and yes, even our good friend here Lamberto sometimes comes out with a good one. I found the first two 'Demons' films to be highly entertaining - they were so bad they were great but this one is just so bad that it is really, really bad. It is intensely boring, the story never goes anywhere and I hated the characters - the wife slapping husband and whiny cry-baby pain in the *** wife drove me mad, there was nowhere near enough of the story devoted to the Ogre who was probably the best actor in the whole film. I turned it off about three quarters of the way through because I was very, very BORED! Don't bother. | 1 |
Visconti's first feature, Ossessione is an adaptation of James M. Cain's The Postman Always Rings Twice. Now, I'm not familiar with that book or the other film versions, but I am a big fan of Cain's Double Indemnity (much more so than I am a fan of Billy Wilder's film version of it, in fact). The two novellas seem like they must be very similar. Both involve an illicit love affair where a ravenous wife complains to a morally weak man that her husband is worthless and mean to her. Giovanna, the woman in this Italian version, played very well by Clara Calamai, is not evil incarnate like the wife in Double Indemnity, but she seems very spoiled. Her husband (a great performance by Juan de Landa) is a bit cruel to her, but she strikes me like she is at least as uncompromising with him. He's older than her and unattractive, so she's rather fickle. When Gino shows up, a young, muscular man, it takes her about five minutes to get him into bed. She sweats she wants to be with him forever, but she's stuck with her husband. They break up at first, but when they meet again, they (apparently, although this is intentionally vague) plan to murder the husband. They are successful, and they move back to the woman's home town to run the bar that her husband owned. Gino is very unenthusiastic about this idea. He wants Giovanna, but the one thing that he certainly doesn't want is to sit around in one place for the rest of his life. Their relationship quickly crumbles. Ossessione is a very complex film with complex characters. It's always fascinating, but it does go on a bit too long. At two hours and twenty-two minutes, I can't, for the life of me, figure out how it took that long! This is partly due to the neorealist stylistics that Visconti was inventing within this film. It was, after all, the first film that won that label. We see a lot of the action prolonged as it would be in real life, without any hurrying to the next plot point. I've seen many of Visconti's films, and the only one I like better than this one is Rocco and His Brothers (1960). His direction is as great as it ever was, with the camera moving brilliantly and the editing perfect. I also feel the need to point out the film's best performance, by Dhia Christiani as a young (exotic) dancer and part-time prostitute named Anita whom Gino meets after he begins to try to break away from Giovanna. She's only in the film for maybe five or six minutes, and she has only a few lines. It's shocking how much Visconti and Christiani are able to do with this character in such a short time. She's absolutely heartbreaking. 9/10. | 0 |
A little while ago, I stumbled upon this DVD while browsing Netflix, and with such an impressive cast, decided to give it a go.<br /><br />Never before have I seen a movie try to be a new version of an existing great movie (Scarface) and failing so spectacularly.<br /><br />The main issue seems to be a complete misunderstanding of what the story should be. In Scarface, Tony Montana was the self-proclaimed 'bad guy.' His spectacular rise and eventual downfall wasn't sad, it was a great (and the only logical ending) to someone who lived such a life.<br /><br />Damian Chapa, as director, writer, and lead actor, sees Kilo as some sort of hero, or at least a complicated guy. However he doesn't want to do the grunt work of creating a realistic, sympathetic character. He was raised by a white mother, except for the six months of his childhood where his father, a gangster himself, showed him his life. For reasons never fully explained or even really mentioned, he decides he wants to be a drug dealer, and actually drives to the bad part of town, approaches two dealers and says, 'Hey, I'd like to buy some drugs.' He drops his father's name, and in apparently no time they are not only rich, the two guys who are supplying him are acting subserviently to him for reasons, again, never explained.<br /><br />Chapa wants you to feel bad when his character is sentenced to prison when a police informant lies about him. However, since he's dealt large quantities of drugs before, why should one feel sympathy for him going to jail for it this time? The most obvious case of Chapa wanting to be the good guy is in his prison execution of a White Supremacist/rapist played by Gary Busey. In Scarface, Tony Montana kills someone in prison because he pretty much has to in order to elevate himself, it's done, he moves on. But in this case they ham-handedly have to make Busey not only a rapist/pedophile but also a White supremacist. A little overkill, don't you think? I won't go into detail in this regard too much more, but their desperate message of 'PLEASE LIKE ME! I'M A COMPLICATED GANGSTER!' fails on every level. Try as they might, I didn't feel bad, conflicted, or sympathetic when his buddies are killed (following a shootout), his wife is also killed (shortly after she called him out on being a lousy father, and during an attempted escape when he decided it'd be OK to ride right next to a car filled with gunmen while his wife is in the car), and his eventual demise.<br /><br />Suffice it to say his acting can be fairly summed up as lousy, his only achievement bringing the term 'wooden' to starry new heights. Busey should be credited for actually putting effort into his ridiculous role. Tiny Lister did well. Stacy Keach is playing his warden from Prison Break role. Robert Wagner is coasting for a paycheck. Faye Dunaway, while a touch dramatic, still turns in a performance better than this movie deserved. Brad Dourif is in the film for about two minutes and does what he can. And to give the film credit, it does one-up Scarface in one way - Jennifer Tilly now holds the title of 'Most Ridiculous Attempt at a Hispanic Accent.' (Sorry Robert Loggia.) In short, this movie had an interesting premise, but a poor story arc, unsympathetic characters, and hit-or-miss performances. I'd advise Mr. Chapa to ease up on the forced sympathy next time - really, we don't need to like your character, we just need to be interested. Better luck next time. | 1 |
The film lacks style, i mean original style. everything looks copied including action, first appearances in the movie, songs, dialog delivery, etc etc. Yes, there the goof-ups were original, like in the beginning a car is shown with number UP**** number and few seconds later it starts falling down a hill with number MH**** . That was one in many goof-ups of the movie :) Anything good in the movie? yes, for kareena fans, if there are any, Kareena in bikini. For akshay fans, his dialogs and action stunts. Thats it. nothing else. So watch it on your own risk and don't blame the director or actors. Director is already insane and actors, i pity them. | 1 |
with that, carry the same dark weaknesses we all unfortunately possess: lying, deception, laziness, the list goes on.<br /><br />However, as an American, I was shocked to see that corruption and racism exist in today's police force as is reflected with the Duval County Sheriff Department's horrible detective and police work with the murder of a white female tourist and a 15-year old accused black youth. I shook my head in shame that detectives were protected from their abusive work while a young man's LIFE hung in the crooked balance of justice.<br /><br />However, there is also a story of hope with our judicial system and how poorly-paid public defenders stuck by their guns (irony intended) and forced the truth from the detectives. I wanted to fly down to Florida and tell anybody with influence what a great public defender team they have in Duval County; those lawyers care about the 'little' man and, most importantly, for justice.<br /><br />The other story line is about faith and family. Praises to the accused's family and their strong Christian (submit any dedicated religion) beliefs and wonderful family values. I hope they win their lawsuit against the Duval County Sheriff's Department.<br /><br />Bravo for justice!!! Bravo for the little guy!!! | 0 |
Principally it is the story of two men who were part of the Portuguese revolution. It was easy to understand the contest, but usually directors starts from a historical fact to speak about something else, or they shows also the period before or after this fact, here everything happen during that couple of days when the revolution acts. It could also be seen as a kind of documentary. The movie focalize to these two people, showing as normal they were, not like common heroes, because the revolution come from people. Although it was made from military army from the title you can understand that they were just 'capitaes' as the main characters. Nice colors and lights during the whole movie, excellent work for the director being her first movie, she doesn't fall to the banal way. Well shown emotions and passion of people and crowd. The character of Maia (main one)is well-made and there is also a good interpretation for Stefano Accorsi, able to show Maia's limits, this not-being an hero. | 0 |
An American family moves to the countryside of Spain to live in an isolated house. Regina (Anna Paquin), the teenager daughter of Mark (Iain Glen), who is sick and has some mental problems, and the nurse Maria (Lena Olin), notes that weird things is happening in the house and with her young brother Paul (Stephan Enquist), but her mother does not believe on her. Reggie decides to investigate with her boyfriend Carlos (Fele Martínez) the origins of the house, and they find that forty years ago, the place was the stage of the death of six children. Reggie decides to ask for support to her grandfather Albert (Giancarlo Giannini) to protect her brother against the house and her father.<br /><br />I bought this DVD expecting to see a good horror movie of haunted house mainly because of the names of Anna Paquin, Lena Olin, Fele Martínez (from 'Thesis' and 'Abre los Ojos') and Giancarlo Giannini. Further, I like very much Spanish cinema. In spite of, I found a terrible screenplay, an awful direction and a deplorable acting of excellent actors and actresses. The intention of the story is good, slightly recalling 'The Shinning' in some moments, but unfortunately it is badly developed, never being clear, for example, the reasons and motives why the American family moved to Spain or the horrible relationship between the members of the family, mainly the situation between Maria and Reggie. The direction is confused, poorly trying to use dark and shadows to give scary effects to the story. I love Anna Paquin, but her expressionless face never works in this flick. Lena Olin is a caricature of the great actress she is; and Stephan Enquist is too much weak for such important role. Only Fele Martínez has a good performance in his support character. I liked the open end of the story. My vote is four.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): 'A Sétima Vítima' ('The Seventh Victim') | 1 |
This is one of the great movies of the 80s in MY collection that I think about all the time. <br /><br />The Running Man is one of Arnold`s best and most different films even to this day and when I first saw The Running Man I was so excited to see a movie like this. I just adore all of the fights and this is truly a special movie. It also has Jesse Ventura, the legendary Professor Toru Tanaka, Sven-Ole Thorsen, the beautiful Maria Conchita Alonso, Yaphet Kotto, Kurt Fuller, Richard Dawson, and Thomas Rosales Jr. who seems to always like death in his movies because he has been killed in such films as Universal Solder, The Lost World, Robo Cop 2, Predator 2, and among others. All Arnold fans should love this film from the beginning to the end because its action packed, star filled, and its one its one of Arnold`s best to date! | 0 |
Unbelievable. Great cast, fair acting, interesting plot.<br /><br />But this movie has such graphic cruelties that are not tense or giving thrills, just pure disturbing unruhe.<br /><br />*SPOILER*<br /><br />Everyone could see coming the freak returns to his habits. And that Robert Englund was acting (was he?) like an idiot; forbidding your daughter to sleep with a football player, but him trying to kill an idiot and liking kiddypr0n is alright?! <br /><br />The policeman who's daughter was kidnapped - anyone felt he was a cop and not an actor? Not me. This movie drags on and on with an ending that we see in other horror movies: if the returns were alright a part 2 could be made. Bad, really bad stuff. Might give creeps some inspiration... | 1 |
I had the TV on for a white noise companion and heard' $400 for a fully furnished apartment' So I ran into the TV room expecting another 70's flick and got much more. Luckily, I could rewind to the beginning (DVR buffer) and hit the record button to watch it entirely.(Cinemax uncut and in HD no less!) Aside from some holes in the story and intermittent improbable dialog/events, this is an effective thriller worthy of your time to watch. Pretty creepy and progressive at times: Beverly D'Angelo's character masturbates in front of Alison Parker, played adroitly by Cristina Raines, Parker stabs, in very gory fashion, her father, an explicit menage a trios scene.( don't let the kids watch) The film is TOTALLY 70's full of bad clothes(polyester suits and tacky ascots) and decor, bad hair,over bloated music score, and familiar looking cinematography. The cast is excellent, take a second on this film's home page to check it out.It was a surprise to see Christopher Walken, Jerry Orbach and Jeff Goldblum so young. Sylvia Miles- always wonderfully creepy! ENJOY! | 0 |
I was looking forward to seeing John Carpenter's episode in Season 2 because his first, Cigarette Burns, was by far the best from Season 1 (and I did like other episodes from that season). Oh, how I was disappointed.<br /><br />In fairness to Carpenter I think the primary problem with this episode was absolutely horrible writing. The characters, aside from the subject matter, seemed to behave and speak as though they were written for an episode of Walker, Texas Ranger. The acting was bad, and I normally like Ron Perlman a lot, but I can only blame them so much because the writing was so horrible. I'm not going to try to guess what the writers were trying to do because that would be useless but it appeared as though they were trying to mix horror (obviously) with some form of social commentary on abortion and religion. In this case, not surprisingly, it seemed a chance to bash a certain variety or religious nuts as well as fanatical anti-abortionists. And I am in favor of both aims but it was done so horribly that I was embarrassed to watch characters act and speak with such stupid inconsistency. This failed totally to offer any worthwhile opinion on the subjects and the horror element failed as well alongside such inept writing.<br /><br />While I don't think Carpenter can be blamed for most of the badness here I will say he did choose to direct the teleplay and therefore has that to be held responsible for. There are a couple small bits that I found nice, hence the 2 stars I gave it.<br /><br />The actual gore and monster effects were good, but the CGI gore (two separate gunshots to the head) were so obviously inferior quality CGI they should've never been given the OK. I'm generally very critical of CGI but not because I have a problem with it in principle. I have a problem with the execution of it. The technology, while amazing in some respects, is not good enough to match 'real' effects, whether they be miniatures or gore especially when it is supposed to match something organic and/or alive, and therefore shouldn't be used until they are. CGI can be used well in small amounts or obviously if the whole film is animated.<br /><br />I'll also take this opportunity to note that the show title, Masters of Horror, is a bad title to have. There simply aren't many actual 'masters of horror' around. Maybe two or three. If the show were called 'Tale of Horror' or something like that it would be fine. But as it stands the criteria for directing one of these episodes, and therefore being criticized for not being a 'master of horror' is that they have directly at least one horror film in their career. And it didn't even have to be a good one. | 1 |
Maybe our standards for Vientam movies have increased since Born on the Fourth Of July, Full Metal Jacket, and Platoon. This movie has a predictable plot, bad writing, bad acting, bad directing, bad special effects, etc. Compared with other Vietnam movies this one is completely unbelievable. | 1 |
Minor Spoilers<br /><br />Alison Parker (Cristina Raines) is a successful top model, living with the lawyer Michael Lerman (Chris Sarandon) in his apartment. She tried to commit suicide twice in the past: the first time, when she was a teenager and saw her father cheating her mother with two women in her home, and then when Michael's wife died. Since then, she left Christ and the Catholic Church behind. Alison wants to live alone in her own apartment and with the help of the real state agent Miss Logan (Ava Gardner), she finds a wonderful furnished old apartment in Brooklyn Heights for a reasonable rental. She sees a weird man in the window in the last floor of the building, and Miss Logan informs that he is Father Francis Matthew Halloran (John Carradine), a blinded priest who lives alone supported by the Catholic Church. Alison moves to her new place, and once there, she receives a visitor: her neighbor Charles Chazen (Burgess Meredith) welcomes her and introduces the new neighbors to her. Then, he invites Alison to his cat Jezebel's birthday party in the night. On the next day, weird things happen with Alison in her apartment and with her health. Alison looks for Miss Logan and is informed that she lives alone with the priest in the building. A further investigation shows that all the persons she knew in the party were dead criminals. Frightened with the situation, Alison embraces Christ again, while Michael investigates the creepy events. Alison realizes that she is living in the gateway to hell. <br /><br />Although underrated in IMDb User Rating, 'The Sentinel' is one of the best horror movies ever. I have seen this film at least six times, being the first time in the 70's, in the movie theater. In 07 September 2002, I bought the imported DVD and saw it again. Yesterday I saw this movie once more. Even after so many years, this film is still terrific. The creepy and lurid story frightens even in the present days. The cast is a constellation of stars and starlets. You can see many actors and actresses, who became famous, in the beginning of career. Fans of horror movie certainly worships 'The Sentinel', and I am one of them. My vote is nine.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): 'A Sentinela dos Malditos' ('The Sentinel of the Damned')<br /><br />Obs.: On 02 September 2007, I saw this movie again. | 0 |
Basically an endearingly chintzy and moronic $1.50 version of the nifty early 80's subterranean creature feature favorite 'The Boogens,' this entertainingly schlocky cheapie centers on a nasty, squirmy, wriggling monster who makes an instant meal out of any unfortunate souls foolhardy enough to go poking around the notoriously off limits Gold Spike Mine. Your standard-issue motley assortment of intrepid boneheads -- hectoring hard-nosed mine boss, cute, but insipid blonde babe, feisty lady geologist, boozy, inexplicably Aussie-accented (!) seasoned old mine hand, charmless doofus, hunky, jolly guy, and, arguably the most annoying character of the uniformly irritating bunch, a nerdy bespectacled aspiring writer dweeb who's prone to speaking in flowery, melodramatic utterances -- trek into the dark, uninviting cave in search of gold. Naturally, these intensely insufferable imbeciles discover that the allegedly abandoned mine is the home of a deadly, ugly, multi-tentacled beast who in time honored hoary B-flick fashion proceeds to gruesomely bag the group one at a time. Directed, co-written, co-produced and co-edited with dumbfounding maladroitness by Melanie Anne Phillips, acted with dismaying flatness by a rank no-name cast, further marred by lethargic pacing, a drably meandering narrative, murky, under-lit, eye-straining cinematography, a shivery, redundantly thudding pseudo-John Carpenter synthesizer score, and a cruddy, herky-jerky stop motion animation wormoid thingie that's only quickly glimpsed at the very end of the movie, this extremely clunky, amateurish and hence quite delectably dreadful would-be scarefest commits all the necessary bad film missteps to qualify as a real four-star stinkeroonie. | 0 |
I agree with the guy above, It is so funny I understand it all, but my friends just don't get it. Go to Japan and you will see a different movie after being there. When I met my girlfriends dad, at his home in Kanagawa. I swear I felt the same as Jack,. scared, but by the end of the day it was all good, so I give this movie a 10 out 10.<br /><br />I have watched it at least 30 times, taking it with me to watch on the plane flying to Japan next month. One thing that is real good is the ball game scenes. Makes me feel like I am there again. This is a must see if you have any interest in Japan and Baseball. Too bad they don't make a sequel. Does anyone know where the temple scenes were filmed and the argument with hirko in the walkway with a roof on it???? need to know so I can win an argumrnt with me Japanese ex-wife. thanks | 0 |
I'm very interested in the overwhelmingly positive reviews here. While it had some good features, for the most part I found this movie to be heavy handed, predictable, and, worst of all, not in the least bit scary. The first 30 minutes of the movie were promising, the actress did a nice job in her portrayal, and the world around her was well thought out and meaningful. Unfortunately, from there, the movie entered into a downward spiral. I went into this movie with no clue as to what it would be about-- didn't know anything about the actors, directors, genre, etc. At a certain point, my wife made the comment 'is this supposed to be a scary movie?'. Well I suppose so, as the boiler-plate 'horror movie' score full of squeaking violins and extended vibrato could mean nothing else. There didn't seem to be a whole lot of originality in the movie, the romantic interest was painfully obvious from the first moment, and the second half of the movie descended deep into the realm of the ridiculous. A movie like this walks a dangerously narrow path, and unfortunately there comes a point where the viewer must decide whether to continue walking along that path, or to jump off and simply laugh at the ridiculousness of it all. For the final 30 minutes, I chose the latter. | 1 |
Animation always seems to be fringe. In Japan, this might not be the case, but in Europe and much more so in the USA animation has a big fat 'KIDS' tag on it. France is probably one of the more comic-liberal countries, home of classics as Tin-Tin, Asterix, Lucky Luke, Valereon and so on(if you've never read these, it's not too late. There's no upper-age limit on them and they don't carry the nerd-stigma of DC or Marvel) It seems natural a movie like this one pops up in France. It suits my prejudiced image of the French as art-loving, anti-USA-oriented and talented movie-makers. Luckily there's also 'A scanner darkly' out there to suppress that view - seems art is pretty much international.<br /><br />Anyway, as you might have gathered Renaissance is artsy and French. If you're a normal person you will get scared by this. There's no need for that however! Beneath it's cool, sleek cel-shaded appearance there's a good thriller and a good movie overall.<br /><br />That was one of my fears for this movie. It's so easy turning the spectacular animation to a gimmick, much like Sony & C:o are doing with their Pixar rip-offs. I was expecting a confusing, sometimes boring and not very engaging movie, but luckily I was wrong.<br /><br />I would have enjoyed it anyway for the neo-noir stuff, but it was good that it was worthwhile on that level as well. NOTE: I've seen the French dub which was OK as far as I could see. English might be more interesting what with Craig and everything.<br /><br />A final word of praise to the animation. It was awesome. Futuristic, well-crafted, nice camera-work, smart solutions(Eyes for example looked very good, which is hard to do) and so visually stunning I felt like bursting out 'This is so damn impressive!'. Then again, I really like animation and I appreciate the effort the studio put down, so my verdict is a bit biased.<br /><br />Good movie anyway, definitely lives beyond it's 'gimmick'. | 0 |
You expect it to be juvenile but you at least expect a complete and coherent movie. What a waste. I am extremely disappointed, not at just having watched a bad movie, but at having such a great concept be tainted by a common movie that we've all seen before. If this crud makes $1 over its budget, The studio would be wise to declare victory, round up all available copies, store them deep within the nuclear waste repository under Yucca Mountain, and then never make another movie like it again. Most of this movie will keep you thinking, 'This is not what I wanted to see.' This film appeals to the unintelligent and maybe to teenagers. It's a true shame because most movies are made for that demographic. I had much higher hopes for this film. | 1 |
Some might say something like 'Baby Geniuses' with its giant robot infants or 'Dumbo' with its psychedelic drug-addled nightmare sequence would win the award for the most disturbing movie ever made for children. You might say that too, but you'd be wrong. Lo and behold, for I bring to you: Santa Claus, the most helplessly messed up family film since ... well, ever. <br /><br />From the opening scenes showing children from different parts of the world singing their insipid theme songs (seriously, this segment is nearly 20 freakin' minutes long and has nothing to do with the plot!) to the thrilling conclusion in which Merlin pops up from outta nowhere and saves the day (don't mind him, he's from Barcelona), this is childhood trauma at its finest. And no matter how hard I try, no matter how many different therapists I visit, I just... can't... get... those... reindeer's...laughter...out... of... my ... head! <br /><br />Avoid this mind-bending piece of trash like you'd avoid a sex-starved whale during mating season. Still, if flaming gay demons with a serious case of the overacting flu are something for you, I guess you should give it a try. But really, this movie isn't worth your time and mental health. | 1 |
It is so refreshing to see a movie like this with actual mood and personality instead of just a bunch of CGI cartoon gimmicks. This is a great horror-spoof that has genuine chills along side some really great sets and performances. Its laughs are subtle, but plentiful. Because there is very little if any CGI, there is no need to violently shake the camera around to hide the crappy effects. This makes the movie immensely watchable compared to the other camera-man-must-be-sh%#@ing-his-pants films of this genre that have come out in the last decade or so.<br /><br />Far more enjoyable than the big-budget re-made garbage being released by Hollywood today.<br /><br />See it. | 0 |
One of the worst Arnold movies I've seen. Special effects were terrible. Script was horrible. Hopefully his next movie will be much better like T2, Total Recall, True Lies and Eraser(not as good as the rest). Watch Stigmata if you want to see an apocalyptic future movie. It's much better. | 1 |
Admittedly, I tuned into this in the hopes of seeing some beefcake shots of James Brolin. Unfortunately, there was only one, early on, and the rest of the movie was very tame, and ultimately made little sense.<br /><br />The story, what there is of it, centers on Nick and Julie Atkins, a couple whose marriage of many years is beginning to grow stale. Nick, a successful businessman is focused on work to the point of neglecting Julie, who tries to fill the void by going back to school. Julie's longing for the passion that she and Nick had early in their marriage begins to take shape in the form of powerful sexual fantasies which block out reality for minutes at a time, causing her to do things like burning breakfast and misplace her husband's papers. At first she fantasizes about her husband, but as the movie progresses, she begins to fantasize about other men, and about encounters with random strangers whom she meets. This culminates in her acting out her fantasies with disastrous consequences for her marriage. Can she and her husband rebuild their relationship? Is it worth saving? <br /><br />This could have been an interesting premise, but the execution is so bland that you wonder why they even bothered. Characters aren't developed. Motives aren't explained. Background information isn't given. No exploration is made of how Julie got to the point where she couldn't control herself, and no explanation is offered as to how she will do so in the future. The end product is a muddled mess which is just as confusing as Julie's fantasies, which are surprisingly underdeveloped.<br /><br />The acting is a mixed bag. Donna Mills as Julie does well with the material she is given, although her continual self pity does become strident after awhile. James Brolin acts as though he is reading his lines from cue cards, and even his anger over his wife's infidelity is hard to buy into, he shows so little passion over the whole issue. The supporting roles are mostly forgettable.<br /><br />Disappointing treatment of what could have been an interesting story. More's the pity, since it doesn't even offer the eye candy it promised. | 1 |
This film is the most cult movie on metal there is. Premise: A kid gets a hold of the final recording of his favorite artist Sammy Curr who recently dies in a hotel fire. He plays it backwards and summons him back from the dead to get revenge in the name of heavy metal on those b**tardly jocks who torment him. Any fan of true metal will enjoy this movie, and if you are a metal head being tormented by jocks, play a Sammy Curr album backwards.........no wait he is fictitious, well get a hold of this movie and watch it with your fist in the air, your head banging, and the volume at 11! | 0 |
if.... is the cinematic equivalent of Sgt. Pepper's: Revered by baby boomers as the pinnacle of creation, and viewed as rather a silly bit of business by preceding and subsequent generations. Now that the children of the middle classes the world over are seemingly super human due to the internet, and view the prospect of boarding school as a wonderful opportunity thanks to the Harry Potter books/films, the relevance of if.... couldn't be further from modern concern. In fact, many scenes appear so alien and exaggerated as to hint at an inspiration for Pink Floyd's The Wall.<br /><br />One should never hold personal bias against a film while reviewing, and the cemented date of this film aside, there are a few flaws which others have overlooked. Lindsay Anderson was known to be a fan of Luis Buñuel, on top of generally being too smart for his own good. And despite a straightforward narrative through the first and second acts, the latter portion of the piece it taken hostage by cod Buñuel surrealism and strained attempts at symbolism. Anderson wasn't capable of this feat due to his over-intelligent cynicism, failing to see that Buñuel was jovial in his work. I have not found a critic whom champions the 'Chaplain in a drawer', and am almost certain it still gets sideways looks from those who adore this film. The ending is not so much a concise punch to the established class/values system, as a wet slap on a moving target.<br /><br />The British public school system was firmly for the middle classes (the upper crust being educated at home by private tutors). And the modus operandi of if.... was to check the boxes of public school life which Lindsay believed had been unexplored in film, thereby savaging middle class pretense. Homosexuality, generational cutlery, cold showers et al. In reality, such issues HAD been covered in many other great British films, if.... merely brought them to the fore. The Browning Version was a more oblique damning of such pomp, to name but one.<br /><br />if.... is oddly quaint, and simply can not be viewed with modern (especially American) eyes. Kudos to Anderson for avoiding Mick and Kieth in favour of African chant, and a few brownie points for the latent homoerotic overtones. Points deducted for pretension, establishing characters who disappear, and inciting a glib revolution which came to naught. | 1 |
Main theme in this Dirty Harry is that revenge is a dish best served cold. Sandra Locke is as cold in this film as she is beautiful. Locke is an '8' normally, but, with a deadly pistol in her purse, 'cocked' for the bad guys, she climbs all the way up the scale to a '10'. Having been gang-raped, along with her younger sister, some years ago, Locke, as Jennifer Spencer, has tried to block out the attack from her life, as best she can. Her sister, tho, is almost comatose as a result of the trauma, so the memory is never far from her mind. One day, Jennifer sees one of her attackers on the street in S.F.; she buys a pistol, follows him to a bar, lets him pick her up, then when they're alone in his Cadillac, beginning to make love, she shoots him....once in the genitals, once in the brain - - this in the opening scene!! Ya gotta love this spunky lady. She's got her priorities straight. Plus, Jennifer is a professional artist, putting all her anger on canvas UNTIL NOW. After executing her first perp, Jennifer curiously watches Det. Insp. Harry Callahan process the fresh crime scene after the body is found in the Caddy. Then, she insults some creepy teenage bucks who are hassling women on the street, visits her sister in a nursing home, then goes a'hunting in San Paolo, CA 'up the coast' where the rape event took place years ago. With more bullets in her suitcase and more resolve in her mind, our heroine relives the rape inside her head with vivid recall, as she comes closer to executing each subsequent rapist. Not uncommon to us right- wingers, when it comes to sentencing or executing a violent criminal, don't be sorrowful for his own wretched humanity, we REMEMBER the CRIME and the SUFFERING he inflicted. Such recalled events steels Jennifer to pull the trigger on each of her attackers - once in the genitals, once in the brain. Throughout the movie, scenes of Jennifer's revenge are interspersed with good, IL' Dirty Harry blowing away some gangstas in a coffee shop, remember 'Go ahead. MAKE my day.'? Later on, he threatens to step on a punk kid (who'd just insulted Callahan) in a courthouse elevator like he'd step on dog- s**t....leaving a young female govt employee staring after Clint as if to say 'I want to have your baby.' My favorite scene is only about 30 minutes into the action, when Harry threatens and frightens a murderous Mafia boss named Threlkis into a fatal coronary during his granddaughter's wedding reception at the Mark Hopkins hotel. Michael Grazzo (Pantangeli in Godfather II) does a wonderful job as the sinful Mafia Don, even if he's only in one scene, dying in a most-convincing manner. However, Harry's troubles aren't over with yet! The elevator punk's gang AND Threlkis' henchmen each attempt to assassinate Harry in two close-ordered scenes, and most of them bad guys end up dying horribly. Yup, some of the gun-play comes off as uninspired screen violence....looking like Clint the Director may have been tired that day of shooting this movie. But, there's only so many ways you can dispatch a man with bullets. The punk kids die much more creatively, though, as they both burn to death and drown in S.F. Bay. Warms my heart. With so much violent intent directed at Insp. Callahan, his bosses send him to San Paolo to try to get some background on the '22 caliber vasectomy killing' as Jennifer Spencer's crime is now known, but not before Harry delivers one of his famous sermons-to-the- chowder-headed-liberals. Love that Harry. While our hero' up annoying the local cops and citizens in San Paolo, two more murders happen, same M.O., on a sleazy, lazy fisherman and on an equally-creepy hardware entrepreneur. Then Harry meets Jennifer! They find they both agree on subjects such as Law and Order, Making the Guilty Pay, etc. Could a hot, love scene be in the offing soon? We're led to believe just that. Characters abound in this Real-Man meets Real-Woman crime drama, and we get to meet a brassy bull-dyke named Raye Parkins who's both irritating and entertaining. Raye set up Jennifer's rape for her 'boyfriend' years before, and she'll get hers eventually. The San Paolo Police Chief, played by reliable Eastwood co-star Pat Hingle (the Hanging Judge in 'Hang Em High'), is strangely at odds with Callahan's detective work related to the 22-cal vasectomies, until we find out that his own adolescent son was one of the gang of rapists. Much like Jennifer's sister, Chief Janning's son is now a comatose adult, but driven mad by guilt. It can't end here, though. The dyke's rapist boyfriend, Mick, now a kinky-sex jerk of a criminal, drives in from Vegas becuz Raye's dropped a dime on Jennifer, summoning him up to San Paolo to prevent more executions. Mick sleeps at Raye's house, but his timing is all wrong, and he's arrested before he can spend more time with Raye, mostly due to the fact that she's since been sent to the Island of the Eternal Lesboes by a shot from Jennifer's revolver. Psycho Mick makes bail at long last, with Jennifer gunning for him. A desperate chase ensues, as Harry tries to keep these two from killing each other. It all turns out well in the end, with the good gal and the good guy walking off into the sunset together to a beautiful Roberta Flack blues song. | 0 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.