review
stringlengths 41
13.7k
| label
int64 0
1
|
|---|---|
I suppose if you like endless dialogue that doesn't forward the story and flashy camera effects like the scene transitions in the television show _Angel_, you'll enjoy the film. Me? All I wanted was a nice, tight little story, and it wasn't there. The pacing was practically backward, plot points were buried under a sea of unneeded dialogue, and there was absolutely no sense of dread, or tension, or ANYTHING.<br /><br />Is it the redneck? Is it the Wendigo? No, it's a cameraman on speed. That's not scary. It doesn't generate a single note of tension or atmosphere unless you're scared by MTV. Like those reviewers before me, I too noticed that by the end the movie invokes derisive laughter from the audience.<br /><br />Terrible film. | 1 |
I don't know what has happened to director Abel Ferrara. Ever since the 'Body Snatchers' remake he seems to have lost it. 'King of New York' and 'The Bad Lieutenant' remain two of the best films of the '90s: searing indictments of a decade gone wrong. With films like ''R Xmas' (whatever that means) and 'New Rose Hotel' he seems determined to disgust and bore his former supporters. This film has NO LIFE in it. While he gets excellent performances out of his actors in all of his projects the result of this mishmash of ideas just doesn't jell. Whatever the point is -- that the new breed of drug dealer is more or less the same as any other upper middle class New Yawkuh -- gets lost in the mind numbing script and boring direction. <br /><br />I saw this opening night at the 4-Plex in downtown L.A. In the lobby, while buying tickets, I was surprised and delighted to see it filled with a large, racially mixed group of men and women in their twenties and thirties. Then they started into the theater but it was the theater that was featuring '8 Mile' not ''R Xmas'! The theater showing ''R Xmas' (keep in mind, this was opening night!) had a total of 4 people watching it, myself, my wife and two others! <br /><br />Way to go, Abel!<br /><br />2/10 | 1 |
Stan Laurel regarded PUTTING PANTS ON PHILIP as the first true' L&H film. THE SECOND HUNDRED YEARS was the first 'official' L&H film, but this was the one where Stan completely resigned himself not only to performing (he had signed on with the Hal Roach Studios as a director and 'gag-man', before certain situations - among them Oliver Hardy's accident with a leg of lamb leading to Stan having to replace him; and the extra money that performing would provide for himself and his new wife, Lois - brought about his historic return to performing, as well as writing, directing, editing and involvement in other areas of production), but also realised the fact that he was part of a team that worked well together. This, therefore, is an historic and very important film in the history of comedy.<br /><br />It is also a surprisingly funny little silent film; rather different from what Laurel & Hardy would become known for and from what they are more immediately associated with today. The characters of 'Stan & Ollie do not appear - Scottish Stan Laurel plays the nephew of Oliver Hardy, a respectable man about town who is reluctant to be seen with this strange-looking fellow with a kilt and the habit of chasing pretty girls. There are some very funny moments in this well-made, charming little movie, and the performances of these two Kings of Comedy are spot-on - watch Stan's little 'scissor-kick' and smile that says, 'Well waddaya know?' when he sees girls, or the hair-ruffling scene at the airport, for instance. Hilarious.<br /><br />Watch this film if you can, with backing music from The Beau Hunks Orchestra (available on the VVL video releases) which enhances the 1920s feel and is very, very pleasant to listen to. It's a brilliant and underrated little film, which is why I said it was 'surprisingly' funny. | 0 |
One of the most unfairly maligned programmes of all time, 'Terry & June' was also one of the most popular sitcoms of the '70's and '80's.<br /><br />It started life as 'Happy Ever After', but when Eric Merriman decided he didn't want to write any more, it changed into this, hence the dropping of 'Aunt Lucy' and the Fletcher's becoming the Medford's. <br /><br />Yes, it was cosy, domestic, middle-class stuff; the plots ran the gamut of clichés from the boss coming to dinner, the vicar organising a jumble sale, and unwanted relatives coming to stay for the weekend. It was certainly not 'dreadful lazy comedy'. As for it being 'not clever', it was not meant to be. It was funny and well performed, and that was enough! <br /><br />I too loved the 'alternative' boom of the '80's ( 'Spitting Image', 'Black Adder', 'The Young Ones' etc. ) but also enjoyed conventional stuff such as this. If nothing else, it provided alternative comedy with something to be an alternative to. I found it sad though when the likes of Ben Elton took against both this and Benny Hill. Well, family oriented comedy has all but vanished from our screens, but where has it left us? Take a look at the latest T.V. schedules. All soaps and reality dross. The few comedies left are aimed at teenagers, meaning they are jam packed with swearing, bodily function jokes, and explicit sexual references. And they are not remotely funny either.<br /><br />The 'alternative comedy' boom was good in many ways, but had a dark side. It made conventional sitcoms appear old fashioned, drove away talented writers and performers such as Spike Milligan, and ultimately led to such unspeakable drivel as 'Little Britain' and 'Tittybangbang' ( heaven help us ). If it ain't broke, don't fix it! | 0 |
If you liked the Grinch movie... go watch that again, because this was no where near as good a Seussian movie translation. Mike Myers' Cat is probably the most annoying character to 'grace' the screen in recent times. His voice/accent is terrible and he laughs at his own jokes with an awful weasing sound, which is about the only laughing I heard at the theater. Not even the kids liked this one folks, and kids laugh at anything now. Save your money and go see Looney Tunes: Back in Action if you're really looking for a fun holiday family movie. | 1 |
This movie is so, so, so horrible, that it makes angels lose their wings. Shaq had tried to make other crossover efforts, like his work in Shaq-Fu for the NES and his plethora of unbearable rap albums, and later, the epic serving of horrible film-making that is Steel.<br /><br />There's not a single good thing to be said about this movie. I saw it a bunch of times when I was very young, but I must've been an idiot then, because this movie takes all that is enjoyable about films and tears it apart. It's fun to mock. I saw it on the Disney Channel a while back and spent a few minutes doing that. Although, once the thrill of mocking it is done, you still become overwhelmed by its terribleness.<br /><br />If you see it on TV, try this: consider, as your watching the film, removing from it all the scenes in which Shaq uses his magical genie powers. If you do that, it becomes like a film about a pedophile chasing a kid and rapping to seduce him. That's kinda funny, and disturbing.<br /><br />A horrible example of film. Do not, unless looking to mock it, see this movie. | 1 |
I rented this movie, after hearing Chris Gore saying something to the effect of 'five stars!' on that Attack of the Show show. Well when I turned around the DVD and it showed the 3 stages of hell, well I had to buy it. Just to see the spectacle of a mother yelling at her son to drop her other son into a flaming pit.<br /><br />I wasn't expecting ECW or CZW for an hour and eighteen minutes, but I was expecting at least a summarized version of what seemed to be the main highlight of this movie. Well sadly there wasn't anything like that. The 3 stages of death part happens right from the beginning, and its pretty much downhill from there. Nothing really happens in this documentary. It was pretty raw, bare and unbiased. Not a bad thing, but there is a narrator in this one. You'd expect him to have opinions on the subject of this documentary, but he doesn't. Which would of been nice to have, a message or reason for this doc.There was no real reason to have a narrator, there should of been just text explaining some of the less obvious scenes.<br /><br />It doesn't really explain the lives of these wrestlers either. It shows a few moments of some dramatic scenes, which sound interesting, but the reality isn't as great as it sounds. For instance mom watching her son wrestle with light bulbs and tacks, for the first time, at a public park. instead of seeing her reaction to the wrestling, They show her reacting to the camera, instead of say a interview later on, or just actually witnessing her reactions.<br /><br />Legitamit document wise, this one ain't. The source material was flimsy to begin with. Nothing truly profound or interesting really happens. No conclusion to a few of the more interesting stories, No real point or final thought to backyard wrestling, edited together badly, and its and its basically a cheap, failed rip off of Beyond the Mat.<br /><br />Wrestling wise, this is pretty boring. the better bumps are at the beginning, and slowly become less amazing and shocking. If you have seen Japanese wrestling, Indie wrestling, or even Backyard Wrestling Dvds, than this wont shock and awe you. If you want wrestling don't make the same mistake I did and see this one. Go get some CZW ECW or XPW Dvds instead.<br /><br />The only thing I got out of this documentary was how stupid people can be. Not for supporting self mutilation or doing dangerous stunts, but their reasoning for committing these acts. The backyarders seem stupid for wrestling. Most of them are jobless, and probably have a few issues in their head, and wrestling is a type of therapy for them. Than the supporters seem even more idiotic. Mothers basically take the whole 'if ya cant beat em join em' reasoning to cope with the fact that their sons are basically killing themselves. School authority figures support their students in their dangerous stunts because its an alternative to joining gangs and to a lesser extend doing drugs, which is kinda funny since that segment took place in a rural town, where like people live 20 miles from one another. People are stupid. Thats what I extracted from this documentary.<br /><br />If you want to see the reasoning and thoughts to someone brutalizing themselves in wrestling and basically what the back of this DVD promises, get UNSCARRED: the Life of Nick Mondo. Its more amazing, and interesting than the Backyard, and a lot more entertaining. Oh and its actually good. | 1 |
I find it hard to believe that anyone would put this movie in the same context as the Exorcist. Where the Exorcist was subtle and creepy, Stigmata was blunt, clumsy, and way too formulaic.<br /><br />This is one of the most visually beautiful films I've seen in a while, but the imagery does not make up for the downward spiral of patronizing exposition that makes it unbearable. <br /><br />My interest in this movie was peaked when it was compared to The Exorcist, and my visit to the official web site increased that interest. The web site had many tales of 'actual' stigmata throughout history. However, scene by scene, the movie is so obsessed by its quest for 'genuineness' that it becomes comical at first, then outright hard to watch toward the end. I began getting suspicious when the priest charged with investigating potential miracles walks into the beauty parlor where our would-be heroine cuts hair and, evidently, flirts with priests.<br /><br />The plot: A woman without faith in God begins receiving the wounds of Christ (the Stigmata) and is baffled and upset about the ordeal. A priest is sent straight from the Vatican to investigate the case. Is Frankie possessed by Satan, or a vessel for Jesus Christ?<br /><br />The only miracle in this film is that it finally ends. | 1 |
When we talk Hollywood Hotel we could be talking about one of three things, the actual hotel, the radio program, and this film which was partially inspired by the first two. Dick Powell was the host of the Hollywood Hotel program on CBS radio network in which Louella Parsons dished out the weekly scoop on the stars.<br /><br />Powell and Parsons debuted the Hollywood Hotel program in 1934 so by 1937 it had its fair share of the radio audience. Powell hosted, sang, and kibitzed with Louella and her movie star guests. With the power she had with her column, she was able to get the various stars to go on and plug their latest films for nothing.<br /><br />Then the American Federation of Radio Artists stepped in and demanded she pay wages accordingly and they won the case. That ended the Hollywood Hotel program in 1938. Of course both Powell and Louella went on to other radio venues. The whole story is covered in the Tony Thomas book, The Films Of Dick Powell.<br /><br />But before the plug was pulled this film came out from Powell's home studio of Warner Brothers inspired by the radio program. Powell plays a singer/saxophonist with the Benny Goodman band who gets signed to a Hollywood contract. But when he gets out to Hollywood he gets himself tangled up with an egotistical film star Lola Lane, her lookalike double real life sister Rosemary Lane, and a ham actor in Alan Mowbray.<br /><br />When Mowbray is called upon to sing in a Civil War epic he's making with Lola Lane, it's Powell's voice they use. Then Mowbray develops a Lina Lamont problem when he's asked to go on the Hollywood Hotel radio program, broadcast from the Hollywood Hotel. That's got the studio in a tizzy. Let's say the problem isn't solved the way it is Singing In The Rain, but Powell's manager Ted Healy proves to be resourceful.<br /><br />Richard Whiting and Johnny Mercer provide a really nice score for the film. The big hit song comes right at the beginning as the Benny Goodman band with scat singing Johnnie Davis sing Hollywood's anthem, Hooray for Hollywood. My favorite however is Powell and Rosemary Lane singing, I'm Like A Fish Out Of Water. Just listening to Johnny Mercer's lyrics about Ginger Rogers running the Brooklyn Dodgers or Sally Rand without her fan, it's a compendium of American popular culture in the Thirties.<br /><br />Busby Berkeley does the choreography here and while the film doesn't have the soaring imaginary stuff that his earlier work with Warner Brothers has, the numbers are well staged. Berkeley's big moment is in a drive-in eatery where Powell and Healy have been forced to take jobs. The number starts with Benny Goodman broadcasting from the Hollywood Hotel doing Let That Be A Lesson To You and then at the drive-in Powell, Lane and the entire place start joining in song to the exasperation of owner Edgar Kennedy. And you know what you can expect from Edgar Kennedy exasperation.<br /><br />Benny Goodman gets to show why he was named the King Of Swing when the band with drummer Gene Krupa and xylophonist Lionel Hampton as part of his ensemble. That together with Frances Langford singing as well. And possibly the last surviving cast member of the group was a fellow who had a small bit as a radio announcer. He died in 2004, but not before he became the 40th President of the United States. Ronald Reagan always credited Dick Powell and Pat O'Brien as being the two guys on Warner Brothers who were the most helpful to an eager young player looking to make his mark.<br /><br />Hollywood Hotel is one delightful and entertaining motion picture, dated, but charmingly so. | 0 |
My original review of this film was simply the word sh*t written 2000 times over. Although this was a very accurate critique, I felt my review should be a little more descriptive.<br /><br />I will start with the lead actress; her facial expression doesn't change once in this film, she doesn't show fear, happiness or depression. Her skills in body language pretty much come down to darting her eyes left and right and looking like she don't know jack. She is an emotionless husk who I'm guessing has had too much botox. Her lack of facial expression through out the film is outmatched however by the deplorable love affair with the lead actor which seems to spring out of nowhere and has them making out on a beach and falling in love within a couple of hours of meeting one another. The lead actor, whose hair demands more attention than he did, was mediocre at best and did not once make me feel like he was genuinely in peril.<br /><br />The only thing that tops the hideous acting is the directing, storyline and inaccuracies in plot. I have seen tampon ads with more structure than this movie. The is no development in character, they just seem to say and do things that I could never believe a real person would.<br /><br />This film would not have been bad if it was trying to be crap on purpose like snakes on a plane but it was trying so hard to be a serious action flick that I couldn't even laugh. I believe I now have a brain tumour from watching this film and thinking up all the different ways I could have used that budget and cg team to create something far superior. If I bought this on DVD I would smash the DVD to pieces, burn it then dissolve it in hydrochloric acid for good measure. DON'T WATCH THIS FILM! | 1 |
Sex, drugs, racism and of course you ABC's. What more could you want in a kid's show!<br /><br />------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------<br /><br />'User Comment Guidelines <br /><br />Please note there is a 1,000 word limit on comments. The recommended length is 200 to 500 words. The minimum length for comments is 10 lines of text. Comments which are too short or have been padded with junk text will be discarded. You may only post a single comment per title. <br /><br />What to include: Your comments should focus on the title's content and context. The best reviews include not only whether you liked or disliked a movie or TV-series, but also why. Feel free to mention other titles you consider similar and how this one rates in comparison to them. Comments that are not specific to the title will not be posted on our site. Please write in English only and note that we do not support HTML mark-up within the comments' | 0 |
You want to know what the writers of this movie consider funny? A robot child sees his robot parents killed (beheaded, as I recall), and then moves between their bodies calling their names. Yeah--what a comic moment. This is the worst movie I ever paid to see. | 1 |
Ok, so it's an adult movie. But it really is very tastefully done. It's obvious that the producers spent a lot of time and money into making a classy sort of movie. I was pleasantly surprised at just how good it was. Even the acting was fairly decent. The plot was more solid than most adult films I've seen. The camera work was above average. It's just a good flick!! | 0 |
No other movie has made me feel like this before... and I don't feel bad. Like, I don't want my money back or the time that I waited to watch this movie (9 months) nor do I feel bad about using two hours of a sunny summer day in order to view this ______. The reason I say '_____' is because no matter how hard I wrack my brain I just can't seem to come up with a word in ANY of the seven languages that movie was in to sum it up. I have no idea what was going on the entire time and half way through the movie I needed a breather. No movie has ever done this to me before. Never in my life have I wanted cauliflower, milk, and baguettes this much. Thank you. - Ed<br /><br />Uh. *clears throat* No words. No thoughts. I don't know. I truly don't know. - Cait | 0 |
This movie is one of the masterpieces from Mr. Antonioni. It is about youth, distraction, happiness, alienation, materialism, honor, corruption. And it is like everything else from great Italian director -true art.<br /><br /> | 0 |
This movie is well done on so many levels that I am in awe that the score is as low as it is (5.9/10(576 votes) as of this writing). This movie has incredible special effects, a true epic storyline, complex great character interaction, and mind-blowing battles - they have to be seen to be believed! The only complaint I have is the subtitles on the HK DVD version I got (some lines were not translated - ???).<br /><br />I just don't understand when I read & hear from various sources: 'it has a confusing plot....', 'I couldn't follow the story....' or 'Characters came from nowhere...'. From the very 1st time I watched this movie, I understood it, followed it, knew why characters were there, and I absolutely loved it! I've watched it about 8 times already and each time it is pure enjoyment. Oh, and this is not just my opinion, because I've shown this movie to many fellow Americans (people who have never seen an HK film before) who feel the same way. Not one of them failed to follow the storyline and each person declared their love for this movie. Oh man, why can't we have stuff like this coming out of Hollywood? At least Lord of the Rings had a nice marriage of special effects, character development, and storyline.<br /><br />This is not coming from a Asian film lover newbie either. I own an extensive library of Asian films and I must say that this movie is one of my greatest DVDs. When you watch it you will be blown away by the amazing special effects and epic feel of this movie. You will be drawn into this fantasy world and you won't want to leave! I've seen both the 1983 version and the 2001 (both done by Tsui Hark), and the 2001 is far better in comparison IMO.<br /><br />Besides the subtitles, I have one additional complaint about this movie: I didn't want it to end.... I'm begging you Mr. Hark - can we please have a sequel? | 0 |
When i heard they were making this i was quited happy considering the first film was pretty good, if a little on the short side.<br /><br />But then i remembered some of the Disney sequel disasters i have previously watched (im looking at you Little mermaid 2).<br /><br />Anyway i watched it and unfortunately i was very disappointed. The best thing about it is the animation is superb. It really has that special polish that the 'proper' Disney films have.<br /><br />Apart from that.. the rest is disappointing. The storyline is seriously all over the place. One moment its about something, then completely changes to another storyline and then changes to another completely different storyline. It reminded me of how the Family Guy movie was like 3 separate episodes, turned into a film.<br /><br />I laughed perhaps once at the most. Kronk was very funny in the original film but in this he just isn't funny at all.<br /><br />Stay away from this film, unless someone lends it to you for free.<br /><br />4/10 | 1 |
Los Angeles TV news reporter Jennifer (the beautiful Barbara Bach of 'The Spy Who Loved Me' fame) and her two assistants Karen (the appealingly spunky Karen Lamm) and Vicki (the pretty Lois Young, who not only gets killed first, but also bares her yummy bod in a tasty gratuitous nude bath scene) go to Solvang, California to cover an annual Danish festival. Since all the local hotels are booked solid, the three lovely ladies are forced to seek room and board at a swanky, but foreboding remote mansion owned by freaky Ernest Keller (deliciously played to geeky perfection by the late, great Sydney Lassick) and his meek sister Virginia (a solid Lelia Goldoni). Unfortunately, Keller has one very nasty and lethal dark family secret residing in his dank basement: a portly, pathetic, diapered, incest-spawned man-child Mongoloid named Junior (an alternately touching and terrifying portrayal by Stephen Furst; Flounder in 'Animal House'), who naturally gets loose and wreaks some murderous havoc. Capably directed by Danny Steinmann, with uniformly fine acting from a sturdy cast, a compellingly perverse plot, excellent make-up by Craig Reardon, a nicely creepy atmosphere, a wonderfully wild climax, a slow, but steady pace, likable well-drawn characters, and a surprisingly heart-breaking final freeze frame (the incest subplot packs an unexpectedly strong and poignant punch), this unjustly overlooked early 80's psycho sleeper is well worth checking out. | 0 |
As other reviewers have noted, this is an unjustly neglected Depression-era film. Directed by Frank Borzage (two Oscars) and written by Jo Swerling (Leave Her to Heaven, The Westerner, Lifeboat, etc.), it is a tough-minded, well-structured and -realized move about denizens of a New York City shantytown. They're grifters, beggars, and women forced into prostitution, but they're a community of people both good and bad, with loyalties as complex as any group's.<br /><br />Perhaps primary among this movie's many admirable qualities is the contrast between Spencer Tracy's character, Bill, and Loretta Young's Trina. He tough-talking, physically aggressive, and evidently fearless-- but Bill is not the character who gives this film its steely sense of survival. While he blusters, Trina actually hangs tough (if that term can be applied to a character so ladylike). Her devotion to him is obvious, and complete. When she becomes pregnant, she says she will raise it herself if he wants to leave, or 'I'll even give up the kid if you'll only be happy.' Such is the dignity of Loretta Young's performance (at age 20) as a quite simple character, that she seems neither weak or dependent, but rather a woman who recognizes happiness when she finds it, and wants nothing more. | 0 |
I can't even believe that this show lasted as long as it did. I guess it's all part of the dumbing down of America. Personally, like David Spade said, I liked this show better when it went by its original title - 'Seinfeld'. What bothers me the most about this show, aside from the obvious, base sense of 'humor', and general smuttiness, is the pretentious way the episodes are titled. Truly great shows are still funny after many, repeated viewings, like, 'the one where Rob gets accidentally hypnotized', on the 'Dick Van Dyke Show', or 'the one where Lucy and Ethel work at the candy factory.' In other words, it's an honor bestowed upon great programs by the viewers. That the writers and producers of 'Friends' would have the unmitigated hubris to actually title the episodes, themselves, in such a fashion, before anyone's even had a chance to even see it a second time, speaks to not only the mediocrity and lack of original thinking on the part of said writers, but, also, of the stultified minds of their viewers.<br /><br />You read the comments of some of these people and can only come to the conclusion that they live in a Hallmark Card-like Neverland, full of greeting card sentiment. The true meaning of friendship? I want to be a friend? I want to live in Manhattan? Wake Up. These people are supposed to be working in coffee shops and looking for work as actors, but they somehow manage to live in $4000/mo. apartments? Get real. All I have to say to those amongst us that want to move to Manhattan and live the idyllic New York life with your Rosses and Monicas, good luck with all of that. That New York doesn't exist for anyone making less than a serious six-figure income. But, good luck with all of that, anyway. Now, shut-up and pass the Soma. | 1 |
I can't say this is one of the best films I have ever seen. But then again, I can't say it's one of the worst I have ever seen.<br /><br />OK, so it's basically a girl does skating, is good at it, wants to go to an expensive school, can't afford it and has to take a Hockey Scholarship. She has to hide her skating secret from her friends.<br /><br />Personally, I didn't like the actress playing Katelin. She absolutely couldn't cry to save her life, just made wailing sounds, like a toddler pretending to cry to get it's own way.<br /><br />Katelin was just an annoying person. The way she tried to act all nice and helpful to people. Also the part where the two skaters are calling her names and they say something about her choreographer and she says she 'draws the line' made me cringe.<br /><br />We all knew where it was going to go with her and Spencer. Classically they didn't like each other and sort of get together at the end was just typical.<br /><br />Overall, I think this is a movie to watch if you like skating but if you don't mind the main skater being extremely annoying. It's good to kill time basically. | 1 |
I've seen this movie and I must say I'm very impressed. There are not much movies I like, but I do like this one. You should see this movie by yourself and comment it,because this is one of my most favorite movie. I fancy to see this again. Action fused with a fantastic story. Very impressing. I like Modesty's character. Actually she's very mystic and mysterious (I DO like that^^). The bad boy is pretty too. Well, actually this whole movie is rare in 'movieworld'. I considered about the vote of this movie, I thought this is should be a very popular movie. I guess wrong. It was ME who was very impressed about this movie, and I hope I'm not the only one who takes only the cost to watch this one. See and vote. | 0 |
<br /><br />Human Body --- WoW.<br /><br />There are about 27,000 Sunrises in human life....<br /><br />Hardly one thousand Sunrises will be watched by 90% of Humans on this planet....<br /><br />Our days are limited...<br /><br />Excellent movie for all women.... makers of human body...<br /><br />Thanks and Regards.<br /><br /> | 0 |
Gene Kelly, Frank Sinatra, Kathryn Grayson, and Jose Iturbi star in 'Anchors Aweigh,' directed by George Sidney.<br /><br />Kelly and Sinatra are Joe and Clarence, two navy guys on leave in Hollywood. They meet a little boy (Dean Stockwell) and on taking him home, they meet his aunt (Grayson). Clarence falls for her. She wants an audition for Jose Iturbi. They try to help, but there's a mix-up.<br /><br />This is a very energetic musical with great dancing and singing by Kelly and Sinatra. Kelly gets to dance with Jerry the Mouse in a delightful sequence. Grayson sings Jalousie and My Heart Sings. Not one of my favorite voices, but she does well. Iturbi's piano work is beautiful.<br /><br />Sinatra gets to show his versatility and why the girls swooned over him, with those big blue eyes and boyish face. For Kelly, this was a major break for him at MGM.<br /><br />Wonderful movie, very buoyant. | 0 |
I watched this film a few nights ago and it was awful! <br /><br />Awfully long - even though they managed to skip through the majority of his life!<br /><br />Awfully boring - the parts they included were long-winded, and for some reason the director chose to cut away from some of the action and left huge parts of the film unexplained! <br /><br />Awfully inaccurate - the whole'mystical' side to this film was a joke, and last time I checked Ghengis Khan wasn't exactly a nice guy! <br /><br />Awfully acted - I found several of the characters hard to believe, they were very two-dimensional and lacked and kind of depth! <br /><br />A saving grace of the film was the cinematography. That is why I gave this film a 2 star-rating rather than the bare minimum! However, if you want to look at something pretty I would recommend buying a picture instead! <br /><br />All in all this film was an awful waste of my time and money! Please do yourself a favour and give this Mongolian turkey a miss! | 1 |
I don't mind some adult humor, but this feature was just downright dirty. The first 10 minutes consisted of Pryor swearing at some guy taking pictures, followed my even more profanities. I don't know what happened between that time the the last 5 minutes because I walked out. After seeing this I never looked at Richard Pryor the same way again. And to think that he actually went on to host a childrens' show.<br /><br />If profanity and tasteless, unfunny dirty jokes make you laugh, then you'll probably enjoy this. But if you're an 'old-fashioned' type, then don't bother. | 1 |
honestly, i loved Michael. although there were 'give me a pillow i need to take a nap' parts, it was cool. i think everyone did a great job in this film. and nora ephron is in my 'ok' list of directors.<br /><br />it's nice to see John Travolta as a pot-bellied angel. it's not very often i see one in a movie. some people might call this a boring movie, but for me i loved it. angels and all. | 0 |
This is a movie about people receiving a love letter. Nobody knows who sent in and nobody knows who it is for. A good cast, headed up by Kate Capshaw, Tom Selleck and Ellen DeGeneres. This, however, is a completely dopey plot. As an example, the Capshaw character, one of the leading citizens of a small town in New England, takes up with an immature college student who works in her bookstore during the summer. She chooses him instead of Tom Selleck, the town firefighter who is crazy about her. If that isn't the epitome of stupidity, I don't know what is. Just an example of how dopey this movie is. Watching Kate Capshaw jog is a pleasure, but you immediately realize that she has never jogged a day in her life. Another obviously dopey part of a dopey movie. | 1 |
We should all congratulate Uwe Boll. He's done the unthinkable. He may be the only director to have two movies in the bottom 100 on IMDb! He's like some kind of cinematic cockroach. No matter how little talent he has, and no matter how bad these movies are, he manages to keep making them. I know, he finances them all himself through some kind of bizarre German fund, but even so, his ability to keep making movies despite absolute, complete failure is one of the great mysteries of the universe.<br /><br />It wouldn't be so bad except that video game developers keep giving their best properties to this guy. I really enjoyed the Alone in the Dark series of games. Even the latest one, the New Nightmare, was good for a few hours of game play. There was a good movie to be made out of Edward Carnby's adventures, but this is not it. Now Uwe Boll has gotten his hands on Bloodrayne and Hunter: the Reckoning. What's next, Silent Hill? Doom? I can only imagine the swath that this guy is going to cut through game-to-movie adaptations if he's not stopped. Someone needs to take away his line of credit, or these video game publishers need to wise up and realize that when they make a bad movie out of a game that kills the franchise, no one is interested in that title any more.<br /><br />Think about it, is House of the Dead or Alone in the Dark a viable game title anymore? No way. A new House of the Dead game comes out for X-Box and nobody's gonna care. The title is dead, and all because of Uwe Boll. So if any of you out there work for a game publisher, or know a game publisher, or have access to a game publisher... please warn them. <br /><br />This movie itself is not even worth reviewing. I can't separate what I didn't like about this pile of dung from the rest of it. Literally, everything about it sucks. The writing, the acting, the music, the CG effects, the editing. I thought that if I waited until it came out on DVD and then rented it with low expectations, I wouldn't be disappointed. Boy, was I wrong. Never underestimate Uwe's ability to turn out a big, steaming pile of BOLL sh*t. | 1 |
This movie is basically a spoof on Hitchcock's Strangers on a train, which i thought was overrated anyway. The plot has Danny Devito going to see Strangers and then thinking Billy Crystal wants them to swap murders, For Crystal to murder his mother and Devito to murder his wife. Both Devito and Crystal are great and so is Devito's mother. This is Devito's directorial debut and it's better than the war of the roses. | 0 |
Worst.film.ever Nothing more needs to be said. Aaron Carter is utterly repellent and the rest of the cast should fire their agents immediately. It really is a terrible terrible movie from beginning to end. I wish I could be more eloquent in describing the movies many (oh so many) flaws however I cant be bothered/get too angry to form proper sentences. <br /><br />In short I absolutely hated everything about this movie and not in 'so bad its good' kinda way...<br /><br />It was unadulterated drek.<br /><br />Gavin | 1 |
Next to the slasher films of the 1970s and 80s, ones about the walking dead were probably the second most popular horror sub-genre. While slasher films had 'Black Christmas' and 'Halloween' to get the whole thing going, zombie flicks had George Romero's 'Dead' films. And unsurprisingly soon after the success of his first two in the series, other directors wanted to cash in. A lot of Italian directors were especially interested, such as Lucio Fulci who brought us 'Zombie' a year after Romero's 'Dawn of the Dead', known as 'Zombi' in Italy and some other countries, and it was there that Fulci's film was known as 'Zombi 2'. Apart from the walking dead it has no relation to Romero's film, but is a good film in it's own right. It was a big success in Europe and 9 years later a sequel was born.<br /><br />Pros: Lots of beautiful, lush scenery. Awesome score. The acting isn't exactly good, but the cast is game and seem to be enjoying the experience. After kind of a slow start, the pace moves along like that of an action flick. Plenty cheese and unintentional hilarity for bad film lovers. Good job on the make-up effects. Lots of blood and some decent gore.<br /><br />Cons: Virtually plot less. Nothing you haven't already seen before. Blatantly rips off some things from the first couple of 'Return of the Living Dead' films. Cardboard characters. Hasn't aged too well due to the bad 1980s rock music(Not that I'm saying all rock music of that period is bad), clothing, and overall feel of the movie.<br /><br />Final thoughts: First of all, this is not a true sequel to Fulci's cult classic. In fact, I don't know if it was ever meant to pick up where that film left off. For those that don't know, Fulci was ill during production and ended up leaving and was replaced with Bruno Mattei. Mattei's films are pretty laughable, but like this film many are good campy fun. And that's all this film really is, just something to watch for fun.<br /><br />My rating: 3.5/5 (So-bad-it's-good rating) 2/5 (Serious rating) | 1 |
Wales seems to be turning out some quirky movies recently. Actually, Wales seems to be developing its own little film industry. I recently saw Very Annie Mary, which I thought was very good. But Plots with a View is not only quirky, it's laugh out loud funny, has a cast of wonderfully talented actors (Brenda Blethyn is amazing), and a plot that, while not entirely original, is so cleverly written that one is always gleefully picking up what might almost be throwaway lines. It was the kind of movie that I wanted to watch again immediately it was over, and one of very few that I would actually like to own. Even though many of the characters are caricatures, and you have to have been to a Welsh village to appreciate that, they are also very human, and the rapport between Blethyn and Molina is a joy to behold. | 0 |
I happened to catch this supposed 'horror' flick late one Friday night, I wish I'd gone to bed! Tell me.. Is a 3 ft tall raincoat-clad twerp on a gurly bike supposed to convey some sort of fear? Not here, yet Mi-low is still able to beat the crap out of the janitor (Antonio Fargas) who is three times his size(?) uh-huh. And the ending is so pitiful... it just leaves you hanging with nothing to go on what-so-ever! I found myself asking, 'Is that it???'<br /><br />Acting is about as good as it'll get in a low budget film. The aforementioned Fargas delivers a decent performance; but it is my conclusion that Jennifer Jostyn maybe one of the worse actresses to ever strut into Tinsel Town! Sure, cute face, but bad acting.<br /><br />Rating: 1 | 1 |
Despite being released on DVD by Blue Underground some five years ago, I have never come across this Italian 'sword and sorcery' item on late-night Italian TV and, now that I have seen it for myself, I know exactly why. Not because of its director's typical predilection for extreme gore (of which there is some examples to be sure) or the fact that the handful of women in it parade topless all the time (it is set in the Dark Ages after all)
it is, quite simply, very poor stuff indeed. In fact, I would go so far as to say that it may very well be the worst of its kind that I have yet seen and, believe me, I have seen plenty (especially in the last few years i.e. following my excursion to the 2004 Venice Film Festival)! Reading about how the film's failure at the time of initial release is believed to have led to its director's subsequent (and regrettable) career nosedive into mindless low-budget gore, I can see their point: I may prefer Fulci's earlier 'giallo' period (1968-77) to his more popular stuff horror (1979-82) myself but, even on the latter, his commitment was arguably unquestionable. On the other hand, CONQUEST seems not to have inspired Fulci in the least seeing how he decided to drape the proceedings with an annoyingly perpetual mist, sprinkle it with incongruent characters (cannibals vs. werewolves, anyone?), irrelevant gore (we are treated to a gratuitous, nasty cannibal dinner just before witnessing the flesh-eating revelers having their brains literally beaten out by their hairy antagonists!) and even some highly unappetizing intimacy between the masked, brain-slurping villainess (don't ask) and her slimy reptilian pet!! For what it is worth, we have two heroes for the price of one here: a young magic bow-carrying boy on some manhood-affirming odyssey (Andrea Occhipinti) and his rambling muscle-bound companion (Jorge Rivero i.e. Frenchy from Howard Hawks' RIO LOBO [1970]!) who, despite being called Mace (short for Maciste, perhaps?), seems to be there simply to drop in on his cavewoman from time to time and get his younger protégé out of trouble (particularly during an exceedingly unpleasant attack of the 'boils'). Unfortunately, even the usual saving grace of such lowbrow material comes up short here as ex-Goblin Claudio Simonetti's electronic score seems awfully inappropriate at times. Fulci even contrives to give the film a laughably hurried coda with the surviving beefy hero going aimlessly out into the wilderness (after defeating one and all with the aid of the all-important magic bow
so much for his own supposed physical strength!) onto his next and thankfully unfilmed adventure! | 1 |
Alright, we start in the office of a shrink, and apparently not a very good one. The main hero from the first Jack Frost is in the shrinks office blurting out random rhymes about Jack Frost. Gee, alright my brother is yelling ''Turn it off!''. Anyway, back to the crappy movie.<br /><br />The shrink has his speaker phone on and is letting his secretary and her friends listen in on this heroic insane sheriff. I suppose he is supposed to be the hero from the first movie, but he looks nothing like him!. Yadda yadda yadda, they laugh at the poor sheriff, yadda yadda. Now some people are digging up the anti-frozed snowman, yadda yadda, now we're in a lab with some type of doctor people.. I don't quite see how this has to do anything, but their poking the anti-freeze/Evil killer mutant snowman with needles, heating it, shocking it, adding strange and bizarre chemicals to it, the whole nine yards. Nothing. Alright, they give up and leave it in a fish tank. One of the doctors leaves his coffee on the top of the tank. The janitor walks in, cleans stuff, bumps the fishtank and the coffee spills the tank which makes Jack alive.<br /><br />Behold the power of mocha! Now somehow he is in..uh.. i believe the Bahamas... but it looked more like Hawaii.. But it couldn't be Hawaii! Unless they spent all of their budget on the dang air plane tickets. Bah.. I wont spoil the rest of this rotten movie, so you'll have to rent it and watch it your self... Er... i wouldn't suggest doing so though.... Sheesh.. | 1 |
An American Werewolf in Paris wasn't really that good compared to the original.The original didn't use computer effects for the werewolf and they looked more realistic .The werewolf effects in this film looked too cartoonish.most of all,the movie did not have enough for me for a horror film to enjoy. | 1 |
It's amazing to think that this movie came out only one year before Star Wars but seems a million years behind it in sophistication and special effects. Actually, the art direction and set design (nice Victorian space ship) aren't bad; it's the monster costumes that are the most laughable, resembling the 'guy in a rubber suit' monsters from the LOST IN SPACE TV show. The evil cave-man makeup reminded me of some of the aliens from ancient TWILIGHT ZONE reruns.<br /><br />The script is stilted, and outside of Peter Cushing's comic relief the acting is pretty miserable too. This movie is only recommended if you really enjoy bad kitschy SF. And the music...yikes! A horrible 70s experiment with synthesizers that doesn't fit the time period of the film and which sounds like someone rambling with a Minimoog and a 2-track tape machine. | 1 |
Another Priyadarshan/Vohra flick another movie that was seen for TP rather than actual desire, the only reason i did see this movie was the fact that the regulars were not there in this movie (Akshay Paresh and many others), but needless to say i had low expectations from this movie.<br /><br />I was happy with the casting in general except, Rajpal Yadav who once again annoys to no limit, he does however extract some laughs, but these were those standard slapstick non-original jokes, in fact this whole movie is like playing the dhol, I mean it takes hardly any talent to make loud noise, or even play the odd good beat on the dhol for a small time does it?? Its only those who can carry different beats in a nice sequential manner, for an extended period who are considered great.<br /><br />Which brings us to the other instrument, the Dumroo hardly requires any talent, it has no variations, and it may be enjoyable for a while the monkey dances (hmm sounds like Rajpal Yadav, good analogy), but its not a instrument that will entertain you for long or even get you dancing like the Dhol does.<br /><br />This movie was like the dhol and the dumroo being played, sometimes the Dhol was played sometimes the dumroo, sometimes both together, but mostly the Dumroo played alone and the monkey danced. And like any 24 year old sooner than later I got bored.<br /><br />The movie has some good Dhol (good) moments but after a while all i heard was the annoying Dumroo (entertaining initially, then tolerable then irritating), the large ordinary parts really ensure this movie is mainly good for a few funny clips on 'MERE BHAINS KO ANDA KYUN MARA' (if you haven't watched it watch it on Filmy, it comes in the evenings and is really quite funny).<br /><br />This movie had its moments, the actors did a fine job, except Rajpal Yadav (who can act though, I've seen him in Main Meri Patni
) who annoys more than entertains, I've said it many time and I'll say it again I really think Sharman Joshi and Tushar Kapoor have a fine career ahead of them in the multi-star comedies especially.<br /><br />Some scenes were really funny such as the aborted attempts to impress the girls father, the zany attempts to woo the girl and take her away from each other.<br /><br />But after this was over there was a failed attempt to make this movie into much more with a mystery added, this mean that once the girl was in, the following 45-60 mins was increasingly torturous, the climax was 'SO BAD ITS ALMOST GOOD CATEGORY', I mean what were they thinking if you had to have tense ending at least make some attempt to make it palatable.<br /><br />The movie is also extremely predictable, there's hardly a scene you cant predict and you wont be breaking into spontaneous burst of laughter here, its more like you see it coming and almost start laughing before the gag.<br /><br />The movie follows a gradual decline throughout the movies except for the odd bump, down or up, and then rapidly tumbles downhill once they have made friends with the girl.<br /><br />Most of the really bad scenes were towards the end, one the movie tries to be more than a run of the mill comedy, also many of the jokes were very very stale and reeked of repetition, THE LAST 10-15 WAS ESPECIALLY DISTATEFULL AND COMPLETELY SPOILS THIS MOVIE.<br /><br />I didn't find Tanushree Datta quite the siren she was to play, and her acting talent is in serious question, especially in view of her non-appealing looks, if you cant be a HOT and cant act how much time can you survive.<br /><br />Technically also this movie was weak, with the constant female gaze and shoddy lighting and camera-work.<br /><br />The songs except the title track were no good either, when the songs played in the 2nd half I could feel the collective gasp from the audience.<br /><br />In all a movie that's just ordinary merely because of the cast, and the very low expectations.<br /><br />Avoiding it wont be a bad idea.<br /><br />And if it has to be watched watching it on TV for free or a very cheap matinée or something is a must, if you pay full multiplex rates you will feel disappointed.<br /><br />-s lots of stale jokes, RAJPAL YADAV, LAST 45 MINS AND LAST 15 MINS ESPECIALLY, bad technically, bad songs.<br /><br />+/-s tries to be more than what it was, not the regular cast (I'm happier for it), Tanushree Datta.<br /><br />+s some good scenes towards the beginning,title song, good acting and cast except RY.<br /><br />total 4.5/10 (I'm trying to be objective here, i don't like Rajpal Yadav or Tanushree Datta and this movie did meet my very low expectations, so I'm giving it the benefit of all doubts, on absolute terms this movie was not more than a 4) | 1 |
Very reliable entertainment, as Las Vegas amuses as well as intrigues, very light hearted and very much bolstered by Josh Duhanel!! I like this television show and I think that many people watch it as a form of escapist voyeurism...Voyeurism in this case is very positive, and many females in this series are very nice to look at...This show incorporates Las Vegas legends such as Wayne Newton as intermittent characters to authenticate the Las Vegas genre!! There have been copious depictions of sin city, this is one of the better efforts...The producers and directors are lucky to have James Caan in the show, as he is very much a totally accomplished actor!!! By and large, I like the T.V. Show Las Vegas and I watch it on Fridays, I watched it on Mondays as well, but with Monday Night Football, I could see why NBC switched it to Fridays...Nonetheless, I like Las Vegas a lot!! | 0 |
Emilio is a successful business man, a perfect father and a good husband. Or that is what everybody think. The perfect storyline he has carefully built all along these years will start closing around him all of a sudden. Will he be able to keep up with his own lies?<br /><br />This is a very well laid out drama, with great acting and steady direction. Even though the plot is pushed up to the limit to increase the tension, the movie explores some of our worst fears... Do we really know the people we deal with? Can we be so sure?<br /><br />The story develops at an increasingly faster pace as it reaches the point where Emilio is not in control of his lies anymore. A good deal of Spanish movies have interesting stories but are far from technical proficiency. The perfect rhythm and well shot scenes make the actors so credible, we get inside Emilio, and hate him, and suffer for him, as his situation gets more and more desperate. There is no need for any Spanish folklore, nor is this an attempt to create a Hollywood style flick. This is real Spain, 2002, and regardless the obvious unlikeliness of Emilio's life existing in reality, there are good chances somebody we know is not quite like the person he claims to be. Not just a great commercial product, it will let you wondering where lies can get us to. Can we keep up?<br /><br />Well done. | 0 |
Everyone has a first love, and though it is hard to define that feeling when you're younger, it is there, aching inside you. That is what Malaysian filmmaker Yasmin Ahmad aims to prove in her fourth feature, a movie where that most complex of emotions is recounted in a deceptively simple, straightforward fashion.<br /><br />Such an approach is especially convenient in this case, as the love story at the film's core involves two twelve-year olds, and would therefore make any attempts at 'deeper' analysis seem contrived and pretentious. That they don't is also testament to the astounding performances given by the leading non-actors, Sharifah Aryana and Mohd Syafie Naswip. The former plays Orked (already seen as an adult character in Ahmad's previous picture, Gubra), a lively, almost rebellious girl who, perhaps influenced by her 'British' upbringing (her mother studied in England), despises playing with dolls, preferring to play violent sports with the boys. Then one day she meets Mukhsin (Naswip), who has come to spend the holidays at his aunt's house, and all of a sudden she changes her habits: goodbye fistfights, hello bike-riding and tree-climbing. But what does this mean? Are they just friends, or is something more implied, something neither of them is yet ready to understand, let alone accept?<br /><br />Given the young age of the protagonists, answering those questions borders on impossible, and so, like in several 'smaller' films (Lost in Translation comes to mind), there is no real closure, a choice that leaves a bittersweet, but ultimately satisfying aftertaste: the naturalistic, unfiltered acting (especially Aryana's) gets to the heart almost immediately, and a strong supporting cast (Orked's family most of all) helps keeping the minimalistic narrative fun and seducing. The down-to-earth approach isn't always that effective (the hilarious subplot regarding an adulterous neighbor is dropped way too early), and it is hard to justify the bizarre Pulp Fiction reference at the start of the feature, but the emotional strength of the teenage romance is enough to make this an interesting piece of independent Asian cinema. | 0 |
As a huge fan of horror films, especially J-horror and also gore i thought Nekeddo burâddo sounded pretty good. I researched the plot, read reviews, and even looked at some photos to make sure it seemed like a good gory and scary movie to watch before downloading it. So excited it had finished and ready to be scared and recoiling in horror at the amazing gore i was expecting i was terribly disappointed. The plot was ridiculous and didn't even make sense and left too much unexplained, the gore was hilarious rather then horrifying, and what was with the cartoon style sound effects ? The acting was probably the only thing mildly scary about it. I did not understand the cactus idea and the way the mothers husband disappeared in the middle of the sea after following a flashing light, they left both pretty unexplained, or perhaps i missed it as my mind couldn't understand what i was actually seeing. I appreciate the way it was supposed to be; shocking and a few scenes (the strange cannibalism and own mother kissing?)certainly were, i just think they went a little bit far and not even in a horrifying way, they made it to unconvincing which made it more believable to be a comedy rather than a horror in my opinion. However it is a very entertaining film and got a lot of laughs out of me and a couple of friends, but sadly we were expecting horror not comedy so its worth a watch for the entertainment value, but don't be expecting a dark, deeply scary and horrifying film; you'll just be disappointed. If this was a horror comedy/spoof i'd probably rate it about a nine, the climax being the weird scene when the husband climbed inside his wife's stomach and closed up her wounds, but as a horror sadly i gave it a one. | 1 |
This waste of time is a completely unnecessary remake of a great film. Nothing new or original is added other than Perry's backflashes, which are of marginal interest. It lacks the documentary feel of the first film and the raw urgency that made it so effective. Also painfully missing is the sharp Quincy Jones soundtrack that added to much to the original film. I can't understand any high ratings for this at all. It's quite bad. Why does anyone waste time or money making crap like this and why did I waste time watching it? | 1 |
I thought I'd witnessed every wrinkle the crime/gangster flick had to offer, but the Garrett-Marcin-Hammett combination pull off some genuine thrills and surprises here, thanks to the inventively forceful direction by Mamoulian, the atmospheric photography by Lee Garmes, plus remarkably sharp film editing and flawless special effects. Brilliant acting helps too. Coop gives one of his most convincing performances as the reticent hayseed-turned-fearless bootlegger (the sort of character progression he was to repeat in other roles such as Sergeant York). Miss Sidney (pictured center) in her first major role is also an eye-opener. The principals receive great support from Paul Lukas, Wynne Gibson and Stanley Fields as the heavies, and even from Robert Homans' hard-as-nails detective. The movie has obviously been realized on an extensive budget which is brilliantly deployed in its realistic, crowd-filled sets. | 0 |
The 08th MS team features two hopeful romantics from different sides of the conflict. Aina, the Zeon officer, and Shiro, the Federal Forces' new pilot, meet in a battle in space, throughout the 12 episode series (and one 'movie') the two debate their love for each other while trying to come to grips with the war that surrounds them. It features a Romeo and Juliet romance and unbeatable animation. By far one of the best to hit American Shores. Suit Up! | 0 |
ALICE is the kind of movie they made in the 30's and 40's. Never attempts to be an 'event'. Just wants to entertain. And it does. I was surprised by Kiefer Sutherland. In a role that could be a cliche, he made it real. The plot does make allusions to ALICE IN WONDERLAND. A guy dressed in white does go through a hole and Kiefer does fall down one. Like ALICE the plot does twist and turn, but with a freshness you don't see in small movies. I loved the direction, Sutherland, just a very fast paced and interesting movie. | 0 |
This video has heartfelt memories. It has a great cast and all the actors did a great job. I have been searching to buy this video. If anybody knows of where I can purchase, please e-mail me. I really want to add this to my collection. | 0 |
My husband is a huge Robin Williams fan. I like him too, but have generally found that he should 'stick to what he does best' and focus on comedic roles. My thoughts were confirmed with this movie. I was completely bored throughout the entire film. The story was predictable. I realize it was inspired by a true story. But, my guess is that there could have been some suspense or intrigue even while maintaining truth in the story. None of the characters were well developed. There was a side story about the main character and his partner. This relationship could have been explored further. More important, though, would have been a deeper exploration of the mother of the 'boy'. Her psychological profile would have been interesting to delve into. She obviously has a long history that was not touched upon except in the most superficial way. If my husband wasn't such a huge Williams fan, we would have left 20 minutes into it. Too bad I can't get my $20 or 2 hours back. | 1 |
The first time I saw this film, I was in shock for days afterwards. Its painstaking and absorbing treatment of the subject holds the attention, helped by good acting and some really intriguing music. The ending, quite simply, had me gasping. First rate! | 0 |
This may not be the most exiting or incredible episode they've made, but in my opinion it remains as one of Star Trek and the Sci-Fi genre's most original episodes. Most ideas from retro Sci-Fi series especially including Star Trek has been reused several times, this one the other hand remains mostly as a one time triumph. This among the episodes that impressed me the most towards the end.<br /><br />Another thing I like with this episode is how it has accomplished to create such and exiting and captivating story with such few special affects. Now without criticizing the episode I must admit the effects are very dated, but then again what can you expect from a TV show from 1967? But still the creature ('Horta') in this episode is basically just a carpet with some coloured rubber on it. Yet you forget this after about 1 minute and you only start thinking about it as what it's supposed to be. Also the caves don't exactly look like rock, but again you forget it after a few minutes. This episode is a living proof on how good acting and a good story, can make you ignore the visual effects.<br /><br />The acting from the main cast is as usual great. This episode features the series second mind meld by Spock and is one of my favourites. So to say it simple Leonard Nimoy is definitely a scene stealer here, and his acting is excellent. Not that Kirk or Bones don't get their share of the episode but Spock is the most intriguing in this one. i like the fact that the episode is not about one specific character but evolves around the trio handling an alien problem. Also it's nice to see an episode who doesn't only happen on the Enterprise.<br /><br />Like most Star Trek episodes this episode tells us to have an open mind. I won't spoil the story, but evolves around what in the start seems like a typical monster story. It has killed several humans and therefore must be killed. But is that really all there is to it? I can assure you that the explanation in the end, will not disappoint you. This is still my favourite Star Trek TOS episode and i give it a 10/10. | 0 |
I've always enjoyed seeing Chuck Norris in film. Although the acting may not be superb, the fight scenes are fantastic. I also enjoyed seeing Judson Mills perform along side him. In my opinion, the Norris Brothers have proven themselves to be fine entertainers and this was yet another fine production! I hope you take the time to view this movie! | 0 |
First, IFC runs Town and Country, and now this. The difference between that stinker and this Pink Panther rip-off is that Town and Country was watchable. This isn't.<br /><br />I can only surmise that the cast signed up for this so they could goof off in Europe on somebody else's dime. Belushi is especially irritating. His scene with Candy (doing a Z-grade Dom DeLuise) was torture. Speaking of torture, five minutes of the talentless Shepherd, and I bet the prisoners at Gitmo would crack like walnuts!<br /><br />The real 'Crime' (besides this being green-lighted) is Shepherd's character: a mousy wife who takes a Monte Carlo casino for a half-million bucks! If you buy that, I have some oceanfront property in Arizona you might be interested in! | 1 |
He is very good in this role as a disaffected and bored husband, a decorated air force officer, who becomes bored with his predictable suburban life and decides to make a radical change.<br /><br />One evening he meets Karen Sillas, an attractive woman younger than his current wife. A relationship develops, and Cole decides to take it to the next level.<br /><br />Not only does he have an affair, he fakes his death to escape his family obligations. Lies become increasingly more of a pattern as he begins to rob banks to keep his new wife (Sillas) happy, and to project the image that he is a success. A fictional delusion, apparently.<br /><br />This was also based on a true story which makes it all the more intriguing. Cole is believable and excellent in these roles. Recommended. 8/10. | 0 |
I caught this on Showtime tonight and was amazed by how a movie with such a interesting premise could wind up being so unbelievably awful. WHO'S YOUR DADDY? stars Brandon Davis as an adopted high school senior Chris Hughes, a geek who inherits the heir to a porn empire left to him by his biological parents. Though the premise sounds like the movie could be a lot of fun, it is ruined by inept directing from first-time director Andy Fickman, a clichéd and predictable screenplay, and acting that is even bad by direct-to-video standards. Even the normally funny Charlie Talbert turns in a surprisingly dismal performance as the best friend. Ali Landry is the only good part of this lame and unfunny dud. 1/10 | 1 |
This series just gets worse and worse. Poorly written and just plain not funny! The premise is excellent, but the writer's inexperience shines through. By trying so hard to offend no one they end up insulting everyone. Now into the second season the desperate cast have stopped waving their arms about, and resorted to that patronizing, smug, 'Oh, silly you' style acting that comes with a no laugh script. They roll their eyes and shake their heads at each other as if to say, aren't we zany? Isn't this funny? Well, no, it's not actually. Gum disease is less painful. No wonder, with the exception of Corner Gas, Canadians generally avoid Canadian TV. Come on CBC you're suppose to be our leading station showcasing the best of Canadian talent. Pull the plug on this amateurish mess. | 1 |
I love the Jurassic Park movies, they are three of my all time favorite movies.<br /><br />And I hate this game, if there was one game I wish I never own for the Super Nintendo was this one.<br /><br />How can a game based on a classic movie be just too awful? And to make it worst, I was scare of this game when I was a kid.<br /><br />How dumb was that but then again I was a kid when this game was first out.<br /><br />The game play in this game is just odd. One minute it's a action game and then it's a shooter. What in the world is wrong with making up your mind when making a video game.<br /><br />The Sound in the game is just terrible to listen.<br /><br />The music is just too sick to listen to.<br /><br />The Controllers in the game don't work most of the time.<br /><br />Jurassic Park the game is just a waste of time and money and won't be a classic.<br /><br />Avoid at all cost | 1 |
This movie is so unreal. French movies like these are just waste of time. Why watch this movie? Even, I did not know..why. What? The well known sex scene of half-siblings? Although the sex scene is so real and explicit, but the story it is based upon is so unreal. What is the use of it, then? Can you find easily in life, half sibling doing such things?<br /><br />Did I learn something from this movie? Yeah: some people are just so fond of wasting time making such movies, such stories, such non-sense. But for those who like nihilism, nothingness in life, or simply a life without hope, then there you are.. you've got to see this movie.<br /><br />Only one worth adoring, though: CATHERINE DENEUVE. She's such a strikingly beautiful woman. | 1 |
Beware, My Lovely is an experimental studio film from the early fifties and was directed by a man, Harry Horner, better known for his set designs. Robert Ryan plays a handyman who is hired by Ida Lupino to do some housework for her. The problem is that he is a psychopathic murderer and doesn't know it. Miss Lupino is an empathetic soul and tries to win Ryan over, to little avail. He is not the sort of man compassion could help or cure. Thus we have an interesting situation of two people who basically mean well, but one of them can't do well because there is something wrong with him. He suffers periodic blackouts during which he commits acts of violence, which he later forgets. <br /><br />Essentially the effect Ryan has on Lupino is that of the hunter and his prey, or in another sense a sadist. The audience finds out early on that Ryan is a mad killer, but it takes Lupino much longer. Thus we must live with this knowledge as we watch poor Miss Lupino try everything in her power to 'win' Ryan over in order to make things work, get the job done, get on with life. But getting on with things isn't in Ryan's makeup, as he is incapable of any but the most rudimentary forms of normality, and as soon as there is an opening his paranoia asserts itself. <br /><br />As a study in mental illness the movie isn't too impressive. What it's superlative at is showing the effect of major mental illness, with dangerous psychopathology in the mix, and its effect on a normal person. In this regard the film is realistic and compassionate, though relentlessly logical in that we know Lupino can't 'fix' Ryan, yet we want her to. The result is that, if one is willing, one can get extremely involved in this film emotionally if one can put aside, so to speak, its melodramatic structure.<br /><br />Horner shows us, gradually, the layout the Lupino house , a forbidding gothic monstrosity that never feels like a home. We become familiar with staircase, kitchen and pantry; and we come to know which windows Miss Lupino can use for an escape and which ones she can't. | 0 |
This was a top-notch movie with a top-notch cast. Danny Glover, Tony Danza, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, and especially Christopher Lloyed are well-cast in this charming movie about real-life angels helping the Angels baseball team. You never know, it could happen. I loved Lloyd's role in it. He was hilarious. The story is about turning your life around, as the kid's belief in Angels helped turn around angry, hardened, and embittered manager Glover see the best in people. The movie was well made and also about seeing the best in people and reaching your dreams. It was funny, charming, touching, and sad, all very nicely done. You will like (or love) it. I guarantee.<br /><br />*** out of **** | 0 |
Do you hear that sound? That's the sound of H.G. Wells rolling over in his grave, between this version and Spielberg's cinematic abortion it's been a tough year for the classic novel. But at least Steven got a few things right compared to this crapperella. Hello, the ships weren't big insects, they had names. They were Tripods and the aliens worked in threes. The ships and the aliens were all wrong, you don't really get to see the aliens until the end. The effects and the cast work fine. But these actors are much better then this 'movie' deserves. The bulk if not all the movie is the Howell character wondering through the devastation, meeting one person, they join him and he looses them for one reason or the other. There's not more then two people on camera at any given moment though most of the movie. It's like if they filmed three at once it would put the movie over budget or something. So fat the only and mean only watchable adaptation of the WAR OF THE WORLDS story is the GEORGE PAL version way back in the 1950s. THE BLACK HOLE. | 1 |
The movie takes place during the year 1940 and the French are about to loose the war.<br /><br />The movie includes all genres: comedy, romantic, murder and history. It is probable the historical part may be not as probable as the rest.<br /><br />It is not, however, a big laugh movie but the occasional large smile! | 0 |
I actually went to see this film in a theater, but what a complete waste of time and money! Bad acting, I'm sorry to say, did not help to enjoy this rather sticky screenplay.<br /><br />Some friends told me to go and see this film, since James Redfield, the author of the book, was very heavily involved in the screenplay. They had really enjoyed the book, so the movie just had to be perfect. Well maybe I had my hopes up a bit too high, but I absolutely hated this movie! It was predictable, too sweetish to a point that I actually left I had to vomit and worst of all there is going to be a sequel! Do the world a favor and stop this abominable crusade. | 1 |
When I go out to the video store to rent a flick I usually trust IMDb's views on a film and, until this one, had never seen a flick rated 7.0 or above on the site I did not enjoy.<br /><br />Sidney Lumet, a legendary director of some of the best films of the 20th century, really misstepped here by making one of the biggest mistakes a filmmaker can: filling a film's cast with thoroughly unlikeable characters with no real redeeming qualities whatsoever.<br /><br />I like films with flawed characters, but no matter how dark someone's personality is we all have a bit of light in there too, we're all shades of gray with some darker or brighter than others. Mr. Lumet crossed this line by filling this movie with totally unsympathetic and almost masochistic pitch-black characters.<br /><br />Ethan Hawke's Hank is a 30-something whining, immature, irresponsible man-child divorced from a marriage with a wife that hates him and a daughter who thinks he's a loser, which he very much is. His indecisiveness and willingness to let others do the dirty work for him because he's too cowardly to do it himself leads directly to their bank robbery plan falling apart and mother getting killed. By the time he stands up to his older brother at the end of the film, it's more pathetic than uplifting. Ethan Hawke plays his character well, but isn't given much to work with as he is portrayed as someone with a boot perpetually stamped on their face and he doesn't' particularly care that it's there.<br /><br />Speaking of which his character's wife is equally as bad. Just about every single shot of the film she's in is her verbally berating him for rent and child support money and further grinding in his already non-existent self-esteem with insults. Seriously, that's just about all the character does. Her harpy-like behavior borders on malevolent.<br /><br />Albert Finney plays their father Charles, and while Mr. Finney has been a great actor for many decades, he spends about 90% of this film with the same mouth open half-grimace on his face like he's suffering from the world's worst bout of constipation. For someone who's been an actor as long as Mr. Finney, you think he'd be more apt at emoting. Even though he doesn't show it much, his character is supposedly grief stricken and anger-filled. And when he smothers Andy at the film's conclusion it's akin to Dr. Frankenstein putting the monster he helped create out of it's own misery.<br /><br />Marisa Tomei isn't given much to do with her character. Stuck in an unhappy marriage with Andy and having an affair with his brother for some unfathomable reason. When Andy's world begins to spiral out of control she logically jumps ship, but it really doesn't make her any less selfish or self-serving than any other character in the film, but probably the one with the most common sense at least.<br /><br />And finally we come to Andy, played by the always good Philip Seymour Hoffman, is the only reason I rated this film a 3 instead of a 1. His performance of the heroin-addicted, embezzling financial executive who's 'perfect crime' of robbing his parent's insured jewelry store goes awry is mesmerizing. His descent from calm master planner of a flawed scheme to unstable, deranged homicidal maniac is believable and tragic. Hoffman's character ends up being the film's chief villain, but it's hard to root against him given the alternatives are an emotionally castrated little brother and a father who's self-admitted poor early parenting led to his son's eventual psychosis and indirect, unintentional murder of his mother.<br /><br />Ultimately this film is really only worth watching for PSH's great performance and it's family train wreck nature. Just don't expect there to be any characters worth cheering for, because there really aren't. | 1 |
Many questions arise about the making of this film. The first of which is: Why make a film that plays out as little more than an awkward female fantasy? It's one thing to leave an audience with issues to discuss about a film's intent, it's something entirely different to go into the process of writing a script which fails to adequately address real human issues before they are rendered on the screen.<br /><br />Why the outrageously melodramatic and often comical soundtrack? Why the excessive and frequently clunky dialogue? Why is the lead character's girlfriend one of the hooded abductors? What purpose is there to turning the lead character's freedom from abduction into a joke by having him complete his 'mission'? (This is a classic Little Aussie Film moment. Resort to quirky comedy at the most inappropriate moment.) Why so many scenes where absolutely nothing happens? (This accounts for approximately 15 minutes of the film, which is at least 30 minutes too long.) Why, if a man is imprisoned for so many days, does he not endeavor to make a serious attempt at escape?<br /><br />The Director, who co-wrote the script, has failed on many counts to deliver a satisfactory story. <br /><br />Dave Garver, Australia. | 1 |
I can't say that this film deserves anywhere near the amount of vitriol being heaped on it by some reviewers. Yes, it's bogged down by an overly-padded running time, hamfisted editing, and an overreliance on cheeseball special effects. And it lacks much of the energy a comedy needs to get your average audience member to sit through it without checking his or her watch. <br /><br />On the other hand, it's also got some laugh-out-loud funny lines, a talented and earnest cast, and the classic underdog premise. Macy, Stiller, and Azaria are brilliant as the 'core' team, and Garofalo and Studi do superb work adding conflict and variety to the team. I can't say Reubens or Mitchell added much to the film overall, though each had a few chances to shine. <br /><br />The plot, as I said above, is your classic 'underdog-makes-good' stuff. No surprises there, since you know they're going to triumph. What makes it worthwhile is not the absurd, gaudy heroes and villains, but the dialogue and interplay between the characters. Underneath it all, these people are children at heart, who just want to do right. The best scenes in the film give this film its emotional grounding. Look at Azaria's relationship with his long-suffering mother; Macy's endearing innocence in his unwillingness to accept Cap. Amazing's secret identity; Stiller's rage (not unlike that one weird, spazzy kid you once knew who'd always go into quivering, impotent rages on the playground); Garofalo's desire to avenge her father. This childlike belief that a sense of justice and goodness will always make the world a better place, is the true appeal of super-hero comics; and underneath its parodic exterior, 'Mystery Men' shows us why these hackneyed comic-book tropes matter to so many.<br /><br />It never really gels into a satisfying whole, due to the huge number of half-baked subplots (romance, family life, conflicts within the team, etc.), but the main plot is such loopy fun that it makes up for that. The fact that it's supposed to be good, nonsensical fun seems to be lost on some of the reviewers here, so I'll issue a caveat: if you're the type of viewer who finds his enjoyment of an Itchy and Scratchy cartoon ruined by the unexplained and illogical ('Am I to believe this is some sort of.. *snort*... _magic_ xylophone?'), then you are far too literal-minded and humorless for this film. Go rent a Sandler film instead.<br /><br />(7/10) | 0 |
Wow, this movie really sucked down below the normal scale of dull, boring, and unimaginative films I've seen recently. The acting was poor and robotic. The story was so bland you could have summed it up with a simple 5-minute short. Audio was so poor and dirty it was hard to even listen to; perhaps it was unedited from the camera it was shot off of? I'm not sure which movie the 3 glowing reviewers were commenting on, but it wasn't this one. Perhaps the director had his hand in seeing that his film received a good review, at least before the real reviews started to show up.<br /><br />Save your time or you'll just be wasting your time and money on this film. Absolute suckage! | 1 |
Love sublime says the title. Another blurb during the promotions of the film talked about inner vs external beauty. Well in this case the beauty - you decide inner or external - is provided by scantily clad (or is that scantily dressed/ undressed) Zeenat Aman who the director Raj Kapoor called 'a volcano of talent' while the film was being made. One can't accuse him of sarcasm of course - after all he was promoting his own film.<br /><br />The paper thin plot is about a woman with a disfigured face who has a - er - well proportioned body , a great voice (thanks to Lata Mangeshkar) with whom the hero Shashi Kapoor falls in love. He doesn't want her face only her voice. The acting is desperate and even the 4 is because of the music with Lata Mangeshkar giving some good numbers. The rest is of course bunkum. Avoid - save your money. Inner beauty vs Outer beauty. !!! You need not be an Einstein to figure out which one the director was concentrating on | 1 |
I have seen The Running Man several times as I am a Stephen King fan and have all his movies but now it is even better because up until 2 days ago I didn't know about this website and I didn't realize that the Paul Michael Glaser that was involved with this movie was the same Paul Michael Glaser that I grow up watching on Starsky and Hutch television show. For me this is a pleasant surprise because I can't tell you how many times I cried when Starsky or Hutch got hurt. The episode where Starsky (Kill Starsky) almost died I cried so hard My dad had to turn away from the show. What to you expect of a kid at age 12. Now, I intentionally look for films and programs involving Paul or David Soul and anything that Stephen King has his hands on I'm so there!!!!!!!! Just got to say Happy birthday Paul!!!!! | 0 |
This film is justly famous as one of the most horrible examples of propaganda ever produced. The insistent equation of Jews with disease is simply<br /><br />pathological, and even worse it almost becomes believable for brief seconds<br /><br />through its sheer repetition. The fact that something this crude works, even<br /><br />briefly, is an object lesson in itself. You have to have a strong stomach and a firm grip on yourself to sit through this, and I wouldn't recommend trying unless you have a good reason. | 1 |
Being too young to have experienced the Hammer films when they were fresh and new, I am discovering their hallowed horror films as I find them on DVD. I know it was almost a decade and half between them but it's hard to see much of the magic in the original Hammer Dracula in this late entry to the Christopher Lee series. The original Hammer vampire story had lots of atmosphere and a terrific story to get involved in. Lee was a great Dracula, a vibrant vampire if that possible, in the early outing but here he is nothing more than a cardboard character that mostly stands around and looks threatening. The modish young people talk like cartoon characters (even though my aunt lived in England during the 1970s and she says people actually talked with those awful clichés). I had no interest whatsoever in who lived or died amongst the younger crowd. They were all pretty terrible characters anyway. I did enjoy seeing a young and charismatic Caroline Munro; but she leaves the story too early. Lee and his historic nemesis Peter Cushing add an air of authenticity to the film but they can't draw blood from this empty film. It's D.O.A. | 1 |
I always get frustrated by films that were obviously written by one gender. Especially when they obviously don't do enough research to find out when something not only doesn't ring true, but rings blatently false.<br /><br />The scene I am remembering is the one in the bathroom where Jack tells his football teammates that he got Diane pregnant. In no way, shape, or form would a guy ever cheer another guy getting a girl pregnant in high school. They might cheer about the guy having sex with the hot cheerleader, but I can also guarantee that the first the football team heard about it would not be at a urinal.<br /><br />It was obvious that this film didn't take itself so seriously, and it wasn't hideously bad, but come on! | 1 |
Scarecrows is one of those films that, with a little more acting, a little more direction, and a lot more story logic, would have been quite compelling as a horror entry. As it stands, it is still a creepy film that has solid make-up and gore effects, and a premise that sustains the mood of terror in spite of itself. And hey, there are no teenagers getting killed one by one--just dumb adults, so that is a refreshing change of pace. And the plot line is amazingly similar to Dead Birds, with a precipitating robbery, an abandoned spooky house in the middle of nowhere, and demonic monsters. But just like Dead Birds, the adults are still witless, they run around cluelessly before getting slaughtered one by one, and they ignore the obvious danger.<br /><br />In Scarecrows, though, we never really find out the supernatural why, and that sustains the atmosphere of creepiness. And like clowns, scarecrows can be very creepy; unless they look like Ray Bolger, of course. Escaping in a hijacked plane with the pilot and his daughter, after a robbery netting millions, a para-military bunch is double-crossed by one of their own; a very nervous guy named Burt. He jumps out of the plane with the big, and heavy, box that holds the money with apparently no plans as to how to move it around once he is on the ground. Being the dumbest of the bunch, he is murdered first. But not before he happens upon the Fowler residence, nestled snuggly amid lots of really creepy-looking scarecrows, and surrounded with a wooden fence encircled with barbed-wire and lots of warnings to stay away. And the weird weathervane on the roof, with the pitchfork and pterodactyl, should have been a warning sign, too. The inside of the house is also quite foreboding (to us in the audience, anyway).<br /><br />Annoyingly, we must listen to Burt's thoughts in voice-over, as he walks around and mysteriously comes across the key to the decrepit truck in the yard. The way the key pops up would be enough to have my pants--with me in them--flying out the door. Perhaps it's just me, but I really enjoy watching people's lips move on screen, even when they are just thinking out loud. It helps to intensify the action, and gives the actor more to do than just look like what the voice-over is saying. Burt hoists the box onto the truck and makes his getaway. Sure why not? decrepit trucks always have lots of gas in them, especially with today's prices, and the battery? no problem. Now, I did mention that Burt was the dumbest of the bunch, and here is why (in addition to the above, of course). Wearing night-vision goggles to walk through the foliage and find the house, he takes them off to drive the truck away, and instead, turns on the headlights to see where he is going. Of course, the crooks still in the plane spot the headlights of his truck, and know where he is headed. Brilliant. He deserves to die. Definitely. I am not sure why he needed night vision goggles in the first place, as every scene is brightly lit, from the interior of the plane, to the night-time outside scenery, and the house. The cinematographer was either a. myopic, b. just out of school, or c. dealing with really cheap filmstock.<br /><br />Burt meets his demise when the truck dies in the middle of nowhere. Go figure. One very nice touch, and there are, I must admit, a few in the film, is the fact that when he opens the truck's lid, there is no engine. Creepy, to be sure (and insert pants comment again here). The story logic fails when dead, now-stuffed-like-a-flounder-with-money-and-straw-Burt returns to the house. The rest of the bunch are there, rough him up, then realize that he is indeed dead, and was gutted and stuffed like a flounder with money and straw. Dead Burt does manage to put up quite a fight, though, and grabs one fellow by the mouth, pushing him through a window, causing him to bite off more than he could chew in a gorylicious scene. At this point, you would think they'd would be racing out of the house and back to the plane--but noooo, they decide to stay and look for the rest of the money. In fact, the whole Burt is dead episode is treated rather matter-of-factly, although one bright bulb in the bunch does argue, 'Burt was walking around dead, for chrissakes!'<br /><br />The stolen money suddenly appears on the grounds outside the house, and the crooks blithely go for the bait. Soon, another one of them, Jack, is dispatched, and again the scene is well done and horrific, involving a dull handsaw and no anethesia. Now there are three scarecrows going about wreaking mayhem, and one of them needs a hand, literally.<br /><br />When one of the crooks sees the scarecrows and Jack getting scarecrow-ized, he starts screaming, running away like hell, and shooting off his gun in typical para-military fashion. So much for all that training under pressure crap. He meets up with the others and stops in his tracks to explain why he is screaming, running away like hell, and shooting off his gun, even though the scarecrows appear to be chasing him. Again, that script logic thing... Dead and gutted, Jack returns to the house, and goes after the screamer with the usual results. If you listen to Jack's demonic growl, by the way, you may notice, depending on your age, that it is the same monster-growling sound heard often in the Lost In Space TV episodes.<br /><br />The last two survivors race away from the house and back to the plane, barely escaping. But do they? You will have to see the film to find out. | 1 |
Dresden had great expectations because of its spectacular theme and its high budget. I was really looking forward to it and I really wanted it to be good... but it is not. The only good thing are the special effects that are very well done, but, like in a really bad Hollywood blockbuster, everything else is missing.<br /><br />It is poorly written, the screenplay tries to fulfill genre-rules with standard suspense/love- story elements but there is no depth or originality at all. It's way below average. The next thing: It is also poorly directed. It has this uninteresting TV-directing-Style with lots of close-ups and wanna-be-great-action by fast editing where actually no action or suspense is. The actors are not bad but there is no performance that is touching in any way.<br /><br />I don't know... they obviously try to do a typical TV-movie and not a film for the cinema, where its alway good to have some edges and a clear visual style. But why do they try to fulfill typical commercial Hollywood-rules? it really feels like the screenwriter did a weekend- class with some American scriptwriting-guru and then delivered this mess. Is there no producer who is responsible for the project who has an interest in dramaturgy/ visual style or plain in simple this magical cinematic moments that make some TV-Movies great ?!? Do they think that an TV-audience is stupid and doesn't need to get a high quality- movie experience? The Downfall was a very good example for a good TV-movie but there was probably some executive or producer who knew what he was doing.<br /><br />Don't waste you time with this one, rent 'downfall' instead... | 1 |
OK. So it's a low-budget 'film' (I used the quotes because it was shot in Hi-8 video). The acting is universally horrid, the makeup is laughable (the blood looks like it came from Sherwin-Williams and I've seen more convincing bruises made from halloween ghoul kits), and the lighting generally looks like they used someone's borrowed Toyota pickup to shine headlights on the actors.<br /><br />I might be able to forgive these low-budget traits if there were some actual content, if a movie made an attempt to tell a story. But this collection of video footage can boast of no plot, no real characters, and no momentum. It's a self-indulgent mess.<br /><br />And don't worry -- no spoilers here, 'cause there's absolutely nothing to spoil. | 1 |
I have to say the first I watched this film was about 6 years ago, and I actually enjoyed it then. I bought the DVD recently, and upon a second viewing I wondered why I liked it. The acting was awful, and as usual we have the stereo-typical clansmen in their fake costumes. The acting was awful at best. Tim Roth did an OK job as did Liam Neeson, but I've no idea what Jessica Lange was thinking.<br /><br />The plot line was good, but the execution was just poor. I'm tired of seeing Scotland portrayed like this in the films. Braveheart was even worse though, which is this films only saving grace. But seriously, people didn't speak like that in those days, why do all the actors have to have Glaswegian accents? Just another film to try and capture the essence of already tired and annoying stereotypes. I notice the only people on here who say this film is good are the Americans, and to be honest I can see why they'd like it, I know they have an infatuation for men in Kilts. However, if you are thinking of buying the DVD, I'd say spend your money on something else, like a better film. | 1 |
Words really can't describe how bad this film is. I thought Zandalee was bad, but at least that had some nice shots and the occasional good chin stroking moment here and there to stop you from nodding off. This is just laughable! Terrible script, poor direction, awful acting and you know what? I can't think of a single thing to recommend about it other than the fact that it isn't too long. If you want 100 minutes worth of entertainment, book yourself in at the dentist and have some root canal work - far more enjoyable and much better value for money (assuming that you need it!). Incidentally, I need to type 10 lines of text to complete this review - PLEASE DO NOT BUY THIS MOVIE. IT IS TERRIBLE! | 1 |
I don't know what it is about Donald Sutherland's acting style, or vocal style, but he always seems to be acting from behind a massive wad of soggy Kleenex. He's just...I don't know, THICK? Somnambulistic? On meds? Weird.<br /><br />That said, I just saw the flick again for the first time since its original release, and frankly, I don't remember it ending anything LIKE that. A bad ending, too, because nothing gets tied off. What about the dead husband? The annoying child (and was the kid dubbed?)? The Scotland Yard and military pursuers? I would have liked something wrapping things up and giving some dramatic closure to it all, not just the big panoramic pull-away.<br /><br />And what woman sleeps with the man she knows just killed her husband? Even if she was trying to allay Needle's suspicions to protect her kid, she could always have had a headache. That last encounter made me feel way too itchy and uncomfortable... | 1 |
When it was announced the 'King of Pop' was dead at age 50, a month before he was to start a series of live comeback shows at London's O2 Arena, it was a huge shock to millions of people around the world. He was, and will forever be one of the most talented voices and dancers in the music industry, and he will be missed terribly. I decided to remind myself how wonderful he was by watching what is considered by many to be not only Jackson's best video (and possibly song), but the greatest music video ever made, from director John Landis (An American Werewolf in London). The film opens with Michael and his Girl (Ola Ray) having their car breakdown, and after giving her a ring, the moon comes out and he turns into a werewolf. We then see Michael and his Girl watching this horror film in the cinema, she is scared and walks out, and Michael soon follows her, singing the iconic song. Soon enough the voice of Vincent Price comes on, and zombies start crawling out the earth and open coffins from the graveyard, and Michael and the Girl are obviously surrounded. She turns away, and Michael has become a zombie himself, and with all the other creatures they do the iconic dance, before he turns back into his normal self, at least for the chorus. The Girl runs into the near creepy house, blocks the doorway, but zombie Michael still manages to break through, and when he touches her she screams to see normal Michael say 'what's the problem?' The film ends with him taking her home, and looking at us with evil eyes. Michael Jackson was number 14 on The 100 Greatest Pop Culture Icons, and he was number 6 on The Ultimate Pop Star, the Thriller album was number 4 on The 100 Greatest Albums, and this video was number 71 on The 100 Greatest Scary Moments, and it was number 1 on The 100 Greatest Pop Videos. Very good! | 0 |
Little Quentin seems to have mastered the art of having the cake and eating it.<br /><br />As usual, the pure sadistic display can be explained as a clever thought-provoking way of sending violence back into the audience's face.<br /><br />Sure, Mr Tarantino. Violence is Baaad. Sadism is Baaad. It is well worth wading in it to make that point. How very brilliant.<br /><br />The juvenile part of the audience may well not be clever enough to follow all the smart references to higher levels of consciousness though, but I'm confident they'll see the light one day.<br /><br />Thanks for making this little world of ours a little better. You deserve a medal. | 1 |
What is it with Americans and their hang-up with religious gobbledy-gook? To think this was a best-selling novel is incredible, but to pull it off as a movie you really need good acting and a script that delivers. In this case, all the good actors have gone to heaven and we're left with Kirk Cameron as a CNN-type journalist(!) trying to discover why a lot of people have simply disappeared. Oh yeah, there's a subplot about an evil world conspiracy and famine, or something. The good news is that this is done so cheaply, and with such inane dialogue, that it has sheer entertainment value in all of its unintended laughs. Not recommended for anyone with a 3-digit IQ. | 1 |
Oh dear. Some of the best talent in British TV made this serial, and so I can only assume that they were working under incredible time pressure, and had to settle for first takes of many scenes.<br /><br />There ARE some frightening scenes in this Highland mystery (mostly when the 'monster' attacks and we see it from his point of view), but I'm afraid that I found most of the story unintentionally funny ! Such as the moment when the hero discovers a dismembered corpse on a golf course: Oh look, there's a hand ... oh, and there's another hand over there ... hmm this is a bit puzzling ...<br /><br />For many years fans of British cult TV shows campaigned to have this serial released on VHS or DVD, but the BBC always said no. Now I think I understand why ! | 1 |
This was a painful example of a cheap, boring and unoriginal show produced by Australian TV stations to fulfil local content quotas. The writing was truly terrible and I'm not surprised that the writers are those responsible for the worst Australian film in recent memory the Honerable Wally Norman.<br /><br />Nothing about this TV series was funny - ever - not even mildly amusing. It was just tired and BAD and, worst of all, it really thought it was funny. It was simply embarrassing to watch.<br /><br />There is something very suss about this show being given 10 out of 10 on IMDb. Try to find a (real) review by a (real) Australian viewer of the show (there weren't many) and it is impossible. Or crazy. There are loafs of bread that are funnier than this show. <br /><br />Avoid the show at all cost and if it does come out on DVD, remember that the laughter THAT deserves was unintentional. | 1 |
I was lucky enough to have seen this film at it's Seattle Film Fest screening, and was blown away by how great it was. This is without a doubt one of the best music documentaries I've ever seen, (and I've seen a lot!) This is a loving look back at the life and times, music and relationships of one of music's true legends. Harry Nilsson deserves to be up there with the likes of Gershwin, Cole Porter, and all the other great song writers of 20th century standards. He was considered a peer by all four members of the Beatles, who all called him a 5th Beatle, and one the same wavelength as themselves.<br /><br />Harry refused to tour, so many today don't remember him, and those born after his heyday, are unaware of who he was. This is tragic. Everyone should have the opportunity to be exposed to this wonderful talent. This film is a step in the right direction, to finally give the man his due. Unfortunately, the film has yet to have wide distribution, or even a DVD so for the time being, good luck in getting to see it.<br /><br />If you are someone with the power to put together a DVD distribution deal, PLEASE contact the film makers. This film needs to be available. Hey VH-1, how about screening it on air, then maybe putting it out on DVD? Harry Nilsson deserves nothing less. | 0 |
For a good take on the Roman Empire watch the excellent BBC produced miniseries 'I, Claudius'. This just sucked. The acting was pathetic and you could almost see the actors looking at the camera. Hans Matheson was irritating. Cheese factor was so high that it promotes constipation with repeated viewings. Even Caligula was tame. I think this film was silently supported by 'religious' groups who shall remain nameless ;). The overt tones of Christian favoritism and persecution were blatant if that gives any hint. Stay away what ever you do - the running time is so long that I was able to read Harry Potter's first book faster than the time it took to view this tripe.<br /><br />Italy has done better - don't let Hans cute face fool you. He is not a great actor...he is a great bore. | 1 |
I always follow the Dakar, so when my husband bought Charlie's 'Race to Dakar' DVD home I couldn't wait to watch it! Of course we'd seen the broadcast of the race when the actual race was on, but that never gives the background and specific teams.<br /><br />If you watched Long Way Round then you won't be surprised by the language which frankly I find more amusing than offensive.<br /><br />I think the only thing that annoyed me about the DVD was Charlie's hair, but he had it styled before Dakar so my feminine need for neatness was assuaged; tho' I could have lived without the 'flame' undies lol As with LWR, the preparation was every bit as interesting as the race itself. I nearly cried when Charlie broke his hand, and winced at every bruise he sustained while training....and of course the death of Andy Caldicott...that was an appalling tragedy, but then every year there's something.<br /><br />Russ drives me nuts, although his attitude has improved a thousand times from the argumentative cynic he was in LWR. It's great to see him get along so well now with Charlie.<br /><br />What I learned from this odyssey was - 1. never let Scorpion prepare your vehicle for ANYTHING! - they had months to prepare the X5, and still the day before the team left for Lisbon, Scorpion had only done half of things that needed to be done, and the vehicle was a pain throughout the whole race; 2. the Dakar organizers need to put a lot more work into their rider/driver retrieval plan - leaving Matt (and presumably a large number of other riders/drivers out to dry the way they did was nothing short of culpable negligence; 3. Charlie has an endearing enthusiasm for 'rough and tough' adventure but needs to toughen up a lot to really perform as he'd like; and finally, 4. Charlie and Ewan are planning another of these epos called the Long Way Down in 2007, and I can't wait to get my hands on it! :D If you love bikes and/or genuinely nice blokes 'having a go', you have to watch this, I guarantee you love it. It's very entertaining.<br /><br />In conclusion, to Simon Pavey - you sir are a hero, I was so impressed by the your 'quiet achiever' manner and the fact that you actually finished.....just incredible considering what an monumentally difficult race it is. And to Charlie, Matt and the rest of the team - full marks for pulling it off. To think that a relatively green team could have achieved so much is truly admirable. You're all wonderful. | 0 |
The first of two films by Johnny To, this film won many awards, but none so prestigious as a Cannes Golden Palm nomination.<br /><br />The Triad elects their leader, but it is far from democratic with the behind the scenes machinations.<br /><br />Tony Leung Ka Fai (Zhou Yu's Train, Ashes of Time Redux) is Big D, who plans to take the baton no matter what it takes, even if it means a war. Well, war is not going to happen as that is bad for business. Big D will change his tune or...<br /><br />Good performances by Simon Yam, Louis Koo and Ka Tung Lam (Infernal Affairs I & III), along with Tony Leung Ka Fai.<br /><br />Whether Masons, made men in the Mafia, or members of the Wo Sing Society, the ceremonies are the same; fascinating to watch.<br /><br />To be continued... | 0 |
Seriously, the fact that this show is so popular just boggles the mind. This show isn't funny, it isn't clever, it isn't original, it's just a steaming pile of bull crap. Let me start with the characters. The characters are all one-dimensional morons with loud, exaggerated voices that just sound like fingernails on a blackboard. The voice acting could've been better. Then there's the animation. MY GOD, it hurts my eyes just looking at it. Everything is too flat, too pointy, too bright, and too candy coated. Then there's the humor, or lack thereof. It's completely idiotic! They just take these B-grade jokes that aren't even that funny in the first place and then repeat them to death. They also throw in some pointless potty humor which sickens me. And finally, last and least, the music. It's just plain annoying. It sounds like it was composed on a child's computer and generates no emotion whatsoever. I wish there was a score lower than 1, I really do. This show seriously needs to be canceled. It's a show I try to avoid like the plague. Whenever I hear the theme song I immediately turn the TV off. If you've never watched this show then don't. Watch quality programming like The Simpsons or Futurama. | 1 |
I have just given a 10 for Thieves Highway, I mention this for two reasons one to prove I'm not a git who only gives bad reviews but 2 because the theme of the film has the same thread namely the falling in love with a woman of the night.<br /><br />We all know pretty Woman is a chick flick but you can't avoid them all, they'll eventually get you. Pretty Woman for me does two things, two terrible horrible ghastly things, firstly it portrays prostitution as a career more akin to that of a dancer, you know with absolutely great friends, leg warmers lots of giggling, borrowing each others make up. You see in the reality of Pretty Woman the prostitute and this is a street walker Prostitute we're talking about here, has a great life, she's healthy happy with only the occasional whimper to explain her predicament. My feeling is this 'happy Hooker' type protagonist is a lot more palatable than an even nearly realistic character, which for me begs the question if you make a movie about a type of person but are too chicken scared to adorn that player with the characteristics familiar to that role then why do it? If I make a film about a chef but don't want him to cook or talk about food or wear a white hat then why make a film about a chef in the first place? By bailing out and turning the hooker into a respectable dancer type the story misses the point completely and consequently never indulges in any of the moral or social questions that it could have, what a cop out, really really lame. <br /><br />Secondly, 'Pretty Woman' insults romance itself, Edward Lewis played by Richard Gere has no clue how to seduce or romance this 'lady' that is without his plastic friend, yep don't leave home without it, especially if you are a moron in a suit who has no imagination. 8 out of 10 of his romantic moments involve splashing cash in one way or another, even when he first meets her it's the Lotus Esprit turbo that does all the work, necklaces here diamonds there limos over there, money money money, where's the charm? where's the charisma, don't mention that attempt at the piano please.<br /><br />Girls who like this film will also be girls who like shopping more than most. Guys who like this film will not even have realized that old Eddy has less charm than a calculator, as they probably don't either so it wont have registered. More importantly anyone who likes this film will hate 'Thieves Highway' a wonderful story of which part is based on the same subject.<br /><br />I'll finish on a song:<br /><br />Pretty woman hangin round the street Pretty woman, the kind I like to treat Pretty woman, I don't believe you You're not the truth No one could spend as much as you Mercy<br /><br />Pretty woman, wont you pardon me Pretty woman, I couldn't help but see Pretty woman, and you look lovely as can be do you lack imagination just like me<br /><br />Pretty woman, shop a while Pretty woman, talk a while Pretty woman, sell your smile to me Pretty woman, yeah, yeah, yeah Pretty woman, look my way Pretty woman, say you'll stay with me..and I'll pay you..I'll treat you right | 1 |
If this is your first time experiencing the wonders of cinema, if you've never seen a 'Moving Picture' before, you'll think this movie is a child of the gods. BUT if you've seen a movie, a TV show, even Barney the Dinosaur, then you won't be very impressed by this film. Heck Barney the dinosaur was even more realistic than the dinos in this flick.<br /><br />Now I like B movies. I just watched 'The Giant Gila Monster' right before I watched this swill, and I liked that movie much better. It works as a B movie. It has lamer dialog,hokier acting, cheesier effects and an honest to gosh real Gila Monster as the monster! Carno 3 just doesn't pack much of a B movie punch. It has some gore, and that Polchek guy comes close to being funny a few times but this movie is underwhelming, almost....flaccid. It's the Little Engine That Couldn't of Dinosaur movies. I'm not saying you shouldn't watch the movie. <br /><br />Some people can watch gum drying on a sidewalk and feel entertained. If you're one of those people, then give this movie a shot. | 1 |
This is the most disturbing film I have ever seen. It makes 'Requiem for a Dream' look like a Disney film. Although, technically, it is reasonably well made, acting, cinematography, music, directing, etc., are good. However, the concluding gang rape scene is the most appalling and violent thing I have ever seen and I really wish I had not seen it. I am afraid that it will haunt me for the rest of my life. Although I think anyone would find the film extremely disturbing, my wife and some of her friends were victimized in a very similar manner and I really didn't need an explicit reminder of the horror that they experienced. I saw the film at the SXSW film festival in Austin, TX and none of the cast or crew were in attendance. I would have liked for them to have had the opportunity to defend the violence in their film, which I felt was excessive, gratuitous and unnecessary. An earlier scene successfully conveyed the mood they were apparently striving for, but without rubbing your face in the extreme and explicit sexual violence. This film should have a big WARNING label on it. For these reasons I would not recommend anyone seeing it. You've been warned. | 1 |
This would have to rate as one of the worst films of all time. The film screened at the Italian Film Festival in Melbourne, Australia. After the screening, not only did I want my money refunded, I wanted the 1.5 wasted hours of my life back too. I have a very broad tolerance level when it comes to the indulgences of some European film-making, but this is one of those films that is selected for festivals based on the reputation of the filmmaker alone. This film is proof that while such selections may satisfy the egos of the film-maker and the selection panel, there is absolutely no joy for the audience. There is no character development whatsoever, the plot is a garbled mess, the style is nonsensical, the shot selection is appalling, and the editing is worse. By the end of the first reel, you'll wonder if you walked into the wrong cinema, and by the end of the third reel, you'll be begging to be put out of your misery. This film is an abomination. | 1 |
I discovered this movie with a retailer selling OOP's. And this one surely is an OOP. One year after The Exorcist she's back in business with this movie but what we all new was that the career of Blair never broke out, she never became a mega star. That's one of the reason's many of her films are OOP. She gives a good performance in this movie. It's about a reject not recognized by her parents and doesn't have any friends. Played at an age of 15 playing a girl of 14, that's funny. The movie is also known for the rape scene in the showers were they stick a broomstick up her virginity. In most editions it's cut out, why, I don't know, no blood is involved, okay, Blair is butt naked but nothing is shown, no T&A so nothing to offend people. But the movie is slow, extremely slow. It doesn't happy normally to me but I almost felt asleep. It's just about that 14 year old becoming a rebel against society but no blood flows, no gore no nothing. Why this is categorized in horror is still a wonder to me. If you're a fan of Blair, buy it if you can find it otherwise leave it as it is. | 1 |
It does not seem that this movie managed to please a lot of people. First off, not many seem to have seen it in the first place (I just bumped into it by accident), and then judging by the reviews and the rating, of those that did many did not enjoy it very much.<br /><br />Well, I did. I usually tolerate Gere for his looks and his charm, and even though I did not consider him a great actor, I know he can do crazy pretty well (I liked his Mr Jones). But this performance is all different. He is not pretty in this one, and he is not charming. His character is completely different from anything I had seen from him up to that point---old, ugly, broken, determined. And Gere, in what to me is so far his best performance ever, pulls it off beautifully. I guess it is a sign of how well an actor does his job if you cannot imagine anyone else doing it instead---think Hopkins as Hannibal Lecter, or Washington as Alonzo in Training Day. That is how good Gere was here.<br /><br />The rest of the cast were fine by me, too. I guess I would not have cast Danes in this role, mostly because I think she is too good-looking for it. But she actually does an excellent job, holding her own with a Gere in top form, which is no small feat. Strickland easily delivers the best supporting act, in a part that requires a considerable range from her. I actually think she owns the key scene with Gere and Danes, and that is quite an achievement.<br /><br />So what about the rest of the movie, apart from some excellent acting? The story is perhaps not hugely surprising, some 8mm-ish aspects to it, but adding the 'veteran breaks in rookie' storyline to the who-dunnit, and also (like Silence of the Lambs) adding a sense of urgency through trying to save the girl and the impending retirement of Gere's character. All that is a backdrop to the development of the two main characters, as they help each other settle into their respective new stations in life. That's a lot to accomplish in a 100 minutes, but it is done well, and we end up caring for the characters and what happens to them.<br /><br />Direction and photography were adequate. I could have done without the modern music-video camera movements and cutting, but then I am an old curmudgeon, and it really wasn't all that bad, in fact I think it did help with the atmosphere of the movie, which as you might have guessed, by and large isn't a happy one.<br /><br />Worth seeing. | 0 |
What is enjoyable about watching random movies at random times is that one never quite knows what to expect or where the next great piece of cinema will emerge. Recently, my viewing has taken the form of stapled classics like 'Raging Bull' or 'Raiders of the Lost Ark', but this time my VCR took me away from modern conveniences and plopped me right down in front of Lionel Jeffries' 'The Railway Children'. This is a skillfully directed film about three youthful children, a mysterious event with their father, relocation to the open fields of England, and eventually the rewards inherited by merely waving at trains. At first glance this seemingly simple children's film doesn't seem all that hopeful as it has been lost on VHS rarity for some time, but within the first fifteen minutes of this film, one realizes that it is more than just your common place children's movie 'Railway Children' was created during a time when purity was more than just saying 'no', when family meant everything, and where adventure was ready for you around every railroad track bend. This is more than an adorable film, it has amazing cinematic techniques used, it keeps the regular viewer glued to the screen with unanswered questions, and gives three perfect companions to follow along this 110-minute voyage. 'Railway Children' is a lost treasure that needs to be seen by families and film aficionados alike.<br /><br />There are several moments that stand out proudly in 'Railway Children' that transform this from mediocrity to excellence one happens to be our three children; Bobby, Phyllis, and Peter. Modern cinema assures us that these three children cannot provide ample darkness, laughter, and insight into the world surrounding them, but Jeffries' children prove otherwise. From intelligently spoken lines (both from acting and the script), to sincere kindness and dedication to this small village, all the way to the final meeting at that train stop; these children are more than just child stars advancing a story, they are leading us with emotion, persuasion, and a realism unseen by today's children. There is more imagination packed in this small VHS than I have witnessed in film for years. A favorite scene that could have been handled with generality, of which I have seen in other films, was the birthday scene for Bobby. The way that Jeffries floats her between guests and gifts was exciting and refreshing, keeping our eyes excited about each scene, as well as our mind. Another scene that captured my attention was when the children were working on gifts for Perks, when asking one man for a gift, Jeffries has him merely state, 'No, I will not. I don't like Perks.' The children's reaction is hilarious providing moments for both children and adults to enjoy throughout. Filmed in the 1970s, this tiny feature provides genuine laughs than most modern comedies. It is a creative film coupled with great choreography and direction.<br /><br />That is to say, as much as I loved this film, it wasn't perfect. Jeffries does a great job of keeping us guessing as to what happened to father, but it did feel like the event occurred, the children were kept in the dark, and it suddenly resolved itself by the end. More detail to father, not much more, would have solidified his character and given us the opportunity to see more of the children's reaction. Also, there is one scene in this film, one of those grandiose wide-screen shots of the English countryside that is just breath-taking, but when looking a bit closer you happen to see cars in the background. It made me chuckle, but didn't distract too much from the overall picture. Cinema like this is sorely missed today, and oddly, it seems that only the British have the gumption to produce it. Films like 'Love, Actually' or 'Vicar of Dibley' demonstrates the power and excitement for community towns, places where everyone knows everyone and we aren't afraid to be neighborly. This is more of a theme that American audiences could have more of more understanding of what is happening outside, instead of remaining secluded to your own events.<br /><br />Overall, I loved 'Railway Children'. I didn't know what to expect when I first put it in the VHS player, but from the opening scene, to the exploding train set, to Perks birthday, Jeffries proved that he could handle the most child-friendly story with ease. His ability to make the child actors feel like real characters, to involve the adults less, and to involve the children like they were adults was outstanding. This is a film to be viewed as a strong alternative to anything Disney releases. The continually occurring themes of friendship, kindness to strangers, and forgiveness blasts through the TV with grace and power. 'Railway Children' is more than just a kid's film; it is a feature that should be a staple to modern audience viewing. Not only does it give a great visual to the English countryside, but it also teaches (and shows) how life would be greater with an emphasis on imagination and courage, instead of fighting any CGI bad guys.<br /><br />Grade: **** ½ out of ***** | 0 |
I thought this movie was terrible. I'm Chinese, so I thought everything was totally wrong. Many of the facts were incorrect. The only thing right about Chinese history in the movie was when Wendy's mother explained to her husband about the statues that guarded ShiHuangDi. I also thought the fight scenes were very cheesy and fake. Many of the actors and actresses were not very great. Some of the jokes that were supposedly 'funny' were really stupid. I think this movie should receive the worst possible rating it could get. Disney has really got to get more information about Chinese history if they want to create an extravagant movie. Mulan was quite accurate. Watch this movie if you want to waste some time. | 1 |
I picked up Time Changer because it looked like a nice low-budget scifi time travel movie and I was in the mood for something like that. The description said it had something to do with some biblical stuff and time travel but I didn't expect a fundamentalist Christian film!<br /><br />The movie had decent special effects and an interesting premise that could have gone places and been far more interesting than it ended up being. Our hero, who is a bible professor from the 1890s, eventually travels forward to the 2000s and finds that modern life is filled with the influences of evil - Jesus is nowhere to be found. This wonderful technological feat is accomplished with the assistance of a fellow bible teacher who somehow managed to invent a functional HG-Wells-style time machine. The movie starts to lose some credibility at this point, which is unfortunate because this happens very early in the film. Earlier (or perhaps immediately later, can't remember for certain), our hero professor was seen teaching what appeared to be a science class where he claimed that scientific findings could only be considered validated if it could be matched with what the bible says. What should be obvious to anyone is that this is clearly not what the scientific method is about, however it is presented such that the filmmakers appear to prefer the point of view that science is useful only if it supports their claims and otherwise is not useful.<br /><br />In any case, that belief is perfectly valid and sensible in the context of the character at the time. So, if we accept that as the fact of life for these bible professors, then obviously the professor who went and invented the time machine isn't a very strong believer as I don't think there's any evidence (and none was offered) for the physics of time travel in the bible. So immediately there's a problem with mixed messages and credibility there, but never mind...<br /><br />After the professor is convinced to take the leap into the future, the shock of modern technology was handled quite well in most cases. It was also fun to not have it pinned down to an exact year (as the character is reading the date off a newspaper to himself, a car honks a horn and it scares him into not finishing the date: it's just two thousand and... *honk*). Some of the shock went on a little too long, though. For instance, the car was one of the first things he encountered when he arrived and around two days later he's invited to a church movie night and takes a ride in a van. He sticks his head out the window like a dog might, is scared by the headlights and the starting engine, etc. That seemed a bit off since he'd been there a few days by this point and the city appeared to be quite busy with traffic. In any case, that's easy to ignore. The rest of the tech shock was well done - especially his first encounter with the TV which was delayed because he didn't even realize what it was until he saw a kid watching one and using a remote.<br /><br />Unfortunately, our hero predictably starts to preach to virtually everyone he meets as if he's an authority on all life and religion just because he's from the past and is an elder. Eventually he gets himself a brief moment in the spotlight at the church he had been visiting where he proceeds to explain his concept of Christianity to them in a long monologue that was supposed to be moving and insightful, but mostly was just more of the same. A couple of husbands in the church begin to get a funny feeling about this guy (go figure) and investigate his name. They eventually conclude that he either is a time traveler or is impersonating this long dead bible professor and decide to find out which it is. The movie frames these guys as non-believer bad guys for being skeptical.<br /><br />Just before the professor is to head back to his own time, he is confronted by those two men. In an effort to avoid being arrested or hauled away, he eventually breaks into an almost insane-like rant about how Jesus is coming soon and that he's a prophet so they should listen to him. Just in time, he's whisked away and one of the husbands wonders if perhaps this is the rapture he'd heard so much about.<br /><br />The irony is that this essentially means the professor became a self-proclaimed (and most likely false) prophet claiming to know that the rapture was near and he was sent by God when truthfully he was sent by his fellow bible professor and did not have any God-given knowledge (that was stated or even hinted at).<br /><br />As I understand it, Revelation claims that the time of the end is only for God to know and at the end of the film we see the inventor professor trying (and failing) to send a bible into the future. First 2080, then 2070, etc. as the scene fades out. Clearly he's trying to determine the exact date of the end times - which he shouldn't be able to know! Essentially, the entire premise of the movie cancels itself out because by being so insistent on their religious beliefs and how certain things are for God to know only, it means there couldn't ever BE a time machine in the first place because then mankind could find out something that only God should know! The entire movie's premise collapses and makes the whole thing basically worthless as it undermines it's own credibility in the end. | 1 |
this film is so unbelievably awful! everything about it was rubbish. you cant say anything good about this film, the acting, script, directing, effects are all just as bad as each other. even ed wood could have done a better job than this. i seriously recommended staying away from this movie unless you want to waste about 100mins of your life or however long the film was. i forget. this is the first time i wrote a comment about a film on IMDb, but this film was just on TV and i had to let the world of movie lovers know that this film sucked balls!!!!!!!!!!!! so if you have any decency left in you. go and rent a much better bad movie like critters 3 | 1 |
Sure this movie is not historically accurate but it is great entertainment. Most DeMille pictures especially the later epics are slow and plodding but the action here moves at a clip. The story is basically a series of peaks with very little quiet moments. The action takes us from an Indian raid on a cabin; one of the best parts of the movie with Jean Arthur excellent while attempting to appease the war-painted natives. This is followed by her and Cooper being taken to the war camp and being tortured. Later comes a protracted battle with the Cheyenne. The whole thing is ridiculous but great fun and entertaining from start to finish. Jean Arthur is one of the best actresses of this era and she shines here. | 0 |
In this paranoia-driven potboiler, our reporter hero battles hindersome authorities, duplicitous co-workers, renegade UFO debunkers, and silent, skulking aliens. (Though capable of mind control and zapping objects from afar, it takes three of them to operate a control panel of about two dozen buttons.) The script clomps from event to event,leaving puzzlers aplenty. Why did the aliens blind the dog? Why do they fry the soldiers with radiation when they're only patrolling an empty landing site? And what space dudes worth their moon cheese abduct the ugly photographer first instead of his model? Inquiring minds want to know! Writer-director Mario Gariazzo apparently researched his subject by skimming a stack of UFO-themed tabloids as he took in a Sunn Classics double feature. (The closing screen crawl boasts that it's based on actual events...just like 'Plan 9!') Some may feel burned by the abrupt finale, but it should still appeal to conspiracy cranks. | 1 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.