review
stringlengths 41
13.7k
| label
int64 0
1
|
|---|---|
Adolf Hitler's maniacal desire to impose his will on the rest of the world is the subject of this second in a seven part series of films produced by the U.S. War Department as an instructional tool for new soldiers entering the Armed Forces during World War II. Hitler's plan was methodical and well conceived, starting with the conquest of Eastern Europe, expanding to the European heartland, then moving on to the 'World Island' consisting of Europe, Asia and Africa. His final move would be to reach across the oceans for the ultimate conquest of the Americas and the World.<br /><br />In 1935, Hitler ordered national conscription, as the rest of the country fell under his evil spell. Grade school children sang his praises, and young German boys received training and indoctrination in military camps. Marching unopposed into Austria in 1938, Hitler followed by annexing a strip of land bordering Germany and Czechoslovakia called Sudetenland. In 1939, Hitler took all of Czechoslovakia. Later in the year, the world was stunned to learn that Germany signed a non-aggression pact with it's mortal enemy Russia, a ploy to delay Hitler's military involvement on too many fronts. Immediately after, Germany invaded Poland, bringing Hitler's conquest right to Russia's doorstep. He would deal with her later.<br /><br />It was during this period that Britain still declined to oppose Hitler's thrust across Europe. Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain felt he procured a great victory for his country by accepting a treaty with Germany, his infamous declaration stating 'Peace in Our Time'. It didn't turn out that way.<br /><br />The most fascinating information to be learned in this installment, at least to me, was provided by a small snippet of footage from a German pro Hitler rally in the mid '30's. It was led by a German American taking his cue directly from the homeland. The venue - Madison Square Garden! | 0 |
Boy-girl love affair/sequel with songs, only this time she's the punkette and he's the straight arrow. Movie-buffs out there actually like this movie? It has fans? I must say, the mind reels... 'Grease 2' is a truly lame enterprise that doesn't even have the courage, moxy or sheer gall to take the memory of its predecessor down in flames (like 'Jaws 2' or 'Exorcist II'). No, it whimpers along in slow-motion and often just plays dead. It looks and feels cheap, with a large cast lost amidst messy direction and unfocused handling. This was the first time a substantial audience got a glimpse of Michelle Pfeiffer and, although she doesn't embarrass herself, it's a role worth forgetting. A misfire on the lowest of levels. NO STARS from **** | 1 |
1st watched 12/6/2009 - 4 out of 10 (Dir-Walter Lang): Disappointing musical from a character development standpoint, in my opinion, from this much-heralded Rodgers and Hammerstein piece. There a couple of good songs and a decent comical portrayal, at times, of the King of Siam by Yul Brynner -- but the movie doesn't really do a good job of presenting the situation and the settings. I can only blame the screenplay and possibly some of the acting as to why we don't fully understand the character's and their situations. I know it might be a little too much to ask of a musical meant for the enjoyment of the songs and the dancing, but even this part didn't stand out a lot for me. The basic storyline is about an English woman coming to Siam to teach the children about upscale European things. We find out later that the King is actually the biggest pupil. There is a side forbidden romance between the King's newest wife, played by Rita Moreno(a latino as an Arab--come on!!) and a former lover that causes some complications but nothing really mesmerizing added though. Deborah Kerr, as the main female character Annie -- is OK but not that convincing either. The King learns some things because of her presence and then the movie fades away as he does. This is really a miniscule story with some songs and dancing but not that great of an experience for a viewer really. | 1 |
I was expecting to this to be hilarious and it was mediocre at best, the only funny character is, believe it or not Andy Dick. The timing was just horrible on most of the jokes & gags and the writing was bad, I mean I know its supposed to be like blaxploitation but it just did work. besides this whole genre has been beaten to death already, with all the austin powers movies & undercover brother, it just seems old, it also just feels like a rip off from undercover brother (which also wasn't hysterical, but a lot funnier than this). Also, for an comedy/action movie the direction was kind of bland. I don't know if this is going to be released in theaters, but it definatley is made for TV. | 1 |
I really liked Get Shorty, but this movie was completely disappointing as a sequel. First of all, Travolta does not in any way resemble the Chili Palmer from Get Shorty. He merely half-assed this performance as he has done in all of his more recent movies. He totally isn't smooth or have the mobster presence about him that makes you kinda root for him throughout the movie. It just seems like Travolta rolled out of bed and decided he was good to go for acting in this movie. The plot just wasn't exciting or clever, there really aren't any highlights that happen, the only thing that resembled entertainment was watching Christina Millian perform and The Rock was funny. But anyways, long story short, this movie was trash and I had to force myself just to get through it. | 1 |
The film had some likable aspects. Perhaps too many for my taste. It felt as though the writer/director was desperately trying to get us to feel the inner conflict of ALL of its characters. Not once, a few times...but all of the time. <br /><br />This is the job of television, not cinema. <br /><br />The location of the train station was well chosen and I enjoyed Sascha Horler's performance as the pregnant friend. <br /><br />I felt as though Justine Clarke's performance was wan. Her reactions to things felt forced, as though the director were trying to vocalise the themes of the film through her protagonist's expressions. I also can't believe that a director can make the wonderful Daniela Farinacci into an unbelievable presence. <br /><br />I cannot understand the choice of pop music slapped over entire sequences. This is a lazy device, especially where the pop music comes from no place diagetic to the film and/or where the lyrics of the song feel embarrassingly earnest. <br /><br />That said, there is a breezy quality about the film that evokes the Australian heat and local attitude with originality. It does create an atmosphere of heat and sunshine. Especially with the usage of wonderful animation sequences that rescue the film from complete mediocrity, infusing it with passion and hand-crafted charm. <br /><br />I am curious why the dialogue feels so overworked. 'Who knows if there's a god? Like some guy sitting there up in the sky telling us what to do' or whatever the line was. <br /><br />Perhaps one of the more embarrassing moments was the friend returning home from cricket with a bunch of flowers to declare to his wife 'I'm giving up smoking.' <br /><br />An anti-smoking commercial? A TAC ad with some tasteful animation? I had to leave the cinema at the 50 minute mark -- it was all too much. | 1 |
Coinciding with the start of the baby boom, the years after World War II saw an unprecedented exodus of Americans moving out of their city apartments into the suburbs where they can fulfill their dreams of owning their own homes. Directed by H.C. Potter and co-written by Norman Panama and Melvin Frank ('White Christmas'), this lightweight but surprisingly observant 1948 screwball comedy captures the feeling of that period very well. Of course, it helps to have a trio of expert farceurs Cary Grant, Myrna Loy and an especially acerbic Melvyn Douglas head the proceedings with their natural likability at odds with the escalating frustrations of home ownership. Even though the film is sixty years old now, there is a timeless quality to the Blandings' dream and the barriers they face in achieving it. Obviously, Hollywood thinks so since it's been remade at least twice - first as a very physical Tom Hanks comedy, 1986's 'The Money Pit', and again last year with Ice Cube's 'Are We Done Yet?'. One look at HGTV's programming schedule will show you how the situations explored here still resonate today.<br /><br />The plot begins with ad man Jim Blandings, his wife Muriel and their two daughters cramped into a two bedroom-one bath Manhattan apartment. Rather than pursue Muriel's idea to renovate the apartment for $7,000, Jim sees a photo of a Connecticut house in a magazine and realizes this is where they need to move. With the help of an opportunistic real estate agent and against the advice of their attorney and family friend Bill Cole, the Blandings decide to buy a ramshackle house badly in need of repair. However, the foundation sags so badly that the house needs to be torn down in favor of a new one. This sparks the Blandings to push the architect to design a house so excessive that the second floor is twice as big as the first. Costs rise with each new complication, tempers flare, and even a romantic triangle is imagined among, Jim, Muriel and Bill. Priorities finally sort themselves out but not before some funny slapstick scenes and clever dialogue that tweaks the not-so-blissful ignorance of the new homeowners.<br /><br />With his double takes and flawless line delivery, Grant is infallible in this type of farce, and Jim Blandings epitomizes his more domesticated mid-career characters. In a role originally meant for Irene Dunne, Myrna Loy shows why she was Hollywood's perfect wife. She doesn't get many of the funnier lines, but she combines her special blend of flightiness and sauciness to make Muriel an appealing character on her own. Watch her deftly maneuver the overly agreeable house painter with her absurdly idiosyncratic color palette. As avuncular, pipe-smoking Bill ('Cole
Bill Cole'), Melvyn Douglas shows his natural, easy-going élan as Grant's foil. Smaller roles are filled expertly with particularly memorable turns by Harry Shannon as the laconic well-digger Mr. Tesander, Lurene Tuttle as Jim's officious assistant Mary, and Louise Beavers as the Blandings' lovable maid Gussie. The 2004 DVD provides some intriguing vintage material including two radio versions of the movie - the first a 1949 version that did end up pairing Grant and Dunne and then a second 1950 version coupling Grant with his then-wife, actress Betsy Drake. A most appropriate 1949 cartoon, 'The House of Tomorrow', is also included giving us a comical tour of a futuristic dream house. The original theatrical trailers for ten of Grant's film classics complete the extras. | 0 |
A number of contributors have mentioned the age difference between Stewart and Novak. She was 25 and he was 50 when this movie was released. I think that the difference didn't matter for a suspense drama like Vertigo, but it does matter for a romantic comedy. We can easily understand, that is, why his character would be attracted to hers, but it's less clear why hers would be attracted to his.<br /><br />Still, the movie works as a light romantic fantasy. The scene where she stares at him across the cat's head, with her dark painted-on eyebrows flaring and the sounds of her humming and the cat purring, is true magic. It's a little jarring, therefore, when the scene shifts to the top of the Flatiron Building, and we see the age difference very sharply. As he embraces her, she reaches up to run her fingers through his hair, but stops that motion and just brushes her fingertips lightly against his toupee. | 0 |
I just saw this movie in a sneak preview and before reading my comment you have to know that it is very subjective because I love Techno, Trance, Club, House and music like that.<br /><br />The movie deals with Carl, whose brother Jason (or whatever his name was) died in an accident: he fell off a rooftop, 'drunk'. Carl meets his brother's girlfriend Sunny and the two of them quite unmotivated some kind of private investigation about Jason's death and Carl gets involved in Jason's ex-life that was filled with clubs and drugs. The movie itself, seen from an artistic point of view, is nothing more than a big pile of s**t. The plot is predictable, all of the characters are extremely cliched and two-dimensional (stupid boy from a small town, young good-looking innocent girl, big bad drug king... the list is endless) and most of the acting such as the plot are just not credible. Matthew Rhys' performance of the stupid boy coming to big London and sudden taking drugs from people he does not even know does not seem very credible, unlike his female counterpart Sunny, performed by Sienna Guillory, whose behaviour seems more realistic to the spectator. Nothing more than a joke was Tim Curry's performance of the drug king Damian: a phony caricature, too 'eeeevil' and just too ridiculous to be true.<br /><br />BUT: If you like club music (the club scenes such as the selected tracks are simply brilliant), if you enjoy a simple lovestory with a sweet girl like Sunny (yes, I confess, I lost my heart ;)... that makes my comment even more subjective, I guess) with some (predictable) twists and turns you will definetely enjoy this movie.<br /><br />Anybody else: F.O.R.G.E.T.....I.T.!<br /><br />3 out of 10 (objective view)<br /><br />7 out of 10 (my personal view and also my final vote) | 0 |
This film deserves a 10 for its brilliant portrayal of the world as experienced in the mind of a playboy. While I found that world morally repulsive, the film did best what storytelling should do, and that is take us through an experience that we would otherwise never undergo. Tim Meadows so convincingly portrays Leon Phelps, and the story so drew me into the reckless world of Leon, that I momentarily forgot that I was watching a parody of the playboy world and felt compelled to rebel against it. Herein lies the film's undoing because its great and bold achievement in storytelling comes at the price of its own success. Understanding that the vast majority of moviegoers will respond only to the story of this film that lies on the surface, and reject that story, I hesitate to be misunderstood by them and admit that I loved it. I loved it not only for its fascinating insights into the deluded mind of the playboy, not only for its amusing portrayal of the idiocy of the human sex drive, but also for its courage to fearlessly explore what is in the shadows of heterosexuality. Besides, it's just funny. | 0 |
Olivier Assayas' film stars Asia Argento as a woman who had a relationship with Michael Madsen. Madsen is a business man who's in financial trouble. In desperation he is going to sell his share of a business to a company called Golden Eagle, a company from the Far East. As Madsen begins his moves away from his company Asia Argento returns to his life. The pair had a torrid love affair that included her doing business favors for Madsen (with said Golden Eagle). Once Argento enters the film the film follows her as we see the tangled web she's woven and how the complications spin dangerously and violently out of control.<br /><br />I'm not a fan. Actually I was quite bored as the film seems to go from pillar to post for much of the first hour during which I kept wondering what the point was other than to provide a meaty role for Argento. Argento, daughter of director Dario Argento and a director in her own right, is a unique actress. At times stunningly good, she is more often then not going to give you a quirky off beat portrayal of a damaged human being. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. I don't think it completely works here mostly because the script is too 'complicated' to support it. I didn't care what was going on so her wounded girl just rubbed me the wrong way(she seemed more nut job than anything else). I'm not blaming the actors but writer/director Assayas who has once again constructed a complicated tale with the sort of parts actors love to tackle, but which leave audiences scratching their heads because they they don't really work. <br /><br />If you must try it on cable | 1 |
I think that the movie was really good. Subject, acting and Nusrat Fateh ALi Khan's music were marvellous. Although the director has succeeded in showing the status of women in rural areas and how they suffer at the hands of male-dominated culture, he has neglected Phoolan's character a bit and has focussed more on the violence faced by her. | 0 |
This will be somewhat short. First, don't listen to the critics, as it is not as bad as most say it is!! Sniper uses a classic movie formula, which many dismiss immediately as flawing the movie. While sniper does not reflect the 100% truth about how our country's Military Snipers work, it does give those who know nothing about the Professional Sniper a glimpse into the world of the Sniper. And yes, the movie has many flaws, but what movie doesn't? There are many good scenes and good acting by Tom Berenger. I have to say the 2 worst scenes are at the beginning of the movie with Billy Zane in the Helicopter followed by Zane in the Marine's bar scene. The best scene in Sniper is with Berenger in the middle of a field with the opposing force sweeping it!! Also there are plenty of good shots of the jungle and some classic shots using the camera as though you are looking through a riflescope. And yes, the Sniper Motto is `one shot, one kill'. Judge Sniper for yourself!!<br /><br /> | 0 |
Well.....horror this ain't, but.......!!!??? A terrible low low budget backwood-flic of the worst kind, sort of AND...therefore quite charming and funny to watch...at least on my tv set!!! A cross between Pete Walker, Herschell Gordon Lewis and...say....damn, I give up...just can't come up with any 'prettier' resemblances for this trashy movie. Everything is soooo wrong that I just have to enlist it in my film collection alongside with....Death In Venice.....Nekromantik.....Blue Velvet and The Good,Bad,Ugly... right !!?? People with some small talent for adding gory inserts or sexy happenings to film they buy offa other people, should pick this film up immediately....sure is a fat lil' ol' goldmine waiting here, oh maaaannnn!!!!! | 1 |
Wait, don't tell me... they threw out the movie and kept the out takes. You know, This movie could have been shot in a back alley in New York. The 'Gangster Bangster' I guess. Gangster Rap, Designer gangster duster clothes including the kerchief which somehow got moved from the neck for protection from the dust storms to the head. I guess it was to protect the head from the heat filtering through the K-Mart hats. 'Budget rent-a-horsie', it seems, supplied the horsies. The one bedroom scene where the girl was talking and the guy was mouthing her words.... I though it was him talking. You know, watching this movie just confirms that, it isn't about the acting anymore... its about looks and it's about the money. Couldn't have been too much of that where this movie is concerned. Well, all in all, I think that this movie will go down as the all time worst movie ever made. Just one more thing though, where was Ice T? Did he finally get to go on Oprah? | 1 |
Any person with fairly good knowledge of German cinema will surely tell that numerous films about a young girl having troubles with her mother as well as her boy friend have been made in the past.If such a film is shown to people again,it would surely click provided if it has something new,fresh and captivating for today's challenging audiences. This is also true for German film maker Sylke Enders as her film's principal protagonist Kroko has been mistreated by everybody around her including her mother and boyfriend.She is bold enough to face any punishment as she has tried her hand at all kinds of criminal activities including shoplifting.Kroko was originally shot on DV to be blown afterwards to 35 mm format.Its technical virtuosity does not hamper our joys when we learn that Kroko would like to become a policeman as she feels that she is averse to the idea of becoming a run of the mill hairdresser.If someone were to state a positive aspect of Sylke Enders' film,it may well be Kroko's involvement with handicapped people as a result of a punishment.It is with Kroko that we learn that punks are human too with their unique joys and sorrows. | 1 |
Lot of silly plot holes in the film. First we see him watching his master practice kung-fu, and die in the midst of his practice. That's fine with me. And then at the end of the film, we see him use the kung-fu that he learned just by watching his master when he was still a kid. Is that even possible? I don't think so.<br /><br />This show is purely for Jay Chou fans, and the film lacks a depth in terms of character development, cinematography styles and unfolding of plot.<br /><br />Anybody notice that the captain of the basket team (forgot his name) and the idolized player Li Xiao look so similar to each other, to the extent that you'd think they were the one and same person? Long hair, sunshine-boy look, tall and strong. The two of them looked like they came out from a mass production factory designed to churn out products that makes teenage girls scream wild in orgasm. Not that those two actors had anything of value to contribute to the movie as a whole for the movie industry at all.<br /><br />The jokes were lame and not funny at all.<br /><br />The scene with regards to the 4 masters of Jay Chou coming back to help him out in the basketball court, degenerated into a pointless plot when they started bashing their opponents ala Royal Rumble style. Worse of all, when the 4 masters won the fight, the crowd began cheering, and the match continued. It was truly a WTF? moment.<br /><br />At the end of the show, when they win the match, all thanks to Jay Chou's excellent kung fu skills. How he acquired those kung-fu skills is a mystery, because the show somehow shows him acquiring the skills just by observing his master.<br /><br />And then his long-lost father comes out of the woodwork to acknowledge Jay Chou as his long-lost son seemed just a tad too quick of the director to wrap up the film.<br /><br />In short, this is a Jay Chou-flick (instead of the usual 'chick flick'). Watch it only if Jay Chou is your fan. If you are one of those whose tastes in movies coincide greatly with those in the list of IMDb's top 250 films of all time, then this film is not for you. | 1 |
Having read during many years about how great this film was, how it established Ruiz among the french critics (specially the snobbish Cahiers crowd), when I finally watched it about a year ago, I found it pretty disappointing (but then, I guess my expectations were sky-high). Shot in saturated black and white, this deliberately cerebral film (made for TV, and mercifully, only an hour long) is told in the form of a conversation between an art connoisseur and an off-screen narrator as they ponder through a series of paintings (which are shown in the style of tableaux vivants) and try to find if they hold some clues about a hidden political crime. (The awful Kate Beckinsale film Uncovered has a similar argument). Borgesian is a word I read a lot in reviews about this movie, but I would say almost any Borges story is more interesting than this film. | 1 |
i've watched this movie (movie?) casually and i've never stop watching because is so ridiculous any dog can play this act and will be better then the actors (actors?)of this bad remake of the Fatal Attraction there is no directing, no playing, only an unlucky copy of the Adrian Lyne movie if you have doubt to suicide watch this and you can choose...for 'yes'<br /><br />i can't imagine people that went to cinema to see this rubbish; maybe someone that had an empty afternoon and choose the first cinema near house to stay 2 hours with some others to forget problems but it's hard to go back home relaxed | 1 |
Some people may remember Ms. Russell from films such as 'Black Widow', which had some appeal and critical acclaim. Boy, she must have really needed a rent check when she signed on to do this dog.<br /><br />Yes, there will be those who like the gratuitous violence and nudity. But one must sit back and wonder, in retrospect, what possessed anyone to spend money and time to make this in the first place. I just saw this movie on one of the 'HBO's', and I can't believe they picked it up.<br /><br />In 1996 Ms. Russel didn't have the physical attractiveness she did earlier in her career. But, come on! Having her play Ma Barker??? Her 'sons' all look like they could be her brothers. It's also creepy in that you think there are going to be incestuous relationships occurring (thank goodness there aren't, hope that doesn't count as a spoiler). With Eric Roberts and Alyssa Milano added into the cast, this one is B-movie 'straight to video' all the way.<br /><br />The scenes between Purvis and Ma Barker, either in person or on the phone, are a primer in terrible, terrible acting. Oh, wait, I forgot terrible, terrible writing as well. Chalk this one up to experience. A bad experience. | 1 |
I saw this with high expectations. Come on, it is Akshay Kumar, Govinda, and Paresh Rawal, who are all amazing at their comedy, I was really hoping for a laugh riot. Sadly, that is not what I got at all...<br /><br />Unfortunately, nothing in this movie really made me laugh out loud. There were times when I chuckled at one or two things, but nothing really made me laugh. In short, it was badly attempted comedy, and in a way, a bit of a Hera Pheri wannabe.<br /><br />Out of the three main guys, I think Paresh Rawal's role was the most powerful. It wasn't the biggest role, but it certainly stood out more than Govinda or Akshay. Their performances were okay I guess. Nothing special, just mediocre. Though Govinda stole the limelight from Akshay in more than a few scenes. Lara Dutta and Tanushree Dutta also make appearances in this film, and both of them were pretty bad. Lara's role did not move me, or make me laugh, and Tanushree Dutta's character just got on my nerves! The music seems to be the only good thing about Bhagam Bhag. My favourite song is 'Tere Bin', followed by 'Afreen', which I really liked. 'Signal' and the title song 'Bhagam Bhag' are also worth a listen.<br /><br />You either will like it or you won't. And judging by the poor comedy and lack of direction, I don't think you will. | 1 |
8/2008. When I originally wrote my comments, shortly after first seeing this film, I took a critical view, feeling that Lemmon and Matthau had basically 'phoned-in' their performances, which paired them in a manner they'd done several times previously.<br /><br />But upon seeing it again, it seemed different, especially in view that neither of the two main mega-stars lived a great deal longer after its release.<br /><br />With the exception of Spiner, all of the eight principals are performers with considerable experience, and likewise unavoidably a lot 'longer in tooth' than we've seen in many of their other film and t.v. work. But isn't almost everyone?<br /><br />Seeing it again, while it certainly won't be regarded as a 'classis' in any of their careers, it is a fun film, with a lot of interesting scenery as well.<br /><br />From my viewpoint, it reminds me that many films, plays, etc., can often be looked at either from a very critical viewpoint, or looking instead to the lighter side, without expecting a film to be another 'Citizen Kane,' 'Casablance,' or (in terms of the two leads), another original 'Odd Couple.' It also will provide a continuing piece of nostalgia for Lemmon and Matthau, as well as the others in the cast. | 0 |
When I was young I had seen very few movies. My parents in all their wisdom rented this one. I was very wary of what the movie was about, in fact I wasn't even allowed to watch it. My brother and sister got to of course and this made me very angry. So what did I do? Late at night I trashed the VCR! Kicked the screen of the TV in and called the police and reported vandals. I was arrested of course, I was unable to get my foot out of the TV set before the police arrived. I was only given a stern talking to and sent home. My parents grounded me of course and made me work to repay the debt for the TV and VCR. This tore me apart, slave labour really sucks believe me, but I had to do it. Chores all around the house. What happened in the end? We got a big screen TV, DVD player and a surround sound system for my work. How did I get the money? Easy I made movies of my own and sold them to Disney! Do you remember Finding Neno? Well I wrote that movie and filmed my goldfish in their fish tanks! They rewrote the plot of course and did it in CGI because they couldn't afford to make it a real life action picture like I had done! In the end I never saw the film The Head that didn't die and the rating I gave it is my life rating! It's doing pretty good! | 0 |
I mean, come on! This movie had such nice potential but it's like they ran out of money to finish the script and just telegraphed the whole damn rest of the movie about 2/3rds of the way through. Characters start spouting this movies whole reason for existence to other characters who didn't ask for the information on extremely flimsy premises. They also fall into some stereotypical behavior because that must be what's expected in this genre of movie. It's really pretty sad because this movie could have been so much more.<br /><br />I was really hoping this would be a good movie. There was some good acting. Mark Hamill does an excellent job until the movie falls apart, so does Sally Struthers. It was fun to see them working and succeeding at their craft. Majandra Delfino was pretty good for awhile until her lines just became untenable. I felt sad for her that she had to say these lines that just shot the whole movies credibility for any thinking movie goers. Brad Hunt does an excellent job. He really has a surprising range of talent judging from another of his movies I recently saw, Lucky 13. (which was a piece of crap). This guy could be a star if he could pick the right scripts and get lucky with the right director.<br /><br />Almost forgot! The music was so heavy handed you might think this project was handed to some minor film school to be scored. I call this kind of music 'Teller Music' because you can just tell what's coming next based on the music. Less is more sometimes.<br /><br />Cut half of the music from this movie, get a good film editor, a small rewrite or two and this would be a very good movie. | 1 |
This is a Japanese film but there is quite a bit of English also spoken in here. It's a pretty film, with nice visuals, featuring the scenic beauty of Hawaii.<br /><br />However, that was the only redeeming quality for me. The story was generally boring. Who wants to watch a young woman sulk for 90 percent of the film because her 'picture' husband is a lot older than he advertised he was? Granted, that could be a bummer......but get over it!<br /><br />Only in the last 10 minutes does she do an about-face and become fond of him. By then, for most viewers, it was too little-too late. We'd fallen asleep by then. | 1 |
Some famous stories are prone to being moved to another epoch and, as such, becoming an embarrassing TV-movie. Oscar Wilde's Canterville Ghost is one of them. This TV movie for kids is utterly cheap, concerning acting, character work, credibility, directing and even concerning the modest special effects. As often, the question arises: what was this made for? | 1 |
This is one of the best movies I have seen in a long time. All of you who regard this movie as absolute sh*t obviusly are not intelligent enough to grasp all of the subtle humor that this movie has to offer. It shows us that real life and 'ficticious' action can produce a winning combination. Also, as a romantic comedy, it has one of the most clever ways for two people to find each other. Name me another movie where you can see all of that as well as Donald Sutherland singing a song like 'They're Going to Find Your Anus On A Mountain On Mars.' | 0 |
What keeps us going - or at least what I feel the writer wanted us to keep us glued at an early point is our desire to know whether Martinaud has done the dirty deed. Without spoiling so much, of course there is a red herring and a twist. But then we discover that this is the story of Martinaud's imperfections and his difficulty in coping. When there is the revelation - we begin to sympathize and pity him because as the story progresses we are made to think he is the sick, perverted pedophiliac that we're predisposed to have in mind. One of those things he has to cope with is the distant gap he and his wife have even though they live on the same roof. These problems of course are given their denouement in the film's shocking finale.<br /><br />This movie demands your patience and it has certainly tried those of restless teenagers sitting at the rear. They were heckling obviously because they aren't partial to 'central location' films. Although there is a bit of travelling, when we get to the woods and the beach. And we realize that Gallien isn't as clever as we are made to think he is.<br /><br />The Inquisitor is 5/5 | 0 |
I had seen The Cure when I was a kid and I loved it then. Now, years later, I got a hold of a copy almost by accident, and watched it again. Being a kid, you don't really have the ability to procure things for yourself that you want, that is usually a prerogative of your parents - but when I watched it again now I felt sorry that I did not do more to get a copy of this movie back then, and consequently almost forgot about it until today.<br /><br />This really is a beautiful movie. It tells the story of the unlikely friendship between a hard-edged, misfit kid - who takes his cues from his horrible, abusive mother - and his neighbor, a slightly younger boy who has AIDS.<br /><br />Right, you say. Another one of 'those'. A tear jerker. A bucket movie. A morality tail. Yeah, I know, I hate those too. Only this one isn't. It is one of the very few movies among those many I have seen that pulls off a very rare trick: it conveys a truly sad story (and yes, a morality tale) but without a single moment where it feels cheesy, forced or in any other way 'hollywoody'. It shows a REAL relationship between two REAL boys, who interact as REAL kids do. And through that interaction the good-natured, loving character of the older boy, Eric, starts to shine through his 'tough-guy' persona, as he takes on a kind of big-brotherly care for Dexter, his HIV-positive younger neighbor. Together, they embark on an adventure to find a cure - which to Erik seems to be just around the corner - so that all this silly AIDS thing will go away and they can be friends forever.<br /><br />The production is top notch. But, of course, what really carries this movie, is the performances of the two leads - Brad Renfro and Joseph Mazzello. Especially Mazzello, who is simply stunning - he does convey a sense of frailty needed for an ailing boy, but at the same time he manages to make Dexter a truly energetic and determined character. He shines at the scene where the boys confront Pony: his impulse to protect his older friend lunges him forth, drives him to say what he says - and only afterwards, the horror is depicted on his face, as he realizes that what he himself said is true: his blood is poison... Renfro also has his moments, in particular the scenes with his mother: he depicts perfectly how this macho, street-wise kid is left completely frozen and numb when faced with his abusive, storming mother, and can't get a word in to contradict her as she forbids his relationship with the ailing boy out of her fear and ignorance. Annabella Sciorra also gives a memorable performance as Dexter's mother, who ultimately becomes, in a sense, a mother figure to Erik as well.<br /><br />I've first seen this film when I was at school back in America, and loved it - not at all a given concerning movies of this sort. But the behavior of the kids in this movie was so real, I could easily relate to them. Ironically enough, the teacher who had shown us this movie (a wonderful woman, I'm still in touch with her) got in trouble for it, as some uptight parent complained about it having the scene when the two boys are looking at a Playboy... Pathetic. Seriously, will Americans ever get over this ridiculous phobia, I do not know. There was a hardly-distinguishable shot of a playboy cover in the movie and thus it is not shown in schools... how sad. Kids need to see this movie. It is more inspiring and educational than all the 'official' after-school specials put together.<br /><br />Oh, and one more thing. I know I'm rambling, but nevertheless... The score. It's great. I am a musician, and as such I know Dave Grusin from his records: he is a well known Jazz pianist and record producer. Up until this movie I really did not know that he did movie scores as well, even though when I later checked I found out that I had unknowingly watched several movies he worked on. Really, a wonderful job there.<br /><br />All in all, a solid Ten. I'd recommend this movie to anyone. And I'm definitely going to see it with my younger siblings - they can use watching a film like this among all the standard special-effect hysteria they usually see. | 0 |
I cannot accept the negative comments of other reviewers. They are too critical, perhaps because they are stuck in the past. I would like to see a comment from someone who had never seen Basic Instinct 1, perhaps someone very young ? I left the cinema feeling glad that I had not been swayed by the IMDb reviewers. 14 hours later I am still trying to find flaws in the plot but I cannot think of anything serious. My advice to everyone is see it for yourself and make up your own mind.<br /><br />It follows a similar pattern to Basic Instinct 1 but the plot is less confused. It still left me wondering at the end but in a more satisfactory way. Sharon Stone is as sexy and evil as before and wears her 48 years extremely well; this remains her defining role. David Morrisey was satisfactory even though he is no Michael Douglas. Of the supporting cast I particularly liked David Thewlis as the police detective. | 0 |
For the record, I am not affiliated with the production in any way.<br /><br />Hidden Frontier is probably the Star Trek fan film with the most episodes produced to date. Over 7 seasons (this is the last) they have produced some 50 or so episodes.<br /><br />This is no mean feat on almost no budget and everyone volunteering their time and energy.<br /><br />By their own admission, the earlier seasons do not have as good production qualities as later ones but as they progress the effects, green screen work and acting all improve.<br /><br />I did find it difficult to 'dip into' so started from the beginning and watched all the way through. HF benefits from story arcs just like all the best sci fi and dovetails nicely into the Star Trek universe in which it is set. Characters and 'relatives' from the original series have been brought into the stories and add a lot to the feel of the stories, sometimes improving on the characters over the original.<br /><br />The whole experience includes an excellent web site, blooper reels, a high membership forum which is frequented by many of the actors and production staff and a weekly chat.<br /><br />If you are looking for high definition, high budget productions, this is probably not for you.<br /><br />If you are looking for continued adventures in the Star Trek universe with stories that does Star Trek credit and makes you think, this is the one. | 0 |
This is so overly clichéd you'll want to switch it off after the first 45 minutes. The beginning is very interesting, with a fair going on and someone gets killed. This movie would have been better, set on this setting.<br /><br />So, Jill Johnson is a depressed sprinter with boyfriend issues. I don't see the point of adding her breakup with her boyfriend occurs in any of the events in the story.<br /><br />Since Jill has come home late, her father sends her to babysit for the Mandrakis's in their glamorous home in a deserted lake. The kids are sleeping and the maid is cleaning, another empty house to the side for their son who's at college. OK.<br /><br />After about half an hour of her stalking around the house by herself, she gets a couple of hang ups. Ooh, scary ones. TO which her friend comes to the rescue, to come up with a couple of high school lines about 'love' and whatever. Friend leaves and goes to her car. TO which then, she drops her keys. Uhhh...then the music! DumDumDum..! She fumbles to pick them up, and gets into her car. Which of course, doesn't start. How cliché'd is that..? So..She disappears =D Jill, alone again. UH. (Most of this movie is with her by herself, so there's not much dialog) So more hangups, she calls the police. Who say they cant help her, but call back if she has any more problems.<br /><br />So then she suspects that her boyfriend is calling, or her boyfriends friends are calling. They have been but only once. Like thats supposed to be scary much? Oh, and did I mention? Her friend just now comes on caller ID and some creepy man voice comes on. She gets all freaked out and shyt.<br /><br />Yeah, so skip that. She see's the light in the house of the Mandrakis's son go on. So she runs through the woods with music as her companion and goes in. Bleheh.<br /><br />AH ITS SO BORING I CANT CONTINUE!!!!!!!!! | 1 |
This film requires a lot of patience. Because it focuses on mood and character development, the plot is very simple and many of the scenes take place on the same set - in Frances Austen's (the Sandy Dennis character) apartment. But the film builds to a disturbing climax.<br /><br />The characters create an atmosphere rife with sexual tension and psychological trickery. It's very interesting that Robert Altman directed this, considering the style and structure of his other films. Still, the trademark Altman audio style is evident here and there. I think what really makes this film work is the brilliant performance by Sandy Dennis. It's definitely one of her darker characters, but she plays it so perfectly and convincingly that it's scary. Michael Burns does a good job as the 'mute' young man. Regular Altman player Michael Murphy has a small part. The solemn, moody set fits the content of the story very well. In short, this movie is a powerful study of loneliness, sexual repression, and desperation. Be patient, soak up the atmosphere, and pay attention to the wonderfully written script.<br /><br />I praise Robert Altman. This is one of his many films that deals with unconventional, fascinating subject matter. This film is disturbing, but it's sincere and it's sure to elicit a strong emotional response from the viewer. If you want to see an unusual film - some might even say bizarre - this is worth the time.<br /><br />Unfortunately, it's very difficult to find in video stores. You may have to buy it off the internet. | 0 |
This is a fine, under-rated film and Rip Torn, well-known as he is, is a seriously under-rated actor. I read Howard Frank Mosher's novel many years ago. How well Craven captures the book and the beauty of Vermont's Northeast Kingdom! I had the good fortune to grow up in VT in the 40s and 50s and was still living there when the 'Irasburg Incident' took place. I've not seen _Stranger in the Kingdom_, the Craven/Mosher collaboration based on the incident(and another Mosher novel), but this film has inspired me to track it down. | 0 |
Stephen King is generally known for the morbid, and that's fine, but this story is too morbid. Some movies, by the end you feel sad for the characters or the situations they were put through...here you just feel depressed. The movie has a nice feel to it (at first), with the family moving to the country, and creepy old Fred Gwyne greeting and warning them of the pet cemetery, but this plot leads nowhere. It starts with so much potential, but by the end, it loses the potential to be a good horror movie, and becomes corny, extremely stupid, and ultimately depressing.<br /><br />Louis (Dale Midkoff), his wife Rachel (Denise Crosby), their kids Ellie and Gage, and their cat move to a new home in Maine. They are warned by the loony farmer neighbor Jud (Fred Gwyne) about the local pet cemetery and how it is cursed. Louis thinks nothing of this and everything's fine until the family cat is killed. He bury's it in the cursed cemetery and it comes back to life, constantly hissing at the family and wanting to be left alone. One day, infant Gage runs out in the road and is run over and killed by a truck, and Louis knows he must bury him in the cemetery. When Gage comes back to life, he is changed and wants to murder.<br /><br />With many of Stephen King's works that don't translate well into films, I blame the directors and screenwriters. In this case, Mr. King was the screenwriter, but I'm going to blame him for his awful story. By the end it's so pointless, and though unfunny, the premise is laughable. A little boy comes back from the dead and manages to kill people with what looks like a tiny scalpel, and not only that, but he manages to lift their bodies and in one case, carry a body from the ground to the attic!(?) I know this isn't set in reality but seriously, how stupid can this get? The scene where Louis injects his deceased, now living again cat to kill it is strangely sad, because the cat did not deserve this. All it did was go around minding it's own business and he killed it. The scene where he injects his own infant son is almost unbearable. Not unbearably sad, but the whole situation is just awful to think of. After being injected Gage staggers drunkenly around before falling down dead....why did they need to make a movie ending with the death of an infant? But...even worse, the actual ending of them film involving Louis burying someone else (Not going to give away who) in the cemetery after Gage kills them....what did he expect? Why did Mr. King write this horrible story and why was it made into a movie? It's depressing and pointless!<br /><br />My rating: * out of ****. 90 mins. R for violence. | 1 |
Last night, I saw A PECK ON THE CHEEK (KANNATHIL MUTHAMITTAL with English subtitles). Oddly, it was 137 minutes long--slightly longer than the time listed on IMDb.<br /><br />At first, I found myself losing interest in this film because the rather confusing style of filming really lost me. The context for what was occurring was missing and I am glad I stuck with it. At the beginning, a young couple is married and shortly after the wedding, war breaks out in their native Sri Lanka and the lovers are separated. Months later, the wife is very pregnant and on board a refugee vessel heading to India. At a refugee center, you see the lady about to give birth--after which the titles to the film finally are revealed.<br /><br />The entire focus of the film then changes completely--to a young girl who is about to turn 9 in Madras, India. You see her in her home and she talks to the camera about her life and family. None of this seems that interesting or important and you wonder what is missing--what about the lady who was about to give birth? My wife and I debated this and we finally guessed that this little girl was actually the child of the lady in the first part of the film. Somehow or another, she had been adopted and was talking about her life with mom and dad #2--though she did NOT realize these people were not her biological parents.<br /><br />Soon after this, the parents revealed themselves to be total idiots (one of the complaints I had about the film), as they decided to tell this very young girl the truth about her parentage AND tell it in a way that left the girl emotionally screwed up and confused. Despite a stupid decision and telling her in the worst way, the parents made up for this by agreeing to help her find her biological mother. Seeing the impact all this had on the girl and parents (particularly the adoptive mother) was impressive to watch and sure sparked my interest.<br /><br />Unfortunately, Sri Lanka has been involved in a very, very long and brutal civil war with Tamilese militants, off and on, for three decades. The family's decision to look for the mom back in Sri Lanka was indeed noble, but also a bit stupid at times--as they took so many risks and nearly got killed again and again by just blindly jumping into the middle of a war! This was all exciting and captivating but also left me wondering about the sanity of the adoptive parents--first you tell her she ISN'T your biological child and now you take her in the middle of a WAR ZONE!!! Sure, the kid really wanted to meet her biological mother, but this really was stupid in hind sight. If it were me, I might have been tempted to pay an unemployed actress to play the part and fool the kid--thus avoiding being in the middle of a war!<br /><br />Despite my complaints, the film was lovely to watch and was very rewarding. Far from perfect, it sure hits an emotional home run. Also, while I expected this because I have seen several Indian films, many Westerners will be a bit surprised by the vivid songs that seem to come out of no where--this IS standard in most films from India--including those made in Bollywood (Bombay) and Tamilwood/Kollywood (Madras). | 0 |
It is such a shame that so many people 'love' Family Guy, because it is easily one of the worst shows on TV, there are many points to address here. <br /><br />The Flashbacks: Now, in Season 1 and 2, which I think was exceptional, the flashbacks were quite frequent, and actually somewhat tied into what the plot was about and was even funny. Now season 4 and on, the flashback s are even more occurring, and has NOTHING to do with the plot, aren't funny, and really long, boring, and meaningless. Family Guy thinks that long drag scene which go nowhere are funny, when really it is poor writing.<br /><br />Stewie: Wow, a baby that sounds British. How funny can that be? It's not. His character is so unstable it's unbelievable. Remember in the early season's when Stewie was all about world domination and killing Lois. Well now he just has scene's that are awkwardly gay with Brian. From wanting world domination to being gay = bad writing.<br /><br />References: How do they manage to keep making poor references to 80's TV shows or events? Well they just re-use the same old garbage. You know, in 20 years, hopefully Family Guy will be canceled by then, if they are still doing jokes about shows from the 80's, it will be even more irrelevant than it was before. Because will have forgotten. This still keeps me wondering why they can't just writ good episodes with quality jokes.<br /><br />Voice Acting: My God, the voices in this show is so poor. Seth McFarlene should just focus on his crappy episode writing and stop doing voices. All the extras in the already bad Family Guy episodes all sound the same. The Simpsons get 6 or 7 people to do ALL the voices. A few of them are voicing about 15-20 characters...all sounding very different. But why can't Family Guy do that? Oh right, it's a crappy show.<br /><br />The Stuttering: Usually done by peter, Stewie, Brian and any extras, whenever they talk or are offended by something, they have to stutter out their sentence's just to try get a cheap laugh. I can't believe that Family Guy can't even speak normally to get people to laugh at their 'jokes'.<br /><br />Offensiveness: OK, short and simple, Family Guy tries to break the barrier and be cutting edge, but really they fall flat every time. Go watch South park...<br /><br />Terrible Plots: The plots and story lines are just utter trash. The Simpsons have started their 20th seasons are STILL have better plots than Family Guy. About a total of 8 or 9 minutes is flashbacks and drag scenes which have no relevance. <br /><br />Popularity Lots of little kids have Stewie shirts and think hes so funny, when really they don't even get the terribly written sex jokes. They just say, 'oh, ha ha, stewie!' when they don't even get it. Family Guy has gotten canceled twice, and brought back by DVD sales, how sad is that. They got canceled the first time I think after the 2nd or 3rd season, and I honestly believe, that shoulda been it. those episodes back then were superb, they shoulda left on a high note.<br /><br />Drag Scenes and Falling There are scenes that go on way too long. One that just aired this last Sunday, Peter went to an executive bathroom, in which about 2 minutes was spent imitating the intro to Jurassic park, and the plot of that episode is stolen from a Seinfeld episode as well. Also a scene when Chris is working at a store and hes talking with the employee for about 5 minutes about a movie, which also features the stuttering. THE CHICKEN FIGHTS ARE SO STUPID, 3 of them, each one longer then the last. useless, unfunny writing, thinking that people enjoy long scenes of rerun fighting, between a CHICKEN, yeah a chicken. now, every time someone falls down, and by the way, NO FAMILY GUY FAN CAN DENY THIS, that every time they fall down, its under a split second, and they ALWAYS land with their arm over their back to make them look funny i guess, its been used at least 30 times.<br /><br />Herman Oh jeez, everyone thinks the old pedophile is so funny when its just a really bad running gag. they've even gone to lengths of giving him singing scenes (which are very poor) and basing ENTIRE episodes around him, they've done the same thing with other characters, like the doctor, who I know has had an episode based around him.<br /><br />The Simpsons Well, not much explanation needed here. There is so much evidence of Family guy stealing Simpson's jokes. How family guy is just a poor mans Simpsons.<br /><br />so Im sure I've forgotten some key points somewhere, but Im sure this is enough to prove that family guy is really a terrible horribly written TV show that everyone seems to love, when really they should go watch Simpson's, Seinfeld, and Frasier. | 1 |
The Vampire Bat is set in the small German village of Klineschloss where Gustave Schoen (Lionel Belmore) the Burgermeister is holding a meeting with Inspector Karl Brettschneider (Melvyn Douglas) from the local constabulary about all the recent murders, six victims have been discovered in as many weeks all drained of blood & bearing the same two puncture wounds on their necks. Brettschneider doesn't have a single clue but the superstitious elders of the village believe the deaths to be the work of a Vampire. Brettschneider isn't convinced but the scared villagers keep telling tales of seeing a large Bat, meanwhile the latest victim Martha Mueller (Rita Carlyle) has been found. Brettschneider comes under increasing pressure to solve the murders but can he really believe that a giant Vampire Bat is responsible & if it is how's he going to stop it?<br /><br />Directed by Frank R. Strayer The Vampire Bat was a cheapie from Majestic Pictures to cash in on the success of it's two stars Atwill & Wray & their success in the previous years Doctor X (1932) & is more of a murder mystery rather than a horror as the exploitative & enticing title may have lead you to believe & quite frankly it's rather dull. The script by Edward T. Lowe Jr. takes itself rather seriously & sets up the basic story that something is killing local villagers & that something could possibly be a Vampire, then for most of it's duration the film focuses on Brettschneider & his incompetent investigations which are, not to put too fine a point on it, boring. The Vampire Bat also has a bit of an identity crisis as it doesn't quite know what it wants to be, the title would suggest a horror film while the majority of it could easily be described as a thriller with the final few minutes descending into silly sci-fi. There is no Vampire Bat, the attempts to fool you are pathetic, all the character's are broad stereotypes & you can tell the villain of the piece straight away & as a whole there is nothing particularly exciting or entertaining about The Vampire Bat. I know it's old but that's not an excuse as cinema has moved on a lot since 1933 & a bland, flat, dull, boring & misleading film such as The Vampire Bat just doesn't cut it these days, just look at the original King Kong (1933) released the same year & how brilliantly that still holds up today. I didn't like it & I doubt many modern film-goers would either, it's as simple & straight forward as that.<br /><br />Director Strayer doesn't do anything special but this is a case in point where I can cut the film some slack because of it's age, as a whole it's pretty much point, shoot & hope for the best stuff. There isn't much in the way of atmosphere or scares although some of the sets which were already existing ones taken from The Old Dark House (1932) & Universal's European set on their back-lot are nice & add a certain ambiance to things.<br /><br />Technically The Vampire Bat can't compare to anything even remotely modern, for the age of it it's alright I suppose but again I draw your attention back to the original King Kong. Speaking of King Kong it's star Fay Wray has a role in this as does horror icon Lionel Atwill, I'll be kind & say the acting is OK.<br /><br />The Vampire Bat will I imagine fool a lot of people into thinking that it's a horror film about Vampire Bats when in fact it isn't, personally I thought the whole thing was a bit of a bore. It's short & it tells it's story reasonably enough but I must admit I'm not a fan. | 1 |
This is some of the worst acting I have ever seen. I love Almereyda's Nadja, but this is just absolute dreck. Aside from a few moments of interesting cinematography and music this film is just nonstop bad acting and dumb material. Jared Harris is particularly bad, but no one in this is remotely good. The plot is a joke, but not the haha kind. I don't even know if you can forgive movies that are this bad. Please erase the last hour and a half of my life. How did this director make Nadja and Another Girl Another Planet? | 1 |
Billy and Jade had a very close relationship that went to far one evening even though Billy was sleeping with Jade's mother. Jade has to deal with the fact that her mother may never know and that it will never happen again. Billy is played by Rob Estes who couldn't have looked better. Lifetime tv has made another movie that everyone is bound to like. | 0 |
Little Mosque is one of the most boring CBC comedies I have ever seen. They have a way of producing the easiest comedy programming they can for the oldest most-easily-offended viewers which for CBC means 85 year old farmers in Saskatchewan. The jokes are all predictable and so deathly lame I can't believe it. The performances are very hammy and over acted but I don't blame the actors since those kind of one dimensional stereotyped characters are probably exactly what the CBC asked for and demanded. Very lame show with bad jokes they tried to present as 'controversial' well it is less controversial than the other boring CBC comedies like The Hour Has 22 Minutes, Royal Canadian Air Farce and Rick Mercer's Report. | 1 |
I was bored, around 10pm, so I watched this movie. And I could not stop laughing. Everything was so ridiculous. The way the kids were acting like they were older than 11 just cracked me up. One of the kids had a ring, that supposedly killed people after 3 or so years. It gave me the impression that he wanted to be a gangster.<br /><br />It's pretty hard to take little kids seriously, especially when it has to do with eating worms. They act like everything is such a big deal, like if Billy (the main character) doesn't eat the worms then the world will end.<br /><br />This is a good movie for little kids (excluding the fact that a 5 year old says 'penis'), but not for teens or adults who don't want to waste their time. | 1 |
At first glance this gives the impression that it is going to be a laughable blaxploitation flick, and it does contain moments where it veers in that direction. However, the basic story idea is much stronger than might be expected, and is a respectable effort at portraying racial issues in the World War II era Army. The recognizable cast is hit and miss, with Glynn Turman, Richard Pryor and the underused Billy Dee Williams faring best. Stephen Boyd, however, stops just short of twirling his bushy mustache in an overindulgent star turn.<br /><br />The obviously low budget leads to inconsistency in the production values. The locations are great, the effects and action are weak. Imagine if 'Saving Private Ryan' had consisted of half the platoon getting killed exactly the same way Vin Diesel's Caparzo had (except we do get to see the shot because they effects can't handle it), then Hanks, Damon and Burns drove around in a jeep and shot five Germans for the climax. Yet, the denouement, with the heroic soldiers receiving no respect for their accomplishment because they are black, and Boyd's racist Captain being effected by this, is compelling, as are the sequences of of Turman's character writing in a journal of his imagined exploits if the soldiers were allowed to fight instead of digging latrines.<br /><br />In short, 'Black Brigade/Carter's Army' doesn't quite succeed. But it's a respectable failure, not a bad joke. It could be remade as a very good film, and, as it stands, is an interesting effort. | 1 |
Upon renting this, I wasn't expecting to be blown away. In fact, I knew it was going to be horrible. It was just seeing how horrible it really was. That's what comes with low budget horror.<br /><br />'Snakes On A Train', not to be confused with the serpentine summer blockbuster 'Snakes On A Plane' with Samuel L. Jackson, is about a woman who is put under a Mayan curse that causes snakes to hatch inside her and devour her from within. Her only hope of surviving lies in a shaman that lives across the border, so she and her companion stowaway onto a train bound for Los Angelas. Throw in a few passengers and hilarity ensues.<br /><br />Come to think of it, though, the story isn't half bad. Isn't half good, either.<br /><br />The acting in this film rivals that of a Sci-Fi Original, if not worse. Trust me, it's horrible. The snakes were another problem. They were supposed to be rattlers, I guess, but most of what you get instead are mostly harmless garden snakes that don't attack anything and there's this rattling sound effect that gets really annoying.<br /><br />The gore effects on the other hand, while not on the Tom Savini level, were actually pretty good.<br /><br />And another thing, the ending alone makes up for the rest of the movie. I'm not going to talk about it here, so you'll have to rent this and see for yourself. | 1 |
This 1919 to 1933 Germany looks hardly like a post WWII Czech capitol. Oh sorry, it is the Czech capitol and it is 2003, how funny.<br /><br />This is one of the most awful history movies in the nearest past. Röhm is a head higher than Adolf and looks so damned good, Göring looks like 40 when he just is 23 and the 'Führer' always seems to look like 56. And the buildings, folks, even buildings have been young, sometimes. Especially 1919 were a lot of houses in Germany nearly new (the WWI does not reach German cities!). No crumbling plaster! Then the Reichstagsbuilding. There have never been urban canyons around this building, never. And this may sound to you all like a miracle: in the year 1933 the Greater Berlin fire brigade owns a lot of vehicles with engines, some even with turntable ladders, but none with a hand pump.<br /><br />One last thing: What kind of PLAYMOBIL castle was this at the final sequence? For me this was a kind of 'Adolf's Adventures in Wonderland' | 1 |
I just wondering what is the purpose of making movies like this? the profit? and to whom they are referring what intelligence must use your brain to watch something like this crap? This movie is watchable by under 3 years old children if you are adults don't try to watch it. Thats the reason i think Hollywood started to use cartoons in movies with actors like this you must forget the art of cinema , be sure that you ll have tons of pop corn to consume for time to pass till this movie ends also get many cola's hamburgers your laptop your cellphone this movie can be used easily in a restaurant but for sure not in a theater , my dog who is always next to my family when watching a movie left the building.The sure thing is that this movie is referring to people with no demands from the cinema art.The only thing that this movie can be used is for watching it when making the supermarket shopping list.I am giving 2 stars for supporting the India's cinema efforts but for nothing more or less.. | 1 |
There's something intriguing about disaster movies. The simple, primal premise can lead to several great stories. Granted, most disaster movies tend to explore familiar territory instead but I can usually live with that.<br /><br />Unfortunately, Flood probably marks the low point in the history of this sub-genre. Robert Carlyle is undoubtedly the star of the movie, even though screen time is split between different locations and characters. He gives a barely decent performance. As well, Joanne Whalley is very uneven. Veteran actor Tom Courtenay (he played in Doctor Zhivago for heaven's sake) is particularly bad. I mean, his timing is completely off most of the time and his characterization is extremely poor. What an embarrassing performance for that man. The rest of the cast ranges from decent to really bad with one exception: Jessalyn Gilsig, whom I thought might be there as a plot device/eye candy gives by far the most convincing performance. Doesn't mean much considering how bad everybody else is but still nice to see that she cared.<br /><br />The script is really bad, confusing and cliché. Some of the worse lines I have heard in quite some time are delivered by the actors one after the other.You've seen this story a thousand times. It employs every dramatic hook and tear-jerkers you've seen in 'Outbreak', 'Armageddon', the Poseidon movies (original and remake) and many others.<br /><br />The direction is awful. No sense of timing, nothing inspired. The shots are bland, dialog and action both fail to flow. Editing is bad but how do you edit such a mess? Without a doubt, this movie tried to rely way too much on (rather poor) CGI. The human factor, the drama and struggles of the characters are glossed over. Scenes where the characters must actually face the flood are rare and poorly done. The made-for-TV feel gives nausea. Some guy is supposed to go down a rope from an helicopter? No problem, let's show him inside a helicopter and make a really poor cut/editing job and have the next frame with him safely on the ground, in the most obvious way possible.<br /><br />The movie score is rather poor. All over the place, no timing.<br /><br />The ending is probably the worse I have seen in quite some time. Very much like they ran out of ideas. Scrap that, you can't run out of something if you never had it in the first place. Must have ran out of budget.<br /><br />This is a really amateur job. I give it a 2 for using London as a location, which is a nice change, for Gilsig being actually decent in a key support role and for the few CGI shots that were decent (those of the water closing in on London and the gates).<br /><br />Do yourself a favor and check out Day After Tomorrow or just about any disaster movie before this one. This includes older classics like The Towering Inferno. | 1 |
Distortion is a movie that sort of caught me by surprise.. A sort of multi layered drama that focuses on a man writing a play about his life experiences that are happening to him right at this moment. To be more concise, he feels that his wife is cheating on him, so he hires a private eye to snoop on him. His wife has no idea that this is happening. Meanwhile, the actors in this play are also having a few whoopdedoodles up their sleeves by fooling around with each other and with, shall we say, unscrupulous people in the world of Israel. The whole thing culminates in a theater with all the actors present and the predictable (but not really) happens.<br /><br />The director of the piece really keeps things moving along with the ensemble cast of characters, and edits in a way that makes you pay attention, This is a fun film actually, one which I didn't mind viewing and would recommend people check out. | 0 |
This movie stinks! You will want back the two-plus hours it takes to get through it. Sliding Doors, w/ Gwyenth Paltrow and directed by Peter Howit, did what Melinda & Melinda tries to do much much MUCH better. That movie was clever, witty, and well-acted. I cared about what happened to both Gwyenths -- or rather the characters she played -- and the performances by supporting cast were fantastic.<br /><br />Where as Melinda & Melinda is tiresome, the dialogue is contrived and I could have cared less about any of these people -- least of all Melinda. One Melinda is so dysfunctional -- her first glass of wine is at 10 a.m. -- and so melodramatic she is laughable, and not in the comedic sense. The 2nd Melinda is fine, but forgettable.<br /><br />Woody Allen's previous ensemble movies worked because, I'm guessing, he spent time on the screenplay and the actors were talented. One piece of trivia for this movie is that he wrote this screenplay in two months: you can tell. And while Chloe Sevigny is talented -- those around her are not, not enough to be a whole presence. The movie ends up being Chloe Sevigny and a bunch of other people you know you've seen in other movies but can't quite remember which ones.<br /><br />Sad, very sad. | 1 |
Possible spoilers.<br /><br />Although there was some good acting - particularly Chloe Sevigny, and Radha Mitchell in the comedy half - this simply was not an engaging film. The segues between the comedy part and the tragedy part were awkward or sometimes not obvious. This viewer was initially confused by the fact that the supporting cast differs in the two halves; I thought with the way things were laid out in the opening scene that the people surrounding Melinda would be the same people, just reacting differently (more of a 'He Said, She Said' premise). However, what we have is two totally different stories and two totally different women, both of whom happen to be played by Radha Mitchell.<br /><br />The two playwrights in the opening scene - the comedian and the tragedian - supposedly take the same premise and go from there, but the two stories are only tenuously related. They do little to support the topic of discussion, which is that almost anything can be looked at as either comedy or tragedy. Nice cast, but a disappointing film. | 1 |
This was the second entry in the regular Columbo series, and it holds up well today. As I am able to look at it closely now on DVD and see how it is constructed, I am very impressed with the direction of Bernard L. Kowalski (who directed the fine MACHO CALLAHAN as well as countless TV episodes)--watch how the post-murder actions of the killer are shown on a split-screen effect on his two eyeglasses, watch how the murder itself is shown in montage fashion, watch the point-of-view shot from the perspective of the corpse. Also, the wild but impressive avant-garde musical score from noted jazzman Gil Melle was incredible and helped so much to create atmosphere. And the supporting performance of Brett Halsey as the golf pro was wonderful--such subtlety and complexity in a role that nine out of ten times would be a one-dimensional cutout. The 'formula' had not yet been set when this episode was filmed, so there are still some surprises in Columbo's methods. Of course, Falk, Robert Culp, and Ray Milland are the highest-quality actors and it's a pleasure to see them work--all men are familiar from many other roles yet lose themselves in their characters here. In all, this entry in the Columbo series--and MANY of the others--are as well-crafted as a very good feature film. | 0 |
This film has been compared to the hilarious British comedy 'A Fish Called Wanda', although I can't see why. The only connection I can find is the Monty Python one (Eric Idle in 'Nuns', John Cleese and Michael Palin in 'Wanda'). Otherwise the two are incomparable.<br /><br />Idle and Robbie Coltrane are two gangsters who want to get out of the business before they end up dead, so they decide to rip off their boss and make for Rio. When the getaway goes wrong, the two are forced to take refuge in a convent, as nuns.<br /><br />What at first promises to be a riot soon becomes a predictable, average movie with the usual tasteless sex jokes and bland humour. Once again there are the occasional high spots, but neither cast nor crew manage to inspire proceedings. An attempt at a 'Wanda' type manic finish fails too, along with the effort at 'men in drag' humour, which is hardly surprising. When you think about it, men trying to be women is funny, men trying to be nuns is ridiculous.<br /><br />Friday, April 22, 1994 - Video | 1 |
If there were two parts that the physically towering, ugly-charismatic actor Gérard Depardieu was born, as a Frenchman, to play, it must surely have been Cyrano de Bergerac and the orator Georges Danton. Here he dominates the film both through the breadth of his shoulders and the power of his voice; his charisma carries the part despite the fact that it is made clear that the character has as much blood on his hands as any of the rest of them. Danton feasts while the people of Paris starve... but he is the one man who can challenge the tyranny imposed by the dreaded Committee of Public Safety in the name of 'freedom', and he is presented as the hero of the film -- despite the fact that the source play practically idolises his opponent Robespierre!<br /><br />For those who know the characters from history, there is interest to be had in identifying the minor parts: the frog-faced Tallien, Couthon the cripple, Fouquier-Tinville the tribunal's prosecutor, the dashing fop St-Just, the epic painter David. But the script cuts little slack in this respect; names are often late in coming if minor characters are identified at all, and there is no Hollywood-style 'info-dump' to make sure that the audience can place events in their historical context. The film takes it for granted that you know what has gone before, and what will happen after -- sometimes it takes too much for granted, as when it relies on a close knowledge of dates to provide the sting to its tail in the fact that Robespierre followed Danton shortly to the scaffold.<br /><br />Considered as a film, it's not entirely satisfactory in that it ebbs away towards the end. The structure of the story leads up to some great confrontation between the protagonists in the courtroom or some dramatic climax to the trial, which, thanks to history, never actually happens. Things just fizzle out: there is no revolt, there is no overthrow of tyranny, there is no assumption of power by the victor, there is no triumph on either side. It may be historically accurate, but it's not entirely satisfying as the outcome of a screen scenario -- it seems an odd place to stop. As others have commented, it might have been more logical to take events up to the end of the Terror and show in apposition the fall of Robespierre. | 0 |
Being a music student myself, I thought a movie taking place in a conservatory might be fun to watch. Little did I know... (I had no idea this movie was based on a book by Britney Spears) This movie was implausible throughout. It's obvious that whoever wrote the script never set foot in a conservatory and doesn't know a thing about classical music. Let me give you just a few examples: 1) There is NO WAY anyone would be admitted to a classical conservatory with no classical training whatsoever! Just having a nice pop voice isn't enough, besides, that's a different thing altogether - another genre, different technique. It's like playing the violin when applying for a viola class. 2) How come the lady teaching music theory was in the singing jury? If she wasn't a singing professor herself, she would have no say in a situation like that, and if she was a singing professor, why weren't we told so? 3) Being able to read music is a necessity if you're to major in music. 4) How did Angela get a hold of that video tape? That would have been kept confidential, for the jury's eyes only. Now either she got the tape from one of the professors or the script writers just didn't have a clue. I wonder which... 5) The singing professor gave Holly the Carmen song saying she 'had the range', which she clearly did NOT. Yes, she was able to sing the notes, but Carmen is a mezzo-soprano, while Holly's voice seemed to be much lighter in timbre, not at all compatible with that song. 6) Worst of all: Not only does the movie show a shocking ignorance when it comes to classical music, but it doesn't even try to hide it. The aria that Angela sings is mutilated beyond recognition, a fact which is painfully blatant at the recital, where it is cut short in a disgraceful way - Mozart would roll over in his grave. The Habanera from Carmen sounded a bit weird at times, too, and the way it was rearranged at the end just shows how little the producers really think of classical music - it's stiff and boring but hey, add some drums and electric guitars and it's almost as good as Britney Spears! I know these are all minor details, but it would have been so easy to avoid them with just a little research. Anyhow, I might have chosen to suspend my disbelief had the characters and the plot been well elaborated. But without that, I really can't find any redeeming qualities in this movie except for one: it's good for a laugh. | 1 |
Despite excellent trailers for Vanilla Sky, I was expecting to be disappointed by the film because I'd heard that it did not get great reviews. However, I left the cinema completely in awe of how good Vanilla Sky is.<br /><br />There was no bad acting at all in the whole film, every single character is believable. The romantic moments between Cruise's character, David Aames and Cruz's character, Sophia are tear-jerkingly realistic and intimate (probably due to the fact that they were a soon-to-be real-life couple).<br /><br />The plot of Vanilla Sky will confuse you in the last third of the film and there's very little chance of you guessing the ending. However, ends are tied up towards the end, leaving you with a strange mixture of feelings consisting of sadness, shock and empathy for David Aames.<br /><br />The film is intellectual and you have to pay attention throughout. This isn't that hard because chances are that you'll be completely drawn in to the film and won't take your eyes off the screen for one second.<br /><br />I usually leave cinemas forgetting all about the film I just watch. But Vanilla Sky is still lingering in my mind days after watching it. I recommend it to anyone who wants a change from simple, shallow films. | 0 |
The over-riding problem with this film is that it can't possibly use Bill Murray to the best of his abilities, simply because of the co-star.<br /><br />If this was a road movie with another comedic actor, it might work. Even if they were both trying to get the elephant across the country, it would at least allow for them to share some amusing dialogue. As it stands, Murray is left talking to an elephant who cannot answer back with witty banter. Essentially, it means that Murray is talking to himself, and this makes the film more boring than it could have been had he had another character to bounce off.<br /><br />Kids would enjoy this movie,simply because of the elephant, but anyone wanting to watch Bill Murray's biting delivery and enjoy an excellent script needs to look somewhere else. | 1 |
The first review I saw of this on IMDB says that Vince Vaughn is a much better actor than Anthony Perkins was in this role. Makes me wonder if he saw the original. It's tough to review Psycho if you don't have the perspective of how revolutionary the movie was in 1960. You have a heroine who isn't very likable and is killed not far into the movie and a villain who is creepy, but makes you feel for him. Add to that some graphic violence and you have a blue print for some of the slasher films of the 80s and 90s.<br /><br />Where does this film go wrong? Let's start with casting. Anne Heche is fine as a Vivian Crane, but as Norman Bates, Vince Vaughn is all wrong. For one thing, he looks far too young. Secondly, he has no idea how to play the roll. His nervous laugh reminds me of Ron Howard trying to play a tough guy on Happy Days. Everything he does screams I DID IT! The original movie, even to those who know everything about it, still makes you feel uneasy about the influence of mother on Norman, and turns her into a real separate character. How about the shower scene. When I finally saw the 1960 movie on a big screen, I was surprised at its power to scare the heck out of me. Bernard Herrman's score becomes incredibly shrill and loud and goes further toward scaring you than Danny Elfman's synth interpretations during the scene. This shower scene merely serves to show us Anne Heche's naked body and some nice color blood. Which brings us to the choice to film in color. Didn't work.<br /><br />There is something about remaking classic films that hardly ever seems to work. Some may see this as a noble experiment, but honestly, if Gus Van Sant had nothing to add to this film, he should have left it alone | 1 |
With the obvious exception of Fools & Horses, this was in my opinion David Jason's finest series.<br /><br />Coming straight after his TV debut on 'Do Not Adjust Your Set!', these 13 episodes revealed a mastery of comic timing not seen since the old silent movie days. By comparison, Porridge, Open All Hours and that awful series 'Lucky Man' did not come close.<br /><br />I believe Jason banned the series being repeated because it showed him at his rawest. Shame on him. A new generation deserves to enjoy this. The series actually flopped in the ratings but that is most likely because it was shown against 'The Brothers' which aired on BBC at the same time, before VCRs were commonplace.<br /><br />BTW, I have only just noticed that his long suffering assistant, Spencer, was played by Mark Eden ; Alan Bradley off Coronation Street. I am amazed he didn't try to murder Edgar Briggs!!!! | 0 |
Another Asian horror movie packed with intense, and creepy moments. Another Asian horror trademark is the complexity of the plot, which is here as well. MAJOR SPOILER WARNING!<br /><br />The movie starts pretty simple - two sisters go to live with their dad and stepmother after being put in a mental institution after their mother hanged herself. The sisters seem very hostile towards their mother - especially the elder one - and they seem to ignore their father. All goes smoothly until the mother locks the young sister in the wardrobe and the elder sister tells her father. Then it hits you, 'your sister has been dead for years now' It turns out the older sister is still not recovered from the death of her mother and what we didn't know is that the wardrobe the mother was hanged in fell on the younger sister and killed her as well.As for the stepmother she is the alter ego of the older sister - revealed when the stepmother (actually the sister's alter ego) is sitting on a couch when the real stepmother walks in! I hope it has been made clearer for confused Asian horror fans out there.<br /><br />Finally - my favourite scene is the scene where the father invites friends over for dinner and one of the friends starts to choke which erupts into a panic attack. Very creepy! 7 out of 10 | 0 |
My watch came a little too late but am glad i watched both this and the sequel together...which makes me compliment the makers of this flick for giving such a pure and basic treatment to the idea of romanticism... and very marginally separating it from the idea of relationships! As a lot has been written about the movie already, it would just be appropriate to highlight few portions of the movie which i personally loved.<br /><br />I think the point where Jesse and Celine make phony phone calls to their respective friends was a very shrewd way of telling each other what they had meant to each other through a journey not even extending 24 hrs... the curiosity of two people who both think the other has made an infallible impact on the other has been very smartly dealt with...<br /><br />On the plot front , making a romantic story work on pure conversation is not an easy job to accomplish..<br /><br />I believe in romantic flicks of such flavor , the characters are not clearly designed even in the writer's and director's mind. What the actors bring out is what becomes of them .. right or wrong even the idea bearers would find it difficult to justify... to become the character, the life the actor gives has to go beyond instructions and the story...here both the actors do just the RIGHT job! Kudos..!!!and Before sunset is another feather which makes this one even more beautiful! | 0 |
Jordan takes us into the seedy crime side of Sydney, Australia, following the desperate attempt of nineteen year old Jimmy, (Heath Ledger), who bundles a job for a local gangster and needs to make amend before they get to him. The gangsters, (led by Bryan Brown), are a menacing bunch with a humorous streak in them. That's what makes the film work, because we always view gangsters as a rough bunch out to screw you badly. But this mob tickle your funny bone as well. A clever structured script by Jordan has characters crossing paths and getting caught in the web plot. | 0 |
When I sat down to watch Greek for the first time, I wasn't expecting a show with complex characters, intriguing plot lines, and impeccable writing... but that's exactly what I got.<br /><br />Greek follows several college students who are in the Greek system at Cyprus Rhodes University. Rusty Cartwright enters Cyprus Rhodes as a Polymer Science major who aspires to be in a fraternity. His older sister, Casey (the show's center and soon-to-be-president of Zeta Beta Zeta, the most prestigious sorority on campus), isn't exactly supportive of his plans. In fact, none of her friends even knew she had a brother until he set foot on the college grounds! On top of dealing with the fact that her dorky younger brother has been forced back into her life, Casey's boyfriend Evan Chambers (soon-to-be-president of THE fraternity on campus, Omega Chi) is cheating on her with a new ZBZ pledge (Rebecca Logan), diabolical ZBZ president Frannie is pressuring her to stay with him, and she still has feelings for her slacker ex-boyfriend Cappie (president of the party house on campus, Kappa Tau). These characters are joined by Calvin Owens (an athletic, intelligent friend of Rusty's who happens to be gay), Dale Kettlewell (Rusty's die-hard Christian and 'possibly racist' roommate and best friend), and Ashleigh (Casey's quirky best friend and confidante).<br /><br />Throughout Greek's two seasons (or four chapters) viewers are often reminded that college life is not black and white, but 'in shades of gray from here on out.' Every character makes their fair share of mistakes, but every one of them has redeemable qualities. Casey and Cappie have a complicated, but beautiful, relationship throughout the series. Rusty, Dale, and Calvin's friendship is not always perfect, but they manage to survive every obstacle that is thrown at them. Even Frannie, Rebecca, and Evan (the show's 'villains') are shown as human every once in a while.<br /><br />Greek shows college students at their best, worst, and in-between. It is a show that reveals college as what it truly is: a four-year adventure where one's morals, beliefs, and willpower are tested, compromised, and sometimes even changed.<br /><br />Greek has at least one season left, if not more, before it ends. I cannot wait to see where the characters end up next. Greek is not your typical ABC family sitcom. If you want to tune in to a show that shows the truth behind human motivation, Greek is the show for you. | 0 |
'A Tale of Two Sisters', or 'Janghwa, Hongryeon', is a true masterpiece. Brilliant psychological thriller, heart-wrenching drama, and gripping horror all wrapped up in one beautifully orchestrated package. From the intricate plot, to the beautiful cinematography, to the absolutely perfect casting, every aspect of this film is extraordinary.<br /><br />For fear of revealing too much concerning the plot, I will just say it is very satisfying. While it may appear to be a little difficult to understand at first, it does a good job of explaining things in the end. And whether you prefer psychological thriller, drama, or horror, I promise you will not be disappointed.<br /><br />From a technical standpoint, its nearly flawless. The set, the cinematography, lighting, and especially the soundtrack, all are captivating. The waltz seemed an odd choice at first, but proved to be an ingenious choice.<br /><br />As for the casting, we're talking absolute perfection. I'm Su-jeong is totally convincing as the defiant, yet troubled Su-mi. Mun Keun- yeong is equally convincing as her emotionally traumatized sister Su-yeon. These two girls were magical on the screen. I will certainly be looking into their other films. Yeom Jeong-ah is deceitfully cheerful and hauntingly evil as the stepmother. Finally, Kap-su Kim gives an excellent performance as the weary, broken father.<br /><br />I truly love this film. If you have yet to see 'A Tale Of Two Sisters', I strongly recommend locating a copy. It is a real gem, worthy of anyone's collection.<br /><br />(10/10) | 0 |
Going into this I was expecting anything really good, but after the damage this inflexed on me, I'm just happy to think strait. It's hard to think what the film-makers( HA!) this was a good movie. the stories, and I use the world loosely, are incoherent and do make any sense at all. There just stupid things that happen at random. the acting, if can be called acting is horrible I've seen batter acting in toy ads! I know it's a low-budget video-bin garbages, but still even it's not like they tried. Will after stetting thought it, I feel very sleepy and still #yawws# do, I'm going to go lie down.<br /><br />WARNNING: DO NOT ATEMP TO DRIVE, WALK, READ OR DO ANY AFTER Watching CHILLERS. OTHER SIDE AFFECTTS MAY ENGULED LOSE OF ANY OR ALL METAL FUNKIONS. | 1 |
Van Damme. What else can I say? Bill Goldberg. THERE WE GO. NOW we know this movie is going to be really horrible.<br /><br />I saw the first five minutes of this movie on TBS, knowing it would be bad. But not even I thought it would be THIS bad. The plot is awful, Van Damme is getting old (finally), but unlike Arnold, his movies are as well.<br /><br />Forget this movie. Don't see it. Ever. I wouldn't even be paid to see this film.<br /><br />1/5 stars - at its heart lies a wonderful, action-packed thrill ride.<br /><br /> Well, maybe not, but the marketers would sure like us to think so, wouldn't they?<br /><br />John Ulmer | 1 |
I guess only a selected number of audience members really had any interest in watching how a male hustler in New York operates but I'd be willing to bet that even these brave souls were turned off by the irritating patchwork technique and deliberately muffled sound recording on display here; the fact that these inherent 'defects' were a direct result of the film's low-budget/underground/experimental nature is, I'd say, beside the point. Anyway, for those so inclined, the film features extensive male nudity and Joe Dallesandro, understandably, became an underground and gay icon! <br /><br />The episodic structure showing the day-to-day routine of the hustler protagonist offers a couple of mildly interesting scenes: his meeting with (and eventually posing for) an eccentric elderly artist; the one where Dallesandro expresses his views on his unusual line of work and delineates his particular modus operandi to a couple of prospective 'colleagues' including perhaps the unlikeliest of hustlers a bespectacled nerd! Perhaps mercifully, the film ran for only 89 minutes against the IMDb's claim that its complete length is 105 (but the latter could well be a mistake)! <br /><br />I had watched a few other of Warhol's 'movies' and this one is decidedly not as satisfying as the most tolerable example I've run into yet, BAD (1977), and only slightly better than the likes of MY HUSTLER (1965) which were mostly a strain to sit through. The fact that this was only the first part of a trilogy did not augur well but, as the saying goes, you gotta to do what you gotta do and the other two 'chapters' had to follow in quick succession... <br /><br />Despite my generally negative reaction to it, FLESH is nevertheless still valuable as a 1960s time capsule and as a prototype of the Underground scene of that era, both cinematically and in real life. For the record, an image of Dallesandro from this film adorns the sleeve of The Smiths' self-titled 1984 debut album and transsexual Candy Darling (who appears here rather unremarkably) was immortalized in 'Candy Says', the opening track of The Velvet Underground's eponymous 1969 album. Although the latter band is my all-time favorite, and one of the reasons for this is that, through their sheerly unique and ground-breaking music, they described a lifestyle so utterly different from my own, this is truly a case where I'd much rather experience something aurally instead of visually! | 1 |
Spoiler warning.<br /><br />When the main character's sister is pushed down the stairs, the killer breaks a glass of vodka next to her, to make it appear that she's been drinking. But right before she is killed, tells her sister's business partner (Teri Garr) on the phone that she hasn't had a drink in 4 days. Yet the police never mention the results of a toxicology report! And, the characters talk about her being drunk when she fell down the stairs. Huh? Really bad mistake in this movie, which is pretty awful, overall. <br /><br />Surprisingly bad, considering the great cast. Some faults: the writing isn't very good, the music is made-for-TV bad, and there is no tension at all because we already know the answer to the mystery from the first scene in the movie. | 1 |
I enjoyed the movie and the story immensely! I have seen the original(1939 I believe) and enjoyed them both. To really appreciate the story one must be familiar with English culture and customs. The prof.(Peter O'Toole) was dedicated to his school and 'the boys' in that school. It was an English 'public' school, which we in the U.S. refer to as a private school (E.G. Andover). He is a very ascetic person and, on the surface, gives the appearance of being stiff, stuffy, uncaring, and weak to the point of being effeminate. He is strict in his educational standards because he DOES care for 'his lads', i.e., he doesn't want them to get a cheap or weak education. He meets(through introduction) a 'dance hall girl'(Petula Clark) and is totally smitten. In England at the time, the reference to 'dance hall' carried the connotation of extreme sexual promiscuity and was definitely 'lower class'. We find that the Prof. is in fact a very tough and courageous person as well as loyal to people and institutions that he loves and/or respects. Clark becomes more than a lover and wife...she 'leavens' his personality and allows him to grow as a man and a person, much to the benefit of his beloved school and his own happiness. The first movie was set BEFORE WW II, this one goes through WW II, also, it is 1969( we've had the 'British Invasion'...Beetles, etc. Clark had hits and was very popular then...still is to me), the music is great, color and photography excellent. I think O'Toole played the character perfectly! There ARE dedicated people like 'Chips'...all around us but many do not receive the recognition. Very enjoyable movie and story! | 0 |
QUESTION: How does a film merit two different titles like 'The Librarians' and 'Strike Force'? <br /><br />ANSWER: The film is sooooooooo bad that the filmmakers couldn't even decide on a title!!!! <br /><br />This film is a hodgepodge of martial arts, death wish-vendettas, melodrama, romance, and other cliché film techniques. The story focuses on a vigilante group called The Librarians led by Agent Simon (WIlliam Forsythe). The group is hot in pursuit of a nefarious, multi-lingual, pockmarked creature named Marcos (Andrew Divoff) who captures women and holds them hostage in the lawless urban world of south Florida. <br /><br />Burt Reynolds appears as a cameo in this film, and his scene is entirely extraneous to the action. Burt delivers a long monologue in one of the strangest drawls I have ever heard. This may have been Burt's attempt at an Irish dialect, but the overall effect is a kind of perverse imitation of Marlon Brando in 'The Godfather.' <br /><br />Also appearing in this film is Erika Eleniak, who has infiltrated the inner circle of Marcos' bizarre world. Erika's character kick-boxes her way into an alliance with Simon. The Librarians and Erika will become a powerful strike force against evil in a film that has been delivered directly from the editing room to your cable TV converter box. | 1 |
...dislike this movie and everyone would understand why. The plot is poor, so is the acting. But in my opinion it is better than Halloween 5, although even this does not give many surprising moments. A few scenes are really well directed. But these few moments do not deliver the reason to rent it. I do not despise violence in movies, but H6 features extraordinary strong and bloody scenes which do not fit to the tradition of the Halloween-Movies. The most sucking aspect about H6 is the lack of tension. No comparison to the first masterpiece.<br /><br />Halloween 6 only gets 4 out of 10 stars from me. If you want, rent it. But don't expect a great horror-experience....<br /><br /> | 0 |
A movie I've seen and enjoyed possibly more than any other movie. I first saw it as a kid and loved the drama and the great climactic battle. As I got older, I enjoyed it as much or more than before, but now due to all of the components that work together to make a true classic. The acting is great (especially Keith as T. Roosevelt), the cinematography spectacular, the script is full of gems, and the directing pulls it all together wonderfully. It's loosely based on an actual event, and it shows rush of Europe and a newly emergent America to carve up the 'Sick old Man' (the Ottoman Empire) as it collapses in a fashion unlike any other 'historical' movie I've seen. Humor, drama, action, love...it's got it all and deserves far more acclaim (much like 'The Great Waldo Pepper'). | 0 |
I watched about the first 30 - 40 minutes of this movie on television the other night and can agree that this is by far the worst of the series. Not any of it is funny, even Randy Quaid can't save this mess. Eric Idle wasn't funny in N.L. Euro. Vacation, and he's even worse here. The only funny scene is where they're at the airport and some guy dressed as Santa walks by the camera yelling 'Did anybody lose this?' as he holds up a prosthetic leg...<br /><br />1/2 a star out of **** | 1 |
Oh God,what an idiotic movie!Incredibly cheap with fake special effects(the creature is played by one guy in lame costume)and stupid plot.All dialogues are unbelievably bad and these actors(HA!HA!HA!)...they're simply ludicrous.For example I have never seen so annoying characters like in this junk(these dumb kids or pregnant woman with his husband and many more).All in all,this is a great entertainment if you're drunk.Avoid it like the plague.Am I drunk?I don't think so... | 1 |
The make -or-break of a love story for me is whether or not I like the characters and also if they click with each other. Matt is pretty unlikeable: aloof, braggart, seemingly lazy, and a misogynist. He's been hurt badly by his dysfunctional mom and this makes him a little easier to take. I guess I liked the details of his dysfunction--he was believable. He overcompensates by bragging that he'l nail Amy. He acts so cool around Amy that he strikes out twice. When they do talk he can't show her who he really is. She empathizes and then stonewalls him at just the right moments. She seems so mature and strong that the traits of hers that come out later didn't seem to fit. (For me.) I found her to be incredibly sexy and pretty, . . . girl next door pretty, I call it. So I was going to like this movie unless it really screwed up.<br /><br />Funny things happen with the coach, but Matt's relationship with the other coach was inspiring. The football scenes at the end were perplexing. Matt doesn't carry the ball but seems to be a blocking back. Folks, he isn't the right size! He's fifty pounds too light for that position. But I thought his acting was skilled. I measure that by the way I wanted to wring his neck a couple of times during his scenes with Meredith Monroe. The film was all right. Meredith M was better than all right. | 0 |
F*ck Me! I've seen some incredibly horrific movies in my time but this takes the p*ss!<br /><br />Honestly I can't express in words how bad this film actually is. Besides the plot that isn't really there, the comically crap acting, the hilariously dreadful excuses for zombies; You know what, I could go on all day. Every little thing in this film is either stupid, pointless, crap or embarrassing. I express to anyone who wants to watch this movie... don't!<br /><br />I'm ashamed to say, I have this on my rack. It's hidden away right at the god damn bottom of the huge pile. I couldn't even give this horse-sh*t excuse for a film away. That's how bad it is. | 1 |
A deliciously nasty black comedy about a middle-aged schlub (Danny DeVito) who wants to bump off his mother and hatches a plan to do so with a bitter divorcée, who wants to bump off HIS ex-wife. The movie is completely unapologetic in its cynicism, and gives us no one to like, but for once that works in the movie's favor rather than as a turn off.<br /><br />Anne Ramsey, as DeVito's battle axe mom, steals the show in a grotesquely funny performance. Even though she's a horror, you end up rooting for her, because it seems like she could kick both DeVito's and Crystal's asses at the same time with both hands tied behind her back.<br /><br />Grade: B+ | 0 |
The story for Hare Rama Hare Krishna actually came to Dev Anand's mind when he saw hippies and their fallen values in Kathmandu where he was on a visit after the protests against his previous Prem Pujari in Calcutta. He was low in spirits because his film had been opposed and some had burnt Prem Pujari's posters. But the life of hippies re ignited a story in Dev's mind to be made into a film.<br /><br />This was Dev Anand's perhaps best directorial effort. The film was a blockbuster super hit at the box office and Zeenat Aman as Dev's sister made a tremendous impact.<br /><br />This film was Dev Anand's call to the nation to keep up their moral values.<br /><br />It is about a Montereal based Indian family and the brother's role is a very affectionate one for his sister. But the parents quarrel and separate leaving Prashant(Dev) with mother and Jasbir(Zeenat) with father. She is repeatedly told that her mother and brother are dead and she eventually believes that she will never see Prashant again.<br /><br />She is ill treated by her step mother and she runs away from home. Dev grows up to be a pilot and he learns that Jasbir is in Kathmandu with certain hippies.<br /><br />To reunite with his sister, Dev travels to Kathmandu and meets Shanti(Mumtaz) who was to later marry him and also Janice who in reality is Jasbir with a new name and new identity. She has forgotten her childhood and Dev too.<br /><br />Dev has to get his sister back amongst all other happenings which include his being suspected as a thief in Kathmandu and the people are after his life.<br /><br />This was a story well directed and acted-both by Dev Anand. We see more of Zeenat Aman than of Mumtaz. But the music by Rahul Dev Burman was well composed. Dev had first offered the music to be composed by Sachin Dev Burman but Burman Da did not want Dev to do the film. He was very close to Dev and his earlier film Prem Pujari, though was good, but had been opposed in Calcutta. Burman Da wanted Dev to try a lighter subject as he thought hippie cultist film might reignite people's anger against Dev. But Dev continued with the film reassuring Burman Da and the film was indeed a success.<br /><br />R D Burman had Asha Bhosle sing the award winning Dum Maro Dum. Kanchi re Kanchi re was another good number.<br /><br />Overall it is a good film. | 0 |
I tried to watch this movie twice and both times I still couldn't make it to the end credits. First time I managed to sit through the first fight sequence then lost interest. Second time I managed to force myself to digest over an hours worth of shoddy acting, lame SFX and extremely poor direction. Pales in comparison to the original.<br /><br />Anyone ever hear about the old ET Atari 2600 fiasco? For those who haven't let me fill you in. It's 1982...ET is one of the biggest box office smashes of all time...Atari decides to release a movie tie-in game on their 2600 home console system. To cut a long and financially painful story short the game flopped big time and resulted in thousands upon thousands of Atari 2600 ET games to be dumped in landfills because they couldn't even give them away let alone sell them.<br /><br />What does Universal Soldier: The Return have to do with this story? Look at the 3.2 rating and figure it out for yourself.<br /><br />Awful film...IMDb forced me to give it a 1 out of 10 because their rating systems doesn't go as low as 0 let alone into the negatives. | 1 |
This movie describes a truly horrific event, to be sure. But it all falls down from poor performances from all the cast. It is impossible to feel the emotion of almost any character, as all the emotional scenes seem like parodies of themselves. For example, a character is shot at the start of the movie, and you get the clichéd desperate, 'Am I gonna make it, Sergeant?', 'Yeah it ain't nothing'', but it plays out like a sketch from a Wayans Brothers movie (I don't know if they've made the War Movie yet) or something starring Leslie Nielsen.<br /><br />The sergeant played by Sean Penn reminds me of Al Bundy from Married With Children, while Fox is the greatest self-deprecating good-guy cliché you can imagine... Thank God he curses and smokes during it.<br /><br />His emotional 'NOOOO!!!' is definitely more suited to comedies like Back To The Future than so-called serious movies such as this.<br /><br />To their credit, some of the 'main' scenes... (without giving too much away, where they actually perform some fairly horrific acts) ...are well done and do make us take the subject matter seriously. But that is in spite of, not thanks to the acting. | 1 |
I actually really like what I've seen of this cartoon so far. Sure, the animation isn't the best, but frankly, I'd rather see this type of more cartoony style done quickly and cheaply than the old type of style done quickly and cheaply (which was starting to happen more and more often--it's only a style that looks good when a lot of time and effort is put into it). There's nothing wrong with the angular lines and the little black-dot eyes--in fact, I think it's really cute. As a kid I never thought Scooby-Doo's design was particularly adorable, but I think I might like it better know.<br /><br />Anyway, Shaggy has always been my favorite character, and believe it or not, but I think he has the most potential for some depth. Sure, the show doesn't center around the original 'Mystery-solving' theme, but that was just a tired old formula anyway. Don't get me wrong--I'm sure there are writers out there who would be able to bring a lot more interest to Mystery Inc.'s traditional pursuits (which has been lacking as late), but in the mean time this show is a fun deviation from the standard. Shaggy and Scooby are still funny, but no longer only comic relief. They're still cowardly, but finally have the opportunity to use what seems to be (shock!) intelligence. They're the same old over-eating slackers as ever, but now actually seem to be getting on with their lives with the help of Uncle Albert's inheritance.<br /><br />I used to find most original Scooby-Doo jokes to be pure cheese and unintentionally hilarious at best, but this show actually exercises a capacity for real humor. Also, I never really like Casey Kasem as Shaggy anyway, so the new actor doesn't annoy me as much as he does other people. (I still think Billy West was the best, though)<br /><br />Overall, while not a great cartoon in the scope of all of cartoon history, still an achievement among other Scooby incarnations. | 0 |
Are you a giraffe?... ask John to Nadia, and she, sure of responding well, responds him: yes. In this way begin the communication between a man and a woman who don't know each other, and at the same time, the questions and doubts in 'Birthday Girl'. A film that i heard a lot of times, but i don't dare to see... until two hours of write this.<br /><br />'Birthday Girl' is a passionate movie that makes me fall in count, at the same time, that Nicole Kidman is one of the best actress (Besides she is pretty and intelligent) that i have ever seen. 'Birthday Girl' is the story of a lonely and routine man who looks for a wife at internet. The woman that he finds comes from Russia. She seems to be that delicate woman, normal, not more. One day, in her birthday comes suddenly, his cousin and his friend. The man, begin to discover certain things. Since here, he don't going to be the lonely and routine man that always have been.<br /><br />Much of us going to think that this movie is just a regular one with a exploited plot. Much of us going to think that the action and thrills are sure and don't novel. But 'Birthday Girl' is just the opposite. This movie is full of good surprises, good performances and a imaginative plot that i had never seen and imagined. This romantic thriller with certain funny touch is an excellent natural film with a lot of proposes for the films of it kind. 'Birthday Girl' have certain beauty and crudeness in its scenes, but at the same time, certain touching nature, and makes it so deeper.<br /><br />'Birthday Girl' is sometimes sad, sometimes funny, sometimes violent, but at the end, is totally satisfactory. And I'm not sorry in say that this is a masterpiece.<br /><br />*Sorry for the mistakes...well, if there any. | 0 |
Mitchell Leisen's fifth feature as director, and he shows his versatility by directing a musical, after his previous movies were heavy dramas. He also plays a cameo as the conductor.<br /><br />You can tell it is a pre code movie, and nothing like it was made in the US for quite a while afterwards (like 30+ years). Leisen shot the musical numbers so they were like what the audience would see - no widescreen shots or from above ala Busby Berkeley. What I do find funny or interesting is that you never actually see the audience.<br /><br />As others have mentioned the leads are fairly characterless, and Jack Oakie and Victor McLaghlan play their normal movie personas. Gertrude Michael however provides a bit of spark.<br /><br />The musical numbers are interesting and some good (the Rape of the Rhapsody in particular is amusing) but the drama unconvincing and faked - three murders is too many and have minimal emotional impact on the characters. This is where this movie could have been a lot better. | 0 |
I loved the first movie, the second one was okay, disappointed John Cleese wasn't jean bob anymore as hes my favorite character. But the third one...what happened to the animation??? it looks low budget like a sat morning cartoon! except for the flashback which was taken from the first movie. They really should have stopped after number 2, this just makes the rest look bad!! Derek's voice has changed but its not as recognizable as jean bob..Rogers also looks very strange. I also don't understand where Rothbart came from. I thought he died! This movie made me want to turn it off, as much as i love the first one, i was very disappointed with this installment. They will never beat the original!:) | 1 |
with this film being directed by Roger Avery and Quentin Tarantino doing the screenplay i was sure this was going to be a gem. i was wrong. i don't hate this film but in no ways do i like it.<br /><br />i love Roger Avery because of his amazing direction in rules of attraction and his screenplays to pulp fiction and silent hill but he made a mistake making this. do i really need to comment on Tarantino, we all know hes a genius.<br /><br />this movie is just set around a gang robbing a bank but fails due to silly people participating in the robbery<br /><br />i'm disappointed in Tarantino and Avery for doing this film but doesn't change my mind on how amazing they both are. everyone makes mistakes......... 3/10...........j.d Seaton | 1 |
I rented this movie the other day b/c I love romance stories, but this has got to be the worst one I have ever seen in my life. I find it hard to believe that Sam would fall in love with Kelley after they've said hardly no more than 2 words to each other when she has a great long-time boyfriend who's devoted to her completely. I thought Kelley was a major jerk throughout the movie, and he never changed at all. The only good thing about the movie was Josh Hartnett. I thought he did a wonderful acting job, and I'm going to start watching more movies of his. | 1 |
My opinions do not flow with the majority in most cases. I tend to lean toward the artsy, imaginative, and different. This movie was reminiscent of Frances Ford's 'The Black Stallion' wherein a fantasy situation is created to showcase the beauty of a magnificent creature who's not readily available to view performing at its peak except on these multitudes of documentaries ala natural. Unlike those nature films, this offering utilizes the finest movie making techniques the industry has to offer fit for a diva creating one of the most sensual super stars (the cat) on the screen.<br /><br />This fantasy depicting the love relationship that develops between a french soldier (he is very nice too) lost on the Egyptian desert and a female leopard he encounters when he chances upon an abandoned Egyptian temple is mesmerizing. I bought into it wholeheartedly. If you are the least bit open to fantasy and appreciate the grace, beauty, power and sensuality of the feline, you should enjoy it.<br /><br />The only flaw in my book was the ending. It was a perfect set up for a Romeo and Juliet finale - that would have taken me over the top.<br /><br /> | 0 |
With a cast list like this one, I expected far better. Venessa Redgrave spent the majority of the movie lying in bed. The best actresses in the world cannot make anything very interesting when their acting is limited to lying down and falling asleep throughout the entire movie. The plot summary says that a secret is revealed to the daughters as their mother comes closer to death. The thing is, she never tells her daughters anything except cryptic advice to be happy. All the relationships in the movie are underdeveloped. I also felt that the back and forth between the past and present was unnecessary. It seemed as if the idea was stolen either from the book the Da Vinci Code in which the device was used to increase suspense, or from The Notebook in which they used the device to create the never ending romance of the story's main characters. Either way it was a cheap device in this movie because it didn't work to create anything. It was a way to attempt suspense in a movie that has none. I left wondering why good movies can't be written for women. It really was a disappointment. | 1 |
It is playing on SHOWTIME right now but is going to be released as a movie called THREE or has been released for 2006. Mess ups include a supposed nude body comes out of the waves with her bottoms on. You can have fun finding the others. It was a decent stranded, hungry, cold, crazy person video but that is about it. And of course what would a movie be without sex. The lady has a nice body and the men are pretty, but the story is the same as Swept Away or A Savage is Loose type with some blood. Wonder if the movie studios know they made a big booboo and already released this show and now gonna release it as THREE. Billy Zane should have worn a top hair piece or shaved his head completely. Juan Di Pace is awesome and there is a couple good sex scenes. There is a voodoo woman that loves the character Di Pace plays and in real life her name is Di Pace too. Not aware of any connection but probably kin or married. | 1 |
Decent animation and some workable character development keep this animated horse fable from DreamWorks at least watchable... however it remains somewhat slow paced and the storyline is a bit on the silly side.. It is interesting to see a reversal of the typical cowboys and indian roles, but here it just seems like a nod to political correctness rather than a proper storyline decision. GRADE: C | 1 |
It's been a while since I've watched this movie, and the series, but now I'm refreshing my memory! This was a very funny movie based on the classic series! Johnny Knoxville and Seann William Scott were hilarious together. Bo and Luke Duke help Uncle Jesse run Moonshine in the General Lee. When Boss Hogg forces the Dukes off their farm, Bo and Luke sneak around Hogg's local construction site and find samples of coal. They soon realize that Boss Hogg is gonna strip-mine Hazzard County, unless the Dukes can stop him, with the help of their beautiful cousin, Daisy. My only two problems with the movie was that Burt Reynolds wasn't right for the part of Boss Hogg, and Sheriff Rosco P. Coltrane was way too serious. Other than that, I highly recommend THE DUKES OF HAZZARD!!! | 0 |
I am a Shakespeare fan, and I can appreciate what Ken Branagh has done to bring Shakespeare back for a new generation of viewers. However, this movie falls short of conveying the overall intentions of the play with the ridiculous musical sequences. Add that with Alicia Silverstone's stumbling over the dialogue (reminiscent of Keanu Reeves in Much Ado About Nothing) and other poorly cast roles, it all equals an excruciating endurance of viewing. | 1 |
Just watched it then. It is pretty damn awesome. The fights are fantastic and the magic is really cool! It's totally like a video-game in parts, with some amazing hand-to-hand combat in there.<br /><br />This film is for the fans: 'To those who loved this world once before and spent time with its friends, gather again and devote your time...' Besides this ominous opening, the story was not very hard to follow, and Ihave never played a Final Fantasy game. I think it pays to be familiar with Role Playing Games in general; knowledge of the genre kinda helps you grasp some of it better. I think though that if you pay attention, and accept what the film throws at you, it's quite easy to understand. There is a lot that isn't explicitly explained, and if you demand that it should be then you will probably be confused and irritated.<br /><br />Watching the film is like being dropped into the middle of some grand saga, and having to put as much of the puzzle together as possible. I like that approach; you get caught up in the mystery and confusion that all the characters are going through. But like I said, just be accepting. If a weird red lion thing that talks, turns up and starts kicking ass and taking names, and the other characters just say he's an old friend, accept it and move on; you don't need a biopic flashback, or a tell-all sit-me-down. You are an observer here, of something beyond your experience and undestanding.<br /><br />So: fantastic graphics and animation, great voice acting, cool video game styled music, involving story and characters, and maybe some of the coolest fights you'll see in a while. It's worth seeing, and while it IS for the fans, it is perfectly accessible for people like me that have never played the games. | 0 |
I have two good things to say about this film: the scenery is beautiful and Peter Falk gives a good performance (considering what he had to work with in terms of dialog and direction). However, that said, I found this film extremely tiresome. Watching paint dry would have been more entertaining. It seemed much longer than 97 minutes. Beginning with opening sequence, where everyone is talking over each other and Paul Reiser is repeating everything that's said to him on the phone, the movie is annoying. The film is filled with clichés and shtick, not to mention endless incidents of audible flatulence by Falk. Also, the director seems to have had difficulty deciding whether to aim for laughs or tears. There are some sequences that are touching, but they're all played for laughs. If schmaltzy, sentimental, and 'cute' appeal to you, you'll love it. But if you were hoping for something with more substance, see a different movie. | 1 |
Paranoid Park is about Alex, a 16 year old skater who causes the death even if accidentally of a security guard. As the movie goes on Alex deals with little issues like his parent's divorce and the sexual heat of his girlfriend Jennifer(played by Taylor Momsen who you can currently see in Gossip Girl) while he's consumed by guilt. I had seen just one movie by Gus Van Sant so far,Elephant, and I can assure you that he kept all his mannerisms while doing this one.Once again he crosses time lines.Once again he uses weird filming techniques like the never-ending shots of people walking...maybe you like these filming techniques, I know I don't. The plot feels unsatisfactory to me...its almost to simple to be explored for such a long time. The feeling I get (same with Elephant)is that Gus Van Sant tries too hard to make an 'artistic' movie which causes the movie itself to loose substance. Also Gabe Nevins was pretty bad as Alex, there's a difference between looking alienated or detached and looking like a robot. If you're a fan of Mr.Van Sant then watch this, otherwise skip it.<br /><br />3/10 | 1 |
Superhero movies pretty much always suck, and this is no exception. Its only redeeming quality is the fact the movie COULD have been even worse. I would put 'Batman & Robin' and 'Steel' above this movie, so yes it is that bad...<br /><br />If your looking for a black superhero, check out 'Blankman' its not a 'serious' superhero movie but at least its entertaining. | 1 |
I have seen both the MST3K version and the uncut version. I rather enjoyed it. Either way, it wasn't that bad of a movie. Sure it moved a bit slow at times. I liked it.<br /><br />As far as MST3K goes, they only did the movies they could get the rights for. Not all the movies they ripped apart where bad movies, it was just so easy to make fun of them. Take SoulTaker for example.<br /><br />Joe Estevez and Robert Z'Dar's characters where so inanimate and boringly silly I couldn't help but laugh. I couldn't take them seriously. It really created a unique feeling though.<br /><br />Vivian Schilling did an excellent job with the script. A world better than 95% of the garbage in the theatres today. Her role was played well. Not too screamy not to masculine but just right. The camera really likes her in this movie. I would have casted her in that role after ready the script.<br /><br />Anyways, this movie deserves a bit more credit than it is given. Please watch the uncut version if you see the MST3K. It deserves that much. | 1 |
It has its merit's; Morvern Callar is both the merits and the disappointments. She's so enigmatic, so original. Is it her method of dealing with the pain of a lost one that's making her so distant and un-relatable? Or is she as one reviewer called her a revolutionary? Personally I'd call her dysfunctional.<br /><br />Morvern is completely detaching herself. Disposing of her boyfriend, not thinking of informing family or using the money he gave her for a proper funeral, she selfishly splashes out on a trip to Spain. She's seems so devoid of anything relatively human bar greed. The only element that enables the audience see the human side of her is her close friend she takes on holiday with her. Although by the end her friend is dumped and Morvern has nothing that ties her down to humanity. She may as well have killed herself.<br /><br />Despite managing to make Spain look as gloomy and bland as the UK the director's shots were superb, the lighting and color made the film visually stunning.<br /><br />It's really a shame the movie has nothing in it that keeps interest. It's little over 90 minutes but feels a lot longer. They manage to make Morvern seem interesting to grab your attention but do nothing with her only alienate her from you more to the point where you don't care about the characters or the film. | 1 |
Wrestlemania 14 is not often looked as one of the great Wrestlemania's but I would personally put it, in my top 5, if not the top 3. It has so many great things, and it truly signified the birth of The Attitude Era, which was WWE's best era, in my opinion. HBK has the heart of a lion, and him putting over Austin like he did, on his way out, was pure class on his part. It has one of the hottest crowds you will ever see, and it has J.R and The King at their announcing best!. <br /><br />Matches.<br /><br />15 team battle royal LOUD pop for L.O.D's return. I'm not a fan of battle royal's, and this is yet another average one. Very predictable, even when you 1st see it, it's obvious L.O.D would win. Looking at Sunny for 8 or so minutes though, definitely helps. <br /><br />2/5<br /><br />WWF Light Heavyweight Championship<br /><br />Taka Michinoku|C| Vs Aguila.<br /><br />Taka gets a surprising pop, with his entrance. Fast, high-flying, and very exciting. If these two had more time, they would have surely tore the roof off, with their stuff. Taka wins with the Michinoku driver.<br /><br />3 1/2 /5<br /><br />WWF European Championship.<br /><br />Triple H|C| Vs Owen Hart Stipulation here, is Chyna is handcuffed to Slaughter. Nice pop for Owen, mixed reaction for Trips. A really, really underrated match, that ranks among one of my favorites for Wrestlemania, actually. The two mixed together very well, and Owen can go with anybody. Trips wins, with Chyna interference.<br /><br />4/5<br /><br />Mixed Tag match. Marc Mero&Sable Vs Goldust&Luna. Defining pop for Sable, unheard of that time, for woman. Sable actually looks hot, and the crowd is just eating her up!. Constant Sable chants, and them erupting almost every time she gets in the ring. Not bad for a Mixed tag match, it had entertaining antics, and passed the time well. Sable's team wins, when Sable hits the TKO.<br /><br />2 1/2 /5<br /><br />WWF Intercontinental Championship. Ken Shamrock Vs The Rock|C|. Before I review the match, I'd like to note The Rock showed off his immense potential, with his interview with Jennifer Flowers, before his match. Nice pop for Shamrock, big time heat for The Rock. Too disappointingly short, and I thought the ending was kinda stupid, though Shamrock's snapping antics were awesome to see, and the crowd went nuts for it. Rock keeps the title, when The Ref reverses the decision.<br /><br />2/5<br /><br />Dumpster match, for The WWF Tag Team Championship<br /><br />Catcus Jack&Terry Funk Vs The New Age Outlaws. The Outlaws are not as over, as they were gonna be at this time. Crowd is actually somewhat dead for this, but I thought it had some great Hardcore bits, with some sick looking bumps. Cactus and Terry win the titles in the end.<br /><br />3/5<br /><br />The Undertaker vs Kane. Big time ovation, for The Undertaker. Much better than there outing at Wrestlemania 20, and for a big man vs big man match, this was really good. It was a great all out brawl, with The Undertaker taking a sick looking bump, through the table. WWE was smart, by making Kane looking strong, even through defeat. After 2 tombstone kick out's, Taker finally puts him away, with a 3rd one.<br /><br />3 1/2 /5<br /><br />WWF Championship. <br /><br />Special Guest Enforcer 'Mike Tyson'<br /><br />HBK|C| Vs Steve Austin. Big heat for Tyson. Crowd goes ape sh*t for Austin, definitely one of the biggest pops I have heard. Mixed reaction, for HBK. This is truly a special match up, one of the greatest wrestlemania main events in history, you can tell when J.R is even out of breath. HBK gives it his all, in what was supposed to be his last match, and Austin has rarely been better. The animosity and electricity from the crowd is amazing, and it's as exciting as it gets. Austin wins with the stunner, with Tyson joining 3:16 by knocking out Michaels. Austin's celebratory victory, is a wonder to behold, with one of the nosiest crowd's you will ever see, King said it right, they were going nuts.<br /><br />5/5<br /><br />Bottom line. Wrestlemania 14 is one of the greatest for real. It has everything you want in a Wrestlemania, and truly kick started the Attitude Era. This is very special to me, because it was the 1st Wrestlemania I ever saw, back in 98. 'The Austin Era, has begun!'<br /><br />9 1/2 /10 | 0 |
I don't know where to begin. Tara Reid needs to be stopped before she's put in another movie. Stephen Dorff looks like he got his character's motivation from Val Kilmer in 'Top Gun'. Slater sleepwalks through this dreck. The direction, editing, sound (do we really need a heavy-metal video in the middle of a gunfight?), costumes (bulletproof vests with muscles on them), and hey, there's no discernible plot either. It amazes me that no one attached to the project stopped and said, 'hey guys, this just doesn't make any sense, let's start over'. Hopefully Slater's career can rebound from this disaster.<br /><br />Hands down the worst film I've ever seen. | 1 |
It's been said several times - not least by me - that watching an Eric Rohmer film is like watching paint dry; it seems that Monsieur Rohmer resents this (he doesn't deny it, but then how could he, he just resents it) so much so that his new movie, which may also be his last, Inch Allah, is set so far back in time that it's like watching woad dry. Those wonderful people who gave you the Nouvelle Vague, Cahiers du Cinema have already named it one of the best films of 2007 so that should give you some idea. Reality is not high on Rohmer's agenda so that in 5th Century France we have at one extreme a château that would not be out of place in the Loire valley whilst the only other dwelling we see is a rude wooden hut. The story involves nymphs and shepherds and as he often does Rohmer has cast it with unknowns who just happened to be passing so that the overall effect is that the annual class play at a school for Special Needs pupils was captured on film by accident. One is almost tempted to say 'Come back Godard, all is forgiven' but even this woeful production can't make me utter those words. | 1 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.