review
stringlengths 41
13.7k
| label
int64 0
1
|
|---|---|
I don't think this can legally qualify as 'film.' The plot was so flimsy, the dialogue so shallow, and the lines so terrible that I couldn't believe that someone actually wrote the lines down, said, 'Holy sh*t! This is a masterpiece' and then actually pitched it to a producer. I, for one, am still dumbfounded and will forever remember this film as the mark of the degeneracy of intelligence in America -- that, and 'Crossroads,' of course. | 1 |
First off let me say that this is probably in my opinion one of the 10 most underrated movies since this came out in 72. I absolutely loved this movie, it's very urban, gritty, no real Hollywood glam added to it.. you can actually feel for all of the characters in here, i love the blood just splattering abound in here. Joe Pesci was pretty good in here, but to me it seems like he was definitely outdone by the lead character Joe Cortese, now i don't know anything about him , but boy can he really act.. I believe this movie is probably true, because living in New Jersey,, living close to Philly, you here this kinda thing all the time. i think that if the movie had a bigger budget , and say Robert deniro as jerry's boss you would have a perfect movie, but hey who am i to argue, i was so engrossed by this film, that it is already up there in my mind, with Mean Streets. I wish Hollywood would go back to this urbanized, gritty display of movie making: it would serve them very well to do so. this movie is a great drama with great actors in it. and i highly recommend it to anyone. | 0 |
Even the trailer for this movie makes me cry, like the first time I saw this movie. Not for people who are easily upset by intense material! The finest performances by Alan Rickman and Madelaine Stowe, without a doubt. This dreadful tale of a society with the power to kidnap and torture it's citizens for ANY reason, whether they are anarchist's or the writer of children's books will chill you to the bone. I saw it when it first came out 1991 and I remember every frame. It still scares the hell out me today. It's happening now.<br /><br />Apparently, IMDb requires ten lines to meet their criteria for a film review. IMDb might want to GET A GRIP! Some of us are a little more succinct about writing opinions. | 0 |
I was interested in seeing this movie because I knew it was Christian based. The director had a good idea/intentions when making this movie but it could have been better. I can understand why someone would still have feelings for who they believe is the greatest love of their life. However, I didn't understand why the director made his friends so insensitive, mean and rude. The main character kept apologizing to his friends when they were the ones mean to him. They weren't understanding at all and they used God as a reason to explain their behaviors. The main character, nor anyone else didn't know if the ex-girlfriend was divorced, still married etc but they were against him resolving old feelings that needed to be dealt with. His friends were suppose to be Christians and should have been portrayed as being supportive whether they agreed with his decision or not. So many times we do things in life where we don't apologize to those we have hurt in the past and when he was trying to do this they were all against him. The ironic part was his new female friend accused him of having stalking behavior for simply looking up an old friend, when she did a really odd thing to get a hold of his name, address and phone number...she seemed to be the stalker!. she didn't seem like a friend at all but was only looking out for herself. God is love...and I think God wants people to be with the person they were meant to be with and i feel the movie did a terrible injustice by making it seem like God doesn't care about true love...only that you stay with someone you made a bad choice with. We all make mistakes...it's all about what steps you take to make amends. Like I said the movie had potential but I was tired of the one-sided point of view being constantly repeated and jammed down the viewers throat by his so-called...well-meaning friends. This movie didn't hold true to the Christian belief of love but i give it a C for its effort. | 1 |
Orson Welles' 'The Lady From Shanghai' does not have the brilliant screenplay of 'Citizen Kane,' e.g., but Charles Lawton, Jr.'s cinematography, the unforgettable set pieces (such as the scene in the aquarium, the seagoing scene featuring a stunning, blonde-tressed Rita Hayworth singing 'Please Don't Love Me,' and the truly amazing Hall of Mirrors climax), and the wonderful cast (Everett Sloane in his greatest performance, Welles in a beautifully under-played role, the afore-mentioned Miss Hayworth--Welles' wife at the time--at her most gorgeous) make for a very memorable filmgoing experience. The bizarre murder mystery plot is fun and compelling, not inscrutable at all. The viewer is surprised by the twists and turns, and Welles' closing line is an unheralded classic. 'The Lady From Shanghai' gets four stars from this impartial arbiter. | 0 |
...without anything to walk away with. This movie starts with scenes in China with the finding of a newborn. While this is not a new concept, I wasn't going to give up right there. Then there is a flash forward to adolescence. The man's wife and biological child are fed up with the father who has neglected them. While this did not seem culturally accurate, and the movie made no move to develop these characters or the purpose for the adopted father's devotion, I pressed on.<br /><br />Next, we're in Malibu where we are bombarded by poorly constructed classroom interaction and terribly low-budget (fill in the blank: acting/camera work/lighting).<br /><br />I won't give away any more of the plot, because I suppose the synopsis is accurate: the movie is meant to show how a Malibu girl who (though she seems to innately have the compassion and interest to help others when she immediately asks her teacher about the trip to China) is spoiled and inconsiderate, finds herself as being a healer and helper of both body and spirit.<br /><br />Lame. LAME, LAME, LAME.<br /><br />Now I, admittedly, am a harsh critic, so maybe take one of those LAME's away and you'll be on the mark. | 1 |
An excellent example of 'cowboy noir', as it's been called, in which unemployed Michael (Nicolas Cage) loses out on a job because he insists on being honest (he's got a bum leg). With really nothing else he can do, he decides that for once he's going to lie. When he walks into a bar, and the owner Wayne (the late, great J.T. Walsh) mistakes him for a hit-man whom Wayne has hired to do in his sexy young wife Suzanne (Lara Flynn Boyle in fine form), Michael plays along and accepts Waynes' money. *Then* he goes to Suzanne and informs her of her husbands' intentions, and accepts *her* money to get rid of Wayne! If that didn't complicate things enough, the real hit-man, 'Lyle from Dallas' (Dennis Hopper, in a perfect role for him) shows up and Michael is in even more trouble than before.<br /><br />'Red Rock West' gets a lot out of the locations. Director John Dahl, who co-wrote the script with his brother Rick, was smart in realizing the potential of a story set in a truly isolated small town that may have seen better days and in which the residents could be involved in any manner of schemes. It's also an amusing idea of the kind of trouble an honest person could get into if they decided to abandon their principles and give in to any level of temptation. It's an appreciably dark and twist-laden story with an assortment of main characters that are if not corrupt, have at least been morally compromised like Michael. The lighting by cinematographer Marc Reshovsky is superb in its moodiness; even the climax set in a graveyard lends a nice morbid quality to the whole thing. Even if the writing isn't particularly 'logical or credible', the film has a nice way of intriguing the viewer and just drawing them right in.<br /><br />Cage does a good job in the lead, but his co-stars have a grand old time sinking their teeth into their meaty and greed-motivated characters. Hopper, Boyle, and Walsh are all fun to watch in these parts. Timothy Carhart and Dan Shor are fine as Walshs' deputies (in one especially good twist, Walsh is also the local sheriff), and there's an entertaining cameo role for country & western star Dwight Yoakam, who also graces the film with an enjoyable end credits tune.<br /><br />It's quite a good little film worth checking out. It moves forward at an impressive pace, and if nothing else is certainly never boring.<br /><br />8/10 | 0 |
i am very disappointed with this movie because i like these french actors and i liked 'Buffet Froid' from this Director (bertrand blier) but the script of 'Les Acteurs' is VERY POOR. why these actors they agreed to play this poor scenario. | 1 |
To be completely honest,I haven't seen that many western films but I've seen enough to know what a good one is.This by far the worst western on the planet today.First off there black people in the wild west? Come on! Who ever thought that this could be a cool off the wall movie that everyone would love were slightly, no no, completely retarded!Secondly in that day and age women especially black women were not prone to be carrying and or using guns.Thirdly whats with the Asian chick speaking perfect English? If the setting is western,Asia isn't where your going. Finally,the evil gay chick was too much the movie was just crap from the beginning.Now don't get me wrong I'm not racist or white either so don't get ticked after reading this but this movie,this movie is the worst presentation of black people I have ever seen! | 1 |
From the upper shelf of great Classic Books, comes this masterful story written by Pearl Buck. The book like the movie is called ' The Good Earth.' It relates the story of Wang Lung (Paul Muni) a simple Chinese farmer who begins his day with a trip to the 'Great House' where he has taken a slave woman called O-lan (Luise Rainer) and made her his wife. Almost from the beginning, she begins to adapt to his kindness by saving a small peach seed and planting it near her new home. During the following years, O-Lan proves her worth by steadfastly sharing her husband's toil, troubles and changing fortunes. Through the passing years, they raise a family and watch their simple household weather both feast and famine. Indeed, it's at the lowest point in their lives that each discovers the value of companionship, loyalty and Love. With the changing times, their growing family is both aided and threatened with friends and relatives, like their Uncle (Walter Connolly) who is a scoundrel and charlatan, but is compassionately tolerated. Wang has his 'Old Father' (Charley Grapewin) to advise and remind him of life's fragile and fickle nature. Two notable actors who make impressive appearances in this film are Keye Luke who plays Wang's Elder Son and Phillip Ahn who plays a Nationalist soldier. The film is in Black and White and is wonderfully adapted from the novel. Highly recommended for all audiences. **** | 0 |
Sure, the concept had already been done with Alf and the Charmings: thrust modern society onto one or more out-of-place characters. But I loved both shows and watched them religiously until they ended in 1990. When I learned about Scorch, I was actually very hopeful for something new, as new TV in the 90's so far hadn't impressed me (but at least Star Trek: TNG and the Simpsons were still going).<br /><br />What I got was a big disappointment. The acting was awful, but considering the ridiculous dialogue and wholly unbelievable writing, I can't blame them too much for what they had to work with. There were a few humorous moments, but most of the deliberate jokes seemed forced in their delivery. The whole production work on the show seemed too low-budget for what was on TV at the time. In the 80's it would have fit right in.<br /><br />Still, it was the first episode and had to introduce the characters and establish the entire premise of the series, so I gave it the benefit of the doubt. The second episode wasn't as bad, and I started to get my hopes back that once it got into its stride, the show would improve. Sadly, my VCR ended up not recording the third episode aired, I never got to see it, and the series disappeared from the TV listings after that. All I have now are the first two episodes recorded off the air onto a VHS tape. | 1 |
I just rented this movie to see Dolph Lundgren, whom I hadn't seen in any movies since Rocky IV. Unfortunately this movie was a big disappointment. The acting of all the parties was bad except for Mr. Lundgren, who was okay-ish. Kata Dobó was something nice to look at despite her ridiculous outfit and make-up.<br /><br />The plot is not at all clever, it's something that's been repeated a million times in different movies. The crooks were utterly stereotypical, and Lundgren's character hadn't any depth in it. I didn't really expect a movie masterpiece, but unfortunately this is not even decent action. Every turn in the plot is extremely predictable and the unbelievable amount of over-the-top unrealism and comic-book like characters started to annoy me strongly pretty soon.<br /><br />I would recommend this to young kids wanting some comic-like action, but only if nothing else is available.<br /><br />1/10. (I guess the current average vote of 7.0 with 6 votes must have been influenced by somebody involved in making this movie) | 1 |
The script for this TV soap opera is so bad that even A. Hopkins at some point had to play like an undergrad drama-student so as to bring some life in his script-dead character. I do not know whether this was the purpose of the director, but Hopkins' Ciano reeked nothing but vanity, fear and lack of self-esteem. The real Ciano possibly was all that but then, why make a movie about him? Mussolini was a bit more convincing, and his long way down was as if closer to the truth. Edda Mussolini was plain ridiculous (not because of Sarandon, but because of the impotent script), while she had to be the central character of this alleged familial drama. Watch it only if you enjoy Venezuelan soap opera. | 1 |
This film should have been fun. A young Lea Thompson, a young Joaquin Phoenix... and Terry O'Quinn. In space. But it dragged on, had unlovable characters and had no target audience.<br /><br />Some kids go to a space camp and are accidentally launched into space by a robot friend of theirs (named, appropriately, Jinx). The space scenes are then long, repetitive (the same accident happens twice) and either cheesy or frightening depending on your point of view. Adults will be bored and cheesed out, kids might be scared as the way this was filmed really leaves an eerie sense about it.<br /><br />There is a budding romance, but unlike the shuttle -- this never takes off. Why it is included in the first place is unclear, except maybe to add extra tension between the characters - but it failed if that was the idea.<br /><br />A young Lea Thompson should be quirky and attractive, right? I mean, 'Back to the Future' is great. But no, she was irritating and average-looking. Not someone you'd want to date, have as a friend or even consider as a role model. Joaquin Phoenix? He's really lucky he ever appeared in movies again this performance. Maybe he can act like Mikey in the Life Cereal commercials, but he doesn't seem to know how to be a normal boy. He doesn't fit in on screen and I don't think we can identify with him at home. I actually would have been happier if he had never returned to Earth.<br /><br />I don't recommend this film to anyone. | 1 |
When I ordered this from Blockbuster's website I had no idea that it would be as terrible as it was. Who knows? Maybe I'd forgotten to take my ADD meds that day. I do know that from the moment the cast drove up in their station wagon, donned in their late 70's-style wide collars, bell-bottoms and feathered hair, I knew that this misplaced gem of the disco era was glory bound for the dumpster.<br /><br />The first foretelling of just how bad things were to be was the narration at the beginning, trying to explain what cosmic forces were at play to wreak havoc upon the universe, forcing polyester and porno-quality music on the would-be viewer. From the opening scene with the poorly-done effects to the 'monsters' from another world and then the house which jumps from universe to universe was as achingly painful as watching an elementary school production of 'The Vagina Monologues'.<br /><br />Throughout the film, the sure sign something was about to happen was when a small ship would appear. The 'ship' was comprised suspiciously of what looked like old VCR and camcorder parts and would attack anyone in its path. Of course if moved slower than Bob Barker's impacted bowels, but it had menacing pencil-thin armatures and the ability to cast a ominous green glow that could stop bullets and equipped with a laser capable of cutting through mere balsa wood in an hour or two (with some assistance).<br /><br />Moving on... As the weirdness and bell bottoms continue... We found out that they're caught in a 'Space Time Warp'. How do we garner this little nugget of scientific information? Because the oldest male lead tells his son that, in a more or less off-the-cuff fashion, like reminiscing about 'how you won the big game' over a cup of joe or an ice-cold bottle of refreshing Coca-Cola. Was pops a scientist? Nope, but he knew about horses and has apparently meddled as an amateur in string theory and Einstein's theories.<br /><br />The recording I watched on DVD was almost bootleg quality. The sound was muddy and the transfer looked like it had been shot off a theater screen with the video recorder on a cell phone, other than that, it was really, really, really bad. (There's not enough 'really's' to describe it, really).<br /><br />I know some out there love this movie and compare it to other cult classics. I never saw this film on its original release, but even back then I think I would've come to the same conclusion: bury this one quick. | 1 |
I rented this film because it was a documentary and highly rated. It's more a study of a bastard son trying to find out who his biological father was, than anything about architecture.<br /><br />More than anything else, the underlying theme of the movie is that we have an eccentric, highly praised, possibly genius architect who had little regard for anything or anyone outside is profession.<br /><br />The tragedy of the film is the broken families he left. His baby-mothers came across more as scorned fans than irresponsible women, which can only have negative results on the children.<br /><br />That said, Nathaniel, the producer of the film and son of Louis Khan, came across as fairly stable and curious, if not bitter. The people he interviewed were of course more interested in talking about Louis Khan's buildings than his personal problems, but I find the mix of themes made the film interesting.<br /><br />As for his buildings, I found them like abstract art - strange, non-practical, and usually only appreciated by so-called critics. | 0 |
Well, the Sci-Fi channel keeps churning these turkeys out... and they seem to get worse every time. When normally good actors like John Rhys-Davies and Giancarlo Espositto come off as rank amateurs, you can imagine how abysmal the REST of the cast in this waste-of-your-time effort is. The only halfway decent thing is the rubber outfit of the creature(which is glimpsed in such quick flashes that you don't really have time to see how phony it really is). The dialogue...the plot...if this 'movie'(and I use the term loosely) was food, Jack-In-The-Box would be a gourmet meal compared to this. Watch a re-run of 'The Munsters' for the 372nd viewing- your time would be better spent(and a lot scarier as well)! | 1 |
Victor Buono as the Devil? Surely somebody must have been drunk when that casting decision was made. That's not the worst part of this silly mish-mash of sundry haunted house devices but it gets my vote for being the funniest part of it. While the film is by no means terrible it doesn't even approach other 1970's 'haunted house' flicks like Amityville Horror, The Changeling and The Legend of Hell House. The Evil can be entertaining in spots, but don't expect to be scared. It's better approached as what it is: a silly horror film made all the sillier by it's over-serious approach. | 1 |
I loved Dedee Pfeiffer (is that spelled right?) in Cybil. Haven't seen her for awhile and forgot how much I missed her. I thought she did a great job in this. The supporting cast was pretty good too. In some angles, the daughter even looked like a young Nicole Kidman. The abductor was pretty creepy and the story generally had some good twists. The young boyfriend was a hottie. I thought the husband definitely had something to do with it for sure.<br /><br />Just got the Lifetime Movie Network for Christmas and am loving these movies. Kept my interest and I'll watch it again when they rerun it. Can anyone else recommend any similar movies to this? You can post on the board or send me a private email if you want. Thanks in advance. Aboutagirly. | 0 |
OK, so I admit that it often seems like most of the Sylvester/Tweety pairings have exactly the same plot: Sylvester tries to get Tweety, but repeatedly fails and always gets maimed in the process, often with the help of a bulldog. I guess that it's sort of like Wile E. Coyote chasing Road Runner (in other words, mammals should never go after birds). 'All a Bir-r-r-rd' has the same plot and sets it on a train. In a way, the best part of these cartoons is seeing what sorts of schemes Sylvester comes up with to try and go after Tweety. We know that he's going to fail miserably, but it's also funny to watch Tweety turn into a bad-ass (if you've seen his really early cartoons, you'll see that he was not 'cute' at all, but in fact had a cruel streak). This one mainly works as a way to pass time.<br /><br />By the way, I thought that I saw - I mean, I taut I taw - Sylvester pass a piece of baggage with the name Friz Freleng on it. | 0 |
I didn't like this film at all! First of all,I don't know why, but everyone here says, that Clémence Poésy's play is excellent, which in my opinion is absolutely wrong! She is not like Natasha: another appearance, another character... What's worse, she is a very unexperienced actress and that's why she wasn't able to play this role! She disfigured the heroine completely! That was really disgusting to watch her play! To my mind, that would be much better to give this role to a Russian actress, because that would be much easier for her to understand the Russian soul for a Russian person. Unfortunately, Kutuzov looked like a drunk man, who hasn't shaved 2 weeks and defeated a battle in which he lost his eye...( Thank's God, in this film there're some actors, whose play was awesome! I suppose, that Alessio Boni coped with his task very well! I was pleasantly amazed! He is one of the few people who's read the book, which is very important for the play. In addition, I liked plays of our Russian actors, that was really wonderful to watch them)) The only thing I liked in this work was very beautiful views and amazing dresses! My advice is to read the book and to understand a real sense, the aim, with which Leo Tolstoy wrote this masterpiece, and maybe realize the whole idea of the book... 1 from 10 | 1 |
This film Oh my god this film is so poor , I'm amazed I managed to watch it all ..<br /><br />First off Id like to say that Vinny Jones should only play a London thug period that's it end of story ..<br /><br />Pisttolero is so unconvincing its almost comedy.. Banging in Dennis hopper and David Carradine did not save this film .. in fact I think its a total comedy and as a comedy it deserves its 1 star..<br /><br />Avoid at all costs .. Vinny Oh my god I thought I saw it all when he played that Irish Tinker :P<br /><br />I think the average viewer will realize that this film is maybe just a never will be type of film.. I cant see how anybody could actually fall this crap | 1 |
The reason why I say this is because I wrote the screenplay and knew very little about it being made until I was asked to see the film. I wrote it for some producers who sold it on without telling me. Because Alan Dobie was a friend of mine, I got to hear about it. I had only written a first draft so I was understandably worried when I heard that it was on the floor. I asked Peter Collinson, through my agent, whether he might like me to do another draft. I also asked if I could I see my original script because I had lost it. I was told, too late. So I did the only thing I could do under the circumstances and took my name off. I had no idea what they might have done to my screenplay. Then I was invited to see the finished film. I was so impressed that I very quickly asked to have my name put back on. It's a beautifully made piece, from a hurriedly written first draft, I expected to be asked to do much more work on it; perhaps if I had it wouldn't be so good. I would love to see my original script again if anybody knows where it is? I would also love to see the film again, I only saw it once in a little viewing theatre in Soho. | 0 |
Let me be the first non Australian to comment on this :) I got the movie for Hugo Weaving and I watched it to the end. It's one of those 'drama of life' films, as my mother used to call a movie that depicts a real life story with no extraordinary events and that is mostly descriptive.<br /><br />I liked the light and the girls. The rest was without too much fault, but without too much merit either. I yearned for something like The Interview, or at least some matrix villain element here and there, but nothing out of the ordinary. The story does teach one about facing one's own destiny and break free from the environment others build for you, but this happens when the life giving peach factory in the area is about to close, so not much of an effort to change things is required.<br /><br />The 'smart' American Beauty sound-alike song in the background could have been part of a larger soundtrack, but just that one playing over and over again became annoying after 100 minutes of film.<br /><br />In the end, I guess it did his job of presenting a part of Australian life, but to me it didn't seem specifically Australian (it could have been placed anywhere) and it didn't seem attractive as a story.<br /><br />I guess one must be in a certain mood to like the movie. | 0 |
Oh my, I think this may be the single cheesiest movie I've ever seen. I'm serious, this is one of the ultimate b-movies. The first proof is that it isn't a $5 DVD. Oh no, that's too mainstream for this. I got this on VHS, from a bin full of ex-rental videos at my local video store.<br /><br />If I may quote the blurb: 'In 17th Century Japan, there lived a samurai who would set the standard for the ages. His name was Mayeda. He is sent on an epic journey across the world to acquire 5,000 muscats from the King of Spain. Whilst at sea a violent storm swallows their precious gold intended to buy the weapons and almost takes their lives. Mayeda must battle all odds to survive and the secure the fate of his beloved Japan.' It then goes on to say 'A multi million dollar action adventure epic set across three continents'<br /><br />I must have seen a different movie. This was no epic, and it certainly wasn't a multi million dollar anything. No, 'Shogun Mayeda' is really just the crazy adventures of the Engrish-speaking Mayeda (Sho Kosugi). He isn't even a Shogun really, but thats not important. What is important, is that he does a really cool impression of John Cleese's repeated charging of the one castle in 'Monty Python and the Holy Grail', and his ability to go from serious scenes to showing off his samurai mind powers. Awesome.<br /><br />The greatest thing about this movie is Sho Kosugi's Engrish accent. The movie may lack nearly everything that makes a good movie, but makes up for it with some of the cheesiest lines ever, delivered by the coolest Engrish accent ever. And honestly, do you really want anything else? You could fast forward 'Shogun Mayeda' to the end, and replay Kosugi's final line over and over. The tape will probably wear out before you get tired of that one line. Awesome.<br /><br />2/10 - So very very cheesy. | 1 |
'San Francisco, Oh you marvelously desolated town, Thank You, God, for destroying it, and making bricks fall on our collective heads, and for pummeling into oblivion tens of thousands of Your innocent, obedient sheep, oh Lord, who art so merciful in thy Heavenly ways...' These should have been the lyrics to the title song of this oh-so inspiring and utterly mindless film.<br /><br />The movie starts well enough, with Gable discovering a Cinderella with a highly annoying but much-appreciated operatic voice, and she soon shoots to stardom. One of the many problems with our Cinderella is that she is played by Jeanette MacDonald, who, if one 'takes the time' to look through all that make-up and 30s glitz facade, realizes that she is kind of ugly. Too ugly to be playing THIS role, anyway. Yet Gable and everyone else fawn all over here as if she were some damn beauty or something. Another problem with Cinderella is that her character is so utterly humble, wholesome, innocent, God-loving, kind, and generous - enough to make you vomit for a full hour. MacDonald plays her (admittedly one-dimensional) role with the sort of 'ahhh', 'oh', and 'ooh' that serves to annoy rather than make her sympathetic.<br /><br />Tracy has been better, and had better roles, than playing this clichéd, heart-of-gold, God-loving, non-child-molesting priest (who boxes in his 'free time' - as if priests have anything to do - how cute). Even the ever-reliable Gable is not up to his usual standard; he is far too animated, and his character is far too selfless for someone who is supposed to be an ambitious Western 'scoundrel' (though this, obviously, is the script's fault).<br /><br />The plot is basically this: Gable and his rival Holt play ping-pong with Cinderella - using her as the ball. How? Well, first she is working (singing) for Gable, then she works for the square Holt, then she goes back to Gable, only to return very soon to Holt. (And, of course, both want to have her as girlfriend/wife.) And if the earthquake hadn't interrupted this table-tennis plot, it's a safe bet that she would have been bouncing back-and-forth another ten times, the wishy-washy little princess that she is.<br /><br />There are many, far too many in fact, musical numbers. It's almost as though they tried to make the first 'disaster-movie musical' ever. How silly. The stuff she sings in Gable's 'joint' is okay, but when she starts belting out those high-pitched, annoying whines during the opera segments, that is when I felt that my ears were unprovokingly and unjustly attacked by enemy sound-fire. In fact, there is an opera number that lasts 6 DAMN MINUTES. 6 may seem like little, for those who haven't had first-hand Vietoperanam experience with such horrors of audio torture, but it's like with dog years; a dog's year is equivalent to seven human ones. A minute of opera is equivalent to 100 minutes of Chinese torture (or a dog urinating acid on your leg).<br /><br />I thought this was a disaster movie, but it's more like a near-disaster movie. (I read that some of the dialog in this film was written by a SILENT-ERA FILM DIRECTOR. Jesus...) The melodramatic, and only occasionally amusing, proceedings get interrupted by the real star of this movie (namely, the earthquake), only after well over one-and-a-half hours. When Joe the earthquake finally does shake up the city, and our clichéd characters in it, I almost felt like saying 'Thank God, death and destruction are finally here!'. Unfortunately, Joe comes too late into the movie to save it from its increasing mediocrity; the scenes of devastation are very good, but even the earthquake part of the movie gets ruined (pun) by a highly annoying, religious ending. You see, Gable, who professes to be an atheist all along (without actually using the word itself), finally finds MacDonald alive - after having searched for days - and suddenly he is converted into a believer because Cinderella is alive?!! How stupid! All that tells me is that Gable's character is a weak-minded moron.<br /><br />The movie ends on a very dumb note, indeed. Gable, having said 'thank you' to God for 'saving' his girl (and he does his on his knees) 'finds' God (sees the light), and the movie's little old devil Gable converts himself into a believer. How very God-fearingly American an ending...<br /><br />Of course, no one thought of asking this 'God' why the hell there was an earthquake in the first place! The sad and unintentional irony is that Gable in the end becomes a 'sucker'; all along he had made fun of 'suckers' who fall for the holiest scam of them all - namely religion - and in the end he himself becomes one. Now that's what I call a triumph of the human spirit! Another irony is that the ending was supposed to have improved Gable as a person, but I see it quite differently; on the contrary: it took only one big Joe to turn Gable into a God-fearing, meek, little, obedient believer - who joins the world's sheep family. And as if this intellectual downfall of Gable's wasn't pathetic and disappointing enough, this first-ever 'earthquake musical' ends with a truly hair-raising (take this word as you will), noble, and hope-inspiringly beautiful mass-choir scene: dozens (or hundreds) of earthquake survivors and proud, proud citizens of Frisco spontaneously (or did 'God' perhaps arrange it?) sing all together the title song in hope for a better, brighter, Joe-less future. Hallelujah! If you are a 'sucker' for Hollywood sentimentality, do not skip this movie. | 1 |
Abhay Deol's second film, written by Imtiaz Ali, maiden directorial effort by Shivam Nair. Soha probably has her first (?) meaty role as Megha, a girl who has run away from home and is waiting at the Delhi marriage registrar's office for her boyfriend Dheeraj (Shayan Munshi) to meet her. She waits and waits and finally is spotted as a damsel in distress by Ankush (Abhay Deol). They spend many days together as he extricates her from one distressing situation after another and finally falls in love with her. Then the boyfriend returns! Aage pardey par dekhiye! Sound familiar? This is yet another adaptation of Dostoyevsky's White Nights with a tiny bit of borrowing from Le Notti Bianchi (very tiny though - Ankush keeps the lovers apart by telling the boyfriend she is dead!). But this is an earthier and more realistic (duh) adaptation than the much hyped and overblown Saawariya. I wonder why no one brought this little gem up when we were all discussing Saawariya like crazy a few months ago.<br /><br />The Delhi settings are wonderful - there is the obligatory run through old Delhi, shots of Jama Masjid from a roof top, Connaught Circus, streets with rickshaws (What? How?). The colorful light fixtures in the hotel are enough to tell you this is a seedy joint with rooms for hire by the hour! <br /><br />The more I see of Abhay the more I like this young man. In this second film he is quite good as the for hire witness who is given a purpose in life by a beautiful woman. Soha looks beautiful, and when she smiles she fits the role, but I found her unconvincing in the more serious moments. I am not quite sure that she has it in her to be a great actress, or maybe she will blossom late like the brother. The music by Himesh Reshammiya is not that great and in fact the movie falters at the songs, they kind of interrupt the narrative and do not sit well with the characters trying to sing them. The supporting cast is excellent and I give this White Nights adaptation a thumbs up. BTW - the fact that I love Abhay Deol's cute dimples has NOTHING to do with my rating. | 0 |
Unfortunately for me, the first Busby Berkeley movie I ever watched was '42nd Street.' I then expected all of his stuff to be that good. I found out that wasn't necessarily the case, even here, with my all-time favorite classic-era actor James Cagney.<br /><br />Oh, the musical numbers at the end are as spectacular as always, but the story is like many of the others and quite tiresome. They seem to always involve screaming, unhappy show producers. In this film, it's Cagney who winds up shouting things out so often that he gives me a headache after awhile and his character wears thin....fast!<br /><br />Even the songs in here are anywhere near '42nd Street' class, songs you could hum for years and years - decades, I should say. The songs in this movie are not memorable. No, this is one of the few early Cagney films - and Berkeley films - I totally dislike and was very disappointed with while watching. | 1 |
OK, most of us agree that this is a weak attempt at a remake, but at the same time it's also a different movie in its own right. Don't get me wrong, 'American Werewolf In London' is a superior film, but 'American Remake In Paris' is a decent movie as well.<br /><br />First off, the only real similarities are the TITLE, 2 American BACKPACKERS, and WEREWOLVES. Other than those 3 things, 'American Remake In Paris' stands apart fairly well on its own with its special blend of humor, action/adventure, and horror. Most of the people who say this film is better than the original are the youth of today's generation that think any movie made before 1990 is total crap. While those of us who grew up in the 80's can appreciate older films and what they have added to the horror films of today. What a lot of people fail to realize is that without the old classic films, including the B&W ones, horror wouldn't be what it is today. Now I'm getting a little off the beaten path...<br /><br />An American Werewolf In Paris is a good attempt at re-creating a classic, but it will never surpass the original, ever. With that said, this is still a very entertaining film to watch and I do recommend it. I'm giving it a 7 out of 10. Maybe that's being a little generous, but I've seen much worse attempts at trying to re-create a classic. | 0 |
Look it's Eva Longoria and Paul Rudd in a movie about a dead girlfriend haunting the new girlfriend. It's Gabrielle from Desperate Housewives and the guy who wore 'sex Panther cologne' in Anchorman. If you are expecting a Golden Globe nominated movie then you need to rethink how you look at movies. However, if you are willing to suspend reality for 90 minutes and want to watch a funny movie then you've come to the right place. The characters are all funny. They work together very well. The real match up is Paul Rudd and Lake Bell. He's as funny as he was on Friends and she was funny and good looking all at the same time. I went with my wife, she enjoyed it and so did I. | 0 |
I've seen every episode, and the characters have all remained the same self absorbed whinny little brats thought out, there's no character development in 5 years (getting pregnant is not development if your still the same daddies girl, only now Delinda whines to Danny because dad isn't around) Sam never changes or grows, which makes her boring, repetitive and just so annoying its sickening after season 3, Danny is a typical soft character that gets ordered about by everyone in his life, (he has no principals morals of his own) especially Mary and Delinda. The old boring cliché will they wont they on and off relationship does get boring very fast indeed.<br /><br />James Cann can act and his character is OK to watch, only he is just another hack writers wet dream, an ex CIA man that has huge contacts and training etc so he can stop any thief or cheater known to man, even though the cameras cant do half the stuff they make out its fun for a while, however in 5 years the writers act very dumb, why? Because they have all this expensive and advanced technology, but no simple walkie talkie (communicating is fast and easy) you never see security walking the floor, only when there's a situation, and suddenly everyone is just there.<br /><br />The plots very quickly move from the cheating and robbing the casino in one way or another, to awful typical American boy girl relation ships, the same done to death material seen all over the world, they have sex, but I hate you, I've always loved you, I think I do but I love her/him instead, but what if, maybe one day blah blah blah.<br /><br />I'd recommend ''Hotel Babylon'' to people who like Las Vegas, it has so much more going for it simply because the characters are interesting engaging and not forced down our throat for 6 months of the year.<br /><br />I'm glad to be British I'd rather see the same actors in 5 different shows rather than 5 years consistently getting worst in the same one. | 1 |
I love Ben Kingsley and Tea Leoni. However, this is easily the worst movie I have seen in 10 years, and I see my share of movies. A stinker. This is a bad idea for a movie, poorly executed. Nothing about it is funny, credible or interesting. I was looking for wit, irony and genuine humor. Instead, this looked like most of the cast members wandered on to the set to do Tea Leoni a favor. It's too bad such acting talent was wasted on such hollowness. Don't bother. I have to wonder what opinion the makers of this movie have of their audience to subject them to the idea of Polish gangsters in Buffalo, NY sending a contract murderer to San Francisco to become a mortuary assistant while attending AA meetings. Bill Pullman should begin reading scripts before he agrees to be in a movie. Sad. | 1 |
Can I Do it 'till I Need Glasses? at the very least proves the point that anyone can make a movie. Talent is not a consideration. The folks who unleashed this wretched pile of spewing vomit upon the world, lack any semblance of talent, taste or intelligence. The target audience must consist of the recently labotimized, and infants who play with their own feces. Anyone else would be far too world wise to get even a snicker out of this film. It consists of a series of sophmoric skits in which the punchline does not even extend to the obvious. It ends at the ludicrous. The jokes told are the types of jokes that elementary school children tell (usually potty or sexually related) where they don't know the meaning of all of the terms they use. You know, like the one about daddy's car and mommy's garage. To apply any sterner method of criticism would be pointless, since the usual standards of acting, writing, direction and such have never even been heard of by the creative 'minds.' behind this mess. Not to be judgemental, but anyone who enjoyed this film should seriously reflect upon their purpose on this earth.<br /><br /> | 1 |
This rather poorly named western series won an Emmy for best syndicated program and is certainly an interesting series. It was produced by Republic, the studio which did action better than anyone, and they put their best into it. Each episode was built around a real historical figure of the old west. A railroad detective named Matt Clark, similar to the later Elliot Ness with the gangsters of the 1920's and 30's, managed to become involved with almost every notorious western outlaw between the middle of the 1800's and WWI. The series' best asset was Jim Davis. Tall, rugged, ruggedly good looking, in prime shape, with an authentic western accent, and great riding skills which made him utterly convincing in the action scenes, Davis was every inch the western hero. He was teamed with two lovely and active co-stars, Mary Castle as 'Frankie' during the first season, and Kristine Miller as 'Jonesy' during the second. Each worked well with Davis.<br /><br />What separated this show from its contemporaries and much of what came later was the professionalism invested in the action scenes. Ace action directer William Witney directed 30 episodes. Franklin Adreon the rest. Both filmed the action with polish. Republic's vast store of stock footage from serials and B's was utilized to give scope. The level of individual episodes rose or fell with the quality of the guest stars brought in to the play the outlaws. Among the really good ones were Marie Windsor as Belle Starr, Lee Van Cleef as Jesse James, Fess Parker as Grat Dalton, Jean Parker as Cattle Kate, and Joe Sawyer and Slim Pickins as Butch Cassady and 'The Smilin' Kid'. The cream of the western up and comers, Pickins, Parker, Denver Pyle, James Best, and Richard Jaeckel, honed their craft. B veterans with decades of experience under their belts, Harry Woods, Glenn Strange, Kenneth MacDonald, Earle Hodgkins, Steve Darrell, and Chief Yowlachie, provided the old leather feel of vintage westerns.<br /><br />The weakness of the concept was that there are only so many famous western outlaws. By the second season the famous figures were becoming a mite obscure for all by the most dedicated history buff. Nevertheless, a few of the later shows were a match for any, due to the guest stars. Henry Brandon portrayed rustler Nate Champion, and former Republic star Don Barry was outstanding as small-time outlaw Milt Sharp.<br /><br />Western fans or history buffs will want to see this. | 0 |
This movie makes 'Glitter' look like 'Schindler's List.' Tarantino and the Weinsteins really need to consider more carefully before putting their names on a product. Green-lighting a P.O.S. like this, regardless of the friendships involved, is just bad business. Larry Bishop needs to be kept away from a movie camera at all costs. Writer/director/producer/actor Bishop shows that his skills are inadequate for any of those jobs. A vanity project gone south, 'Hell Ride' allows usually good actors to chew the scenery... at least when the camera isn't centered on Bishop's feeble attempts to steal every scene he's in. (Which is virtually EVERY SCENE!) My final three words on 'Hell Ride' are STINK, STANK, STUNK. | 1 |
Mad Magazine may have a lot of crazy people working for it...but obviously someone there had some common sense when the powers-that-be disowned this waste of celluloid...the editing is el crapo, the plot is incredibly thin and stupid...and the only reason it gets a two out of ten is that Stacy Nelkin takes off some of her clothes and we get a nice chest shot...I never thought I would feel sorry for Ralph Macchio making the decision to be in this thing, but I do...and I REALLY feel bad for Ron Leibman and Tom Poston, gifted actors who never should have shown up in this piece of...film...at least Mr. Leibman had the cajones to refuse to have his name put anywhere on the movie...and he comes out ahead...there are actually copies of this thing with Mad's beginning sequence still on it...if you can locate one, grab it cuz it is probably worth something...it's the only thing about this movie that's worth anything...and a note to the folks at IMDb.com...there is no way to spoil this movie for anyone...the makers spoiled it by themselves... | 1 |
I watched this film last night with anticipation, but really wasn't very impressed.<br /><br />With the exception of 'Combo', I thought the acting was poor and the narrative was limited. It came across like a 'made for TV' drama.<br /><br />I felt that the film was very contrived. The whole set up of hammering in the context at the start (yes, we get that this is 80s Britain - you can stop now) was tiresome, and gave a very one-sided view of what life was like in 80s Britain - poverty, war juxtaposed with royalty, Margaret Thatcher, yet nothing in between? There were actually middle-classes who existed back then - just ordinary working people, with a decent wage and a mortgage. The Falklands clips also seemed to be added randomly towards the end, for 'dramatic effect', I presume.<br /><br />The sequence of events felt a tad disjointed, as the characters moved one one action to the next without us seeing how their mindset could've changed so quickly.<br /><br />The relationship between 'Shaun' and 'Smell' was toe-curling. I couldn't even look during the snogging scene. I find it very hard to believe that she would've been attracted to a boy who was not only so much younger, but also looked so much younger. I know there were only four years between them, but four years is nothing once you reach your twenties, yet it's a huge difference in your teens! In my experience, that kind of teen age difference only occurs when the girl is the younger one, since girls mature so much quicker, and are more on the wavelength of boys a few years older. Sorry, but I didn't buy it - an unnecessary plot point created for shock value.<br /><br />The ending was somewhat abrupt and, again, contrived. If the flag throwing incident was supposed to be iconic, then it fell somewhat short in my eyes.<br /><br />It bugs me that British films only concern themselves with either the upper classes or the poverty-stricken. Don't get me wrong, I love Trainspotting, and Four Weddings has its charms, but can't we Brits come up with anything different? Why are our films always so hung up on the class system? I was born in 1973, so wasn't much different in age to 'Shaun' would've been in 1983. I grew up in a single parent family on a fairly down-trodden council estate in a city in England. However, my childhood experiences were vastly different to those portrayed in the film - I don't even remember racism being an issue (although i'm not saying it didn't exist). 'This is England'? Not in my experience.<br /><br />The bottom line is that I felt this film lacked substance, and I was completely bored and unimpressed throughout. | 1 |
Although Flatliners is 15 years old, tonight was my first time ever seeing it. I had heard about the movie Flatliners, but there was never a buzz about it to make me go out and rent it or make a point to see it period. Well, I caught it on one of the premium channels and I must say that it was very good.<br /><br />This movie was about some brilliant young medical students deciding to explore death. They have figured out a way to cause a person to die briefly and bring him/her back to life. Besides the all-star cast, this movie had some serious bite to it. Just the very thought of exploring death is riveting enough, but I really thought the writer & director did an excellent job in giving a different yet hair raising view. This was no generic attempt to thrill, frighten, and make one's mind race... this was the real deal.<br /><br />Instead of making it an empty, superficial, star-studded thriller, this movie had substance. A nail-biter, white knuckle, edge-of-the-seat, hard nose thriller. I give it an 8/10. | 0 |
To most of us, life is an unfolding process of love. For others like Soo-mi, however, it is dominated by darkness and fear. Based on the Korean folk tale Jangha and Hongryun, Kim Ji-woon's brilliant Gothic horror story A Tale of Two Sisters revolves around two sisters, Soo-mi (Lim Su-jeong), and Soo-yeon (Mun Geon-yeong), who are part of a dysfunctional family that live together in a creepy Victorian-style mansion. Feeling alienated from the world, they cling to each other for survival with the older Soo-mi obsessively protecting the younger Soo-yeon against danger. For Soo-mi, however, not coming to terms with the circumstances surrounding her mother's death means mental illness and a mind at odds with reality.<br /><br />While we may recognize staples such as haunted houses with apparitional sightings, doors that open and close on their own, a cruel and overbearing stepmother, and other events of high strangeness, A Tale of Two Sisters superbly explores deeper psychological meanings including the inability to let go of inner demons and the misplaced desire for revenge. Soo-mi says 'Do you know what's really scary? You want to forget something. Totally wipe it off your mind. But you never can. It can't go away, you see. And... and it follows you around like a ghost.' There is a time line but it is left for the viewer to unravel. The plot cannot be summarized, only suggested and the film keeps us wondering whether what is happening on screen is objective or subjective.<br /><br />In the film's opening, Soo-mi, an obviously disturbed young woman, is being questioned by a doctor in a setting that looks like a mental institution. When the doctor asks her to describe what happened 'that day', the film flashes back to when Soo-mi and Soo-Yeon return to the home of their father Moo-hyeon (Kim Kap-su) and stepmother Eun-joo (Yum Jung-ah). The stepmother is hostile and resentful and the father is passive and distant but it is obvious that it is Soo-mi who is really hurting. As the girls try to readjust, they are constantly frightened by a presence in the house, which may be nightmares or supernatural occurrences.<br /><br />Soo-mi sees a figure at the foot of her bed that hovers over her and oozes black blood, a dinner scene in which the guest apparently sees a ghost hiding under the sink and goes into convulsions, a monster emerges from between the legs of one of the sisters, people mysteriously disappear from photographs, and many other maniacal schizophrenic devices to keep the viewer dangling on the edge of insanity. While we sense that much of the story is the projection of someone's mind, we do not know whose and the film keeps us constantly challenged, at least until an important clue is offered in the film's second half.<br /><br />Shot in gorgeous low-light cinematography, A Tale of Two Sisters has a unique elegance and other worldly beauty that transcends all the scares, and there are plenty. It is haunting in more than one sense of the word and its images may stare back at you when you least expect or want them to. While the film may not offer the weary traveler much in the way of light, it shows us where we can end up if we opt for the darkness. In the words of a wise observer, 'Blame is never the answer - whether it is blaming yourself or others. Rather, the answer lies in stepping out of judgment entirely - both of yourself AND others. Forgiveness and understanding have great power of healing.' | 0 |
I really liked this movie. Kurt manages to act without speaking, letting moments speak for themselves. He doesn't have to verbalize or rationalize his actions, he simply decides and takes action. He is supported by a good cast of actors and settings, and is able to show us a more humane side of soldiers without getting to corny. | 0 |
I shall not waste my time writing anything much further about how every aspect of this film is indescribably bad. That has been done in great detail already, many times over. The 'plot' started out as a very uninspiring cockney wide-boy/gangster-by-numbers bore and very quickly descended into an utter shambles. Anybody who pretends that they can see some hidden masterpiece inside this awful mess is just kidding themselves. It is now 7 or 8 years since I watched it during its 1 week run at the cinema before it was pulled, yet it sticks in my mind for being easily the most terrible film I have ever seen.<br /><br />I am only making these comments, and indeed the only reason I went to see the film, is because of the amusing fact that my brother Eddie appeared in it as the second 'heavy' in the pub scene. It was his hands that thrust a zippo lighter towards Rhys Ifan's face in the bar in 'Russia' (it was actually filmed at the former Butlins holiday camp at Barry Island). My brother has absolutely no acting experience whatsoever - he had recently joined an extras' agency and this was his first part. Having seen the film, it appeared that nobody in it required any acting experience whatsoever.<br /><br />I remember there were about 8 people in the whole cinema - and this was just a couple of days after it had been released. I have never heard of an other film that was so unpopular and disappeared so fast - and rightly so. In case you were thinking of renting this film on DVD, I would advise you instead to put your two pound coins in a fire until they are red-hot, then jam them into your eye sockets. This will probably be a lot less painful than watching the film. | 1 |
I love horror movies that brings out a real amount of mystery like say 'silent hill' ( which i found to be quite good, but still, was missing something ) and movies that keeps you guessing, this i thought was one of those movies. At first the movie starts out with some really good suspense and builds up a good starting point for a good horror scene, but after that it just rolls down the hill and from there it only goes faster and faster down. I mentioned silent hill at first for a reason because i can see a lot of 'stolen' themes from that movie in here.. All in all i would say, watch silent hill instead of this one, its better, its more scary, it has a lot more suspense and also the ending is a lot better.. And best of all, you wont feel ripped off as i did with this one.. This just seems to be one of those 'i like that movie so I'm gonna re-make it in my own really bad version' kinda movie.. Oh and one more thing... Lordi.. in a horror movie... thats like trying to scare a kid with a care bear who has 'hug me and i will love you forever' written on the stomach of it.. | 1 |
Shame Shame Shame on UA/DW for what you do! <br /><br />I was appalled. <br /><br />Do NOT take kids to see this movie. The humor is totally inappropriate for children - plus they'll be bored and disappointed. Certainly *we all* have read Theo's wonderful children book and certainly we have expectations...but this is pure trash. Dr. Seuss would be ashamed and certainly would've never given his 'thumbs up' at such a dastardly attempt to capitalize on a classic.<br /><br />What a pity. <br /><br />Spend your money on the book. If you own a copy, then buy the book and donate it to a Toys for Tots program. This movie is NOT worth a 'free' ticket viewing.<br /><br />Stick with the book. The tv cartoon version works well if you want a visual portrayal - save your money...seriously. SAVE your money - it will be on cable by saint patty's day.<br /><br />Shame shame shame on what they do!! | 1 |
***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** There's not much that can be said about this early-talkie era flick. (I'm hesitant to call 'Cimarron' a 'film', because I feel that the word is too esoteric.) But what can be said about it...mainly speaks against it.<br /><br />Take, for example, the overuse of portraying Indians as bad folk. In one scene, the little boy of the flick's lead character--an overbearing and over-ambitious family man who wants to set up a newspaper business-- is playing just outside of his father's office. An Indian kneels down in front of the child. 'Hello,' the boy says to the Indian, in a very polite manner. The Indian gives him a feather, stands up and walks off.<br /><br />Yancy Cravat, Jr. excitedly runs inside the office. 'Mommy! Mommy!' he shouts, holding up the Indian's gift. 'Look what an Indian gave me!'<br /><br />'How many times do I have to tell you!' she snaps at the boy. 'You aren't ever to talk to those filthy Indians!'<br /><br />Yancy Yates, Sr. (Richard Dix) comes across as a man who speaks with a forked tongue. At the start of the story, he seems to have a definite plan for giving his family a better life. But, we soon enough discover, he's no great over achiever--much less a totally good-moral minded man. His slave child, Isaiah (Eugene Jackson) is one tell-tale sign of this.<br /><br />Upon his family's first trek to a Sunday morning church service--one<br /><br />at which, curiously enough, Cravat is to give the sermon--Isaiah tries to come along, dressed up like Cravat, long-tail suit, holster, gun and all. Cravat tells him to go home. 'Ya' all doesn't want me to come with ya' ta church?' Isaiah says with a pout.<br /><br />'No!' Cravat corrects him, patting him on the shoulder. 'You don't understand! I want you to stay and guard the house. And if anyone at all comes along... you shoot him dead!'<br /><br />The characters--not to mention the actors--in 'Cimarron' couldn't<br /><br />act their way out of burlap sacks, despite their obvious efforts. And nothing in the script was any too commendable, either. (Granted: the incomparable Edna May Oliver--notorious for playing the Red Queen in Alice In Wonderland, also released in 1931--actually manages to look good, pulling off her portrayal of a pompous old woman, which is what she's also been best-known for.) But, aside from that, well...<br /><br />Yancy Yates isn't popular in town from the first week he arrives,<br /><br />and one of the outlaws decides to shoot Cravat's white hat off as he and his wife (Irene Dunne) are casually walking by. Despite her anger with the man who fired the bullet, Cravat just takes it completely in stride.<br /><br />Not only was this story not 'shooting for realism', but it was very<br /><br />lacking in several key areas: e.g., Cravat's newspaper isn't ever really seen. (Bulletins and posters, yes--but not any newspaper.)<br /><br />Perhaps strangest of all, though: this is set in a small town in<br /><br />Kansas. Yet, for some reason or other, Yancy Cravat is dead-set on<br /><br />calling his paper 'The Oklahoma Wig-Wam.'<br /><br />Really good westerns have always been very few and far between--the only exceptions being Clint Eastwood's so-called 'spaghetti westerns' of the late '60s to early '70s. Cliche westerns, on the other hand, are a dime-a-dozen.<br /><br />If you like cliche westerns, 'Cimarron' will do you proud--but, as for me... it did me embarrassment.<br /><br /> | 1 |
I only rented this because i loved the first movie. However, calling it John Carpenters Vampires: Los Muertos is just a con trick to get you to rent it. He is in fact executive producer and clearly had nothing to do with the making of this film (Jeepers Creepers Anyone?)<br /><br />A tragic storyline, terrible special effects and Jon Bon Jovi as the least convincing Vampire Hunter of all time. It's not even comically bad.<br /><br />What we end up with is a dull, uninvolving film with a terrible script and indefinsibly bad and clichéd acting. It just reeks of low budget.<br /><br />Avoid like the Bubonic plague. | 1 |
And I gave it a high 7.....<br /><br />Why? Because it bloody well rocked. At the time when there were so many OTHER shows on that were tied to toys/games this show was unique in that it had overlapping stories. As others have said here it was ahead of its time. <br /><br />Sadly this is why the show was doomed. They have released 4 DVDs with 16 episodes of the series so far. I am hoping that more come out. <br /><br />How does this compare watching it now 20 years after it first came out.. I don't know I still like it despite the sometimes clunky animation, and that IMHO is it's only flaw. The writing was almost top notch and way ahead of the competition........ <br /><br />I do hope for more DVDs or even a set of all the episodes in proper order... The DVDs are good but I don't think the stories are in their proper order, but despite this the show rocked. | 0 |
'Caligula' shares many of the same attributes as the 1970 'Fellini Satyricon' with bizarre sights, freakishness, and depictions of sexual excesses all set in the 'glory' of ancient Rome. But Fellini it ain't... First of all it is not as entertaining. Far too much screen time is devoted to bug-eyed, rubber-faced McDowell in the titular role. His performance is far too fey and campy to be convincing. The portrayals by Jay Robinson in 'The Robe' (1953) and David Cain-Haughton in 'Emperor Caligula' (1983) are far more persuasive and believable, with the latter being the most nuanced. Relief could have been judiciously provided by developing the surrounding characters more fully. As it is, they are little more than cyphers. One example is the role of Macro, played by Guido Mannari who has tremendous screen presence in an important role, but is mostly left in the background. The only positive features to credit are the adroit use of some Prokofiev and Stravinsky themes in the music score and the inclusion of some of the distasteful but nevertheless accurate actions of the despot. These two factors are far less than what is needed to relieve the prevailing tedium, however. | 1 |
I rented this movie the other night because neither my girlfriend or myself had ever seen it, even though we had heard from a mutual friend how 'great it was'.<br /><br />Now, I am pretty conservative in my views, but I knew going in it would be pretty liberal given who directed it. I figured before the movie started Michael Douglas would play a compassionate popular liberal beloved by the masses, and there would be a stodgy conservative opponent as his antagonist. But I thought thats where the political statement would begin and end.<br /><br />OK, the plot was solid: Single president falls for a lobbyist. OK, this has potential I thought to be pretty entertaining, since the plot was unique. But then the movie turned into a liberal infomercial. The movie became more about gun control and environmental issues than it did about the relationship between the President and Sydney(Annette Bening).<br /><br />There were several ridiculous premises in this movie: 1) The character Sydney playing this six figure lobbyist who is a 'closer'. Could she have been more flighty? She was constantly disorganized and seemed in awe of everything. Hardly a 'closer'. I am an sales, and she could not 'close' selling a glass of water to a man dying of thirst.<br /><br />2) Secondly, is there anything more ridiculous than Richard Dreyfuss playing a right wing fanatic? This is the most liberal man in Hollywood and her is playing some right wing ideologue. Give me a break. I liked how he took his conservative character and made him as sinister as possible.<br /><br />3) The speech at the end was simply ludicrous. The line about 'I am a proud card carrying member of the ACLU' was a joke. First, no president would ever admit something like that, being an active member of an ultra fringe group. Second, why even bring something like that up. You just alienated off over half the movie going audience who is moderate or conservative.<br /><br />I thought the plot was great and unique. I thought Michael Douglas was a good choice as president. But the movie went from being a 'movie' to a left wing political statement, which is why the movie failed.<br /><br />Its a shame to see a great plot ruined by Hollywood having to force their political views on the audience | 1 |
This is no walk in the park. I saw this when it came out, and haven't had the guts to watch it again. You will never see a more horrifyingly devastating or depressing movie. I felt like I'd been severely beaten. What kind of world are we living in when we have children who are treated worse than garbage? This is our world, what we have created, what we have allowed to happen. And I would hesitate to say that I-ME-WE are not responsible for this. Babenco made this film to wake us up, to shake us to our very core, and he succeeded. How can we be cruel, or self-indulgent, or neglectful of our children, when we see the graphic results of such behavior? He is pointing a finger of accusation at us all for doing this to the lowliest and least powerful of our society. And if you aren't doing something each day to prevent it, then you are part of the problem. I am NOT a religious fanatic, but this movie made me think about the state of my soul. | 0 |
I don't know why I picked this movie to watch, it has a strange title and from the description it just looked like something different. Every once in a while its good to try a film that's slightly different from the mainstream Hollywood hero/thriller flick and this film certainly was different. Right from the beginning this film had me intrigued but I couldn't figure out why until the end if the film when I realized that the movie was great because the characters were so real. I thought the acting was superb and the character development really makes you care about them and hope things turn out well for them in the end. I think that everyone who watches the film could in some way relate to one of the characters and this makes for great viewing and some good laughs at the sheer ordinariness of the actors. <br /><br />At the culmination of the movie you definitely get a sense of well being, and are left with the 'things are going to be OK' type of a feeling. I'm sure this will have wide appeal and should be given a chance. | 0 |
Sequels, well there are many reasons to make 'em but what went through Irwin Allen's mind to come up with such a boring idea is beyond all logical matters. There are so many open answers to this movie that it is ridiculous...like The Poseidon which is a monstruous ship with passengers on is drifting on the sea and just Michael Caine with his miniboat and an evil Telly Savalas discover the boat...well, at the beginning the French marine are circling above the wreck with their helicopter but as a sinking cruiseship is a daily thing, they just fly away... What am I trying to say??? Hmmm, Michael Caine goes on board with sally Field and he might pick up everything he sees (diamonds)if there wasn't a Telly Savalas who is looking for weapons on the ship...my God, why in fact am I wasting my words on here? It's ridiculous and knowing that both Field and Caine were involved makes you think what went through their minds when reading scripts....certainly not diamonds.... | 1 |
Really good horror flick featuring to of the greatest, Boris Karloff and Bela Lugosi. Dr. Janos Rukh(Karloff)is on an expedition in Africa trying to find an ancient meteorite. After finding it, Rukh is poisoned by the its radiation. All he touches dies and the dark side of Rukh makes him become an egotistic murderer. His friend, Dr. Felix Benet(Lugosi)finds a limited remedy to the problem and at the same time realizes the radiation could be used for the good of mankind by curing diseases. The two fiends will battle over the radiations possibilities. Pretty good special effects. Others in the cast: Frances Drake, Frank Lawton, Beulah Bondi and Frank Reicher. | 0 |
(Some Spoilers) Sweeping into New York City on a first-class railroad car a killer who doesn't kill with a gun or knife or club but just with his,or it's, touch and breath. A killer that's as old, or even older, then man himself. That killer has a name it's know the world over as smallpox.<br /><br />Arriving in New York one cold November afternoon the killer hidden inside of Sheila Bennet, Evelyn Keyes, and like a Trojen Horse it waits until the opportunity presents itself. Then like a ticking time bomb with it's fuse set off explodes throughout the length and breath of the city.<br /><br />Sheila knows that she's being followed by a U.S Customs officer who's been on her tail since she came back to the US from the Island nation of Cuba. Having smuggled $50,000.00 of illegal uncut diamonds she had to be careful in getting them to her husband Matt, Charles Korvin, to be cut and sold to unsuspecting jewelers in the city. <br /><br />Mailing the diamonds ahead of time Sheila knows that if caught the diamonds won't be found on her. What she doesn't know is that Matt is two timing her by having an affair with her kid sister Francie, Lola Albrght. Even worse he plans to check out of town with the diamonds leaving her as well as Francie holding the bag.<br /><br />Even though we know right from the start of Sheila's deathly condition it doesn't really come to the surface until much later in the movie.The first half of 'The Killer that stalked New York' is a crime suspense/drama with the U.S Customs officials and NYC police looking for the stolen diamonds. As Sheila starts to get sick and begins to infect everyone whom she comes in contact with the film reaches the point of a mass panic in the streets type horror movie. <br /><br />Both the police and custom officials together with members of the city's Health Depertment race against the clock to find Sheila before she infects the entire city of New York with the deadly smallpox infection that she's carrying. Sheila finding out from Matt's boss Willie Dennis,Jim Backus,that he quit his job as a nightclub piano player and that he was having an affair with Francie shocks her into the realization to what a heel he is.<br /><br />Confronting Francie at her apartment it turns out that Matt not only stiffed Shelia but her sister as well. Which later leads the guilt-ridden Francie to take her own life. On the run and not knowing that she's infected with smallpox Sheila goes to her brother Sid (With Bissell),who manages a flop-house on the Bowery, to find a place to stay. Only too late does Sheila, and Sid, find out the the stolen diamonds is the last of her problems. Knowing that she's dying Sheila goes to the office of jeweler Arnold Moss, Art Smith, knowing that sleaze-ball of a husband Matt, who ended up beating old man Moss into a bloody pulp, is going to be there to exact vengeance on him.<br /><br />Doucmentry-type drama, based on a true story, with striking black and white on-location photography makes this movie about the horrors of unseen and deadly smallpox unleashed on a unsuspecting public well worth watching. | 0 |
I picked up this movie because it caught my eye as movie with a Jewish comedy focus - something I had not seen before. <br /><br />I approached this film with an open mind, and was interested in the way it began. The opening is well put together, and the first half of the film gave me many reasons to laugh, and this is good.<br /><br />However, the humor soon became repetitive, the plot became confused and strained, and I realized I was no longer enjoying the film. I have tried to avoid saying this, but the movie became rather 'cheap' - not a bad thing for a comedy if the humor holds up, but it didn't. I confess that I may have missed some of the humour, not being Jewish myself, and having little experience with Jewish culture. However, considering how heavily telegraphed the bulk of the humour was in this film, it's unlikely I missed much.<br /><br />The idea is a good one, and perhaps if a little more thought was put into it the film would have been watchable all the way through. I wish I could give the movie a higher rating, but strictly speaking it would have been better as a TV series or as a series of skits. There was just not enough worthwhile fresh material for a full-length movie.<br /><br />One thing to say about the casting - the lead role looked as if it had been designed with Ben Stiller in mind, but I don't think the movie would have been any more worthwhile if he had been in it. | 1 |
I really hate this retarded show, it SUCKS! big time, and personally I think it is insulting to fairy kind (if you believe in fairies that is); I mean the people who had come up with such crap 'ought to have their heads examine huh? and also there is a LOT of craziness (the evil school teacher, which I think is getting really old) and also stupidity (the boy's parents and fairy godfather) in this show - two of the things that I dispised and loathe in the WHOLE world (especially stupidity).<br /><br />Overall, I say that this show is so f*****' annoying and should not be seen by prying eyes at ALL (it would make'em bleed to death)! | 1 |
A true stand out episode from season 1 is what Ice is.An artic location,claustrophobic conditions and a general feel of paranoia looming in the freezing air makes this is a must see episode from season one.The previous occupants of the artic station Mulder,Scully and four others go to have either killed each other or killed themselves.A virus is bringing out murderous aggression and is responsible for bringing out deadly paranoia and fear.Mulder and Scully actually begin to question each others sanity.Tension is that high.The writers have to receive great credit for creating that sort of scenario where the atmosphere is so tense Mulder and Scully come into conflict in such a direct manner | 0 |
Unlike most people who've commented, I was born after the last Sylvester Mccoy Episode and so couldn't have compared the two centuries of doctor who at first. I thoroughly enjoyed it when Christopher Eccleston took control of the TARDIS and the continuation of the series. I have, since then, seen old episodes of Doctor Who and some where great, but, like the doctor, the series needed to regenerate to continue. The 21st century doctor who's are great, I thought Martha was great, almost a match for the doctor and if Jack's appearance is anything to go by, she's going to be brilliant when she cameos in series 4 or 5.<br /><br />Speaking of Jack, the spin of, Torchwood is also brilliant and you should watch both of these programmes (though this is definitely more suitable for kids). However, if you insist that this isn't the same and just isn't Doctor Who, please, just stay in your basement.<br /><br />10/10 | 0 |
question: how do you steal a scene from the expert of expert scene stealers Walther Mathau in full, furious and brilliant Grumpy Old Man mode? answer: quietly, deadpan, and with perfect timing as George Burns does here.<br /><br />I know nothing of Vaudeville but this remains a favourite film, the two leads are hilarious, the script funny, the direction and pacing very fine. Richard Benjamin is very funny as straight man - trying to get at Burns through the window etc. Even the small parts are great.<br /><br />There are so many funny scenes, Mathau messing up the commercial, Burns repeating his answers as if senile...<br /><br />A delight.<br /><br />Enterrrrrr! | 0 |
I was initially excited about this movie and fully expected it to be a combination of Equilibruim and Farenheit 451. Unfortunately, I was continually disappointed in the lack of depth and interest of the plot and subplots. Midway through the movie, I divulged into poking fun at the characters and sets to avoid having to turn it off. I did enjoy the premise of a future with merged cultures and separation of the have's and have nots. What could have been an artful and intelligent look at the future is morphed into a plodding, semantic SciFi channel midnight flick with horrible acting, cheap sets and a final gratuitous shot of Tim Robbins vagina. Maybe he should stick to his socialist political ranting - it has all been downhill since Shawshank. | 1 |
Sometimes I rest my head and think about the reasons why movies about killer sharks and/or crocodiles are still getting made these days. They've been making these lame 'Jaws'-copies since the 70s, it's not like they're getting any more well-liked. The idea is still exactly the same. So we have an animal that starts murdering people. First it takes down some secondary characters, then it starts attacking the main characters, usually played by a couple of nobodies except for someone who used to be a bit more famous, who usually plays a specialist. One of the main characters usually dies before the others kill the animal somehow, usually with an explosion. Then, we usually get a last shot where we see that the animal is still alive, or has laid eggs, etc. etc. 'Krocodylus' basically uses the same overused ideas, and does absolutely nothing to create even a tad bit of variation. Unless you count the fact that the 'specialist' is a captain in this one variation, in that case your standards are pretty low. It's funny that he's played by Duncan Regehr though, he like totally used to be Zorro.Hell I'll give it a bonus point for that. | 1 |
no way out 2007 was a really bad and if it is the road to wrestlemania they choose the wrong road.<br /><br />Chris Benoit & the hardy boys def MVP & Minn: in my view this was the best match of the night some good wrestling here but not much. 7/10<br /><br />cruisweight championship open(which chavo Guerrero won): awful, no high flying at all, really quick and boring. 3/10<br /><br />little bastard & Finlay def little bogeyman & the bogeyman: this was more comedy than wrestling, some laughs. 5/10<br /><br />Kane def king booker: a decent effort by these two but they could do better. 6/10<br /><br />wwe tag team championship Paul London & Brian Kendrick def deuce & domino:another boring match,no high flying by the champs. 4/10<br /><br />ecw world title Mr Kennedy def bobby lashley (disquilification): in my mind the worst match of the night. truly awful.i thought ecw was no rules,i was wrong 2/10<br /><br />john cena & Shawn Michaels def Batista & the undertaker: an okay match but could have been a hell of a lot better. 6/10<br /><br />overall this was bulls*it id give it a 3/10 | 1 |
If you have any clue about Jane Austen´s production, you´ll now that she repeats the same in each of her novels: marriage, marriage and marriage! In my opinion all the movies made from her novels are a bit boring, but I like Austen´s characters, because they all have a certain personality and typical sayings they like to repeat as also in Emma. The thing that makes Emma good is Gwyneth Paltrow, she´s very good in her leading role. Also the fact that each one of the characters in the movie don´t seem to be able to think anything but how to get a good partner and soon married makes the movie hilarious. | 0 |
Emilio Estevez actually directed a good movie--who woulda thought? I sat through two previous films Estevez directed--'Wisdom' (with then girlfriend Demi Moore) and 'Men at Work' (with brother Charlie Sheen). They are lousy films---badly acted, directed, stupid and offensive. Estevez is a good actor but lousy as a director. I turned this on in pure curiousity--it has a great cast and I had nothing else to do. Damned if it didn't pull me in.<br /><br />It concerns Estevez coming home from Vietnam permanently scarred by what happened over there. His parents (Kathy Bates, Martin Sheen) and sister (Kimberly Williams) try to reach him but can't. Something in Vietnam has affected him deeply...and he's about to explode...<br /><br />A bit overlong but still very good. A lot of the material is familar but the cast is so good that they make it seem new. Estevez is good, Sheen is terrific (and Estevezs' real life father), Williams is touching and Bates is just extraordinary--trying to hold the family together. It all leads up to a powerful ending which REALLY surprised me.<br /><br />Well worth catching.<br /><br /> | 0 |
What a gargantuan pile of malodorous ordure! Ye Gods where to even begin with this one
..<br /><br />Well, mix crap acting (including one bloody infuriating woman who speaks as though she's either a) chewing painfully on some ice cubes or b) has just woken up after having undergone some extensive root canal surgery), editing that would appear to donate that the celluloid was cut and spliced via the utilisation of an angle grinder, some truly hopelessly choreographed martial arts 'action', a script that has ostensibly been written by a two year old and some of the most hideous and intrusively loud background music ever committed to any film and hey presto you have Death Machines aka The Ninja Murders (although note that surprise, surprise there are in fact no actual ninja anywhere to be found in this sodding travesty!) <br /><br />In a nutshell, if ever there was a cinematic equivalent of a particularly vehement bout of dysentery, then this must surely be it! Avoid at all costs! | 1 |
Why is it that when a star reaches the top of the star chain, they ruin all the good work by making a bad movie? Burt Reynolds peaked, then started making dreadful Hal Needham car chase flicks. Arnold Schwarzenegger became the hottest property in Hollywood, only to invite derision upon himself with the appalling Last Action Hero. And here, loquacious Eddie Murphy erases memories of Trading Places and 48 Hours with this 'family' adventure flick, which is an unbelievably tedious, childish and generally plain awful misfire in which the chance to see Charlotte Lewis's great big breasts in a tight blouse is the most appealing aspect of the entire film.<br /><br />The story is pure humdrum. It concerns social worker Murphy, contacted by mysterious types and told that he is the Chosen One. Chosen for what, I hear you ask. His job is to rescue a Tibetan boy with mystical powers from a race of demons who want to rule the world. As the main demon, classy actor Charles Dance looks terribly embarrassed to be in the film, but hey, I'm sure he was well paid for sacrificing his talents. Of all Murphy's films, this is easily the worst. I've read some reviews which suggest that it is nice to see Murphy in an atypical role, in a non formulaic kind of film, and while both points are loosely true there's no forgiving the fact that the film - however atypical and non formulaic it might be - is an absolute load of garbage.<br /><br /> | 1 |
This really is a film of two halves. The first detailing the lives and friendship of two boys (one a privileged Pashtun and the other a down-trodden Hazara) in late 70s Afghanistan before the invasion by the USSR works extremely well. The young actors turn in convincing performances and seeing Afghanistan as it once was throws the present situation there into stark relief.<br /><br />The real problem comes when we move into the later phase of the story where we join the Pashtun as a man living in America. Ancient debts to his young friend lead him to return to his homeland and it is really at this point that things break down. The central adult character is clearly supposed to be sympathetic, but in fact comes across as wimpish and wallowing in self pity. It is hard to really care for him and one cannot help but feel that the really interesting story is the one we do not get to see - that of his boyhood friend.<br /><br />Once he returns to Afghanistan the narrative becomes bogged down in a series of highly contrived coincidences. Most remarkably he manages to come across his childhood enemy after all these years almost immediately (even though he is not looking for him), despite the chaos that has since consumed the country. This enables him to confront past demons in a way that is simply too convenient to be credible. The resolution of the narrative is also run through with an awful, mawkish sentimentality which undermines any really serious points the film may be trying to make.<br /><br />Although it is possible to start seeing characters and the abuses of their lives as symbols of a state which has been torn apart by world politics it is hard to really see this as a film which engages with any wider political discussion. Instead the narrative becomes reduced to one character's emotional journey of self discovery and healing. Unfortunately this character is so dull and wrapped up in himself that it is hard to really become engaged in his story, while opportunities to make a really interesting film about Afghanistan itself are wasted. | 1 |
What is supposed to be a simple generic mystery plot involving a dead philanthropist is, in fact, a head-ache inducing tale about a bunch of characters (the only big actor being Ginger Rogers, in a very early role) all trying to find the murderer among a small cast of residents in a posh apartment building. These characters range from utterly stupid to downright mean. As a cheap, low budget production, most of the action revolves around Rogers and her lead man (some guy, I don't care who he is 'cause he really sucked) talking about their various possibilities of solving the crime, while being constantly cut off by an absurd detective with his head in his butt. Honestly, I've never had a worse time watching an old b-rate movie of this type, and I've seen some real head-slappers.<br /><br />Oh, and the butler didn't do it, because there wasn't a butler. But pay attention to the guy who's closest to a butler. There ya go.<br /><br />--PolarisDiB | 1 |
There is a reason why this made for British TV movie only appeared at the 1977 Toronto Film Festival. It is dull, plodding and lacking in suspense.<br /><br />Peter OÕTooleÕs diffident performance and the appearance of playwright Harold Pinter are the only elements of interest.<br /><br />Note : Some British film fans will enjoy seeing Philip Jackson, best known for his portrayal of Inspector Japp in the Poirot television series, in one of his earliest roles.... | 1 |
Robert Culp (they call his character 'doctor'...I think he's a vet or something) and family move to an affluent, low-tax, zero-law-enforcement suburb. Lantern-jawed Culp and his dog are nearly killed when some local idiot neighbor kids get drunk and 'go cruising' through his front yard at 60mph. He presses charges, which arouses the kids' ire, and suddenly him and his family are the victims of a violent and disturbing prank campaign.<br /><br />Marilyn Manson, er, Marlyn Mason rather, plays his fretful, boiled-celery wife, who urges him not to use violence against his sneering nemeses, and who really just wants to move somewhere with decent public services. But The System is getting Culp nowhere, and he's not about to leave his house because of some punk kids and their crazy rock and roll music. And we all know what movie people do when The System fails...(but this is based on a true story, which makes it even better).<br /><br />It should be noted that while the villainous hooligans do have convenient '70s funk-o-matic 'teenage' theme music that warns us when they're up to no good, this film actually ends up treating the age brackets even-handedly (really!). It doesn't make a big generational thing out of it. Kudos for that.<br /><br />Anyway, if you like dogs (or at least believe in protecting their civil rights, like me), and you like justice, and you like fire, and you like justice for dogs by way of fire, and you think people who skitter nervously out of troubled communities are 'too damn soft,' then this flick's ethos is up your alley. No, it's not really 'good,' at least not in any widely recognized sense of the word. There's nothing subtle or understated or clever about it, it's just sort of a feature-length PSA for vigilantism. It does, however, capture the feeling of some memorable scenes in other, beloved works. Remember in Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns when Batman leads the Mutants on horseback to reclaim Gotham City? Remember that scene in A Christmas Story where the kid pounds the bully's face in? Remember how cool that was? Or do you just really hate being looked at funny by your neighbors? Yeah, mon.<br /><br />Unfortunately, this was a 1973 made-for-TV movie that I just happened to catch at 4am on my local WB affiliate, and it's probably not destined for DVD release. But after being inspired by this film, do you think I'm gonna just sit here and take it!?! | 0 |
This movie was dreadful. Biblically very inaccurate. Moses was 80 years old when he led the people out of Egypt, the movie has him about forty. Moses was about forty when he fled Egypt, was gone for forty years, and was with them wandering for forty years. Moses was 120 years old when he died, and was denied the privilege of crossing over to the promised land. I realize movies use a lot of 'poetic license' as the biblical account isn't that long, but, if making a biblical movie they still need to reflect the facts known, and keep the general flavor of the main biblical character, this movie fails in this aspect, and in many others.Even though the 1956 version has its problems as well, theatrically it was much better. | 1 |
Though the story is essentially routine, and the 'surprise' ending is nothing but a bad joke on the audience, you can see what attracted these good actors to the project - it offers them the kind of roles in which good actors can shine, and shine they do. The film is impeccably made - for its time. It was remade in 2000 as 'Under Suspicion' and if you only want to see one version of the story (that's all it deserves, really), I recommend the latter one, with Hopkins' up-to-date direction and the more explicit references to plot points that the original could only hint at. The ending, however, still blows. (**1/2) | 0 |
When Jim Wynorski first announced he would be doing a new sequel for my favorite series of all time, the 'Slumber Party Massacre' series, I was ecstatic. I had been waiting for a new installment for literally years. So, production began and very small bits and pieces on the shoot and the actors involved were released until the shoot wrapped. Then, the announcement of a title change. No longer would this new sequel be titled 'Slumber Party Massacre IV,' but 'Cheerleader Massacre' instead. I was a bit disappointed, but having a different title would be a very small price to pay for a film I had waited so long to happen. I was still extremely intrigued and on the edge of my seat to see it.<br /><br />Maybe a month ago, some very advanced copies of the film were released to some extremely lucky viewers, who got to see the film months before its release date. A few reviews leaked on the net and judging by them, I began to become apprehensive on Jim Wynorski's 'Cheerleader Massacre.'<br /><br />Tonight, I got to see the film for the first time in full length and I am still scratching my head. As I read in another review, 'Cheerleader Massacre' is definitely NOT a new installment in the 'Slumber Party Massacre' series, but a slasher flick all on its own. And a bad one at that.<br /><br />Before I get into the specifics of the film, let me first state what an enormous fan of Jim Wynorski's films I am. I always thought him to be a true camp genius, with a winner almost every time. Yes, his movies are made on shoestring budgets and don't contain the most top-notch acting around, but they're fun nonetheless. They are what they are: campy movies you watch when you want to have a good time. From 'Sorority House Massacre II,' to 'Hard to Die,' to 'Chopping Mall,' Jim has produced the goods on more than one occasion. One of the reasons why I was excited that this film would be his latest project.<br /><br />'Cheerleader Massacre' does not (in my opinion) reflect any of the films I had seen this director/writer create in the past. Firstly, the production was extremely inexpensive and the film was actually shot on videotape, something I had never seen Jim do before. The actors were mediocre, to say the least, and the story is almost laughable. The killer is also extremely stupid and reminds you more of your cuddly old grandpa, rather than an escaped lunatic.<br /><br />Of course, the film is littered with female nudity. This is a Jim Wynorski movie we're talking about, folks. But some of the boob-shots seen here almost seem like they were done for time. There is an extremely long shower scene, containing the cheerleading coach, that seems to go on forever and it greatly reflects a shower scene in Jim's 'Sorority House Massacre II.' The girl even bathes herself almost in the exact same way.<br /><br />'Cheerleader Massacre' is also extremely cliched, to say the least. The opening scene is literally something we've all seen in HUNDREDS of past slasher flicks. A guy and a girl making out, on the verge of consummating their relationship when...you guessed it. They're hacked to pieces.<br /><br />Brinke Stevens, who I've never really considered to be a tremendous actress in the first place, also gives one of her stiffest and forced performances in her small cameo. We're talkin' possible cue cards here. She recalls some incidents her character endured by the killer seen here twenty years ago to the police, while footage of the original 'Slumber Party Massacre' plays. Why was footage from the original film used if it was definitely not a new 'SPM'? I have no idea. There is also two explosions seen in this movie that I am almost certain were recycled from other films.<br /><br />Not only does this film recycle FOOTAGE from past films, but it also recycles the scores from other films as well. Some of the music used in 'Humanoids from the Deep' (which was also recycled prior for 'The Coroner') can be heard throughout the entire film. There are at least two more as well that I cannot identify, but am certain have been used before.<br /><br />After sitting through this film's horrendous acting, ridiculous story, non-existent gore/special effects, and camcorder-like quality, I am having some serious concerns toward Mister Wynorski's career. Has the man who delighted audiences with films in the past finally lost his niche? Only time will tell. Oh, and let's not forget his newest film. A new installment in the 'Sorority House Massacre' films, now titled 'Final Exam.' I think I'm seeing a pattern here... | 1 |
G&M started a the odd couple downstairs in Man About the House and went on to amusing the nation in their own sitcom.<br /><br />What was the typical small-scale personal charm of the couples chemistry on the small screen, G&M's transferral to the big screen was as appalling as genuis's Morcombe and Wise, and countless fine TV shows.<br /><br />Unfunny. Unsatisfying and featuring an ill Yootha Joyce who died before the film was released. | 1 |
For a while I was caught in the trap where I found myself watching independent and foreign films and lying to myself that I liked them. Fatty Drives the Bus is the exception. It is the truth. It is the best 'bad' movie ever.<br /><br />The 'badness' of this movie seems to come naturally. Halfway through Satan's opening monologue, the word 'Hell' appears at the bottom of the screen. The glamorous Bridget is an unshaven man in a wig and a thrift store dress. It takes the eccentric couple that keeps trying to kill each other FOREVER to walk down the stairs. Jesus walks to a funk soundtrack.<br /><br />Anyways, Fatty gives the impression that someone lost their tenure for advising a senior's film project. But it's the sincerity of how bad it is that makes it so wonderful. You get the impression the makers knew it was going to be bad, but never forced it.<br /><br />Never to be duplicated in wonder, Fatty delivers. Highly highly recommended. | 0 |
I saw this not too long ago, and I must say: This movie is terrible. I watch crappy movies for fun. Scarecreow is not fun. Scarecrow is stupid. You have an incredibly corny villain that enjoys screaming awful puns as he kills his victims(actually worse than the one contained in this sentence). He has his hard luck story that he uses to justify his killings. 'Everyone picks on me. The only girl that thinks I'm not trailer-trash likes one of the guys that pick on me. I want to kill everybody. Wah.' OK, I'm exaggerating. But the premise to this movie alone is enough to put it near the bottom of the list of crappy movies.<br /><br />Adding to what I just said, the kid's mom is promiscuous, he walks in on his mother and her current boyfriend getting it on, mom's boyfriend tells him to leave, kid refuses, insisting that he isn't going to leave his own house. Boyfriend chases kid into corn field. He kills kid right in front of mom, mom screams in terror, boyfriend is like, 'OMG! I didn't mean to!' Then he tells mom not to say anything to the police about it. Kid was killed under a scarecrow, though. So, like any kid who gets murdered under a scarecrow, he comes back as a killer scarecrow with a vengeance. His victims 'haven't been stalked like this before...' (Scarecrow's official tag line)<br /><br />To make matters worse, this movie was filmed in a whopping 8 days. That's right, 8 days. I was going to give this movie a 2, because in spite of itself, it has one or two redeeming moments. (They're spoilers, so I won't spoil it for you, if you actually want to see this crap.) I could have somewhat forgiven the bad acting, the horrible special effects, the abysmal script, and the bad camera work, but I simply have no respect for lack of effort on that level.<br /><br />This movie isn't nearly as good as I'm making it out to be. If you want to see an example of how not to make a movie, or if you enjoy watching bad movies, like I do, then watch this at your own risk. Everyone else should stay a safe distance away from this movie at all times. | 1 |
Oh boy, where do I go with this one? Herendous acting, weak plot, stupid deaths, pointless nudity...<br /><br />This isn't entertainment...this is hell.<br /><br />Hell.<br /><br />Don't waste your money, time, or life on this pit of evil.<br /><br />It's just...god damn is this movie awful! Tom Savini, WHY?! Why would you waste your life on this crap? This movie not worth it. I'd rather snort crack and smash my head up against a wall than watch THIS...this sinful act again!<br /><br />Please take my advice and stay the f#@k away from this elephant turd of a film. No, you know what? I shouldn't even have to call this thing a film! Just stay AWAY! | 1 |
This documentary was my first introduction to Peak Oil theory. A fascinating concept that has a lot of frightening consequences if it turns out to be correct. I had absolutely no idea that the effects of oil depletion would come so soon, it literally took my breath away. This movie will probably open your eyes as to how strongly the American way of life is dependent on the 'abundance of cheap oil' - a term used throughout the film. A lot of the topics are plain common sense, and they don't go into a huge amount of depth about any of them. But you've probably never put all the pieces together like this movie does. The interviews with the authors and energy experts are all very interesting. I don't think this film is meant to scare people. It's merely meant to inform people about what to expect in the years ahead, and maybe to encourage you to think twice about commuting 100miles to work and leaving your lights on all day long.<br /><br />After watching this film I was no longer able to look at the cars and buses zooming by quite the same. Great documentary, everyone should see it. | 0 |
The story of pre-unified China must be a popular one. Jet Li's Hero made the assassination of the King popular.<br /><br />This is another story made a few years earlier. It stars the incredibly beautiful Li Gon (Memoirs of a Geisha, 2046, Miami Vice) as the King's lover, who was sent to recruit an assassin so that the King could defeat him. She recruits Fengyi Zhang, but falls in love with him.<br /><br />No matter, he is not able to complete the mission anyway, as the King knew about him beforehand. I suspected he also knew, but went anyway.<br /><br />It was a beautiful story with massive military operations, and, of course, another chance to see Li Gong. | 0 |
There is certainly emotion between the two main characters as they explore their relationship--one based primarily on physical attraction from the beginning. And there is also emotion in the inner-workings of Mathieu's family dealing w/ his mother's problems--and how that comes to bear on their relationship. But the problem is it leaves a lot of things unanswered (unless I'm just too dumb to pick up on them). Why is Mathieu in a mental hospital? What led to the boys' break-up? And the flashing back between present and past is a little hard to follow at first. It seems like the main reason to rent this movie is to enjoy some homoerotic vicarious thrills, or some male nudity. But as a love story or character study it is lacking and unsatisfying. | 0 |
I used to watch this show when I was a little girl. Although I don't remember much about it, I must say that it was a pretty good show. Also, I don't think I've seen every episode. However, if you ask me, it was still a good show. I vaguely remember the theme song. Everyone was ideally cast, the costume design was great. The performances were top-grade, too. I just hope some network brings this series back one day so that I'll be able to see every episode. Before I wrap this up, I'd like to say that I'll always remember this show in my memory forever, even though I don't think I've seen every episode. Now, in conclusion, when and if this show is ever brought back on the air, I hope that you catch it one day before it goes off the air for good. | 0 |
Just got into viewing program for the first time recently - the 2-hour 'kidnapping' program. Don't know why I didn't sooner?? James Caan is outstanding and wholly-believable in the role as the chief honcho at the featured 5* Vegas complex.<br /><br />So often, programs like this have one or more in the ensemble who are either outright annoying, or seem to have been picked because they must be related to the producer or director.<br /><br />That is certainly not the case with this program. Along with Caan, all of the primary and supporting cast are engaging attractive, and believable. The guest actors are well-chosen. <br /><br />The stories I've seen are interesting, and the show presents a good view of the city as well.<br /><br />This is an entertaining program, and one I hope will remain. I don't know how I managed to miss it for so long, but plan to TIVO it from now on. | 0 |
'Why are there so many songs about rainbows, and what's on the other side?' Kermit poses this relatively simple double interrogative near the beginning of 'The Muppet Movie' while singing his signature song, 'The Rainbow Connection.' As time goes by, the question and the movie only gain profundity.<br /><br />I'm going to forgo the review of this movie as a children's comedy, but look at it instead as a classic for every generation to love with serious ideals and a heartwarming message that gains more warmth with each passing year.<br /><br />As the milestones in my own life come creeping up on me, I hear more and more the evocative strains of that elementary ditty, and realize that it can fit the soundtrack to anyone's life, because we all dream. And that is what this movie is about. It's not just a bunch of puppets-- it's a bunch of puppets having the strength to pursue their dreams, which is a good lesson for everyone.<br /><br />And while the humor and mirth of the film always feel good, they're not a fair judge of the movie. Only 'The Rainbow Connection' and the powerful emotions it will realize. And it all fits in: 'Rainbow Connection' *is* the Muppet Movie, and vice versa. It's existentialism meets children's entertainment-- there's no simpler way to describe it. | 0 |
This piece of crap might have been acclaimed 60 years ago, but it is one of the most racist movies ever made with the Native American Indians played by white men. The right-wing Republican James Stewart was a huge racist in real life, just like his close friend John Wayne. In 1971 Stewart had actor Hal Williams fired from 'The Jimmy Stewart Show' (a short-lived series that mercifully flopped) just because Williams was black. As if that were not bad enough, this film is very dated and boring. Watch 'Dances with Wolves' instead for a less racist view.<br /><br />Stewart was in his forties when this awful movie was made, and even with his ridiculous wig he still looked like a paedophile chasing after 16-year-old Debra Paget. I'm surprised it was even allowed.<br /><br />0/10. | 1 |
A horrible mish mash of predictable story lines and toe-bendingly poor delivered PC clichés ad nauseam (races working together, the heroine being smart as well pretty, a guy sacrificing himself to save another life, a father/daughter relationship etc etc etc). The movie looks like something created for network television and should have probably stayed there. Even the gifted Tommy Lee Jones does not manage to salvage this BOMB. I urge you not to waste money or time on this cinematic ruin from the time when disaster-movies roamed Hollywood.<br /><br />The two stars are given solely to the CGI-people and the PR-peoples' ability to get even one movie-goer to sit through it. | 1 |
COC had its moments. I enjoyed the action sequences, but I despised the screenplay and plot. I hate this film so much, I'll just write about the dumbest part. First of all, the plot would never happen. Second, the bleakness of the Chinese President was uncalled for. That would never happen. Finally, the dialogue. Employing non-Chinese actors to play Chinese roles is understandable, but to write dialogue for them that's TOTALLY OFF is dumb! For those of you who understood the Chinese in the film, you know what I mean. | 1 |
I just saw this movie at the Tribeca Film Festival and i have to say that i thought it was amazing. The combination of humor and sincerity really made the movie worthwhile. The movie was about a seventeen year-old boy whose mother and father are very religious. The seventeen year old, Ben, decides to work for a retired actress who teaches him about girls and driving and life. It is very comical and touching. I honestly have to say that it is now one of my favorite movies. I recommend this movie to anyone and everyone. If you didn't catch one of the showings at the film festival, it's supposed to come out in theaters later in the year. Please go see it! It is a great film. | 0 |
Similar to 'On the Town,' this musical about sailors on shore leave falls short of the later classic in terms of pacing and the quality of the songs, but it has its own charms. Kelly has three fabulous dance routines: one with Jerry the cartoon mouse of 'Tom and Jerry' fame, one with a little girl, and a fantasy sequence where he is a Spanish lover determined to reach his lady on a high balcony. Sinatra, playing Kelly's shy, inexperienced buddy, and Grayson, the woman who serves as the love interest for both men, do most of the singing. Iturbi provides some fine piano playing. At nearly two and half hours, it is a bit too long for a light musical but it doesn't drag. | 0 |
This is a beautiful, yet simple movie about one man, driven to find an answer, an answer he doesn't necessarily need but has structured his whole life around. It is heartrending, it is hilarious, it is glorious, it is tormenting, it is delicate and dynamic, I say it's genius.<br /><br />I have read Jonathan Safran Foer's book Everything is Illuminated (mainly because I heard Elijah Wood was starring in the movie adaptation), and I was just enraptured by the characters. I laughed out loud more than once. And every time someone talks about what it's about, I hear the same hackneyed response, almost like it's one big long word: 'It'saboutaguylookingforthewomanwhosavedhisgrandpafromtheNazis.' Yet, this story is so philosophical; it goes deeper than that. That conversation about the ring and 'in case.' It really gets one thinking. Suddenly, this story merges from a simple quest to an inner metamorphosis, and I find myself looking at things a bit differently now.<br /><br />I recommend renting this before, if ever, reading it, because the book had many obscene, downright perverted stories that were not included in the movie, mainly the history of Jonathan's family that was not necessary for the film. <br /><br />A bit of trivia, I heard, is that Wood's current girlfriend has a cameo in this flick as the drummer in the band that Alex arranges to perform as Jonathan steps off the train into Ukraine.<br /><br />You spend half of the movie trying to figure out what it's about, exactly, and what Jonathan is about, because his character is so withdrawn, like a turtle in a shell.<br /><br />It is magnificent, and in my opinion, one of Elijah Wood's best movies. | 0 |
This is not a 'loose', but a precise, faithful remake of 1958 Monicelli's classic 'I Soliti Ignoti' with Toto', Mastroianni, Gassman, Cardinale etc. And that's the reason is good, it copies all the funny characters and the plot, even in details (like the scene where the photographer steals the camera from the local market).<br /><br />I have watched the superb old version many times and I knew by heart all the gangs and the ending but I still enjoyed 'Welcome to Collinwood', which has its own freshness and atmosphere. It is interesting to see how the life and ways of the little thieves in 1950's Italy are adapted to 2002's USA. Things haven't changed much. 8/10. | 0 |
This movie accurately portrays the struggle life was for the typical East German. Watched by the secret police, friends and coworkers, most easterners simply existed.<br /><br />The Strelzyk's and the Wetzel's were two families that decided they weren't going to take it anymore. <br /><br />Despite the extreme danger involved in escaping to the West, they feel the rewards far outweighed the risks. John Hurt and Beau Bridges, portraying the respective family heads hit upon the idea of flying over East Germany's heavily fortified border. <br /><br />There are tense moments as they gather and jimmy-rig the necessary materials for the flight. They work their day jobs and construct the balloon at night, right under the noses of the authorities, one of whom is Strelzyk's neighbor (Klaus Loewitsch). <br /><br />The first attempt, involving only the Strelzyks, ends in failure when the balloon crashes just a few yards from the border. The crashed balloon is discovered by border guards and an relentless search begins for the conspirators who are determined to try again. With sales of materials being closely monitored Peter and Guenter still manage to procure bits and pieces of cloth with which to construct a second balloon for their nail biting escape to freedom. The film also features a heartwarming and effective soundtrack by the late Jerry Goldsmith. | 0 |
Film version of Sandra Bernhard's one-woman off-Broadway show is gaspingly pretentious. Sandra spoofs lounge acts and superstars, but her sense of irony is only fitfully interesting, and fitfully funny. Her fans will say she's scathingly honest, and that may be true. But she's also shrill, with an unapologetic, in-your-face bravado that isn't well-suited to a film in this genre. She doesn't want to make nice--and she's certainly not out to make friends--and that's always going to rub a lot of people the wrong way. But even if you meet her halfway, her material here is seriously lacking. Filmmaker Nicolas Roeg served as executive producer and, though not directed by him, the film does have his chilly, detached signature style all over it. Bernhard co-wrote the show with director John Boskovich; their oddest touch was in having all of Sandra's in-house audiences looking completely bored--a feeling many real viewers will most likely share. *1/2 from **** | 1 |
You want a movie that'll take you places? Well this is a good pick. If you were an adolescent in the era portrayed in this film--the hayday of Motown--or if you want to reach back and see what your parents made so much noise about, I suggest you pick up this flick and give it a watch. At the risk of sounding cliche, you'll laugh, you'll cry, you'll reminisce and remember. You'll go back to a time when school violence was a fist fight. You'll recall with fondness your best friends from school. It's a feel good movie with an edge of angst and pain and realism--misconceptions, losing friends, deciding what to do with your life. I think everyone regardless of race, age, socioeconomic standing can pull something from this movie and really enjoy it. So take a couple hours out of a lazy day and check out this film; there are much worse ways you could spend your time. | 0 |
Absolutely awful movie. Utter waste of time.<br /><br />background music is so loud that you cannot understand speech. Well if you really listen closely, whatever they speak is actually unintelligible.<br /><br />Camera work is bad, editing is not present, background score gives a headache, action is shoddy, dialogs are unintelligible, Acting is abysmal and well Kareena used to look like a wrestler, now she looks like a starved wrestler. Hell you can slim down but you cannot gain grace.<br /><br />After spending three hours watching a movie I want to like it, but this movie would not even allow me that pleasure. <br /><br />Please if you want to torture yourself, go ahead watch this. | 1 |
This is a movie about animal cruelty. Under the guise of a marathon race, we see depictions of extreme animal abuse, including literally running a horse to death IN SLOW MOTION. The guy who did this then has his conscience spiritually cleansed by the flames from the burial/burning of the horse, which of course is still dead, having been tortured to death. This is one of the sickest, slimiest movies I've ever had the displeasure of viewing. As Gene Hackman and James Coburn near the finish line on their DYING animals, we're supposed to admire their spirit for finishing the race. I'd like to put the producers and director in a marathon race; I'll decide when they're finished, probably about 20 minutes after they stop breathing. | 1 |
Mr. Bug Goes to Town was one of those films that I grew up hearing about, however a copy could never be obtained until now. I just watched this film on DVD and thought it was a delightful and charming film, with wonderful animation, a good plot and great songs. If this film was made by Disney then the film would be considered a classic, however because it was made by a little known film studio that is long gone, the film has slipped through the cracks.<br /><br />The film was made by the Max Fleischer studios at their Miami, FL studios and was released through Paramount Pictures. The film was to have had its premiere on Dec. 7th, 1941, the date of the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Though this probably did hurt the release of the film, the film did play at some movie theaters for up to a year as evidenced by doing some research. The film was called a family favorite by most of the major American newspapers. The film continued to be re-released about every year or so, usually around holidays like Easter, at least in major cities.<br /><br />In the mid 1950s, this film was re-released under a new name 'Hoppity Goes to Town,' named after the lead character in the film.<br /><br />The film is a true period piece, capturing a slice of Americana as it was back in the late 30s and 1940's. The animation is great, and many of the characters are very cute. The animation of the humans in the film is via the rotoscope process, meaning that actors were filmed and then that footage was traced over by animators, giving the movement a very real look.<br /><br />The Fleishcher studios were one of several animation studios making animated cartoons back in the 30s and 40s. While some of the Fleischer characters like Betty Boop, Popeye and the Superman cartoons are better known, the work of the studio is more or less forgotten.<br /><br />Almost as a whole the body of work of the Fleischer studios are in the public domain. All of the Superman cartoons are public domain, all but one of the 'Color Classics' series are public domain, and the film 'Gulliver's Travels' is also in the public domain. This film never appears to have been released in the US on VHS or DVD but was released in Europe. However some looking around on the internet can very quickly produce you with a copy. I recommend the search. | 0 |
Of all the reviews I've read, most people have been exceedingly hard on Alexandre. Neither Marie or Veronika ever seemed that they would particularly desperate to keep Alexandre, he being only slightly intelligent though not at all intellectual, as most of us are, however hard it may be for anyone to admit. Alexandre is getting away with life perfectly, being totally taken care of, getting and giving what he wants. the girls are allowing this, veronika loves sex, marie is his patron. is there anything wrong with any of this? is anyone in love? really? i don't think so. Though French New Wave cinema is prone to pretension and so on, it is marvelous simply because of its lack of a need for a plot in order to create emotion. Ease is perfectly lovely and all anyone in Alexandre's position, in an urban area can ask for. I'm looking for a patron, anyone interested? | 0 |
This is the definitive movie version of Hamlet. Branagh cuts nothing, but there are no wasted moments. | 0 |
And this is a great rock'n'roll movie in itself. No matter how it evolved (at point being a movie about disco), it ended up as one of the ultimate movies in which kids want to rock out, but the principal stands in their way. Think back to those rock'n'roll movies of the 50's in which the day is saved when Alan Freed comes to town with Chuck Berry to prove that Rock & Roll Music is really cool and safe for the kids, and Tuesday Weld gets a new sweater for the dance. Forward to the 1979, repeat the same plot, but throw in DA RAMONES, whom no one then realized would become one of the most influential bands of the next quarter century (and then for the obligatory DJ guest shot, 'The Real' Don Steele). Throw in, too, all the elements of a Roger Corman-produced comedy-exploitation film, except for the two-day shooting schedule, some of the familiar Corman repertory players like Clint Howard, Mary Wournow and Dick Miller (there since 'Bucket of Blood'), and you've got one of the great stoopid movies of the day. One of the few films that uses deliberate cheesiness and gets away with it. I showed the new DVD to a friend who could only remember seeing parts of it through a stoner- induced haze at the drive-in, and he agreed that this is one of the great movies to be watching drunk, not the least for the lovely leading ladies and the great Ramones footage. | 0 |
An evil land baron is holding up water to a group of ranchers in order to try and take their properties for pennies on the dollar. Along comes Singin' Sandy Saunders (John Wayne), who saves the day for Gabby Hayes and his daughter by going undercover as the villain's newest gunman.<br /><br />The first of sixteen films Wayne made for Lone Star/ Monogram Pictures, this tries to cast him as a singing cowboy, only with an obviously lip-synced voice. The title card prominently features his character as 'Singin' Sandy' leading one to believe that this was meant to be the first in a proposed series!<br /><br />Yes it's ridiculous, but also a lot of fun to see Wayne singing songs and shooting guns, especially when he does a little ditty before shooting it out with gunman Earl Dwire.<br /><br />Riders Of Destiny features a rare villainous role for for Al 'Fuzzy' St. John, who clowns around as much with the bad guys as he did playing a heroic sidekick, riding alongside Buster Crabbe and Lash LaRue. | 0 |
*May contain spoilers* *May contain spoilers*<br /><br />In the age of Shrek(the movie) & Pixar(the studio), this is a much more traditional animation film. It put together some characters that normally wouldn't be seen together(not to mentioned, try to save a human baby and bring it back to his father). They begin as enemies and end as best friend. If this sound like a Disney film, it is(only made through 20th Century Fox). The trailer to the movie was one of the best I've seen in ages, but the movie doesn't live to the expectation the trailer set. The problem lie with the fact that the makers of the film didn't made up their mind who is the target audience of the film. Yes, there are some jokes in the film that only adults will understand but the film is mostly aimed at children. The parents will enjoy the fact that for 90 min. their children's attention is focused on something else than them. The backgrounds are excellent and the voice are good but this is nothing more the a nice film. Children will love this film, adults will only like it. | 0 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.