review
stringlengths 41
13.7k
| label
int64 0
1
|
|---|---|
In this Muppet movie, Kermit, Miss Piggy, Fozzie, Gonzo, Rowlf, Scooter, Camillia, Dr. Teeth, Floyd, Animal, Janice, and Zoot are college graduates who decide to bring their successful college musical, Manhattan Melodies, to Broadway. Unfortunately, no producer will even meet with the Muppets. After being denied by too many producers, Scooter suggests that the Muppets decide to move on on their own. However, Kermit still believes that he can get his show on Broadway, but after he finally does and let's everybody know that he sold the show, Kermit get's amnesia and the others don't know where he is.<br /><br />This features many great scenes, including a live action sequence that introduced the Muppet Babies, a wedding sequence filled with Muppets, including the Sesame Street cast and Traveling Matt (from Fraggle Rock), Scooter as a movie theatre usher, and a scene where Rizzo and the other rats cook breakfast.<br /><br />My only complaint is that more characters weren't included more. Sure, many of them appear at the wedding, but there should have been some significant roles for Bunsen, Beaker, Beauregard, and Sweetums, and Lips should have been part of The Electric Mayhem in this movie like he was in The Muppet Show's last season and The Great Muppet Caper, and Miss Piggys dog Foo Foo should have been with her as well (after all, Rizzo The Rat, also performed by Steve Whitmire, had a big part in this movie, and he wasn't very well-known at the time). | 0 |
The 3rd in the series finds Paul Kersey (Bronson) turning vigilante to get revenge on the thugs that murdered his old buddy. I don't know why this movie shoved me into it, but somehow it did. I found myself rooting for Bronson to wipe the floor with those punks. Every time he blew one of them away I felt good. This movie does not take itself seriously, but what if it did? There is a good build-up to the fireworks finale in which Bronson goes on a rampage. But as far as acting and plot go, it just doesn't measure up. If I lived in that neighborhood, I would get out as fast as I could, but it seems like the people are asking for trouble. I know there is that mentality that we need to save our streets, but there is a limit here folks. I had to give it a 4. Sure there are good 'blow 'em away' scenes but that's about it. At that time, Bronson was 64. I'm sure if those thugs really wanted to they could have their way with Bronson. Bronson takes the place of a Schwarzanegger or Stallone in this movie. This movie gives you a sense of rejoice. The common man can save the neighborhood, save the day. To sum it up, this is far from being the original Death Wish, but it is rather good if you are just looking for an hour and a half of shoot 'em up. | 1 |
This short, which won an Oscar, spawned two sequels and a TV cartoon show, has minimal animation but adelightful script (by Theodore Geisel aka Dr. Seuss) and aneven more memorable and enchanting main character. UPA pioneered a style of animation that even influenced Disney during the mid-1950s and produced some of the best animated shorts done in the late 1940s and the 1950s. This is on of their finest. God to have it in print. Highly recommended. | 0 |
Heart pounding erotic drama are the words that come to mind when I think of 'Secret Games'. It becomes more erotic as the film goes along and at one point blew me away! I didn't expect the delightful scene I was about to encounter. The 'call girl' has her first customer and what a customer! One of the most erotic lesbian scenes I have ever seen. The husband should have listened to his wife and perhaps she wouldn't have gone on this erotic journey. It turned out to cost them in the end but, it was one exciting ride! GO SEE THIS MOVIE!!! | 0 |
Maybe the greatest film ever about jazz.<br /><br />It IS jazz.<br /><br />The opening shot continues to haunt my reverie.<br /><br />Lester, of course, is wonderful and out of this world.<br /><br />Jo Jones is always a delight (see The Sound of Jazz as well).<br /><br />If you can, find the music; it's available on CD.<br /><br />All lovers of jazz and film noir should study this tremendous jewel.<br /><br />What shadows and light - what music - what a hat! | 0 |
How does a movie become a Biblical epic? Simply by quoting a couple of Scriptures & using some names out of the Bible for your characters? The only thing that was Biblical about this epic was the names of the characters. Oh, I almost forgot the 3 kingdoms, Israel, Egypt & Sheba were also used. Where did King Vidor get the rest of his story from? It surely wasn't from the Bible. It was complete & utter nonsense. If you want to read about Solomon's reign as King in Israel then read 1 Kings 1-11 & 2 Chronicles 1-9. You will even come across Adonijah in 1 Kings 1 & 2. The Queen of Sheba, (who doesn't show up until King Solomon has been king for about 20 years or so, which by the way, is long after Adonijah & Joab had been dead) can be found in 1 Kings 10 & 2 Chronicles 9. One of the first thing Solomon does is make an affinity with Pharoah by taking his daughter.<br /><br />Yes, King Solomon did get involved with the worshipping of false gods & this is why the Kingdom was split after his death, not the Temple being destroyed by lightning. Also, I think Solomon was too busy marrying & providing temples to the false gods of his 700 wives & tending to his 300 concubines to be fighting Egypt, let alone a dead brother.<br /><br />Like I said this movie was utter nonsense. If you aren't gonna use the story in the Bible then call it something else. This could've just as easily been called Romeo & Juliet or Sid & Nancy.<br /><br /> | 1 |
Welcome to movie 17 on the chilling classics 50 pack. Where we'll see, That's right. Another movie that makes absolutely no sense. Seriously, this movie had me so confused at the end, i thought i was rewatching 'At Dawn they Sleep.' The plot seems simple enough....well that is until 3 seconds into the movie where a girl supposedly killed a cat and then...um.. explodes? i have no idea what happened. and that was BEFORE THE TITLE SCREEN. That's really sad when i can't even tell what happened in the first 3 minutes.<br /><br />Anyway it stars a photographer with a big mustache who finds this girl after dumping his other girlfriend on the way to take pictures of something somewhere. so we get there but not before somebody steals their jeep to drive it 200 feet out of the way towards a town. suspicious? nah. so they decide to stay at this deserted village with one old lady. and then blah blah stuff happens and blah blah talking. The guy with the mustache goes out in the fog for some reason even though the old lady tells him not to. He gets lost and then finds his way back.<br /><br />Oh, i forgot to mention this is all after an incredibly pointless 20 minutes of them staying in the house of a guy who looks like that buggy eyed guy from casablanca. Then they leave. There's really no point to this scene. It's really just padding. if you cut it out no one would have noticed or cared.<br /><br />But sadly, that was actually the best part of the movie. wait. let me rephrase that. REALLY sadly that was the best part of the movie. because the rest is so confusing that i had to look on IMDb to find out what happened. But of course no one else knows so i'm SOL. <br /><br />Seriously, the last 30 minutes of the movie were some of the most mindscrewing moments i've ever seen on film. They dressed her up in a dress, he gets kidnapped, then released, he runs back to the house, then at the end the witches are in the house and it ends? seriously. i have hardly ever been so confused in a movie. i mean, as bad as movies such as 'War of the Robots' are, at least they MAKE SENSE. this movie doesn't even make the ATTEMPT to be coherent. the ending was as confusing as the end of 'At dawn they sleep' and the plot was much more boring. This movie gets a 1 just for its sheer 'i have no idea what happened in this movie'ness. 'Witches mountain' gets 1 confused movie watcher out of 10. | 1 |
Having not read the original book or seen the earlier film, and indeed knowing nothing about the storyline of either of those or the current film, I came to this film with an open mind.<br /><br />It's really difficult to know where to start a comment on the film, because the whole thing seems so confused. It seems like there is a point or a message or something in the film, but what that is remains completely obscure.<br /><br />The effects were fantastic and very well judged. The idea was set up really well with the motivation for time travel clearly made out. However, it was downhill from here.<br /><br />All of the time travel seems to have only the vaguest connection to the quest that was set out at the start. There are some nice ideas, but they seem to be isolated occurrences that really do not flow and make the film seem disjointed and lost. At one point one wonders whether the main story in the film is the fate of the moon.<br /><br />When Hartdegen arrives in 802,701 A.D., the film becomes very frustrating as he seems to be unable to discover anything of importance about the Eloi, and while it seems clear that there is something to find out, what it is remains annoyingly elusive. This is quite an odd change from the previous time travel instances and one wonders why all of this has suddenly been abandoned for what seems like a completely new story. So many things happen that there should be an explanation for, but there is no discovery. I really, really wanted to know what the film was 'getting at', what there was to uncover, but to no avail. Having read a summary of what happens in the book at this point, it seems like there has been a very half-hearted attempt to render this in the film but it has been so simplified and 'dumbed down' that the meaning and context is completely lost.<br /><br />Just as we hope that we are finally to discover where this is all leading, the film suddenly takes another significant change in direction, and becomes a mindless action film without any real action. It is as if by this point the director has simply given up bothering to put any meaning into the film. By now countless significant things are happening without any explanation. Hartdegen fails to take the opportunity to return to the past on two occasions for no reason, and then suddenly loses all interest in time travel for no reason. The film comes to an abrupt end as Hartdegen decides to stay with the Eloi.<br /><br />In summary, after a good start the film is very disappointing. Too much time is spent on Hartdegen's adventures before arriving with the Eloi. However, the worst part of the film is what I think is the most important part: the setting up of the situation with the Eloi. The whole point is completely missed, and this undermines the rest of the film. After this the film concentrates too much on effects and action and all attempts to return to the meaning and core of the film seem forced and out of place. With so many things happening without explanation, the film just seems to get lost and lose direction. However, the finale where Hartdegen decides he is no longer bothered about time travel is the most inexplicable of all.<br /><br />Ultimately, the whole film seemed like a collection of unconnected incidents. The meaning and context was lost, although the gaping hole where it should have been was very obvious. What was so frustrating about it all, though, was that there was clearly so much potential here: it wasn't by any means a bad film, it just so easily could have been so much better. The start was very promising, the time travelling looked fantastic and would have worked had it not gone off on tangents, and Hartdegen's experience with the Eloi could so easily have worked had a few more of the right questions been asked, and had there not been such a temptation to 'dumb down' and simplify. I just wish I had a time machine so that I could travel back in time and advise against the mistakes that were made. | 1 |
I have never understood the appeal of this show. The acting is poor (Debra Jo Rupp being a notable exception), the plots of most episodes are trite and uninspiring, the dialogue is weak, the jokes unfunny and it is painful to try and sit through even half an episode. Furthermore the link between this show and the '70s' is extremely tenuous beyond the style of dress and the scenery and background used for the show -it seems to be nothing more than a modern sitcom with the same old unfunny, clichéd scripts that modern sitcoms have dressed up as depicting a show from twenty years ago in the hope that it will gain some nostalgic viewers or something like that. Both 'Happy Days' and 'The Wonder Years' employ the same technique much more effectively and are actually a pleasure to watch in contrast to this horrible, pathetic excuse for a show | 1 |
Bergman is a sublime comedy director and writer. This fact becomes apparent in 'En lektion I kärlek', where the comic elements range from pure slapstick to deep, yet very emotional scenes. This movie is paves the way for Bergman's later comedies 'Sommarnattens leende' and 'Kvinnodröm', all of them starring Gunnar Björnstrand as well as Eva Dahlbeck. This is an excellent movie with which to start your Bergman experience, acutely portraying emotional troubles of the young as well as the old. The cinematography by Martin Bodin is astounding, for instance in the picnic scene. In short, the movie is a perfect example of a successful comedy, with a clarity of depth even surpassing some of Bergman's own comedies. | 0 |
My brother is in love with this show, let's get this straight. I completely agree with the people who said it was copying off of Dexter's Lab and Fairly Odd Parents. <br /><br />I've never really liked fairly odd parents, I mean, some things did make me laugh, but most of the time it's downright annoying and not cute at all. This is almost the same way I feel about Johnny Test. Except, NOTHING makes me laugh on that show. The gags are so stupid and pointless, and to tell you the truth, maybe it's just me, but kids don't DRESS like that! Yes, I do think Johnny's hair is awesome, but c'Mon!<br /><br />And Dexter's Lab, that used to be one of my favorite shows and I still don't mind watching it. Which makes me disgusted and ashamed of Johnny Test making an absolute JOKE out of that wonderful show!<br /><br />One more thing. The. Dog. Is. So. Annoying. He is more loud and obnoxious than Johnny! And the gay accent? What the fudge! I hate the dog to death and I hope he dies, because that would be better for kids to see than listening and watching the obnoxious crap that goes on in that show, and picking up a gay accent.<br /><br />Unless you want you eyeballs to burn into miraculous flames and your brain fried from this show, don't watch it! | 1 |
This movie was horrible. If it had never been made the world would be a better place. Come on, a flying wagon? What were they thinking? This was a sub-par movie with a horrible hook, and I would like a written apology from the studio that produced this, along with some cookies to help repay me for the time I wasted on this crap fest that I can never get back. If you payed to see this movie, I am truly sorry because I watched it on TV on a Sunday afternoon when I had nothing better to do and it pretty much ruined my whole week. A flying freaking WAGON?!?! And that's supposed to make up for having a horrible mother who cares more about her own screwed up needs than her children? No wonder they don't have enough sense to tell someone he is beating them, their mother teaches them nothing but that what she wants comes before everything else. Absolutely horrible. | 1 |
Man, was I disappointed.<br /><br />1) Adam Arkin is more whiny than Ross Geller from 'Friends' <br /><br />2) A great cast is wasted (Kenneth Mars, Alan Arkin, Ed McMahon, Pat Morita, Louis Nye) with this amateurish script.<br /><br />3) The movie suffers from horrible pacing. It jumps around through in a jumbled, confusing manner.<br /><br />4) The story doesn't even make sense. Why does he want to break the football streak? What about the stupid violin music? None of it is explained.<br /><br />5) It's not even funny. It's like a bunch of accountants trying to do improv, saying 'Lookit me! Lookit me I'm being funny!' This was a bad attempt at making another 'Love At First Bite'.<br /><br />I like Larry Cohen movies, but man he failed here. I couldn't wait for the credits to roll. Horribly disappointed. | 1 |
Sherlock Holmes (Basil Rathbone) begins this story in disguise, helping to smuggle famous physicist 'Dr. Franz Tobel' (William Post) out of Switzeralnad and under the watchful eye of the Nazis, who want his bomb sight plans. The Allies obviously want it, too, and Sherlock is there to help. Dr. Tobel has invented an instrument which greatly aids in the accuracy of aerial bombardment. <br /><br />Holmes and Dr. Tobel arrive safely back at Baker Street but the scientist would rather be alone, for some mysterious reason, although he had promised the English to help them, not the Germans. He stays true to that promise but there are some desperate moments for Holmes and the English along the way.<br /><br />It's an entertaining film and one in which our famous detective uses not one but three different disguises. He needs all the help he can get when he goes up against his arch-rival, 'Professor Moriarity.' One complaint: if Moriarity was that evil, he would have dispensed with Holmes without batting an eyelash, instead of giving him openings to escape. It's pretty sad, too, when the usual dim-witted Dr. Watson (Nigel Bruce) has to rescue his boss from certain death a couple of times!<br /><br />Yes, there are some credibility issues in this story but if you can put your brain on hold a few times, it's a fun film to watch....and it looks beautiful, thanks to the great restoration job done on this DVD. It makes the old print come alive with some wonderful visuals, particularly the night-time shots.<br /><br />One other note: whoever did the English subtitles in here misspelled or misinterpreted at least a half dozen words. It's very sloppy work, and not the first time I've encountered this watching the entire series on the restored DVD set. | 0 |
'The Thing' is John Carpenter's best movie. Merging his talents for tension building and shocks with decent production values he turned out a perfectly crafted sci fi / horror movie.<br /><br />By filming in truly difficult conditions he creates a very believable isolated research base which sets the tension before anything has even happened. The ensemble cast work well together with Kurt Russell proving a charismatic leading man even under all that beard.<br /><br />By building the tension slowly with moments of gory horror (courtesy of effects meister Rob Bottin - currently directing Freddy vs Jason) Carpenter creates a movie that has rarely been matched. Considering this came out the same year as ET it could not be more different!<br /><br />Worth a watch / rewatch. 9 out of 10.<br /><br />p.s. the DVD is excellent. Lots of extras plus the best DVD commentary going (with Carpenter & Russell). Plus remixed in Dolby Digital for even scarier sound effects. | 0 |
This is a painfully slow story about the last days of 1999 when a strange disease breaks out and... I stopped caring. This is suppose to be about two people who live over or under each other in an apartment complex. There's a leak and a plumber put a hole in the man's floor so you can see into the woman's below apartment. Also since there is a crisis going on much of the dialog is actually news reports...<br /><br />Sounds promising?<br /><br />Not really.<br /><br />I became distracted and started doing other things which is deadly in a subtitled film. Basically I started not watching, which made events seem even more surreal when I did look up.<br /><br />It may work for you, it didn't for me. | 1 |
I have never felt the need to add a review to this website until now, but having just sat through the film I felt it necessary to warn parents who may be thinking of showing it to their children. Please don't! This is no Disney film. This film tells us 'life is cruel' and if you show it to your children, in my opinion, you are too. <br /><br />The video box describes the film as a 'delight for all ages' and the IMDb plot outline describes it as a 'family film'. I just had to find a definition of 'family film' and came across the following: 'Usually consisting of comedies or adventures, these films are often based on children's literature and can involve any number of helpful animals, friendly supernatural beings and fantasy worlds, all geared to stimulate and appeal to the imagination. Whatever the situation, there is little or no offensive material and generally a lesson is learned on the way.' Not an apt description of Tarka The Otter, which contains some thoroughly unpleasant scenes, totally unsuitable for young children, and an ending that qualifies the film as a 'feel bad' movie. The lesson learned? As I said: life is cruel. Family entertainment? I don't think so. Unless you hate your family, that is. <br /><br />Another review, more revealing than this but worth reading, can be found by following the 'external reviews' link. | 1 |
This Drummond entry is lacking in continuity. Most of them have their elements of silliness, the postponed wedding, and so on. However, this has an endless series of events occurring in near darkness as the characters run from one place to another. The house seems more like a city. There's also Leo G. Carrol who is such an obvious suspect who no-one seems to even look at. He is a stranger and acts rather suspicious, but Drummond and the folks don't seem to pick up on anything. Still, it as reasonably good action and a pretty good ending.<br /><br />I know that Algie is supposed to be a comic figure, but like Nigel Bruce in the Rathbone Sherlock Holmes flicks, he is so buffoonish that it's hard to imagine anyone with taste or intelligence being around him. Is there a history behind him that will explain how he and Drummond became associates? | 1 |
Previously, I wrote that I loved 'Titanic', cried at its ending (many times over), and I'm a guy in his 60's. I also wondered about why this great movie, which won so many awards and was applauded by so many critics, was given only a 7.0 rating by imdb.com users.<br /><br />Well, I looked at the breakdown of the user ratings. While 29.0% of all votes gave it a 10 rating, 10.7% gave it a 1 rating. These 10.7% of these irrational imdb users, in effect, pulled the overall rating down to 7.0. <br /><br />In my previous comments, I blamed this very unusual voting pattern (a sudden surge in 1 ratings, with a high 10 rating, dropping only gradually and then suddenly reversing course and jumping at the 1 rating level) on only one thing: hatred for Leonardo DiCaprio. Believe me, I've tuned into enough chat rooms to see the banter by young people (young men, mostly), who defame him left and right. They absolutely hate the man, and they will have no part in giving him any credit in 'Titanic'. (To answer one other user: I am NOT talking about someone who just really doesn't like the movie that much, and gave it a 5 or a 6, etc. Everyone has, and is entitled to, his/her own taste. But no one can convince me that the imdb rating of only 7.0 overall for 'Titanic', pulled to that level by an inordinate number of ridiculous 1 ratings, is a fair reflection of the overall motion picture.)<br /><br />Let me demonstrate my point by comparing the imdb user voting pattern of 'Titanic' to 5 randomly chosen box office and critical 'bombs' (there are many more, but these 5 will prove my point). 'Heaven's Gate' (1980) was pulled from the theaters quickly after a very poor box office showing, and imdb voters' ratings were: 23.2% 10 ratings and 9.2% 1 ratings (overall rating of 6.1). 'Big Top Pee-wee' (1988) got 4.3% 10 ratings and 9.9% 1 ratings (overall rating of 4.5). 'Cat People' (1982) got 6.1% 10 ratings and 2.6% 1 ratings (overall rating of 5.8). 'Blind Date' (1987) got 3.0% 10 ratings and 2.8% 1 ratings (overall rating of 5.3). 'Jumpin' Jack Flash' (1986) got 4.4% 10 ratings and 3.7% 1 ratings (overall rating of 5.2). WHAT DO ALL OF THESE FILMS HAVE IN COMMON WITH 'TITANIC'? ALL OF THE PERCENTAGES OF THEIR 1 RATINGS ARE LOWER !!!! THAN 'TITANIC', AND NONE OF THESE STINKERS EVER WAS NOMINATED FOR A SINGLE AWARD. Again, 'Titanic' got 10.7% 1 ratings! Compare that to the other 5 movies I just mentioned.<br /><br />Can there be any explanation other than the hatred of Leo factor?<br /><br /> | 0 |
If your idea of entertainment is watching graphic footage of people being run over by cars (you get to see a woman passing under the front wheel, being twisted as the car passes over her before she goes under the back wheel -- and they show it twice in case you missed it the first time) then this is the documentary for you. Admitedly I didn't watch any more of this very disturbing piece of voyeurism, but that was enough for me. Maybe the rest is even better.<br /><br />I wonder how long it's going to take for television networks to start showing slush movies. Perhaps game shows based on self-mutilation might be nice.<br /><br />I already know that there are disturbed people in the world and that horrible things happen. I don't need to see the proof on the TV masquerading as entertainment. | 1 |
The humor implicit in the complete title proverb derives from the Sunday School dictum that one would be better advised to prepare before you're dead for the Devil's scrutiny, i.e. so the Devil doesn't care when you're dead. There's no percentage in trying to Beat the Devil. The characters apparently didn't pay attention at Sunday School, and find themselves forced into crisis management, having eschewed crisis avoidance. But even a seasoned CEO would have difficulty managing these crises. Throwing dice is far more unpredictable than flipping a coin; when people are involved, the list of possible outcomes becomes even longer than the long list of unforgettable Sidney Lumet films. Until now, Hawke may not have been an unforgettable actor but here perhaps had an eye toward earning billing among other Lumet All Stars like Steiger and Pacino. | 0 |
Angel-A is a change of pace for Besson; monochrome, mawkish and rather mediocre. It is well photographed on location in Paris, although subtitle-readers should note: quick-fire dialogue AND good cinematography may make for frustrating viewing.<br /><br />This film is no 'Wings of Desire' or 'Wonderful Life'. Despite its shared themes (heavenly intervention averts suicide, angel/mortal relationships ensue), Besson does nothing to enlighten or inspire us. Even the well acted, teary moments, rapidly descend into toe-curling sentimentality.<br /><br />The film's flawed ideology irritates; an Angel whose message of love and respect for self is constantly undermined by her own violent and promiscuous behaviour; a 'happy ending' which negates the hero's supposed journey from helplessness to self-esteem and independence.<br /><br />Verdict: Quite nice to look at but confused moral and philosophical messages tarnish the film precisely where it should shine. 4/10 | 1 |
Not sure if it was right or wrong, but I read thru the other comments before watching the short.I have to say I disagree with most of the negative comments or problems people have had with it.<br /><br />As a first time 'Lone Wolf' director/producer,I like to see things that I can aspire to,not necessarily from the pro's, but by people just getting their feet wet like me.<br /><br />If indeed this is also from a first-timer,as I read,I applaud the effort.Marvelous job then in that respect! There were some comments about the music.I thought it was quite nice for the piece.Some say it kind of droned along for a while, but I found that created tension without(us)necessarily being conscious of it, and when he pulled the gun out and the guitar started crunching chords,it was like we knew there was a train on the tracks, but realize it is just now moving. Yes there is a 180 degree slip/clip in there, but shi* happens.Did anyone else see Hugh's dirty shirt turn white (near the end,in the rain) in 'Australia'? Look how much money and people were behind that movie! Give the kid a break for Gods sake! All in all I think it was very well done. Only 2 things I would have mentioned are hardly worth mentioning-Don't walk up to a shiny brass picture frame with the camera, and I would have just displayed the splatter at the beginning shots to a still shot, so people wouldn't necessarily know what it is.<br /><br />My experience so far has taught me that it's not that it's hard to make a movie,it just takes time to learn how to do it,then the time to actually do it, and then you better take some more time still to think of all the details you'll need to have shot before you call 'post-production time!' IMHO, it looks like director/writer Ryan Jafri did his homework, and if this indeed is his first report card, I'd give him an 'A'. The rest of you report to the principals office for a whuppin'. | 0 |
Charlie Wilson (Tom Hanks) is a hard-partying, womanizing Texas Congressman with no discernible legislative record. In 1980, he finds himself becoming interested in the plight of Afghanistan, which is in the midst of a brutal war with the USSR. On the auspices of his old flame, arch-conservative Texas socialite Joanne Herring (Julia Roberts), he travels to Afghanistan to assess the situation, and is stunned by what he sees. He returns to the US determined to help the Afghans, only to find his colleagues extremely indifferent to the situation - and himself under investigation for allegations of drug use. Undeterred, Wilson recruits Herring and the vulgar, outcast CIA Agent Gust Avrakotos (Phillip Seymour Hoffman) to begin a convoluted arms deal involving Israel, Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and a mostly unknowing US Congress. Ultimately, the Afghans defeat the Soviets, but while America celebrates their victory, Wilson and Avrakotos find their warnings about the instability of post-war Afghanistan falling on deaf ears.<br /><br />Charlie Wilson's War is slick brain candy, a really neat film for the more intellectual viewer and fun entertainment for the average film-goer. The movie assembles an astonishing array of talent, both in front of and behind the camera, and delivers on its promise of being one hell of a good time. The film's has only one flaw, which we'll arrive at later. As an examination of the improbable way in which the 20th Century's largest covert war was waged - and, perhaps, the way that things get done by the CIA and other intelligence agencies - it's fascinating.<br /><br />The movie is interesting on a number of levels. The story portrayed in the movie - with all of its outrageous double-dealings, sneaky covert operations, and, perhaps most of all, its success - would be so outrageous as a work of fiction, that it could easily be dismissed as a satire. But things really did work out this way, at least within reasonable bounds. The film portrays our three protagonists in an interesting way that highlights their virtues without obscuring their flaws. Wilson as a person who is unapologetic about his vices (even embracing them) - yet willing to embrace a righteous cause. Herring is something of an elitist, and her born-again attitude of righteousness is off-putting - yet she's deeply committed to the cause of the Afghan people. Avrakotos is a CIA outsider with an attitude problem, looked down upon because of his 'street' background - yet his love of country and hatred of Communism are unwavering. The fact that this odd trio could play a major role in the downfall of the USSR is not only proof that anyone can make a difference, but also that truth is stranger than fiction. It's also very interesting that all of this is played as a comedy - not too surprising, given that our writer is Aaron Sorkin, but it's an interesting way to approach this story.<br /><br />The movie does, however, have one drawback, which is a bit surprising. The film seems to unabashedly celebrate Wilson and Co.'s achievement. This is fine - nothing wrong with defeating the Soviet Union, is there? - until one considers that out of the ashes of the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan came the Taliban and eventually al-Qaeda. Regardless of the US's level of responsibility, it happened, and the movie's portrayal of Wilson's success is almost unmitigated. To be fair, the movie does address this issue towards the end, with a rather topical speech by Wilson about the US's inability to clean up after themselves, but it's done in such a tertiary manner that the average viewer will probably not take much from it. The overall impression will be that these three remarkable people helped the Afghans defeat the Soviets. This isn't a fatal drawback, mind you, but it's one troubling aspect of an otherwise brilliant movie. <br /><br />The film's talent is remarkable. The legendary Mike Nichols delivers a slick, gorgeous-looking production; the material is perfectly suited to his understated, wry directorial style. Sorkin delivers yet another brilliant screenplay; the film has dozens of quotable lines and classic Sorkin exchanges (the best being the 'Scotch bottle' discussion between Wilson and Avrakotos), and keeps something of a political and historical perspective behind it. The film's cast is a marvel: Tom Hanks gives a fine performance as the lovable rogue with a cause, Julia Roberts is alternately charming and repulsive as the obnoxious but committed Joanne, and Phillip Seymour Hoffman steals every scene (par usual) as the abrasive Gus. The always-lovely Amy Adams takes another step on her road to stardom as Wilson's long suffering assistant, and Ned Beatty, Om Puri, Emily Blunt, Christopher Denham, and Ken Stott flesh out the supporting cast.<br /><br />Charlie Wilson's War is an intelligent and fun movie, a wonderful bit of a-bit-more-than-light entertainment. The fact that it decides not to be more than that shouldn't be held against it; it's brilliant at what it does.<br /><br />8/10 | 0 |
This film is terrible, and don't blame Jesus Franco, because its not his fault.<br /><br />This film was shot silent over many years by Welles as he got the money to bring a crew and the actors together to do some shooting. How much film Welles actually shot is not clear, although not all of the film or all of the sequences are here since several 'key' sequences, such as Quixote in a movie theater, are in the hands of collectors or backers who wouldn't give them up. The film here is just under two hours and I would be hard pressed to imagine it ever really working at any length. I'm of the opinion, based on several comments that Welles made before his death, that he never really intended to release the film, but was putting it together as a personal toy.<br /><br />What exists here is for the most part is beautifully shot, but dramatically dead. Very little happens for the first hour other than Quixote and Sancho wandering around the country side. Dull would be a kind description of the material. In the second hour Quixote ends up in modern Spain and in a series of not very good sequences deals with everyday life. This isn't to say that there isn't a few nice moments, the windmill and the chicken sequences are quite good, but mostly this is a vast waste of film and time.<br /><br />'Completed' by Jesus Franco, who was Welles' assistant director on the vastly superior Chimes at Midnight, we have a bunch of film fragments that have been put together as best as possible. Many people have crucified Franco as having been the reason the film stinks, but frankly one can not make a good movie from crap material. One critic has gone on record as having seen a different cut of the film in the 1970's, which meant that Franco made this version up on his own and ruined it. While that maybe true, I've run across stories of Welles cutting and re-cutting the film many many times over the years since he could never get it right.<br /><br />This film is terrible no matter how you slice it.<br /><br />Ultimately I'm left wondering just how good a film maker Welles was. Aside from Citizen Kane almost all of his films have been plagued by lack of budget or interfered with so we are left with the excuse that many of his films 'would have been better if only...'. How do we know? How can we know? Perhaps Welles was a man of less talent than we thought and many of his borderline films just aren't that good, and never would have been. While this is no place to argue the place of Welles in film history, the surviving material of Don Quixote, assuming it approximates what Welles intended (I think it does), is a good case for rethinking how we view the man and his work.<br /><br />4 out of 10 for the good sequences (though 2 out of 10 is probably closer to reality) | 1 |
This is one of the best action films I have seen. Geena's portrayal of the tough as nails, 'Charly'/gentle mother 'Sam', was superb and Samuel L Jackson just keeps you laughing all the way through, with his classic one liners. Sure, there were a few holes in the actual story, but this fast-paced flick keeps you on the edge of your seat to the end.<br /><br />I felt Geena was a perfect choice for the role of Sam/Charly and her versatility as an actress is evident for her role as the mother in the recent movie 'Stuart Little'. Both Samuel and Geena were well supported by David Morse, Brian Cox, sweet little Yvonne Zima and newcomers, sexy Craig Bierko, and Melina Kanakaredes. This film accentuates the growing trend of strong female character and the diversion away from traditional male/female stereotypes as we see Sam/Charly (Davis) and Mitch (Jackson) hurtling from one disaster to the next.<br /><br />While I and many others loved this movie, it is fair to say that there will always be people that don't and that's fine - each, to their own. I highly recommend this film to action fans, for its hilarious scenes and fast-paced action. | 0 |
Stunning. Absolutely stunning. This is a movie about two kids who's father suddenly has a vision. He claims an angel visits him, and tells him that they need to kill 'demons'. He gets instructions later, and they start rounding up the demons, which are, to the naked eye, ordinary people. They kill these so-called demons with an ax to the head, and chop them up, burying them in the rose-garden. Their father claims he can see their sins when he touches them. The movie continues, with a twist at the end.<br /><br />The thing that I love about this movie, is that it perfectly captures the frailty of human perception. Is their father completely mad? Or, is he telling the truth? The audience is left to decide. Go make the judgment for yourself, and see the movie. Now. | 0 |
The summary is only for those who hate this movie, as finding the movie OK or average is acceptable. Visiting this movie on IMDb has made me nostalgic as I can't help myself going back in the year 1994. I was one of the few lucky ones who saw this movie in theaters. It instantly became one of my favourite comedies and took some years to make it my favourite. How can I say what made this movie my favourite? Was it the excellent writing ( story was OK but screenplay and dialogues were fabulous) Was it the superlative performances? Was it the mood of the film?<br /><br />After thinking about it for so many years I say it has to be a mixture. It is one of those movies which didn't have any flaws not even its music.(the other movie coming up in my mind right now is Sholay)<br /><br />PS: Rajkumar Santoshi please keep a balance between your drama and comedy movies. Only 1 comedy is not enough. I want moreeeeeeee.......... | 0 |
I rented this movie because the cover was cool looking, the first 15 minutes of the movie are okay and somehow interesting, but once the young woman and her little sister go on their trip everything goes to hell and the movie becomes boring. | 1 |
Based on Tom Wolfe's satirical novel that was praised by all (i have not read it yet) Tom Hanks stars as a wall streeter who accidentally kills a black boy while lost in a bad part of NYC Willis stars as the reporter who starts Hanks on his downward spiral.. The characters are very thin and there seems to be no empathy for anyone in this movie and for a comedy or a satire there arent a lot of laughs either..Melanie Griffith had her breasts done during filming so a fun thing to do is to see if her boobs change size during different parts of the film..This will keep your mind off other things like the lack of script or humor.. On a scale of one to ten..3 | 1 |
Everything a musical comedy should be. Gene Kelly (as Joe Brady) doesn't miss a step, and Frank Sinatra (as Clarence Doolittle) doesn't miss a note. Scenes with them together are very good, showing how much talent can add to a somewhat uneven plot. Sinatra's 'I Fall in Love Too Easily' is an indication of his then and future best. Kelly's 'Mexican Hat Dance' with a young Mexican girl is delightful. Kelly certainly earned his nomination as Best Actor. And there is a bushel of truly funny lines, like: 'You think the navy takes dopes?'; 'You think anybody sings a sailor to sleep?'; and, 'We got in a little trouble, we picked up a little kid.' A thoroughly enjoyable movie, just the thing for shaking off the dust of a recently concluded World War II. | 0 |
I once lived with a roommate who attempted suicide, and our apartment was in a building where you could get a fifty dollar noise violation for sneezing after midnight - so, needless to say, I can easily relate to Polanski's 'The Tenant.' <br /><br />But I also enjoy the film for other reasons. I'm not sure that it works, on the whole - the Polanski character's descent into paranoia and madness, which takes up the final half hour or so, seems rather jarring and bizarre. Ebert, for one, was totally unconvinced, and he slapped the movie with a vicious one-star review. But I think that individual scenes and moments work beautifully, so even though I don't quite understand the whole film - what does Egyptology have to do with it, for example? - I still have an overall positive impression of it.<br /><br />I love the obnoxious friend portrayed by Bernard Fresson, for example. God, how many times have I settled for having stupid friends like that instead of no friends at all! I love the movie theater scene - the funniest 'making out' moment in the history of film, I'd say. And boy, do I love Isabelle Adjani - she's so foxy in this movie, it's almost unbelievable. And she gives a great performance, as always.<br /><br />Polanski is a good actor, too; I don't agree with the occasional disparaging remarks made about his performance here. His character is supposed to be low-key and thoughtful, so his low-key performance fits. I, for one, found him perfectly sympathetic - though he did lose me a bit when he started dressed in drag for no clearly discernible reason.<br /><br />Yes, the movie's obscure. And slow. But it captures the alienating qualities of apartment living - something I've done entirely too much of - so I dig it. It's funny how all you need is a common reference point, and suddenly a weirdo movie like this becomes deeply significant! Definitely worth picking up for pocket change on DVD. | 0 |
I think this film version of NORTHANGER ABBEY is actually quite good. It certainly is amusing. Well, it's not a masterpiece as PRIDE AND PREJUDICE ('95) but there's very good stuff in it.. especially the City of Bath setting!!! ..The Royal Crescent, the Roman Baths, the fascinating Georgian atmosphere.. That is excellent. If you are a Bath fan like myself, you'll love watching this film! The performances may sound a bit too 'melodramatic' but I've got the impression that this film, like the novel itself, is deliberately making fun of the popular tales of romance and terror and of the society of the period. The only drawback is probably the female lead as I personally have another idea of Catherine Morland's physical appearance. The music is also a bit 'unusual'.. but I strangely find it acceptable despite it's got nothing to do with the historical period portrayed. I'm wondering what would dear old Jane think...:) | 0 |
1956 was the 20th Congress of the Communist Party and the Soviet Premier Krushchev made a speech denouncing Stalin and the Stalinist purges and the gulag labor systems, revealing information that was previously forbidden, publicly revealing horrible new truths, which opened the door for a new Soviet Cinema led by Mikhail Kalatozov, once Stalin's head of film production. This film features a Red Army that is NOT victorious, in fact they are encircled, in a retreat mode, with many people dying, including the hero, in a film set after 06-02-41, the German invasion of Russia when Germany introduced the Barbarossa Plan, a blitzkrieg invasion intended to bring about a quick victory and the ultimate enslavement of the Slavs, and very nearly succeeded, actually getting within 20 miles of Moscow in what was a Red Army wipe out, a devastation of human losses, 15 to 20 million Russians died, or 20% of the entire population. Historically, this was a moment of great trauma and suffering, a psychological shock to the Russian people, but the Red Army held and prolonged the war 4 more years until they were ultimately victorious. <br /><br />During the war, Stalin used the war genre in films for obvious morale boosting, introducing female heroines who were ultra-patriotic and strong and idealistic, suggesting that if females could be so successful and patriotic, then Russia could expect at least as much from their soldiers. Stalin eliminated the mass hero of the proletariat and replaced it with an individual, bold leader who was successful at killing many of the enemy, an obvious reference to Stalin himself, who was always portrayed in film as a bold, wise and victorious leader. But Kalatozov changed this depiction, as THE CRANES ARE FLYING was made after Stalin's death, causing a political thaw and creating a worldwide sensation, winning the Cannes Film Festival Palm D'Or, as well as the Best Director and Best Actress (Tatyana Samoilova), reawakening the West to Soviet Cinema for the first time since Eisenstein's IVAN THE TERRIBLE in the 40's. <br /><br />This film featured brilliant, breathtaking, and extremely mobile camera work from his extraordinary cinematographer Sergei Uresevsky, using spectacular crane and tracking shots, images of wartime, battlefields, Moscow and crowded streets that are extremely vivid and real. Another brilliant scene features the lead heroine, Veronica, who hasn't heard from her lover, Boris, in the 4 years at war, so he is presumed dead, but she continues to love him, expressed in a scene where she runs towards a bridge with a train following behind her, a moment when the viewer was wondering if she might throw herself in front of that train, instead she saves a 3 yr old boy named Boris who was about to be hit by a car. Another scene captures the death of Boris on the battlefield, who dies a senseless death, and his thoughts spin and whirl in a beautiful montage of trees, sky, leaves, all spinning in a kaleidoscope of his own thoughts and dreams, including an imaginary wedding with Veronica. This film features the famous line, 'You can dream when the war is over.' In the final sequence, when the war is over, the soldiers are returning in a mass scene on the streets, Veronica learns Boris died, all are happy and excited with the soldier's return, but Veronica is in despair, passing out flowers to soldiers and strangers on the street in an extreme gesture of generosity and selflessness revealing 'cranes white and gray floating in the sky.' <br /><br />The film was released in 1957 in Russia, and according to some reviews, 'the silence in the theater was profound, the wall between art and living life had fallen...and tears unlocked the doors.' <br /><br /> <br /><br /> | 0 |
Having previously seen the abridged print presented by David Shepard, I finally got a hold of a complete--or nearer complete version, which was about 56 minutes compared to the 30-minute version more widely distributed. The Shepard print for Image Entertainment is certainly of superior quality, and the best parts are there, but it's nonetheless good to see the rest of the film and fill in some loose story ends.<br /><br />In the Shepard print, the film ends with Mary stating, 'You see, I've changed my mind--I'm never going home.' Yet, in the complete version, Mary and Kenneth Driscoll end their relationship soon after that scene Mary returns home to the country and Driscoll rekindles his relationship with Vivian. This additional footage develops the character Vivian, who had little relevance in the Shepard version. Moreover, in the complete version, the film begins in the New Jersey countryside with Mary, where she reads and fantasizes about her ideal lover. She's disappointed by the reality of the advances by farm 'chore boy' Johnny Applebloom (a character completely absent from the Shepard version), but after her affair with Driscoll, she returns to the country to presumably and eventually become a farmer's wife.<br /><br />Regardless of the print, 'A Girl's Folly' is a good little film for 1917, made by one of the top directors of the 1910s Maurice Tourneur. In it, Tourneur takes plenty of jabs at his own business, including by playing a caricature of himself--the director of the film-within-the-film. The two leads also give quality performances by early screen-acting standards: Robert Warwick, an actor playing a skirt-chasing star, and Doris Kenyon, as an ingénue aspiring to play an ingénue on the screen.<br /><br />Self-referential films, which made film-making the focus of the films, were nothing new by now. Mack Sennett had already parodied this type of film three years prior with 'Mabel's Dramatic Career'. Several aspects of this one stand out, though. Frances Marion's intertitles are humorous, including illustrations of the actors on a chessboard with a hand directing them--remarkable for 1917. I especially liked the film's final title cards where two observers remark on the film's happy ending: 'Gee but ain't that romantick!' And, the other replies, 'Romance, nuthin! That's movin' pictures!' Fellow female screenwriter Anita Loos made a similar self-referential conclusion to another film from 1917 'Wild and Woolly'. Both writers helped change the role of their professions in the business and art.<br /><br />Some of the photography by Tourneur and John van den Broek is good, especially concerning the film-making business. The use of mirrors in several scenes is a nice reinforcement of the film's self-reflexivity. Furthermore, the editing is exceptional. The quick crosscutting during the studio scenes is especially salient; it serves to punctuate the hectic pace filmmakers work at, especially back then. | 0 |
Do you like explosions? How about fighting? Well, this movie has both of those. You know the other thing you can't have a movie without: a kick ass motorcycle, the type that bounces off someone's head and knocks them out at the same time. You bet the Stabilizer has one. There's even a classic cliff scene.<br /><br />All in all, I'm quite proud that I have even seen this movie...and even prouder to have my review be the first one...YES! | 0 |
My friends and I rented that movie last night and we had one of the greatest laughs in awhile. The movie is not supposed to be funny at all, but it is just so ridiculous and it lacks any realism whatsoever. First, Phillippe (I forget what his character is called and I don't really care) uses his regular employee ID to go through all the top-security terminals. Not only is that pathetic but it gets topped when his enormous efforts culminate in his finding the so-scary Lego-room, which hosts the super computers. This is plain funny. The tense mood that we are supposed to experience is completely spoilt by the childish looking room. The ending, like all else, is very very very cheesy, especially when the bad guy's lawyer shows up 'right on time'. Anyway, this movie is a good laugh. If you need something to make fun of, definitely see it. | 1 |
These things have been floating around in my head for damn near 10 years now. Some pieces of this work were really memorable. - Id love to see another more current example of cg showy offy stuff. Actually I'd love to be part of it.<br /><br />If I'd would of had the chance to just say what i wanted and thats it, I wouldn't have to write all this extra in order to make '10 lines if text' as this website requires. I mean really? This almost discourages me, I mean luckily for the guys that made the movie I really liked the Minds Eye - and it took me 3 times to have enough lines, I hope you don't get me on the misspelling. - yup you did. | 0 |
This movie is just lame. A total waste of time and money. The jokes are predictable, the characters are so cliché and the way it talks about RPG gamers is not funny as well. The problem is that the writers seems not to know how a RPG game works and, most important, how to make jokes about this game. Of course there are a bunch of losers who play RPG like freaking retards and total losers. But for me this is not the funniest way to make jokes about this game. The story doesn't make any sense at all. Who cares about how long a game is being played? The greatest problem in this movie is that the writers and actors didn't even try to know what RPG is about to make jokes about it. I felt ashamed by watching this lame movie. | 1 |
First and foremost this movie has the stupidest plot of any movie I have ever seen, and unfortunately I had to see this one. I was flipping through channels one day and stumbled upon this lousy excuse for a movie, and it confirmed what I have been saying for a long time. Carrot Top is not an actor, and IS NOT funny in the slightest sense. He acts like he's a great comedian and thinks he commands the audiences attention. Frankly he has the acting ability of a 10 year old class clown, scratch that less than a 10 year old's ability to compare them to Carrot Top would be a grave insult upon their good name. This movie tries to be funny using dull one liners which all seem to have been lifted from 50's cartoons. By the end I would have done anything to erase my memory of this movie, but sadly the memories stay with me. The only thing I can do is to warn others to never to watch this movie. However it proves the rumors true Carrot Top can't act worth a damn. | 1 |
After reading the original play I thought it would have been much more difficult to adapt to screen than it turned out to be. Donal McCann puts in a once-off great performance as Public Gar, the repressed antagonist who is manifested openly on screen by his extroverted (but unseen to others) alterego- Private Gar. Eamonn Kelly also plays an excellent 'screwballs' whose inability to communicate his feelings is matched only by Gar.<br /><br />Definitely worth renting out if you can find it. (Probably unavailable outside Ireland & UK) | 0 |
When plague breaks out in New Orleans, it's Richard Widmark to the rescue in 'Panic in the Streets,' one of the lesser-celebrated films of the great Elia Kazan. Kazan keeps the pace brisk, and there are lots of marvelous touches - the scenes between Widmark and Barbara Bel Geddes, who plays his wife and the scene in the police station show family life and work life and the relationships of average citizens, which is in sharp contrast to the lives and relationships of the low-lifes, portrayed by a menacing Jack Palance, his weak yes man, Zero Mostel, Tommy Cook, and Louis Charles. There are also some interesting visuals - Palance has a couple of scenes with actors who seem to come up to his knees in height.<br /><br />The acting is marvelous and the dialogue sharp if the story isn't quite up to the direction and performances. It has a few questionable aspects which will be spotted by the viewer quite easily. That aside, it's well worth viewing. Kazan was a masterful director. | 0 |
I can't say whether the post-WWII British comedies produced at the Ealing Studios are an acquired taste or not, but I am completely addicted, and The Man in the White Suit is one of the best. No need to go into the well-known plot about the threat posed to both the textile industry and the textile unions by an indestructible, dirt-resistant fiber. Suffice it to say that the slings and arrows suffered by the naively idealistic Sidney Stratton in pursuing his polymer vision make for a comedic delight. Many of the well-known faces from the world of British character actors - the nervous Cecil Parker, the suavely devious Michael Gough, and the bluntly ruthless Ernest Thesinger - put in wonderful performances. Guinness - as always and forever - is superb, and Joan Greenwood is delectable as Daphne (just the way she enunciates the word 'Daddy', makes the entire movie worth seeing).<br /><br />'Knudsen!!!!!!!' | 0 |
I have wanted to say this since I first saw the movie, I still will not allow any of my children or grandchildren to watch this. At least not until I tell them and they understand that it is completely fiction. The only thing that I saw that was correct was that animals went onto the Ark, everything else was false. Lot and Noah fighting on the ocean like a pirate movie. Make sure you tell your kids the real story before you allow them to watch it, but really, until they are old enough to understand that it is not real they may have a messed up vision of the Bible. This was the worst Bible movie I have ever seen. Bruce and Evan Almighty were much better and had more to teach. Let your children watch those | 1 |
Every time I've seen this movie I get the same impression: some parts of it are so amazingly stupid/bad that they crack me up, they aren't intentional, and there are a lot of them; the rest is just plain bad, stupid and/or irrelevant. A movie like Evil Dead gets credit for being bad at it's own expense because it's the intended result-it' stupid and cheesy because Sam Raimi succeeded at what he was trying to do. This movie doesn't have that excuse, it's stupid and cheesy because the filmmakers failed so miserably. The crap result gets heaped on top of the crap writing and crap performances to make it a shame that the lowest rating a movie can be given is one for 'awful.' Watching this movie has the same effect as listening to a Billy Madison essay--'Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it.' I should be able to give this movie something around a -5. | 1 |
To call this anything at all would be an insult to everything else. Some expletives might describe it, but still too positively. Normally one ignores this kind of rubbish, but it was so stupid that one can but despair. Would have though that even Americans and commercial TV-stations would have given this piece of s**t a miss. But as the Germans say: Gegen die Dummheit kaempfen die Goetter selbst Vergebens! | 1 |
Ah, Batman Returns, is it possible to have a sequel to be almost as good as the original? With Batman Returns, it came pretty close! We have terrific actors and a great plot with the dark knight and two new villains, Catwoman and The Penguin. We have Michael Keaton back as Batman and he's still awesome than ever. Michelle Pfieffer, the perfect choice for Catwoman and was perfectly cast into place. As much as I love and is such an incredible actress Annette Benning, she couldn't have been Catwoman, she doesn't really have the look. Danny DeVito, who could have imagined him as The Penguin? He was just great and terrifying! <br /><br />Batman returns with a more loving community of Gotham City, they are celebrating Christmas time with, Max Shrek played by a creepy Christopher Walken. The perfect villain who mistreats his lovely secretary, Selina who happens to hear too much at his office causing him to push her out the window in hopes that she dies and will never reveal the information of knowing the Penguin and the attempt to make him loved in Gotham. When she survives and is awakened by cats, she wants revenge and is ready to go at it with her cats! But there is also another active villain, The Penguin who is in search of his parents that abandoned him and now he is looking to be the new mayor of Gotham City! Can Batman be able to stop both super villains from creating their hanous acts and stop the mayor from destroying the city as well?<br /><br />You'll have to see! Batman Returns is just as good as the original Batman, despite the first one remaining the true classic, this one still takes you for a ride. And come on, I mean we've got Michelle in leather! Her classic moment of just meeting Batman and The Penguin 'Meow' is classic! There are memorable characters, lines, and sets! You'll have a blast! Trust me! <br /><br />9/10 | 0 |
Only three words are really required for this review: Piece of crap.<br /><br />If you enjoyed watching the cartoon as a child, you will find this movie to be a complete waste of your time and money. The best thing about your two hours in the auditorium will be your feet sticking to the floor.<br /><br />Yes, they do use all of the names and catch phrases. The even name the dog 'Shoeshine' (in reference to the dog being 'Shoeshine Boy' in the cartoon). They name the love interest Polly, but she isn't Miss Sweet Polly Purebred.<br /><br />My wife and son drug me to see this. They should have drugged me to see it.<br /><br />The original Underdog was voiced by Wally Cox, the ultimate nerd. This one is voiced by someone with a 'smart alleck teenager that knows more than all the adults' attitude.<br /><br />As a stand alone movie, it is awful. As an homage to Underdog, it is even worse. It is not an homage. It is not a retelling of the story. It is not an updating of the story. It is purely an attempt to cash in on a known title and create merchandising. The next time I go to the store, I fear that I will see Underdog toys, pajamas, towels, sheets, clothing, etc. McDonalds and Burger King probably fought over the kid's meal rights for this.<br /><br />The worst part of this movie, however, is the soundtrack. THEY DO THE UNDERDOG THEME SONG TO RAP (read that with a silent 'C' at the beginning)! Great, now that we are going to destroy something, let's go all the way.<br /><br />I knew that it would probably be bad before I went. My fears were confirmed when I arrived at my local 12 plex and found that they opened it for the first day and first showing in their smallest auditorium (and one of only four without stadium seating). Even the theatre people knew it was going to be garbage! Save your money on the tickets and invest it better by going out and buying the original series on DVD. It will be more entertaining and have better production values. | 1 |
Functioning as a sort of midpoint between 'Waiting for Guffman' and 'A Mighty Wind', 'Best in Show' portrays a dog show and the various people who bring their canine friends to participate. Some are weird, some crazy, and otherwise, but they all make the movie good. Director Christopher Guest is particularly funny as gay Harlan Pepper, very much trying to promote his dog. Eugene Levy, Parker Posey, Michael McKean, Catherine O'Hara, and Bob Balaban also do great jobs (I can't imagine them not doing great jobs, at least not in a Christopher Guest movie). As someone who's never attended a dog show, this movie is my main exposure to them. They sure look neat. | 0 |
The skeleton of the story is that the main character needs to win a public kung fu tournament with high stakes. The flesh of the story consists of LOTs of fighting, a love triangle, betrayals, rivalries, and revenge.<br /><br />There is a lot to this story. The main character is very likeable as an even tempered, mild mannered, and very tough country boy. A good versus bad movie is only as good as the villains and the main villains are tough and smart, not to mention ugly, devious and tricky.<br /><br />If there is one weakness, it's the scene where the fiance of the main character is imagining her and the protagonist running towards each other in a flowery field and hugging when they meet. I thought I was watching The Sound of Music for a second and nearly lost hope for the movie. Luckily, the movie recovered quickly with a fight scene. | 0 |
This flick is so bad its beyond belief.Even for an independent low budget film...it just, well, sucks.I can't even believe even Troma would put out such crap.I have been a fan of some Troma flicks for years(Toxic Avenger,Squeeze Play,Rockabilly Vampire to name a few).But LLoyd, come on,this goes way beyond the boundaries of any taste.It features some of the worst acting imaginable.I think it would have been possible to find unemployed street people who could have been as good...oh,wait, that is what they did.I mean it,these characters have negative charisma.With any luck, the producer and director of this film will have a huge karmic debt because of this atrocity.As will the special effects people.But beyond the terrible acting and the horrid special effects,the dialogue is absolutely traumatic to the ears.The script is full of plot holes the size of Alaska, and there are severe continuity problems.The worst part however, is that it not entertaining in even the smallest way.And this is the most unforgivable sin in film making.But, don't take my word for it.Go out and waste four bucks renting it.Just don't say I didn't warn you. | 1 |
A 10 year old kid fed up with his parents arguing decides to hot wire a car and go on a surreal journey across America to find Motorama cards, which is a gas station card game, that if he can find to spell out 'Motorama' he has a chance to win 500 million dollars. He meets many bizarre characters along the way. No one can make an 'instant cult classic', Joe Minion's previous 'After Hours' achieved that by sheer merit & an amazing director, but it wasn't instant. This movie, on the other hand, is just bizarre just to be bizarre. No rhyme or reason to any of it. The plot is incidental at best and seems to exist just to showcase various cameos. It's just not a fun film nor a thoughtful one. It's way too slapped together. I've heard many comparisons between this and David Lynch films. That's damn near heresy as even Lynch's 'worst' film (worst in quotes, as he doesn't have an bad films really) is still miles above this dreck. <br /><br />Eye Candy: Cynthia King is topless very briefly <br /><br />DVD Extras: Trailer for 'Joe Dirt' | 1 |
Thank god for this movie. It's a document of talent that, three decades later, seems even more unique and rare in retrospect.<br /><br />The music is just extraordinary, packed with so much talent in writing, performance, arrangement and production that it's absolutely infectious. The lyrics and vocal arrangements are incredible. The performances by under-appreciated talents like Nell Carter and Ren Woods uplift my spirit every time I hear them. While the film may be different from the stage version, I prefer the soundtrack to the cast album, which I find truly grating and under-developed. Here the arrangements are filled out and expanded into dynamic pieces that couldn't have been produced in a stage setting.<br /><br />But the music isn't the only thing extraordinary about this movie. The juxtaposition of almost hyper-realist dialog scenes (reminds me of Altman films) intercut with exuberant musical and dance numbers, really works. All the talent in this movie--directing, writing, photography, editing, music, choreography, casting, acting, costuming, art direction--merge perfectly into one of the best musical films I've seen.<br /><br />I think it's amazing how much we know about the characters in 'Hair,' based on very little information or plot. They're not drawn as caricatures, but as realistic and very human people. We see little glimpses of where they come from, but the portrait is completed by vignettes that draw the characters to the surface through accomplished acting, directing and editing. There's an undercurrent theme of the misogyny of Berger and Hud which colors their characters by exposing their reckless macho-hippie ideology. The scene of Berger's home life reveals important details about his psychology, and the brief glimpse of Claude's home tells us volumes about his background through the simple, realistic and genuine interaction between Claude and (presumably) his father.<br /><br />I love the fashion in this movie. It defiantly mixes sixties ideas with VERY seventies looks (one does have to overlook Treat Williams' hair extensions...). It's a document of how chic much of the late-seventies was, contrary to the conventional wisdom that the era was all about bad taste. Claude's beige knitted tie was a hot trend of 1979, and the hair and clothing of the singers and dancers (particularly those in white during the Central Park scene) mixes up the decades in a way that suggests the timelessness of the musical's themes. These elements merge with Twyla Tharpe's extraordinary state-of-the-art choreography in a way that enhances the artistry of both.<br /><br />'Hair'isn't a film that rewards cynicism. If you come to it with expectations, then you're most likely going to be held captive by artists who aren't bound by your rules. For me, it opened my eyes and ears and spirit to an insightful and passionate musical dialog about war, friendship and family that transcends its time and is still meaningful and relevant to me to this day. | 0 |
Being featured at the 2006 Cannes Film Festival and gaining quite some fame, this movie appears to be another modern and profound school drama. <br /><br />It's about a bunch of adolescents who get through a revealing and desperate day at school. Everything's circling around a suicide - shown at the very beginning to some extent - that happens at 2:37pm. The characters are somehow all connected with each other. What moves them is described via short interview sequences, strictly shot in b/w. The characters are well written, the acting is intriguing (especially Teresa Palmer as Melody and Frank Sweet as Marcus are discoveries).<br /><br />Let's stick to the movies' technique. That's what really impressed me. There rarely are cuts, most of the time the camera follows one of the protagonists like in Gus van Sants' Elephant. Some scenes are presented more often than once, but each time from a different point of view (here: character). This surely evokes a slowly developing, but grabbing atmosphere that drags you inside literally. The colours are vibrant, somehow unfitting considering the tough plot - but that's nothing less than a clever contrast, a disturbing 'everything's fine thing'. The use of lighting is adequate all the time, underlining the characters' actual mood. And finally, there are decent placements of music.<br /><br />2:37 somehow itches you from the very beginning. It does not compromise nor does it serve laughter. It rather strings together what psychologists would define as terror moments. This movie substantially focuses on emotional precipices. There ain't nobody who's not to handle some kind of neurosis, even the depicted minor parts (e.g. the teachers) seem to be in some state of disorder. And that is what keeps this movie from being really good. Its summing up of piercing tragedies is unrealistic to its very bones. There is no: friendship, love, smiling, truth, passion. There is: faking, humiliation, despair, sickness and beating up. It's like being hit in the face real hard all the time, but you are numb after the first hour. This flick keeps on hitting you, until it reveals something quite instructive in the end.<br /><br />For being sensitively and superbly acted: 9. For being technically innovative and original: 9. For being unidimensional: 3.<br /><br />Makes a solid 7 out of 10. | 0 |
Ruth Gordon at her best. This episode is my favorite of the whole Columbo series. Peter Falk and Ruth Gordon worked so well together that they should both be inducted into the television hall of fame, regardless of the rest of their work. Even the music was outstanding in this episode. | 0 |
I don't care what anyone says, this movie is hilarious! It combines the bleak seriousness of Threads with an anarchic blend of alternative comedy, and the results are a severely dark, but outrageously funny satire on the brinkmanship policies of both the Western and Eastern blocs at the time. You gotta give the filmmakers credit for even attempting to top the real life lunacy of 'Duck and cover' or 'Protect and survive'!<br /><br />Imagine someone made a movie based on the Dead Kennedys track 'Kinky Sex Makes The World Go Round', and you're pretty close to Whoops! Apocalypse. Add Rik Mayall on top form as an insanely OTT SAS commander and you've got it exactly. A worthy companion piece to Dr Strangelove, and that's saying something. | 1 |
A director and his crew head out to the isolated Beal mansion, to make a low-budget horror film about the seven mysterious deaths of the Beal family that have occurred there in the last century. Even with warnings by the caretaker, the director pays no attention to the supposedly cursed house. One of the crew find a book titled Tibetan Book of the Dead, and use some of the passages from it for their script. But in doing so, when red they raise a ghoul from its grave.<br /><br />Boring, confusing and tacky all rolled up into one, equals this penniless midnight horror production. What feels like an eternity, it just never seems to get going or demonstrate anything effective from somewhat decent ideas. Even though director Paul Harrison's clunky, tensionless direction did construct a couple eerie, moody and atmospheric set-pieces. But laziness did set it early. The whole film within a film structure takes up most of the movie and in this time little to nothing happens of great interest. Nor is it fun. Think of Bob Clark's 'Children Shouldn't Play with Dead Things (1972)', and now we've got older actors in the part. However I found 'Seven Corpses' to be inferior. The script early on has some cutting wit abound, before it ends up being drab, predictable and left with many unfulfilled possibilities. The cheap foundation involving limited sets didn't help matters either, but the mansion's dreary, dark appearance had a creepy air to it. Performances from a recognizable b-cast is mainly rigid. John Carradine in small part mainly lurks about. John Ireland plays a hot-headed director, Faith Domergue's washed-up actress demands attention and Charles Macaulay hams it up. The slow grinding premise is crossed between 'Ten Little Indians' and your usual zombie set-up. However its not all that engaging, even with its occult and supernatural edge. Hell they even throw in some graveyard action, with no prevail. When the rotting ghoul makes its appearance
finally, but a bit late. It does get a little better, if very baffling. Just like the inspired opening, the ending is deliciously downbeat. To bad in between, it constantly drags. Continuity in many scenes comes across non-existent, and the death scenes are more exciting and bloodier (but indeed poorly executed) in the movie they're making, then what actually happens to them when the zombie appears. The generic music score flounders on with its shuddery, but frank Gothic cues, and the camera-work is blandly staged with a lack of imagination. Shoot and frame. Shoot and frame. Job done. That's a wrap. | 1 |
Saw a trailer for this on another video, and decided to rent when it came out. Boy, was I disappointed! The story is extremely boring, the acting (aside from Christopher Walken) is bad, and I couldn't care less about the characters, aside from really wanting to see Nora's husband get thrashed. Christopher Walken's role is such a throw-away, what a tease! | 1 |
Eleven years ago, Stanley Ipkiss released his true inner self and became the hero of Edge City by finding and wearing the Norse god of mischief, Loki's mask. The Mask helped bring Jim Carrey to the forefront of comedy and reached a very popular status for its originality and just pure fun. Everyone knew how to spell party. P-A-R-T-Y. Why? Cuz I gotta! Now, eleven years later, it seems to me that the same philosophy has been applied to the new movie 'Son of the Mask.' Someone asked director Lawrence Guterman why are you making this? And he responds 'Cuz I gotta!' Unfortunately, that answer doesn't cover it because after seeing Son of the Mask I still left the theatre thinking, 'Good Lord, Why?' Guterman and the rest of the people involved in the blasphemous film need to realize that the response given to why are you making this film should not be as simple as the answer to the debate on whether or not to party.<br /><br />The Son of the Mask begins with Otis the dog finding the infamous mask and bringing it back to his owner Tim Avery, a clear homage to legendary Loony Toons creator Tex Avery. Tim, played by Jamie Kennedy, is a struggling animator who is stuck working as a turtle tour guide for the animation company he aspires to one-day draw for. On the night of the company Halloween party, Tim puts on the mask and transforms into the mischievous, insane character that we all expect. After the party Tim goes home, mask still on and conceives a child with his wife. Nine months later mayhem ensues as the baby born of the mask has remarkable cartoonish powers. Otis the dog, jealous of the baby's attention, puts on the mask and partakes in Tom and Jerry type mayhem to out the baby. Meanwhile, Loki, played by Alan Cumming, is in search for his mask at the orders of his father, Odin.<br /><br />First off, ill admit that I do respect the fact that this film pays so much homage to the classic cartoons such as Tom and Jerry and Loony Toons, with its Wile E. Coyote type contraptions and the infamous dancing frog type plot. However, this reverence cannot save the film and makes it less respectful and more of a waste of time.<br /><br />The premise of the movie becomes increasingly silly. Silly is not always a bad thing, but in this movie, the silliness gets to the point of just plain annoying. The characters are not fun to watch, and what's worse, they're not funny. The dullness of the characters can also be attributed to the fact that so much CGI was used. One of the greatest things about the original is that while, obviously computer animation was used, so much relied on Jim Carrey and his exuberant style of just being. Jim Carrey, we were convinced, was an actual cartoon. Jamie Kennedy just doesn't have that kind of ability, a fact that is clear when you watch him wear the mask and his facial features rarely shift. The baby and dog were mostly completely animated which became increasingly distracting throughout the movie. The side story of Loki searching for the mask just became more and more stupefying.<br /><br />The son of the Mask is a sad sad state of affairs. What I suggest is you go rent or buy the original the Mask and thank the Norse gods, or whoever, for bringing it to us. And will consider seeing the sequel my sacrifice as I continue to ask the infamous question 'WHY?' The son of the Mask gets one star, although that star should be divvied up between the classic creators of Loony Toons and Jim Carrey, who will always be, in my book, the mask. | 1 |
I first saw this film about 15 years ago, and I have been enchanted by it ever since. It is such a feel-good experience, that I could happily watch it at any time of the year. However, to me, it is the ultimate Christmas movie.<br /><br />The fact that it is in B&W is irrelevant - although I often wonder what it would be like in colour. You can just get that warm, glowing feeling watching the Christmas events unfold. <br /><br />Stanwyck and Morgan are perfect together, and Greenstreet is the antithesis of his usual character, Sakall is a blustering joy to watch.<br /><br />It is light relief and certainly does not tax the brain, but leaves you feeling glad that you saw it.<br /><br />I can't wait for it to become available on DVD in the UK. I shall certainly be at the front of the queue to buy it. | 0 |
Can only be described as awful. It is bad to start with and then gets even more bad. When you start you really have to watch it through because it is impossible to believe that it can get worse - but fear not because it does. Another poorly written script for a donkey director for no-talent offspring of past movie stars. It's hard to decide if the script is worse than the acting or whether the directing is worse than both. As for the hero - well he belts up everyone including one scene where he beats the living daylights out of the tough by swinging open the wardrobe door and smashing him against the window with it. And in another scene he gets thrown through a window and crashes 20ft onto concrete - doesn't even blink - then gets up immediately and gets stuck into the baddies. This is a really ridiculous movie. Lucky it only cost me $1 to hire. | 1 |
If it's an art and essay film, there is not enough art, not to mention essay.<br /><br />If it is a thriller, there is not enough thriller.<br /><br />If it is a teenage drama, there is not enough drama, and as far as teenagers are concerned, there is not enough NOFX and too much Nino Rota.<br /><br />I thought it could be a trailer for Tony Hawk's forthcoming movie, but there is no Tony Hawk, so I guess I'be been cheated: it's not Tony Hawk biopic.<br /><br />If it's an action movie, it lacks explosions, which would have added some interest to it, or at least would have make jump the sleeping ones into their chairs.<br /><br />Most of the characters seem to be dead inside, but it's not a zombie movie. In fact, if it is a movie, there is not enough plot. If it is not a movie, it lasts too long to be a music video.<br /><br />If it's a music video, well... it's an album I will not purchase | 1 |
I saw this movie for a first time years ago, when it was still new and I was satisfied. It's a great Hollywood make-belief story for teenagers. However, it's not lifelike. As much as you would want to believe it, these stories never happen. That's why it is irritating to watch movies like that. They play with teenagers' minds, just imagine how many girls still in high schools believed in that magic and got disappointed. I wouldn't recommend this movie to my little sister or my cousin. The director should have spent some more time thinking about the plot instead of thinking about actors. Yes, they (actors) were good, but the idea isn't worth a 10. There are a lot of films about teenagers. So why don't we make a better one? | 0 |
This movie surprised me, it had good one-liners and laughs, + a nonstop action-packed storyline with tons of gun action and explosions. This movie surprisingly had a lot of good twists and turns. The plot is solid despite what others may think, it kept my interest the whole time right up till the very end. In conclusion; this is a great way for an action movie buff to spend time on. | 0 |
doesn't mean this movie is good. i was really frustrated by it on many levels. it's kind of the tip of the hat to bukowski. hey, i've read that guy in college--let's see what matt dillon does with him. and i like matt dillon. i thought he came close to looking a little like hank, but mostly just the ruddy cheeks. i have to care about a character, though, and there just wasn't much here to care about. i think time might be cruel to bukowski, and that bothers me a lot, because the writing was solid in a sort of post counter culture time. hard to sit through, scenes that went nowhere, and a soundtrack that made me want to vomit. i ask for very little, got less. | 1 |
One of the more enjoyable aspects of Asian cinema (or, indeed, most anything done outside these holier-than-thou United States) are the permutations that crop up. In post-World War Two Japanese manga (comics), for instance, are to be found a veritable endless variety of subjects, many of them handled in uniquely imaginative fashion. The same thing happens in genre film-making, as well; though, again, I'm referring to movies made outside the U.$. (where we're just too 'sophisticated' in our close-mindedness to appreciate anything that isn't about or by US). Would an American company, for instance, back not one but a series of movies featuring a masked professional wrestler (El Santo) or a werewolf (Paul Naschy) or a real-life martial artist (Bruce Lee)...? As for television: forget it. While I still love the KUNG FU series that starred the late David Carradine, I've always felt that the Americanized version of Asian martial arts was- how to put it kindly- a bit lacking. To this very day, there hasn't been a pay-per-view channel to feature Asian martial artists playing Asian martial artists in Asia. (There are lots of soft-core porn masquerading as entertainment shows, but the so-called Action Channel, for instance, has yet to import or to produce a True Martial Arts teleseries.) Before Brother Cadfile was investigating murders on the BBC, there was, of all things, at least one Kung Fu movie that featured a group of martial artists more or less involved in a murder mystery: THE 5 DEADLY VENOMS. In its own right as fascinating as any other genre-based whodunit (western, cop show, etc.), this martial arts masterpiece stands out as a truly superior piece of work. It's now available from Dragon Dynasty and the print is beautiful and the DVD commentary by Bey Logan is EXACTLY the kind of intelligent, thoughtful analysis these gems truly deserve. If you're a martial arts movie fan, rejoice: one of the greatest movie genres of all time (specifically, the martial arts movies of the 1970s and early 1980s) are getting a long-overdue second life (and greatly appreciated second look) on DVD. | 0 |
First let me say that those of you that voted it '10' are only kidding yourselves and trying to get the votes to a respectable level... something that this movie doesn't deserve. (The only movies deserving a 10 IMO are the classics... Godfather, Shawshank, etc. Look at the top rated films of all time for the complete list.) I also noticed that many people gave this a positive vote for being so realistic as far as what it's like inside a cave. Though I would have to agree with them on the surroundings, they simply aren't rating the movie as a whole... they are infatuated by the surroundings but miss the overall review. That would be like me voting a 10 for the movie 'From Justin to Kelly' because I think that the beach scenes remind me of what it's like in the Florida Keys... though that may be true, it does not merit the film getting a 10 because the movie as a whole was rancid.<br /><br />I wish I could tell you that something saved this movie, as usually if one thing stinks in a horror flick, something else picks up or makes up for the weakness. (Ex. - Bad actors are overshadowed by a great plot and/or great camera work and scenery.) We started the DVD and it all started out fairly normal. We jokingly started to pick out who would be the first to die... after a brief bit of driving and hiking, they set up camp for the night. At that moment, I keyed in on some things which really made me tune out the rest of the film. Two main problems I had: Bad effects and an even worse story line. The first thing that we all noticed was that the campfires weren't real... you can plainly see the 'cgi' or fake flames that they were all sitting at. For a horror film to have such a blatant effect flaw should have told me what I was in for the next hour.<br /><br />Only minutes later, I was shown how poorly written this film was. I don't remember exactly how they arrived at the point, but basically, we find out that the 'token Nerd' is writing a book about exploring caves, etc. Another guy in the group wants to tell a story about an experience, but hesitates stating 'I don't want this story in your book.' The author convinces and coaxes the other that he will not put the story in his book and that he can trust him. (A direct quote: 'If I tell you the story, you will definitely want it in your book.') At this point, I was fully expecting a nice 5+ minute story, complete with flashbacks and heartfelt acting. What I got was a short, poorly told (and acted) statement. I say statement because what he ended up telling was about 10 seconds and 5 sentences. I don't remember the exact quotes, but basically he says: 'We were in a cave, the cave flooded, a girl died as our friend watched her drown.' You may think I am over exaggerating and being really critical, but that isn't far off from a direct quote, line for line, from the movie scene.<br /><br />Over the next 50 minutes or so, the film takes place in the cave and though the lighting is what I would imagine to be like in a cave, I could have really done without the really fuzzy/hazy look to the film, and the camera shaking is just one that I didn't go for. (I have really good vision, and after watching the main parts of the film, I felt like I was legally blind.) I was emotionally detached from this movie, therefore the parts that probably should have been scary weren't. Maybe had I been able to overlook the very slow and poorly acted start to this film, I would have at least been scared, but I don't remember anyone in the dark room even twitching at any of the 'action' scenes.<br /><br />The last scene was probably one I will never forget, and that isn't a good thing. Basically, two women are trapped in a room naked. The 'monster' comes in to attack/kill the women... he is stopped when he sees a picture of a little boy. A flashback occurs where we find out that the 'monster' was injured as a little boy, and spent his entire life in the cave. Cut back to present time, and he takes his 'mask' (a large skeleton with what appears to be a deerskin shirt). He glances at the picture and the two women appear to have found the caveman's weakness/soft spot. At that point, he stabs and kills one girl, then proceeds to rape the other woman, rather graphically. After about 30 seconds of watching the camera jiggle and shake as he rapes her, roll the credits, movie's over.<br /><br />Honestly, if I had to do it all over and I wasted money on renting this movie, I could have saved myself an hour and watch the first scene and last scene of this film and still left with the same thoughts about it that I have now.<br /><br />Those of you comparing this to Blair Witch are way off... if any of you had read up on how the director and writer ran the filming of Blair would realize how revolutionary it was... handing each cast member a script the day/night of filming without the other cast members knowing what the other actor was doing is genius.<br /><br />If IMDb would let me, it would get a negative score... I don't understand how anyone in their right mind can recommend this movie. | 1 |
In the same way Lamberto Bava was a substandard facsimilie of his father, Mario (who was an extremely overrated director anyway), Michele Soavi is a substandard director in the Dario Argento mold. 'The Church' has at least one thing to recommend it--the incredibly detailed art direction--but absolutely nothing else. The film is long-winded, filled with one-dimensional characters, and almost put me to sleep several times. There's a fine line between 'art' and 'pretentious crap,' and while 'The Church' isn't completely worthless, you'd be better off watching something else.<br /><br />3/10 | 1 |
At one point in this waste of celluloid, Charles Dance as some sort of meant-to-be-funny, cyborg bad guy says 'If I had an anus, I'd soil myself.'<br /><br />Quite. | 1 |
Oh if only I could give this rubbish less than one star! There were two mildly amusing parts in the whole film and that is it! one was where a line or two from the song Don't Worry, Be Happy was sung by the slugs and the other was where Roddy fell of the toilet roll and landed with his feet and legs apart so that everything else he landed on on the way down hit him in the groin. That is it there was nothing more amusing than that, at least not for me anyway! Doctornappy2 is not right in saying 'Fans of the completely terrible 'Shrek' might enjoy, but 'Wallace & Gromit' fans will probably turn away in disgust.' As I loved Shrek 1 2 and 3 and I also love Wallace and Gromit. You see what it boils down to is that if an animation is done extremely well then it is definitely worth watching, this however was about as far from done well as you can possibly get! The continuity mistakes were too big in number. Some were pointed out by the makers of this site others were not. I won't point out all of the others, but here are a few more to see: When the young daughter leaves at the start of the film the catch to the cage door comes down and the hook part of it that is on the right clearly goes back around behind the round knob thus effectively making sure Roddy would not be able to get out and yet he does just by simply kicking at it. At one point the ruby falls down Roddy's back and gets pushed straight up into the the air by Rita all the while the ship is moving forwards. In the next scene Roddy has caught it again. This is impossible. Seeing as how the ship is moving forwards the only place when the ruby was ejected out from under the back of Roddy's shirt the only place it could have landed was in the water not in Roddy's hand. There was a third one I wanted to point out but for now I have forgotten it.<br /><br />Too many, for want of a better word, 'jokes' were repeated in one way or another, there was not enough time to establish any sort of connection with any of the characters, the characters were hollow, shallow and empty, and the whole film left you wanting....wanting to watch 85 minutes of anything else! Paint drying or grass growing are two superb options! | 1 |
There were good performances by Robin Williams and others but the movie was dull overall and very disappointing compared to the positive reviews.<br /><br />I thought Sy might become a serial killer who bores people to death: a forlorn guy in ugly clothes trails his victims around food courts, quoting Oprah and reciting his medical history until they beg him to shoot them.<br /><br />I think the movie mostly appeals to egomaniacs who think strangers are interested in their photos. I expect most retail workers want a break from the customers. | 1 |
I'm really tempted to reward 'The Case of the Scorpion's Tail' with a solid 10 out of 10 rating, but that would largely be because I think Italian horror cinema of the 1970's is SO much better than the cheesy crap I usually watch. But even without an extra point for nostalgia, this is STILL a genuine masterwork and earning a high rating for its excellently convoluted story, uncanny atmosphere, blood-soaked killing sequences and superb casting choices. In my humble opinion this is actually Sergio Martino's finest giallo, and that has got to mean something, as 'The Strange Vice of Mrs. Wardh', 'All the Colors of the Dark', 'Torso' and 'Your Vice is a Locked Room and only I have the Key' are all top-notch genre achievements as well. But this film is just a tad bit superior with its ultra-compelling plot revolving on an insurance fraud gone madly out of control. Following her husband's peculiar death in a plane explosion (!), Lisa Baumer promptly becomes the suspicious owner of one million dollars and she's eager to leave the country as soon as possible. Due to the bizarre circumstances, the insurance company puts their best investigator Peter Lynch on the case and he follows her to Greece. There, Lisa becomes the target of many assaults and the case's mysteriousness increases when it turns out several people are hunting for the money. I'm always overly anxious when briefly summarizing gialli because I don't want to risk giving away essential plot elements. In 'The Case of the Scorpion's Tail', the events take an abrupt and totally unexpected turn before the story is even halfway, and I certainly don't want to ruin this for you. Many red herrings follow after that, but Sergio Martino always succeeds to stay one step ahead of you and, even though not a 100% satisfying, the denouement is at least surprising. It's also a very stylish film, with imaginative camera-work and excellent music by Bruno Nicolai. Everyone' s favorite giallo muse Edwige Fenech oddly didn't make it to this cast (she stars in no less than 3 other supreme Martino gialli), but Anita Strindberg ('Lizard in a Woman's Skin', 'Who Saw Her Die?') is a more than worthy replacement for her. The charismatic and hunky George Hilton is reliable as always in his role of insurance investigator and duh ladies' man deluxe. If you're a fan of giallo, don't wait as long as I did to WATCH THIS FILM!!!! | 0 |
Oh dear! The BBC is not about to be knocked off its pedestal for absorbing period dramas by this one. I agree this novel of Jane Austens is the difficult to portray particularly to a modern audience, the heroine is hardly a Elizabeth Bennet, even Edmund is not calculated to cause female hearts to skip a beat. However I must say I was hoping for an improvement on the last and was sadly disappointed. The basic story was preserved, but the dialogue was so altered that all that was Jane Austen's tone, manner, feeling, wit, depth, was diluted if not lost. If some past adaptions may be seen as dated the weakness of this one must be that it is too modern ('his life is one long party'?????) The cast was generally adequate, but I think Billie Piper was the wrong choice, it needed someone more restrained, I gained no impression of hidden depths beneath a submissive exterior, she was more like a frolicking child. I see I must wait for the BBC to weave its magic once again. | 1 |
Though not seen in too many films prior, you have certainly seen the basic plot themes in too many films since. <br /><br />Not one of Grant's nor Loy's best films, they make an outstanding effort together. After all, with that much talent and very good supporting cast, you know the laughs will be there.<br /><br />The film is light, has some dramatic spotting but keeps the plot moving and gets you to smile the whole way through.<br /><br />A great example of classic American film fare that has stood the test of time.<br /><br />Definite Saturday afternoon fare, heavy on the popcorn. | 0 |
Brokedown Palace is not the kind of movie I would ever like to see. I also did not like the movie when some Aussie man smuggled drugs in Thailand and accused Claire Danes and Kate Beckinsale of drug smuggling. I would not go to that country no matter what after I saw this movie. In fact this movie stinks. I prefer to visit Germany to meet beautiful single women. Germany is the country I tolerate. I also would rather stick to the United States instead. After I saw some of the movie in the theatre including the false accusation of drug smuggling, I left the theatre and had my money refunded because I cannot tolerate this movie. If you are going to to Thailand to meet someone there who could be a drug smuggler, forget this! | 1 |
What's up with Robert 'Pretentious' Altman? Was he saving on lighting? Everything was so dark in this boring movie that it was laughable. I mean, have you ever seen a lawyer's office where everyone works by candlelight?<br /><br />Don't waste your time. In fact, don't waste your time with anything Altman makes: It's all a pretentious waste of film. | 1 |
In & Out is a comedy with a simple premise. It admirably succeeds in the mission of being funny and entertaining.<br /><br />The comedy in this film ranges from the ridiculous to the sublime, physical comedy exists alongside dry humor, with a nice veteran turn by Bob Newhart. Kevin Kline is predictably in excellent form in this film, alongside Tom Selleck not playing to his expected 'square jawed' leading man type. Mr. Selleck plays his humor well and displays a nice sense of comedic timing. The cast makes this film successful.<br /><br />Not all films with homosexual themes are made to advance some sort of sinister, hidden Hollywood liberal agenda, in point of fact this film was simply made to entertain, and if any part of this films makes the viewer think, then it was a byproduct of the well-acted work by a terrific cast of professionals. Frequently tongue-in-cheek, I found myself laughing at the right moments. A solid 'B.' | 0 |
After an intriguing start, this little drama quickly descends into the ranks of sheer mediocrity. The start of the movie sees two women (Heather Graham and Natasha Gregson Wagner) meet each other while waiting for their boyfriends to get home from their holidays. Natasha Gregson Wagner is a lovely looking actress, and she plays Louise; a cute girl whose beloved boyfriend is an all round entertainer; music, movies you name it, he does it. While she's telling the other girl, Carla (Heather Graham) all about her wonderful boyfriend, it soon becomes apparent that the similarities between their two male friends are too much.... and it's obvious that the two girls are dating the same guy. Oh Dear. Enter Robert Downey Jnr, the sleaze-bag that has two girlfriends while some poor guy somewhere has to go without one. Downey plays the sort of guy that the ladies like, but men find repulsively annoying; he is, basically, a mummy's boy. The worst kind too; on the phone ringing mother all the time, continually showering his girlfriends with ambitious (albeit empty) promises etc. It's enough to make a normal guy sick.<br /><br />The film knowingly rips off superior three-way love triangle films such as Jules et Jim. This film doesn't work though; mostly due to the fact that it's story is so unbelievable. Seriously, if two women had just found that they were dating the same guy...they wouldn't stick around to talk about it. Another reason why it falls down is that it's just so turgid. There's no end of possibilities for the outcome of the situation that this movie presents, especially with the claustrophobia of setting it all in a small apartment; but all the movie does is get lost in masses of dialogue; badly written and poorly delivered dialogue, that is. The film is also massively overacted; it just isn't believable that people would act like they do in this film after finding themselves in this situation. Robert Downey Jnr is one of the many things that is wasted in the film. With Natural Born Killers, he proved that he could give brilliantly entertaining performances, and that is something that this movie could do with. The two females aren't wasted because nobody expected anything from them anyway, but Downey could definitely have been better utilised. Overall? A waste of time. Don't bother, see Jules et Jim or Natural Born Killers instead. That's my advice. | 1 |
Much to her adult children's chagrin & nearly immediately after Elizabeth's (Dame Judy Dench) husband's death, the widowed, attic tenor saxophone player becomes bent upon openly returning to her musical hobby. Now that George is dead, Elizabeth no longer has to practice playing sax in the attic. As she grows more pleased with playing in the open, Elizabeth takes a stroll along memory lane, remembering when she was a 15 year old member of a jazz swing band, 'The Blonde Bombshells': supposedly, an all-girl WWII group of talented jazz swing musicians. One of the 'Blonde Bombshells'' band members was a womanizing, cross-dressing drummer, Patrick (Ian Holm), with whom Elizabeth remained friends.<br /><br />Both Patrick & Elizabeth's 12-year-old grand-daughter, Joanna (Millie Findlay), press Elizabeth to round up the former band members & take up performing together again; this time as a bunch of sexagenarians. Among the band members she finds are the (still foxy!) bass playing, Madeleine (Leslie Caron); Dinah (Olympia Dukakis), a trumpet playing, alcoholic & out-spoken, money-grubbing divorcée & widow living off of wealth from her many (ex)marriages in a Craigievar Scottish castle; Gwen, (real life US star jazz singer, Clio Laine), having at the lead vocal; Annie, (June Whitfield), as the Salvation Army trombone player; Betty, (the late piano player, Joan Sims), who's located training the ivory keys in a Hastings pub.<br /><br />As Elizabeth, Patrick & Joanna scout the world for members of the 1940's band & try to convince them to resume performing together, Elizabeth is oft times beside herself as she learns more than she wants to know about their adult lives--including her own--while having a blast playing terrific music with the last of the living 'Blonde Bombshells'.<br /><br />Amusing, nostalgic, historical, sentimental, multi-generational entertainment that is seriously fun. The actors deliver wonderful performances. Regardless of their ages, they are still Bombshell entertainers who put on quite a show. (The DVD is now out & worth owning because of the bonus features & Dolby Digital sound). Surely as a fan of any of these terrific actors the VHS is a collector's item. | 0 |
This move is about as bad as they come. I was, however forced to give it a 2 for the scenery. There are many great shots of the southwest including many in Monument Valley, one of the most breathtaking places in the US. It is also, starting with John Ford, one of the most filmed. In fact one scene with Kris and the girl was filmed on a place called John Ford point. | 1 |
This Paramount version/ripoff of OKLAHOMA!/ANNIE GET YOUR GUN/CALAMITY JANE isn't all that unusual or innovative. The marketing and intro comments may be there to salvage what is really a pretty bad movie musical western shot on a soundstage and like a live TV show. I don't find the use of the background cyclorama, lit in various scenes with yellow, or pink, or red, or....all that innovative. As noted, it looks more to me like a movie that was produced on a TV budget: All soundstage, with minimal sets backed by the lighted cycs! (Compare to NEW FACES (OF 1952). The actors come off reasonably well, though. And this style was much better realized when Paramount shot LI'L ABNER in 1959. Of couorse, this movie suggests the often repeated question: 'what were they thinking?' | 1 |
In the sequel to the brilliant Bill and Ted's excellent adventure, Bill and Ted are under threat from the future, as the evil Chuck De Nomolos sends two evil robots, disguised as Bill and Ted to earth to kill human Bill and Ted, in order to change the future.<br /><br />In a great comedy pairing, Winter and Reeves excel to deliver delicious humour to the audience in this entertaining sequel. Though lacking the sharpness of the first, Bogus Journey still has the great catchphrases and dialogue from the leading pair, not to mention an hilarious performance by William Sadler, who brings a humorous side to the figure of depth, the grim reaper. Watch for the games sequences, the best moment in the entire film, but one of many great techniques used to justify the genre.<br /><br />Though still packed with humour, this film has a more dramatic film towards it, with stakes being more serious and situations more risky. <br /><br />This gives the film great dimension and another lovable feature. The creators also stretch the boundaries of the fantasy genre and the use of realism, with hell and heaven being heavily symbolic and present in the plot. The fantasy genre is again spot on with the use of that amazing time travelling machine, though again somewhat confusing at points with the use of timing, and objects and situations being placed before it happens in the present, as is evident in the final couple of scenes.<br /><br />The first watch I hated this sequel, but the second time was a real joy as I appreciated the jokes and story more, and though the jokes and plot aren't as strong as its predecessor, Bogus Journey has enough feel good motives, jokes and a fairly steady plot to make it a good natured family film. | 0 |
Well, it turned out as I expected: visual overload but nothing else added to the original. What did surprise me however was that the storyline was fairly drastically changed compared to the 1968 flick. Initially this awoke my interest, but what eventually surprised was that the new twists and turns (a) were apparently invented in order to present us with a typical Hollywood-like product and (b) made the whole storyline improbable! The 1968 story was breathtakingly straightforward, and included no time-storms or any bogus of that sort: it just stated that when you come home after a long journey, things might have changed a bit. Earth might have fallen in the hands of apes, for example. Like many 'old' movies, it's main ingredient was suspense (hell, does anyone understand that word these days?). In this Burton movie, an attempt has been made to turn the whole thing into an action movie, but at what cost? Surely, the images are overwhelming, and a lot of time and money has been put into the design of a complete ape-culture (even ape-music!), but what's wrong?<br /><br />First, the suspension of disbelief is made very hard, because the apes have a lot of Hollywood-human traits. I refer especially to Ari and the slave-trader. These traits include emotional skills like irony, sarcasm, and an overtly displayed array of 'subtle' emotions. It makes you forget that the apes are apes, which is essential.<br /><br />Second, the humans TALK. Of course, we can imagine that humans will never forget how to speak, but the fact that the apes had speech and the humans didn't made the ape/human role-switching very tangible and stressing in the 1968 version. The wound in the throat that Charlton Heston gets there is essential to his survival and his later regained speech essential to his uniqueness and the interest that Dr. Zira has in him (so, no need for things like human rights activists or ape-human love in order to explain things).<br /><br />Third, the fact that they talk ads a great deal to the implausibility, but is a necessary twist in the new movie, since Capt. Davidson has to play the Hollywood-let's-save-the-whole-world- and-have-a-good-ending-for-everyone- and-still-make-it-to-the-lounge-bar- for-a-cool-diet-coke character. Oh my god, will they never learn? I new it from the start, when there was only one guy who got lost! They were in need of a hero! And then the script writers go on reasoning: we need one guy... so, why would one guy get lost... because he tries to save an ape from an electromagnetic storm... implausible! But it's necessary because it shows the audience that he respects apes! Since, in these modern and politically correct times, we can't have a xenophobic ape-hater like Charlton Heston's 68 character loose on the screen: let's give them a bubblegum version!<br /><br />Fourth, okay, the general twist of the original 'discovering the truth' of the 1968 film to the modern version (he finds that his own mother ship crashed on the planet ages ago and that their lab-apes developed their society, where Heston simply discovered that just, somehow, the apes overtook the earth while he was away) is nicely done. The second, battle-part comes as an anti-climax. That's because this movie has added the first two Planet Of The Apes movies in one plot. Nice try, but the chill you feel when Davidson and you discover that he's lost on the planet forever just washes out due to the uninteresting battle-part.<br /><br />Fifth: the ending!!! For chrissakes, who came up with that?! (a) Davidson crashes TWICE with his escape pod, which seems an unsteerable object, while the chimp manages to simply land gracefully? Come on, who'd believe that? If the pods are really small space crafts (Davidson simply flies off into space at the end) and not merely escape vessels, he might have managed a safe landing at least once, no? And what about that ending???? I mean, in the original film it was clear that everything took place on earth. But here: the whole movie takes place on a distant planet, and suddenly the same (there's a Thade statue) ape culture is on earth??? How come? Did the apes of the far planet evolve technologically, flew into the time storm and colonised earth before Davidson's mission took off? Why is Thade worshiped? Stupid stupid stupid.<br /><br />Helena Bonham Carter is even adorable and beautiful as an ape, but I'd expected no less. I preferred her ape above Estella Warren as a human, but maybe I got some loose wire in my head. Nevertheless, the only convincing apes were Tim Roth as Thade (wonderful!) and Ari's household ape (the ex-general, but I forgot his name).<br /><br />Nonono, a lot of things could and should have been added/altered to the 1968 pic, but not the plot, at least not in that way. It was simple and clear and needed no additional explaining. It was nicely tongue-in cheek and caricatured. Don't stylize everything... | 1 |
This has been one of my favorite movies for a long time. Recently I was happy to see it on DVD which is a relief from watching the old, grainy VHS versions.<br /><br />I hadn't seen it in years and watched it today to find myself amazed at how well the movie stands up to time. It's one of those rare, perfect storms of comedy where great writing (truly funny line after truly funny line) is paired with great direction and outstanding performances all at the same time.<br /><br />Dudley Moore got an Oscar nomination for 'Arthur' but lost (although John Gielgud won for best supporting actor). If Moore's performance in 'Arthur' doesn't win a Best Actor Oscar -it's proof that no comedic actor could ever win the title (another example is Gene Wilder in 'Young Frankenstein').<br /><br />Steve Gordon crafts the film beautifully keeping true to each of the characters and the warm-hearted tone of the story. Quite simply, IMHO the movie is a rare gem. It's only sad that Steve Gordon passed away just a year after 'Arthur' was released.<br /><br />Regarding the DVD that is available as of 1/2007, it's so/so. Although the video quality is a leap over the old VHS copies, there is still no widescreen version available.<br /><br />The DVD has a few extras that are nice but it's just not enough. One example is commentary from the Director stating how he greatly wished how certain deleted takes and scenes could have been included (because they were hysterical), but that he had to make tough choices for a final edit. The DVD, being the perfect format to include such material, certainly should have offered it as well.<br /><br />This, the original 'Arthur', is a classic comedy that is one for the books. | 0 |
This a lovely and charming epic fantasy with lots of heart. I got lost in this sweet film watching it at the Mann's Chinese Theatre in Hollywood. It's truly romantic with a touching message.The artwork and the effects are visually striking and the fact that the director is an amazing artist is so apparent. The frames are like watching moving art. It also has a strong and talented cast of actors. What a wonderful surprise to see Joss Ackland, he is just a fairy-tale perfect King. Sarah Douglas is terrific as the villain and Christine Taylor and Tom Schultz make a lovely romantic pair. The fact that the movie was made on a ridiculously tiny indie film budget just blows me away. It may not be the slick Hollywood stuff we're inundated by but it's a really nice movie to rent and enjoy curled up on your sofa on a rainy Saturday. Don't forget the microwave popcorn. That's my advice. Just enjoy it. | 0 |
Carnosaur 3: Primal Species (1996) D: Jonathan Winfrey. Scott Valentine, Janet Gunn, Rick Dean, Anthony Peck, Rodger Halston, Terri J. Vaughn, Billy Burnette. Why even bother reviewing this movie? Another stupid dinosaur movie in which top secret military guys discover those lethal (and very fake-looking) prehistoric monsters running around killing people in gory ways. The original was bad enough, the sequel was even worse. This falls somewhere in between, though unrelated to either of the previous CARNOSAUR films. RATING: 2 out of 10. Rated R for graphic violence and gore, grisly images, and profanity. | 1 |
That's My Bush is a live action project made by South Park creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone.The show was cancelled after one season, not because of bad reviews(it actually got good reviews), but because it was very expensive.That's my bush is a pretty funny spoof of an average network TV sitcom.It is also a political satire.Now, this is nowhere near as good as South Park, but it is a very funny spoof of a sitcom and also a pretty good political satire.The guy who plays in that's my bush looks a lot like him! If you can find the show, check it out.There are plenty of laughs to be had!<br /><br />9/10 | 0 |
A bad movie, but with one reel that is worth savoring. For most of the film, the jokes are bad, the songs are bad, even W.C. Fields is bad. Then there is one sequence with Bob Hope and his movie-ex; the dialogue is witty and the song (a version of 'Thanks for the Memories') light, cynical and delightful. Who parachuted in for this one bit? Yet it makes the whole thing worth the original 25 cents admission. | 1 |
I read somewhere that when Kay Francis refused to take a cut in pay, Warner Bros. retaliated by casting her in inferior projects for the remainder of her contract.<br /><br />She decided to take the money. But her career suffered accordingly.<br /><br />That might explain what she was doing in 'Comet Over Broadway.' (Though it doesn't explain why Donald Crisp and Ian Hunter are in it, too.) 'Ludicrous' is the word that others have used for the plot of this film, and that's right on target. The murder trial. Her seedy vaudeville career. Her success in London. Her final scene with her daughter. No part logically leads to the next part.<br /><br />Also, the sets and costumes looked like B-movie stuff. And her hair! Turner is showing lots and lots of her movies this month. Watch any OTHER one and you'll be doing yourself a favor. | 1 |
I also attended the RI International Horror Film Festival and I can easily see why this film won best of show.<br /><br />SEA OF DUST is a wild romp of Horror, Comedy and beautiful scenery. A back in time tale of strange goings on. An increasingly wide spread illness with an overwhelmingly irritating side effect of people's heads exploding, brings a young Professor's apprentice; Stefan, to investigate. Along his travels, he decides to briefly detour and once again ask for his long time love's hand in marriage, only to once again be sent packing by her extremely stubborn father
Along the way 'out of town' he comes across an ill girl in the road and delivers her to Dr. Maitland, (brilliantly played by up and coming Vincent Price like actor: Edward X Young.) Who fills Stefan in on the Evils a foot. Only the Dr. is insulted that he had called for the Professor and only received a boy in training
None the less, Stefan turns out to be much more than a common bystander. Horror Icon; Tom Savini portrays the ultimate religious torment monger; Prester John. Scream Queen; Ingrid Pitt comes out of retirement to give a stellar performance as Anna. Many beautiful and talented supporting actors seamlessly held the story together and helped to effectively move it along to the climax.<br /><br />Dark Religion and over the top, but fun and sometimes very original, gore scenes play heavily in this Hammer tribute flick. This stylish movie goes back and forth between flashbacks, surreal worlds, dreams and the character's reality.<br /><br />Horror and Gore aside; This is also a very Funny movie! Slapstick, tongue and cheek humor and dark comedy raise their heads among the dark story line. Like others have stated; this really is like three great movies in one. Very Entertaining and Original. | 0 |
What I enjoyed most in this film was the scenery of Corfu, being Greek I adore my country and I liked the flattering director's point of view. Based on a true story during the years when Greece was struggling to stand on her own two feet through war, Nazis and hardship. An Italian soldier and a Greek girl fall in love but the times are hard and they have a lot of sacrifices to make. Nicholas Cage looking great in a uniform gives a passionate account of this unfulfilled (in the beginning) love. I adored Christian Bale playing Mandras the heroine's husband-to-be, he looks very very good as a Greek, his personality matched the one of the Greek patriot! A true fighter in there, or what! One of the movies I would like to buy and keep it in my collection...for ever! | 0 |
I don't know, but the movie was just too similar to other movies I've seen. The Ring, The Eye, Dark Water, they're all the same to me. Don't get me wrong, it's beautifully made, lovely camera work, great graphics, but that story is just too.. too common. In the end, it's the score that makes the suspense, you know: the screams, rumbles. The characters in the movie are also not reacting very naturally, moving very slowly, surprised by anything they see. I know some people that love this kind of film, and if you do, being a well made movie, I guess it doesn't hurt to watch it. But if you've seen the movie I've mentioned above and didn't like them, then I'd suggest you don't bother. | 1 |
THE INVADERS IS A FAST MOVING SCI-FI THRILLER STARRING BEN CROSS AND SEAN YOUNG. BEN PLAYS RENN, A TRAVELLER FROM ANOTHER GALAXY TRYING TO FIND ANNIE (PLAYED BY SEAN) WHO IS PHYSICALLY IDEAL TO HAVE HIS CHILD. THIS CHILD, IF ALLOWED TO BE BORN AND RETURNED TO HIS PLANET, MAY BE THE ONLY CHANCE FOR HIS RACE TO SURVIVE. THE ENEMY, AN ALIEN WHO HAS DESTROYED RENN'S PEOPLE, HAS ALSO FOLLOWED RENN ACROSS THE STARS TO STOP THIS BIRTH. CROSS AGAIN SHOWS GREAT RANGE FROM COMICAL BEGINNINGS AS THE ALIEN ENTERS A LOCAL BAR AND ORDERS HIS FIRST EARTHLING COCKTAIL, TO HIS RACE WITH THE ENEMY AND THE DRAMA OF WHETHER HE CAN KEEP ANNIE AND THE CHILD SHE IS CARRYING ALIVE. | 0 |
Dean Cain, the one time Super-Man, plays Max Hooper the super-thief. He can break into any company and steal any thing for the right price. Unfortunately his latest heist ends him up in a high-rise in which someone else has set a fire to hide their own attempts to steal the product. Now the thief finds himself having to be the hero rescuing everyone in the building. Unfortunately the other thief is still in the building and the F.B.I. & C.I.A. are outside waiting for Max.<br /><br />The movie is barely passable. Dean Cain is a fun actor and has done much better with more improved material but here he is saddled with a weak script and pretty poor direction. | 1 |
Final Solution is a powerful christian film that shows the hate between the black and whites that was present in the days of apartheid. It shows how this hate was contrived and was groomed from generation to generation. Jan Ellis was taught that a black man was a plague. He was raised to be that way. <br /><br />Then he meets a man who is on the opposite side of his beliefs, Pastor Lekota. will he change his ways?. The film is a powerful movie that shows the perceptions the different races had for one another, it shows these perceptions with quite a lot of accuracy. The movie shows the world of how apartheid affected the psyche of blacks and whites.<br /><br />This is a great film that everyone should watch. | 0 |
I'm certain that people from USA don't know anything about the rest of the world, but I think they mustn't talk about what they don't know. And they must remember that the rest of the world is not as hypocrite as the USA. The only places where consented sex between teenagers are illegal are the USA and Islamic nations. In France, for instance, the age of consent is 15. In Brazil it's 14. In Spain it's 12. So the teenagers actors, 16 and 17 years old by the time of production, aren't doing anything illegal. Nudity isn't considered big deal in almost all civilized countries. And only a freak could consider a teenagers' love as child molestation. | 0 |
This movie has got to be one of the worst I have ever seen make it to DVD!!! The story line might have clicked if the film had more funding and writers that would have cut the nonsense and sickly scenes that I highly caution parents on.... But the story line is like a loose cannon. If there was such a thing as a drive thru movie maker-this one would have sprung from that.It reminded me a lot of the quickie films that were put out in the 1960's, poor script writing and filming. <br /><br />The only sensible characters in the whole movie was the bartender and beaver. The rest of the film, could have easily been made by middle school children. I give this film a rating of 1 as it is truly awful and left my entire family with a sense of being cheated. My advice-Don't Watch It!!! | 1 |
In the title I write that the story is ludicrous. below I'll elaborate and tell you why it, in my humble opinion, ruins this movie.<br /><br />Gere and Danes are doing their jobs, and while it's not their best work, it's quite OK. The rest of the cast, though, is doing a really poor job. Mind you, this is not entirely the actors fault. The problem is that Gere and Danes are the only ones that have characters that have even the slightest room in the movie to really give any depth. All other characters have either too little room in the movie to create any depth, or the character is such a cliché that it doesn't matter how hard the actors try.<br /><br />The director has a bit of a Se7en complex, but looking merely at the direction, I think he does an OK job.<br /><br />But the story. This is the kind of script that is bad in two ways. First of all it's a bad movie script. The characters are shallow (except for Gere's and Danes' characters), the villains are clichés and the actions of the characters is totally unbelievable. Besides this, the writers must have an agenda where they want to bring back our views and ethics a hundred years. It's the kind of movie that are saying that some criminals are still criminals, regardless of the fact that they have paid the price the society has given them. It's also the kind of movie that says, albeit only between the lines, that every form of sexual deviance should be punished without trial, judge or jury. And of course, according to the movie, everything that is not sex in the missionary position by a married couple is a sexual deviance.<br /><br />So, if you're going to film school and need an example of a bad script, or if you're writing scripts yourself and want an ego boost. See it. For everyone else, I recommend another movie. | 1 |
I am a huge Ziyi Zhang fan and will go to any film to see her which is what took me to Purple Butterfly. As much as I wanted to like this movie, I have to agree with many others who have commented on it. It is very confusing and also extremely slow. Because all of the film appears to have been shot with a hand held camera, significant portions of it are out of focus. <br /><br />The film has very little dialog and what there is doesn't tell you much. There are endless scenes of people just standing around smoking cigarettes or sitting in a room staring at each other with no conversation. The way the film time shifts is also very confusing and hard to follow. Even having read a number of reviews beforehand and having a general idea what the film was about, I still had a difficult time understanding what was going on. <br /><br />I knew beforehand that the movie was not remotely similar to previous Ziyi Zhang starring films but was looking forward to seeing her in something different but unfortunately I was ultimately disappointed. She never smiles in this film although admittedly most of the time she doesn't have anything to smile about. I could have done without the sex scenes as they were about as sexless and without any obvious feeling between the participants as you could hope to find. | 1 |
After watching this movie, I felt as if I had just eaten a box of stale, chewy cracker jack only to find no prize inside. This movie has real promise: porn stars in a skinemax feature! Unfortunately, someone forgot to tell the producers that WE LIKE SOME T&A IN OUR T & A FLICKS!!! Sure, we get a few quick flashes and a couple of 'bathing in the creek' scenes. But where's the sex? How can you have four girls, 'sorority girls' no less, in this type of movie with only one, pitiful 5 second lesbian scene? Good night, USA Up All Night provides more titillation! Look, we don't watch this type of movie for great cinematography, screenwriting or action. We want to see some kink! What a letdown. | 1 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.