review
stringlengths 41
13.7k
| label
int64 0
1
|
|---|---|
Detective Burt Williams has been on the trail of the infamous Poe killer for nearly three years.Burt's daughter Kris Williams,a homicide agent for the FBI along with her partner Sean Michaels take over.Burt reluctantly steps down from the case and retires.For the next seven months the 'Poe Killer' continues his murderous rampage until Kris discovers that the killer uses internet chat rooms to seduce his prey.She logs in as Annabel Lee and is quickly captured by Poe killer.It's time for Burt to find the sadist and free his daughter before it's too late.Amateurish and supremely braindead horror flick with no suspense and a bit of nasty gore.The acting is hilariously terrible,the characters are painfully dumb and the killer is not menacing.Still I have seen worse indie horror flicks.3 out of 10. | 1 |
We have an average family. Dad's a famous rapper, we have the 'rebelious teenage daughter', the adopted white kid, and the cute little kid. And we have careless housemaid, what show has had a housemaid like that? Do we have a messed-up Brady Bunch? Yay! When it first came out I thought it was really cool, mostly because I was young. The music was bad. The raps were so bad and they were too g-rated. All of his raps were about his family and friends and problems. The dad was kind of the 'Danny from Full House' type of dad. Always gave the advice out. But he wasn't a clean freak. They had a house-keeper for that. Remember? The plots were basically Lil' Romeo was in trouble of some sort, or... not that's it. Oh and maybe some preteen drama. Yeah that stuff is good. Not really. But its still a good show for kids. But Nikelodean could do better. | 1 |
When I saw this film in the 1950s, I wanted to be a scientist too. There was something magical and useful in Science. I took a girl - friend along to see it a second time. I don't think she was as impressed as I was! This film was comical yet serious, at a time when synthetic fibres were rather new. Lessons from this film could be applied to issues relating to GM experimentation of today. | 0 |
The creators of south park in their own film here, this is a brilliant film with a huge entertainment factor. If you like Naked Gun films and are not young and not too mature or serious on your humor, you'll love this. | 0 |
What was Wes thinking making this dribble? It does not jive well with any of his other work but then again he seemed to fall into a slight slump after making a A Nightmare On Elm Street. This can be seen by his follow ups 1.Invatation to Hell 2.Chiller 3.Hills Have Eyes II 4.Deadly Friend 5.Serpant and the Rainbow 6.Shocker all of these films were either mediocre our crap it was not until People Under the Stairs that he gained his momentum back and started to kick butt again. Chiller it'self has none of Craven's regulars and none of his suspense. The only good scene in when the old man has a heart attack on the stairs after graveling for his job. | 1 |
Ernst Marischka, one of the most respected Austrian directors of that time, made films full of beautiful scenes, delicate love and with respect to all that is precious in life. <br /><br />Nowadays, if people should hear about him, they associate the name of Marischka with SISSI trilogy (1955,1956,1957). However, he made other excellent films like DAS DREIMADERLHAUS (1958), EMBEZZLED HEAVEN (1958) and definitely this one, MADCHENJAHRE EINER KONIGIN showing the young years of queen Victoria. Although it deals with a slightly different theme than SISSI films, I do not see many differences between this movie and SISSI. They are strikingly similar.<br /><br />The movie is almost identical. The style, the music, the photography. In fact, the crew are almost the same. Anton Profes, Bruno Mondi!<br /><br />The cast... Romy Schneider's one of the first main roles. It was a lovely introduction to her role of Sissi since this film was made one year before the first part of the trilogy about the Austrian empress. It is also a film where Romy plays with her mother, Magda Schneider. But Ernst Marischka was not the first director who cast Romy to play with her mum. Romy's debut, WENN DER WEISSE FLIEDER WIEDER BLUHN (1953) was her performance with her mother, too. Therefore, there were some voices that Romy began her Austrian career on the bases of her mother's fame. Indeed, there is some truth in it.<br /><br />Again, like in SISSI, this film shows love very gently. Victoria meets Prince Albert in a little inn in Dover. Their sympathy is based on pure exaltation in dance and gentle smiles. And now...? What would it be showed like? Only sex... But is it the only thing love is based on?<br /><br />I am grateful to Ernst Marischka for these movies. They had a soul and a message. Some people may call them kitschy, but I will never give up admiring these films. They are IMPRESSIVE!!! UNFORTUNATELY, HIGHLY UNDERRATED! | 0 |
Genre: Dinosaur, animation, New York, time travel, circus.?<br /><br />Main characters: Rex the Tyrannosaurus rex, Elsa the pterodactyl, Dweeb the Parasarolophus, Ooo the Triceratops, a boy called Louis, a girl called Cecilia and Captain New-eyes. ? Actors: John Goodman (Rex), Yeardley Smith (Cecilia), Martin Short (Stubbs the clown), Felicity Kendal (Elsa) etc.?<br /><br />What happens: Four dinosaurs (see above) are fed some 'brain grain cereal' and are now cuddly, friendly dinosaurs who are going to be nice to children. They go into New York, with big plans
<br /><br />My thoughts: This is a cute animated film. The animation of the dinosaurs when they go cuddly and friendly is a bit floppy and not-so-good, but they look pleasant all the same that way. I like the dinosaurs when they are cuddly and friendly, they are nice, friendly and good. I like (almost) all the characters featured, especially Elsa and Cecilia, but of course I like the others as well. Overall, I like this film a lot! :-)<br /><br />Recommended to: People who like good children's animated films, people who like dinosaurs, John Goodman and people who think that circuses aren't always what they seem
Enjoy! :-) | 0 |
This documentary attempts comedy, but never quite gets there for me. Camp? Ehn, maybe. The more apt word that everyone will agree on -- and have a hard time avoiding in any review -- is kitsch. It dripped kitsch. It was as if the film makers had worried their viewers would take the movie too seriously, and so they bent over backwards to insert kitsch and proclaim, 'We're joking around here! See???'<br /><br />In short, I felt it was trying too hard. For example, the sock puppets that introduced each scene were (to me) annoying when I'm sure they were meant to be amusing -- or at least (ahem) kitsch-ey.<br /><br />Do not, however, avoid this movie based on my complaints. Just be ready to revel in kitsch rather than having it thrust at you unprepared. If you're interested in lighthearted fare, you could do far, far worse. At the very least, the facts surrounding the rise and fall of the Bakers make this interesting and worth a view. At best, gaggles of like minded kitsch lovers will hoot and holler over choice bits throughout the film. | 1 |
OK, forget all the technical inconsisties or the physical impossibilities of the Space Shuttle accidentally being launched by a quirky robot with a heart of gold. Forget the hideous special effects and poorly-constructed one-dimensional characters. Just looking at the premise of the story. The very reason for the film to exist in the first place, and you will see just how badly this film was pieced together.<br /><br />I know 9 year olds that look at this insult to the intelligence and just laugh at it. The story is horrible. The acting is comical and the message its trying to show is incomprehensible. And whats worse, is that the cable Movie channels KEEP SHOWING IT! Its on twice a day every two or three days! Why does anyone in their right mind think that people would want to see this painful piece of celluloid multiple times, much less to see it at all?<br /><br />My recomendation is dont even bother spending the energy to watch this thing. Its just not worth it. | 1 |
The 'movie aimed at adults' is a rare thing these days, but Moonstruck does it well, and is still a better than average movie, which is aging very well. Although it's comic moments aim lower than the rest of it, the movie has a wonderful specificity (Italians in Brooklyn) that isn't used to shortchange the characters or the viewers. (i.e. Mobsters never appear in acomplication. It never becomes grotesque like My Big Fat Greek Wedding) The secondary story lines are economically told with short scenes that allow a break from the major thread. These are the scenes that are now missing in contemporary movies where their immediate value cannot be impressed upon producers and bigwigs. I miss these scenes. It also beautifully involves older characters. The movie takes it's own slight, quiet path to a conclusion. There isn't a poorly written scene included anywhere to make some executives sphincter relax. Cage and Cher do very nice work.<br /><br />Moonstruck invokes old-school, ethnic, workaday New York much like 'Marty' except Moonstruck is way less sanctimonious. | 0 |
What can be said of this independent effort beyond the fact that it was shot with television cameras, and whether that was by conceit or budget constraints doesn't make the watching of this variation on a theme by Romero any easier. I was constantly reminded that I was watching somebody's school project, at best derivative, at worst cheap.<br /><br />Writer/director Georg Koszulinski (who also appears in the film) does some interesting things with stock footage, but that says more about his editing style than his directing style, which consists of in-your-face close-ups with TV cameras which made me think I was watching public-access television instead of an actual, honest-to-goodness film.<br /><br />The story copies and pastes bits and pieces from various sources, including the aforementioned Romero's DEAD trilogy, THE ROAD WARRIOR (dig that stock footage of a 'future' that looks like the past) and THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT.<br /><br />What results is an hour-and-nothing's worth of zombies tracking down and eating humans. (Okay, the 'humans' in this case are clones, but that doesn't change anything. It's the same menu.)<br /><br />The year is 2031, and the first strand of people who were cloned nineteen years before have started to malfunction, particularly in the dietary area. Of course, when clones go bad, the first thing they have a taste for is human flesh (or, in this case, cloned human flesh). It's not safe to be indoors, it's not safe to be outdoors. It's just a matter of time before the flesh-eating ghouls devour our heroes. Have you seen this before? <br /><br />I don't mind people ripping off Romero, if it's done well, but no new territory is covered in this film. It's NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD meets THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT, shot with television cameras. What is particularly disappointing is that the DVD cover makes it look like it was shot, at the very least, with 8mm film. This wouldn't have been a problem with me if the story had not been equally cheap. The film offers a bleak vision of the future in which technology has evolved to the point where human cloning is possible. Must we continue to clone our favourite movies? | 1 |
When I saw previews of this movie I thought that it may be dumb, but it will at least be funny. Well I was wrong. Even though somewhere deep down the producers had an interesting message to convey about parents being left alone and re-evaluating their life, the way they tried to deliver that message was horrible. The first fifty times something silly happened to the couple was relatively funny. But by the end, I could almost predict what stupid mishap is going to happen next.<br /><br />Throughout the movie I like a total of maybe five lines of dialogue and everything else was at best mediocre, which is still more than I can say for the movie itself. | 1 |
The filmmakers were clearly on drugs. That's the only explanation I have. How else do you explain this travesty of a Jane Austen adaptation? Northanger Abbey is a parody of a Gothic novel. But this film was made as if it WERE a Gothic novel. The bizarre music and dream sequences to me suggest drug-induced hallucinations rather than a naive, innocent girl with an overactive imagination, as Catherine of the novel is...<br /><br />The actress who played Catherine just stands around bug-eyed all the time. Peter Firth looks at least 10 years too old to play Henry and he actually seemed a bit on the gay side to me. I don't see the attraction between him and Catherine. John Thorpe's portrayal was rather odd but Isabella actually wasn't that bad. But nothing could save this PIECE OF CRAP movie! One more thing- This film invents a character not in the book, a French friend of General Tilney's, 'The Marchioness.' Why exactly they added her is beyond me. Must have been the drugs. She is scary-looking beyond belief, with white foundation, red lips and black lines randomly painted on her face (dimples?).<br /><br />You'd think this would at least be entertaining in a 'so bad it's good' quality but unfortunately, it's not. It's just BAD. | 1 |
It's great how this movie pulls you along. I had honest laughs. Don't care that it's low budget cause the thing works for me. To be honest my wife didn't really go for it in the same way but she prefers a different type of film. She did admit though that it was very creative and well put together and probably all on a shoe string. These characters who's lives are strange and troubled give me something to relate to in my own world. Just keep going and be who you are. Dreams are what you make of them. In watching this movie a second and third time I realized that there are some hidden moments that passed by me on the first time through. What can I say, I like my fun with some complexity. Anyway liked it. Hope to see more. | 0 |
Grey Gardens was enthralling and crazy and you just couldn't really look away. It was so strange, and funny and sad and sick and
.. really no words can describe. The move Grey Gardens is beyond bizarre. I found out about this film reading my Uncle John's Great Big Bathroom Reader, by the Bathroom Reader's Institute and it was well worth the rental and bump to the top of my movie watching queue. This movie is about the nuttiest most eccentric people that may have ever been filmed. One should watch it for their favorite Edie outfits, which I am sure include curtains. When I get old I almost wish to be just like Big Edie, thumbing my nose at normalcy and society. | 0 |
I watched this movie last night and was a bit disappointed. A lot of the 'time facts' were off. At the beginning of the movie, the grandfather made a comment to this grandson and his friends about how they felt when 9-11 hit. This movie was supposed to be taking place in 1994. Also, one of the grandsons friends was wearing an Eagles Donovan McNabb jersey. He hadn't even been drafted as of yet. The story line was good but the facts and actuality of the time frame was so far off base that it made the movie seem cheesy. My boyfriend is an avid reader of WWII books and memorabilia. I rented this movie hoping that it would be good. The acting was so-so. The dog was cute. But the way that this movie was carried out made me glad that I only paid 4 dollars to rent it as opposed to the 50 it would have taken me to watch it in a theater. I hope that who ever reads this understands that I mean no discontent to those who fought the war but the facts and time frame should have been a little more closely monitored. | 1 |
This so called movie is horrible! The actors cannot act. There is no plot. I believe they need to start from scratch and film again. I hope that they can correct the acting flaws in this movie. I would like to see the trailer after they shoot it again. Maybe there is hope for it. I am not out to hurt feelings but I believe high school kids can do a better job. The wardrobe could have been much better. Sorry, but this just did not do it for me. I normally enjoy the trailers from this site but... this one i cannot find entertaining. I hope they take criticism well because i believe they will get much much more from others in regards to this film. | 1 |
It's a short movie for such immense feelings. The last 20 or so minutes are among the most intense in the recent years of the industry. Huston (John) is dying and only love can make the difference. The actor's work in the long evening scene is absolutely marvellous. | 0 |
I say 'flick' because this doesn't deserve the appellation 'movie', and certainly not 'film'. I regret paying for the rental, and although I've never walked out on a movie before, this would have been it, had I seen it in a theatre. A society living underground in the future (oooh, THAT'S original), lots of burning barrel drums, unexplained ambient light shining through windows, an ungrateful woman and her shock-muted son...the list goes on and on. C. Thomas Howell affects the husky voice of the stereotypical loner; you know like Eastwood's been done to death. He needs special sunglasses to remember his wife and child, yet in the flashbacks, he's the same age! Talk about a poor memory! I stared incredulously when the little boy Abe randomly pushes a code into a door and it opens! No tension, pithy religious (what religion?) under/overtones...saddest of all: I expected better from Roddy Piper;<br /><br />Quite possibly the worst movie experience in my life. | 1 |
Being born in the 1960's I grew up watching the TV 'Movies of the Week' in the early 70's and loved the creepy movies that were routinely shown including 'Crowhaven Farm', 'Bad Ronald', 'Satan's School for Girls', 'Kolchak the Night Stalker', etc, but this one is just plain dumb.This is obviously the writer's trying to capitalize on the horrific Manson murders from a few years earlier. The movie stars Dennis Weaver of 'McCloud' and 'Duel' fame as a father who takes his family camping on a beach. The family encounters some hippies who for some reason decide to terrorize the family. The reason for this is never explained, and Weaver's pacifistic stance is hard to swallow. For God's sake, call the police, beat the hell of them or something, just don't sit there and whine about it. The acting is pretty lame, the story unbelievable, etc. Susan Dey looks cute in a bikini but that's about it. Ignore this if it ever airs on TV. | 1 |
what was the quote by archbishop tutu at the end of the film about a person's past? this film was very disturbing to watch in the sense that it was a true story and to think that humanity is still so cruel after all these years makes me ashamed <br /><br />everyone is human and everyone has the right to live their life in peace and harmony <br /><br />live and let live<br /><br />if anyone knows the quote please let me know Thank you<br /><br />this film should be shown a lot more publicly as true events as horrific as these shown in the film should be known to all in the hope that things will change sooner rather than later. | 0 |
This is one of the best of the early 'Star Trek' episodes, with Kirk and his crew venturing into the unknown to do battle with an enemy known only by name. Imagine their surprise when they find out that the dreaded Romulans are racial offshoots of the Vulcans! Young Mr. Stiles, well-played by Paul Comi, is one of the few truly unlikable characters in the 'Star Trek' universe. His barely disguised hatred of Mr. Spock is eerily similar to the post-9/11 hatred and suspicion many Americans have of people of Arab or Middle Eastern origin. The atmosphere of war-time paranoia is all too real. Then there's the Romulans: they're the ultimate Federation nemesis. The Klingons are nasty but basically harmless; more of a nuisance than a serious threat. The Romulans, however, mean business: they're the ancient Romans reborn in the space age; in spite of their Vulcanoid features they're clearly meant to remind us of imperial Rome, with names like Decius and titles like 'centurion' and 'praetor.' The chain-mail armor is really cool. Familiar guest star Mark Lenard, who went on to play Spock's dad Sorek as well as the Klingon commander in 'Star Trek: the Motion Picture' is an appropriately grizzled, war-weary commander, a character who bears a striking resemblance to Laurence Olivier's Crassus in 'Spartacus.' Also, his questioning of the Empire's unquenchable thirst for conquest reminds me of the similar misgivings Marcus Aurelius (Richard Harris) expressed at the beginning of 'Gladiator.' A must both for Trekkies and sword-and-sandal epic fans. | 0 |
Years before pre-nuptial agreements became a regular thing, Ernest Lubitsch made a screen comedy on which they are the basis. Bluebeard's Eighth Wife involves Gary Cooper as a multi-millionaire living on the French Riviera who's been married seven times and now marries Claudette Colbert for number eight. But Cooper's a good sport about it, he always settles with his ex-wives for a $50,000.00 a year as per an agreement they sign before marrying him. Sounds like what we now call a pre-nuptial agreement.<br /><br />Of course Claudette wants a lot more than that and she feels Cooper takes an entirely too business like approach to marriage. She'd like the real deal and is willing to go some considerable lengths to get it.<br /><br />Bluebeard's Eighth Wife has some really funny moments, the original meeting of Cooper and Colbert in a men's store where Cooper is insisting he wants only pajama tops and Colbert looking for only bottoms. And of course my favorite is Colbert trailing and blackmailing the detective Cooper sends to spy on her. Herman Bing has the best supporting role in the film as that selfsame, flustered detective.<br /><br />I've often wondered how back in the day Hollywood could get away with casting so many people who are non-French in a film like this. Of course Cooper is an American and Colbert of the cast is the only one actually of French background. Though David Niven is charming as always, having him be a Frenchman is ludicrous, he is sooooooo British.<br /><br />Nevertheless Bluebeard's Eighth Wife is an enjoyable film and a great example of what was called 'the Lubitsch touch' back in the day. | 0 |
This movie was for a while in my collection, but it wasn't before a friend of mine reminded me about it until I decided that I should watch it. I did not know much about Close to Leo just that it was supposed to be excellent coming out of age movie and it deals with a very serious topic Aids. <br /><br />Although the person who has aids is Leo the scenario wraps around the way in which Marcel (the youngest brother of Leo) coupes with the sickness of his relative. At first everyone is trying to hide the truth from Marcel he is believed to be too young to understand the sickness of his brother the fact that Leo is also a homosexual contributes to the unwillingness of the parents to discus the matter with the young Marcel. I know from experience that on many occasions most older people do not want to accept the fact that sometimes even when someone is young this does not automatically means that he will not be able to accept the reality and act in more adequate manner then even themselves . With exception of the fact that the family tried to conceal the truth from Marcel, they have left quite an impression for me the way they supported their son even after discovering the truth about his sexuality and his sickness. The fact that they allowed the young Marcel to travel along with Leo to Paris to meet his ex boyfriend was quite a gesture from them most families I know will be reluctant to do that. There is a lot of warmth in the scenes in which the brothers spend some time together you can see them being real friends , concern about each other.<br /><br />Close to Leo is an excellent drama, which I strongly recommend | 0 |
If you want to see someone accidentally eat another man's testicle, or look at a row of pathetically fake hard-ons at a wedding, or listen to a man talk about how good it felt to have sex with a girl while she was throwing up, then this is the movie for you. Alternating, in neck breaking fashion, between romantic and gross out comedy, Tomcats is certainly interesting. The lovely Jaime Pressly plays the wife of Horatio Sanz(tell me another one) who is found in many silhouetted situations with other women, but there is, surprisingly, no nudity. Jake Busey is thoroughly revolting as a hound dog who you wouldn't want as your friend. Shannon Elizabeth and Jerry O'Connell are both good and make a convincing couple, but the movie is far too busy trying to disgust to be any good. | 1 |
An interesting look at the immigrant experience, told as a fable with some very weird imagery.<br /><br />I got drawn to this movie because it tells of immigrants from Sicily who traveled to America. I imagine much the same as my Grandfather did at that time. Travelling in steerage to provide ballast for the ships, I cannot imagine it was very comfortable, as shown in this film.<br /><br />Laws restricting immigrants existed. I would guess that these laws were more strict on those who came from the Mediterranean and Africa. Immigrants had to be free from contagious diseases or hereditary infirmities. In the film, we see physical and mental exams, the latter because of the view that low intelligence is heritable. Single women could not enter the country, on the presumption that they would become prostitutes, so most married single men already in the country, as arranged beforehand, at Ellis Island before entry.<br /><br />This is the story of a British immigrant (Charlotte Gainsbourg), who arranges to marry a poor Sicilian (Vincenzo Amato). He is trying to get his family through with a son that is mute and a mother (Aurora Quattrocchi) that is considered feeble-minded. She was fantastic in the role, by the way.<br /><br />You will also see character actor, Vincent Schiavelli, in his next to the last appearance. I don't know if his last film has been released. He plays a matchmaker, and is also very good.<br /><br />It was a strange, but enjoyable film. It's not for everyone, as I imagine those who don't have some interest in the immigrant experience would find it rather slow. | 0 |
A kinda remake of PLANES TRAINS AND AUTOMOBILES in a lot of ways.i think,i think it's such a bad and sad coincidence that both John Candy and Chris Farley left us When they still had a lot of stuff to do.God bless them both,i think the plots of 2 movies are really similar,Road Trips of two different poles of characters,and a lot of unlucky consequences because of the Chubbies, This movie can not be Planes trains and Automobiles but its a really entertaining movie especially with the great performance of Chris Farley, The missing part in this movie is the touchy stuff if we compare it with Candy&Martin Classic,but i think its better this way | 0 |
Ed (Kel Mitchell) is a teenager who lives for his job at Good Burger, a small but friendly neighborhood hamburger stand, while his buddy Dexter (Kennan Thompson) also works there, but lack Ed's single-minded devotion to his job he's there because he accidentally destroyed the car of his teacher Mr. Wheat (Sinbad) and has to raise money to pay the damages. When Mondo Burger, a mammoth fast-foot chain, opens across the street, it looks like Good Burger is history, until Ed formulates a secret sauce that brings hundreds of new customers to their door. However, the monomaniacal manager of Mondo Burger, Kurt (Jan Schweiterman), is determined to get his hands on the sauce and put Good Burger out of business. Meanwhile, Ed and Dexter must rescue Otis (Abe Vigoda), the world's oldest fast food employee, from the Demented Hills Asylum, and Ed might just find love with Monique (Shar Jackson) if he could take his mind off the burgers long enough to pay attention to her. Good Burger is a comedy directed for kids, decent story, acting, and overall a pretty harmless kids movie. | 1 |
I really liked this movie ... but the ads I saw implied, and one published review actually said, that this movie 'benefits from a light touch.' That to me is very misleading.<br /><br />There is indeed plenty of humor: eccentric, un-subtle, sometimes somewhat twisted humor: the kind of humor I generally find very appealing indeed. But most of the humor is the kind that appears conscious at all times of things deeply serious, deeply sensitive, even deeply painful. The movie weaves together themes of Past and Present, Perception and Truth, Memory and Activity, Life and Death. The entire movie is suffused by the history of European anti-Semiticism in general, and of the Holocaust in particular.<br /><br />How can Humor and Horror be combined in the same movie? The review I saw suggested that the humor is Absurdist. I don't think this is the case at all; at least not in the common sense. Instead, I think this movie stands in the tradition of much Jewish / Yiddish literature and theatre. I don't claim to be any kind of expert in this area; but from what I've seen, Humor is used, in this cultural context, both as a coping tool for the horribly tragic experiences of this people; and also Humor is used as a means of 'recovering the Divine' for men and women who choose a path of Faith rather than a path of either Despair or Absurdism. See 'Fiddler on the Roof' for Humor used in both ways in this rich tradition.<br /><br />Elijah Wood (Jonathon) Wood wears horn rimmed glasses that really make him look, well, strange: compare Sin City when he wore the same kinds of glasses with chilling effect. In this movie, it's easy to see how the glasses become a metaphor for both his Search and for his Struggle between Perception and Truth. Eugene Hutz (Young Alex) and Boris Lesking (Old Alex) are both really just wonderful. Jonathon and Young Alex are from the same generation, yet seem so very, very different; and then find that they are not so different after all. And the way in which the Apparent Narrative Voice changes gradually from that of Jonathon to that of Young Alex .. as a journey of intended discovery for Jonathon becomes one of discovery for both Young Alex and Old Alex ... is to me so very moving.<br /><br />There are some wonderful scenes and panoramas from (I'm told) Prague and environs, standing in for the Ukraine of the story line. All feels very authentic and seems to give a wonderful sense of place; although I've never been myself to the Ukraine and can hardly testify to this from first hand experience.<br /><br />All in all, if you're looking for light comedy, I would not recommend this movie at all. On the other hand, if you are interested in a wonderful, delightful, and deeply moving film, please, check out this wonderful movie. | 0 |
Lowe returns to the nest after, yet another, failed relationship, to find he's been assigned to jury duty. It's in the plans to, somehow, get out of it, when he realizes the defendant is the girl he's had a serious crush on since the first grade.<br /><br />Through living in the past by telling other people about his feelings towards this girl (played by Camp), Lowe remembers those feelings and does everything in his power to clear Camp of attempted murder, while staying away from the real bad guys at the same time, and succeeding in creating a successful film at the same time.<br /><br />I've heard that St Augustine is the oldest city in the US, and I also know it has some ties to Ponce de Leon, so the backdrop is a good place to start. Unfortunately, it's the only thing good about this movie. The local police are inept, the judge is an idiot, and the defense counsel does everything in her power to make herself look like Joanie Cunningham! I don't know whether to blame the director for poor direction, or for just letting the cast put in such a hapless effort.<br /><br />In short, this movie was so boring, I could not even sleep through it! 1 out of 10 stars! | 1 |
My friends and I walked out after 15 minutes, and we weren't the first. Afterwards, we tried to get our money back. Movie theater management wouldn't allow this, but they did agree to let us see another film. The only time that worked for us was to see Dickie Roberts: Former Child Star. As you can tell, this wasn't a memorable night. Probably one of my worst movie nights. Close second has to be when I saw a double header of Domestic Disturbance and Heist. In conclusion, for the sake of humanity, please don't see The Order. | 1 |
OK, I could only find three reasons to consider this film worthwhile considering the extremely low budget.<br /><br />First there was Linnea Quigley and Rachel Carter. Actually, the two of them gave me four good reasons to watch, and watch I did.<br /><br />The only other reason to watch is that a lot of was filmed right down the road. Now, I didn't know this beforehand, but I saw an Orange County car tag and said, wow! this was shot in Florida.<br /><br />I was impressed by the flashback to the past and the ancestors of the young kid, but that was really it. The killings by the pumpkin man were pretty lame, with the exception of the biker.<br /><br />If you want to see Quigley and Carter, OK, but Return of the Living Dead will give greater thrills. | 1 |
I didn't mind all the walking. People really did walk places back then. It loaned an air of authenticity to this period piece and some perspective on the technology of the Martians. I too was disappointed by the effects, in particular the 'Thunderchild' scene, which I regard as one of the most exciting in the book. But I can't praise this film enough, for its faithfulness to Wells's story! It's about time. The actors are likable and the performances are charming. Also this film is very much worth seeing just to hear Jamie Hall's truly great musical score. It was interesting to see the same actor play both the writer and his brother in London. | 0 |
I've become a big fan of the Carpenters, and I didn't really enjoy this movie.<br /><br />I feel it focused far too much on her anorexia and didn't let her true personality shine through. I wasn't overly fond of Cynthia Gibb's portrayal; especially knowing she decided Karen's anorexia was suicide, which it clearly wasn't. Although her family was not big on hugs and kisses, I thought the movie portrayed Agnes (their mother) as being terrible.<br /><br />I did find a few scenes to be harrowing in a way, such as where she sees herself in a mirror that seems to distort her and make her look heavier; I thought the metaphor (so-to-speak) there was rather effective. When the family is playing pool and discussing her divorce and she breaks down and Richard is shocked when he comforts her and feels her frail body was pretty moving (which is probably the wrong word) as well.<br /><br />Overall, I feel they needed to bring out her more bubbly, quirky side--her genuine personality. Even as the focus of the film, there really wasn't a point that caused one to understand what would lead her to anorexia (though of course no one can really know), and almost made it seem baseless. The film was more poor-singer-with-anorexia than Karen Carpenter's story, in my opinion.<br /><br />I would assume that they changed her husband's name/profession and all because they couldn't get his permission to actually include him (there were some bad terms there), but that whole aspect was inaccurate with the changes. On this note, I can't recall the movie bringing out her longing for a family and kids, which greatly prevailed in her life and explains her whirlwind romance and quick marriage to her husband.<br /><br />On the whole, it ends up as a low-budget made-for-TV movie that just isn't very high quality and can be disappointing if you're a hardcore fan who is hoping to see beyond Karen's disease. I feel that such a legend deserves/deserved a better film as a tribute to an amazing person and an awesome voice. | 1 |
I can't really see how anyone can have any interest whatsoever in seeing this movie. A woman meets a man, he wants to play games, she too, but only until she realise what she's missing. She leaves, and that's it really. It took 9 1/2 weeks before Elizabeth (Kim Basinger) left John (Mickey Rourke). She should have left him after 30 minutes and ended our misery. | 1 |
Coach Preachy or Straight Sappy. It's bad writing combined w/even worse acting. You can choose to drink the Gatorade of this after school special, but I didn't, not even on it's 20th Toby Robbins/Islander philosophy, motivational moment. It's too much posturing to be entertaining and not substantive enough to be informative. I have respect for the coach and the program this movie is inspired by, but the move itself is awful. As someone who has played rugby for nearly 20 years in the States I had hoped for a better rugby movie (even one that has something loosely to do with rugby). And I can tell you that the Haka performed by a bunch of Haoles and Islanders is not intimidating (much like when it's performed today by the All Blacks, seriously boys, everyone has seen it,it's time to put it away). If you want real intimidation, line up across from a bunch of South Africans (the real eye gouging convicts of rugby). This is a fake and badly done movie about being a genuine and good person. | 1 |
I wish I had something more positive to say about Devil Fish, but I honestly can't seem to come up with much. I can't even come up with many of those 'so bad, it's good' kind of moments. Devil Fish is just plain old bad. The plot is completely derivative (Jaws, anyone?), the acting is wooden, the characters are uninteresting, the special effects are beyond bad, and the score is annoying. Add to that the seemingly inept direction of Lamberto Bava and you've got one stinker of a movie. I think, however, that the film's biggest sin is its lack of a budget. It doesn't appear that Bava had much to work with. By 1984, the Italian film industry was in full decline especially as far as genre films go. The funding available to Bava was most probably very meager. Film's like Devil Fish that rely on special effects just never had a chance to be good. It's not the only Italian film to suffer this fate. There are a number of Italian movies made in the mid-80s whose ideas and concepts far exceeded what anyone could realistically have expected given their budgetary limitations. <br /><br />However, having said all that and noting the film's many weaknesses, I can't bring myself to rate Devil Fish lower than a 3/10. I've even considered rating it higher but can't because I realize how bad a movie it is. Why don't I rate it lower? Well that's hard to explain. Despite the many problems found in the movie, there's something about Devil Fish that I inexplicably enjoy. It could be as simple as my love for low-budget, cheesy, Italian movies. Maybe my taste in movies is horribly skewed, but I enjoy what I enjoy.<br /><br />The Mystery Science Theater 3000 treatment of Devil Fish is actually very enjoyable. I rate Devil Fish a 4/5 on my MST3K rating scale. The guys do a fine job of poking fun at the movie's many flaws. One very astute observation comes very early in the commentary when Tom Servo notes, 'Just because you can edit, doesn't mean you should' highlighting yet another of the many weaknesses to be found in Devil Fish. | 1 |
Though this movie has a first rate roster of fine actors, special effects that are excellent, and a story line that is full of surprises, it wasn't picked up for studio distribution and went directly to DVD. Perhaps it contains too much 'anti-police force' information, or perhaps it is juts one too many action flicks released during a glut, but whatever the reason the big screens missed the opportunity, fortunately the new concept of releasing direct to DVD allows us to enjoy it.<br /><br />The theme is old: rookie reporter uncovers an inner circle of cops that are corrupt - in this case the F.R.A.T. (First Response Assault and Tactical) team, a group of well trained policeman created to clean up the mythical city of Edison from its low point of crime, drugs, prostitution etc. Working undercover the temptation of pocketing the confiscated goods and money proves too much of an opportunity and now, 15 years after its formation, FRAT is responsible for murder, drug trafficking, terrorizing innocent people etc. The lead dog is Lazerov (Dylan McDermott, who makes a terrifyingly real gangster!) and his partner Rafe Deed (LL Cool J, even more buff than usual and proving he can be a sensitive actor). Reporter Pollack (Justin Timberlake) catches wind of a 'bad mistake' and reports his theory of fraud and corruption to his paper's boss Ashford (the always reliably fine Morgan Freeman). Gradually Polack convinces Ashford and subsequently Wallace (Kevin Spacey, also a consistently fine character actor) and they aid Pollack in this investigative reporting. The closer Pollack gets to the truth the more surprises and bad incidents happen and the story runs pall mall toward a series of unexpected results.<br /><br />Timberlake lacks the charisma to carry the lead, especially in the company of such seasoned actors. But LL Cool J, Freeman, Spacey, and McDermott keep the well-oiled machine of a movie rolling to the very end. No, it is not a great movie, but it is one that makes for an edge of the seat action flick with a message. Grady Harp | 0 |
If you want to make a movie like this, have the threat be real. Don't surround your patsy with a bunch of Bonzos. There is no credibility here. The plot is dull and unbelievable. The acting is even worse. I thought that I was watching Arthur Lake (Dagwood) who is one of the worst actors in history, when I saw the main character. Oh well, at some point he has to face the music and get fighting mad. I don't care. Do you? There are all these long scenes set in this austere office (the furniture made out of cardboard or masonite). People talk and smoke and don't do anything. Most of the action happens in a five minute sequence. After that, it's over. Don't bother. | 1 |
I tuned into this by accident on the independent film channel and was riveted. I'm a professional actor and I was flabbergasted by the performances. They felt totally improvisatory, absolutely without affectation. I could not tell if it was scripted or how it was shot and waited until the very end to see credits and then spent a half an hour on the IMDb to find this film. Do not miss it. I see that the writer-director also did a very fine film called Everyday People which I enjoyed a lot. The shame of the film business is that projects this excellent do not get the distribution and advertising that they deserve and live under the radar. This film deserves to be flown high and proudly. I urge people to look it up and watch it. | 0 |
I was first introduced to 'Eddie' by friends from 'across-the-pond' who know I like intelligent humor. I prefer comedians who can be thought provoking while entertaining such as George Carlin and Dennis Miller. In 'Dress to Kill' Eddie provides the same type of social observation humor that stimulates your thoughts on a subject all the while causing your side to split at the same time. There is a wide range of subjects in this stand-up and they are simply hysterical. The piece on how to decide on Englebert's stage name will leave you in stitches!<br /><br />Thanks Andrew and Catherine! ... and 'Do you have a Flag?' | 0 |
A very good movie. A classic sci-fi film with humor, action and everything. This movie offers a greater number of aliens. We see the Rebel Alliance leaders and much of the Imperial forces. The Emperor is somewhat an original character. I liked the Ewoks representing somehow the indigenous savages and the Vietnamese. (Excellent references) I loved the duel between Vader and Luke which is the best of the saga. In Return of the Jedi the epilogue of the first trilogy is over and the Empire finally falls. I also appreciated the victory celebration where it fulfills Vader's redemption and returns hi into Anakin Skywalker spirit along with Yoda and Obi-Wan. It gives a sadness and a tear. The greatest scenes in Star Wars are among this movie: When Vader turns on the Emperor. Luke watches and finds comfort in seeing Obi-Wan, Yoda and...his father (1997 version not Hayden Christenssen). The next best scene is when Luke rushes to strike back Darth Vader to protect Leia. There is a deep dark side of this film despite there is a good ending. I felt there was much more than meets the eye. And as always the John William's music will bring the classicism into Star Wars universe. | 0 |
The movie is an extra-long tale of a classic novel that completely fails to capture the original adventure's spirit. The quite horribly American Patrick Swayze is cast as the British hero Allan Quatermain despite the obviousness of his nationality.<br /><br />The movie continues throughout to 'Hollywood-ise' the story by changing both the plot and the characters to fit more comfortably into the accepted mold. The movie manages to be predictable throughout, even to those who are not familiar with the story and is plagued by some extremely bad acting and terribly disappointing fight sequences.<br /><br />All in all, a terrible addition to the already quite bad collection of movies based on the legend of King Soloman's Mines and Allan Quatermain. | 1 |
elvira mistress of the dark is one of my fav movies, it has every thing you would want in a film, like great one liners, sexy star and a Outrageous story! if you have not seen it, you are missing out on one of the greatest films made. i can't wait till her new movie comes out! | 0 |
You will marvel at the incredibly sophisticated computer animation, and the novelty probably won't wear off on the first, second or third viewing, but you?ll be drawn in by the characters which are so simple yet intriguing, that you may find yourself actually caring for them in an unexpected way, which may or may not make you feel a little childish due to the medium.<br /><br />Disney continues to firmly hold the title of 'Greatest Animation in the World', with 'A Bug?s Life' standing as one of their greatest achievements. One of the innovative attachments being the delightful 'out-takes' added to the end of the film. The DVD has two sets of these out-takes where as I?m told the VHS cassette has one alternating version per tape. The DVD also features 'Gerry?s Game' which is a delightful little PIXAR short that was also shown prior to the film in theaters.<br /><br />This is by far the superior insect-film in comparison to Dreamworks? 'Antz', which in all fairness is pretty good, but lacks something in the animation and in the story development and characters. If you look at the star voices of both films, 'Antz' is largely cast with big name 'movie' stars with a few familiar 'TV' star voices, where 'A Bug?s Life' is just the opposite, loaded with 'TV' stars with Kevin Spacey as the only stand out exception. But the difference in quality is distinct and obvious.<br /><br />Dreamworks can?t be blamed or surprised though, when you go head to head with Disney, you have your work cut out for you. This is the kind of film that almost makes me wish I had children to share it with. Don?t think for a second that this is just a movie for kids, though. | 0 |
In a really neat spin on Hitchcock, Larry (Billy Crystal) and Owen (Danny DeVito) lead unpleasant lives: Larry's ex-wife has gotten rich by publishing a book that he wrote, and Owen has the most overbearing mother imaginable. When Larry tells Owen to calm down by watching 'Strangers on a Train', Owen gets the idea that they should do criss-cross murders like in the movie. And just like in the movie, Larry thinks that it's a joke, but Owen's serious.<br /><br />How they came up with the idea for 'Throw Momma from the Train' I'll never know, but it's a hilarious movie. There isn't a dull moment in it. And that ending was a hoot. Crystal and DeVito are at their best, and Anne Ramsey is as much of a hag here as she was in 'The Goonies'. A modern classic. | 0 |
I have to admit right off the top, I'm not a big fan of 'family' films these days. Most of them, IMHO, are sentimental crap. But this one, like TOY STORY, the previous film from Pixar, is a lot of fun. The two lead characters were perhaps a bit too bland(especially compared to the two leads in ANTZ, but otherwise this film is better), but the rest of the film more than made up for it. The animation looked great, the humor, though broad, was consistently good(I especially liked Hopper's line 'If I hadn't promised Mother on her deathbed that I wouldn't kill you, I would kill you!'), and the actors doing the voices, except the two leads, were all terrific(Denis Leary doing an animated movie; what a concept). And like everyone else, I loved the outtakes! I hope the video has the new ones. | 0 |
Okay.. this wasn't the worst movie I've ever seen, but I had heard lots of good things about it and I was sorely disappointed. I could see where the film makers were coming from and that they were trying to express the fact that the two sides in this battle weren't a whole lot different from one another, that the individuals were getting lost in the fighting, etc, etc. (well, that's my presumption, anyway =^_^=)<br /><br />At any rate.. the movie kind of bored me. I've watched a lot of really long movies, but this one just seemed to drag on and on and on.. basically because I just couldn't bring myself to care for any of the characters. I just kept thinking.. who cares??? I also found the acting to be rather dead pan and the dialogue strained. I understand that this was the 1800s and all, but most of the conversations just seemed rather unnatural. No one seemed to have any emotion throughout most of the film except during melodramatic events.<br /><br />The 'romance' in the story didn't seem to be supported by anything other than 'I'm a guy and you're a girl', which I don't consider much of a romance, and yet I felt I was being steered to the belief that these people were in love. Oh well.. I guess it's the whole 'all this horror around us, we have each other to cling to' type thing, or whatever. I was also hoping for some sort of dynamic between the two best friends (who both initially seemed to have an interest in the girl) but that was just sort of dropped. Maybe avoiding a cliche love triangle. I don't know.<br /><br />Oh well.. Daniel Holt was about the only character I really truly liked. And Sue Lee was all right. I didn't exactly dislike Jake, but he seemed a bit too... spineless, I guess. Jack Bull I did not care for at all. And I'm pretty sure you're *supposed* to hate just about everyone else, with the exception of the poor normal people who just get mowed down left and right. It was pretty graphic and had that whole 'the horrors of war' thing down, but I've seen plenty of other movies with the same theme, done better. (I enjoyed The Patriot a lot, for instance, even if it was a bit emotionally manipulative) But, as I've already stated, I'm a cynic. What can I say? :) | 1 |
I enjoyed the cinematographic recreation of China in the 1930s in this beautiful film. The story is simple. An older male performer wants to pass on his art to a young man although he has no living children. The faces of the actors are marvelous to see. The story reveals the devotion and gratitude of children to those who treat them well and their longing to be treated well. The operas in the film remind me of FAREWELL MY CONCUBINE, which was more sophisticated and intricate. The story here reminds me of a Dickens tale of days when children were almost chattel. The plot is a bit predictable and a bit too sentimental for me but well worth the time to view for the heroism, humanity, and history portrayed. | 0 |
My introduction to a lifelong love of Shakespeare. My brother was 5 and I was not quite 7 when WTTW Chicago broadcast An Age of Kings. It became a family ritual to watch, including the reruns. As an autumn series, my father used to buy us a rare treat for the Midwest--pomegranates; and my mother would pop corn on the stove. Wonderful acting from actors whose names meant nothing to me then (although I will never forget the achingly young Sean Connery as Hotspur), but do now! And they published the scripts in paperback so we could follow along and figure out the language. I managed to memorize most of Richard III over that. So glad to see it coming out on DVD! Highly recommended for all ages and any level of familiarity with Shakespeare or English history. | 0 |
A picture starring Danny Devito and Billy Crystal. They are both famous actors, and in this charming comedy entails them trying to murder each other's pet peeve. Billy Crystal's pet peeve being his ex wife who stole his book and put her name on it, and Danny Devito's pet peeve being his malignant mother. Billy Crystal is an author and a teacher apparently and Danny Devito is one of his students. This comedy classic is very entertaining and for all ages.<br /><br />Danny Devito seems to act like a child in this movie because of his evil mother who keeps putting him down all the time. She says things like 'You have no friends!' and when Billy Crystal fell down, she said 'Burry him before he stinks up the basement!'. She puts down Danny also by calling him 'Lard ass!' and other things just to make him angry. | 0 |
This is indeed quite the strange movie... First, we have an ex-U.S.-gymnast trying to turn actor (or something), and this seems to be the only role he ever got (that I know of anyway) -- and for good reason. While he does pull off the role well enough to keep some interest, it is a rather bland and flat performance. Second, we have the WORST EVER sound effects ever used in a movie!!! I'm not kidding. This alone makes the movie extremely comical, but in that annoying way. hehe And third, while we have a generally decent acting supporting cast (including the required hot chick!), an actually not-so-bad story, and some cool visuals; the dialogue, fight scenes involving gymnastics (hilarious!), and overall execution of the plot are weak. This movie would have been barely better as a network TV movie (too bad Fox wasn't around in 1985). It's one of those movies that's simply bad, yet you can't resist watching and even enjoying it once you get used to it, especially now that it has found the perfect eternal home on late night TV and cable. | 1 |
I happen to have read all of Junji Ito's English released manga. I watched the Tomie film and it was a big steaming pile of turd. THANKFULLY Uzumaki actually does justice to the manga. I think those who have read the manga will really appreciate this film more, as many screenshots and camera angles are exactly like in the manga and it is interesting to see how the book characters are played in the film. This film reminds me of eerie indiana. The ending differs to the manga, which I was expecting. Kirie looks like her manga counterpart, and her male friend suits the whole very well. Very creepy I have to admit, this film feels like a feverish nightmare, the kind you have when you were a kid. Not really scary at all, but freaky, if you get my drift? Another great horror from Japan, get yourself a copy. | 0 |
Mighty Morphin Power Rangers came out in 1993, supposedly based on the Japanese sentai television show that started back in the 1970s. Now as a fan of Japanese action films and series, you would think I would get a kick out of this show.<br /><br />You could not be more wrong. What worked in the Japanese version has become a complete abomination of television with mighty morphin power rangers.<br /><br />MMPR is based on five teenagers who get powers to becomes costumed superheroes with robotic dinosaurs who form an even bigger robot.<br /><br />Now this premise is more far fetched and more laughable than anything in either Transformers movie, yet, the ridiculousness of this show is often overlooked.<br /><br />It was followed by two really bad, and I do mean, really bad movie knock offs, and the actors starring in this series, completely disappeared from the scene.<br /><br />If you must choose, try watching Japan's Zyuranger series instead.<br /><br />Also, what's up with the awful long 1990s haircuts and all the earrings on the guys? It makes them all look feminine! | 1 |
Movie 'comedies' nowadays are generally 100 minutes of toilet humor, foul language, and groin-kicking. Modern comedies appeal to the lowest common denominator, the undemanding and slow of brain. Sure, an occasional good comedy will come along, but they're becoming rarer all the time.<br /><br />'Mr. Blandings Buildings his Dream House' shows what 1940s Hollywood was capable of, and it's just screamingly funny. Jim and Muriel Blandings (Cary Grant and Myrna Loy) decide to build a house in the Connecticut suburbs. The film follows their story, beginning with house hunting trips, the house's riotous construction, all the way to the finished home--with its 'zuzz-zuzz water softener'.<br /><br />Grant and Loy are perfect for their roles, of course (Grant is particularly funny as he watches the house's costs zoom out of control). However, the film is stolen by the Blandings' wise attorney, played to perfection by Melvyn Douglas. Managing to steal every scene he's in, Douglas is understatedly hilarious while he watches the Blandings lurch from crisis to crisis. Reginald Denny as the Blandings' harried architect and Harry Shannon as the crusty old water well driller are also wonderful.<br /><br />I've watched this movie numerous times and it always makes me laugh. I think it's a good film to watch when you need a lift, whether you're building a house or not. | 0 |
A great movie, rather challenging than really entertaining. Sadly, no memorable quotes here, but this one's my favorite: Alexandre: If you're leaving someone that you have loved, you have to say what I'm telling you now: 'Farewell, I'm going.' But to disappear, to hide like a criminal, is ignoble. (didn't watch it with English subtitles)<br /><br />In my opinion, this expresses it all. There is so much tactics involved in the relationships between Alexandre and the others, and yet everyone longs for a little bit more truth. However, knowing the truth can hurt even more, as Alexandre experiences. Common interpretation is that the movie criticises the mere possibility of 'liberated love' by depicting the unwanted implications on the people involved. It does, indeed, show this in a convincing manner, but I would appreciate it if the reasons had been treated a bit more in depth: it's not that liberated love is in itself doomed to failure, but people (especially men, I think) should work on themselves and try to overcome the ruling morals before and not through practicing liberated love.<br /><br />That said, the movie's realistic though and really worthwhile watching. | 0 |
As you can guess by my rating and my title of this review that I don't like Johnny Test. Now I think I know what people are going to say, ' How do you know how bad it is? Have you ever watched it?', I did watch this show a couple times because I am studying film and animation and this just doesn't hold a candle to my standards.<br /><br />I want to first talk about the animation because it is one of the most confusing things I have ever seen. Like the first two seasons or only first season had hand drawn animation. I thought it was a nice show to look at when it was hand drawn but then it switched to flash animation and the quality went down by a huge amount.<br /><br />So that is one strike in my eyes but lets look at the story of the show. It tries way too hard to be like Dexter's lab but there are differences because instead of one red headed scientist there is two and they are both female. There is a talking dog(why?), and the parents attitudes are switched somewhat. I have others but I don't think I can write them here ( I don't mean cursing but I mean I don't know if there is a limit for words.). Everything else though is spot on, even a DeeDee character Johnny himself. It just tries so hard to be Dexter but it just seems to me like a heartless knockoff.<br /><br />Lastly I want to talk about the jokes. Remember in Dexters lab some of the jokes involved yelling? Yes, yelling can be good for a joke or two but Dexter's lab also had sly remarks that made me have to go back and check to get the joke. Johnny Test just forgets all that and just yells 50% of the time and stops the music whenever a stupid joke or one liner appears. That isn't comedy, thats stupid comedy (I know what some people are thinking. Isn't three stooges stupid comedy? Watch that and Johnny Test back to back and you laugh more at the first option.). Sometimes the jokes are based on bizarre situations which, like Chowder, makes me mad. I have a rule for cartoons and comedies all together: To much bizarre doesn't equal comedy, it makes you just think 'what am I watching?'.<br /><br />So it strikes out on all accounts. Don't watch this show if you have any respect for comedy in anyway, shape, or form. | 1 |
Stephane Audran is the eponymous heroine of this beautifully measured study of a small Danish community towards the end of the last century. Two beautiful and musically talented sisters give-up their own prospects of happiness and marriage in order to look-after their ageing father. One day, a French woman, Babette, comes to work for them. After some years she wins the lottery and is determined to do something for the sisters who have taken her in. Her solution is to prepare an exquisite and sumptuous feast, which changes the lives of all those invited. This is a film about human and cultural interaction, reflected in the changing language of the dialogue from Danish to French, and especially between the dutiful sobriety of Protestant northern Europe and the sensuousness of the Catholic south. It is also about human needs, and how warmth and kindness can be expressed and stimulated through the cultivation of the senses. A profoundly uplifting film. | 0 |
Yong-ki Jeong's 'Puppet Master only with scary parts' was the most recent Korean Horror flick I had the pleasure of watching. With the title of 'Inhyeongsa' in Asia, this movie struck me immediately when I saw it reviewed online, with images that made me think of Puppet Master, Childs Play and other toy/doll based horror flicks in the past. But for some reason I didn't think..'Boy, this will be tacky', I imagined it would be creepy and fun. Toysome horror done well almost.<br /><br />The movie starts slowly, but I like that, so it was fine. The score, almost like I found with Acacia, was beautiful and very much reminded me of classic horror scores of the past. I wont give much away, but the story was strong in this one, and I would highly recommend it to any fan of Asian HORROR. It isn't extreme, it isn't to be taken with utmost seriousness, but it is really good. | 0 |
This is easily the worst Ridley Scott film. Ridley Scott is a wonderful director. But this film is a black mark on his career. Demi Moore and Viggo Mortensen, both totally miscast in an overaggressive film about a girl going to the army. Very stupid. And there is never one scene that is convincing in any way. It is really not difficult to make a film such as this. Everything the crew makes could have been an idea of just anybody. The writers didn't have much inspiration either; many foolish dialogs that made no sense at all; and some brainless action. I strongly recommend to stay away from this rubbish. I hope that the many talented persons involved in this project realize this type of film does not deserve their attention, and that in the future they will work on more honorable and more intelligent movies than this useless mess. | 1 |
I read the novel some years ago and I liked it a lot. when I saw the movie I couldn't believe it... They changed everything I liked about the novel, even the plot. I wonder what did Isabel Allende (author) say about the movie, but I think it sucks!!! | 1 |
When I saw this movie i expected it to be a cheesy American movie done on the cheap with appalling actors. I was really surprised to find that i was totally wrong. The movie centres around Bartely or B who has been rejected from all of his colleges- the actor who play B is very natural and makes his character seem real- and decides to create a pretend school so his parents stop harassing him. However loads of people see his fake website and join. Feeling their sorrows B can't turn them away much to the chagrin of his best mate. The college is the ideal place with you learning what you want or doing nothing. The school faces opposition from the proper college which ends up closing it down. The film ends on a high and i recommend you watching it. Its does have it flaws but it is a feel good cheerful film with a few unpredictable twists. | 0 |
There is a certain genius behind this movie. I was laughing throughout. The scene in the phone sex office, discussing how love heals the doppelganger was a nice attempt at this genius/humor. Execution is poor, but you can see the writer's message and they do have some talent. The doppelganger split at the end was like... 'ok, wasn't quite expecting that but let's see what the movie has to say'. Certainly ridiculous, but a sweet idea and actually very coherent to the story in a strange way.<br /><br />Is the point of a movie to be logical or is it to be entertaining or communicate on an emotional level? i'm easily bored by many movies, but this one kept my interest throughout.<br /><br />I think the story may have some auto-biographical roots, but that's just a guess. Horribly bad, but good. I'm looking for other movies this person may have done (with more experience). | 0 |
******WARNING: MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS**************<br /><br />So who are these 'Mystery Men?' Simply put, the Mystery Men are a group of sub-Heroes desperately trying to live out their adolescent fantasy lives while botching both their real identities and their super identities. The Shoveller (Bill Macy) works construction during the day, and at night, leaves his wife and kids at home while he cruises the street looking for crimes to tackle with his extraordinary and unique Shovel-fighting style. The Blue Raja (Hank Azaria) sells silverware to newlyweds by day and flings tableware at crackpot villians by night, if his mom isn't keeping him busy with the latest snooping. Mr. Furious works in a junk yard to earn his pay, then takes out his frustration on his friends at night, tossing ill-conceived one-liners at friend and foe alike and threatening to get really angry (leaving everyone to wonder, So What?). Ben Stiller breathes such life into this character, you can't help but love him.<br /><br />These three spend their nights trying to capture that 'moment of glory' they've dreamed about... becoming real Super Heroes. Obviously, it could happen. Champion City has Captain Amazing, after all... a flying, fighting super-cop with enough corporate logos on his costume to stop an extra bullet or two. Greg Kinnear turns in a stellar performance as a middle-aged sellout trying to recapture his fans attention in the twilight of his career.<br /><br />To bring back that 'extra magic' that might win the endorsements again, C.A. frees Casanova Frankenstein, a WAAAAAY over-the-top menace played to chilling perfection by Goeffrey Rush. This lunatic genius has created a 'psychofrakulator' to warp Champion City into a reflection of his own insanities... and ends up capturing C.A. within hours of his release from prison. This leaves only the Mystery Men to stop Frankenstein's evil plan, but with such henchmen as the Disco Boys protecting Frankenstein, the trio are going to need a little help.<br /><br />Recruiting commences, and after a painful recruitment party, the team settles in with The Bowler (Janeane Garofolo), who initially has the only real talent in the team, with her mystic bowling ball seemingly animated by the vengeful spirit of her dead father; the Invisible Boy (Kel Mitchell), who CLAIMS to turn invisible when ABSOLUTELY NO ONE is looking at him; the Spleen (Paul Reubens), granted mystically powerful flatulence by an angry gypsy; and the much underused Sphinx (Wes Studi), who is shown to be able to cut guns in half with his mind, then spends much of the rest of the movie spouting inane riddles and acting over-wise.<br /><br />This film really is a cross-genre romp. Anyone wanting to pigeon-hole films into neat little categories is fighting a losing battle. This is a spoof/parody of the superhero genre - from the pseudo-Burton sets recycled endlessly (and occasionally decorated with more spoof material) to the ridiculous costumes, the comic-book genre gets a pretty good send-up. But at the same time, it is a serious superhero flick, as well. Both at once. While not a necessarily unique idea in itself (for example, this movie is in some ways reflective of D.C. Comic's short-lived Inferior Five work), it is fairly innovative for the big screen. It offers the comic-book world that requires a suspension of disbelief to accept anyway, then throws in the inevitable wanna-bes - and we all know, if superheroes were real, so would these guys be real. If the Big Guy with the S were flying around New York City, you'd see a half-dozen news reports about idiots in underwear getting their butts kicked on a regular basis. Sure, the Shoveller fights pretty well, and the Blue Raja hurls forks with great accuracy - all parts of the super-hero world. But does that make them genuine super-heroes? Only in their minds.<br /><br />This movie is also a comedy, albeit a dark one. Inevitable, when trying to point out the patent ridiculous nature of super-heroics. One-liners fly as the comic geniuses on stage throw out numerous bits to play off of. Particularly marvelous is the dialogue by Janeane Garofalo with her bowling ball/father. Yet, it isn't a comedy in the sense of side-splitting laughter or eternally memorable jokes. It mixes in a dose of drama, of discovery and of romance, but never really ventures fully into any of it.<br /><br />What really makes Mystery Men a good film, in the end, is that it is very engaging. The weak/lame good guys are eventually justified and, for one shining moment, really become super-heroes; justice is served; and the movie ends with a scene that reeks of realism (as much realism as is possible in a world where bowling balls fly and glasses make the perfect disguise). If the viewer stops trying to label the film, then the film can be a great romp.<br /><br />Of course, no movie is perfect. Claire Forlani comes off as bored and directionless as Mr. Furious' love interest, in spite of having a pivotal role as his conscience. Tom Waits seems somehow confused by his own lines as the mad inventor Dr. Heller, although his opening scenes picking up retired ladies in the nursing home is worth watching alone. And the villians are never more than gun-toting lackeys (a point of which is made in the film). The cinematography is choppy and disjointed (such as happens in the average comic book, so it is excusable), the music sometimes overpowers the scenery, and the special effects are never quite integrated into the rest very well.<br /><br />Yet, overall, this film is incredible. You probably have to be a fan of comics and the superhero genre to really appreciate this movie, but it's a fun romp and a good way to kill a couple of hours and let your brain rest.<br /><br />8/10 in my opinion. | 0 |
I finally got myself set up on mail order DVD rental so I could find movies not available to me in the stores. I chose The Souler Opposite because I love Christopher Meloni, and also like small, often ignored films.<br /><br />This one is such a treat! Meloni has such charm in this part. It's easy to pigeon hole him is you only ever see him as his alter ego Elliot Stabler (LOSVU). In this film, Meloni is an out of step unattached mid-lifer who is hitting the skids in many ways, only to find a path to happiness in someone unexpected.<br /><br />The relationship drawn between Barry (Meloni) and Tim Busfield's character is realistic and not over done. I haven't seen Busfield since 30something, and he was fun to watch. But it was all Chris' film. I became such a fan girl all over again.<br /><br />It is a bit slow in the beginning, I will admit. I thought some of the 'flashbacks' could have been edited down. But overall, this film will delight you - male or female - as it has an honest, refreshing view of relationships today. | 0 |
I saw the film at the Belgrade Film Festival last week, and I'm still working off the trauma. Essentially my view seems to match a number of others - the first half hour was fresh, sharp, deep, entertaining and promising. Well acted too. Natural. My problem, however, is not simply with the fact that the final hour and a half of the film have nothing to do with the likable beginning, nor the fact that I spent most of this time convulsing in agony at sharp, grating industrial sounds and squinting at drunken, toothless, bread-chewing hags. It's rather with the fact that THEY NEVER WARNED ME!!! The festival brochure synopsis described only the (utterly intriguing-sounding) first half hour - a whore, piano tuner and meat seller chat in a bar, pretending to be an advertising agent, genetic engineer, and petty government administration official, respectively - making no mention whatsoever of the never-ending gum-smacking to come. Serves me right for not reading the reviews, you might say - but to my defense, a number of reviews I looked at post-fact um didn't at all stress the immensity and utter unbearableness of the greater part of the film.<br /><br />The first hint should have been the introductory words by the director (a bashful, tousle-haired Russian youth) who stepped in front of the crammed auditorium (the film seems to be doing incredibly well critically, and tickets were sold out well in advance of the screening, though most of the audience seemed as unaware as I was of the pain to come, judging by the plethora of unearthly moans and groans that utterly permeated the theatre during the last half hour, and many exasperated comments on exit) to say the following: 'Well, I... um, thank you very much for coming to see this film, and I just wanted to say... well, it's a very long film... it took me four years to make it, and... it's.. I suggest that you see it and immediately try to forget about it. It is very long. Thank you for coming.' This is what he said. Alarm bells should have been ringing. 'What's he talking about?' I thought in happy confusion. 'This is gonna be fun!' Of course, by the time his strangely apologetic comments started making sense to me, it was far too late to get out. All I could do is writhe in increasing agony until the lights came on again. And in the end I can't say I feel in any way improved by the experience. Yes, I absolutely loved the first half hour. It was intelligent, new, and had a lot to say. And yes, Russia is probably in a bad state. Yes, every society has many hidden faces. Yes, toothless life in barren wastelands is probably unimaginably hard. Yes yes yes. I get all of this. Really I do. But I see no earthly reason why art and meaning should be so agonisingly drawn out, and so painful to bear. If you want to see a film land somewhere between the extremes of glitzy Hollywood plastic fantastic and hours of muddy vodka swigging, try the Korean-Chinese Bin Jip (3-Iron). It's artsy and surprising, but also to-the-point and fun. | 1 |
i got a copy from the writer of this movie on soulseek. I have to say it is pathetic and just plain painful to watch the two cops act, but i watched the movie as a joke and since it is a homage to august's underground which i happened to have seen it is in my book as an awesome movie. Its quality and everything about it is pretty bad but its entertaining and something to talk about amongst your friends. Reminds me of troma but good stuff. I recommend seeing this under two conditions, if you are bored and need a good laugh, or high, otherwise just let it be. Recommended download for sure. o and the killings are pretty funny. like when the zombie rips the Satan worshipers dick off and stabs someone in the head with it. | 1 |
Although inevitably linked to the 70's decade, the concept of 'exploitation-cinema' is actually nearly as old as cinema itself. Moreover, Universal Studios practically invented the term with their long running monster cycles Dracula, Frankenstein, The Wolf Man and The Mummy. Every original classic spawned a couple of sequels, at least, and after a while they even thought up the idea of making genuine monster stewing! 'House of Frankenstein', released one year earlier and also directed by Erle C. Kenton, was quite a successful effort with interesting ideas and enthusiast performances, but 'House of Dracula' is a little too loony for me to recommend it. The plot suffers too much from extremely irritating 'coincidental' situations, forced twists & dialogs and most of all a far too short running time to elaborate the monsters' personalities like they deserve. Onslow Stevens doesn't receive top billing but plays the most fundamental role as miracle a doctor who's challenged to cure Count Dracula (Carradine) from his incontrollable thirst for blood and fix Lawrence Talbot's illness of mutating into a hairy Wolf Man whenever the moon is full. During a nightly walk in some caves, they also pick up the remainders of Frankenstein's monster and the good doctor himself eventually undergoes a Jekyll/Hyde metamorphosis due to a bad blood transfusion. The last invitation to the messy party is a female hunchback (though not of the Notre Dame). Something is very wrong when you're watching a movie that is literally stuffed with horror icons, yet the only character in the whole movie that is able to freak you out is an ordinary villager going by the name Siegfried. The actual monsters are dull and their once-fabulous backgrounds are fully drained. Count Dracula is a whining romanticist, Talbot is a pitiable and also whining old martyr and the Frankenstein creation
well, his share in the plot isn't even worth mentioning. There's a serious lack of atmospheric settings and nifty photography in this Universal film, especially compared to all their other efforts, and the abrupt climax is a disaster. | 1 |
This was another great Tom Berenger movie.. But some people are right it was like another SGT BARNES character but it was still awsome.. Tom Berenger played a great sniper in the jungles Of Panama! Billy Zane was a wuss at first just like Cpl Upham from Saving Private Ryan but then he got a little more aggresive in the end! Sniper was awsome and action buffs should watch it.. I remind you it wouldnt have as much action as a reg action flick.. i got this one on DVD too and it is excellent! | 0 |
I haven't read this book, but all through the movie I was awestruck with only one thought in my head: This is so Vonnegut. I have never seen an author, all of the intelligence and life behind the workings of a novel, translated so well to film. This movie had the same complexities found in Vonnegut's novels: the jokes were often meaningful and symbolic, and the dramatic events and symbols were often also jokes.<br /><br />Campbell was also a very Vonnegut character, portrayed perfectly by Nick Nolte. He had all of the earmarks of a Vonnegut 'hero': lack of concern for political boundaries, ironic dark humor giving way to dumb inactivity in response to stress, and an unwillingness to push his version of reality on those around him.<br /><br />Overall, I was constantly surprised and impressed as I watched this movie. It was the same feeling I had reading 'Cat's Cradle,' my first Vonnegut novel, as if the most perfectly oddball thing that could happen, he thought of THAT, and he made it real and important. Yes, he has nothing but army surplus 'White Christmas' albums. So it goes! | 0 |
First I bough this movie on VHS than I just had to buy it on dvd, it is on of my favorite movies of all time. I have read the book, but I really think the movie is much better. I loved Gwyneth Paltrow as Emma and Jeremy Northam as Mr. Knightley was an excellent chose. He was brilliant!<br /><br />It's a 10/10 movie!!!<br /><br /> | 0 |
After a promising first 25 minutes that makes you feel all warm inside, you're pretty convinced that this will be a great romantic comedy. Then the movie takes a turn for the worse. <br /><br />The warm feeling might still be there, but as others has said: The plot becomes so unbelievable and artificial that it's almost unbearable to watch. <br /><br />The movie gets sped up, and you get the impression that you're either fast forwarding through it, or that the producers decided to fit it in less than 1h40m and had to cut a lot of scenes out.<br /><br />Realism isn't a goal onto itself, but as a viewer, I'm pretty convinced that this comedy isn't intentionally unrealistic, it just happens to be.<br /><br />On the plus side, this movie has a couple of nice interiors, and despite the bad script, I think that the actors performances are mainly good. If I could rate the first 25 minutes only, I'd probably give it an eight. As it is now, it gets a four. ...And that's being nice! <br /><br />If you're a sucker for romantic comedies you'll probably have a great time anyways. If not, I'd recommend that you watch something else. | 1 |
Everything that you need to know about the pornography of the late 70s and early 80s is all wrapped up in Paul Thomas Anderson's BOOGIE NIGHTS. Although the film is completely fictional, it is actually supposedly based on the story of porno kingpin John Holmes.<br /><br />In Southern California in 1977, Eddie Adams (Mark Wahlberg) is working as a busboy in a nightclub. One of the regular customers is pornographer Jack Horner (Burt Reynolds) and two of his starlets, Amber Waves (Julianne Moore) and Rollergirl (Heather Graham). Jack and Eddie meet and Jack realizes that Eddie is well...a little...gifted.<br /><br />So Eddie stars in Jack's films under the pseudonym of 'Dirk Diggler.' He becomes a 'big' porno star (no pun intended) and seems to be on top of everything. Then comes the 80s when video replaces film and Jack's porno empire begins to collapse, along with Dirk Diggler and everybody else working in the field.<br /><br />BOOGIE NIGHTS is a really well-filmed drama. There is a little bit of violence, but P.T. Anderson makes it more stylized. And it kind of is a scathing approach to the degradations of pornography, especially when VHS became the standard medium for making pornos.<br /><br />A lot of bizarre and unique characters are introduced. William H. Macy has an interesting role as someone working on the films, whose wife keeps having sex with everybody. I especially liked Don Cheadle's role as Buck the stereo salesman. The best performance is BOOGIE NIGHTS was definitely Burt Reynolds. A 90s classic! | 0 |
I was pleasantly pleased with the ending. I just saw this movie yesterday, and was going to turn it off, but changed my mind. It was not at all the direction I thought the story would end on. Thats about all positive I can say about this film. All of the actors are nobodys, especially the lead. While she is an attractive young woman, she'll never make it big. The writing, direction, and acting are wooded, sort of like what you would see on daytime soaps. The filming locations were very clever in making you think it could be anywhere, instead of blatantly tipping off it was in Canada. As this was shot entirely in Canada, I'm assuming the entire lot was Canadien, which is not entirely bad as some recent Canadien TV productions: 'Cold Squad', 'Stone; Underover' are quite well done. | 1 |
I'm a big mark for the music of Neil Young, and with that and the glowing praise the film received in many alt-indie press circles, hit the first showing of Greendale I could find. My excitement was short-lived, as this turgid storyline and weak lyrical momentum left most filmgoers either asleep or disappointed.<br /><br />Neil says the film started as a soundtrack, and the characters came to life so much that they just filmed the soundtrack. Not the best way to craft a story. No character really has an arc, and when 'significant' events do happen, the viewer doesn't cared, because film technique annoyance levels are so high by that point. The film is all song, and to that end, the characters on end mouth the lyrics as they're sung...the technique works for the first stanza it is done, and is grating on the nerves after that. It doesn't feel real or fake, it just feels unwelcome.<br /><br />Terrible acting, with characters finding one mood and playing all of it. Poor lighting at times. The only kudos I can give the film are in regard to several scenes shot as newscast, but the technique is so used in cinema today that this film did little to further it. An alright soundtrack, but nothing I'm quick to buy. A bad film. | 1 |
I appreciate the effort that the filmmakers wanted to depict the story of Moses and the exodus of Israel, and that the film helps viewers to put themselves into Moses' shoes and gain understanding of the intense burden laid upon Moses' shoulders. As excited as I was to see this film, I was greatly disappointed in the storyline. (I'll leave out the videography, special effects, and artistic ability in this review.) What is most disappointing is the historical inaccuracy of this movie and how it is so far from the historical accounts from Biblical texts. One of the overarching principles from the Bible is that *God* led His people out of Egypt, and He promised that He would take them to a land that is flowing with milk and honey. Not only did He give this promise, but He led His people in a pillar of cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night. He never left them; He always was visible to the Israelites. The movie, however, depicts a God who remains silent during the entire wandering through the desert. This movie changed the essence and theme of the Biblical text and instead depicts God as a silent, cruel, disciplinary void.<br /><br />In addition, the depiction of Moses was just as wrong. Moses was known as a man of faith (why else would he be such a father-figure to Israel throughout the Old and New Testaments, even that Moses is known as a man of great faith). However, the movie depicts him as a pragmatic, angry, insecure loner who despises the calling that God placed on his life. OK, I'll allow some creative freedom for the filmmakers in the Exodus story... but this is beyond creativity -- it is heresy. | 1 |
Harlan Knowles (Lance Henriksen) brings a group of people to a mountain to help find his missing daughter (Erica Durance). What they don't know is that she was killed by a sasquatch (Taras Kostyuk) and it's still out there... waiting for them.<br /><br />It was a late night when I poped this into my DVD player. I seriously wish I could go back in time and stop me. Most people will tell you that films like 'House of the Dead' or 'S.I.C.K: Serial Insain Clown Killers' will be the movies you wish you've never seen. Wrong. This will be.<br /><br />I've seen a lot of crap, but this is the only crap that's haunted me. How I wish I never watched this! The acting actually isn't so bad. It's just the writing and the directing and the pacing and everything! I am actually a fan of Sasquatch films. But not this one.<br /><br />Please, listen to my warning. Don't watch this! | 1 |
If it wasn't for some immature gullible idiot I know insisting that I watch this 'documentary' I would never have seen this comedy! This film is full of bad scripting and laughable moments. One in particular is where the Afghan police / soldiers arrest Don Larson for filming in the streets while they allow the cameraman to carry on filming his arrest and then drive away, still filming, presumably to his plush hotel. Then there's the scene where a car crashes into another car which has been turned upside down and parked nicely on the side of the road without any evidence of it being in a crash or explosion.<br /><br />I am surprised this has currently got the rating it has (5.8 / 10). I thought IMDb users had more sense. | 1 |
Lord Alan Cunningham(Antonio De Teffè)is a nutjob{seen early on trying to escape an insane asylum}, with this castle slowly succumbing to ruin, likes to kill various hookers who resemble his deceased wife Evelyn, a woman who betrayed him for another man, with those red locks. This nutcase is quite wealthy and his bachelor status can be quite alluring. He, however, is overrun by his obsession with his late wife's memory(specifically her adultery..he saw her naked with the lover). While the memory of Evelyn is almost devouring his whole existence, Alan tries his best to find true love and believes he has with Gladys(Marina Malfatti, who spends most of the film naked..that's probably her lone attribute since she isn't a very good actress), who agrees to marry him after a very short courtship which should probably throw up flags right away{there's a key moment of dialogue where she knows exactly to the very amount what he is worth}.<br /><br />The only real person Alan can confide in is his doctor from the hospital, Dr. Richard Timberlane(Giacomo Rossi-Stuart). There are other key characters in this film that revolve around Alan. Alan's cousin, George(Rod Murdock), seems to be quite a good friend who often supplies him victims..I mean dates, while holding onto hope of getting his lord's estate some day. Albert(Roberto Maldera), Evelyn's brother, is a witness to Alan's slaughter and, instead of turning him into the police, squeezes him for cash. Aunt Agatha(Joan C Davis), wheelchair bound, lives at the castle estate and is often seen snooping around behind cracked doors. We later find that she is having a love affair with Albert.<br /><br />All that is described above services the rest of the story which shows what appears to be the ghost of Evelyn haunting Alan, someone is killing off members of the cast family that revolve around Alan, and the body of Evelyn is indeed missing.<br /><br />The ultimate question is who is committing the crimes after Alan and Gladys are married, where is Evelyn's body, and will Alan go over the edge? I have to be honest and say I just didn't really care much for this film. It's badly uneven and the pacing is all over the place. It looks great on the new DVD and the 'rising from the grave sequence' is cool, but what really hurts the film in my mind is that the entire cast is unlikable. You really have a hard time caring for Alan because he is a psychotic who is skating on thin ice in regards to holding his sanity. He can be quite volatile. Who commits the crime really isn't that great a surprise for after several key characters are murdered off, there aren't but a choice few who could be doing it. What happens to Alan doesn't really make your throat gulp because you can make the argument he's just getting what he deserves. Those behind the whole scheme of the film in regards to Alan, as I pointed out before, aren't that shocking because if you are just slightly aware of certain circumstances(..or advantages they'd have)that would benefit them with the collapse of Alan's sanity, then everything just comes off less than stellar. I thought the editing was choppy and unexciting, but the acting from the entire cast is really below par. Some stylistics help and there is a sniff of Gothic atmosphere in the graveyard sequences to help it some. | 1 |
So I finally saw the film 'My Left Foot' last night after years of being told by my mother how amazing it is... The central performance of Day-Lewis is indeed remarkable and amazing, but anyone with even minimal exposure to his other work should expect nothing less.<br /><br />The fatal misjudgement in my eyes was that in becoming obsessed with proving the normalcy of this man; the movie chose to show him as a complete and utter jerk. On the one hand I can see that this is a logical correlation; mankind always has the capacity to be objectionable, and disability shouldn't obscure that. I just wish that impartial onlookers wouldn't be so forgiving of aberrant behaviour and assume that circumstances automatically make it forgivable. They don't. Acting out is normal, and so yes, disabled people act out - but they don't do it because they're disabled; they do it because they're being unreasonable. A physical impairment doesn't afford you the right to throw a hissy fit in public, just because someone you love turns you down.<br /><br />There are certain things it is unwise to do whether you are disabled or able-bodied. Giving someone tacit permission to boot a football directly at your head for the sole purpose of fitting in is one of them. (Admittedly, I did once save a penalty from the school's star striker with my face, but I already belonged by then. It wasn't for acceptance.) Engaging in a bar brawl is another. Revelling in the fact that your father only extends companionship to you after you've proved yourself capable of metaphorically jumping through physical hoops takes masochism a step too far. All of these things are stupid, and suffering through them as a way to demonstrate your bravery doesn't make them any less foolhardy.<br /><br />So yes; just because you've overcome obstacles to achieve great things doesn't make you any less of a jerk... Being a good person takes priority; setting an inspiring example for the disabled should appear way down the list. | 1 |
I enjoy science-fiction just as much as the next man
but what the hell was that? Apparently shot over just three days using excess film stock left over from his previous film, 'Nana (1926),' this Jean Renoir short is a bewildering futuristic satire, produced on a budget that couldn't have been much more than zero. In the year 2028, following a great war, Africa has become the most civilised region on Earth, and what was formerly Europe has been designated 'Terres Inconnues (Unknown Land).' An African explorer played by Johnny Huggins, a Black man dressed up as a White man dressed up as a Black man, if you follow me travels to the ruins of Paris in his spherical aircraft, and lands outside the lair of a Parisian savage (Catherine Hessling, then the director's wife) and her primate companion, perhaps the creepiest ape-man costume I've ever seen. The savage, as part of some bizarre sexual initiation ritual, starts showing the explorer the Charleston dance, which he is delighted to learn himself.<br /><br />It doesn't help the film that Hessling, who was wonderful the following year in Renoir's 'The Little Match Girl (1928),' isn't much of a dancer, though the extensive use of slow-motion adds a touch of surrealism to the ceremony. Furthermore, I'm quite shocked that Renoir would exploit his own wife as such a blatant sexual object it doesn't come as a surprise to learn of their divorce just three years later! On the plus side, I did like the general sci-fi concept behind the film, and the slyly satiric touch of the reversing the racial roles usually typical in such stories as this. However, why Renoir decided to dress up his Black actor as a minstrel will remain a mystery for all of time. Silly, crude and quite pointless, 'Charleston Parade (1927)' is a cinematic oddity from one of cinema's most respected directors, and is perhaps an effort that he would have liked to forget. The DVD version came without a musical soundtrack, but I compromised with a selection of pieces from Dmitri Shostakovich. | 1 |
hey i think this movie was great and it had great graphics and i was vary glad they used final fantasy 7 i think that game was the best i ever played anyways this is a great movie and i loved it.They should make another one but maybe they should ether use final fantasy 7 again or final fantasy 10 there both pretty awesome from:Tyler Sheena i hope you can email me back if you have any details if there is another one .people for anyone else reading this i suggest you see this movie it is animated but it looks pretty realistic and its got awesome fighting scenes i haven't see that fast of fighting in a movie for a long time. The game final fantasy 7 is also really great not good graphics but its really fun and challenging | 0 |
This film is the smartest comedy I have ever seen, a lot of jokes are either a parody of another film, (from star wars to dragon ball to power rangers to kung fu etc..) or somehow related to history of whatever, (Otis creates the elevator), a lot of jokes are also related to the modern world and made fun of because it was B.C. (Like the wheels of the horse wagon spinning) Other jokes are just plain total non-sense but also hilarious (like the famous scene, with the dog running after the roman guy with the little music) In fact in this movies they mix pretty much every kind of humor. I watched this film 6 times already and every single time I watch it I find other subtle jokes. (like the scene where waldo is part of the Egyptian crowd). It is the funniest movie I have every seem, finally a laugh-out-loud comedy, that doesn't include toilet or sex humor. Numerobis is also what makes the movie, everything that comes out of that guys mouth is hilarious. This movie is nearly perfect except a few clichéd thing, like the fact that Asterix gets his power back because he is kissed, that is plain stupid. But overall an excellent movie!! 9.5 out 10 | 0 |
The Priyadarshan/Paresh Rawal combo has been golden before with the likes of HERA PHERI and HUNGAMA so I went into the movie (at an Indian multiplex) with high hopes, especially after the slick promos. Unfortunately, like HULCHUL before it, this movie was a huge disappointment.<br /><br />Like others have commented, the premise of the movie, which was already stale to begin with, just gets stretched on and on without any development or additional layering. After a while, you just want the movie to end so you can go home (if I had been watching this at home, it would have been much easier to cut my losses). Akshay Kumar's performance is average at best and John Abraham should not try doing comedy again. The comedy aspects of the movie overall were pretty week. I only remember giggling like twice the entire movie. Definitely no sidesplitting belly laughs that consumed me in HERA PHERI or even to a lesser extent in AWARA PAAGAL DEEWANA. Paresh Rawal had a few of his expected classic moments, but overall, because his role and character wasn't given much room to grow, he didn't make much of an impact in this film.<br /><br />Neha Dhupia, who makes only an appearance in the movie, was fun to look at while she was on screen. And some of the songs are fun. Especially the opening and closing songs of ADA and KISS ME BABY, respectively. Otherwise, you're better off just passing on this movie. | 1 |
I watched this on the tube last night. The actor's involved first caught my attention. The first scenes were attention getters. Some funny some sad. Good character development. I felt that the latter third of the film diverged. If it was not for the early part of the movie I would have stopped watching. I kept watching wanting to how how it tied together.<br /><br />Unfortunately I feel that it never happened. I especially did not like the extend period that several of the character were talking yiddish (?). Was that the other shoe?<br /><br />Would I recommend? No, I think not. As other reviewers mention much of the slang is dated (60's jive) but it was not too distracting. The ending totally turned me off. | 1 |
I wasn't impressed with the Graffiti Artist, despite it's artsy (aka. low budget improvisation) appeal. There is little dialog and at least for me, I was disappointed that it didn't give more credit or promote the work of guerrilla artists such as these. Instead, it was a story that covers familiar territory. Two guys who basically do little more than tag buildings become friends, tagging partners, and eventually experiment with a relationship. They seem like opposites, rather uncomfortable together. Little is explained about their backgrounds and the things between the two young men happen at rapid speed (although, this I can understand because it's only 70 minutes or so). There's been countless numbers of similar plots and productions in recent years to the point that the sphere of independent film is starting to become just as saturated with this particular storytelling just as the mainstream has become saturated with this and more.<br /><br />Much of the film may bore the viewer who needs immediate dialog and purpose. The primary figure of this story (at least extensively), performs his routines with nearly no dialog, no insight, and nothing else to carry the viewer. And, for a short film, I wished they could've gotten to the point a lot faster. That, aside from the typical plot annoyed me. Yet, there was something about a momentary glimpse into the daily habits of at least two graffiti artists, even if most of it was rather unoccupied time.<br /><br />Recommended if you're tired of the mainstream crap and don't mind an indie picture and have some interested into this underground, urban art form. But, you really have to watch it for yourself, because this seems to be one with a more acquired taste. For more recent indie films centering on graffiti artists, check out Transit. | 1 |
Once I knew that Donald Sutherland, (Jack Shaw/Henry Fields) was appearing in this film it instantly told me this was going to be a good picture to view. Most of Sutherland's pictures are full of action and suspense and he can play a rather cruel character and can also be quite charming and kind. In this picture, Jack Shaw did his very best to be a good guy and a bad guy while he was training a Naval Office to become a spy who had to change his entire identity and become a different person over night. There is plenty of car chase scenes and plenty of stunt men situations which I would not want to perform. This Naval Officer lived in a quite community with his wife and was a father, but you would never realize that fact until the film reveals his horrible background secrets which he had to keep from his family and friends. Good spy film and great acting by all the actors. | 0 |
This was truly the most painful experience I have had in quite some time in a movie theater. I will forego such facile criticisms as 'maudlin' or 'historically inaccurate' or 'horse's crap's crap' because quite simply our sympathies would then immediately go out to these words. If a director's to make a sweeping grandiose love epic, well for god's sake MAKE A REAL DAMN SWEEPING GRANDIOSE LOVE EPIC! Why bother with such laughably unconvincing second rate harlequin romances and such boring interchanges between characters we could care less about when the most decisive battle on Canadian soil is taking place? And for the pompous people thinking 'oh well, this story must center characters!' well you're wrong, dead wrong. | 1 |
It does not surprise me that this short (91 minutes) B/W movie that was made 50 years ago in the Soviet Union during the short period called 'ottepel'' or 'the thaw', has gained so much love and admiration among the movie lovers over the world. It is sublime and beautifully filmed. Some scenes feel like there were made way ahead of their time. Sergei Urusevsky's camera work and creative discoveries were included in the text books and widely imitated. The film tells the moving and timeless story of love destroyed by merciless war but eternally alive in the memory of a young woman. It is also the film about loyalty, memories, ability to live on when it seems there is nothing to live for; it is about forgiveness, and about hope. The film received (absolutely deservingly) the Grand Prix at Cannes Film Festival and Tatiana Samoilova was chosen as a recipient of a special award at Cannes for playing Veronika, the young girl happily in love with the best man in the world in the beginning of the movie. After separation with her beloved who went to the front, the loss of her family in the bomb ride, and the marriage to the man she never loved and only wished he never existed, she turned to the shadow of herself, she became dead inside. Her long journey to redemption, to finally accepting death of her beloved and to learning how to live with it, is a fascinating and heartbreaking one and it simply won't leave any viewer indifferent.<br /><br />For me, the movie is very personal and dear because I was born and grew up in the city where its characters lived and were so happy in the beginning. I walked the same streets, squares, and bridges over the Moskva River. Every family in the former Soviet Union had lost at least one but often more than one family member to a combat or to the concentration camp or to the ghetto or to hunger, cold, and illnesses during WWII and my family is not exception. My mother and grandmother knew the horrors of war and never healing pain of losses not just from the movies and the books. 'Cranes are Flying' speaks to me clearly and honestly and touches me very deeply. It is a masterpiece of movie making but it is a part of my life - my background, my memory, and my past. | 0 |
The Shining starts with Jack Torrance (Jack Nicholson) driving to an isolated hotel named the 'Overlook' situated high in the Colorado mountains for an interview with it's manager Stuart Ullman (Barry Nelson) about becoming the Winter caretaker. Ullman tells Jack that he will be responsible for the basic upkeep of the hotel but will be almost totally isolated from the rest of the world for six months as the harsh Winter sets in. Together with his wife Wendy (Shelley Duvall) & young son Danny (Danny Lloyd) Jack moves into the hotel & at first everything seems fine, it's a beautiful hotel, absolutely huge & whatever they need is at their disposal. However the Overlook hotel has a murky past with a previous caretaker murdering his entire family before committing suicide & Danny has the ability to 'shine' which means he has psychic powers that let him see & hear things 'ordinary' people can't. As the days, weeks & months begin to pass Jack become more & more insane, Danny keeps 'seeing' things & people while Wendy becomes frantic as she doesn't have a clue what's happening to her family, as a heavy snowstorm leaves them trapped Jack finally loses it...<br /><br />This English production was co-written, co-produced & directed by Stanley Kubrick & is a fine horror film. It appears that The Shining is another film that exists in two distinct different versions & the one I will be commenting on is the shorter European cut that runs just under 2 hours in length. The script by Kubrick & Diane Johnson, is based on the novel by Stephen King which I have not read so I can't compare them, goes for psychological horror rather than visual with only one murder during the entire film. There are very few character's in The Shining with Jack, Wendy & Danny the only ones that really matter, since the film concentrates on them almost exclusively you care for them, become involved with them & what they go through. The pace is somewhat slow but this is one film that didn't feel that long & keeps you interested throughout. On the negative side I don't think the reasoning behind Jack going crazy & wanting to kill his family was strong enough to convince me, the fact that Jack escapes from the freezer without any explanation bugs me & I don't know if I missed something but that ending didn't make any sense to me whatsoever, I'm still trying to work out what that picture is all about! There is very little in the way of violence or gore, a couple of rotten zombie ghosts & someone is killed with an axe but The Shining is a horror film that doesn't need to rely on blood & special effects as it has a gripping story. With a budget of about $19,000,000 The Shining is technically flawless as you would expect from an obsessive filmmaker such as Kubrick, the cinematography is brilliant with some fantastic free-flowing & smooth steadicam shots as the camera effortlessly follows the character's around the maze of corridors, the sets look absolutely real & instead of clichéd old haunted house themes like dark corners, basements & cobwebs Kubrick brings things right up-to-date with brightly lit corridors, massive open expansive spaces & a modern decor (well 80's modern, just check that red toilet out!). The acting is good from everyone involved although as usual in horror films the little kid is highly annoying & Nicholson seems crazy from the very start. The Shining is an absorbing film that I enjoyed watching although I'm not sure I'd watch it again anytime soon. For those looking for explosions & fancy special effects you will be disappointed, for those looking for a good haunted house type horror with a strong story I definitely think The Shining is for you, well worth a watch in my humble opinion. | 0 |
This film turned up on local TV here in South Africa recently and I thought that I'd warn even those who enjoy watching B grade bad movies (which I do)that this is not even amusing. The plot concerns a couple visiting a house in the country. Some strangers appear and .... The problem is that most of the film, obviously shot in the early seventies, consists of extreme wide shots of people walking, in real time and awfully slowly, from A to B. This makes the film tedious in the extreme and the expected blood and gore payoff just never happens. I am really curious - how many people have actually watched this from beginning to end? | 1 |
The Five Deadly Venoms is a great kung-fu action movie wrapped in a whodunnit mystery. There are all the usual telltale signs of a kung-fu flick: great choreography, awful dubbing, different 'styles' of fighting, and a wide range of greatly exaggerated, often cheesey human emotions. However the plot certainly is better than average. It's interesting and holds your attention throughout the non-fight scenes. Occasionally it's even able to fire up the audience, such as when X character receives horrible injustice.<br /><br />Another thing I love about the Five Deadly Venoms is the beautiful simplicity of the movie's morals and themes. Just about everyone gets what's coming to them. The cowardly, greedy, and corrupt lose out. The bad guys, consumed by selfish greed are ultimately destroyed by their own treachery and backstabbing. The good guys use teamwork, planning, and integrity to overcome the odds and come out on top. <br /><br />Poison Clan rocks! | 0 |
I used to watch this show when I was growing up. When I think about it, I remember it pretty well. If you ask me, it was a pretty good show. Anytime I think about it, I don't remember the opening sequence and theme song very well. In addition to that, everyone was ideally cast. Also, the writing was very strong. The performances were top-grade, too. I hope some network brings it back so I can see every episode. Before I wrap this up, I'd like to say that I'll always remember this show in my memory forever, even though I'm not sure if I've seen every episode. Now, in conclusion, if some network ever brings it back, I hope that you catch it one day before it goes off the air for good. | 0 |
In some scenes in the Rain People, Francis Ford Coppola's precursor to his hey-day of the seventies, there is the mark of a similar situation to 1969's Easy Rider, but not exactly in the same reference frame. Here we have a drama about disconnected people from society, in some ways alienated by the choices or by limits imposed by one mean or another. It's one of those rare original dramas where some scenes stand alone as total knockouts. Even with such a low-string budget and a very freewheeling, so to speak, attitude about filming the movie, Coppola is able to capture everything that needs to be said through these clearly defined characters and the curved, unexpected degrees of one character versus the helplessness of another, or vice versa, or both. And, as one might be inclined seeing as how it is very much about the cutaways of suburban life of the 1960s, it has that escapism of the film mentioned before, but of a more concrete, near timeless quality with the drama and the underlying issues. In a way, if Bergman were on route as a quasi-guerrilla 20-something filmmaker out to get the strange truths of everyday outsiders, this might be it.<br /><br />But along with all of the very direct and sometimes self-conscious photography (though also with a more documentary approach at times, akin with its indeterminable characters), the actors all fit into place. Shirley Knight, an actress I'm not too familiar with, has a complex, diverging role as a pregnant wife running off in a sort of existentialist conundrum of what life is there to have. There are moments of some awe-inspiring acting by her, and one of my favorites (if not my favorite) is when she is on the telephone calling her husband the first time. Such a tense scene on both ends, and in every small gesture and inflection of a word so much about her is spoken with so little. It's extraordinary in ways that mirror others in Coppola's films. Then comes in the character of 'killer' played by James Caan. This, too, is a dangerous character to take on, as it is a mix of childish bewilderment and amusement with scarred memories. Think Forrest Gump if he didn't make it past the football and wit. It's one of his best, actually, by being the most minimalist- for a guy who's usually playing tough guys in movies, here's one that also is part of the crux of the story and of Knight's character. Also very good in a supporting role is Robert Duvall as a cop with a rough side and rather checkered past; kind of an early sample of other defected characters he would play later on in his career.<br /><br />So the characters, and what Coppola risks in having an uneasiness running in them, are really what make up the film, as whatever story there is it is definitely not resolved in the usual way you might think or expect. The last ten or so minutes are like others in Coppola's work, where the specific tragedies on all sides are undercut by the emotional- and psychological- implications this will leave on the principles are amplified to the sublime and sad. This is, for its time, brave on the part of what is trying to be represented (in both the freedom as well as the flaws and ambiguities) in the subject matter. And the style of the picture adds a fragmented kind of view onto it all with quick flashbacks that are graphic and self-contained in a contrast with the longer shots in some crucial scenes. It's a road movie of its period, but its also got a lot more working than it would under another filmmaker with less chances to take on the nature of these outcast characters. One of the best films of 1969. | 0 |
Oh,God! Book II is more of a bad remake of the original than a sequel to it.It is not all that funny,its plot plays too much<br /><br />like a rejected situation comedy pilot,and the use of the slogan 'Think God' is a different variation on the idea that worked so much better in the original.John Denver had not returned for this movie and that made a BIG difference.George Burns,as<br /><br />wonderful as he was playing God,does not have the same chemistry with the little girl that he did with John Denver.<br /><br />I would give this movie a rating of 3 out of 10,but only for<br /><br />George Burns;the rest of the cast is nothing special.<br /><br />If you loved the first one,don't bother to see this one. | 1 |
One of the best comedy series to ever come out of Britain. Mark Gatiss,Reece Shearsmith and Steve Pemberton are terrific actors and performers who seem at home with drama as they are with comedy. Ably supported by their writing partner Jeremy Dyson, they have peopled the series with the most memorable characters of recent years. Little Britain pales into insignificance as a poor imitation of their ideas. Consistently original and groundbreaking I am sure that as many people hate these series as love them but I am equally as sure that no one could have no opinion on LOG. I have yet to see the feature length movie but I have heard good things and bad things so I will reserve judgement.The original radio series from which LOG came was as innovative as the TV series became. I don't know whether the TV series made it to the US but I would be fascinated to see how American audiences found the weird Englishness of the humour | 0 |
Even for the cocaine laced 1980's this is a pathetic. I don't understand why someone would want to waste celluloid, time, effort, money, and audience brain cells to make such drivel. If your going to make a comedy, make it funny. If you want to film trash like this keep it to yourself. If you're going to release it as a joke like this: DON'T!!! I mean, it was a joke right? Someone please tell me this was a joke. please. | 1 |
The Mother is one of those films that you know is good, maybe even great, but it is like eating vegetables or doing math homework is to a kid - too much work and a whole lot of pain to get invested in.<br /><br />The story is potentially distasteful in many ways: the death of a character within the first half hour, the December-May romance, the idea of a man cheating on his wife and then cheating on his lover with her mother, the collection of weak and rather unpleasant thirty-something characters, the apparent indifference of the adults to the children in their lives. This movie was made in the 2002 or 2003, but is a throw back to a collection of British (usually made-for-TV) movies from the late 1980's - it has a moral severity that never lets up, which produces an enveloping throbbing angst.<br /><br />The Mother is flawless, but that is in part the problem; if a film dealing with so many sensitive issues has some flaws - inconsistencies of script, some lesser actors - it takes the edge off, but if such a film is so pitch perfect, the experience of watching it is raw and painful. Even the technical qualities - lighting, editing, etc. - make the viewer ache; the London in this movie is bright and open, filled with harsh, cutting light.<br /><br />If you are tough as nails, or are one of those super-sensitive people who likes to torture themselves with gut-wrenching sad movies or novels, then you will enjoy The Mother. Anyone in between, give it a miss, or be prepared to squirm. And be warned: as tough as the movie is from beginning to near-end, the worst is to come.<br /><br />Toward the end of the movie, the mother asks her daughter what she can do to make up for it (for having slept with her boyfriend), and the daughter calmly says that she has thought about it and would like to hit her. The mother agrees to this, they both stand up, and - instead of a well primed slap - the daughter clenches her fist and delivers a boxer's blow. Argh!!! | 0 |
I love Jamie Foxx.<br /><br />And I enjoy 99% of all movies I see.<br /><br />And I walked out of this one.<br /><br />Now, I admit, it may have had something to do with the two middle-aged white women in the back of theatre who laughed at every little thing ('Oh no, Jamie's knocking on a door! HEE HEE HEE!'), but... this was just so incredibly annoying. There could be no sustained camera shot, and no camera shot from a conventional angle... everything had to be in-your-face, loud, and annoying.<br /><br />The bad guy tried to be smooth and Malkovich-like, but at this point, it's just old and tired. He brought nothing new or interesting. From all the characters, too many lines you saw coming, too many you've heard before, and too many 'tough guy' lines... and I don't mind that sort of thing, really, as long as there's a bit of originality to it. In fact, pretty much the entire supporting cast just sucked.<br /><br />I love Jamie Foxx, and I think he's really funny, and I thought he was funny in this movie... but not nearly funny enough for me to endure everything else. <br /><br />This movie needed less shoot-em-up, less annoying camera shots, more emotion, more feeling, and more Jamie Foxx. I gave it a 2. | 1 |
When I first saw a small scene of it in some announcements, I thought the show would be entertaining to watch. The little robot guy does look kinda cute. The style of animation does look sort of familiar to some classic shows. Before the show aired, I studied it through some sources. There, I did became slightly dismayed. The three children (Tommy, Gus and Lola) are voiced appropriately but Robotboy is an exception. It would have been a lot nicer if he were to be portrayed by a young lad. One good example is Robot Jones, a robot character from 'Whatever Happened To Robot Jones?' The show isn't bad really. But the way Robotboy is inappropriately portrayed is my only criticism. Thus, I don't watch it much. | 1 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.