review
stringlengths 41
13.7k
| label
int64 0
1
|
|---|---|
Gregory Peck gives a brilliant performance in this film. The last 15 minutes (or thereabouts) are great and Peck is an absolute joy to watch. The same cannot however be said for the rest of the film. It's not awful and I'm sure it was made with good intentions, but the only real reason (if I were to be honest) to see it is Peck. For the rest you are better off just reading the Old Testament. | 0 |
Philippe Garrel makes us breathe the forgotten atmosphere of the Nouvelle Vague, almost lost among the vestiges of its ancient splendor but ready to rise again from its ashes if recalled from the past. They who are a little acquainted with the director's subjects, on the other hand, may know very well how he's obsessed by a lingering sense of loss as far as fickleness of reality is concerned. 'Les amants réguliers', therefore, show us the parallel stories of an 'amour fou' and of a tempted revolution gone to ruin under the direction of young French students.<br /><br />The first part of the story is about the dramatic events of May '68 in France evoked in a series of astonishing plan-sequences, a sort of cinema verité style, that place the student insurrection in anything but an enviable light against a pitch-black background.<br /><br />There's much that can be said about the peculiarities of black-and-white photography used to describe the battle between students and police, where the high contrasts confer an unrealistic atmosphere to the sequences and darkness closes in upon the excited bodies wrapping them in mystery. The images, completely deprived of words, show the real consistence of the myth, made of crude violence, more and more emphasized by the exasperated reality of the movie shootings. The individual doesn't count anything at all here: he tends to disappear in the mass. What really matters in these fight scenes are the significance of the mass-suggestion, the blind fury of the juvenile assault, sinister eulogies of the power of the mob, even if conceived like separate entities apart from any kind of emotion, with the cold and distant look of an entomologist intent to catalog his insect collection.<br /><br />The second part of the story is described in a quieter and most intimate way. Stands out on the horizon the distressing portrait of a self-centered generation in search of its lost time, completely disenchanted about the individual values of men, inclined to rotate on its own axis between opium fumes and making a funeral oration in the praise of its recent defeat.<br /><br />'Les amants réguliers' seems to evoke from time to time the shadow of the great Robert Bresson, revised and corrected by Garrel's particular sensibility without drifting away from the main argument, trying to expand overall perspectives on the subject of human disillusions that though painful may bring us to the truth. In my opinion, trying to penetrate deeply into the substrate of the story, if a man lets himself go and play things by ear, he probably will find that he can bring out the dark side of his self with dire and irretrievable consequences. | 0 |
This is absolutely the worst comedy I have ever seen. It's hard to explain though, because (unless you've seen this) I bet you've never seen a comedy that was not good or bad; it's just there (That's the original part-not good or bad, just there)! <br /><br />Let me say that I have seen every comedian appearing in a main role, and like them all. That's what makes this such a mystery. The supporting leads are actually acting (although the dialog is bad). The only character that is fairly good is the one played by John Goodman. He does a pretty good job with what little dialog he has, and actually has one funny line (I won't spoil the only funny line in the movie, in case you decide to watch anyway. It involves a pancake.) The big mysteries are the main leads. I won't call them characters, because no characters have been developed. This script is so juvenile that they don't even bother to give the leads fictional names. They all just use their own. They don't even seem to be trying to act. It's as though they are all reading out loud to each other from scripts that the local junior high sent to them. I actually wrote a paper like this for my English class when I was thirteen-it wasn't funny either.<br /><br />Bottom line, just don't bother to rent this. It isn't funny. It doesn't even have the kind of bad dialog you can groan to. I just sat there and stared through the whole thing. It was so boring I couldn't even work up any irritation at how bad it was. I can't imagine how this is even getting a rating of 4 here. | 1 |
It's not a movie, but an experience!<br /><br />Not the usual eye candy I thought it would be. Too many things are happening at once, your senses almost couldn't handle it. A product of cutting-edge technology (we were torn between just sitting back to enjoy the show and putting our 3D glasses on and off to decipher the magic), the music is great (it's a concert!), the Disney characters are in it (and you get to BE part of their world), it's funny, it's magical, it's exciting--I know this is beginning to sound like an advertisement--but it really is that awesome! Beats Christmas in bringing out the kid in you!<br /><br />This attraction alone already makes going to Disney all worth it. ;) | 0 |
I thought this film was quite good and quite entertaining for a film heavy on emotion. I agree with what another user wrote about the script being sympathetic to the three main characters. I think that this is what what made the film good. It didn't villainies either Mr. or Mrs. Kramer and it was refreshing, I think, to see two people essentially work the issue out on their own and eventually do the best thing for Billy. And, although it was a little strange, I actually liked the music in this film as well. For some reason the music seemed appropriate for the journey that the three main characters embarked upon. This movie flowed quite well and didn't doodle, like some emotionally heavy films tend to do. It dealt with a serious situation but didn't take itself too seriously. It simply told the story in a straight forward way and it worked quite well. | 0 |
This could have been a good movie if more things were explained. Way too many plot holes to find this enjoyable. The ending in particular is off left field. SPOILER ALERT: How did the kidnapper get back to Dundee so fast and Dundee shows up at the house in a matter of two minutes? Way out of wack here. How did Anna get hold of the money? No explanation at all. If the Pete the cop knew Lancaster was in danger, why didn't he have a cop at the door in the Hospital. This and many more questions remain. Too bad because the premise was there, just bad writing and execution.<br /><br />Good cast is wasted here. DeCarlo goes from bad to good to bad? Lancaster's character lacks development and Dureya is just blah as the 'bad guy'.<br /><br />This could re-made with a cohesive story line and better writing. Of course it would be much more violent with lots of gratuitous sex and everything. The editing would be jerky as well I guess, so let's leave well enough alone. | 1 |
I could barely keep myself from either nodding off or just turning off this turd, but I decided to stick it out if only for the reasoning that maybe *something* would happen. This is the work of a writer/producer/director/special fx, Kenneth Herts, who wants to make a statement on ecological damage while making a monster movie. That's what he wanted, anyway. What it turns out to be is a lot of acting, either slightly hammy or just mundane and without much merit, and scenes that seem to repeat themselves as the monster ATTACKS in the river waters (oh, and what luck, a woman just happens to be naked in it... even though there have already been DISAPPEARANCES!) <br /><br />This is just nonsensical stuff, but I suppose it's not too harmful; it's not very obnoxious at the least and once or twice we get a semi-interesting peek at Brazilian 'culture' (which is the father walking through town with his flock or other pieces of a semblance of 'hey, this is NOT America!'). But whatever hope the director had in casting Mitchum or Carradine is squandered on at best pedestrian and at worst excruciatingly banal and dumb dialog. It doesn't help that when we finally get something of a good look at the monster and the 'action' happens, it too is stupidly staged and with only sleazy appeal. Usually I would feel sorry for a filmmaker who had a lot of problems getting a particular picture finished- in this case it took the better part of the mid 70s- but with Monstroid or Monster or whatever it's called... nah.<br /><br />If you happen to get the Elvira DVD double-feature of this (bad print with bad transfer quality) with Blue Sunshine, make sure to skip this one. Unless, of course, you're an Elvira die-hard and can't help yourself to hear her luscious commentary; personally, I'd rather get Joel or Mike Nelson with the robots from Mystery Science Theater on this roast turkey. | 1 |
Very rarely does Denzil Washington make a bad movie and come to think of it that goes for Kevin Kline and in this case , this must count as one of their best films. It is more about of film about how strong friendship can more than the story of Steve Biko although we do get an insight into what the man was like and how far the reporter and friend Donald Woods went to preserve the mans name and let the world know what a corrupt , putrid society South Africa was. The Direction is outstanding from David Attenborough as it was for Gandhi although if there is any critisism to be aimed it could be at the length of the film. Two and a half hours is a long time to sit through a historic movie .What is amazing is how he manages to control all the extras. Thousands of people in both films. This film really does open your eyes to what happened before the break up of Aparthiet and you cannot fail to moved by it. 8 out of 10. | 0 |
I saw this movie a few days ago and gamely jumped during the scary parts. I must admit, I found it pretty decent...until I started to THINK about what the characters were saying. Logical problems:<br /><br />1. Her boyfriend, who seems to be a pretty fit dude, makes no sound while being killed. Don't you think that he might have at least tried to take the killer? <br /><br />2. When the remark is made that the gym teacher is 'SOOOO in love with Lisa,' I almost screamed at the screen. When your best friend's family HAS BEEN KILLED BY A TEACHER WHO WAS IN LOVE WITH HER, you don't make comments like that if you have half of a heart.<br /><br />3. As soon as Nash asks the uncle how many exits they have in the house and the uncle catches on that there may be danger ahead, wouldn't the smart thing to do be to get Donna, boyfriend, aunt, and uncle into a car and drive far, far away, then bait the house with the HRT and police force so that the killer has no way to get out?<br /><br />I could go on. And on. And on. Basically, the plot was decent, the characters weren't profiled enough for you to actually feel any empathy when they were slaughtered and there were way too many errors.<br /><br />HOWEVER.<br /><br />This movie might be good for teenagers, or young couples just looking for a fun night out. If you don't consider all the goofs, it's a mediocre film. | 1 |
If you are a fan of slap-stick that has terrible writing, awful acting and cliche after cliche this one is for you.<br /><br /> There is far too much to list for the reasons why this movie sucks. In a brief synopsis, people with a combined iq of 100 journey to New Mexico on a race for 200 million dollars. And yes they are all apparently super heroes, as they can do many things such as jump onto trains that are traveling 80+ mph, survive numerous car crashes, and endless instances of outright cartoonish roadrunner and coyote antics.<br /><br /> If you are a teen, or dont want to think for a movie, this one is for you.. Not one actor outside of Lovitz is believeable at all.. Lovitz saves the movie from a 1 with the Hitler bit.<br /><br /> 2/10 (save yourself the 2 hours of pain and $4) | 1 |
Critters 4 is a good movie. A bit of a twist to the series, as it takes place in space, not in an earthly community. Good Effects and Acting make this movie a must see. I would recommend this to Horror/Science Fiction fans everywhere.<br /><br />10 out of 10<br /><br />Fans of Horror Movies like this should Check out Puppet Master, Skinned Alive, Sleep Away Camp, Slumber Party Massacre, and other Full Moon Pictures flicks. For other recommendations, check out the other comments I have sent in by clicking on my name above this comment section. | 0 |
This ranks as one of the worst movies I've seen in years. Besides Cuba and Angie, the acting is actually embarrassing. Wasn't Archer once a decent actress? What happened to her? The action is decent but completely implausible. The make up is so bad it's worth mentioning. I mean, who ever even thinks about the makeup in a contemporary feature film. Someone should tell the make up artist, and the DOP that you're not supposed to actually see it. The ending is a massive disappointment - along the lines of 'and then they realized it was all a dream'<br /><br />Don't waste your time or your money. You're better off just staring into space for 2 hours. | 1 |
This movie is a story of a Catholic nun as an advisor of convicted killer on death row. The movie describes what she does as a nun, who does not have any productive role. She might have had doubt in her actual role. But eventually she does the role only a nun could do, who has nothing but faith in Christ. In America, there are so many movies that describe condemned criminals or jails. Those scenes, especially execution, are too much different from Japan. | 0 |
If you have any sort of appreciation for character and dialogue, and any sense of American cultural history, you will find a lot of very absorbing material in this film. It probably was originally a play, and that's why it's dialogue heavy, but I can't stress enough how these icons that we only have a shallow understand of are made into truly complex and wonderful characters.<br /><br />This film is better than any college course for telling you how to create a character-driven story.<br /><br /> | 0 |
I had seen Lady with Red Hair back when it appeared, and didn't remember it as something to cherish. The truth is that, notwithstanding its base in a true story, its screen play is silly and unbelievable. The real merit of the picture is the cast. A constellation of some of the best supporting players of the 30's and 40's make a background for the delicate, intelligent work of the always underrated Miriam Hopkins, and the wonderful, spectacular performance of Claude Rains, who, as usual, is the best thing in the picture. What an actor! He never won an Oscar, but he is in the good company of Chaplin, Garbo and Hitchcock. Perhaps Lady with Red Hair contains his best work in films. See it and enjoy him.<br /><br /> | 0 |
The movie goes something like this: Run around, run around, someone killed, lots of freaking out and then one of the group yells to 'Pull it together' or 'Just calm down!' Repeat this as many times as their are characters left. In between these things, you get to enjoy blank, black screen. These are not quick but rather several seconds long. I kept thinking what a waste of film every time it happened - yes, it does happen more than once if you can believe it.<br /><br />I notice other mentioned 'Blair Witch: and it did remind me of that in the way the camera was bouncy. However, this movie takes that to the extreme. Every single time the characters move the camera is bouncing. Sometimes so much that you can't make heads or tales as to what you are looking at. That brings us to lighting. Way too dark in some areas. I get that they are trying to make us feel like we are in a cave, but Helllloo... I'm watching a movie here, it would be nice to be able to see.<br /><br />Then there is the ending. I actually blurted out loud, 'Are you kidding me?!' (I was watching alone too). Dumb, dumb. I think the ending was purely the effort of the people who made this disaster to shock us after so much time of boredom with a so called 'twist'. At this point of the movie you could have seen the 'monster' picking his nose and it would be considered a 'twist'. Truly horrible. You have been warned. | 1 |
I saw this film over the weekend and while I was impressed as always with the beauty and polish of Church-produced films, I left disappointed that this one fell so short, failing to inform members and leaving investigators with many unanswered questions.<br /><br />The film is 70 minutes of vignettes from the life of Joseph Smith. It's not a true biopic because there's no real coherent narrative. Most of the episodes concern Joseph doing good deeds, playing baseball, running races and laughing with children, often in sloooow motion. What a great, just folks kind of guy that Joseph was, huh? Look at him out there beating rugs for his wife Emma. Well, howzbout the rugs of his 33 plural wives?? No mention whatsoever is made of polygamy. A glaring omission.<br /><br />And it is in such omissions where the film falters. It supplies too little information and leaves critical thinking audience members wondering WHY is Joseph getting tarred and feathered, WHY is he getting thrown in jail and WHY does that mob want to kill him? The film's climax is of course Joseph and Hyrum's trek to Carthage jail (riding past a veritable United Nations of faces looking out from Nauvoo's doorways). But no mention is ever made about WHY. Nothing about Smith suppressing the Nauvoo Expositor newspaper and ordering its press destroyed for its revealing the secret teaching of polygamy. The audience is left to wonder or to assume it's just more baseless persecution of the Church. No mention of Joseph being charged with treason for declaring martial law and calling out the Nauvoo militia.<br /><br />Of course I certainly did not expect this Church-produced film to present the Joseph of Richard Bushman's recent biography Rough Stone Rolling, but I was surprised and taken aback at just how little of substance was actually presented.<br /><br />And worse, what substance that was presented was often inaccurate. Two examples jumped out at me. First, the translation of the Book of Mormon. The film shows Joseph reading right off the golden plates in their two-ring binder, which plates in reality were hidden far from the site. It's well known that Joseph did his translating by burying his face in his hat, peering at the seer stone in there. The second inaccuracy occurs at Carthage jail, where the mob storms the cell. The History of the Church reports that Joseph had a six-shooter and even fired off a few rounds before jumping out the window and giving the Masonic signal of distress (as reported in Times & Seasons).<br /><br />Maybe showing the reality of the gunfight would have shattered the heart-tugging mood the filmmakers had created, but by omitting it they were unfaithful to history and failed to show Joseph as he really was: handy with a gun and able to defend himself. In fact, the impression the film gives is that Joseph was a nice guy, but also something of a milquetoast that everybody beat up, tossed in jail and eventually murdered in cold blood. He was far from that; Joseph was a disciplined and determined man who endured a lot of hardship and struggle to bring to fruition that in which he believed.<br /><br />See the film, but know going in that's it's cotton candy. Then get your meat and potatoes by reading a copy of Bushman's biography of Smith, Rough Stone Rolling <br /><br />PS: Church-produced films have no credits, but seasoned eyes can pick out a couple familiar faces. Rick Macy is excellent as Joseph Smith, Sr. and Bruce Newbold, beloved as Thomas in Finding Faith in Christ, here plays the cranky Methodist minister who failed to show Christian love to a young seeker after Truth. | 1 |
The remake of H.B. Halicki's classic seventies chase film is simply horrible. Along with Vanishing Point, Gone in 60 Seconds represent the quintessential car chase films. The remake takes the original and stands it on its head. Whereas Halicki gave us 75% car chase and 25% supporting drama, in GISS 2000 we get 25% car chase and 75% supporting drama. Cage as super man, saves his brother, kisses the girl. MTV edits, tits and ass. Save your money, rent the original. At least Halicki didn't live to see his baby (he wrote, produced, directed, and starred in the '74' film) degraded in this manner. | 1 |
King of the Underworld features an early role for Humphery Bogart in one of his many gangster roles.<br /><br />He plays Joe Gurney who uses a female doctor to treat his men and pays her for it. He follows her when she goes to live with her Auntie after one of Gurney's men kills her doctor husband who also worked for him. Gurney kidnaps an author on his way to find the female doctor and gets him to write his life story and he then plans to kill him. He finally meets up with the doctor and after she gives Gurney and his men a substance that makes them temporarily blind, she and the author, who have now fallen in love manage to escape just as police arrive...<br /><br />Joing the excellent Bogie in the cast are Kay Francis, James Stephenson and John Eldredge.<br /><br />Watching King of the Underworld is a good way to spend just over an hour one evening.<br /><br />Rating: 3 stars out of 5. | 0 |
How a director of Altman's experience could ever expect us to want to spend time with, or to care about what happens to, a lead character who is neurotic, a whiner, a jerk with no redeeming qualities -- that is the central puzzle about this profoundly confused piece of work. A monstrous piece of trash. In addition to this crippling flaw, the plot line requires serious concentration to follow. The setup that the Branagh character walks into is so obviously a setup from the start that we are inclined to wonder whether the writer and director have totally lost respect for their audience. This latter issue is at the core of the film: it represents directorial self-indulgence with profound contempt for the taste, values, and intelligence of the viewer. Very unusual for Mr. Altman.<br /><br />Patrick Watson | 1 |
Cinderella was one of the first movies I ever saw, and to me it is timeless. It is a lovely looking film, with gorgeous animation. My favourite animation scene was the dress scene- I just love those mice. The songs are also lovely, not as good as Snow White's, but they are a delight to sing, and are reminiscent of Tchaikovsky. A dream is a Wish and So this is love? are standouts. The characters are also a delight. Cinderella is idealistic and strong, and the mice provided great comic relief. The stepsisters were also well done, as well as Lucifer. But I loved the stepmother the best, she was really evil, in comparison to a great character in the name of the Fairy Godmother. It is true, the movie drags slightly, with the antics of the mice, but they were genuinely funny, so I don't care. I don't think it is overrated, underrated don't you mean? It rarely plays on television, but the really bad sequel does on Cinemagic on a regular basis. if you want a great Cinderella adaptation, try the wonderful Ever After, or the lavish Slipper and the Rose, which isn't as good. But whatever you do, avoid the sequel, which I have the mistake of owning, because you'll thank me. 9/10. Bethany Cox | 0 |
Stunning blonde Natasha Henstridge is the young, not-so-grieving widow in the mansion on the hill, telling her story to a TV reporter in Monroeville, Virginia. And among the community's well-heeled horsey-set, she's suspected of involvement in the death of her older husband. That's James Brolin, trusting as a babe-in-arms. Flashback teledrama made in Canada, based on an article that appeared in Vanity Fair magazine. It must be true! Whatever, it's far more romance than mystery, and a very familiar tale. Leggy Species star Henstridge as a gold-digging hospice nurse? It could happen, I guess. And it's good to see Brolin in a sizeable role after his titchy turn in Antwone Fisher, even if he doesn't make it to the end of the picture. The end of the picture? He doesn't even make it to the beginning of the picture. Which is why flashbacks were invented, of course. | 1 |
This is a weak film with a troubled history of cuts and re-naming. It doesn't work at all. Firstly the dramaturgy is all wrong. It's very slow moving at first and then hastily and unsatisfactorily moves to an end. But there is also (and that may have to do with the cuts) an uneasy moving between genres. It starts off with being a thriller to be taken at face value and then degenerates into a farce rather than satire. the ending may be funny but it's also so blunt that I almost felt it insulted my intelligence (what little there is). So the film tries to be everything but does not really succeed on any level at all. You can also see that in the very unsteady character development.You almost get the impression Connery plays three roles rather than one. | 1 |
This flick is TERRIBLE! It sets out to disgust and make you laugh, but it fails horribly. The director obviously has no sense of slap stick gore comedy, and the actors are like nothing I've ever seen - lacking both acting talent and flair of comedy. Even their attempt at the English languish is really sad, and actually the down right peculiar Swedish accent, in which the incoherent dialog is spoken, is probably the most comical and enjoyable thing about this film. Even the gore i awful and unconvincing. If you crave gore comedy, I'd suggest you turn to classic fare such as the evil dead series or even brain dead if you must. We all enjoy a bloody good laugh, but this is ridiculous! | 1 |
Oh I remember watching this show at 4:00 p.m. during my junior high days. It was not a pleasant experience because I remember watching it when I made my homework.<br /><br />Still, the show caught my attention when Alex displayed her special powers and dealt with the typical junior high problems.<br /><br />But the show wasn't all about adventures and special powers; it was more of an educational effort for a younger audience in order to get more interested in school and biology overall.<br /><br />The lead actress (can't remember her name and I'm too lazy to copy and paste from the main details) delivered a fantastic performance. She made the show watchable.<br /><br />They just don't make shows like this one anymore... | 0 |
After apprehending the man responsible for the murder of his boss, Deputy Sheriff Thomas Jefferson Geronimo, III, is assigned the task of taking the killer back to Italy. On the way, however, the plane is diverted to Malta. Not long after landing, the killer escapes. Now, and with little help from the Maltese police, Deputy Sheriff Geronimo is out to recapture a murderer. But will his 'shoot first, take names later' brand of Texas justice work in a foreign country? <br /><br />Let me get this out right up front, I've seen Final Justice both with and without the Mystery Science Theater 3000 commentary. I've seen the scenes that were cut that help make the movie a more coherent whole. And I've seen the cut-up TV version that was used for MST3K. Having said that, I've got to admit that I much prefer the MST3K version. Why? Because Final Justice is one lousy movie. The MST3K commentary helps make it much more palatable. On its own, it's a real snoozer of an action movie with corny dialogue (often delivered with such thick Italian accents that it's impossible to understand), bad acting, weak direction, gigantic plot holes, and most everything else you'll find in a bad movie. And if most of Final Justice wasn't 'so bad, it's good', it would be one terribly dull movie on top of everything else. So, yes, I enjoy the often very funny MST3K commentary over the bad movie on its own.<br /><br />My main sticking points with the MST3K commentary and with most of the reviews I've read on Final Justice, however, involve the criticisms of Joe Don Baker. The main weaknesses in Baker's performance actually have nothing to do with his size or the wardrobe choices of his character or any of the other jokes flung in his direction. Instead, I think much of it is has to do with the poor decision to cast him in the lead in the first place. Joe Don Baker has always struck me as a decent enough actor, but he's not the kind of guy I would call an 'action hero' by any stretch of the imagination. He's more of a sidekick as he demonstrated with solid performances in a couple of James Bond movies. Or if you really want to blame someone for the problems with Final Justice, point your finger at director Greydon Clark. Clark's resume can't begin to compare with Baker's. So I say, 'Lay off Joe Don Baker!' | 1 |
A film, first and foremost, should be good storytelling. It should be entertaining - and entertaining doesn't necessarily mean 'laughs', and it doesn't necessarily mean 'light'. It basically means you're not bored while watching it. <br /><br />As brilliant as 2001 may be, it is a difficult film to watch, especially for the current (video-game-playing/iPod fumbling) generation. Its slow pace and the sometimes intolerable amount of time it takes for an actor to perform a single action (e.g. the attempt to rescue the crew member floating in space) will stretch your patience. On the other hand, the cinematography is brilliant, the film cleverly directed, the ending thought-provoking and the score...the score is chilling, especially as the crew in the transporter approaches the artifact on the moon. Boy, I had goose bumps, big time. This doesn't happen often when I watch films, and is a testament to Kubrick's directing skills. <br /><br />It IS considered a classic, and many people consider it the best science-fiction film of all time. That alone is a good reason to watch it if you haven't done so yet. However, just because everybody else thinks it's a brilliant film doesn't mean you have to force yourself to like it. You either will (like it) or you won't. Perhaps the slow pace isn't such a bad thing, after all. Directing your attention to something rather static and slow-paced for 2 1/2 hours might teach you a lesson. It will certainly be a different experience to all these fast-moving, fast-paced images we are subjected to these days (whether commercials, music videos or video games). <br /><br />I myself think it's a 'memorable' film. But not one I'm eager to watch again anytime soon (unless I'm in a particular mood for slow-paced films). <br /><br />Hence, 7 stars out of 10 from me. | 0 |
It's difficult to express how bad this movie is. Even in the 1950s when intellectual searching for the meaning of life was fashionable and beatnik rejection of physical comforts, clean clothes, haircuts, etc. was a common reaction to the smug middle-class mores of both the USA and western Europe, this movie would have been a stinker. The plot is a mishmash of several dei ex machina (if that's the correct Latin grammar); the acting consists of deadpan stares broken by occasional hysterics (by the male lead as well as the females); the gratuitous view of Catherine Deneuve's (or somebody's) breasts are worthy of a Budweiser commercial; the repeated cacaphonous orchestra rehearsal in the abandoned building is I'm sure heavy with meaning in the director's mind but to me is just one more stupid symbol thrown into this meaningless movie -- I'm ranting because my time has been wasted watching this scam excuse for an art flic. The scenery is beautiful and the sex scene is hot -- but underneath his clothes, this king has no substance. | 1 |
To be honest, i'm surprised by the positive votes that this film has received. The movie just drags along its 81 minute life span, and the audience has to suffer the whole way through. Actually there are some positive moments in this film; Charlie Spradling gives a decent performance. She is given some pretty pathetic dialogue and she handles it pretty well. Scott Valentine(Merrideth's boyfriend in Family Ties), on the other hand, is a pretty rough watch. I guess the highlight of his performance is witnessing the guy laying on the beach wearing tiger-patterned chummies....give me a break. Also, Valentine gives us a boorish and pathetic portrayal of a suffering vampire who misses the day(to see a much more convincing rendition of the suffering vampire see Denice Duff in 'Bloodstorm: Subspecies 4'). The movie moves so slow and is only positively punctuated by, and to be honest, Charlie Spradling's dance scenes. This movie can honestly only be recommended to the die hard fans of Charlie Spradling (which i am, and i still had a rough time watching it!). | 1 |
I work at a movie store, and as such, I am always on the look-out for an excellent movie. I decided to check out Nothing as it sat in our Canadian section, and I've been trying to support my country's movie industry. I was in for a surprise. The film features David Hewlett and Andrew Miller in a highly entertaining story that seems to delve into so much of our minds and relationships...without working that hard. It is consistently comedic through the interaction of the two characters, as well as some funny exchanges ('We can't be dead, we have cable!'). What more can I say without noting that it is worth a shot, even if you abandon it within the first half an hour. | 0 |
so, being a fairly deep fan of horror movies, it's been a while since i've seen one that really made me jump (or fidget nervously.)<br /><br />definitely going to get this on DVD when it comes out... a hell of a lot better than the ring. the thing that i don't get is that so many people that we talkd with after the movie thought that it was horrible, well, if that's what you think, then so be it... i know what i liked and it takes a fair amount to get me to actually feel scared, so i have to say that this one is worth watching.<br /><br />now, you might be disappointed in the story if you need everything in a neat and tidy line, because the plot goes back an forth a little bit to help build the story (i think that if it was shown in chronological order, it would have ruined the whole thing.)<br /><br />i'm actually glad that this movie had very little bloody messes in it... maybe the rest of you studio writers and whathaveyous will realize that you don't have to splash the red stuff all over the set to make people afraid. | 0 |
A bit of a disappointing film, I'd say: the acting was stilted, somehow. In many cases, I just couldn't feel that the facial expressions matched the words spoken or the intent of the scene. An angry (or sad, happy, frustrated) character should make the viewer believe that he's angry (or sad, happy, frustrated). That doesn't happen here.<br /><br />The comment about the writers assuming you already know the characters was apt. They do things and say things which come out of nowhere: the character Andrew accuses his parents of sending signals to each other at dinner; then he blows up and storms out, telling his father 'Don't touch me, you f***!'. Maybe, if we'd seen the prequel, we would understand where all that comes from, but there is no prequel, so we're somewhat at sea as to the reason! <br /><br />One odd, quirky thing that Andrew does is to go to an old stone quarry, sit down on the edge overlooking the 'still water' below; then he reaches into his jeans pocket and extracts a pack of cigarettes and lights one up. He did this same thing three times during the film; I guess we're supposed to see this as some tortured act of being alone and angry? Maybe once, but three times? It might even have been four times, I lost count.<br /><br />To be honest, there is the fact that he's recently found out that he's adopted; this happens very early in the film so there's no sense of any dramatic change he might be undergoing because of this discovery. It's not really clear if that's why he's so bitter or if it's about something else.<br /><br />I guess there is a sort of Lynchian feel to the film but should a first-time director really be trying to scale such a mountain so early in his career? | 1 |
This is another one of those films that I remember staying up late to watch on TV, scaring the crap out of myself at the impressionable age of 12 or so and dooming myself thereafter to a life of horror movie obsession. This is a GREAT movie, and stands as living proof that there were indeed realistic effects before CGI.<br /><br />Set on an isolated base in Antarctica, this version seems almost to pick up where the original version (The Thing From Another World) left off. The American scientists discover a decimated Norwegian base some miles distant. Everyone is dead, and only the half charred remains of some unidentifiable thing left to smolder outside the compound might offer any answers to what may have happened. The Thing is brought back to the American base and, too late, the scientists realize that it is alive and lethal. The Thing thaws out and is off, not only killing anyone and anything that crosses Its path, but also absorbing them, making Itself into whoever and whatever it wants. The film then turns into a brilliant paranoia piece. Everyone is suspect, anyone can be The Thing, and no one trusts anyone anymore. Gone is the strength and security found when human beings band together in spite of their differences to battle a monster. The group splinters and fear rules supreme. Who is the Thing?<br /><br />The gore effects here are absolutely amazing and messily realistic. I could have done without the dogs head splitting open like a banana peel, but that's just the animal lover in me being picky: kill all the humans you want, but leave the kitties and puppies alone. Sanity and reason disintegrate rapidly as, one by one, the humans are taken over by the shapeshifting alien. The power of this film lies in its paranoia, and although I liked the original version, I prefer this one; the real threat lies within, and is scarier for the fact that it cannot be seen or easily detected. When it is forced out of hiding, it's wrath is huge and the results are horrific.<br /><br />This is one of Carpenters best films, right up there with The Fog and Halloween. All of the actors give strong, realistic performances and the special effects are so powerful that they stand as their own main character. This film has something for any lover of the horror genre. Don't miss it. | 0 |
I loved this movie from the opening sequence right through to the end. I found the director/ actor's style of directly addressing me/the audience very engaging.<br /><br />What I found most exciting and refreshing about this movie was its ignoring -- and thus challenging -- of gender and class stereotypes. The idiosyncrasies of the characters are portrayed as strengths, and the absence of judgment -- and the characters' acceptance of themselves and each other -- enabled me to embrace them and allow myself to be drawn into their world. Without preaching, and with intelligence and gentle and loving humor, this movie has the power to open us to new possibilities, and offers hope for a world in which people see and accept each other as unique and precious individuals. I look forward to more offerings from this creative and talented director. | 0 |
There must be an error. This movie belongs with 'Plan 9', and a lot others as a quite entertaining, silly diversion. You'll never accept you like it, yet you will watch it whenever it comes out on TV. It's as simple as that. | 1 |
SYNOPSIS The future as seen from 1939 England. As war loomed over Europe, the salvation of mankind will not be found in the politics of the past. It is up to the brave new world of science to overcome man's past mistakes.<br /><br />CONCEPT IN RELATION TO THE VIEWER Beware your leaders and what you are told. Thinking outside the box can lead to a brighter tomorrow. There will always be descent and fear, and learning to overcome it is our only hope.<br /><br />PROS AND CONS I had seen this film long ago and recently downloaded it off of the internet (it is in the public domain). This is a fascinating work on numerous levels. Since it is a story about the future as seen from 1939, it has obvious flaws. This vision of the future is both terrifying and whimsical. This film was cutting edge for its day. The special effects are very good as is the story line. The acting suffers a bit in the British theatrical sense, in that it can lean a bit toward Shakespeare.<br /><br />One of the underlying themes of the film is that science and technology can solve all our problems, which we now know is not always true. The films other plot line is that charismatic leaders are a curse of human existence and will probably always be with us.<br /><br />The underpinnings of almost all later science fiction movies can be seen in this film. The set design and wardrobe of 'Forbidden Planet', the failings of technology in '2001: A Space Odessy', even the lush landscapes / cityscapes of 'Star Wars' owe some amount of inspiration to this film.<br /><br />The ending of the film leaves the viewer a bit perplexed. While it is optimistic in its ending sequence of reaching for the stars, we are left to wonder if mankind will ever be able to make it. Even as we reach, there are those that are trying to hold us back. This films vision of the future while interesting is also a bit humorous by todays standards. Huge flying machines and guns that could shoot people into space never materialized in the real world, but in 1939 they were considered the next logical step.<br /><br />Many great British actors are in this film as young men. Cedric Hardwicke and Ralph Richardson are the most recognized and their oratory skills are evident here. Raymond Massey is a curious choice to play the lead character, Cabel. His character almost comes across as the new Christ sent to save the world from its own destruction with the new religion of science.<br /><br />This is a good piece of cinema history whose themes are still relevant today even if its vision of the future missed the mark. | 0 |
One of the flat-out drollest movies of all-time. Sim and Rutherford are at their best matching wits over the predicament of an all-boys and all-girls school sharing the same quarters. Slapstick has never been this sophisticated. | 0 |
This movie is one of my favorites because it makes me think of all the choices I have made and how my life would change if my choices had been different. It plays right into the ' Multiple Universe ' theory.<br /><br />The only thing that doesn't ring true is how Larry Burrows ( James Belushi)has such a hard time understanding what is going on, that everything has changed.<br /><br /> | 0 |
The Five Deadly Venoms is easily the most memorable K.F. flick from the Shaw Brothers' stable (exc. maybe Master Killer). It has the artists who came to be known as simply 'The Venoms', some of the best fight choreography ever, and, surprisingly for a Kung Fu movie, a great plot! One of my all-time favorites!!! | 0 |
This place in England during 1940. Three orphans (Carrie, Charles and Paul) are sent to live with Miss Price (Angela Lansbury). She doesn't want them but reluctantly takes them in. It seems she is studying to be a witch through a correspondence course with the College of Witchcraft. (OK--I realize this is a family film but--College of Witchcraft??? Come ON!!) Before she can finish the course though the college is closed because of the war (???) and she seeks down the head Professor Browne (David Tomlinson). And her and the kids travel around on a bed with the help of a magical bedknob.<br /><br />I first saw this when I was 9 and vaguely remember loving it. It sure doesn't hold up as an adult! The story is silly (even for a fantasy), the kids are terrible actors and one of them (Charles) is incredibly obnoxious. Also Roddy McDowall is third billed and only appears in two short scenes! There's also a trip to the Isle of Naboombu which is run by animated animals. I thought that might be fun but the animation is poor (for Disney) and it has a very violent and far too long soccer game between the animals. There are a few saving graces here: Lansbury and Tomlinson are just great; the songs (while forgettable) are pleasant; the long dance sequence on Portobello Road is very colorful and full of energy and the Oscar-winning special effects are still pretty impressive at the end. But the weak story line, poor animation and unlikable kids really pull this one down. I heard the extended version is even worse! I can only give this a 7. | 0 |
I was watching this movie at one of my usual time, which is real real late at night. Usually if a movie doesn't interest me, I start falling asleep and have to raid the fridge to stay awake.<br /><br />At first I thought that's what I had to do since this movie's pacing started off slow, along with the fact that its shots tended to linger with the character for a long time. But after a bit, I start getting more into the movie, as more is revealed about the main character through his story telling. By the end, you feel like you've known him your whole life. The movie kept my interest so much that I didn't even know the sun was about to rise.<br /><br />Not much of Lynch's bizzare style, but there is enough of quirky characters to make the film amusing. | 0 |
Talk about creepy. If you really want to sit down and watch this episode where the girl who was in Firefly later on gets kidnapped there's entertainment for you, but only if you like this sort of thing. I don't so I thought, to be frank, this episode was appalling. Thankfully it's one of a few duff episodes in Season 3, and the only Charles Grant Craig episode, so you don't get much of this sort of thing in Season 3. So, overall verdict? Just read the summary at the top. This is a strong contender (Hell Money says hi!) for worst episode of Season 3. To be honest though, I hadn't really expected much. I wish I could Oubliette this episode altogether. That's one thing they got right: the title. | 1 |
I just recently watched this 1954 movie starring Vincent Price for the first time on Turner Classic Movies. Price portrays Don Gallico, a magician/inventor who is driven to murder when his boss steals several of his magical inventions (and also his wife, portrayed in a brief role by the lovely Eva Gabor). Even though Price is a murderer, I actually found myself rooting for him, he is a sympathetic character who is driven mad by the greedy people around him who keep taking advantage of him.<br /><br />Although this movie doesn't have the 'horror' factor of some of his more famous roles (such as my favorite, 'House of Wax') it nonetheless has enough going for it to keep the viewers interest. <br /><br />This is a must for Vincent Price fans. | 0 |
The Aristorcats is a hilarious film that not many people have seen. Clearly not that many because it only got a 6.8. There is nothing wrong with it at all. It's my favorite of the Disney classics, which have tons of fantastic films already made. Like Beauty and the Beast, Snow White, and Peter Pan. The reason why The Aristorcats is so high on my list is because of how funny the film is. I hate to say this, but I don't blame Edgar for what he does. I probably would've had them taken care of too. I'd be devastated of some old bag who I'd been working with for so many years just decides to give her will to the cats. I'd of killed them also. I don't even like cats, so I wouldn't give a damn. I think that The Aristorcats is so funny and cute. There are many characters that are hilarious, like Edgar. The Aristorcats is my favorite of the Disney classics, and that's final. The Cat's out of the bag.<br /><br />The Aristorcats: ****/**** | 0 |
Twin brothers separated at birth (Due to the deaths of their parents) reunite twenty five years later to avenge their parents and take back their million dollar tunnel. Double Impact runs at two hours long and basically adds no real approach to the Corsican Brothers plot and Jean-Claude Van Damme while adequate as the evil twin brother is just embarrassing as the good twin brother. Also the action sequences aren't as exciting this time and Jean-Claude relies more on gunfire then on his martial arts. Also the supporting cast is wasted and at two hours the movie is just plain dull.<br /><br />* out of 4(Bad) | 1 |
And what is its genre? The backstage expose story; what theatrical life is really like behind those Broadway (and other) curtains. It certainly has a lot of competition: Singin' in the Rain both I and II (1929 and 1952), 42nd Street, Golddiggers of (You name the year.); Dames of 1934; Noises Off (1992) from the farcical side and A Star is Born I and II from the 1930s and the 1950s from the tragical side: not to mention Summer Stock of 1950: the list keeps rollin' along. So what makes this movie so special? And why are there so few comments about this stunningly great movie? Have so few people actually seen it? How amazing to see a younger Frank Langella pre-Dracula and pre-Frost-Nixon by 30 years! How amazing to see the fresh and talented Tom Hulce so pre-Amadeus! And yet another superb Stiller! What a wonderful line-up of talented people at their very best from so long ago! And such a script! Who was this David Shaber? So full of realistic disillusion and pathos compared to the usual sentimentality and feel-good comedy! As especially exemplified by the Star-Is-Born-like episode where the heroine achieves Broadway while the Langella character has to content himself with still another provincial tour.<br /><br />Langella's subsequent hysterical and sadistic blowup against the star-struck Latin teacher and his granddaughter in which he vents his fury and frustration is just one of many fantastic and psychologically real moments in the film. (The Latin teacher and his love affair with backstage life certainly echo Marlene Dietrich and her seduced professor in The Blue Angel of 1929.) Another in the series of mercenary and cold-hearted agents like Kevin McCarthy who was preceded by Burt Lancaster in The Sweet Smell of Success (1957) and succeeded by Alan Alda in Clubland (2001) in movie history. The sexual liberation of the Hulce character recalls similar incidents in O'Neill's great comedy Ah, Wilderness.<br /><br />And what a tribute to the vanished operettas of long ago: The Red Mill of Victor Herbert; Rose Marie and The Vagabond King of Rudolf Friml; The Desert Song of Sigmund Romberg etc. What satirical insertions of bits from the great plays like Romeo and Juliet. Tributes to the theater itself as expostulated by the star Langella. The richness and depth of this movie are simply endless. And to be saddled by such a title! Who could have an inkling of what this great movie is about from such a ridiculous and unsuggestive title? But on the other hand, what title could one have applied to such a magnificent drama which might have lived up to its stirring, emotional content?<br /><br />PS: I just saw (2009) Frank Langella in his latest acting spectacular: as Richard Nixon in Frost-Nixon. How this great actor after 30 years simply goes from triumph to triumph! | 0 |
This is just one more example of the absolute genius of Gene Wilder. He wrote and starred in this terrific mystery. No one could have done it better. The suspense was palpable throughout. I wish Mr. Wilder would grace us with another of these. I have enjoyed everything I have ever seen Mr. Wilder in but I had no idea how truly talented he was until I saw 'Murder in a Small Town,' and this follow-on. He truly has a firm grasp on what audiences want and how to deliver it in his writing and, of course, in his brilliant acting. His subtle wit comes through in spades. I would recommend this movie to anyone who likes mysteries and/or Gene Wilder's film work. His star just gets brighter and brighter. | 0 |
I am not an artistically inclined individual. I am a science minded woman and I felt that this movie was maybe one of those campy artsy type films on a budget. I watched part of it with my fiancé and my future step daughter. We tried very hard to find something in this film to keep our interest. My fiancé and his daughter voted it off and we moved on to Ocean's 13,but that is another story. Not to be deterred I awoke the next morning and gave the movie another shot. I began again watching this movie in earnest. I just don't get it,I thought I would get it.I thought the funniest part was the flushing of the ashes and the urn finding a spot by the fireplace being used as a vase for what appeared to be dead flowers. Interesting and still it had dead stuff inside. It was an odd and bizarre movie. Maybe this is what they were after,however I won't be tricked a second time! | 1 |
In all the episodes, I never saw any real action or drama or comedy.<br /><br />The plot is so repetitive.<br /><br />****Somebody gets something old and then somebody else tells them a little bit about it and how much it's worth and who made it and where it comes from and how much it could sell for and if there was any work done to it.<br /><br />Sowhile I watched about 30 of these, i realized...there is no drama....nobody ever loses a limb or life or gets divorced or hit by a car or air-plane.<br /><br />There are no car chases or explosions- not even a horse race with old carriages.<br /><br />All those guns and swords and nobody goes on a violent killing spree...what gives? No pshycos, no axe-murders, no-gun-totting old Englishmen in bad suits...just yap yap yap...you have an old tea set and it came from the country of Germany back in 1602 - blah blah blah...<br /><br />I'm still waiting for somebody with a time machine to go on screen and ask about it, but no...it never comes to be and the only thing that happens is that some stuffy Englishman or woman serves up some crap about something old being sold in Boston or China during the Ming Dynasty - big EFFIN deal.<br /><br />Can't anybody ever kidnap one of the leads and hold them for ransom? Is there no alien spacecraft that will obliterate the entire floor? Who the hell writes this stuff as a series and expects us to stay awake? This is about as entertaining as watching paint dry - only with commentary.<br /><br />There's no sex, there's no comedy or romance, no action, no suspense, no action, no drama, no mystery or martial arts.<br /><br />This show sucks! What ever happened to supermodels wearing thongs and spewing lasers from a futuristic weapon? Antiques Roadshow - More like grab a blanket and pillow and go to sleep show... | 1 |
2005 gave us the very decent 'gore porn' flick Hostel, and 2006 gave us Live Feed; a not so decent rip-off of Hostel. Live Feed follows pretty much the same formula as Eli Roth's earlier film, except this time the dumb kids are in Asia rather than central Europe. The plot focuses on these dumb kids, and one of them has annoyed one of the locals so they find themselves in trouble. The locals decide to lock them all in a theatre, and kill them. Despite the fact that I'd heard some less than favourable things about this film before seeing it, I still hoped that it might be at least half decent because director Ryan Nicholson previously made the very decent 45 minute rape and revenge film 'Torched', but this film falls down simply because most of it is either ridiculous or boring. The film is obviously trying to hark back to the good old days of Grindhouse cinema (which Hostel did, successfully), but it really doesn't come off. Surprisingly, considering Nicholson's previous work in special effects - not even the gore is impressive...although it is a lot better than the acting! There's not much else I can say about this film...it's bad and not in a good way. Avoid it! | 1 |
The supposed writer and director Mr.Dhawan has copied almost the whole plot of the blockbuster Hollywood movie 'HITCH' starring Will Smith. Many scenes are also exactly the same. The plot was just copy pasted and some low grade humor(probably mr.Dhawan's own creation) and frequent dancing was added to increase the movie time to local standards.<br /><br />Although Salman khan and Govinda's acting did give us some smiles, however it does not suit legendary artists like them to be a part of plagiarism, specially when they themselves keep telling people to stop buying pirated discs! | 1 |
Well, i expected, for all the hype and Oscar nominations, an epic Civil war drama (& something with the 'magnitude' of the 'English Patient' given the same director). This film isn't of epic stature, but it turns out i was relieved it wasn't. It's a love story in the midst of the horrors of war where young men are sent off to fight, deserters are tracked and killed, and the women and children at home are left to fend for themselves while the men are gone.<br /><br />Anyway i thought Nicole Kidman and Rene Zelleweger were pretty decent and not knowing much about Jude Law, he was all right, also. It seems Rene Z. had the more fun part of the 3 leads and was able to smartly play a spirited, feisty downhome woman with much aplomb. Also for me it was good to see actress, Kathy Baker...someone's who's talent needs to be more recognized/acknowledged.<br /><br />This film is worth seeing this -- i'm can't articulate why really, but maybe because it is a slice of Americana. <br /><br /> | 0 |
Stephen Hawkings is a genius. He is the king of geniuses. Watching this movie makes me feel dumb. But it's a great movie. Not highly entertaining, but very very intriguing. The movie centers around wheelchair bound Stephen Hawkings, a man who makes Einstein look average, and his theories and scientific discoveries about the universe, time, the galaxy, and black holes. Everyone at sometime or another during a really intense high comes to a moment when they think they'v got the universe and the cosmos figured out and they swear as soon as they sober up they'll write it all down. Well here is a man who actually held that feeling for more then six hours. Here is a man who despite suffering from Lou Gehrig's disease has become the greatest mind the world has yet seen. Watch this and listen in on how he has formulated theories on black holes. Awesome. You won't be the same after you see it. | 0 |
This show is awesome! I love all the actors! It has great story lines and characters. It is the perfect drama. James Caan and Josh Duhamel have great dialogue. They both can be really funny.I miss Vanessa Marcil on General Hospital, but she's great on here. James Lesure is great! He can be hilarious. Molly Sims plays a dimwit very well. The writing is awesome!They keep up an excellent pace. The show can really leave you hanging, which is one of my favorite elements of a show. I cannot wait until the new season starts. This show makes it to the top ten of all my shows. I hope this show stays on for a really long time. If people know what good is, it will. I never want the show to end. Ever. | 0 |
TIGERLAND / (2000) ***1/2 (out of four)<br /><br />By Blake French:<br /><br /> Throughout the years audiences have seen and understood war films with every point of view possible, and somehow producers and writers always come up with new and innovative methods of portraying various soldiers on the battlefield. Joel Schumacher ('8MM,' 'A Time to Kill'), easily one of the riskiest directors currently working, has found resemblance with 'The Thin Red Line' in the way his new drama 'Tigerland' steps in an individual soldier's shoes. This movie, written by Ross Klavan and Michael McGuther, has more guts and irony than 'The Thin Red Line' or even 'Saving Private Ryan.' Although the movie's dramatic impact is somewhat lessened due to the perversity of the material present, it certainly enlightens us on a new perspective of young men training for war. <br /><br /> I would want to know Joel Schumacher's experiences with the army. Are the men really this unabashed and brutal? I am sure some of them are, but the movie views its uncompromising world through the eyes of a young man named Roland Bozz (Colin Farrell), who is rebellious against the ideas of war. His personality instantly counteracts with several other characters, one who becomes his best friend, Paxton (Matthew Davis), and another, Wilson (Russell Richardson), whose flamed temper often exasperates Bozz's tension with the idea of going to war. The war depicted in this production is not found on a battlefield, but on training grounds of a Louisiana-based instruction camp between conceptions and fears of the soldiers in training. This film is specifically about the preparation for war, nothing more nothing less. It ends when the soldiers finally go to war, kind of disappointing since witnessing the characters in action would have served as a supurb payoff. <br /><br /> Shot on location in about 28 days using 16mm stock and a minuscule budget, Joel Schumacher accurately displays a gritty, perverse, cruel, and unmerciful atmosphere using hand-held cinematography, unique lighting techniques and direct sound. Schumacher's grainy and blown-out images make the movie feel like a documentary feature. This unusual style of filmmaking only contributes to the hard core realism of the movie, quite graphic in its use of coarse language, perhaps a little too disturbing. Waves of four-letter words pound the audience, some in shock of what they are hearing. Even the extreme amount of vulgarism does not keep the dialogue from prevailing as heartbreaking, true, and emotional.<br /><br /> If anything, 'Tigerland' provides us with a minor appreciation of how much our soldiers go through for our country in the beginning stages of combat. Such bravery must it take to enlist in the army during times of war, knowing the hardships and risks that are being taken. Such thought-provoking ideas are made possible through the heartbreaking performances by the young aspiring actors who portray the various trainees. This movie is not for all audiences, but one that young men should take a look at before enlisting themselves in the army...and adult audiences should watch to appreciate the courage needed to do such. <br /><br /> | 0 |
The Twilight Zone has achieved a certain mythology about it--much like Star Trek. That's because there are many devoted lovers of the show that no matter what think every episode was a winner. They are the ones who score each individual show a 10 and cannot objectively evaluate the show. Because of this, a while back I reviewed all the original Star Trek episodes (the good and the bad) because the overall ratings and reviews were just too positive. Now, it's time to do the same for The Twilight Zone.<br /><br />While I have scored many episodes 10, this one gets a 3 simply because it was bad. The writing was in fact embarrassingly bad. Two people from opposing sides in a great war are seen wandering about through the entire episode. After a while, it's apparent that they are the only two people left on Earth--as you learn in the really stupid and totally unconvincing conclusion. Usually the twist at the end makes the episode great--this one killed it! | 1 |
This was an excellent movie with good acting and it keeps your attention through to the very end. Maybe people are either tired or uncomfortable with the subject matter and that's why it's being trashing so much. It could also be too deep for many of the viewers out there who give movies like the American Pie series higher ratings.<br /><br />Jake Gyllenhaal is a CIA analyst, not an agent, who is to observe an interrogation of an Egyptian man by Moroccans, not Egyptians. He's not supposed to be a hardened agent and so comes off as naive of the interrogation techniques used. This is more believable than if he were to come across as being an 'old hat' at it.<br /><br />The story jumps around a bit and can be confusing, but it also makes you stay focused on whats going on until the end when everything comes together as the puzzle falls into place. The supporting actors did a good job of helping to carry the movie. I found the movie to be powerful and thought provoking. | 0 |
Disregard the plot and enjoy Fred Astaire doing A Foggy Day and several other dances, one a duo with a hapless Joan Fontaine. Here we see Astaire doing what are essentially 'stage' dances in a purer form than in his films with Ginger Rogers, and before he learned how to take full advantage of the potential of film. Best of all: the fact that we see Burns and Allen before their radio/TV husband-wife comedy career, doing the kind of dancing they must have done in vaudeville and did not have a chance to do in their Paramount college films from the 30s. (George was once a tap dance instructor). Their two numbers with Fred are high points of the film, and worth waiting for. The first soft shoe trio is a warm-up for the 'Chin up' exhilarating carnival number, in which the three of them sing and dance through the rides and other attractions. It almost seems spontaneous. Fan of Fred Astaire and Burns & Allen will find it worth bearing up under the 'plot'. I've seen this one 4 or 5 times, and find the fast forward button helpful. | 0 |
what a waste of time! i expected better from cameron diaz! i guess it wasn't really her fault for being in a terrible film. the film does not capture the beauty of europe.....and wasn't successful in leading the audience into suspense or wonder. weak attempt at storytelling and narrating -- dialogue is dull and wasn't able to convey what i sometimes think simplicity is beauty. no love, energy, electricity on screen. too bad!!!!!!!!1 | 1 |
As a premise, this backwoods version of the Dead Calm storyline had promise.<br /><br />However, director Eric Red's inability to render a convincing hurricane leads to a deluge of continuity and lighting errors.<br /><br />Ultimately, the viewer is more spellbound by the bizarre weather effects than the intended storyline. Intermittent spates of ham-fisted over-direction are similarly distracting.<br /><br />Charles Dance, doing an 'inbred backwoods hardass' schtick, does his best to save the movie. But ultimately, Undertow squeals like a pig ... and has more ham to boot. | 1 |
I would probably not have bothered to comment on this film if I had not been disturbed by the constant references made to it here in North America as a porn film. Our obsession with what is, or should be, regarded as pornographic remains a relic of the 'guidance' provided to film makers by the Hayes committee many, many years ago and it is now really time that we relegate it to the past. So far we have not progressed far beyond establishing a somewhat arbitrary division between what we now term 'soft' and 'hard' porn, with both carrying the same pornography label. It is time for us all recognise that neither the R rated (soft porn?) release version of this film, nor the unrated version (hard porn?) available on DVD were in any way pornographic.<br /><br />In legal terms pornography is defined by its capacity to deprave or corrupt. Many classic books such as Lady Chatterley's lover, Fanny Hill, Women in Love, The Story of 'O' or Moll Flanders have been prosecuted for pornographic content, tried by jury and cleared on the basis of this definition, but in practice most ordinary citizens are not interested in what they regard as legal equivocation, and apply a simpler test that is rather too stringent when applied to books or films which are very close to the line, but serves to quickly clear most others from any taint of pornography. Although the Hayes code would have rated AIW as unacceptable both for nudity and for its depictions of sexual activities, in practice most people today accept that where the basic message of a book or film is clearly designed to encourage the development of long term stable family relationships in which the participants find real fulfillment, it cannot be regarded as pornographic (this does not mean that works depicting unsatisfactory or unstable relationships should be recognised as pornographic, only that these may need a more sophisticated assessment). In AIW, we have a film about a young female librarian who has had a rather sheltered upbringing, and keeps her suitor at arms length because of a feeling that this is what morality requires her to do. After he gets too frustrated by this and threatens to leave her, she falls asleep and dreams she is transported to a Wonderland (closely based on that of Lewis Carrol) where everyone she meets is totally uninhibited about their sexual needs. She is shocked, but is a kind person who takes things as she finds them, so before long she finds her own prejudices gradually melting away. She wakes up when her boyfriend returns to break off their affair, but her attitude to him has changed so completely that their relationship is fully restored, and the film ends with them living 'happily ever after' with their children in a home with a white picket fence and a family dog - an ending clearly directed to those romantics who remain very young at heart.<br /><br />Pornographic? - Hardly!.<br /><br />Suitable viewing for children? - Well probably not quite, unless they have very progressive parents.<br /><br />R rating? - PG would be more appropriate today.<br /><br />Entertaining for viewers in most age groups ? - Yes, but the film has its faults - these are discussed in many of the comments here on IMDb, however most commentators clearly appreciated and enjoyed it.<br /><br />I believe the only pornography associated with this film was the reported claim by an anti-pornography activist of 'scientific proof' that a magazine picture of Kristin deBell was a photographic montage of images of the face of a ten year old with various body parts of adult models. These and other comments seriously damaged the career of a very promising young actress, but today the film appears to be on its way to becoming a cult classic, Several home video productions have been released in both VHS and DVD format; the last was a DVD containing both the R rated and unrated versions of the film, released by Subversive Cinema in 2007. Copies of this were readily available until a few months ago, now they are almost exhausted and the mail order vendors who still have copies in stock are selling them at many times their original price - a situation which usually quickly results in a new DVD release appearing. This continuing interest nearly 35 years after the original film was released points to near classic status.<br /><br />Commentators on this database are expected to provide fellow viewers with useful guidance on whether a film is worth watching or even collecting - my comments here were intended to stress the ongoing damage to the industry that still results from pressure on major studios to respect self-censorship recommendations originating with the Hayes Committee. On this database such general comments are very quickly marked by readers as 'not helpful' and I seldom make them; but fortunately I still have space to add that in my opinion this film is quite unusual and is well worth watching or even buying. It is flawed, but Kristine deBell gives a great performance and the film provides a fairly unique and rewarding viewing experience. Overall I would rate it at 7 stars and will be buying a copy of the next DVD edition if and when it appears. If Ms deBell is still alive today I would love to hear her comments both on the attempts to suppress this film and on the late recognition that it has gradually achieved. | 0 |
After seeing the previews I felt that this movie was going to be a nice improvement over that fast & furious series. So, I already expected it to have a lacking storyline, but at least this time it won't be loaded with a bunch of powerless civics with fart cans. Unfortunately, I was wrong. If you could only imagine a Fast & Furious movie with a worse story line than by all means this movie is for you.<br /><br />This is the absolute worst movie I had ever seen (I'm being nice - no I would not take baseball bat to my nuts like what others have said). Not only was the storyline non-existent, but the action was crap too. I guess the director thought that they could just throw bunch of females and exotic cars and then call it a movie. For an example, there is a point in the movie where the guy pushes the nos button and his Lamborghini takes off in the air and flies over a SLR McLaren to win. And after the bit where Eddy Griffin got in a fight with one of his 'girls' (an Imus comment would work in this case) the girl asks to pull over and get out of the PLANE and of course they do in the middle of the desert. After this wonderful scene I couldn't take it anymore. So, I only got to see half of this monstrosity. This is the first movie I had ever walked out on. Afterwards, I had to stop for some drinks to kill all of my corrupted brain cells.<br /><br />I gave it a 1 because 0 is not an option. You're better off going to the local car show and stopping at a strip joint on the way home. I will keep all viewers in my prayers. | 1 |
Sistas in da hood. Looking for revenge and bling bling. Except da hood is a wild west town in the late 1800s. I do not remember any westerns like this when I was growing up. What would Randolph Scott say? If he saw Lil' Kim, he might say, 'Alright! I have to admit that I tuned into this just to see her. Bare midriffs and low cut blouses are not the staple of the usual cowboy flick, but these are the cowgirls, and they are fine.<br /><br />Now, don't go looking for any major story here, and the usual stuff of ghetto crime drama are here in a different setting. And, when's the last time you heard John Wayne call someone, 'Dawg'? And, I don't remember the Earp brothers hugging and kissing before they marched to the OK Corral.<br /><br />I watch this on BET, so I missed the action that got it an R rating, but I doubt if I will buy the DVD to see it unless I can be assured it was Lil' Kim in that action. | 1 |
Noll's comfortable way of rolling out blunt comments, often with expletives, to describe things that he is more knowledgeable about than most is quite refreshing. There is one other character in the film that constantly tries to verbalize complicated issues, using more language than necessary. This guy should never have been given a Thesaurus. Cut to Noll and you know you're in for a treat!<br /><br />The way the pioneers of big wave surfing are portrayed is very evocative of a 'lost era'. Nevermind the fact that no one knows how these guys made a living, much less took care of issues like medical care. The use of old film clips throughout was masterfully done. | 0 |
There are those who gripe that this is NOT the opera, but then they don't quibble with the film of CABARET that was not the original show either. All films of musicals/operas are and have to be 'adaptations' or they don't work. CABARET took more liberties with the original show than did the film of PORGY AND BESS and yet it kept its original integrity, reworking the material, and is judged an artistic success. The same holds true for PORGY AND BESS- it reworked the opera into a dialogue/song libretto because audiences at the time loved musicals but stayed away from the few echt filmed operas. It would have been economical suicide for Preminger to produce a film of the opera - it would have lost a fortune for the Goldwyn Studios.<br /><br />That said, this is a fine adaptation. The acting is excellent, the Oscar winning scoring of Andre Previn is magnificent, as is the choral singing, and the individual vocal achievements are incredible. Robert McFerrin (dad of popular musician Bobby McFerrin) dubbed Porgy and Adele Addison dubbed Bess. While Sammy Davis Jr. sang his own songs in the film, his recording contract would not permit his voice to be heard on the soundtrack album, so Cab Calloway recorded his numbers (spectacularly) for that release. Brock Peters' bass/baritone is extraordinary and Pearl Bailey is her own unique self. Diahann Carroll, although a singer of fine note, has the small role of Clara which required a high soprano, so old reliable Marni Nixon dubbed her singing.<br /><br />The Gershwin Estate hates the film and refuses to grant the musical rights, although the dramatic rights are in the public domain. This sort of hate feud held up the video release of CAROUSEL for almost fifteen years (although in that case it was the dramatic rights that were in litigation) and is currently preventing both PORGY AND BESS and ANNIE GET YOUR GUN from being released on video.<br /><br />Of all the stage productions given film versions, it is these latter two which are the sole holdouts to video. Only a campaign of letters to the Gershwin Estate in NY might loosen up the reserve. | 1 |
This was a very thought provoking film, especially for 1973. At the time it was actually a huge box office success. After the 1970s it appeared to be forgotten, but its central messages were too important to disappear completely.It was actually at least fifteen years ahead of its time...no one had ever heard of the 'greenhouse effect'before 1985, and the controversial subject of euthanasia was rarely brought up.<br /><br />The sets and special effects might look a little outdated, but big money for sci fi films was a gamble in that period. If you look closely you will see everything usually makes sense. This is a message movie, not for zonked out star wars fans that cant sit through one minute of thought stimulation unless it contains a million bucks worth of explosions.<br /><br />This was also Hestons last good film, the end of his famous dystopian sci fi trilogy. After that it was all overblown disaster epics and big budget crowd pleasing trash. THis might not be the most amusing two hour movie ever made, and the ending might be creepy and depressing, but its hard to find any film producer with guts anymore who would tackle a subject like this. | 0 |
I wanted to love this movie. Everything seemed to be in place for an enjoyable, if not groundbreaking, film. It was set in southern France, good-looking and recognizable actors led the cast, and I really admired the vibrant African costumes, the proverbs and music. Despite all this, I didn't love it. Movies are supposed to convey their meaning at the first viewing, but 'Secret Laughter' doesn't do that. Nimi and Matthew, as played by Long and Firth (both of whom have played romantic leads before and should have known better), radiate as much warmth and passion as dried fish. I used 'dried fish' deliberately, because it was one of a few - too few - strong lines and moments sprinkled throughout the film. Another winner was when Nimi catches Matthew snooping around her apartment. He finds a book of hers with her first name written on it and says: 'Your name is Nimi. I never knew.' Then he insists that she call him by his Christian name. I watched this scene intently as Matthew asked Nimi over and over to 'say my name', realizing that up until that moment, they always called each other by their last names. I thought this was a turning point for the film, and expected that it get better. It didn't. Why do Nimi and Matthew always seem to stand at ten paces, even in that 'say my name' scene? What does Matthew like about Nimi, aside from her obvious beauty? And why would a sensible woman like Nimi fall for a comic book writer who regards his marriage as something he can put on hold when a beautiful exotic 'adventure' comes along? And I'd like to add that it was a little hard for me to get behind a romance built on adultery. Yes, Jenny is a vicious harpy, but if I were in her shoes, but I'd probably match her Cruella tactics to stop my husband from straying. Believe it. The story hints at Nimi's painful past, but never fully explores it. Some critics say Firth seemed a little awkward here, and I agree. For goodness sake, the actor summoned more palpable longing and passion as that early 19th-century snob Mr. Darcy (and while wearing those hideous britches)! As for Long, who did shine in 'Love Jones', there were times when she seemed to concentrate more on her accent than playing her character. Even so, there were many moments the 'say my name' scene among them when she was in total control and came across really well. Yet, 'Secret Laughter' is not without its redeeming qualities, and I've found that it grew on me with more viewings. Nene was well portrayed as supportive and well-meaning, even if she doesn't fully understand Nimi's attraction to Matthew. I absolutely loved it when Nene faced off with Mama Fola in those dueling proverbs scenes. My husband liked it, and usually he's the first to sigh and throw insults at the screen if he doesn't like what is going on. He even chuckled at the scene when Sammy asked Matthew some very frank questions about sex. So there you have it. 'Secret Laughter' was good enough to entertain an avowed curmudgeon like my hubby, but an avid moviegoer like myself will need more than one viewing to appreciate what the director and writer were trying to convey. | 0 |
Beloved tale of hero 'Benji' ('Higgins' the dog) who is many different things to many different people. In his busy day 'Benji' grabs breakfast at the house of two young children, has a chat with an officer of the law, chases an old lady's cat and reminds an aging café owner to start on the day's special. Helper to some, amusement to others, he is companion to all.<br /><br />Trouble arises when his young friends are kidnapped and taken to the abandoned mansion that he calls home. From here on we know only 'Benji' can save the day.<br /><br />Plot is routine from writer/producer/director Joe Camp, and he does tend to over do the slow motion effects. Audiences though will find it hard to resist the lovable little pooch, and kids of all ages are sure to adore him. Cast were never going to be anything but background to 'Benji'.<br /><br />Not what you'd call inspired, but fun family fare. Academy Award nominee for 'Benji's' theme, 'I Feel Love'.<br /><br />Saturday, July 13, 1996 - Video | 1 |
this movie is not porn, it was not meant to be porn, and unless my uncle runs for president of the world it should never be considered porn.<br /><br />now that that issue was sorted out, i can say i thoroughly recommend this film, as it's issues are still widely available. it's funny, the acting is great and it raises serious(curious) questions.<br /><br />i can't fully understand why this film was so mistreated, probably this is why i plan to never visit the us. Lena is the true pioneer of the modern riot-grrrl movement, confusion, curiosity and wit are her main attributes, she is occasionally angry, but aren't we all? | 0 |
Brides are dying at the altar, and their corpses are disappearing. Everybody is concerned, but nobody seems to be able to figure out why and how this is happening, nor can they prevent it from happening. Bear with me. Bela Lugosi is responsible for this, as he is extracting spinal fluid from these young women to transfuse his ancient wife and keep her alive. Continue to bear with me. Finally, the authorities figure out that somebody must be engineering the deaths and disappearances, but of course, they can't figure out the improbable motive. Let's just ignore the ludicrous pseudoscience and move on... If you can get through the first twenty minutes of this mess, you will be treated to Lugosi whipping his lab assistant for disrespecting one of the brides he has murdered, explaining that he finds sleeping in a coffin much more comfortable than a bed, and other vague parodies of real horror films (the kind with budgets and plots). Anyhoo - a female journalist follows her nose to the culprit (and remarkably the inept police are nowhere to be seen!), and then the fun really starts.<br /><br />The cinematography and acting are OK. There are a lot of well dressed, very good looking people in this film. The directing is fair, and the script is a little better than the material deserved. Nevertheless, this film fails to sustain the interest of all but the most hardened b-film fan. The best thing about it.... It does eventually end, but not soon enough. | 1 |
Sayles had a very interesting film on his hands with Silver City, however it somehow became very muddied as it progressed from beginning to end. Chris Cooper did an exceptional job embodying the essence of his character, a Dubya of sorts, but he wasn't nearly given enough screen time. Instead, we find ourselves on a rampage with a character that felt less personal, less developed, and overall too confusing. The path that this Danny Huston leads us on inevitably becomes the downfall of the film. Too many characters are introduced to us in such a short time. These characters randomly were involved with the progression of the plot, which became too convoluted with each passing minute. Sayles knew what he was creating, I just feel as if it wasn't being translated well to the silver screen.<br /><br />Sayles is a master of his trade. His films continue to inspire and evoke thought even if they are not commercial successes. The trouble with Silver City is that I think he found himself going too deep with not enough money or time to explain it all. At the beginning of the film, I had an idea of what was happening, but as more and more characters were introduced, as more and more plot twists tried to occur I lost the sense of the film by the ending. While the ending was very clever and very dark, I needed more explanation. I think some of the reason that I lost my train of thought with this film was due to the casting of Danny Huston as our guide. He was pathetic. I didn't seem him as very exciting person to lead us on this adventure. He seemed to go through the motions, but not really accomplish much at all. This was the first downfall of Sayles' important film.<br /><br />While I will admit that the characters played by Richard Dreyfuss, Miguel Ferrer, James Gammon, and Daryl Hannah were interesting, I just needed a better guide to help me understand their roles in this political scandal. Danny Huston just did not cut it for me. Outside of the characters, Sayles needed a stronger script. I sometimes felt that unless I was deeply rooted in the political world, some of the references were well over my head. The entire reasoning for Silver City to be built and the corruption behind it eluded me. I am a simpleton that loves advanced films, but this one just didn't make much sense to me. There were several times that I found myself asking, 'Why' instead of seeing the whole picture. I felt as if the individual stories were as clear as glass, yet the whole picture was dusty and murky at the same time. Sayles needed to concentrate more on the bigger picture instead of these smaller issues, which ultimately fogged this film.<br /><br />Perhaps I went into this film with the wrong idea. I was expecting to see another version of Primary Colors, but instead witnessed something less heartfelt and more technical. Without giving the ending away, I thought that the final scene was one of the most beautiful moments in political cinema history. The brilliant symbolism has stayed in my mind for the past two days after watching this film, while the rest of the movie quickly shuffled away from my mind. Maybe a second viewing would do better for me, but for some odd reason Silver City just didn't click with me. There seemed to be too many loopholes that were never explained or accounted for. An ensemble piece is always good with me, but when the characters are introduced without explanation, it just looses steam. This was one of those rare occasions.<br /><br />Overall, I was very upset with this film. Being very Democrat, I wanted to see a side of politics that I wasn't aware of and another side that would make you chuckle. I wanted to be engulfed with the world of corporate money and the dufus' that are elected. I wanted intelligent humor framed by the words of George W., but instead all I found was a very confusing story aimed at a certain audience of which I will never be a part. Sad, this picture had so much wasted promise.<br /><br />Grade: ** out of ***** | 1 |
This is a entertaingly bad b-movie. Actually it really is much better quality than a lot of b movies. It had a consistent script, decent direction, cinematogrpahy, and I have seen worse acting. The zombies were great, clearly these were Romero zombies, and was really a interesting zombie story. Obviously not Oscar material, and if your not into zombie movies, or b-movies you probably wont enjoy this, but if you are you'll like this movie.<br /><br />The main clint eastwood knockoff western character guy is pretty good, although they never really clearly explain how he can heal himself from gunshots and zombie bites. But if he has more than a line of dialogue that where his bad acting is really evident.<br /><br />It was a good ending to, at least I thought so. Romero should be flattered if he ever saw this. | 1 |
Luis Bunuel has always been a filmmaker whose work was obscure to me. My first experience with him was The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeosie, often considered his greatest work, with which I became so frustrated and bored that I eventually shut the tape off. Likewise Belle de Jour, which is almost certainly his best known film and also generally considered one of his many masterpieces, didn't interest me very much at all. I didn't hate it like I did Discreet, but I didn't like it. Third, I saw L'Age d'Or. Finally, I had gotten somewhere. Fourth, Los Olvidados, also good. Still, neither L'Age d'Or nor Los Olvidados blew me away. Great films, but not masterpieces.<br /><br />Nazarin is my fifth Bunuel, and I like it just a tad more than those other two. It is about a priest from Spain now in Mexico who refuses to live in the kind of luxury most priests live in. He wants to be more like Jesus, leading the meekest life possible. He's also willing to forgive everyone for anything, and to suffer without protest. I'm pretty sure Bunuel does not sympathize with the character, and sees him as rather self-righteous. However, I only assume that because of my knowledge of the director, whose most famous quotation is 'Thank God, I'm still an atheist,' which he apparently said in an interview over this very film (I get this information from John Baxter's book about Bunuel, if you're interested). The interviewer who dragged those words from Bunuel's mouth must have been himself confused about Nazarin. One who was more predisposed to believe in religious conviction, who also knows nothing about Bunuel, might see the priest as a heroic figure. This is especially true if that viewer has his/her own criticisms of organized religion. The priest may be somewhat self-righteous, but he seems to be basically a good man. When he harbors a violent prostitute in his room in order to protect her (and, presumably, to save her soul), people begin to find out and assume that their relationship is sexual. His superiors assume the same and punish him for it. Later on, he suffers even worse punishments from clerics. | 0 |
Some may go for a film like this but I most assuredly did not. A college professor, David Norwell, suddenly gets a yen for adoption. He pretty much takes the first child offered, a bad choice named Adam. As it turns out Adam doesn't have both oars in the water which, almost immediately, causes untold stress and turmoil for Dr. Norwell. This sob story drolly played out with one problem after another, all centered around Adam's inabilities and seizures. Why Norwell wanted to complicate his life with an unknown factor like an adoptive child was never explained. Along the way the good doctor managed to attract a wifey to share in all the hell the little one was dishing out. Personally, I think both of them were one beer short of a sixpack. Bypass this yawner. | 1 |
The ship may have sunk but the movie didn't!!! Director, James Cameron, from 'The Terminator' did it again with this amazing picture. One of my favorite scenes is 'The Dinner table' scene, in which Rose's family and friends meet Jack after he saves her. Rose has a look on her face that every woman should have when you meet 'THE ONE'...I hope I have that look when I am in the room with my future husband.<br /><br />Jack and Rose have a connection that is 'MOVIE STUFF' but it's good movie stuff. We have the greedy mom and all her elite stuck up associates who live off of their husbands wealth. Rose almost commits suicide but the Gilbert Grape star rescues her. I really liked the hanging over the boat scene. It was a good risk.<br /><br />The movie is long but it's fantastic!!! Good story, good flow, good actors!!! Go see it twice if you want, Its worth it!!! | 0 |
Just given the fact that it is based on the most infamous mass suicide incident of modern times would have been enough to give this 2-part 1980 made-for-TV film attention. But the fact is that it is a superb recreation of the life of the Rev. Jim Jones, who built a church into a virtual empire, and then encouraged it to disintegrate into a sleazy cult in which a Congressman and his entourage were assassinated, and 917 cult followers committed suicide by drinking Kool-Aid doused with cyanide.<br /><br />Done very tastefully but horrifying enough, unlike the excruciatingly sadistic CULT OF THE DAMNED, GUYANA TRAGEDY features an all-star cast, including Ned Beatty (as Rep. Leo Ryan), Meg Foster, Randy Quaid, Brad Dourif, Brenda Vaccaro, LeVar Burton, and Madge Sinclair. But it is Powers Boothe (in his first big role) that really stands out as Jim Jones. He actually BECOMES the man, and his performance is riveting and chilling. Thus, it is no wonder that this film still manages to attract attention after more than twenty years. | 0 |
Since the advent of literature, people of all nationalities have been fascinated and easily touched by accounts of unhappy love. Even more fascinating have always been the tales of impossible love, love that cannot be. The Israeli filmmaker Eytan Fox' latest film The Bubble' is about that. And then it is also not. The title of the film refers to the bubble' that is Tel-Aviv set against the background of the political realities of Israel. The country's cosmopolitan and unofficial capital city doesn't have much in common with Nablus, a city in the Palestinian West Bank which also features in the film. It doesn't have much in common with the tense and hateful atmosphere at the Palestinian checkpoints. Actually, it doesn't seem to have much in common with anything surrounding it. The bubble' of Tel-Aviv allows people to have a lifestyle which isn't much different from what you may expect in any Western city. Teenage girls looking for Britney Spears' records, a lifestyle magazine editor looking for a sexy cover for his next issue, trendy people sitting in trendy cafes discussing trendy things over cups of cappuccino and other similarly trendy drinks, while those at home are watching the local edition of Pop Idol. It is this bubble' that also has the potential to lull one's mind into a false sense of reality.<br /><br />The film evolves around the lives of three young Israelis who share a flat and, for the most part, try to stay out of politics. Yelli, the camp owner and manager of Orna & Ella', a hip cafe, rarely leaves the city and prefers not to think about the crap that surrounds them'. Noam, a soft and easygoing employee of a slightly avantguard record store, seems to be equally unwilling to engage in long political discussions and contemplations. Lulu, the only female of the lot, is on the contrary linked to the Israeli Left, although her political activities seem to be confined to raves against the occupation'. Yelli and Noam naturally don't object to participating in these. Lulu and her political friends make t-shirts with the rave's logo, put up posters and hand out booklets advertising it in the neighbourhood. Their main concern seems to be that there are never any actual Palestinians participating and that the police might come and spoil all the fun for them again. The closest they come to an actual confrontation is when they get into a scuffle with some not so Palestinian-friendly locals who try to prevent them from handing out the leaflets. In other words, predictable products of the bubble'.<br /><br />The opening scenes of the film take us to a checkpoint on a road to Nablus where we also find Noam doing his reserve duty. A group of Palestinians is being thoroughly checked before entering Israel, among them a pregnant woman who suddenly goes into labour and gives birth to a stillborn child despite the best efforts from Noam and the doctor who eventually arrives in an ambulance. The woman is comforted by a young man who later turns up on Noam's doorstep in Tel-Aviv with his ID which the latter obviously dropped during the ordeal on the border. His name is Ashraf, he's Palestinian and he's gay. And he hasn't just come to hand back the ID, he has come to see Noam. Without a permit to live in Israel and despite the initial hesitation from Noam's flatmates he stays. He soon gets a Jewish name and a job at Yelli's cafe. Having grown up in Jerusalem with Hebrew, he doesn't have an Arabic accent which makes it possible for him and his newly found friends to conceal his identity. The sky is light blue and the air is sweet. But it cannot last. For he has become part of an equation which was never meant to be.<br /><br />At one point, Noam and Ashraf watch a play called Bent about two prisoners in a Nazi concentration camp who have a love relationship which can never become physical or visible to the surrounding guards. They find a way of being together on another level, a metaphysical one, a level where no one else has access. This is also where our couple arrives in the end. And it couldn't have been much different for them, not in today's Israel.<br /><br />The Bubble' is a political statement about the bubble that bursts when confronted with the political realities of today's Israel set against the background of a beautiful and awkward love story involving an Israeli and a Palestinian, the impossible love story in a divided world where no such things as compromise or other colours than black and white exist. The Bubble' is also a beautiful film about people, gay and straight, inhabiting that strange city, Tel-Aviv, shown through the eyes of people who really care about them. The film's premise may have its flaws and the fatal chain of events may seem somewhat construed, but its strong message and emotional impact will not leave you untouched. | 0 |
This is a film that can make you want to see it again. I especially, liked the way it ended. I did not see the end coming, but when Laws was not blown away the first time, one suspects he will be back again.<br /><br />The story is gripping and could have been more psychological, but I understand the story needed to capture the viewer and the action was necessary for that.<br /><br />Hard to believe Michael Jr. could be so apparently unmoved as his younger brother and mother as blown away. But, I can appreciate the scene play couldn't really take our attention there because it had a greater story to tell.<br /><br />Some have complained about Hanks as a gangster. I believe that isn't justified. If his character had been any harder, he would not have cared if his son pulled a trigger or not.<br /><br />Eight Stars for this one. Although it was released in 2002, I just saw it for the first time yesterday on DVD. | 0 |
Being a huge horror movie fan, one of the most difficult things to be considering the lack of abundance of good movies in the genre, and having seen hundreds of them in my lifetime, I have to say that Dracula 3000 is by far the most uninspired, lame and poorly done piece of trash I have had the misfortune to see. STAY AWAY FROM THIS MOVIE! It's so bad it's not even laughable. The special effects (did I say 'special'?) were probably achieved spending a couple of grand, the acting is terrible and the script should have ended up in the trash bin after the first read by the studio that decided to take on this miserable project. The whole movie was literally filmed in a warehouse. Also, for you guys out there who like nudity in your movies, don't be fooled by the R rating. If you're thinking you get a chance to see Erika Eleniak even half-naked, you're wrong. She is fully clothed throughout the entire movie. And the cover art is completely misleading! There is no scene in any part of the movie that even marginally resembles the awesome cover art they put on the box to draw unsuspecting horror fans.<br /><br />Too bad the rating is only 1 to 10. I would give this movie a -10. Be warned. Don't waste your money or your time on this one. | 1 |
Hal Hartley's Henry Fool was an independent film masterpiece and certainly his best work. It has immense character depth, subtle, complicated dialogue, and an excellent, emotional ending which captivates. I remember pausing it several times during my first viewing to absorb what I was seeing and feeling. Henry Fool was a complete movie from start to finish, and needed no sequel.<br /><br />Thus I was surprised when I heard about Fay Grim. Fay was not one of the main characters of the first film and seemed to exist more as the troubling imposition of real-world vanity and ignorance for her brother Simon to be forced to deal with as he matures. In her own movie, Fay matures herself, though her maturity takes a very different road. Simon went from near autistic isolation to a merely somewhat-introverted genius. Fay starts her adult journey as an immature, utterly normal, spoiled child and responds to the onslaught of ridiculous circumstances by becoming a mature, utterly normal, experienced adult who holds no advantages. She deals with problems the way any human does, with determination, a little thought, and weary disdain. While Simon learned to control his mind, Fay learns to control her emotion.<br /><br />The movie contains several fondly remembered elements of its prequel, but differs vastly in tone for most of the film. Henry fool showed you a harsh, boring, ignorant world which contrasted with Simon's inner passion and creativity. In Fay Grim, the world is a lively, crazy, emotional place which shows the silliness of her young life, and through contrast unearths the inner wise woman which had not been previously developed or nurtured by her similarly weak mother.<br /><br />The movie is in two parts, the first dealing with the beginning of Fay's struggle and subsequent hardening due to authoritarian hostility, and the second dealing with her battle to soften only just enough to regain Henry. At first, fans of Henry Fool may find themselves wondering how the movie can even be considered a sequel, and thinking it is profane to follow such an intense film with spy game antics and physical comedy. But this is where the subtlety of Fay Grim lies. The sequel is about Fay's journey, and as I said before, hers is one of finding the life-giving sanity in chaos, not the creative chaos in staid order. Parker Posey is an excellent actress who captures Hal Hartley's tongue in cheek humor perfectly. Elina Löwensohn perhaps eclipses her in emotional commitment to the role, allowing Parker to play both straight man and comic against the lively, stage-like comedy happening around her.<br /><br />With the entrance of Henry into the picture, the movie begins to take a sobering turn. Hal Hartley's movies are all plays, and every play must come full circle. By the end, you are shown Fay's newly developed character and integrity are the offspring of her time with the fatally intense Henry, whose piercing honesty and unique passion lights a spark in anyone he meets.<br /><br />Fay Grim is an excellent movie which does not surpass Henry Fool, but shows through Hal's range that the nuances of his art are the proof of his genius.<br /><br />Honestly, I think anyone who bashes this movie not only missed the point by a mile (and especially the subtlety in Parker Posey's acting), but could not have been much interested the movie Henry Fool. | 0 |
The Girl in Lovers' Lane: 3 out of 10: Homoerotic subtext in the movies is a well known phenomenon. Plenty of dissertations have come out of film schools about the hidden subtexts in such films as Top Gun and Spartacus. The Girl in Lover’s Lane certainly fits the homoerotic trope. In fact, it is so blatant and over the top even MST3K, whom rarely notes such things in their riffing, simply cannot avoid it.<br /><br />The film is about two drifters. One a rich kid (Lowell Brown) running away from home with a hundred dollars and no street smarts, the other is a professional hobo (Brett Halsey). The hobo saves the kid from a gang of thugs and they end up in a small town consisting of a diner, a pool hall and a whorehouse. Our drifter scholar gets a second look from the diner’s waitress (Joyce Meadows as the titular Girl in Lovers Lane) who clearly is past the age of being choosy and whose only other prospect is creepy Jack Elam doing a Steve Buscemi impression.<br /><br />On the surface, this seems like a strange film for the MST3K treatment. While the cast are to old for the characters they are playing, the acting is actually pretty good with both Brett Halsey and Jack Elam giving solid performances. The story is slight, but hardly The Robot vs. Aztec Mummy material and the production values are cheap back lot, but relatively competent.<br /><br />It is the strange Batman and his ward homosexual undercurrents that make this film both awful and hilarious. Halsey’s over the top objections to the kids attempts to get laid in the whorehouse are hilarious, his inability to commit to the waitress (or at the least get past first base) are telling, and the dozens of glances between him and the kid; a hand on shoulder, the sleeping arrangements, blowing off dates with the girl so he and the kid can shave each other. You don’t have to be Freud to figure out this undercurrent. | 1 |
The movie wasn't all that great. The book is better. But the movie wasn't all that bad either. It was interesting to say the least. The plot had enough suspense to keep me watching although I wouldn't say I was actually interested in the movie itself. Janine Turner and Antonio Sabato Jr are both gorgeous enough to keep you watching :)They have a few cute scene's that should appeal to the romantic's. Overall I'd give the movie a 7 or 8. It wasn't bad, Just a little lacking plot wise. | 0 |
What can I say about Ocean's Twelve? Who thought that it would ever come to this? A gigantic mess that loses itself halfway and can't retrace. I found myself amazed at how bad this really was. Really! I have never seen the ending properly because this film is just insufferable. I'm a huge fan of the first but this is a lame excuse for a sequel. <br /><br />What was the point of the heist if they were going to give the money back? The movie is just boring and so drag along that I can't ever sit through this. It really is bad. Just stay as far, repeat, far away as possible from this movie. It's worthless. | 1 |
The other lowest-rating reviewers have summed up this sewage so perfectly there seems little to add. I must stress that I've only had the Cockney Filth imposed on me during visits from my children, who insist on watching the Sunday omnibus. My god, it's depressing! Like all soaps, it consists entirely of totally unlikeable characters being unpleasant to each other, but it's ten times as bad as the next worst one could be. The reviewer who mocked the 'true to life' bilge spouted by its defenders was spot-on. If anyone lived in a social environment like this, they'd slash their wrists within days. And I can assure anyone not familiar with the real East End that it's rather more 'ethnically enriched' than you'll ever see here. Take my advice - avoid this nadir of the British TV industry. It is EVIL. | 1 |
I was looking through TV Guide last night and saw a movie starring Heather Grahm on, who I liked in movies like Boogie Nights, and Austin Powers, so I decided to watch it. It started out ok, but you could tell the story was lacking, and at about half way through, it started to deteriorate. I do not remember this movie being in the theaters, and I'm sure if it was, it wasn't there long. The acting was stale and unconvincing, the dialogue was silly and predictable, and the story was confusing and stupid. Definately one of the worst movies I have ever seen, and I like movies like the ones this has been compared to like Fight Club, but this one doesn't come close!! Heather Grahm has done much better things since. I gave it a 2 out of 10 but thats because I clicked on the wrong number, I meant to give it a 1. | 1 |
i´ve seen this piece of perfection :-) during the fantasy filmfest in berlin and when i went out of the cinema i felt like being 'drugged down'! i´ve seen a lot of films but there are just a few that i´d call perfect like koyaanisqatsi or fight club-subconscious cruelty is definitely one of them!!! half of the people went out of the screening in berlin and i can understand them absolutely! this is not a movie for 'normal' people with dreams and illusions! a person that is living in his/her dreams day by day not wanting to see all the horror in our life and on our planet will be very shocked by this film! if someone reads this now who has seen s.c. and also thinks it´s great: just contact me-so far i haven´t met anyone who shares my opinion-it´d be cool!!! this film earns 10 points out of 10!!! finally i´m really sorry for my bad english-i´m not a studied person!!! (und das ist auch gut so *g*) | 0 |
1st watched 7/29/2001 - 4 out of 10 (Dir-Mark Dindal): Fast-paced, frantic animation effort by Ted Turner's feature animation group plays a lot like tv cartoons and leaves a lot to be desired in the area of likeable characters, but definetly has extremely unlikeable villains. I'm not even sure why the kids would like this movie because there are so many references to old movie stars that kids know very little or nothing about. Mediocre effort at best despite raves on the box comparing it to Disney efforts like Aladdin and Lion King. Don't let this fool you -- there is no comparison in story or quality. | 1 |
Zentropa is the most original movie I've seen in years. If you like unique thrillers that are influenced by film noir, then this is just the right cure for all of those Hollywood summer blockbusters clogging the theaters these days. Von Trier's follow-ups like Breaking the Waves have gotten more acclaim, but this is really his best work. It is flashy without being distracting and offers the perfect combination of suspense and dark humor. It's too bad he decided handheld cameras were the wave of the future. It's hard to say who talked him away from the style he exhibits here, but it's everyone's loss that he went into his heavily theoretical dogma direction instead. | 0 |
Taking over roles that Jack Albertson and Sam Levene played on Broadway, Walter Matthau and George Burns play a couple of old time vaudeville comics, a team in the tradition of Joe Smith and Charles Dale who seem to have a differing outlook on life.<br /><br />Walter Matthau can't stop working, the man has never learned to relax, take some time and smell the roses. He's a crotchety old cuss whose best days are behind him and his nephew and agent Richard Benjamin is finding less and less work for him. <br /><br />What hurt him badly was that some 15 years earlier his partner George Burns decided to retire and spend some time with his family. A workaholic like Matthau can't comprehend it and take Burns's decision personally.<br /><br />Benjamin hits on a brain storm, reunite the guys and do it on a national television special. What happens here is pretty hilarious.<br /><br />The Sunshine Boys is also a sad, bittersweet story as well about old age. Matthau is on screen for most of the film, but it's Burns who got the kudos in the form of an Oscar at the ripe old age of 79.<br /><br />Burns brought a bit of the personal into this film as well. As we all know he was the straight man of the wonderful comedy team of Burns&Allen who the Monty Python troop borrowed a lot from. In 1958 due to health reasons, Gracie Allen retired and George kept going right up to the age of 100. Or at least pretty close to as an active performer.<br /><br />The Sunshine Boys is based on the team of Smith&Dale however and if you like The Sunshine Boys I strongly recommend you see Two Tickets to Broadway for a look at a pair of guys who were entertaining the American public at the turn of the last century. The doctor sketch that Matthau and Burns do is directly from their material.<br /><br />And I do think you will like The Sunshine Boys. | 0 |
A few buddies and myself have the strange hobby of seeking out really horrendous and utterly obscure (for a good reason) horror flicks and then subsequently watching them under the influence of mind-broadening consumer goods like alcohol and/or soft drugs. Surely a lot of people do this, but they watch movies like the 'Godzilla' remake, whereas we torment our eyes and brains with stuff like 'The Loch Ness Horror'. And, eureka, this is a prototypic bad movie! We open traditionally, with bag pipes music during the opening credits. This is, of course, to emphasize extra to us dumb viewers that the story is supposed to take place in the Scottish highlights and not in director Larry Buchanan's birthplace Texas. For that exact same reason, the cast members are seemingly also instructed to overact tremendously and talk with talk with atrocious accents. The American marine biologist Prof. George Sanderson arrives in Loch Ness with some brand new and highly sophisticated sonar equipment to track down the whereabouts of the legendary monster in the lake. Meanwhile, there are many other parties hanging around the lake, like a group of kids on a Science Camp (what a boring way to spend your vacation), retired army generals looking for a Luftwaffe plane that crashed in the lake during WWII and a bunch of thieves and failed scientists that are steeling the monster's egg. You would think that these numerous sub plots bring some diversity and excitement in the plot, but unfortunately that's not the case. 'Loch Ness Horror' is an overall boring flick with only a couple of noteworthy elements. The monster itself, for example, is a delightfully cheesy creation with cute eyes and a smoky breath. His teeth also glow in the dark, which is quite useful when you're dumb enough to go out on a boat ride in the middle of the night. Near the end of the film, the remaining cast members were more interested in the lost Luftwaffe plane than in the monster, so it was about time to wrap it up. 'Loch Ness Horror' is carefully recommended in case you're a fan of bad B-movies from the 80's, but be advised that it contains an overload of senseless dialogs and a bizarrely rushed ending that makes it look as if the film suddenly ran out of budget. | 1 |
Has the drama, suspense, and character developments you would enjoy if you like drama that engages you and entertains as well as educates.<br /><br />The writers know their material and it shows. The direction is always engaging and not blase, and the acting terrific. Why this show didn't win any awards tells me the 'powers that be' in Hollyweird don't know drama or much else for that matter. <br /><br />There is a plot twist in this episode at the end was a complete surprise and was very well played out. I'm glad it wasn't used as a shock scene for any climatic end to this series which would have been more typical and dull. Rent this series at once! Let's hope its brought back from celluloid extinction. | 0 |
Here in Australia Nights in Rodanthe is being promoted in the same class as the Notebook. Quite frankly what a lot of rot.<br /><br />This film is a like a recipe. On paper we have all the right ingredients... Richard Gere normally perfect in this genre, Diane Lane an old favourite from 'Under Tuscan Sun' and 'Unfaithful', ocean side location, solitude and yet the movie sucks. At the session we went to yesterday afternoon a women next to my wife fell asleep and half way through the movie got up and left! The main problem is there is no build up or credibility to the relationship in the first place. And perhaps there are too many long faces and downbeat if you like histories that Gere and Lane's characters bring to the movie. There's hours of those balanced out with perhaps 5 minutes of what we can to see... romance! There's no warmth from Gere's character, Lane looks dreadful at the start of the movie and all washed out. So as the viewer we cannot really connect to the characters.<br /><br />Others here say the book is great. Well be it the screenplay, direction or production someone here has made a real mess of this movie. It's like the scenes and the buildup are a deck of cards except instead of being in the correct order they've just been thrown together all over the place.<br /><br />Very disappointing... save your money for when it hits the video shops and even then wait for a good deal when it goes to the weekly rate. | 1 |
I am not so much like Love Sick as I image. Finally the film express sexual relationship of Alex, kik, Sandu their triangle love were full of intenseness, frustration and jealous, at last, Alex waked up and realized that they would not have result and future.Ending up was sad.<br /><br />The director Tudor Giurgiu was in AMC theatre on Sunday 12:00PM on 08/10/06, with us watched the movie together. After the movie he told the audiences that the purposed to create this film which was to express the sexual relationships of Romanian were kind of complicate.<br /><br />On my point of view sexual life is always complicated in everywhere, I don't feel any particular impression and effect from the movie. The love proceeding of Alex and Kiki, and Kiki and her brother Sandu were kind of next door neighborhood story.<br /><br />The two main reasons I don't like this movie are, firstly, the film didn't told us how they started to fall in love? Sounds like after Alex moved into the building which Kiki was living, then two girls are fall in love. It doesn't make sense at all. How a girl would fall in love with another girl instead of a man. Too much fragments, you need to image and connect those stories by your mind. Secondly, The whole film didn't have a scene of Alex and Kik's sexual intercourse, that 's what I was waiting for
. However, it still had some parts were deserved to recommend. The 'ear piercing ' part was kind of interesting. Alex was willing to suffer the pain of ear piercing to appreciate kik's love. That was a touching scene which gave you a little idea of their love. Also, the scene of they were lying in the soccer field, the conversation express their loves were truthful and passionate. | 1 |
'Shower' is an story about loyalty, about the unstoppable advance of modern world in the detriment of rather traditional and more human ways of life. A man forced to choose between his successful career in business, his big-city life, his wife, and his retarded young brother. The eternal doubt between what we WANT to do and what we SHOULD do. The modern China versus the ancient one. The public baths with its gatherings, its cricket fights versus the shopping centres and the skyscraper. Lots of old men and women that are no longer needed. China, one country, two systems, as Xiao Ping said ... though one of them is killing the other. <br /><br />Tender, moving, full of funny moments, and of bitter-sweet ones.The sensitive ones will cry and laugh equally. The actors are enormous, especially the one who performs the role of the retarded boy; and Yang Zhang makes a good job, easy, simple, letting the story just flow by itself.<br /><br />My rate: 8/10 | 0 |
I think this film has to be one of the most moving, and heartbreaking films of recent times.<br /><br />The film basically starts off with a suicide in a school toilet. U don't see who it is, then from there it goes to the beginning of the day, and we get to know 6 characters, and they are going through some pretty heavy things, anyway eventually one of them will commit suicide.<br /><br />I've been teaching Physical Education in schools for 8 years now, and never in a film have I seen such an accurate portrayal of what 'really' goes on in school life.<br /><br />The film is shot beautifully, and sounds incredible.<br /><br />The ending is so shocking, and so what one would not expect, it is something that will haunt me for days to come. <br /><br />This is Definitely one to watch.<br /><br />I think the fact that the Director/Writer was in school only a few years ago is a major contributing factor to the raw honesty expressed in the film. <br /><br />The film is shot in two separate 'modes' if you will. Firstly there is the smooth observation style where we get to know the characters in their school environment as they go through their drama, but the stunning part of the film is in the interview sections, where we get to know the characters back stories, and their deepest, darkest thoughts.<br /><br />You keep wondering, who is it going to be (who commits suicide) and as the drama unfolds you keep changing your mind, until bam, it hits you in the face in the final five minutes. I am all over the place in my writing, but I've just seen it at a Media screening in Australia, and I am still in a bit of shock. <br /><br />It's one of the best Australian Films I have seen in recent years. | 0 |
Sometimes I just want to laugh. Don't you? No analyzing, no critiquing and no looking for deeper meaning. Rent this movie, watch it all and laugh your ass off. Don't want to admit you liked it? Fine. But don't trash it here when you and I both know you liked it. It's Damn funny! | 0 |
The very first talking picture has returned from oblivion, and now you can hear it and see it! In autumn of 1894, at the Edison lab complex in West Orange, New Jersey, Thomas Edison's associate William Dickson tried to combine two existing technologies (the phonograph and the kinetoscope) to record sound and image together. In the event, Dickson was unable to synchronise the playback of sound and image, so this experimental film was never released to paying audiences ... and consequently (unlike many silent films which Dickson made for Edison at this time) it has no official title. The silent image (recorded at 40 fps) has been in the Library of Congress for years, known to film historians as a mute curiosity. It was also known that the 'soundtrack' had been recorded on one of the crude wax cylinders languishing at the Edison National Historic Site ... although nobody knew which one.<br /><br />But now that's changed. Recently, curators located the wax cylinder, which had broken into several pieces. These were reassembled: a playback was obtained, and the sound was digitised. Hollywood's veteran soundtrack editor Walter Murch cleaned up the background noise and tweaked the digitisation to make it synch with the film image, which Murch had digitally compressed to 30 fps. Sound and image are synchronised at last!<br /><br />The film begins with an offscreen man's voice calling: 'The rest of you fellows ready? Go ahead!' (The unseen speaker remains unidentified, but was probably Dickson's assistant Fred Ott.) On screen, Dickson plays a violin into an immense funnel mounted on a tripod (one of Edison's sound-recording devices) while alongside him, in full view of the camera, two male lab assistants embrace each other for some quick ballroom dancing to the tempo of Dickson's music.<br /><br />The film lasts barely 17 seconds: just long enough for us to marvel at this crude technology before being provoked to laughter at the sight of two men waltzing in each other's arms. Speaking of which, here's a WARNING: a well-known but extremely inaccurate reference book ('The Celluloid Closet', by the late Vito Russo) includes a frame enlargement from this movie and identifies it as 'The Gay Brothers'. That's incorrect. 'The Gay Brothers' is an entirely different movie, made by Dickson at the Edison lab during this same period. 'The Gay Brothers' never had a soundtrack: it's a brief fiction film about two brothers who are NOT 'gay' in the sense Russo meant it. The deceased Mr Russo, for his own reasons, wanted us to perceive Dickson's experimental sound film (arguably the first movie musical!) as an artefact of 19th-century homoeroticism. (Hmm, what is it about gay men and musicals?) Sorry, but there's just no such content here.<br /><br />This vitally important film deserves a rating of 10 out of 10. I've often maintained that no 'lost' movie should ever be considered irretrievable unless it was deliberately destroyed: I'm delighted to report that this film is finally available to audiences as its producer intended it, more than a century after it was filmed! | 0 |
I'd passed this title 15 or 20 times while in Blockbuster, looking for something halfway decent to watch. All I can say is that they were all out halfway decent films the night I chose to rent this.<br /><br />I will give it credit for being leaps and bounds better than 'Dracula 3000', but in actuality that's pretty easy to say since this one DIDN'T have Caper Van Dien in it. The other things it lacked in spades were: an interesting cast, interesting story, good dialog and originality, but I suppose you can't have everything.<br /><br />***SPOILERS AHEAD*** The misfit crew of vampire hunters (one of which was a vampire... go figure) flew around from mining colony to mining colony trying to wipe out all the vampires it could find. The crew consists of: the cocky, ne'er-do-well captain (who dies early on), his by-the-book, yet inexperienced first mate, the aforementioned vampire vampire hunter (not a typo), a wannabe cowboy and a REALLY, REALLY butch Asian commando, 'tough guy' female... it almost sounds like the cast for MTV's 'The Real World'. After the captain dies in a violent confrontation with a mob of bloodsuckers (and as it turns out, lovers of the finer parts of human anatomy) his first mate takes over... blah, blah, blah... everyone hates him... blah, blah, blah... I could go on, but as I said it's the same storyline used in about a hundred other 'films' of the genre.<br /><br />The effects were cheese and why Michael Ironside was in this movie is beyond me. The vampire vampire hunter (still not a typo) was pretty hot, but of course if you're waiting for her to expose more than just her cleavage, look elsewhere.<br /><br />I can't say that it was the worst film I've seen, as I actually rented 'Starship Troopers 2', but wait for this one to come on the Sci-Fi Channel. | 1 |
What a boring film! To sum it all up, its was basically just Nana Patekar beating up his daughter-in-law Karisma Kapoor, while she tried to flee from the village, with her son. Can someone say BORING??? The concept wasn't too bad, but it was poorly executed. The Canadian locales, and some of the village scenes were nicely shot. However, overall the cinematography came up short. The story could have been great, but the movie just seemed to drag on. There is only so much stupidity a person can take, let alone three bloody hours of it.<br /><br />The best part of the whole movie was the song 'Ishq Kamina', and that was only five minutes long. Other than that, this movie was a piece of crap. | 1 |
After seeing the trailer of this film in the cinema, i thought that it was an original concept for a thriller, setting it in the competitive world of computer companies. The all star cast was another message that this film would probably be good. But when i didn't go to watch it in it's first week of release then it disappeared by week 2 i feared something was a miss. Patiently i waited for it's DVD release, then bought it rushing home for an enjoyable evening's viewing. The anticipation on the way home was far better than the film. For a start the direction is appalling. There's no thought gone into it at all and the director just makes up a part for himself, so he can appear in the film. I wouldn't be rushing out to employ him in the future. Secondly the lead role is completely miscast as Ryan Phillipe. Phillipe normally the cool character as in Cruel Intentions and Way of the Gun but in this he's supposed to be a bumbling hero which he attempts to portray by slipping when he's running and having geeky friends, but he just doesn't look right. The female stars, Rachel Leigh Cook and Clare Forlani don't feature enough but when they do neither of the performances are close to their bests. The only highlight of the film is Tim Robbins in a role that could have been made for him and it's his fiery temper and mysterious ways that drag the film along. The final point is that this film is another one which fills the trailer with scenes you don't see in the film and instead feature only in the deleted scenes section of the DVD. Causing even more disappointment as although some of these scenes are crude they do fill in important gaps in the story. | 1 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.