review
stringlengths 41
13.7k
| label
int64 0
1
|
|---|---|
There are many so-called anti-war/anti-govt. policy films around now which start off as a mea culpa and end with 'our poor boys are getting hell out there so let the world sympathise with them, it's not their fault' - kind of stuff. I was half afraid that this would be another in that style even if it treated another subject/aspect of the same subject. I nearly didn't go and see it; for that matter, I almost did not write this review. What did we get here? An Egyptian gets taken off to a secret off-shore torture centre, on U.S. orders, but it is another Egyptian who has to do the torturing, not an American: 'see, we Americans have clean hands,' and the Egyptians are a bad lot anyway so let them harm their own. Oh, and the goody had to be an American with a conscience: indeed many Americans have them, but here the concept was misplaced. Yes, we all know it is called Extraordinary Rendition and it began in Clinton's time and it is now used for reasons well beyond control. Otherwise it was very hackneyed and nervous about really condemning the U.S. for being party to torture; as if the makers were afraid to go the whole way for fear of being slanged as unpatriotic or whatever (take a look at the message board! Anyone apologising gets a faceful of heavy verbal artillery). Torture is a terrible thing, whether one is guilty or not; in the 18th Century, FrederickII, King of Prussia, abolished it for convicted murderers - though I must say, a life sentence for a child molester is far less than what I want to see. All right, what about torture? This film did not really bring out its horror and hopelessness enough. When you are under torture,(now come the capitals for emphasis, I am not shouting) YOU WILL SAY ANYTHING, EVEN IF IT IS NOT TRUE, EVEN IF YOU HAVE NOT DONE THE THING YOU ARE ACCUSED OF, IN THE VAIN HOPE THAT IF YOU SAY AMEN TO WHATEVER THEY ARE PEDDLING, IT WILL STOP. IT DOES NOT, BUT YOU NEVER LEARN AND YOU KEEP ON SAYING THAT YOU DID WHATEVER IT IS THEY SAY YOU DID, THO' YOU DID'NT. Another thing the film did not bring out enough was that TORTURE IS EXCEEDINGLY, INDESCRIBABLY HUMILIATING, AND THAT FEELING STAYS WITH YOU YOUR WHOLE LIFE. It somehow changes people inside. How do I know all that? Don't ask.<br /><br />Re-edit: two things: the Arabic that was used in the film was not the Egyptian dialect. It's sort of worse than setting a film in New Zealand with locals as the characters and everyone has American accents. Also, the dreadful little preacher who was inciting his ignorant audience to violence was telling them things unknown to that religion, which should have been brought out. Nor was it anywhere explained that any nincompoop can become a mullah/imam; he doesn't need any special qualifications, and that is a hiatus which needs to be put right: many are acceptable because of their fundamentalist views and tne U.S.A.'s great ally, Saudi Arabia, finances so many of them. Many thanks for this space. | 1 |
I tend to fall in and out of love with anime, as the more you watch the more you notice a lot of shows are just poor copies of the few gems or rehashes of old formulas. But every once in a while one of the true gems comes along and it's originality just blows you away. Haruhi is truly one of those shows. Many anime series are originally manga and sometimes the translation into an animated show is rather poorly done and doesn't utilize the benefits animation has over static drawings. Haruhi is actually based on a series of light novels and fires on all cylinders, beautiful animation, great voice acting, great music and a complete and well paced story. Watch it you won't be disappointed, and I'd suggest watching it in broadcast order it works so much better that way. | 0 |
This is hands down the worst movie of all time. A combination of Whoopie Goldberg (the worst actress/person in history) and a talking dinosaur ala Jar-Jar-Binks add up to a painfully bad movie. That was an understatement. This movie is unwatchable. For the love of God, do not watch this movie. | 1 |
Legendary director Sidney Lumet gives us one of his finest films in his historic career in this very tense, and ultimately shocking story about a family that includes dysfunctional as one of the children. With an A-list cast headed by Philip Seymour Hoffman (an Oscar-worthy performance here), Ethan Hawke, Marisa Tomei and Albert Finney, Lumet has captured not just elements of botched crime stories such as Reservoir Dogs, but also family stories such as Ordinary People.<br /><br />Many viewers might be confused and feel underwhelmed at the construction of the plot Lumet has gone with here. Instead of showing it in a linear manner, he has gone the Tarantino route and shows the central scene of a robbery gone wrong from different points of view all out of order. I personally found this to be very satisfying and left me constantly guessing what was going to happen next. The script is very strong with some excellent scenes between husband and wife Hoffman and Tomei, as well as between father and son Finney and Hoffman. All the actors are totally engaging to watch and Lumet is obviously having fun in directing a style he usually doesn't delve in. Plenty of action and suspense to hold the audience for the two hour running time, this is a rare movie that doesn't disappoint for one moment. | 0 |
Patricia Arquette plays American doctor Laura Bowman, who takes a holiday to Burma in an attempt to heal her spirit after the murders of her husband and young son. She is left behind in Rangoon during a military crackdown and leaves the city with an aging man who works as a 'tour guide.' But he is no simple tour guide; he is a professor who introduces her to the life outside of the tourist traps ... the two of them get caught up in the political upheaval and Laura sees with her own eyes how the government betrays and oppresses its own people.<br /><br />This movie is one of my favorites because of its themes. First, it's informational (describing some of the injustices that are occurring in Burma). Secondly, it's about a woman's struggle to find meaning in life after an incredible loss. Thirdly, it's about compassion and sacrifice, and people coming together - without even knowing each other - to endure pain and fear.<br /><br />Just about every beautiful scene in this movie is important; nothing is wasted here. It's an earnest and moving film. There is also a very emotional score composed by Hans Zimmer which complements scenes nicely.<br /><br />A definite recommend, especially to people concerned with human rights ... and people who want to know, 'What purpose can I serve?'<br /><br /> | 0 |
I never dreamed when I started watching this DVD that I would be totally mesmerized by it within minutes. The story was completely absorbing and entertaining. The acting was superb. The biggest surprise of all was how I would be so completely enchanted by the love these two young women radiated across the screen. Their initial physical encounter for me was by far the most tender, romantic, delightful, vicariously enthralling love scenes I have ever witnessed on film. I literally stopped breathing. I could not believe the chemistry between the two actresses. With no nudity or graphic sex, they conveyed more passion and titillation than any American production could ever hope to evince. Bravo to the author, the screenwriter, the director and the cast. | 0 |
Supercarrier was my favorite movie in the later part of the 80's when it came out. My Dad taped it for me & I watched it all the time until my step-mom taped Oprah over it & my heart was torn. I would love to know if or where I can get it from. I have been looking for it. I believe they even came out w/ a Supercarrier 2. It wasn't as great as the 1st, but I would like to have all of them if I could find them. I do not think @ all that it was a bad movie. It was a very interesting movie with a lot of action yet it had somewhat of a love story plot to it. The actors/actresses in the movie were great. It also helped me to understand that this is not just a man's world, but it is also a woman's world & many women can do the same things if not more than what a man can do & women deserve much respect for their duties as well. | 0 |
'Leatherheads' tries so hard. Tries to be light hearted. Tries to be a comedy. Tries to be a love affair. Let's see, it tries to be a 'His Girl Friday' by way of 'The Sting' by way of 'It Happened One Night' by way of a dozen sports movies. Alas, trying isn't doing and the movie is as soggy as the last game's field.<br /><br />A fan of movies would watch the big fight scene in the speakeasy between the Duluth Bulldogs and some soldiers and realize that the fights that John Ford staged with such style and verve and humor in movies like 'The Quiet Man' or 'Donovan's Reef', or 'The Searchers' may have seemed easy to do but obviously aren't. I would bet George Clooney thought channeling John Ford would be easy as well. How hard could it be: masculinity run amok, punches, bottles broken over heads, an imperturbable piano player...just put it up there on the screen with some happening music. Sorry. It takes a master to make fight scenes flow.<br /><br />Movies aren't wished into existence. Humor is hard. Romance is hard. Slapstick a lost art.<br /><br />I once read that you never wanted to sit too close to a ballet performance. Something about not wanting to prick the fantastic bubble of the performance by hearing the thuds of the dancers' feet or the grunts of the lifts. This movie is like that...all strain and good intentions, handsome actors, nice sets, but it thuds through its paces rather than gallops like the original Galloping Ghost, Red Grange, who the movie is loosely based on. | 1 |
Crossfire (1947)<br /><br />Great Message, Great Symbolism, Very Good Movie<br /><br />It's hard to go totally wrong with Robert Mitchum, Robert Young, and Robert Ryan all together as the three male leads, and with director Edward Dmytryk pulling together a complicated murder and detective yarn. That's reason enough to watch it once and even twice.<br /><br />You might need a second look to fully catch the plot as it is explained (too much) or shown in flashback (also too much) because it's a little complicated without good reason. But it makes sense overall, and we see early on (too early probably) who the culprit is, and even why.<br /><br />Besides the drama, well done in typical noir lighting and filled with those short quips that make post-war films dramatic, there is the social message, the anti-anti-Semitic point of it all. It only borders on preachy once or twice, and it's such an obviously good point to make we watch it being made approvingly and wait for the plot and the dramatic acting to take front row. Which they do, especially Young, who is a brilliantly laconic and patient detective, and Ryan, who is mean in a believably crude and angry way (Ryan is good at that, his typecasting reasonable). Mitchum mostly plays a watered down version of what he is famous for, and the fourth known acting force, Gloria Grahame, is a great, brief, presence even if slightly dispensable.<br /><br />Though the movie is dominated by the sequence of events and by the message, both of which grow in force as we go, it is really easy to watch just for the lighting, camera-work, and acting, including the classic fight scene that opens the first few seconds of the film, all done with shadows. <br /><br />The archetypes of soldiers presented is very deliberate, and this might be something people at the time were very familiar with and could relate to as much as the anti-Semitism thread. The shell-shocked soldier rendered helpless (but still intrinsically capable), the modest youngster without confidence (but capable, too), and the weary but outwardly able veteran are all there. And of course, the angry, violent soldier who is a product of the war, too. This last is also a responsibility of society--even the army goes all out to make good on the injustices here, not just because they are criminal, but because they stem from the wear and tear of a long awful war.<br /><br />The audience then, more than now, could really get, but it's there to appreciate still. | 0 |
One of the many vigilante epics that flooded the market by the mid-80s. The routine plot has echoes of 'The Magnificent Seven' (believe it or not), the action scenes are lamely handled and the special effects are non-existent. You COULD do worse....but the film is still just a waste of time. (*1/2) | 1 |
The Kissing Bandit was the third and final film that Frank Sinatra and Kathryn Grayson co-starred at MGM with. The first two were Anchors Aweigh and It Happened in Brooklyn. And in both Sinatra wooed and lost Grayson. I guess the third time's the charm.<br /><br />For romance maybe, but definitely not for screen image. Sinatra in his forty's films once again plays the nice little schnook only this time in toreador pants. Poaching on Tyrone Power's territory laid out in The Mark of Zorro, Sinatra plays the son of a man who was a hotel owner by day and The Kissing Bandit by night. He's gone and left California for an education and has come back ready to take Dad's place, but in the hotel business only. And where does he learn the hotel business, Boston.<br /><br />Of course some of Dad's former gang members, grown a little old and paunchy led by J. Carrol Naish, want him to lead the gang again. But Frank's just not cut out for the outlaw life. But he does make a good impression on the Governor's daughter, Kathryn Grayson.<br /><br />Somebody must have had it in for Sinatra at MGM to cast him in this after the bad reviews he got in Miracle of the Bells. Frank's in a part that was more suitable for Red Skelton. But since this was a musical, I guess the brain trust at MGM figured Kathryn Grayson had to have a singing co-star.<br /><br />In fact the best number in the film are for her, Love Is Where You Find It. Also Ricardo Montalban, Ann Miller, and Cyd Charisse do a dance specialty that is nice. Frank's songs are nice, but nothing spectacular.<br /><br />In later years, Sinatra would wince at the mention of The Kissing Bandit and with good reason. | 1 |
Going into Teaching Mrs Tingle, all I wanted was a fun, enjoyable teen comedy that would entertain me for it's running time. Despite a rather good first half hour, the film quickly subsides into a dull, clichéd mess that's about as entertaining as pulling out your eyelashes with pliers. Rusty pliers, at that. 'Scream' writer Kevin Williamson wrote and directed this movie, and proved that Scream may well have been a fluke. Most of the elements of this movie have been seen a million times already in other films; and while it was OK for him to steal elements from other movies in Scream, due to the fact that it's meant as a slasher tribute; here, it just looks like he's completely ran out of ideas. The plot follows the cleverest girl in school, played by Katie Holmes. After being caught cheating along with two of her friends; the three decide to take the teacher that caught them hostage in her own home. However, this isn't just any teacher; it's Mrs Tingle, the meanest bitch in school. She isn't taking being tied to the bed lying down either, as she begins to play mind games to turn her captors against each other.<br /><br />The plot is very similar to the 1997 flick 'Suicide Kings', and a whole host of earlier films. It's actually not a bad idea for a movie, and if Williamson could have populated the film with interesting characters; it could have worked really well. The character of Mrs Tingle is the most interesting in the movie, but she's massively one dimensional, and like all the other characters in the film; is merely a caricature. The acting is largely diabolical, with the exception of Helen Mirren in the title role. She's suitably evil in the role, and while she doesn't have a lot to get her teeth into; she clearly enjoys herself playing the central figure. The teenage cast isn't worth mentioning, with only Katie Holmes standing out; and that's only really because of her star profile, not her acting talents. Williamson has draped nearly every scene in dull soft rock music, which would be really annoying if the film wasn't absolutely terrible anyway. Honestly, this movie does have a few moments that are rather good; but basically, if you want to see a good example of the teen comedy - this isn't the movie that you want to see. | 1 |
Vadim changed Brigitte's image and way of life from that of the young society beauty he had married to that of a rebellious and challenging teenager of the 1950s
<br /><br />'Une Parisienne' succeeded in launching her ravishing figure as the teenage goddess, the casual sexuality, the provocative gaiety in confrontation with men
<br /><br />Charles Boyer as Prince Charles was the perfect, ideal choice of those magically romantic moments
His deep and vibrant voice spoke a promise of new adventures in love
His deep, wondering eyes bespoke a worldly knowledge untarnished by cynicism
He had the boudoir grace of Valentino without the hysteria or the sometime effeminacy of the great lover
Under Michel Boisrond's direction, Boyer was an old-style romantic without the grand manner
| 0 |
I thought this series was going to be another fun, action series with some dynamic plots and great performances. I was wrong. While I like Jamie Denton, this show is hardly worth watching at all, unless you enjoy watching some people brutalized and the actions of the agents supposedly warranted under the theme of 'national security.' The show is great propaganda for the current government, and spews out jingoism as though we talk that way every day. After a couple of episodes, it was boring the hell out of me, and I started watching reruns of House Invaders on BBCAmerica instead. Rather watch CSI and Without a Trace, without a doubt. | 1 |
I love military comedies (Sgt. Bilko, Stripes, In The Army Now, Major Payne) and Down Periscope is hilarious, but it has a heart as well.<br /><br />The Stingray SS-161 (The USS Pampanito) was gorgeous. Absolutely beautiful, a piece of art come alive. So it was a diesel engine sub, so what? I learned that the Aircraft Carrier USS Ranger (which stood in for The Enterprise in Star Trek IV), a huge ship, was 'conventionally powered', which might mean that Ranger was a diesel too.<br /><br />My favorite scene: Pascal: Jesus, Buckman, this can's been on the stingray since Korea! This can expired in 1966! Buckman: (Takes finger full and tastes it) What's the matter, sir? It still tastes like creamed corn.<br /><br />Pascal: (Yelling) Except, it's DEVILED HAM!! Buckman: That would be a problem.<br /><br />It's story, perhaps a wee strained, seemed plausible. Winslow respected Dodge, and seemed to care about him, so he wanted to give Dodge a chance. He gave him a battered but still seaworthy Balao-class sub, and assigns him the task of using the diesel sub to evade the nuclear Navy and 'attack' Charlston Harbor, and Norfolk. 2-star Admiral Graham (with his eye on his third star, and a grudge against Dodge) assigned him the ragtag crew, hoping that they would screw up so Dodge would lose. Can Tom Dodge get the crew up to speed and working as a team, and can he take an old, out of date sub, and beat the Navy's best? | 0 |
Victor Sjostrom, who is the grandfather of Swedish cinema, directed this stark, existentialist film about atonement, betrayal, death, forgiveness, guilt, redemption, and the bleakest moments of the human condition. He stars as David Holm, a no good-nick who responds to a moment of kindness by returning to his drunken ways, only to later have to bargain for his soul with the driver of the phantom carriage: death.<br /><br />Unlike many silent films during the period, the film is nearly absent scenes with over-acting. The pacing does becomes tedious with its overly familiar Dickensian narrative. However, examining the film in retrospect and in comparison to others of its time, it's a very daring and unique film. Audiences of the time were not exposed to such subject matter, and the cinematography is tremendous, symbolic, and accompanied by double exposure effects and multi-layered flashbacks. It's a genuinely creepy and frightening film for youngsters for sure.<br /><br />Watching the film, it's easy to see the later influences this film had on Swedish master Ingmar Bergman. Most of the great Bergman themes are here on full display. Sjostrom, of course, later starred in Bergman's masterpiece on alienation and loneliness: Wild Strawberries. This would be Sjostrom's final performance as an actor. Sjostrom based the script on a novel by Swedish writer Selma Lagerlof. *** of 4 stars. | 0 |
I watched this film for the second time tonight after about three years and it was as wonderful as before...<br /><br />There are more than a dozen modern stunning French films from en couer de hiver to the three colours trilogy and all of them are special. This film is one of them. A true delight with so many great things going for it from the homage to Hitchcock to two beautiful ladies in Romane and Monica. While Monica is very beautiful, Romane is a very sexy lady and steals many of the scenes she inhabits.<br /><br />I am not sure why people think this film is convoluted as the scenes are such a perfect blend of past and present acting as a counterpoint to the characters' own remarkable journey that the film simply flows and you barely realise that 116 minutes of beauty and mystery have left the viewed enchanted and bewitched. <br /><br />Like most French and European films this story would never translate across the Atlantic as no studio could capture the magic without throttling the life out of it with the Hollywood bleaching common to most movies that become lost in translation. Americans make brilliant films, but not of this type... perhaps if they let someone like a young Polanski work on it then maybe they would not totally butcher an English version...<br /><br />For those who do not watch subtitled films you will spend a lifetime in ignorant bliss. For those who can read then you would be spiting yourself to miss films like this...<br /><br />I would describe this as Neo-Franco-Noir, but only to cheese off the reviewer who called this film elitist. I think I saw him doing an add for four-and-twenty-pies. He thinks Romane Bohringer is a type of French Mayonnaise...It is arty in the way that Pulp Fiction is arty...but with more Gallic savoire faire...<br /><br />10 out of 10 with every viewing...and has anyone got Romane's phone number...she is the perfect French Salad Dressing... | 0 |
I'm a big Porsche fan, and the car was the best star in this film.<br /><br />Haim, the now dried up drug abusing child star of the 80's is bland as per usual, and commenting on back up from minor characters/actors would be pointless; needless to say they were all very average. It's a cool movie as a trip down memory lane into the 80's - with some weird clothes, some good shots of the Colorado backdrop and a very harmless albeit mind numbing plot.<br /><br />All in all, please don't waste your time watching this unless you love 80's movies, Corey Haim, or like myself, love old school Porsches (this one in particular looks great) because life's too short to watch crappy movies. | 1 |
I saw this movie yesterday night and it was one of the best made for TV films I've seen. It was very well directed and the acting was superb, very convincing. The music was good and the cinematography was beautifully shot. Take out the hopelessness out of Requiem for a Dream and you get wasted. An excellent depiction of the world of drug addiction and its consequences given in a very open way in wich anyone can relate to. cudos to mtv for giving us a good flick for a change from !*$*% like Crossroads. | 0 |
The Journey of Hope (1990) is about a trek that many nomadic and poor Turks make so they could live the good life in Switzerland. These people are so desperate to live like Westerners that they'll give up their life and lives in an attempt to reach the promised land. So many of them are swindled by greedy crooks who make their living off of charging huge fees for desperate people who are in a no win situation. One family braves the cold, the treacherous mountain range and predatory criminals only to discover that there's not always a shining white light at the end of the tunnel. This problem exists world wide, not just in America. Some people tend to forget that. A heart breaker of a film that'll leave you wondering why at the end.<br /><br />Highly recommended. | 0 |
This four-hour miniseries production is about two hours longer than necessary, primarily because the filmmakers seemed not to have a clear idea how to adapt a novel to the screen. They seemed not to know what should be kept in and what might safely be left out. The film opens with Sir Walter reading from the Peerage book that is his primary solace in his troubles. This introduces the family - all of whom we get to know intimately over the next four hours anyway - but serves little other purpose. Similarly, the scenes where the Musgroves lament 'poor Richard' serve no purpose but to drag the story down. Some of Austen's actual dialogue is allocated to different characters and some of her narrative is recycled as dialogue that falls awkwardly from the tongues of the characters. There is some fill-in dialogue, too, and this is uniformly dreadful. The scene where Charles Hayter is boring Henrietta with his concerns about getting Dr. Shirley's curacy was only barely interesting as narrative in the book; as a scene in this production, it is stultifying The scene on the Cobb, when Louisa falls and is 'taken up lifeless!', is entirely without urgency, and I wondered whether Wentworth's line 'Is there nobody to help me?' might have been directed at the writers, as well as the other actors.<br /><br />This production often looks and feels like a play that has been filmed, rather than an actual film, and this is most evident in the acting, which is the opposite of subtle: booming delivery of lines, exaggerated gestures, and actors who have no idea what to do with their hands, feet, or faces when they are not speaking their lines. Charles Musgrove stands in his parlour, feet shoulder width apart, and appears to project to the balcony (if there were one) when speaking to the other people in the room with him. Louisa Musgrove's face, when not actively simpering or giggling, seems to be in confused repose. Louisa is a giddy, giggly, ditzy creature, and I did not for a moment believe that Wentworth would be interested in her. <br /><br />The costumes are a mixed bunch, but mostly awful, and Anne Elliot's green tartan gown is quite possibly the most hideous alleged period costume ever devised. We are given the dates at the beginning of the show - it is the late 1790's or perhaps very early 1800s - and yet many of the costumes seem to be of Victorian design, and thus about 60 years too early! The hair is just so wrong that I won't even mention it here. Except to say that I won't mention it. :-)<br /><br />This production does do some things right, however. Mrs. Smith is given her proper importance, and her history with Mr. Elliot, his dissipation and his intrigues, are fully addressed. I was also pleased to see the fleshed out 'reconciliation' scenes with Anne and Frederick at the end, which are precious reward for the reader but were glossed over in the 1995 production.<br /><br />If you love the book Persuasion, and even vaguely like the 1995 movie, don't waste a moment (or a penny) on this production; you will find it sorely wanting. | 1 |
'Ninteen Eighty-Four' is a film about a futuristic society in which the government controls everything and no one can be trusted. It is a very dark film, and it is one that will not make you feel good about yourself. It is about a romance taking place in this society and the betrayal of the lovers and about human nature being self-centred. The film has some very good ideas and is done well in portraying this society with the dark tones in colours (contrasting with happiness and bright colours in the dreams) and a general feeling of loneliness through objects and people and places. However, despite the film's cleverness at portraying this idea, the film was very slow and did not seem to quite get the idea across. It seemed to spend too much time being clever rather than telling a story. | 1 |
This movie was on British TV last night, and is wonderful! Strong women, great music (most of the time) and just makes you think. We do have stereotypes of what older people 'ought' to do, and there are fantastic cameos of the 'sensible but worried children'. Getting near to my best movie ever ! | 0 |
Very poor effort that offers pretty much nothing to anyone but a hardcore fan of Stanley Tucci, who tries, but can not save the poor structure, dialogue, direction, or talent of our leading man.<br /><br />Pretty much the only trick this plodding tale of a naive new salesman for an alarm company has, is its quirky side characters. But without a realistic backdrop, such characters are pointless.<br /><br />Nothing to see here, keep moving...<br /><br /> | 1 |
Gamera vs Viras was made lazily and much of it suffers as a result.<br /><br />Space Aliens try to take over Earth and are stopped by Gamera. So they send another ship that manages to kidnap two young boys. The aliens then take control of Gamera and get him to attack mankind.<br /><br />First of all I must say that I really enjoyed the monster fight at the end between Gamera and Viras. Viras looks like a big squid with a beak. He has no energy weopons and does not shoot any rays out but he can close the apendages on top of his head to make a sharp pointy weopon. SO overall this is not a bad monster for Gamera to fight and is decent. Viras really injures Gamera badly by stabbing his underside of his shell with his pointy head and I am surprised Gamera was able to survive this.<br /><br />Unfortunately Gamera vs Viras decided to use footage from previous Gamera films to fill time for this film. They re show the battles between Gamera and Barugon and Gamera and Gaos when the aliens look at Gameras past battles. However when they show Gamera's battles with Gaos they show the battle between Gamera and Gaos in the city first, then they show the final battle between the two. After they show re used footage of the final battle between Gamera and Gaos they show the FIRST battle between Gamera and Gaos!!! Talk about showing the battles in non chronological order. THey did not even need to show the first battle they should have just stopped after they showed the final battle between the two.<br /><br />Another issue is that they decide to re show footage of Gamera attacking cities when the aliens order him to attack Tokyo. So they show the scene from 'Gamera vs Barugon' where he destroys the Dam. After the show scenes from 'Gamera The Invincible' which is a huge issue for me. Mainly due to the fact that 'Gamera The Invincible' was in BLACK AND WHITE!!!! Using stock footage from a black and white film in a COLOR film is really lazy and that is not a good thing.<br /><br />Also the dubbing is bad once again. The two little kids are not that annoying but it would be nice to see a Gamera film that did not involve little kids.<br /><br />So the over use of footage from other Gamera Films is a deterrant to this film. The final fight is awesome so basically I recommend skipping to the final ten minutes and watching this film. The rest is something that has already been seen before. | 1 |
This is the best Emma in existence in my opinion. Having seen the other version (1996) which is also good, and read the book, I think I can safely say with confidence that this is the true interpretation and is the most faithful to Jane Austen's masterpiece. The 1996 movie with G. Paltrow is good too, it's just that it's almost like a different story altogether. It's very light and fluffy, you don't see the darker edges of the characters and if you just want a pleasant movie, that one would do fine but the intricacies of some of the plot points, such as the Churchill/Fairfax entanglement is so much glossed over as to be virtually non-existent. But if you want the characters fleshed out a bit, more real and multidimensional, the 1996 TV version is the superior. Emma is a remarkable person, but she is flawed. Kate Beckinsale is masterful at showing the little quirks of the character. You see her look casually disgusted at some of the more simple conversation of Harriet Smith, yet she shows no remorse for having ruined Harriet's proposal until that action has the effect of ruining her own marital happiness at the ending. You see her narcissism and it mirrors Frank Churchill's in that they would do harm to others to achieve their own aims. For Emma, it was playing matchmaker and having a new friend to while away the time with after having suffered the loss of her governess to marriage. For Frank Churchill, it is securing the promise of the woman he loves while treating her and others abominably to keep the secret. In the book, she realizes all of this in a crushing awakening to all the blunders she has made. Both Kate Beckinsale and Gyneth Paltrow are convincing in their remorse but Paltrow's is more childlike and stagnant while Beckinsale's awakening is rather real and serious and you see the transition from child-like, selfish behavior to kind and thoughtful adult. Both versions are very good but I prefer this one. | 0 |
It came before 'the ten commandments' 'land of the Pharaohs' 'Ben Hur' and it's overlooked today.How unfair!Based on Mika Waltari's mammoth novel ,it doesn't cheapen it!Waltari's novel was so huge only a miniseries could have done it justice (I hope it will be done some day).Waltari,whose message is essentially Christian remains intact(another of his books 'the secret of the kingdom' (first part) takes place after Christ's death in the Holy Land).<br /><br />'The Egyptian' is the rising of a monotheism close to Christianism long before Christ:the Pharaoh(Wilding) is some kind of Messiah who sacrifices his life because he knows that the true kingdom is not in the material world:he asks to return good for evil!And he has disciples ,who will eventually turn into martyrs (the scene when Simmons and the other worshippers of the Sun God are slain is visually stunning,looking like some pagan ballet).For the priests ,on the other hand,this new religion would mean the end of their influence on the populace,and that's why they look for a strong man (Mature)who can lead the army against the Hittites as well as against their dangerous compatriots.Another religion,or non-religion should we say, is Sinouhé's (Purdom)who during two hours believes in nothing (the sequence of the grain of sands is absolutely sensational and rises the whole movie well above the average peplum !!)<br /><br />There's another fascinating side:the movie looks like a flamboyant melodrama.Not only for the screenplay (notably pharoah's sister's (Tierney)final revelation which predates 'the ten commandments' by two years),but also the splendor of the cinematography:Viviani ,in his book about Curtiz,talks about a Baudelairian atmosphere ,blue and gold,notably in the scenes which involve the prostitute (Darvi)who contemplates her reflection in the water of her bath,supreme narcissism. Around the hero,all the characters appear,disappear,appear again,but when they reappear ,they have followed their way and all the subplots come together with consummate skill.Besides,as such is often the case in 'modern ' melodramas ,the story is a long flashback,framed by two short sequences showing Sinouhé an old man who's remembering.<br /><br />This is a wonderful sword and sandals,that had a strong influence,not only in America but also in Europa,notably in Poland where Jerzy Kawalerowicz directed a spellbinding 'faraon' (1966) which owed a lot to Curtiz. | 0 |
Love Rosario Dawson, think she's one of the finest actresses of the modern era.<br /><br />Descent seems to be more about self-empowerment than anything else. It's the consistent undertone in everything in the film. The dialog is flat, the characters seemingly intentionally bland and one sided. The only consistency is the representation of self-empowerment in the characters and Rosario's journey from self empowerment to loss of empowerment and back again.<br /><br />Pitching this as a rape classic isn't appropriate, and that's probably why so many people don't enjoy the film. The standard 'rape' audience wouldn't particularly like this film, and maybe that's the point? The film asks more questions than it answers, and it does confront it's target audience, whether they like it or not. There's a compelling relationship between the characters and the target audience and while the film doesn't slap the audience across the face with self-righteous audacity it does engage the viewer for what may or may not be, all the wrong reasons.<br /><br />Descent is a good film which IMHO is severely under-rated. | 0 |
At first, I hadn't read the novel so far and I hadn't hear anything about the author yet. But as I casually saw this movie, I was totally captive by the story. Already as the Jewish watchman primary said, that he knows no one, who have a bad conscience about the war except from Howard W. Campbell Junior, was such amazing objective and dissociates from simply moralizing the war. Terrific! And the fictitious story about 'the most effective spy for the USA in WWII', who have lost everything, that was important for his life, is wonderful emotional transcribed. This is the best story about the duality of humanity, I've ever heard about! The questions, this movie is introducing, are in my opinion very important for our society: When does someone bear the guilt of something? What is guilt? Who is a hero and who is a felon? What is important in our life? Can you live without paying attention to the political changes? Is the protagonist guilty or not? These questions are more up to date than in the last 60 years. This is a must see for everyone, who have to think about the acception of war! This movie is a must see for everyone, who meditate, what matters in life and what doesn't... | 0 |
This is an utterly forgettable picture. A friend of mine picked it up in a bargain bin at a local rental place for $.50. He should have demanded a refund. Or at least a discount.<br /><br />The plot is something like this: A giant monster threatens the earth and aliens decide that the most average human being on the planet must be chosen to save the earth. Thus a tiny holographic space alien appears before a postal worker and tells him that he's 'it.'<br /><br />The devil is in the details when it's time to rate a movie, and on that count Zarkorr! The Invader fails miserably. The monster Zarkorr only has a few brief moments on the screen, totaling maybe 5 minutes tops (with a generous estimate). The cute alien hologram has even less screen time and might be the most interesting character to look at, and only because she's wearing a 'teeny bopper' stereotype outfit, complete with a teasingly short pleated skirt. The climactic final battle with the monster is over before you can say 'Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over.' In the next moment you are left to ponder whether you've just experienced a train wreck or if someone just drained 3 pints of blood out of you.<br /><br />Admittedly though, this movie did deliver one line that my friends and I to this day still repeat and laugh at and was about the only bright spot in this otherwise abysmal picture. As the cast of 'protagonists' is being 'interrogated' by the fuzz, one of them responds to the questions with the statement 'What are you, some kind of a question asker?' It is delivered in such a preposterous manner that if you're sitting with a group of friends (who won't be your friends long if you actually talked your friend into watching this) you may actually experience a howl or two of incredulous laughter.<br /><br />While this is no Manos or Eegah (It's not even bad enough to be classically bad) this movie will still bore you with its awful dialog, unimaginative characters, and nonexistent special effects and still deserves to inhabit the bottom 100.<br /><br />1.5/10 | 1 |
Am I the only one to think that this is a bad movie?<br /><br />I admit that horror movies often lack things like a big story or good acting or even good special effects. But the way these deficiencies come together in this movie is surprisingly pitiful.<br /><br />Miserable story: The idea of a raped vagina that takes revenge by turning into a man eater sounds quite funny, but what the writer made out of it is stupid.<br /><br />Bad acting: The actors move like marionettes. They play and look like people, who really try hard but completely fail to act.<br /><br />Bad FX: Especially the explosion of the Van looks unspeakably cheap.<br /><br />It is surprising that a director who made some nice movies during his carrier changes over to such messy stuff. | 1 |
The movie had so much potential, but due to 70's technology constraints and also a weak script killed the main plot of the film. The book version of the film was much better, and well conceived. If it had been done right in the beginning with sources from the book, it could have been a very cool classic. | 1 |
Guy de Maupassant was a novelist who wrote a novel about a man, a poor man, without any moral qualities. He only wanted to success in a society where all the people, the politic men, the businessmen, the journalists, the women are corrupt. The only king is MONEY. The Maupassant hero, Charles Forestier is going higher and higher in the society scale thanks to his seduction poser. He is in love with all the women who could help him in his action to climb the society stapes. At the end of the novel, he married himself with the biggest daily paper owner's daughter, in the greatest church of Paris : 'La Madeleine'. 'Le Tout Paris' is there. He has a fortune and more, he will become a member of Parliament and later a Minister. The 'useless' women are out of his view, but he is always keeping in touch with the pretty and the usefull women. The picture 'THE PRIVATE AFFAIRS OF BEL AMI' is a story of MORALITY. It is everything, but not a story in the Maupassant idea. Why had they put 'BEL AMI' in its title ? | 1 |
*SPOILERS!* When I first saw the preview for this, it looked like a good old fashioned hallmark movie. I love bluegrass music, so I couldn't wait to see it. When we rented the movie, we read the back and it sounded even better. The film was pretty boring for the first half, every now and then a song would be played. Then (i'm embarrassed typing this)a lesbian love seen came in. I that ther was something more then friendship between the teachers but I certainly didn't expect nudity and prolonged make out sessions. I was watching this with my mother and I was quite embarrassed, because I picked this movie. But besides that, it was an okay movie. The acting was fine, the actress who played Deladis was great. To be honest, the soundtrack was the best part of the movie. I don't care to see the movie again but i bought the soundtrack the day after I saw the movie. And there are continuation discs that follow. If I were you, I would skip the movie and just get the music. | 1 |
I didn't know it was possible to release a movie this bad. The labeling sounded so promising, but you would think that with a cast of 20, at least one of them would be able to act. My wife left me and went to bed after the first 20 minutes. She made a wise decision. | 1 |
Although Bullet In The Brain is, without question, superior amongst short films, it largely seems more like a short piece of writing than a film. And it is a little hard to feel too sorry for the teacher when his smart ass remarks get him shot. But after the bullet enters his brain we begin to understand a little bit about why he became so jaded with life in the first place. There is an awful amount of detail packed into this reasonably short film and this is what makes me feel that it should have been extended a little bit - it seems like there's almost too much to take in at once as the details come flying at you so fast. A slightly more relaxed pace and a less po-faced narrator in the final section would have benefitted this film a little bit. Despite these complaints, there is no denying that Bullet In The Brain is a quite stupendous work compared to many short, and even full length films. The makers should be applauded for trying to make such a basically emotional and literate film in the current climate of quick jokes and Hollywood action. | 0 |
This film, which is based on a true story, comes from first time director and long time actor, Denzel Washington. Denzel Washington has given us some of the best performances of the last decade, as a black soldier in the Civil War in Glory, and a lawyer in the acclaimed Philadelphia. And of course, he made special notoriety last year when he won the Academy Award for Best Actor in Training Day, in which Denzel Washington became the first African American to receive the award for Best Actor. I guess Denzel wanted a change of pace, so he chose to direct Antwone Fisher, in which he also stars. Fisher is played by Derek Luke, who is new to the silver screen, but has made some guest appearances on such television shows as King of Queens, and he will be appearing in the upcoming film release of Biker Boyz.<br /><br /> This is a truly well done film from Denzel Washington, considering it was his first time directing. Undoubtedly, Denzel felt some kind of commitment and believed in the real life story of Antwone Fisher. Antwone Fisher is about a young African American man in the Navy who constantly gets into fights, and after one particular brawl he is sent to see a Navy psychiatrist named Jerome Davenport, played by Denzel Washington. Davenport helps Antwone to deal with his troubled past and learn to move on with his life, by finding his birth mother who had to give him up at birth because she was in prison. What makes this film good is the fact that it's not overly melodramatic. I was expecting something a little more like Good Will Hunting, with a lot of swearing, fighting and vulgarity. Not that I didn't like Good Will Hunting, or the swearing, fighting and vulgarity of the film were out of place. Quite the contrary! However, Antwone Fisher is a true story, and I don't think that Washington wanted to sensationalize the story for dramatic affect in the film. Don't get me wrong, there are moments when we see Antwone fighting, carrying on and having moments when it seems like the world is closing in on him. After all, in his first session with his psychiatrist, the character played by Washington, Devenport asks Fisher where he was born, and Fisher's response is, `from under a rock,' an obvious jab at the pressures waning on Antwone Fisher's soul. But I had to appreciate the fact that this film wasn't sensationalized for dramatic affect. I think it shows real character on the part of Denzel Washington to deliver a more realistic story and to avoid the typical clichés that are common in Hollywood films, even those based on true stories. One other point that I would like to bring up about Antwone Fisher is the acting. Over all, performances were good in the film, but not great. At times, I think it was a bit obvious that the main characters were actors, but overall, to complain about performances in this film would be ludicrous. One actress that I would like to point out in this film is Viola Davis. She plays Antwone's mother, but she says barely two sentences in the movie at all, but not so much because she appears at the end of the film, but more because she in shock that her long lost son, Antwone has found her. What I would like to point out about her as an actress in the lack of use of her. She in basically a character actress, and I haven't seen her play any really elaborate roles. She made appearances in Traffic, Out Of Sight, Kate & Leopold, and two recent films: Far From Heaven and Solaris. In Steven Soderberg's remake of Solaris, she played a scientist on a doomed space craft orbiting a planet. In that film, she is confronted by George Clooney's character and she drawn to tears by what Clooney tells her in a particular scene. When I first saw Solaris, I remember seeing her tear up in the scene and thinking, wow, this woman can act. It was as if you could feel the character's grief. In that brief shot of her face, she gave so much expression and I honestly felt very sorry for her character's sadness and trouble in the film. I think she has definite potential as an actress and should be used more often perhaps in leading roles, rather than just as a character driven actress. Nonetheless, Antwone Fisher is a very good movie. Denzel Washington, as always, pulls off a great performance and he gives us a great directorial debut. Also, Derek Luke is a very talented actor. I think that Antwone Fisher will bring his immense critical fame for his portrayal of the troubled man, but I think that his public popularity will increase with the release of Biker Boyz, which also stars Lawrence Fishburn. Antwone Fisher is based on the book `Finding Fish: A Memoir,' by Antwone Quenton Fisher. *** | 0 |
Difficult film to comment on, how do you say it's bad? Well it isn't, but then it's equally difficult to say it is good. What it is, is compelling viewing, it is as close as you will get to utter devastation without being there. It is the photographs of the tsunami approaching the coast of Thailand brought to life, you know you want to turn away but you have to watch.<br /><br />The Naudet brothers handle the commentary very well, even in the most tragic of circumstances, there view on something which is happening in another country neither panders nor insults. The facts are on the cellulose and little is needed for the viewer to understand or comprehend what is going on.<br /><br />You can't change history, and you should not want, this film stands as a testament to humanity in its darkest hour. | 0 |
Radio will have you laughing, crying, feeling. This story based on a true story is the perfect movie for a couple to view. There's enough for both. cuba Gooding Jr.portrays the title character to perfection. His performance is worthy of an academy award nomination.The compassion of the movie is obvious. The movie evokes many emotions. I sincerely enjoyed this film. | 0 |
This fake documentary is flawed on a lot of points, it's badly made, has uninteresting characters but the biggest problem I have with it is the basic premise.<br /><br />This film uses the idea that H.P. Lovecraft has traveled to Italy and that some of his work is based on real supernatural events that he witnessed. I'm willing to go along with the notion that he traveled to Italy (only for suspension of disbelieve) but that some of his work is based on reality and that Insmouth exist is total nonsense.<br /><br />First of all, Lovecraft didn't believe in the supernatural, in his letters he clearly states that he considered himself a mechanical materialist, his monsters where there to show that humans weren't so special after all. Another myth used in this film is that Lovecraft was an expert on the occult, he wasn't, all his knowledge on the subject came from the most basic sources.<br /><br />So we end up with a film about people jelling at each other a lot and when we finally see the monster, it's so bad that you can't even laugh at it, you just feel a pain in your love for horror.<br /><br />After seeing the film Frankenstein Lovecraft said that he felt sorry for Mary Shelley because he felt that her work was butchered. I feel sorry for Lovecraft. | 1 |
Although I think the reviewers who hated this movie have encapsulated exactly what it does wrong (everything!), I had to add my two cents. If you'd like a long version of how terrible this movie is, please read the review by coinlightning.<br /><br />Here's the short version: shameless use of the actors' NAMES to propel the plot as opposed to using their talent (no one brought their 'A game' to this), blatant commercialism (I guess Pepsi can afford to stick an advertisement - or 40 - into a movie now), and a plot (???) that was so convoluted with 'rock star' clichés that it was totally ridiculous.<br /><br />Let me put it to you this way . . . I was thinking of 'Wayne's World' the whole time I was watching this movie, but I wasn't laughing! Anytime you try to throw in Steven Tyler (Aerosmith) to help your movie plot along you've got SERIOUS problems.<br /><br />PLEASE, warn your friends and family - this movie sucks. | 1 |
It's not a big film. The acting is not amazing (some sub charterers are even played badly), The film is not beautiful in any sense. Nothing really inventive or new. If you like big films, this one is not for you. yet it has a big - REALLY BIG plus on the story. Larry's story works, because we know this story from our own lives. The girl we didn't ask to a date, the test we've failed, the friend we let down, are all in our history. This movie works, because it touch it, It's a great story because it's a small one. It's the life we all have, with regrets we all have, and yet the message hits: every life we could have lived would have had their downside. The first time I watched it, I was 15. It was shown in a party at my school. 16 years later, I keep reflecting on it every once in a while, and every time I see it, it puts a smile on my face. Watch it. It will do you good. You'll be happier with what you have. | 0 |
Watch it with an open mind, it is very different, nothing's cutesy about this. Very well done realistic tale of Tarzan. The animatronics chimpazees are well done for '84, Christopher Lambert was brilliant imitating chimpazee language and behavior. I wouldn't be surprised if he took lessons from Jane Goodall. | 0 |
I'm glad this was the last of the '40's Universal Mummy movies. The movies were all of variating qualities and this movie was definitely one of the lesser ones.<br /><br />Problem is that it's a very slow moving movie, in which basically nothing interesting or exciting is ever happening. Perhaps it would had all been better if the mummy had made his entrance earlier on in the movie. Instead now the movie once again spends its first 20 minutes explaining what had all happened in the previous mummy movies, by also once again using archive footage from this time 'The Mummy' from 1932 again, to which this movie is the fourth mummy movie following the 1932 mummy story. The movie just never knows to find the right pace and even though the movie is barely over an hour long, it still feels a bit like a drag.<br /><br />It of course also doesn't help that the movie has a rather simplistic and actually very little interesting story. The movie also feels quite disjointed. The first and second half of the movie don't really connect to each other and they seemed like two separate movies on their own.<br /><br />At least Lon Chaney Jr. is still in it. He once more reprises the role of the mummy Kharis, for the third time. Too bad that he has such limited screen time this time. He gets unfortunately very little interesting to do, which is also a big waste of the mummy character itself. The movie is further more filled with dozens of silly actors who are playing around with silly accents. It seemed so totally unnecessary to me that most of the characters had to speak with such an accent and it actually gets quite distracting and annoying at points.<br /><br />The mummy movies that's least worth seeing.<br /><br />4/10 | 1 |
This film has to be as near to perfect a film as John Ford made. The film is magic, a masterpiece, the reason Ford was, well Ford. If you want to know why Ford was great this one explains it.<br /><br />The photography of course is superb, black and white as black and white should be, wonderful shots, not an over the shoulder conversation in it, pure Ford, great moments, big and little. The famous ripped pants of Ward Bond. Apparently two dogs kept invading the set and fighting so Ford wanted to use them in the fighting scene, but instead of fighting one dog ran away and the other attacked Ward Bond and ripped his pants, which caused Ford no end of mirth. A whole scene around plaiting a rope. The way Ben Johnson burn then snuffs his rope, wonderful foreshadowing and anticipation of the final. Harry Carey's naive courting of Prudence. The usual ford line about being scared and not showing it. Bond's horse accidentally falling in him and its left in the film. Johnson and Bond are fantastic in that scene. Lord help any Ford actor who does not stay in character while the camera is rolling even when a horse falls on top of you.<br /><br />A couple of very sweet romances, not intruding on the whole focus, two very likable leads, not to mention for the girls, the number of times the cameras focus on Ben Johnson's rather delightful backside.<br /><br />Lots of old time stuntmen getting lines and roles, Cliff Lyons, Frank McGrath. Some wonderful character studies mostly of faces staring, all the villains and main stars. A set of villains to rival any group in any western.<br /><br />Many many Fordian shots of faces, groups, children, women, small things happening, foals in the background (Ford seems to love images of foals), women in aprons, allowing the moment as wagons cross rivers and the camera lingers.<br /><br />This is probably not a western as much as an artist's picture that happens to be set in the west.<br /><br />Lucky the film was made in 1950 because it is impossible to imagine such a film could be ever made again, but then it is such a work of art that it would be a sacrilege to attempt it | 0 |
I saw this movie with hopes of a good laugh but when I watched it I didn't stop laughing for weeks, they are such bad actors and it made this movie so much funnier to watch. ( BTW Ryan Dunn didn't eat the toy car, he shoved it up his ass) The random appearances from the skaters and Vitos parts were great. Gimme some grapes Vito.! No Valo, your grapes are at the store. I wouldn't recommend any one under 13 to watch it, frankly they wouldn't understand half of the jokes in or what they are talking about. I love VLB and after watching this movie I couldn't help but go buy it or the Viva La Bam series. What is the deal with this stupid comment thing? It has to be 10 lines what kind of Bull-sh1t is that? I should be able to write one as long or in this case as short as I want. I'm just going to keep typing until it tells me I can actually send it. Its just a waste of time, I expected to just say what I wanted, it wasn't too much but then I'm told I have to keep putting more in and then it corrects my spelling, so what if I didn't spell something right, you get what I mean still. This is ridiculously long.<br /><br />~Those who live by the Sword get shot by those who don't~ | 0 |
Bo Derek's debut film remained unseen for eight years and that's how it should stayed! John Derek was a competent actor but, as a director, he's virtually the Ed Wood of erotic cinema not that this is especially explicit, considering that Bo (atypically sporting dark hair) was only 16 when the film was made! John also wrote and photographed it; the latter results in some decent footage of the Greek island setting against which the narrative is set but the plotting is puerile and the dialogue atrocious! <br /><br />The character played by male lead Peter Hooten has been brought up with Bo's family: they grew up as brother and sister but, now in their teens, the couple discover they're attracted to one another (but, as I said, don't expect any sexual fireworks!). Still, the worst thing about this is the fact that the protagonists each harbor an obsession all through the film which are not only silly in themselves but irritating in their relentlessness Hooten wants to turn the remote fishing community into a modernized sea-side resort and keeps expecting a cruise-liner to appear into view (which, of course, it does at the finale); Derek's is even nuttier she craves possession of a large antique bath-tub!! For the record, the couple are married by the end of the film.<br /><br />Also involved in the non-events are the female town mayor and a photographer lothario who wants to make a model out of Bo (and who, naturally, incurs the wrath of the jealous Hooten). Occasionally, for no very good reason, we're even treated to snippets from the screening of old Hollywood classics in an open-air movie house to which the whole town assembles (among the titles shown is THE PUBLIC ENEMY [1931])! At the end of the day, while Bo's naivete throughout is undeniably charming, it's not enough to offset the film's overwhelming dullness and amateurishness. | 1 |
For those fans of Laurel and Hardy, the 1940s and beyond were a very sad time for the team. Their contracts with Hal Roach Studios had expired and now they were 'free agents'--able to work for any studio who offered them a job. Unfortunately, Fox, RKO, MGM (without Roach) and even a French film company who hired the boys had absolutely no touch for their comedic talents. Plus, Stan and Ollie were a lot older and seeing these geriatric men taking pratfalls seemed sad, not particularly funny. Stan looked very ragged and Ollie's weight had ballooned up to the point where he could barely walk--and so it made me feel uncomfortable laughing at their very, very sedate antics.<br /><br />In addition to their age, this particular film suffers because Fox Studios oddly cast them in a supporting role and created a parallel plot involving a young couple--something that reduced their time on screen AND turned them into insipid 'hangers on' instead of just being themselves. A cute and cuddly Stan and Ollie is very foreign to the old Laurel and Hardy of the 20s and 30s--and just seemed awfully strange and suited them poorly.<br /><br />Now even with their age, this COULD have been a decent movie if it had been given decent writing and if it appeared the studio cared--and it's quite obvious they were using the 'B unit' here--with, at best, second class support. In particular, there are very few laughs and the last 10 minutes of the film is simply dreadful--relying exclusively on a sloppy rear-projected screen for the stupid chase scene--which might just rank as one of the worst of its kind in film history.<br /><br />For mind-numbed zombie lovers of Laurel and Hardy, it's probably a film they will love. But, for lovers of the team who are willing to honestly evaluate this film relative to their amazing earlier films, it simply comes up wanting indeed. In fact, of all their full-length films pre-1940, I can't think of one I liked less than DANCING MASTERS. Unfortunately, of the post-1940 films, this might just be one of their better ones. Sadly, it got a lot worse--with wretched films like THE BIG NOISE and NOTHING BUT TROUBLE. I just wish the boys had just retired after SAPS AT SEA.<br /><br />Finally, I wonder if all the generally positive reviews for this film on IMDb might reflect the reviewers' love of the team more than it's an indication that this is a good film? For an audience who are NOT already in love with the team, I don't know HOW this film will do anything but bore the audience--it certainly WON'T convince anyone that Laurel and Hardy were comedic geniuses. But even comedic geniuses need material worthy of their talents. | 1 |
This is not so much of a review as it is a testament that it has been proven, yet again, that the Academy rewards money, not artistic accomplishment. And I must say I am saddened that this usually artistic and intelligent band of imbd members have left this off the top 250. Boogie Nights is powerful, raw, and gutsy through script, direction and acting. Very few movies can claim this triple crown. | 0 |
Though this film destroyed Director and Screenwriter Michael Cimino's career and bankrupted United Artists, it still stands as one of the top movies of all time. There are plenty of reasons to prematurely dismiss this movie for sure. Among them: its length, its technical problems, its colossal mistreatment of animals on set -- the list goes on and on. And yet, for all of this, it remains a film that captures something. It is a classic example of naturalistic storytelling on par with Strindberg -- its moments lasting as long as they might in reality, having not been dumbed down for good cinematic timing. It feels real in its moments of anger, love, and war (and hopelessness). This film should be seen by any person who appreciates film and storytelling. | 0 |
An old man is riding his bike down a village road when a car comes out of nowhere, strikes him down dead, and keeps driving. The rest of the film is spent discovering who hit him, why he was hit, and what consequences this murder will have on the rest of the village. Separate Lies is a very British movie indeed. I'm not saying that hit-and-run car accidents are a particularly British phenomenon, but the way everyone reacts to this tragedy is very British. Tom Wilkinson plays James Manning, a hard-working, respectable citizen with a 'stiff-upper-lip' attitude towards tragedy. His wife Anne (Emily Watson), who is twenty years younger than her husband, is more emotional, more impulsive, and more prone to drama.<br /><br />The man who really spices up life in this sleepy village is playboy millionaire William Bule, played by a deliciously devilish Rupert Everett (most American audiences will eternally remember him as Julia Roberts' gay friend who completely stole every scene in My Best Friend's Wedding). In Separate Lies, Everett is cruel, cold, and selfish, but he's an absolute blast on screen. No, it's not that exciting of a movie title (Separate Lies how did they end up with that lame and forgettable title? Did they just not have a marketing team? Did they just now care about getting people to see this film?), but beyond the title is a heartbreaking drama about the power of forgiveness. | 0 |
This is the sort of unknown and forgotten film one dreams about discovering in watching old videos. It is a superb comic gem with brilliantly funny writing, embedded in the marvellous array of characters, a wonderfully inventive and funny musical score, and witty, light direction from Montgomery himself. This is one to watch over and over. Montgomery is a bit part actor who finds himself assigned by his military reserve division to infiltrate a young debutante's home to discover the identity of her former beau, a suspected jewel thief. While the premise is rather preposterous, the results are hilarious. Montgomery is the befuddled plant, Ann Blyth is a marvel as the romantically obsessed, terribly earnest debutante and the parade of comic characterizations from veteran stage actress, Jane Cowl's lawyer mother to Lillian Randolph's take-charge maid - are all fabulous.<br /><br />Oddly enough this only earned an Oscar nom for Sound, when it deserved top nods for Direction, Screenplay and Musical Score.<br /><br />DO NOT MISS IT - it's one of Hollywood's best. | 0 |
Okay I had heard little about this film, so when it came on the movie channels on TV, I wanted to watch it, being a horror aficionado. I think I can do a collective 'huh?' for everyone who watched it.<br /><br />I decided to move on with my life, but at a party with my closest friends, we saw it was coming on and some of us having seen it already decided we could laugh our way through it, both of us proclaiming 'this is the dumbest thing I've ever seen'. It wasn't scary; Ill give it to Roth (who I think is a young hack); characters do change throughout the film, ala 'Cube'.<br /><br />HOWEVER despite your typical 'rats in a cage' scenario- who will turn on who, etc., it was pretty average horror.<br /><br />A few points: 1.) What was with that kid? I'm not even talking about him being weird and biting people. I'm talking about the whole 'slow motion karate kicking', what was that? 2.) Okay I know Rider's character liked Jordan Ladd's, but as a young woman, I was appalled that he just went ahead and molested her in her sleep. Uh, thats illegal.<br /><br />3.) Roth was in the movie just so Roth could be in the movie. Talk about pointlessly writing yourself in! 4.) What was with the deputy? 5.) So she was just instantly pulled apart by the dog? And there was little to no blood left? Just a scrap of her jeans? Anyway we were LAUGHING our asses off, and I love laughing during horror movies (Return of the Living Dead 2, Evil Dead), but I don't know if we were supposed to be laughing here... | 1 |
I almost saw this at an actual movie theatre (an art-house theatre, no less!) but couldn't make it there in the one whole week it played, but yesterday I finally saw it on cable and...well...I wasn't disappointed, that's for sure! Madonna has done it again: YET ANOTHER BOMB! When will this woman learn? When will the studios learn? (Or perhaps they already have, since this film was largely dumped, with little fanfare and deadly word-of-mouth.) One would hope that being directed by her talented husband, who's created some interesting and/or terribly entertaining work, would bring out the same quality Madonna showed in 'Desperately Seeking Susan'; alas, it just isn't meant to be, for here she is, at her very worst: singularly convinced of her own greatness, the smugness permeating every frame she's in, made all the more unbearable by her wavering faux-British accent, an accent that only underscores the fact that her speaking voice is immature in quality and not especially pleasant. This may sound unnecessarily cruel but LISTEN to the woman, and LOOK at her films of, say, the past decade: like a latter-day Bette Davis, there is an unmistakable brittleness to not only her carriage but to her very face and body, which here, despite the warm photography displayed throughout the film (perhaps its only saving grace), are done no favors. To her credit, the entire affair is so misbegotten that one wonders if the world's greatest actress on her best day could do anything with this mess. No one involved escapes unharmed: Bruce Greenwood actually seems pained to be on-screen, though poor Jeanne Tripplehorn seems to carry herself as if she's actually in something good, which had me thinking all the while, 'Denial ain't just a river in Egypt!' Adriano Giannini, son of Giancarlo Giannini, star of the Italian original, 'Swept Away...', is, like his father before him, immensely attractive, and isn't altogether bad (despite winning a Razzie nomination for 'Worst Actor'), but, like almost everything else about this production, it all comes back to Madonna, on whose shoulders rest the blame. Why her? Why not her husband, director Guy Ritchie? Just who do YOU think was behind this remake? What actress wouldn't want nearly every shot of a movie to be centered on her, with only a relative nobody sharing the screen? Oh sure, Ritchie deserves some blame: surely he - or someone - ANYONE! - should have, and could have, taken his lead aside and insisted on something bordering on ACTUAL FEELING in her line readings (for her performance is so wooden it's a surprise the rest of the cast didn't get splinters), or at least display a semblance of warmth...but she seems resistant to be anything but a cinematic black hole. Above and beyond anything else, this is strictly a vanity project for its star so she is ultimately accountable for it. A film like this, an 'Odd Couple'-ish, war of the classes, should be light and fun, with leads who can bounce off one another with witty, even romantic, dialogue, for what else can a film whose plot involves two disparate people stranded, really be? Honestly, I don't think anyone involved knew exactly the tone they were trying for; it succeeds neither as comedy (I defy you to laugh even once) or romance (Madonna's ice-princess routine precludes ANY chemistry). It's not even bad enough for us bad-movie lovers to enjoy. A real shame... | 1 |
As a lover of the surreal (in art and film) I was pleased to discover this film on IFC. It is definitely a keeper. Most of the other reviews tell the general plot (not all correct) so I won't bother to bore anyone with that. The main thing is the alternate worlds concept which is brought on by Ana's impending illness, and the way she manages to link with someone else after being so 'alone', and finally with her family, which I believe is still at least a little troubled. It only can be called a horror movie in that it has frightening scenes but is a fantasy (with a little hint of 'coming of age' only because Ana is a pre-teen who 'hates boys'). I heartily recommend it to those who appreciate the stretch of their imagination. | 0 |
This is the epitome of bad 80's film-making, unless you are a pre-pubescent girl. Riding on a big name like madonna, a story line that physically assaults one's intelligence and humour that is most suited for a nursery school. If there was ever any doubt i think this turd of a movie clearly displays Madonna's absolute lack of acting talent and made me feel highly embarrassed on her behalf. The only thing i can't believe is that they ever let the director near another movie again. Madonna spends most of the movie prancing around like an infantile rag doll, and talking like a baby. It is painfully obvious that the only reason this movie was ever made was due to the fact that Madonna was a big name in pop music at the time. DO NOT BE DUPED INTO SEEING THIS AWFUL ATTEMPT TO CASH IN ON POP STARDOM. Stay away at all costs! | 1 |
After having watched Koyaanisqatsi two or three dozen times and loving every second of it, I finally had a chance to see it's sequel Life In Transformation. I was truly dissappointed as it did not nearly stand up to the high standards of the first. 90 minutes of people with baskets on their head is not my idea of a good movie. The Philip Glass score for this one had neither the beauty nor the correlating strength of the first. Compared with Koyaanisqatsi this movie seemed slow and pointless. A watered down version of Baraka, which is the same idea but done better. I truly hope the third movie in this series will not follow the example of this waste. | 1 |
This film concerns a very young girl, Cassie, (Melissa Sagemiller) who leaves her family and heads off to become a college freshman. One night Cassie and her friends decide to go to a wild party with plenty of drinking and dancing and Cassie is riding with her boyfriend who she likes but never told him she loved him. As Cassie was driving, a car was stopped in the middle of the road and she was unable to avoid an accident and as a result there is a bloody loss of lives along with her boyfriend. Cassie becomes very emotionally upset and has nightmares which cause her to have hallucinations about her boyfriend coming back to life and encounters men trying to murder her and she is struggling to find out who her real friends are, who wants her dead and will she survive this entire horror ordeal. Cassie dreams she is being made love to by her boyfriend after he died and finds another guy in her bed and is told she was asking him to make love. This is a way out film, and not very good at all. | 1 |
I liked the first movie, but this is a textbook example of a sequel that would have been better of left on the drawing board. The general idea in the first movie was, if not great, then at least very interesting. This sequel tries to build upon the idea and the characters from the first movie, and though Christopher Walken is still good as Gabriel, the whole idea suddenly gets a bit ridiculous. If you haven't seen any of these movies, then get the first movie and forget about the sequels, they can take away all of the joy from the original. | 1 |
Curse of the Wolf starts as reluctant Werewolf Dakota (Renee Porada) manages to escape from her 'pack' & into the city where 6 months later she is working in a vet's. The rest of Dakota's pack are unhappy & want her back, their leader Michael (Todd Humes) says she will come back to them but fat Werewolf Franklin (Brian Heffron) picks her scent up & the pack decides to force the issue & get her back using her affections for her human friends including her boyfriend Danny (Dennis Carver). Can Dakota save Danny & finally rid herself of her Werewolf pursuers? I doubt you will care...<br /><br />Executive produced, written & directed by Len Kabasinski who also had a fairly large role in the film as Stick I was dreading watching Curse of the Wolf since Kabasinski was the man behind Swamp Zombies (2005) which is surely one of the worst films ever made, ever. Unfortunately my worst fears were confirmed & one has to say that Curse of the Wolf is a truly horrible film in every way, both conceptually & technically. Curse of the Wolf is the sort of film where the low budget dictates what happens & the script rather than the script dictating the budget. You get the impression that everything was written & conceived to take advantage of the few sets & actor's they had, you can almost imagine the makers saying we've got a few actor's, some basic equipment & a couple of locations so lets make a horror film around them. The story is awful (Michael finds the location of Dakota by looking at a large dog two women are taking for a walk), the character's are awful (a big fat Werewolf guy who farts a lot), the dialogue is awful (just about every line in the thing) & there's never any motivation for anything that happens (why are the pack so desperate to get Dakota back?), people just do seemingly random things & since director Kabasinski's background is in martial arts he insists in inserting lots of random martial arts fight sequences into the plot. No offence but this is meant to be a horror film not a martial arts one, isn't it? In fact apart from the presence of a few Werewolves you would be hard pushed to describe Curse of the Wolf as anything approaching a horror film. At almost two hours in length it feels like it goes on forever & is so slow & uneventful it's just not funny.<br /><br />Director Kabasinski was obviously working on a low budget but film-making this bad should be a crime. There's no continuity between shots, the fight scenes look awful & are so poorly staged it's untrue & it's sometimes impossible to follow what's going on be it because of the choppy editing & poor camera angles or the fact that it is sometimes so dark that you literally can't see a thing. Seriously there are times during Curse of the Wolf where the screen is totally black & you can't see a thing, I would hate to have to sit through this watching it on a fuzzy low resolution VHS. The sound is awful too, you can hear the wind & breeze against the microphone! There are also lots of other unpleasant & unwanted ambient sounds during just about every scene. Did the production actually have any lighting gear while making this? It doesn't feel like it. The special effects mostly consist of Werewolf mask's that look like the sort of thing shops sell at Halloween for the kids, basically they look awful.<br /><br />Technically Curse of the Wolf is as bad as they come, I'm sorry because I know this had a low budget but it's truly horrible to sit through & try to garner some entertainment from. This is high school film student quality, I'm sorry if that sounds unkind but it's a fact. The acting is, well you can probably guess so I'll stop myself right here before I say something else negative, I mean I've done enough of that already & I really take no pleasure in it.<br /><br />Curse of the Wolf is terrible, both conceptually & technically this is a real chore to sit through. Curse of the Wolf is the type of film where while your watching it time seems to stand still, it's the type of film that lasts for almost two hours yet feels like two years. One of the worst films you or I am ever likely to see, definitely one to avoid. | 1 |
Ordinarily, I wouldn't waste the time on reviewing a film like 'Human Pork Chop' (the 2001 version, not to be confused with the earlier film of the same title, which is probably better known in the West as 'The Untold Story'), but since the reviews already here are quite vague as to what it actually consists of, I figured I'd best post something more detailed, so as no one actually gets tempted (as I was) into buying it because of the film's mystique. I honestly would just say STAY AWAY.<br /><br />**** MAJOR SPOILERS are contained below ****<br /><br />'Human Pork Chop', I was expecting to be like a Chinese interpretation of the popular Japanese 'Guinea Pig' films. Anyone who's watched enough of that series can see where its makers are coming from. There's a strong sense of humour running throughout it - you can't watch the ludicrous 'He Never Dies' without laughing and 'The Making of Guinea Pig' is a fabulous turning of the whole thing on its head, proving it was just made, with some glee, by fairly good natured gorehounds. All the GP films have a punk rock, DIY, shot-on-video aesthetic, occasional flashes of genuine artistry ('Mermaid in a Manhole'), an angry political agenda and a warped, deranged zeal that sets them in a league of their own.<br /><br />'Human Pork Chop' has none of the above.<br /><br />It's shot on 35mm film (with disarmingly good production values), it's 90 gruelling minutes long and it's utterly devoid of anything redeeming. The plot tells, in flashback at a police interviewing of the suspects, of the systematic torture, death and eventual dismemberment of Grace, a heroin-addicted streetwalker who is kidnapped and brutalised by her pimp and his henchmen when she steals money from him.<br /><br />Despite its fleeting attempts at being a morality play, the film possesses a detached, inhumane feel to it and one can't help but dwell on the mindsets of those behind it. Although it half-heartedly paints Grace as an innocent victim, the mean-spirited nature of its screenplay and the protagonist's constant, vicious dialogue veers towards a shocking, utterly unwelcome 'she deserves it!' point of view which makes the whole thing almost impossible to watch. Far more time is spent detailing Grace's degradation and when her captors are eventually deemed guilty and jailed, it seems like a hurried afterthought on behalf of the writers who've long since stopped caring less.<br /><br />What makes it boggling as to why anyone would want to watch such a film is that even the kind of people who do REALLY get off on mindless sex and violence in the movies would be severely missing out. The torture is just a continuous stream of kickings, slappings, verbal abuse, psychological abuse and then increasingly bizarre displays of power on behalf of the captors use Grace's heroin addiction to make her do their bidding. And when I say that, don't get me wrong, incidentally. Unlike 'Guinea Pig' with it's frequent barrage of nudity that gives an almost teenage feel of mock-titillation to the proceedings in spite of the ultraviolence, 'Human Pork Chop' has no such sexual overtones. There isn't any actual nudity in the film and the violence is performed purely out of malice by the odious protagonists (who early in the film are seen stuffing a dog into a bag and banging it against a brick wall - don't worry, not real, just a cheap special effect!).<br /><br />The only actual bloodshed in the film is towards the end when they dismember Grace's body and boil the bones, all very poor special FX (nowhere near 'Guinea Pig' level) and, by that stage, you'll probably be already feeling too miserable and sick to even care what's going on.<br /><br />The film is depressingly bleak and uncompromising along a similar line to Buddy Giovinazzo's 'Combat Shock' and I guess could even be compared, at a push. Both movies deal with the gradual physical decline of an individual who exists in a nightmarish environment devoid of any social or morally redeemable characters and both movies 'climax' in a particularly visceral manner with the individual's inevitable, inescapable doom.<br /><br />In fairness, neither 'glamourises' it's violence (whereas 'Guinea Pig' could easily be accused of this) but one can't help but wonder where the place is for a film like this. It fails to many any real points in its frank presentation of such brutality and with a leaden-pace, a virtually non-existent plot line and the aforementioned lack of any entertainment value, I just can't understand what would encourage anyone to watch something like this. I only made it to the end, purely for the purpose of being able to review it fairly... which I hope I've now done.<br /><br />Overall Score: 0 of of 10. Welcome to the bottom of the barrel. | 1 |
While in the barn of Kent Farm with Shelby waiting for Chloe, Clark is attacked and awakes in a mental institution in the middle of a session with Dr. Hudson. The psychologist tells him that for five years he has been delusional, believing that he has come from Krypton and had superpowers. Clark succeeds to escape, and meets Lana, Martha and Lex that confirm the words of Dr. Hudson. Only Chloe believe on his words, but she is also considered insane. Clark fights to find the truth about his own personality and origin.<br /><br />'Labyrinth' is undoubtedly the most intriguing episode of 'Smallville'. The writer was very luck and original denying the whole existence of the powerful boy from Krypton. The annoying hum gives the sensation of disturbance and the identity mysterious saver need to be clarified. My vote is nine.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): 'Labirinto' ('Labyrinth') | 0 |
Even though this is the first film by the broken lizard group, it's the last one I saw. Having mildly enjoyed Super Troopers, and managed to sit through the crap that is club dred and beerfest, I was surprised to hear they did an earlier film. Now i didn't sit down with high hopes, but was hoping for a funny campus romp. My friend asked me to keep in mind they are younger (obviously) and its their first foray into film. I did and was still disappointed. Not taking away the acting and comedy skills of the BL guys, they were OK. The whole film was tiresome, clichéd and frankly boring. Some of the other actors in the film were really poor at acting. And the Rugby game didn't even resemble rugby. Poor showing. They improved drastically with Super Troopers and have declined since. Lets hope they get back on form with Super Troopers 2 | 1 |
The movie is not halve as bad as people want to make you believe it is.<br /><br />What is the reason why so many people hate this movie? Is it because it's Laurel & Hardy's last one together and it's not their best? Or is it because of the lack of Laurel & Hardy regulars? Or because it's not made by the Hal Roach studios or 20th Century Fox? <br /><br />Definitely true that this movie is not a successful attempt to revive Laurel & Hardy and bring them to the '50's. It's also definitely true that the movie is far from their best but honestly, the movie still entertains well, making this movie also far from their worst. Not the most worthy 'goodbye' movie imaginable but an entertaining and suiting goodbye nevertheless. Both of them retired from movies after completing this one.<br /><br />The movie still features some great slapstick moments and the chemistry between Laurel & Hardy is obviously still very much present. It also makes this movie better than most of their movies together from the '40's. Quite a surprise that the slapstick humor still works out as great as it does, considering that the days of slapstick comedy had been over, ever since the '30's.<br /><br />The story is perhaps not as entertaining as it could had been and it features too many sidekicks and characters, with as a result that the movie looses its focus on the boys at times. A shame, because they are still the ones that really carry and make the movie.<br /><br />Sad to see in what poor form Stan Laurel was at the time of making this movie. He really looked ill and old, which he also of course was. He was well over 60 years old already. But after a surgery he fully recovered and still lived for another 15 years, before dying in 1965, 8 years after his good friend Oliver Hardy.<br /><br />An entertaining, though not perfect goodbye to the boys, Laurel & Hardy and the end of 3 decades of fun, humorous, quality slapstick entertainment of movies that are still being watched and loved by people all over the world.<br /><br />7/10 | 0 |
I wish Spike Lee had chosen a different title for his film. 'Summer Of Sam' conveys the impression that the film is about the infamous serial killer, David Berkowitz. It's not. It's a gritty, earthy portrait of NYC street life during the hot summer of '77 when Berkowitz terrorized that city.<br /><br />The film follows several young fictional characters in an Italian-American neighborhood, and their reactions to the Son of Sam threat. There's Vinny and his wife Dionna; there's Richie and Ruby, and several other characters.<br /><br />The problem is that these characters are not likable. They are routinely annoying, and at times unbearable. Lee then belabors their high energy, chaotic lives, which are filled with anger, lust, and general turmoil. There are at least two protracted fight scenes between Vinny and his wife, redundant disco dance scenes, countless gabfests ... Over and over I kept wondering: where's the film editor?<br /><br />Meanwhile, with all that bulk, the film passes up the chance to convey any real sense of fear or dread arising from the Son of Sam menace, which is too much in the background. Lee is more successful at showing a different kind of menace, that arising from neighborhood vigilante groups.<br /><br />The acting is uniformly good. That, combined with 70's disco music, and lavish attention to costumes and production design, make you really feel like you are in an Italian-American neighborhood in NYC in 1977.<br /><br />The film's atmospheric authenticity, however, is not nearly enough to offset a rambling, overblown script about the lives of grossly irritating people. | 1 |
I'd heard this Japanese flick is edgy, creatively interesting, a 'cool new thang' on the Asian movie-making scene ... maybe even something as innovative as Hideo Nakata's 'Ringu' or Chan-wook Park's 'Oldboy', especially the latter.<br /><br />You can imagine my disappointment when, instead, I found the movie disjointed both narratively and cinematically (though not in a way that a film aficionado appreciates), cliché-ridden, even sadly silly instead of funny --- on the whole, a very bad knock- off of the 'Pulp Fiction' style.<br /><br />I stopped watching after 30 minutes, when I gave up on it becoming something more than it is. | 1 |
Well, you know the rest! This has to be the worst movie I've seen in a long long time. I can only imagine that Stephanie Beaham had some bills to pay when taking on this role.<br /><br />The lead role is played by (to me) a complete unknown and I would imagine disappeared right back into obscurity right after this turkey.<br /><br />Bruce Lee led the martial arts charge in the early 70's and since then fight scenes have to be either martial arts based or at least brutal if using street fighting techniques. This movie uses fast cuts to show off the martial arts, however, even this can't disguise the fact that the lady doesn't know how to throw a punch. An average 8 year old boy would take her apart on this showing.<br /><br />Sorry, the only mystery on show here is how this didn't win the golden raspberry for its year. | 1 |
Rosie Perez is the lead in this very engaging affair, cast as Mercedes, a young woman from Brooklyn who has resolved to become a film actress although not favoured by her circumstances, living in East Los Angeles and struggling with a series of fruitless auditions for any sort of part at all. Mercedes has hooked up with a married and washed-up actor, Harry Harrelson (Harvey Keitel), who at one time had performed in a television Western series during the 1970s, and seldom since, accepting him as her lover, in part from loneliness, and as well from a hope that film parts will be coming her way because of his 'contacts', but these latter are of small consequence as Harry is simply self-delusional in his attempts at recovering what he perceives as past cinematic renown. In order to adequately support herself financially, Mercedes toils as a taxi dancer in a downtown Los Angeles Skid Row dance hall/bar while she continues carrying on her efforts to succeed at the motion picture business, and it is while there at the dance palace that a young immigrant from Mexico, Ernesto (Michael DeLorenzo), falls in love with her and the largest portion of the narrative depicts his efforts to please the object of his affections, even if they may mean losing her altogether. This essentially tradition rooted melodrama is given only a moderate budget, despite the presence of a goodly number of well-known players, including Steve Buscemi, Anthony Quinn, and Stanley Tucci, and was kept in the can for about a year before its rather desultory distribution and leaden marketing efforts on its behalf, more's the pity as its solid production characteristics are firmly complemented by Alexandre Rockwell's admirably controlled direction, a consistent virtue of his work, and on display in this film from its very opening scene, frames that form a montage behind the credits, featuring Perez at Skid Row's Fifth and Main Streets. Rockwell has often demonstrated that he operates very closely indeed with his cast, and this holds true in this instance as he allows his actors to create their roles while any ad libbing is neatened nicely via the editing process, resulting in an artistic success for the director, despite negative comments from some mainstream evaluators. The film's scoring is aesthetically spot on with a good deal of it contributed by Tito Larriva, who also plays as band boss for the taxi dancers. Acting honours here must go to the ever vital Perez, although nary a sub-par performance is turned in. A fair test for any film's quality is given when a viewer will watch it twice within a brief period. Sitting through this undervalued work will be considered a keen pleasure for many. | 0 |
Neal N Nikki is voted on of the Worst films of the year by Planetbollywood. Its hard to believe the famous Chopra's have produced this lousy movie. It was presented as a movie for the family, but turns out to be a ridiculous sex comedy. Nor does it make you laugh, but cry of boredom and nor does it have any sexy girls to make the film look sexy. The title song is the most annoying song of the decade, I'm the Neil, I'm the man, rock star superstar. Uday Chopra is one of Bollywood's worst actors ever with no acting talent. After making many Super Flops, and not receiving any movies from a producer rather then his Family. He gives a total crap performance, that bores you to death. Tanisha, who is and will always be known for being Kajol's sister, gives a dreadful performance. Both actors have the most annoying chemistry, and are very immature for their age. It has a special appearance by the very cute Richa Pollad, in a pathetic role. The ending was so daft and stupid, I cant believe i actually paid money to rent this crap. | 1 |
**Warning! Slight Plot Spoilers Ahead!**<br /><br />'The Italian Job' is not the best movie you'll see all year, or probably even this summer. But it is a worthwhile two hours because it colors within the lines, knowing its limits and not attempting to exceed them.<br /><br />What carries the movie is the work of the cast. In a movie about a crew of thieves, the individuals must have a good rapport with each other. Without that cohesive feel, the audience doesn't believe in the characters collectively or individually, and the movie never has a chance. But from the first scenes, in which the men joke around and rag on each other while infiltrating a Venetian palace, the proper chemistry is in place.<br /><br />The characters themselves aren't anything novel; they're your basic gang of criminals, containing about half a dozen players, each with a specific and defining skill. But each actor brings the proper goods to the table for his or her part. Mark Wahlberg's understated acting and humor fits well with his part as the mastermind planner. Edward Norton provides attitude and twirls his mustache well in his dark role. Donald Sutherland is the father figure of the crew, and he looks the part of the suave and old-fashioned thief, who is still mentally spry. Jason Statham, Seth Green, and Mos Def don't do much beyond their character's abilities, but they each nail those parts. Statham as the smooth-operating driver; Green as the tech whiz geek with a chip on his shoulder; and Def as the demolitions man. Charlize Theron slides in well in a part that doesn't ask too much of her. She is primarily asked to to drive fast and look good. That she does. None of the characters are that deep or three-dimensional, but in this familiar sort of movie, two dimensions are all that is required. <br /><br />As the title implies, the movie has a European feel to it, a la 'The Bourne Identity,' in part because it was shot on location in Venice, along with Philadelphia and Los Angeles. Also contributing to the Euro flair is the rhythmic, bouncy music, which adds to the upbeat nature of the flick and complements the rapport of the cast. The look of the movie is also a perfect match. The bright colors of all locales enhance the mood and add to the attitude. The Minis not only provide a fun variation on the car chase, but also work as a necessary plot device. <br /><br />The plot is more or less straight-forward. There are a few surprises, but they are more of the swift-and-smooth-turn variety, as opposed to the drop-your-jaw hairpin curve. Even with those, the movie speeds along. Once the foundation is laid by the first act, everything continuously progresses. Thankfully there are no breaks in the action for a romance, something the movie wisely avoided. There aren't even any breaks for 'real life.' The story has its purpose and runs that course without distractions. The lack of character depth prevents 'The Italian Job' from being more than a good popcorn movie, but with all the complex details of the heist-planning, such superfluities would have dragged down the pace and quality of the flick.<br /><br />There are a number of implausibilities that I thought of both during and after viewing. But the movie is so enjoyable that I didn't and don't care. In the real world, most of the movie probably couldn't have gone off that cleanly. But 'The Italian Job' doesn't take place in the real world. It occurs in a stylish and light-hearted criminal world that appeals to the rebel in all of us. <br /><br />'The Italian Job' is a movie, in the true sense of the word. It has no pretenses of Oscar and contains no deep moral message. It provides pure escapism entertainment and does so quite well.<br /><br />Bottom Line: Maybe the best popcorn movie of the year so far. 7 of 10. | 0 |
The first time I watched it was when it came out (1994), and the last time I watched it was just before writing this review.. It still makes me laugh my brains out...after all these years,it dose not disappoint. Truly the smartest Bollywood comedy ever made. This is one Indian movie which deserves its place in the IMDb Top 250. Aamir Khan and Salman Khan in probably one of their best performances in comedic roles. The thing that makes this one a time less classic is its comic timing and wonderful editing...The jokes are refreshing and not cheap.. This is one film truly ahead of its time. If you haven't seen it yet GO WATCH IT NOW !!!!!!!!! | 0 |
This is an interesting, hard to find movie from the early 70's starring Jan Michael Vincent as a young man who doesn't make the cut as a marine. Dressed in 'baby blue' outfits to humiliate them as they are sent home, the failed recruits are sent packing. Vincent stops at a bar and runs into a very young Richard Gere who has just returned from a tour in the Pacific as a hard-core Marine 'Raider'. Gere's character is already jaded and contemplating desertion, and he takes advantage of Vincent's innocence, stealing his 'baby blue' uniform after getting him drunk and beating him in an alleyway. Vincent's character, whose name is Marion, takes Gere's outfit and is suddenly transformed into a Marine 'Raider'. Marion hitch-hikes his way into Wyoming and stops at a little Norman Rockwell-like little town. In the local café he meets Rose Hudkins, who immediately catches his eye. Staying with Hudkins parents, Marion attracts all sorts of attention from the towns folks. Mr Hudkins suspects Marion and wonders how a Marine 'Raider' could still be so innocent. The story also brings up the Japanese Internment Camps, as the towns folks go 'hunting' 3 escapees. Marion is shot accidentally during this hunt. But there's still a happy ending, which befuddled me a bit. I would have preferred a little more drama! Anyway, this captures JMV at the peak of his 70's performances. BUSTER AND BILLIE, BABY BLUE MARINE and WHITE LINE FEVER in the mid-70's were amazingly good JMV performances. He was both an action star and a heart-throb all at the same time!!! He made a lot of quality movies during his career, and continued to do so up into the mid 80's with the great TV show Airwolf. He does a very good job in this as 'Hedge', quietly observing the way people treat him (in his uniform) as he travels across the country. He must have performed some of the stunt work as well- there is a harrowing river scene at the end of the movie-and it looks like he's the guy getting tossed down the river to me! But really, at the height of his popularity, this movie could have done so much more with JMV's talent and his looks. Innocence can only be so interesting. Evil, as explored in 'Buster and Billie', is much more dramatic! Anyway, Glynnis O'Connor is delightful as Rose. The whole look of the movie is like a Norman Rockwell painting. The outdoor scenes are gorgeous - must have been filmed in Canada. | 0 |
This is quite possibly the most retarded 80's slasher ever realized, but how can you be harsh on a film that features non-stop images of dozens of gorgeous ladies with exhilarating bodies doing aerobic exercises, taking showers and wandering about in tight gym outfits? Prior to being a horror film, 'Aerobicide' is a 90 minutes promo video to encourage the use of steroids, silicons and other body-stimulating fitness products. If you'd leave out all the footage of hunky boys lifting weights and yummy girls wiggling their butts and racks to insufferable 80's tunes, there probably only have about 15 minutes of story left. Plenty of time to improvise a plot about a sadist killer slaughtering young health-freaks with a big safety pin (yeah
). The film opens with an unintentionally hilarious scene of a girl getting fried between an electric sun-bathing device. Several years later people turn up dead in the same spa. You don't really need to be an experienced horror fanatic or a rocket scientist to figure out there's a link between the murders and the burning incident, now do you? Investigating the case are a seemingly braindead police officer (and Charles Napier look-alike!) and a beefcake private detective who gets lucky with the bustiest 80's beauty I've ever seen! Looking through the credits, her name's Dianne Copeland apparently, and she didn't do anything else apart from this turkey and an imbecile Troma-movie called 'Surf Nazis Must Die'. What a wasted opportunity! She may not have been a great actress, but she sure had two other BIG advantages that would help her move upwards in show business. The amount of gore and the quality of the make-up effects are nothing special, neither. We're treated to a couple of bizarre stabbings with a pin and some barbecued human flesh. The plot twists near the end are ridiculous and predictable, but by that time nobody is taking the film seriously anymore, anyway. 'Aerobicide' (a.k.a. 'Killer Workout') is recommended in case you want to switch of all your brain functions off for one night, but nevertheless feel like watching a film! It actually would make a terrific double-feature with 'Death Spa'. Both films have a lot of sexy and scarcely dressed babes
and both films are pretty dumb. | 1 |
Piece of subtle art. Maybe a masterpiece. Doubtlessly a special story about the ambiguity of existence. Tale in Kafka style about impossibility of victory or surviving in a perpetual strange world. The life is, in this film, only exercise of adaptation. Lesson about limits and original sin, about the frailty of innocence and error of his ways.<br /><br />Leopold Kessle is another Joseph K. Images of Trial and same ambiguous woman. And Europa is symbol of basic crisis who has many aspects like chimeric wars or unavailing search of truth/essence/golden age.<br /><br />Methaphor or parable, the movie is history of disappointed's evolution. War, peace, business or lie are only details of gelatin-time. Hypocrisy is a mask. Love- a convention. The sacrifice- only method to hope understanding a painful reality. | 0 |
This was included on the disk 'Shorts: Volume 2'--a rather dull collection of short films. Shorts are among my favorite style of films but somehow the people assembling this second collection had a hard time finding quality content--and it wasn't nearly as good as the first volume or other shorts collections. <br /><br />This short film feels like it's woefully incomplete. There is a story, but so much in unanswered that the viewer, like me, feels a bit left out and unfulfilled.<br /><br />The film begins with a woman, her boyfriend and her Westie (that's a dog, by the way) going to a lonely beach. The lady speaks with an accent that, at times, is a bit difficult to follow. Given that I am hard of hearing, I sure would have loved if it had been closed captioned. Anyway, the boyfriend goes for a swim while she naps. When she awakens, her dog is gone. She panics and makes the guy follow her all about looking for the dog. They spend most of the time arguing and being disagreeable. Then, out of the blue, they stop to have sex. Later, they find the dog--end of story.<br /><br />As far as the characters go, both seemed rather dysfunctional and unlikable. She was a fussy and demanding lady and he seemed to have contempt for her. When you wondered why they were together, their little sex break showed what bond kept them together.<br /><br />Some might like the characterizations--I kept finding the people irritating and unreal--more like caricatures than people you might meet or know. Also, the payoff for all this just isn't worth the wait (unless you want to see the guy naked). | 1 |
OK. Who ever invented this film hates humanity and wants to see them all slit their throats. This 'film' was absolute and utter filth. What the heck was up with the weird old bags eyes? Seriously, was she on some sort of horrible drug and then she like just thought she could control people? She was running around with her freaking evil eye and it was like what? Do I have a booger hanging out of my nose? What are you staring at? Are you like the sea witch or something? All and all though I thought the graphics were top notch old chap. For that alone I would give it a ten. But just cover your ears when you are watching it. The pure and complete evil that comes from that film will make your ears bleed and your eyelids fall off. Who knows? You might even get a knot in your small intestine. You better watch out fools. | 0 |
Having watched all of the Star Trek TV series episodes many times each since the 1960s, most being quite good to superb, and only very few being mediocre, my opinion is that this one is the worst of all.<br /><br />In fact, I think it's so poorly executed as to be an embarrassment to the series. It's not that the story is so bad, although it's not particularly outstanding in any way, but the acting is just abysmal on the part of the two lead characters, meaning those other than the regulars in this case. Barbara Anderson gives her weakest performance ever as the daughter of a mass killer, and who is on a mission of a sort. She practically calls in the role from a phone, and shows no real emotive abilities here. Although usually she's never used as more than a pretty face in most of her film/TV roles,usually small parts, she has done much better.<br /><br />Arnold Moss as her father gives new meaning to the term 'Ham' and is the only actor ever on a 1960s Star Trek episode that outdid William Shatner in this area, and actually makes Shatner look superb by comparison. And he gets to play a Shakespearian actor no less, which gives him more impetus to overact, and he does so.<br /><br />Other than these two leads being so weak, the story is such that anybody with any sense at all can tell who the killer is within the first 15 minutes. I say this because I told my brother the whole plot ending at the first commercial break when we were watching the original 1966 broadcast as pre-teens. His reply was, Yeah, you're right.<br /><br />Skip this one and watch the much superior Menagerie episodes which were originally televised right before. | 1 |
I am right now watching 'The Big Chill' on DVD. One of its actors is Meg Tilly. I looked it up on IMDb which led me to reading Meg's bio which mentioned and reminded me of Meg's sister Jennifer Tilly whose filmography included 'Key West', which was one of my wife's and my favorite shows. I then read this entire thread of reviews.<br /><br />Wow, I really loved that show also and agree with all of the sentiments about the quirkiness and uniqueness of the characters and situations.<br /><br />As most everyone else, I wish it was on DVD or otherwise available.<br /><br />The last reviewer says he watches it on reruns so I wish I knew what network, channel, day, times it is on.<br /><br />So if anyone knows how we can watch episodes of 'Key West', please let us know. | 0 |
After the failure of 'Hellraiser III: Hell On Earth,' the chapter that served as a kind of 'death blow' to the franchise, another embarrassing cheapo cash-in did not come as a surprise. An abysmal attempt to explain every single mystery of Pinhead and the puzzle box, covering literally centuries of history, in a film that runs UNDER 90 minutes... On display is sub-par to wretched acting, sup-par to wretched B-movie special effects, and a ludicrous and insulting attempt at dark humour, while STILL attempting to keep the whole project completely serious. I'm wondering, how many freaking directors did this thing have? Poor Pinhead has SO MUCH screen time, that every bit of mystery and menace that this iconic character possessed, is completely lost. After an hour of hearing long-winded speeches and dramatic posturing, we simply want to tell the guy to shut up! mildly entertaining in spots, especially in the first segment, this mess begins to look and feel like a cheap, ugly made for TV splatter flick after a while, and ends in the most ridiculous way imaginable: Pinhead, along with his pet Cenobite dog, killing a bunch of idiots... in outer space! I'm sorry, but any true fan of the first two films in the series, that gave this abortion of a film more than 3 stars, should be ashamed. On a side note, the film that follows; 'Hellraiser: Inferno' is actually a surprisingly intelligent, and stylishly-made film-noir piece, that brilliantly reinstates 'Pinhead' as a master of illusion and cruelty, and brings back the concept of the inherent evil in human kind, that was the centerpiece of the original film, and the whole point of the story. For any serious horror fan, see Hellraiser I & II, skip the lousy III & this one, and continue with 'Inferno.' You won't miss a thing by skipping this garbage... | 1 |
If you haven't figured out what is going to happen in this film in the first five minutes then give it a couple more minutes. Lilia is a widow. She has been left on the shelf for too long and she wants to burst out. She has a teenage daughter which only highlights that she is not getting any younger. While checking up on her daughter she discovers a world she never dared...the cabaret, where she can belly dance in skimpy sequined outfits while men throw money at her. The film is very misogamist. It's portrayal of men is dismal. Which is rather odd as Lilia stoops to jiggle around for them, not for money, but just for the hell of it. When she succeeds in arousing them it makes her feel like a woman again. She does not wish to connect with them but she is addicted to the attention. The other dancers all are mostly aging women who look like men in drag and realize their time in the spotlight is short-lived. Not short enough I say. She does find romance, however brief , with you guessed it....No surprises here we didn't see coming. Though the ending is good you realize that it could have ended no other way. Maybe this film just isn't targeting my demographic- 30 Male | 1 |
It is a surprising movie that gets you in your chair waiting for the last minute of the film, leaving on your leaps a sweet taste of: ... I want more! There are very good actors, Portuguese actors that have a lot of experience in the world of theater and films. It is not a million Euros budget film, but still we can see the destruction of a car in an excellent perspective that gets you in the movie. If you have the opportunity of getting your hands on this excellent film, don't wait for another minute: just see the film! I think that Portuguese film are increasing the quality. Watch out Spanish producers... The Portuguese are getting a high quality standards. I saw the film and I'm waiting for more... | 0 |
This movie is by far the cutest I have seen in a long time! Wonderful animation and adorable characters (even the bad guys were cute!) made this one a total winner in my book, and also in the books of those I saw it with. I still want to see it again, but haven't had time. Better than Toy Story, which was good too, but not THIS good . | 0 |
I researched this film a little and discovered a web site that claims it was actually an inside joke about the Post WWII Greenwich Village world of gays and lesbians. With the exception of Stewart and Novak, the warlocks and witches represented that alternative lifestyle. John Van Druten who wrote the stage play was apparently gay and very familiar with this Greenwich Village. I thought this was ironic because I first saw Bell, Book and Candle in the theater when I was in 5th or 6th grade just because my parents took me. It was hard to get me to a movie that didn't include horses, machine guns, or alien monsters and I planned on being bored. But, I remember the moment when Jimmy Stewart embraced Kim Novak on the top of the Flatiron building and flung his hat away while the camera followed it fluttering to the ground. As the glorious George Duning love theme soared, I suddenly got a sense of what it felt like to fall in love. The first stirrings of romantic/sexual love left me dazed as I left the theater. I am sure I'm not the only pre-adolescent boy who was seduced by Kim Novak's startling, direct gaze. It's ironic that a gay parable was able to jump-start heterosexual puberty in so many of us. I am in my late 50's now and re-watched the film yesterday evening and those same feelings stirred as I watched that hat touch down fifty years later . . . | 0 |
I had high hopes for this movie. The theater monologue is great and Nic Balthazar is a very interesting man, with a lot of experience and knowledge when it comes to movies. <br /><br />I am a fan of a lot of Belgian movies, but this movie is bad. It's completely unbelievable that actors who are 34 are suddenly playing the roles of teenagers. The 'linguistic games' were hideous and over the top. Nothing about the film seemed real to me. The ending was way too deus ex machina for me.<br /><br />I am very disappointed and think I wasted an hour and a half of my life. | 1 |
For starters and for the record, the term 'Necromancy' describes the black magic art of bringing the dead back to life and it does NOT, in any way, relate to having sex with cadavers. That is called necrophilia and, yes, I know it's an obvious difference but I'm already getting a lot of remarks from acquaintances and relatives that I sport a perverted taste in movies! This movie is quite the opposite of perverted or sleazy, in fact, and merely just qualifies as boring, inept and terribly bad. 'Necromancy' makes at least one top five ranking, namely in the list of most incoherent movies ever made! Now, director Bert I. Gordon is not exactly famous for delivering masterpieces (on his repertoire there are titles like 'Earth vs. the Spider', 'King Dinosaur' and 'Food of the Gods') but he really surpassed himself here with a totally senseless, redundant and utterly nonsensical tale about witchcraft and secretive little towns. Shortly after the tragic experience of seeing their baby being born dead, Lori and her husband Frank move to the quiet little town of Lillith, where Frank suddenly got offered a prominent job in a toy factory. Lori is suspicious and senses an atmosphere of morbidity, especially with the town's patriarch and 'owner' Mr. Cato behaving very obtrusive and mysterious. That's another thing. How can anybody 'own' a town and everybody in it? Either way, Lori gradually discovers that everybody in Lillith is a witch and Mr. Cato exclusively lured her to the town because of her supernatural ability to resurrect the dead. Since many years already, Cato has been trying to bring his deceased son back to life and he's prepared to make any human sacrifice it takes. I honestly don't see the point of the whole movie. It's a blatant rip-off of 'Rosemary's Baby' one of the alternate titles even is 'Rosemary's Disciples' but the script is muddled and imbecilic beyond belief. Why isn't anyone allowed to have children for as long as Cato's son remains dead? That's just really selfish! When, where and how did Lori suddenly learn to resurrect the dead? 'Necromancy' definitely contains a few genuinely uncanny and atmospheric moments, but these are unwarily accomplished either by complete coincidence or through a total lack of budget. The grainy photography provides the film with an eerie ambiance and the set pieces look cheap enough to be creepy. Orson Welles' performance undoubtedly the low point of his career is pitiable, and still it's the best aspect about the entire movie. | 1 |
'Twelve Monkeys' is odd and disturbing, yet being so clever and intelligent at the same time. It cleverly jumps between future and the past, and the story it tells is about a man named James Cole, a convict, who is sent back to the past to gather information about a man-made virus that wiped out 5 billion of the human population on the planet back in 1996. At first Cole is sent back to the year 1990 by accident and by misfortune he is taken to a mental institution where he tries to explain his purpose and where he meets a psychiatrist Dr. Kathryn Railly who tries to help him and a patient named Jeffrey Goines, the insane son of a famous scientist. Being provocative and somehow so sensible, dealing with and between reason and madness, the movie is a definite masterpiece in the history of science-fiction films.<br /><br />The story is just fantastic. It's so original and so entertaining. The screenplay itself written by David and Janet Peoples is inspired by a movie named 'La Jetée' (1962) which I haven't seen, but I must thank the director and writer of the movie, Chris Marker, for giving such an inspiration for the writers of 'Twelve Monkeys'. I read a little about 'La Jetée', it's not the same story but it has the same idea, so this is not just a copy of it. David and Janet Peoples have transformed this great deal of inspiration to a modernized story, which tells about this urgent need for people to find a solution for maintaining human existence and it does it in a so beautiful and a realistic way that it's a guaranteed thrill ride from the beginning till the end. The music used in the film is odd and somehow so funny and amusing it doesn't really fit until you really get it and when you do you realise that it's so compelling, composed by Paul Buckmaster.<br /><br />Terry Gilliam, who we remember from Monty Python, as the director of the movie was a real surprise for me, as I really never thought him as a director type of a person. I know he has directed movies before, but I really couldn't believe that he could make something this magnificent. It shouldn't be a surprise though, as he does an amazing job. You can still sense that same weirdness as in the Python's, but for me the directing is pretty much flawless though in its odd way of describing things it also makes some scenes strangely disturbing. Yes, it is indeed odd, weird, bizarre and disturbing, so it also makes the movie a bit heavy too, so the weak minded viewers will probably find it hard to watch the movie all the way through. It's not as heavy as you could imagine, but it just has these certain things which in their own purpose are sometimes pretty severe to watch. Despite that, the movie holds this pure intelligence inside it and through flashbacks, dreams, jumps between the past and the future it mixes up the whole story in a very clever way and it doesn't even make the plot messy in any part, though it does need concentration from the viewer after all.<br /><br />What comes to acting, well the movie doesn't even go wrong there. The role of James Cole is played by the mighty Bruce Willis, who probably does his best role performance yet to date. Now people may disagree with me, as he did some fine job in for example 'The Sixth Sense' as well, but for me the role of James Cole was so ideal for Willis and he performs it incredibly well. The character is very well written too, yet performed even better. Cole starts to question his own existence and he deals with himself, starting to question his actual time of living, trying to survive and find the crucial missing piece of the puzzle. By hardship he starts to loose his faith, questioning if he can even trust or believe himself. Other role performances worth mentioning are the performances of Madeleine Stow and Brad Pitt. Stow plays the role of Kathryn Railly, the psychiatrist of James Cole, who sees something strangely familiar in Cole and decides to help him to deal with his madness. She somehow starts to believe Cole's story but as a believer of science she tries to find solutions through it and tries to deal with reason when it comes to unbelievable things. Brad Pitt is so good in the role of Jeffrey Goines and he also does one of his best role performances yet to date. The insane yet hilarious personality of the character brought Pitt even an Oscar nomination for it, so I guess I'm not praising the honestly fabulous performance for nothing.<br /><br />All in all, 'Twelve Monkeys' is a great science-fiction experience and it will surely be a recommendation for everyone, especially for the sci-fi fans. It includes brilliant characters and superb role performances, especially from Willis and Pitt, and an original and an entertaining story which forms a plot that's so intelligent and clever. Yet being that already mentioned weird and disturbing it definitely captures the viewer's attention by making it interesting and witty. It's also an explosive thriller and it has romance in it too, so it's all that in same package and that makes it one of the best sci-fi motion pictures I've ever seen. Through the odd yet terrific vision of Terry Gilliam it manages to keep itself in balance despite the somewhat bumpy yet somehow stable ride. Hard to explain really, but that's how it is, it's mind blowing. | 0 |
This is how I feel about the show.<br /><br />I started watching the show in reruns in 2001.<br /><br />I enjoy the show but it had too many faults.<br /><br />I HATE THE MICHELLE & JOEY CHARACTERS!<br /><br />Stealing story lines from old TV shows. They even stole from 'The Partirdge Family.' Then in 1 episode 'The Partridge Family' was mentioned.<br /><br />Actors playing different roles in different episodes. MTV Martha Quinn the most notable doing this, especially when she played herself in 1 episode.<br /><br />The Michelle character COULD NOT take a joke but then they had this little kid act out 'revenge' to her sisters for a joke by them on her.<br /><br />Story lines that came & went in 1 episode. Joey getting the TV show with Frankie & Annette, never heard from it again after that. Danny all of a sudden playing the guitar. 1 episode he is coaching soccer, 1 episode he is coaching softball/baseball. 1 game & you are out huh Danny? <br /><br />Jesse & Joey keep getting jobs REALLY QUICKLY with no experience. Only in a TV show.<br /><br />I did like the D.J. & Stephanie characters. Wish Jodie Sweetin could have learned from Candace Cameron Bure & had a clean NON drug adult life. | 0 |
Went out with my friends and saw this movie last weekend here in London. We didn't know what to expect, the poster gave some of it away, and I won't say any more so as not to spoil the plot, but we found it to be an excellent film with great acting, convincing plot and scary as hell! Having done some research on the making of the film I have to hand it to those guys, the filmmakers, actors, writers, etc., for having put together such a film with such limited resources. Post-production very well done, too. For all of that I give them a 10 out of 10, and I hope they will continue their fine work. Keep it up, guys. You rock! | 0 |
I for one really like this movie for some reasons I'll go into late but I want to touch on why I think people don't like it. First off, there are people out there who just like to hate Tom Cruise. I don't understand it really. Second, Cameron Crowe I think successfully p***es off two groups of movie-goers with this film. The casual, relaxed, 'not looking to think too hard' group of movie-goers are left confused when the plot takes a complete 180 at the end of the movie. And the deep, philosophical, mystery-fans are devastated when Crowe has one of his characters completely explain the mystery.<br /><br />This is a good movie. And Tom Cruise does a very good job in it. I think it's probably his best performance from what I've seen all though I haven't seen all of his movies, or even a majority of them probably. The supporting cast is good as well. Penelope Cruz gives a solid performance and Jason Lee was enjoyable.<br /><br />I like the story, and I think that's what Vanilla Sky is more than anything. It's a mystery, an adventure, and a romantic comedy, but it's mostly just a good story. And it has a lot of philosophical undertones to it, and many similar ideas and stories like this occur in historical philosophy. David Aames (Cruise) is the man that had everything he wanted, more or less lost it, was given a second chance with a catch to regain it all back, and in the end facing his demons and the full scope of what is happening, chooses reality, simplicity, and normality to see if he can finally find the one thing he could never get a grip on: happiness.<br /><br />Many people were disappointed that Crowe laid out the complete mystery at the end. I think it's necessary. The audience then knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that David is aware of his circumstances and it makes the choice at the end all the more powerful.<br /><br />And the music in the movie is great. It's probably what makes the movie as enjoyable as it is. Particularly, 'Njosnavelin' by Sigur Ros, which is an amazing song.<br /><br />All in all, I'd give it 3 out 4 stars. It's a movie with some substance for those who like to think things through, and a great story for those looking to relax. That 'moderate' approach is probably why people dislike it so much because it isn't a full blown mystery, or a full blown love story. It mixes and matches different elements and genres. | 0 |
Star Trek V definitely earns the dubious distinction of being the weakest film in the Star Trek series. Despite the good acting efforts by the actors, it suffered from a general lack of funding from Paramount Pictures. Paramount Pictures was not enthusiastic about this film at its very onset.<br /><br />The movie begins with the Enterprise crew enjoying their extended shore leave as a reword for saving the Earth from total ecological disaster. Their shore leave is cut short when a disturbance occurs on Nimbus III, the Planet of Intergalactic Peace. Captain Kirk and the Enterprise arrive at Nimbus III only to have their ship hijacked by Sybok, Spock's half-brother. Sybok brainwashes the crew of the Enterprise and sets it on a suicide mission to rendezvous with 'God' just past the Great Barrier at the center of our galaxy. Captain Kirk must then figure out a way to regain control of his ship and to fend off the Enterprise's Klignon pursuers.<br /><br />The only bright spot in the film is the acting and directing. William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy, DeForest Kelley, Laurence Luckinbill, and the rest of the cast all give good performances. William Shatner also does a pretty good job directing this film.<br /><br />However, the film suffered from a general lack of enthusiasm and funding. First, the part of Sybok was initially offered to Sean Connery, but he refused. So, Laurence Luckinbill got the part. Second, many of the special effects were severely cut back ... reducing the movies entertaining potential. Third, the scene that depicts the arrival at the Great Barrier left much to be desired. Finally, the romance between Scotty and Uhura in this film did not make much sense at all ... considering that no such romance ever occurred prior to this point in the Star Trek universe and it was never explained how such a romance could suddenly materialize between Star Treks IV and V.<br /><br />Overall, this is a very weak film. You should probably just skip this film and move on to Star Trek VI. After all, the cast and crew made Star Trek VI partly to bail themselves out after their debacle with Star Trek V. | 1 |
When this movie firt came out in 1995, I found it amazingly great. Especially with Sandra Bullock.After having watched her brilliant performance in Speed , i was ready to enjoy any of her movies.<br /><br />Back to The Net, it was a movie that keeps you in suspence.All in all, i enjoyed it so I give it a **** out of *****. | 0 |
86 wasted minutes of my life. I fell asleep the first time I attempted watching it, and I must say I'm not one to ever fall asleep in the cinema.<br /><br />I have never seen such a pointless plot acted in such a stilted and forced manner, and can only surmise that the actors were as hard-up as the protagonist writer allegedly was in the film itself.<br /><br />Everything in this dire adaptation is overacted. And if it isn't the wooden acting, almost as though you can see the teleprompter, then the set itself, which is overlit and interfering in utterly unnecessary ways, and overdressed to an unimaginable extent, is enough to put you off the entire farce.<br /><br />As to the supposed shock of a detective under disguise, any person who does not see that - as well as the entire rest of this ludicrous plot - telegraphed light years in advance, should check their eyesight immediately.<br /><br />Bad acting, and from two very decent actors, coupled with the hyper-coddled Branagh trademark overdirection, is enough to make you want to use real bullets rather than blanks yourself.<br /><br />On top of it all, there is a completely risible undertone of homoerotica in this, heightened towards the end of it. All I can hope for is that this was such a flop that people shan't try to emulate this level of cinema ever again. | 1 |
I created my own reality by walking out of the theater I was roped in by my girlfriend into going to this dreck with her mom. We (my g-friend and I) walked out about an hour into it. What a load of pseudo scientific new age jargon.<br /><br />Sub atomic particles are thoughts? By taping labels to bottles of water and blessing it by a Buddhist monk it grew little pretty crystals? A drop of 25% in the murder rate in DC happened when a bunch of folks meditated. Wow, what a rigorous scientific study. I'm sure that someone ate cheerios for four days straight during the same time. Should we conclude that eating cheerios caused a drop in the murder rate? <br /><br />Hogwash, hooey, bull pucky! <br /><br />BTW- It was funded by the Ramtha cult, the leader of which was one of the 'experts' which were interview by the filmmakers. No ulterior motives here, right? | 1 |
For all its visual delights, how much better Renaissance would have been in live action. The animation is fantastic in the big picture, yes, but the characters are cold and hollow, much like the story and the style of this film. With real actors, perhaps the world of the film would not have felt so lifeless. There is much to admire here, but at the end I found that all I could do was admire. I did not enjoy the movie that much, and it clarifies something that I did not see before: that the visual elements can be the defining positive aspect of a film, but without a good story and strong characters, it can all be for nothing. I will not go so far as to say that this movie comes to nothing, but sometimes it comes dangerously close. I love Dark sci-fi thrillers. Blade Runner and Dark City are two films I thought were wonderful. But Blade Runner had its tragic villain and Dark City had its thought-provoking story arc. Renaissance has shadow and light, but little else. I wish I could have liked this movie more, but the weak story and the empty characters stood in the way of that. The Renaissance was a historical and artistic burst of color and life. How ironic, then, that one of the most bleak and lifeless movies I've seen this year takes its title from the Renaissance. | 1 |
The Bible teaches us that the love of money is the root of all evil. The love of money leads to greed which can lead to pride and eventually to destruction. Two brothers, Andy and Hank, will discover how far the love of money will cost them and those they love the most.<br /><br />Andy Hanson (Philip Seymour Hoffman) and his younger brother Hank (Ethan Hawke) couldn't be more different. Andy is seemingly enjoying the success of working in New York's real estate market and is married to his beautiful wife Gina (Marisa Tomei) who is the idea of a trophy wife if one ever existed. Hank, however, is divorcée who finds himself at the mercy of his ex-wife, his daughter's expensive school bills, and endless amount of child support payments. A man who means well and has good intentions, Hank none the less cannot escape the water that his slowly raising above his head no matter how hard he swims to stay above it.<br /><br />However, Andy has his own problems with the only difference between him and his brother being that he hides them better. He has committed fraud against his company and is heavily involved in drug use in order to escape his fears. The pressure of his life, and the lies he needs to keep his appearances up, have now caused him to think about fleeing the country with Gina in order to start over again. Of course, like Hank, he needs money to do this and believes he knows how to get it. How? By robbing the jewelery store that their parents own and run. This act of betrayal is where the Hanson brothers, their families, and several other lives, will be destroyed because of greed, pride, and fear. <br /><br />The uniqueness of Before The Devil Knows You're Dead is the manner in which the story is told. After the robbery goes wrong, and Nanette Hanson (Rosemary Harris) who is the mother of both Andy and Hank is killed, the story is told from a variety of different points of view from various days before and after the robbery attempt. We learn more about the motivations of not only Andy and Hank but also the reaction to their father Charles (Albert Finney) to the death of his wife. The relationship between Charles and his two sons, especially to Andy, is also explored and another possible motivation of sorts is discovered after it is revealed that there is little love between the two men. Nanette may have been dearly loved by her sons but their father is a different story.<br /><br />Philip Seymour Hoffman proves once more why he is one of the most impressive actors in Hollywood today by portraying Andy as not only a greedy criminal with lack of morality but also, in contradictory way, as a man we can sympathize with. Ethan Hawke also brings Hank alive not just as a loser but really as a man just desperate to hang on to what little he has left. Andy and Hank are thus brought to life in such a realistic way that it is easy to think of them as not just characters but the very real images of lost and confused men who now find themselves facing the consequence of their actions.<br /><br />Before The Devil Knows You're Dead is a moral tale about how our actions lead to consequences that we otherwise might not expect to face. More than that, our choices also can affect those around us in ways we never expected. In what should have been best picture of the year, we see how lives are easily broken when the love of money becomes the ultimate pursuit in order to ease our troubled lives. In other words, there are no easy fixes or answers to our problems and trying to find them can only make things worse.<br /><br />10/10 | 0 |
I saw this film from 1918 recently at our local Helsinkian film archive. It seems that the Danish Film Institute has reconstructed it in 2006 to celebrate the 100th anniversary of Nordisk filmcompany, which was one of the largest in the world in the early 20th century. I believe there are several copies with English translations circulating around Europe at the moment. <br /><br />I found the film fascinating and the trip to Mars well thought out. The plot line is certainly original, but I really don't want to reveal any more of it at the moment, as now the danger of spoiling things for you really exists ;-).<br /><br />The film is also available on DVD, query the Danish Film Institute (Det Danske Filminstitut) web pages at dfi.dk with 'Himmelskibet' to get more info. | 0 |
This was Gene Kelly's breakthrough, and that alone makes it memorable. Throw in Rita Hayworth as his love interest and comedian Phil Silvers of all people as his sidekick and you have the ingredients for a real crowd pleaser, which is exactly how it turned out.<br /><br />Kelly plays Danny McGuire, a nightclub owner in Brooklyn (Brooklyn is always the 'wrong side of the tracks' in '40s films) whose star attraction and love interest is Rusty Parker (Rita Hayworth). Rita is lovely, and even plays a dual role as Rusty and Rusty's grandmother. Rusty has a chance at the big time through the machinations of John Coudair (Otto Kruger), who romanced and lost Rusty's grandmother.<br /><br />The plot revolves around Danny cutting Rusty loose, to the detriment of his club, because she has a chance at success that he can't give her. But, naturally, that's not what Rusty ultimately wants, because, as usual in films of that time, the right guy is the only thing on the girl's mind. There are no surprises, but everybody does their thing well.<br /><br />Kelly does the first of his amazing trick dances, this time with himself as a reflection from a glass window. He was the master at that sort of dance, and one still has to wonder how they timed everything so precisely so that he really does seem to be in two places at once. The melodrama gets a bit thick, and there are some gratuitous war references thrown in that do little but provide the opportunity for a song or two, but Kelly takes this film to the next level. This was before he became a mega-star and too smooth perhaps for his own good. An underlying edge of rawness to his character lends it a believable and almost wistful air.<br /><br />Kelly's character in the 1980 'Xanadu' also was named Danny McGuire. This film was the beginning, that film the end, of a terrific run for a dancing genius. Clearly, this film meant a lot to him. Highly recommended. | 0 |
I loved this movie the first time I saw it. It gives such detail of what executives involved in the news industry will do just to get a story on the air: notably Jane Craig rushing Kenny to finish editing the piece to get it off, and then Joan Cusack struggling to get it in, and William Hurt, who according to Jane commits an incredible breach of ethics, fakes his tears during his date rape interview, a flaw that is pointed out by Aaron. Another high point is when Tom uses Jane for his own benefits, and then turns around and sleeps with Jennifer. The script is brilliant, and the directing is almost as good. All three main actors were great in the portrayals of their characters, Especially Holly Hunter, and Albert Brooks, whom is the funniest in the film. William Hurt is also very good. This deserved at least three Oscars, best actress(holly hunter), best supporting actor (Albert Brooks), and best picture. I liked the last parts of the film where it shows them reuniting 7 years later.<br /><br />8/10 | 0 |
MISSISSIPPI MERMAID is a disturbing and unsettling examination of what it means to be in love with the 'wrong' person.<br /><br />Truffaut's directing is his usual outstanding work. Although this is far from his best. Deneuve is very, very beautiful. Despite the character she portrays. | 0 |
<br /><br />The kind of movie that demands too much from the audience, yet to disappoint most of them. I think of the Mexican people who (either in an attempt to support Mexican movies or willing to see a film casting top Mexican stars) saw it, half of the people went out of the theater when I went to watch it, it's definitely not the kind of movie one could expect. I think too of the people from other countries who dared spending 2 hours seeing it till the very end, 'what a piece of crap'. In order to understand Cronica de un desayuno, one has to be mexican, and one has to be familiar with the low middle classes (or even better, be part of them). There's nothing accidental in this movie, the family is and has what many families, in Mexico at least, share. One has to see it with a wide open mind to accept it entirely, it's not the kind of movie that you fully understand after you watch it. The older brother wouldn't let anyone sit on his RED couch, the sister is staying no matter how she wants to leave, the younger brother is going to an excursion, and all he cares about is the yellow radio, the mother has to prepare the breakfast for the family, no matter how tense and unbearable the situation is. The father came back after who knows how long, allowing the mother to live a night of passion that somehow turns out to be momentary, and ends up by repeating all the attitudes of his sons... The stories around the house are surrealistic (and so is the movie), a travestite looking for his penis, a factory worker and his attempt of suicide, subtled by the kisses of his girlfriend, a fat man riding his bicycle after a interesting conversation about homosexuals with his sister? wife? mother?... The music doesn't pretend too much but it achieves a lot, not more than a snare drum, cymbal, a some strings. Thanks good a movie like this was done and released.<br /><br />One of the best mexican movies ever!, and one of the less understood, even by mexican themselves, no matter how identified the should have felt with it.<br /><br /> | 0 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.