review
stringlengths 41
13.7k
| label
int64 0
1
|
|---|---|
This is one of the best of the genre. I saw it twice about 25yrs ago and have not had another opportunity to see it again since then. It rivals the Zatoichi series (also starring Katsu) in exciting swordplay. | 0 |
Intriguing. Exciting. Dramatic. Explosive. Complex. Epic. Words that only touch the tip of the iceberg in terms of the grand story that is LOST being told.<br /><br />From the acting down to the rare visual effects, LOST is the essential show on television for fans of science-fiction, fantasy, action, adventure, and lots and lots of mystery.<br /><br />Each cast member is so well chosen, and so good in their roles, that you either love them, or hate them, or downright wish them dead.<br /><br />The visual effects, when used (which is rare) are actually quite well done considering the usual production of shows. Be it the 'smoke monster', to the polar bears, LOST is believable in terms of eye-candy.<br /><br />As far as story goes, nothing can compare to the vast complexity this show has made viewers like me endure. Beginning to End, continuity is virtually perfect, characters are developed, and the ever-evolving story slowly gives the answers to its questions so many crave.<br /><br />Overall, there is practically no flaw in LOST. It does for dramatic/sci-fi television what Arrested Development did for comedy: it has set the bar.<br /><br />I highly recommend LOST to those that are patient, intellectual, and love every moment of the ride, no matter how long it takes to reach the end.<br /><br />See this show. | 0 |
Some funny bits, but come Bill! A film? Quoting Zeitgeist? Keep the TV Show and the interviews, but a film? I'm probably overreacting but what a unnecessary provoking film... I don't know. I laughed, disagreed, agreed... this film is very confusing and inconsistent.<br /><br />Bill's a funny guy... but also very cocky... Bill's rhetoric is similar to Bill Hicks, a brilliant comedian. But like many comedians, the borderline between comedy and preaching can be annoying. I think that the major problem in this film is his lack of sensibility. This might be just a personal taste, but comedy that constantly demeans somebody cannot be taken as truth. Bill is obviously emotionally reactive to religious fundamentalism. I agree with Bill that religious fanaticism is not sensible, but the response to it cannot be sensible. It will create unnecessary turmoil. We can do better than just react to fundamentalism. His conclusion is that 'we don't know' and he fervently tries to convince the spectator that nobody knows anything, to the point that the agnostic community has been concerned with his lack of serious research in comparative religion. His humility that he only knows that he doesn't, is a contradiction as he tries to insist that all religious thought is non-sense.<br /><br />I had great trouble seeing bits of Zeitgeist, the movie in Bill's film. All the astrotheology-influenced non-sense that simplifies all religions as the same is simply disappointing. Zeitgeist has provoked a lot of controversy and has messed up the validity of so much of the valuable Religion Studies scholarship. It is very sad how wrong facts have been tossed around with no reliable scholarly sources. Astro-mystic sources that reduce everything to 'the stars say it all' seem to be from the Middle Ages. This film is a confusing statement from a confused 'agnostic'. Agnosticism is far more complex and philosophically academic than defending every single issue as 'we don't know'.<br /><br />This film is an obvious proof of how postmodernism has been able to oversimplify and generalize major issues in human history.<br /><br />Watch the film (it has hilarious interviews and bits) but PLEASE do not behave like Bill. You cannot expect anybody to have a mature conversation if you are making sardonic comments in every other line. His arguing techniques are demeaning and insulting, provoking emotional reactions rather than rational and logical argumentation.. There needs to be a more mature way of dealing with these issues. | 1 |
When the US entered World War I, the government forced Hollywood to churn out propaganda films. THE LITTLE American is probably the best of the lot because it stars Mary Pickford.<br /><br />Pickford plays a young woman torn between two men: Jack Holt (German) and Raymond Hatton (French), but her decision is delayed because of the war as both men enlist.<br /><br />When the ship Pickford is sailing on is sunk by the Germans (think Lusitania) because it is carrying munitions, Pickford has a great scene as she stands on the lifeboat and yells at the German commander. Later on, of course, she runs into both Holt and Hatton when she is being held as a war prisoner at a château.<br /><br />Director Cecil B. DeMille provides one truly great scene in this film as Pickford and Holt are wandering through a bombed-out village. They pass a destroyed church of which only one wall remains standing. Against the wall is a very large crucifix. As they stand and watch, the wall collapses but the Jesus figure remains, suspended in mid air. It's a very surreal moment in a film that is otherwise very straightforward and un-artsy.<br /><br />Pickford is, as always, a pleasure to watch. She was always a very natural actress who avoided the arm-waving histrionics many other actors of the day used. She's also very very pretty. Holt is very good here in a leading-man role. Hatton is OK. Among the list of name actors in 'extra' parts are Wallace Beery, Ramon Novarro, Colleen Moore, Ben Alexander, Hobart Bosworth, Norman Kerry, Walter Long, James Neill, and Edythe Chapman.<br /><br />Not a great film, but interesting to see US propaganda at work. | 0 |
Dig! I would say to anyone even if you don't like Metallica to see 'some kind of monster' it is a spinal tap type documentary about one of the biggest bands in the world acting like mental kids during a breakdown of sorts. It's fun and fascinating. Along the same lines comes dig! A film about 'the Dandy Warhol's' and 'the Brian Jonestown massacre' two Portland bands who start off a kind of music scene in there home town only for one of the bands to become huge and one to fall by the wayside into the musical history books. Right from the start the two bands pull in opposite directions just on their ability to make decisions whether good or bad. Filmed over seven years and at times painful to watch we see the dandy's meteoric rise to fame (thanks to that vodaphone ad!) and the Jonestown seminal fall from scene instigators to bickering wannabes. As the bands become more disjointed the friendships are stretched tension tight and at several points snap into arguments and even on stage fights. All of this is half funny and half tragic and believe it or not is perversely watch able. Like I said at the beginning you can watch the Metallica film even if you have no interest in the band. Dig! on the other hand is slightly different and is more enjoyable and a whole lot easier to watch if you have a passing interest in either band. Still a good film and more a testament to not be in a band than encouraging that as a career path. Dig! Is a mad ride on rock and roll's coat tails and a fine example of the pitfalls and pleasures of being or wanting to be famous. | 0 |
Like another user I got this cheap - I thought. 85 kroners (£8). Although not worth that amount of money it is a total classic that I - like the other users - first saw when I was a kid and was looking forward to seeing again some 20 years after. The story is amazingly thin (which is why it might have worked for kids), but all the radio language and trucker stuff makes up for it. It'll look good on my DVD shelf in years to come. First viewing (1980): 10/10. Second viewing (2002): 4/10 | 1 |
i totally disagree.i thought that this was a great movie for kids.dawn wells from gilligans island,and promise shown of a barely then known dana plato.it was disneylike and for that it can hardly be disregarded as meaningless fluff.no it wasn't scary and wasn't meant to be.i wont ruin the ending.but it was unusual the way that it was done.i mean the kids characters were great and i didn't know what to expect in the end.the basic plot also had a lot more to do with these kids than you say the fact that these kids were expert fishermen is very central to the plot especially initially.it also helps them out of a jam towards the end.it also has the plus of not being overly long.i think it clocks in at under 95 minutes | 0 |
From what I remember seeing of this film, it was not good. I always say that if a film is good and can keep you attention throughout the hardest of moments (example: a Tylenol Cold & Sinus war) than it is a film that has done its job. The fact that I was asleep for most of this film only proves the fact that it could not keep my attention, and ergo, it did not complete its job. Why did I fall victim to the Tylenol Cold & Sinus, when I had a film in my arsenal? <br /><br />To begin, Committed did not make any sense. The acting was poor and the overall story left more doors opened that just couldn't be closed. I am thinking of the moment when I swear I saw Affleck and Graham (brother and sister in this film) kissing. That didn't make any sense. Then there was a scene with Affleck and his roommates indicating that he was sleeping with one of them, almost breaking up a perfect lesbian couple. I suppose this was to show that most are not as committed to a relationship as Graham is, but for me it just was nothing more than filler. I have this suspicious feeling that the director of this film was sleeping with Affleck. His acting in this film was atrocious. I mean, I have never seen him do any 'good' acting, but this was by far the worst. Oh, I just had another moment during the battle come through my mind and I confirmed it with IMDb.com ... what was John Stewart doing in this film? That was yet again another moment when my eyes were opened just for a moment in one of those battles that seemed to last forever.<br /><br />And frankly, it's Heather Graham - we could care less about her after a while. She's just not interesting - she's just bland, boring and basically stops acting after a while. While they desperately start throwing wacky characters into the mix to revive the movie, it just doesn't work and instead of just calling it a day - they start throwing more characters into the mix so now it's just weird, tedious, boring and really, really long. Luke Wilson's slow drawl acting style slows an already crawling movie to dead halt - why exactly were these two married? Committed is a truly terrible film--the kind of 'hip comedy' that leaves you staggering out depressed and bored.<br /><br />Grade: * out of ***** | 1 |
Co-directed by and starring Rutger Hauer, this film short was based on a short story by Dutch writer Harry Murlisch.<br /><br />In the 10 minutes of the film's length you will get to see a life-time as 'Harry' unravels his long-time fascination with a room he passes constantly in his youth. Returning to the city many years later he finds he has rented the same room.<br /><br />Using black and white film the textures are accentuated in this delicate telling of a tale. The voice of 'Harry' drawing you into his world.<br /><br />A subtle, tight performance from Rutger Hauer and 2 non-speaking characters. Wonderful soundtrack by Dutch musician Dyzack.<br /><br />At the moment difficult to see this movie as it is only available on DVD region 2 'L'infidele' (Liv Ullman) as a bonus track. But is due to be on the re-released DVD of 'The Hitcher' - another tight, but very different performance from Hauer!<br /><br />See this film if you can! | 0 |
This is one of the worst anime series I have ever seen. When I watched the manga review in a magazine, I thought it was maybe interesting, but when I got the chapters I realized it was a complete stupidity.<br /><br />OK, the first 2 or 3 chapters are OK, and the series have an standard. But as the plot advances, it becomes totally incoherent. The series tries to show some mystical based upon the Christian mythologies, but it's a total stupidity. It features some demons and stigmata scenes... Totally nonsense. It seems the series tries to seem deeply-thought, complex or mythologically reviewed, but a watcher with a bit of brain and cultural references, will realize soon all those elements used don't have a real sense: THEY ARE PUT THERE ONLY TO IMPRESS THE IGNORANT WATCHERS!!<br /><br />The final chapters are full of totally nonsense elements: battles with cat-eared demons, references to a supposed fight between demons, and demons who controls time (with no apparent reason). The final is totally nonsense; an ignorant watcher will see on it a floating final that gives them a place to meditate; but the truth is this: THE FINAL AND THE COMPLETE SERIES IS A TOTAL INCOHERENT AND INCONGRUENT NONSENSE. | 1 |
An extremely dark and brooding show with an excellent cast. One of the few shows that I try to watch on a regular basis. Glad to see Bebe Neuwirth in a recurring role, but feel Andre Braugher is underutilized. He is one intense actor! Hope CBS gives it a better time slot next season. | 0 |
This movie is an example of small budget,ineffective star cast,weak storyline and poor entertainment. This kind of movies are made for commercial breaks and not for any entertainment of die-hard fans of bollywood movies. I went to this movie because i thought the earlier one gangster was tolerable so this is also. Only thing I appreciate the way new actress put herself in the movie in a very bold way, she very much resembles bollywood actress nandita das. she is good ,sexy and acting well. she definitely go up in her career. our mithunda was all time good at his work .atleast he has some good to the movie. I didn't like imraan for his role must advise him to improve himself now as he has done many movies as new actor and he has been seen as established actor This movie has nothing except the bold scene done by new actress Never try this movie | 1 |
Whatever possessed Guy Ritchie to remake Wertmuller's film is incomprehensible.<br /><br />This new film is a mess. There was one other person in the audience when I saw it, and she left about an hour into it. (I hope she demanded a refund.) The only reason I stayed through to the end was because I've never walked out of a movie.<br /><br />But I sat through this piece of junk thoroughly flabbergasted that Madonna and Ritchie could actually think they made a good film. The dialogue is laughable, the acting is atrocious and the only nice thing in this film is the scenery. Ritchie took Lina's movie and turned it into another 'Blue Lagoon.'<br /><br />This is a film that you wouldn't even waste time watching late night on Cinemax. Time is too precious to be wasted on crap like this. | 1 |
I hate this movie. It is a horrid movie. Sean Young's character is completely unsympathetic. Her performance is wooden at best. The storyline is completely predictable, and completely uninteresting. I would never recommend this film to anyone. It is one of the worst movies I have ever had the misfortune to see. | 1 |
These kinda movies just don't get the credit they deserve. This is my 2nd all time favorite movie, (Stand By Me being 1st.) The reason I watched this movie was because Wil Wheaton was in it and he is my most favorite person in the whole world and I think he done an amazing job in this movie and so did Sean Astin. I just watched it last night actually and it just amazed me. Everything in the movie is very exceptional. The script, the acting, the screenplay. I was on the edge of my seat 80% of the time, and if my mom wasn't in the room I would have absolutely balled whenever Joey Trotta (Wil Wheaton) died. I did not see that coming!! At all!! I was real surprised when I heard that it wasn't real popular back in the 90's. I was born a few years after it came out so, of course, I didn't go see it in the theaters, but im sure I would have if I would have been alive. If any of my friends watched this, they would be like, 'uhh okay?' but thats just cause their not cool enough to appreciate work like this. If you haven't seen this movie, or are wanting to watch something that is the bomb, this is the movie for you to watch. | 0 |
Wow, this movie was horrible. As a Bills fan I was really looking forward to it, but this was bad. They should have left it on the shelf it was on for 4 years. I can't believe a guy like Jon Voight would sign on for something like this. | 1 |
The DVD release of this movie hopes you will buy this movie on the name and face of Sandra Bullock. Her picture (from years after this film) basically is the cover art... and the back cover art... and the inside cover art... the same picture. Her name is prominently shown on the front cover, all 4 edges and the disk itself. She is the first name in the list of stars. Her biography is printed inside the case. This film must revolve around her character, right? WRONG! It is her first movie and she plays a minor role. After watching the movie, every role seems like a minor role. The character Dog actually displays some personality. Less than an hour after watching it, I don't even remember the names of many characters.<br /><br />Maybe if I watched it several more times, I could actually figure out the plot, but I don't think it would be worth the effort.<br /><br />Oh, wait, I just remembered a funny bit! Shoot-em-up video game fans will get a kick out of the 'Doom-cam'. Looks just like a first-person shooter game. Hands and gun pointing out in front of the camera.<br /><br />I am generally not a person to be critical of movies, but this may be the worst movie I have ever seen. I kept expecting some silhouettes to walk across the screen, sit down and start making fun of it.<br /><br />I'm just glad that the money we spent on this (used) went to charity. | 1 |
I feel really bad for reviewing this movie because I wish that I had only watched it as a concept production. The Covenant looked like it could have been a really original piece, but sadly they lose the great idea in the translation to the screen.<br /><br />The story follows four (five) teens that are the descendants of the families that started the town of Ipswitch a survivors of the Salem witch trials. They also happen to be a part of the secret sect called 'The Covenant'. Their power must be used sparingly as it drains their life-force in small amounts and is highly addictive. In theory this would make a pretty good action sci-fi movie
or at least an interesting teeny flick.<br /><br />But there were just too many glaring downfalls that don't allow this movie to reach its plot's full potential. That acting wasn't good, the sound track was mediocre and we found a lot of unnecessary sync issues. For sure the biggest issue is the poor editing job. The movie has little to no coherent flow and makes one fight to keep a mental timeline or any feel of pacing.<br /><br />The movie has it's moments, but overall was a little disappointing.<br /><br />A witchy 4/10 | 1 |
There were a lot of things going against this movie for me before I watched it.<br /><br />First, I was a typical high school senior, in a Shakespeare class I didn't really even like, much less understood half of! Shakespeare would be no more than UNINTELLIGIBLE without me pouring ALL my concentration into his almost encrypted plays... encrypted with his extremely difficult to understand language.... and then I still wouldn't get most of it.<br /><br />Second, it was 4 hours long! I never thought that could be a good thing.<br /><br />Well let me tell you something. This movie was so masterful, so beautiful, I actually understood all the language as it was being performed. Now, the script was followed to the letter in this movie, the same script that was incomprehensible to me in Shakespeare class. And here I was my mind opening and me understanding it. I was doubting myself while watching the movie almost! But lo and behold... when performed, and only then, Shakespeare comes to life. So this version of Hamlet showed me that Shakespeare is indeed a master, who wrote great stories. When I saw it on the big screen, especially in the high budget major motion picture style (with beautiful cinematography and photography), and acted amazingly by Brannagh and cast, somehow.... I understood what was going on. What was being said. The language is awesome and passionate. It allows for more raw emotion... when words can't describe something, maybe Shakespeare's words can.<br /><br />I still hold to this day that Fist of The North Star (animated, english dub) is the greatest movie ever made. No movie provides more sheer entertainment. But for a movie to come close to dethroning Fist from that position (which Hamlet did -- it came close) is truly amazing.... awe inspiring. It wasn't a movie. It was an event.<br /><br />Even more amazing, it made me appreciate shakespeare. Wow. Powerful. Powerful is the word. One of the rare, TRULY powerful movies out there.<br /><br />This gets 2 hundred trillion stars out of infinity stars. Yes yes.<br /><br />By the way, all you kids out there in a Shakespeare class... forget it. You're wasting you're time. You have to see the plays performed. Only then will justice be done to them. | 0 |
This is supposed to be Charlie's masterpiece, but I will contend that it is actually one of his weaker films. First of all, it's not funny. Not one thing in this movie made me laugh. Okay, there's a quick jump into a box that was a giggle, but that was one of desperation. The Tramp's first - and only - talkie where he speaks (he sings in an earlier film), but his flat dialogue shows us exactly why he was such a joy to watch in 'Modern Times' and 'Gold Rush' - two films that are at least ten times better than this film. There's literally only one good scene in this film, the one where Hitler plays with the globe like a beach ball. That's it.<br /><br />Okay, so it gets a lot of praise for being the first film to wage war, even long before we entered the war. Nope. Not true. Simply not true, so that praise can be turned down a bit. The Three Stooges did it on January 19, 1940 with 'You Natzy Spy' - ten months earlier than the October release of Chaplin's film - and that movie was actually funny! If you want to watch Chaplin's greatest film, watch this only for reference. And then pop in 'Modern Times', 'Gold Rush', 'City Lights', 'Limelight', 'The Kid', or even 'Tillie's Punctured Romance'. | 1 |
This film moves the Cinderella story forward to the early 1950s and makes good, if eccentric, use of the Isle of Man as a background. The Ugly Sisters have become wildly glamorous upper-class English girls, and together with Kathleen Turner as the stepmother they flounce about in various wonderful period costumes. The story is altered a little from the traditional version: early on it is oddly combined with the plot of 'King Lear', and in later stages Cinderella is rather more assertive than is usual. It looks splendid and works on the whole pretty well, but does go over the top at times. | 0 |
Back in the 60's, this grim study of Joy, a young proletarian wife, was the introduction to the career of Ken Loach, who became one of the most distinguished and respected British filmmakers of all time. By then I knew very little about Brecht, politics or the reality of the under-privileged, and I was quite impressed by the aesthetic of the film, its free style, its austere color cinematography, and Joy's monologues in front of the camera. I was also much surprised to find that Terence Stamp (who had become a celebrity, thanks to 'Billy Budd', 'The Collector' and 'Modesty Blaise') had so little screen time. Although 20th Century Fox distributed 'Poor Cow' in Panama, Loach did not stay in mainstream cinema (which this film hardly is) and I lost contact with his films. I just heard of his successes, 'Kes', 'Family Life', 'Black Jack'. until I caught up in the 80's. The beautiful title song by Donovan, by the way, is available in his anthology 'Troubadour'. | 0 |
Even though there are no new episodes, and it is rarely showed. I used to love the magic of Sabrina and the teenage witch. I never got to see the last episodes, but I do want to know what happened to Miles, or Josh? And why did the aunts have to disappear out of the show for good?I'm sure the ending went to be perfect. But there are a lot of questions unanswered. And I want to see the last episode of S.T.T.W! Because I heard she decides between Erin and Harvey on her wedding day! I really hope that she picks Harvey! And may I say Nate Richart is HOTT!! Too bad hes too old for me though. Melissa Joan Hart has her own sense of cuteness that she adds to the show, but there are many little 'stupid' things for the show such as how famous bands come out of nowhere and play songs and all the cast is listening, its kind of stupid. Plus the cat starts to really get lame, as the show continued, the jokes began just to get stupid, and the things that the audio controlled 'audience' would laugh at, I would think it was so lame. Don't get me wrong, at some parts it was funny, but I think the show just kind of lost its 'magic' so to speak as the show went on. I give kudos to all the cast though for trying, although that Soleil Moon Frye girl had no taste, and she was a horrid actress. I wonder what Melissa or any of the cast is doing now for that matter, now that the show has ended. | 0 |
Hmmm! is it worst film ever? well sort of, for some of the cast its a shame to see them in such a film but hey if it pays the bills why not, as for the film well. OK cg effects not to bad for such a cheap film ,music is just about OK again for a cheap film, end credits are OK lol<br /><br />BAD to many to list but, cast, acting, sets, script, ending..what the hell ,Drac..........worst Drac EVER!, many more but can not be bothered to put them all down.<br /><br />Idea was OK but needed ten times the budget and more thought and much better lighting and style and change all bad points, i do say however to see this film so you to can say'What the FU%$ was that all about'as the credits run.Also its kind of a must see just to see how bad it is. | 1 |
I'm trying to find something of value here. The best I can muster is that Truffaut wanted to make a movie as tedious, painful, puerile, annoying, illogical, and brainless as the experience of being in love. If that was his goal, then he succeeded, but the solution to his exercise is really a drag to watch.<br /><br />There is one scene that screams for a spoof: Belmondo compares the features of Deneuve's face to the features in a landscape . All I could think the whole time was 'glacier,' 'ice floe,' 'two lonely fishermen wearing Army surplus on a frozen lake in Minnesota.'<br /><br />The only other point of interest was the resurrection of Buffoon's theory of climatic determinism. The tropics are presented as paradise, and things get progressively worse as they get colder, hell being Calvinist French Switzerland. That was kind of funny. | 1 |
This bittersweet slice of magic realism had a checkered production history (director/writer replaced) and tanked at the box office, but it's a helluva film.<br /><br />Elijah Wood and Joseph Mazzello are pre-teen brothers whose flaky mom (Lorraine Bracco) shacks up with a mean-spirited alcoholic (Adam Baldwin). During his drinking bouts, Baldwin physically abuses Mazzello and manipulates him into remaining silent about his situation. But when Wood cottons on to what's happening, the boys put their heads together and hatch a fantastique solution to Mazzello's devastating dilemma.<br /><br />I love films that mix fantasy and dark reality. They are rarely successful financially ('Lawn Dogs' is a similar example), but they are usually original and intriguing.<br /><br />The drunk Baldwin is shot from a low, child's perspective and his head is deliberately lopped off below the top of frame. This device allows us to judge him purely by his actions and as a totally physicalized beast. Both Wood and Mazzello are excellent, and they pull us effortlessly into their dark, frightening world.<br /><br />The 'radio flyer' of the title is a small red wagon kids transport their belongings in. Here it transports a dream.<br /><br />Seriously interesting stuff. | 0 |
I disagree with much that has been written and said about this supposed 'masterpiece' of the German New Wave: <br /><br />1) There are major flaws in simple exposition, in the basic communication of critical plot points, as relating to Maria's abortion and the secret contract between Oswald and her husband. How many viewers understood that the husband agreed, in exchange for substantial financial remuneration, not to return to and reclaim his wife until Oswald was dead?<br /><br />2) The ending is highly unsatisfying because arbitrary and accidental. The original screenplay called for Maria to commit suicide after the reading of Oswald's will, on finding out that her husband had in effect sold their marriage to Oswald. In the final version, however, Maria only runs water from a faucet across her wrist in a gesture of suicide. Maria is then summarily blown up, rather than having to confront and live with the consequences of her self-delusion and moral compromise.<br /><br />3) Fassbinder seeks to forcibly superimpose the public on the private, the political on the personal. Contrary to what the critics and 'experts' assert, I don't think it works. Merely intruding historic radio news or the sound of the jackhammers of German reconstruction in the soundtrack on the dramatic events of the movie does not make those historical events integral to the drama. <br /><br />The selfish ambition of Maria's rise from poverty to prosperity is meant to parallel the so-called economic miracle of postwar Germany. Maria is thus intended to be a woman specific to and reflective of her time and place, but is in reality unoriginal and nonspecific. Women have been asserting their independence by using sex for self-advancement for ages. <br /><br />4) Lastly, there are several instances of inexcusable sloppiness and amateurishness -- Fassbinder's drug addiction and consequent impatience and inattention have had their effect. Unknown people talk off screen without ever being seen; music is clumsily intrusive in places; and melodramatic posturing sporadically substitutes for acting.<br /><br />Strangely, for a movie condemning a country for willful collective amnesia of the holocaust, it itself never mentions it once. | 1 |
My wife and I watched this movie because we plan to visit Sicily and Stromboli soon. Fortunately (or unfortunately) the landscape and seascape (complete with tuna) are the only believable members of this cast. We expected reasonable well-written and well-acted movie, but were disappointed. Its only redeeming grace is an extended and remarkable fishing sequence full of authenticity: thrashing tuna, nets, wooden boats with long oars, and passionate, if superstitious, fishermen.<br /><br />The movie's sequencing is stagy, its dialogue stilted, and the acting ranges from stiff to completely 'over-the-top.' One scene, in which Bergman stresses out as her macho, native and naïve husband sics his ferret on an 'innocent' (but apparently already deceased) rabbit would be perfect grist for a Monty Python skit.<br /><br />When the volcano blew we hoped for a merciful end to the suffering (ours and the casts'). Unfortunately, the movie continues to flail on, staggering finally to a melodramatic and absurd ending. Unless you're really into old-time tuna fishing, pass this hokey effort by. | 1 |
Inspired by Hitchcock's STRANGERS ON A TRAIN concept of two men swapping murders in exchange for getting rid of the two people messing up their lives, THROW MOMMA FROM THE TRAIN is an original and very inventive comedy take on the idea. It's a credit to Danny DeVito that he both wrote and starred in this minor comedy gem.<br /><br />ANNE RAMSEY is the mother who inspires the film's title and it's understandable why she gets under the skin of DANNY DeVITO with her sharp tongue and relentlessly putting him down for any minor infraction. BILLY CRYSTAL is the writer who's wife has stolen his book idea and is now being lionized as a great new author, even appearing on the Oprah show to bask in adulation he should be enjoying. Thus, DeVito gets the idea of swapping murders to rid themselves of these nuisance factors.<br /><br />Of course, everything and anything can happen when writer Carl Reiner lets his imagination roam with unending ideas for how the plot develops. And it's amusing all the way through, providing plenty of laughs and chuckles along the way, as well as a good deal of suspense.<br /><br />For devotees of black comedy, this one is guaranteed to please. | 0 |
When I first heard about this movie, I eagerly went out to rent it, believing (mistakenly) that it was one of those so-bad-it's-fun movies and that I was in for a treat. I was wrong.<br /><br />For starters, the pace is agonizingly, mind-numbingly slow. The pace doesn't even begin to pick up until the last 15-20 minutes of the movie! The plot was boring, and the ending was nonsensical and confusing. For those looking for a cheesy horror movie with cheap thrills, look elsewhere. This movie provides the cheesiness in spades, but is sorely lacking in 'thrills,' cheap or otherwise.<br /><br />Try 'Child's Play,' instead. | 1 |
Based on Christy Brown's autobiographical novel, this endearing film tells the story of his life, him being affected by cerebral palsy and being considered basically not a person by everyone including his mother. Amazingly, he teaches himself to draw and write using his foot, which is the only part of him he can control. An amazing story of courage with a truly amazing and unforgettable oscar winning performance by Daniel Day Lewis. 9 of 10 | 0 |
I watched this film not really expecting much, I got it in a pack of 5 films, all of which were pretty terrible in their own way for under a fiver so what could I expect? and you know what I was right, they were all terrible, this movie has a few (and a few is stretching it) interesting points, the occasional camcorder view is a nice touch, the drummer is very like a drummer, i.e damned annoying and, well thats about it actually, the problem is that its just so boring, in what I can only assume was an attempt to build tension, a whole lot of nothing happens and when it does its utterly tedious (I had my thumb on the fast forward button, ready to press for most of the movie, but gave it a go) and seriously is the lead singer of the band that great looking, coz they don't half mention how beautiful he is a hell of a lot, I thought he looked a bit like a meercat, all this and I haven't even mentioned the killer, I'm not even gonna go into it, its just not worth explaining. Anyway as far as I'm concerned Star and London are just about the only reason to watch this and with the exception of London (who was actually quite funny) it wasn't because of their acting talent, I've certainly seen a lot worse, but I've also seen a lot better. Best avoid unless your bored of watching paint dry. | 1 |
First, let me just comment on what I liked about the movie. The special effects were fantastic, and very rarely did I feel like I was watching a video game. There, that is the last nice thing I have to say about this film. In fact, I would just like everyone reading this to take note that I can't even put into words how hard it was for me to write this review without swearing. <br /><br />I have innumerable complaints about the film, but four major complaints jump to mind. My first major complaint has to do with the incredible cheesiness of the 'plot twist' (if you can call it that since most people probably saw it coming a mile away) where Lois's 5 year-old son turns out to be the super-powered child of Superman. When the crying super-child throws a piano at Lex's henchman to save his mother, I almost got up and left the theater. Singer could have made a much better Superman movie without resorting to cheap gimmicks like a seemingly fragile but latently super-powered illegitimate child. It's been 5 days since I saw the movie and I still want to vomit. <br /><br />My next major complaint has to do with the fact that Superman lifts a continent made out of kryptonite up into outer space. It doesn't take comic book guy from the Simpsons to point out what's wrong with that. I don't know how many comic books Brian Singer has read, but when Superman is exposed to even a small amount of kryptonite he barely has the strength to stay on his feet. Whoever had the idea to have him fly a large island made out of his greatest weakness into space has no business being associated with any Superman-related projects ever again. The concept is as ridiculous as making a Dracula movie where the title character has a stake through his heart and still manages to fly a spaceship made out of garlic into the sun. Why not just have Superman eat kryptonite? He can eat it and then brush his teeth with it, and then go to sleep in kryptonite pajamas. That's not any more absurd then having him hoist a continent of kryptonite into space and then fall powerless through the atmosphere without burning up in re-entry or splattering all over central park when he hits the ground. <br /><br />My third major complaint has to do with the fact that Singer slaps movie-goers across the face with religious symbolism the entire movie. I have to take issue with his characterization of Superman as the only son of a God-like Jor-el sent to Earth to be a savior. Jor-el wasn't all-wise, he was just a scientist. And he didn't send his son to earth to be a savior, he threw him in a rocket and hurriedly fired it into space because his planet was about to explode. I'll buy the Christ allegory if Brian Singer can show me the part in the Bible where God sends Christ to Earth because Heaven was about to explode, and then radioactive pieces of Heaven become Christ's primary weakness. Furthermore, the 'crucifixion' scene where Luthor stabs Superman in the side with a kryptonite 'spear' just makes me want to slam my face into a brick until I'm too brain-dead to notice the brazenly obvious and inappropriate symbolism that will be tainting the man of steel for the foreseeable future. They might as well rename this movie 'Superman Returns: the Passion of the Christ.'<br /><br />And speaking of Luthor, my last major complaint has to do with Singer's depiction of Lex Luthor. Lex Luthor is a shrewd, cold-hearted business tycoon who is more apt to run for President (which he does in the comics) than try to destroy the world. The man wants money and power; he wants to be in charge, not wreck everything. Yet the Luthor we see Superman Returns, as well as all the previous Superman movies, is a wacky theatrical dunce who comes up with zany schemes to destroy the world. If Singer had the slightest loyalty to the characters instead of the (quite awful) previous Superman movies, this film might not be such an unbearable travesty. Maybe Singer's next project can be a Batman movie where he focuses on the interpretation of Batman from 1960s TV show. ZAM! WHAP! POW!!<br /><br />To summarize, I don't know what I hate more, the movie itself or the fact that so many people seem to be giving it good reviews. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but if you don't hate this movie then your opinion is wrong. I sincerely encourage anyone who reads this not to see this movie if you haven't already. Don't see it, don't buy it when it comes out on DVD, don't rent it...basically don't contribute any money towards it in any way. This movie does not deserve to make any money. In fact, I think that for every person that sees this movie, Bryan Singer should be fined 45 billion dollars. If you're a Superman fan and you really want to see this movie, just bend over and have someone kick you in the balls and you'll get the same experience without having to waste 2 hours of your time. | 1 |
Definitely the worst movie I have ever seen... Can somebody tell me where should have I laughed? There's not a single hint or shadow of an idea. The three leading actors are pestilential, especially the one (I think it's Aldo) from Sicily who _can't_ make a Sicilian accent!!! Not to say about the dream-like insertion about Dracula... just another expedient, drawn from the worst cabaret tradition, to make this 'film' last a little longer. Massironi and Littizzetto do what they can, but this so-called movie was really too, too hard to rescue. I would have given it '0'/10, but the lowest mark was 1/10 and so I had to overestimate it by one mark. | 1 |
Considering the limits of this film (The entire movie in one setting - a music studio - only about 5 or 6 actors total) it should have been much better made. IF you have these limits in making a film, how could the lighting be so bad? And the actors were terrible, were talking a hair below the acting in Clerks, except that was an enjoyable movie, this had no substance. Well it tried to, but really fails.<br /><br />It makes attempt to be self-referencing in a couple parts, but the lines were delivered so poorly by the actors it was just bad. And the main character Neal guy, what a pathetic looser. Clearly like 10 people total made this 'film' and they all knew each other, and it probably was a real rock band that they had, but unfortuntly these people really have no idea how terrible they are all around. This was made in 2005, but they all look so naieve it smacks of just pre-grunge era.<br /><br />Thankfully I didn't pay to see this (Starz on Demand delivers again!) but it was under the title 'The Possessed' not Studio 666, it doesn't matter what you do to the title, it can't help this. This could have been a much better made movie - there is no excuse for this bad film-making when you have the obvious limited parameters the filmmakers had when they made this, working within those limits you should make the stuff you can control and the stuff you can work with the best you can. Instead they figured mediocrity would be good enough. And that music video, wow that was bad, I fast fowarded through that.<br /><br />So 2/10 is fair, if you are into the whole b-movie crap I suppose you'll go and see this. | 1 |
The boys are working outside a recording studio when they hear 'the voice of an angel.' That would be Miss Van Doren, auditioning and going under the name of Miss Andrews because her father doesn't approve of her being a 'radio singer'. However, she hopes a certain big-wig, Mrs. Bixby, a friend of her dad's will hire her, and then he will have to give his approval.<br /><br />She leaves but within minutes the boys are running amok in the studio causing havoc and having other musicians out to kill them after they ruin the recording session. Finally things calm down. 'Whew, we eluded them,' says Moe. 'Yeah, we got away, too,' answers Curly.<br /><br />The boys then fool around in the studio, put on Miss Van Doren's record and Curly gets dressed in women's clothes and pretends he's singing. Mrs. Bixby walks in, is impressed and hires 'Seniorita Cucacha' on the spot! For an extra $500, she's asked to come and sing at their high-society party that night. The rest, as they say,is history as Curly pretends to be an opera singer with some funny results. Oh, by the way, he accompanied by 'Senior Mucho' and 'Senior Gusto.'<br /><br />What happens at the party is simply that the truth wins out, but not before a few slapstick antics take place. In all, a pretty good episode. I enjoyed it but wouldn't rate it as anything special. | 0 |
This is my all time favourite movie ever!!!<br /><br />I remember seeing this when I was younger and since then I have been in love with it. I used to rent it so often from this one video store that used to carry it, and when we moved I couldn't find it any where so I kep going back tot he far away store just so I could watch the movie again!<br /><br />Finally i found it for sale and I bought it and watched it over and over again.... great movie!<br /><br />Since then though it was my very first DVD that I got after I got my DVD player... OK well I got them at the same time, the quality on the DVD is way better I couldn't believe it! You Gotta see this one! | 0 |
Got the chance to see this at a friend's house today, and was impressed with what it achieved on such a small budget. Not that this ever bothered me anyway, since I love low budget sci-fi like Dr Who, Blake's 7 and Dark Star. Hell, even Outland wasn't a big budget affair, so whilst money helps, it takes more than throwing cash at things to make them good.<br /><br />The story is straightforward at first, with a group of mercenaries paid to escort a prisoner through space. Their ship is attacked and they are forced to land on the nearest planet. They then discover the prisoner has made it too, he's a stone cold nut case and that's only the start of their problems.<br /><br />The effects, except for the gunfights, are minimalistic and add to the film without overwhelming it. Computer effects look a bit dodgy at times, but serve their purpose well and add to the story, lending a futuristic feel to the proceedings. Films like I, Robot could have benefited from this approach instead of being largely style over substance and substituting special effects for a plot, like all too many of Hollywood's offerings.<br /><br />Whilst none of the actors get Oscar material, it's tightly scripted and shot and at an hour and ten minutes doesn't outstay its welcome. The characters don't get fleshed out much, but then they didn't in Predator either, which it resembles in feel. Big man Mike Mitchell is a good stand in for Arnie and is a good combination of brains and brawn.<br /><br />Some people may be annoyed at the lack of explanation towards the end, but I like it. Unlike a lot of films and shows which leave things unexplained, it is not so obscure that you can't get a handle on it at all, and I'd like to see a sequel where the nature of the aliens is explored further.<br /><br />A cracking little film from an enterprising team, done on the cheap but a fun way to pass an hour. If this is what they can do on a shoestring I'd like to see what they would do with a bit more cash, and hope the film industry and the talentless armchair critics don't knock all the creativity out of them first.<br /><br />Recommended. | 0 |
Does anyone know what kind of pickup John T drove? I looks like a mid to late 70's Ford. This movie is my favorite as well as my wife's. It was the first memorable movie we saw as a married couple. The pick up is of interest as it is similar to the first truck I drove and recently found another like it. I would like to restore the pick up I have to resemble the on in the movie. Also the music was awesome, and the acting was great. Where and what is the lady who portrayed John's aunt? Also did John have a stunt double for the scene on the tower when he almost fell? Also what year of Mustang did Debra W drive in this show. It looked like a 60's model. Thanks, | 0 |
I first read about the Left Behind series a few months ago and made a mental note to check it out since I have an interest in the way religion is used to control people in our ever more hate filled world, so imagine my surprise and joy when I found a copy of Left Behind : World at War in my local library, nestling innocently among the big budget action movies.<br /><br />Now as a movie it's extremely poor. The acting is straight out of an elementary school production and the 'special effects' would have looked dated in the early 90's. Being the third part of a series the story would be unintelligible to anyone who hadn't seen or read about the other Left Behind movies, and even with my prior knowledge it was still pretty laughable.<br /><br />On the religious front, I don't think anyone who wasn't already filled with the spirit of the lord would find anything in the movie to convince them to change their ways. How are you supposed to fear the Antichrist when he's got a comedy Russian accent, and the worst of his powers are some pitiful CGI?<br /><br />However, my main problem with this movie is the blatant attempt to try and dupe people into believing that it's a big budget action movie. Upon picking up the box and reading the spiel I immediately noticed something odd...nowhere on the packaging was there a mention of the true nature of this film. To someone not in the know it would appear for all intents and purposed that Left Behind : World at War was no different from the latest Tom Clancey. Nor, on the copy that I rented did it say anything about it being the third in a series.<br /><br />Considering the whole premise of the series is that the Antichrist has deceived the whole world, I find it extremely hypocritical that the film makers tried to deceive me TWICE before I even got the to counter! If you're so firm in your beliefs then why not be honest about it?<br /><br />The simple fact is, had this not been a 'Christian' movie with the built in fan base that goes with it, I seriously doubt it would ever have seen the light of day. If Cloud Ten were hoping that I'd see the error of my ways and give myself to God, I'm afraid to say I would have died of boredom and/or laughed myself to death before I ever had the chance. | 1 |
This is an extraordinary film, that tricks you constantly. It seems to be heading toward cliche at several points, and then something astonishing will happen that genuinely startles. It would give away too much to say much more, but stick with this film and you will be richly rewarded. William Haines is absolutely delightful - he is certainly a star that deserves to be re-discovered. The gay subtext in his relationship with Jack Pickford is amazing - there is even a scene where Haines rubs Pickford's chest (Pickford has a cold). Both actors play this sub-text subtlely and with great depth of emotion, so that there are moments that are very moving. And I never thought I could get so involved in a football match as I did in this movie - and I don't even understand the rules! Also excellent is Francis X. Bushman's son Ralph as Haines' rival for the girl (yes, it's not completely a gay movie). Wonderful silent classic - a great example of Twenties commercial cinema with an edge. | 0 |
This movie had good intentions and a good story to work with. The director and screenwriter of this movie failed miserably and created a dull, boring filmstrip that made me feel like I was back in Mr. Hartford's 8th grade Social Studies class -- way back in 67.<br /><br />What a waste, will somebody please take this story and make a real movie out of it - the story deserves it.<br /><br />Every time a scene had potential, all we were left with were a few clichés, combined with black and white footage that they probably got from The History Channel to show the action. Shameful.<br /><br />Ossie Davis was the only bright light in this dull fest. The other acting was incredibly dull - it fit in with the movie well and whomever played the Captain set a new low standard for line delivery.<br /><br />However, if you are willing to accept all the numerous flaws in this movie and aren't concerned with being awed or entertained, but want to learn about the USS Mason, it is worth a watch. | 1 |
'This Life' is truly as bad as it gets. Its cast of mercenary, lascivious, ruthless, duplicitous, shallow characters are intended as a reflection on its post-eighties setting and I have to admit in this regard it is an accurate creation. Unfortunately, it leaves me nothing to sympathise with or care about and I regard it as just another step toward the television premium-rate phone in scams; astonishingly bad, cheap, reality and 'celebrity' saturated television; and other cut and run attitudes that have destroyed this medium and, indeed, much of British society. Sounds exaggerated? I don't think it is. In this regard programs such as 'This Life' have indeed been as influential as they are often called. | 1 |
I have to say that the events of 9/11 didn't hit me until I saw this documentary. It took me a year to come to grips with the devastation. I was the one who was changing the station on the radio and channel on TV if there was any talk about the towers. I was sick of hearing about it. When this was aired on TV a year and a day later, I was bawling my eyes out. It was the first time I had cried since the attack. I highly recommend this documentary. I am watching it now on TV, 5 years later, and I am still crying over the tragedies. The fact that this contains one of the only video shots of the first plane hitting the tower is amazing. It was an accident, and look where it got them. These two brothers make me want to have been there to help. | 0 |
This is the worst movie I've ever seen in my life. This is saying quite a bit, considering some of the choices I've made in film rentals.<br /><br />I got this on netflix based entirely on the fact that someone I went to high school with is topless in it. The topless scene lasted all of about 5 seconds and the rest of the movie was about as much fun as having pungee sticks driven underneath my toenails whilst being forced to listen to Roseanne sing Big Spender.<br /><br />The 'skits' are stupid and consist of the worst kind of juvenile bathroom humor and locker-room gags, and it's such a blatant (and poor) rip-off of The Kentucky Fried Movie that you'll be begging for Big Jim Slade to crash through the wall and save us from the stupidity of 'Vince Offer' (whoever that is).<br /><br />Unless you are a masochist, avoid this pile of rubbish. | 1 |
Dad (78) and I (46) both had a good time watching the flick today. For a guy primarily known for serious roles, De Niro is a heckuva comic actor. Of course, it helps to have his past film images to play against. Consider that one of those roles, 15 MINUTES, was a cop having to deal with the interference of the mass media, and you have an interesting set of compare/contrast performances.<br /><br />Murphy plays another of his Axel Foley sort of characters. Shatner plays a burlesque of himself, a parallel world self who was best known for TJ HOOKER and not STAR TREK.<br /><br />It's interesting to watch how the film comments on the contrasts between the reality of police work and its fictional counterparts in TV and film. Shatner lectures on the proper means of sliding across a car hood; De Niro points out holsters scratch the hood finish. Ironically, as the film progresses, De Niro's character begins to incorporate the illusions of TV-cop reality into the real world case he's working.<br /><br />The film draws its inspiration from a gamut of sources, so one could make the comment it is derivative. Well, so what? Satire needs to derive its humor in order to exist. And besides, the film does have quirky moments of originality. For example, I'm reasonably sure the method of the villain's death has never been done before. <br /><br />One quibble about the reality of the weapons involved-- shouldn't those guns have had some kind of recoil? In order to penetrate steel, those bullets had to have enough inertia to penetrate. And any bullet's highest level of inertia is at the moment of firing. So.... firing a volley of these tank-killer bullets should have driven the shooters back onto their butts. Oh, what the heck... it's a satire. Maybe the guns' lack of recoil is itself a satire on the B-F-Guns used so casually in thrillers. <br /><br /> | 0 |
A never ending frenzy of clever visual ironies does not necessarily create an engaging film. The 'Blonde Wig' half of the movie never took off perhaps due to too much self-indulgence by its makers.<br /><br /> The Wong Faye half (featuring a very playful, if Karen Carpenter looking, Faye Wong) holds much more appeal. All the ingredients are there, however, the girl-meets-boy story element takes a back seat to artsy cleverness. Character development is uneven. Emotion is missing.<br /><br /> For music lovers, Wong Faye's 'Mung Jung Yun' (Cantonese version of the Cranberry's smash hit 'Dreams') is used effectively in Chungking Express. Faye Wong also recorded a Mandarin language version called 'Zhen Tuo.' Both are on CD, although only 'Mung Jung Yun' is found on the official movie soundtrack CD. | 1 |
Ever wanted to see how low a movie could sink? Well, look no further! This movie has it all! <br /><br />Racism jokes, handicapped jokes, overweight jokes, suicide jokes, murder jokes, drug jokes, animal abuse jokes, eating dirt jokes, old man young wife jokes, cancer jokes, gay jokes, crap jokes, falling flat on one's face over and over jokes, overuse of blood jokes, rape jokes, pee jokes, alcohol abuse jokes, anal rash jokes, a bunch of people yacking their coffee back up jokes, nudity jokes, see who can say the most swear words in one scene jokes, lesbian jokes, girlfriend abuse jokes, and the list goes on and on people!<br /><br />The worst part is: none of it is funny! (Not that anyone would find most of those funny to begin with.) It seems that when it just can't get any worst, it pushes your expectations to an all new bottom, as it always seems to find another to make the viewer feel worse. There was one scene that had me almost throw up and almost completely depressed at the same time. I don't think I need to point out which one, but then again, I'm sure there are other scenes that will give people this same feeling.<br /><br />There was one moment at the end of the movie that actually made sense and was slightly realistic, when suddenly one of the characters in the scene was piled on with the nastiest remains of a trash bag and thrown several feet on the ground only to have a bunch of beer bottles smashed into his head. All of this probably when he least deserved it. So all thought of a 1 more point redemption was quickly regarded. This is indeed a terrible movie. This is one that needs to be studied and bisected into small parts at a film school to teach students what not to do. | 1 |
Jude Law, Nicole Kidman, and Renne Zelwigger. They are all horrible. Especially the star, Jude Law. <br /><br />It's directed by the same guy who did the english patient and its based on a best selling novel of a man risking all to get back to his lover but unlike the wonderful English pateint, this movie sucks. It is really bad.<br /><br />Worst dialogue ever. 'But we've only know each other for a moment' 'But they were a thousand moments, like diamonds in a bag'<br /><br />or <br /><br />'In some cultures you just have to say I marry you 3 times and you're married' lovey-dovey-'I marry you, I marry you, I marry you, I marry you...'<br /><br />I'm ashamed I sat through it all. <br /><br />the whole movie was awful, horrible....Ughh no words, I'm sick.<br /><br />1/10 (the one is for the really loud bullet sounds, the sound crew did a good job) | 1 |
This French film is supposedly about a creepy, dim-witted cop who investigates the rape and murder of a young girl in a small town. However, the film is really about nothing and it takes forever to say nothing. If it takes a character ten minutes to walk from Point A to Point B, the film spends ten minutes showing this walk, and these are the 'action' scenes. There are also static shots that last for minutes, making the viewer wonder if he accidentally hit the pause button on the remote. The script has enough material for a 20-minute movie. The movie lasts seven hours or so. You do the math. The actors were apparently amateurs and it shows. Note to self: never see a Dumont movie again. | 1 |
Oh God. Why is it that Nickelodeon has such a hard time producing even a half-decent movie? I mean, this movie might have been good, but it was:<br /><br />A. Too short B. Rather superficial, stereotypical, and insulting to some C. Ultimately pointless<br /><br />First of all, the 'dress up the nerd to look cool' thing was VERY consumerist, VERY superficial, VERY pointless, and VERY insulting. It has the stereotypical nerds-stupid faces, glasses, never kissed, vacations with his mom, etc. Well maybe the reason that guy has never kissed a girl is because he's gay! Does that mean that all gays are nerds? And what's wrong with being friends with your mother?<br /><br />The worst part, by far, was the ending. The whole drama of the movie revolved around Zoey finding out Chase loved her, and blah blah blah, and then, when Chase finally decided to tell her, <br /><br />A. he didn't tell her in person because right as he was about to the typical distraction came along B. he tried to text message her, but her PDA fell into a fountain and died before she got the message.<br /><br />The End.<br /><br />HOW LAME IS THAT????? I mean, why is it that cartoonists just can't change anything in the series? So many of us would like to see these two get together. Why can't we see it? I mean, are the producers really that uncreative, that they can't think up new problems to go with changes in the series? So they have to stick with the same plot and outlines, and make as many episodes as they can just using those? After a while, it gets dull and frustrating.<br /><br />I WANTED TO SEE SOME ACTUAL ROMANCE IN HERE, DARN IT!<br /><br />Okay. I'm done with my rant. | 1 |
I actually went into this film with some expectations, not because I thought the film sounded particularly good, but because I'm a fan of Italian exploitation flicks and with a cast that sees Franco Nero and Telly Savalas starring alongside Oliver Twist, I figured it had to be interesting at least. Well...RedNeck does have one or two positive things going on, but for the most part; it's a dull, lifeless film that is as ridiculous as it is pointless. The plot simply focuses on two criminals (Nero and Savalas) who kidnap a young kid (Oliver). The twist in the tale is that the kid realises that he'd have more fun if he gets accepted into the 'gang'. Telly Savalas and Franco Nero are two actors that have proved they can carry a film on their own on numerous occasions, and they do have some memorable moments in this film - although really for all the wrong reasons. Savalas in particular gives a silly portrayal of the 'bad' criminal. The plot doesn't flow badly, but since nothing interesting happens, that's not really a positive point and doesn't save from the film from being mediocre. Overall, I can't recommend this film; it may appeal to some for its cult value but it didn't do anything for me. | 1 |
This film stars, among others, 'SlapChop' Vince Offer (who also wrote, edited and directed) and Joey Buttafuoco--not exactly names that scream out 'quality'. And with such uplifting skits as 'Supermodels taking a dump' (it's exactly what it sounds like), a guy who robs a sperm bank (the 'Rhymer'), necrophilia with a rotting corpse, black market fetuses (featuring a guy scooping what are supposed to be them out of a jar), lots and lots of gay jokes, a skit about a giant phallus who is a superhero and forced abortions. The skits are painfully unfunny (such as 'Batman and Rhymer'), the acting not good enough to be considered amateurish and the film is crude just for the sake of being crude...and stupid. I truly believe a group of 8 year-olds could have EASILY made a funnier film with the same budget.<br /><br />Apparently this film resulted in a lawsuit by 'Slap Shot' Vince against the Scientologists. Frankly, I wouldn't know who to root for in this case!!! Apparently, he alleged that somehow Scientologists destroyed his reputation and sank this film. No matter that the film is repellent junk from start to finish and 99% unfunny (by comparison, Ebola is funnier)...and these are the nicest things I can say about the movie.<br /><br />By the way, that IS Bobby Lee (from 'Mad TV') wearing a diaper and participating in the dumb fake porno film. It's amazing his career could overcome this. | 1 |
This was far and away the worst movie i've ever seen in my entire life. It was slow, boring, not scary, not funny, not dramatic, not entertaining.<br /><br />Sarah Michelle Gellar was up to her old playbook of empty expressions of fright and shock. She couldn't sell her character nor could anyone else in the picture.<br /><br />For those who thought the Grudge was 'kind of alright' then don't go see this unless you get enjoyment out of wasting your time and your life.<br /><br />I saw this movie for free by the way so I don't want this to come across as a rant from a guy that lost 8 bucks on a terrible movie. It was free, it still sucked, I hated it.<br /><br />Avoid. | 1 |
How 'Thursday' managed to avoid attention remains a mystery. A potent mix of comedy and crime, this one takes chances where Tarantino plays it safe with the Hollywood formula. The risks don't always pay off: one character in one sequence comes off inappropriately silly and falls flat. In the lead role, Thomas Jane gives a wonderful and complex performance, and two brief appearances by Mickey Rourke hint at the high potential of this much under- and mis-used actor. Here's a director one should keep one's eye on. | 0 |
Luc Besson's first work is also his first foray in science fiction, a genre to which he will return fourteen years later with 'the Fifth Element' (1997). Even if this film was strongly influenced by Hollywood cinema, it is still highly enjoyable. Back in 1983, 'le Dernier Combat' reveals Besson's own approach of science fiction. He takes back a threadbare topic and his efforts are discernible to make a stylish work. Shot in widescreen and black and white, a disaster has destroyed virtually all the population from earth and we will never know what was this disaster and why men can't talk any more. Some barbarian hordes were formed. In parallel, a man (Pierre Jolivet) lives on his own and arrives in an unrecognizable Paris where he is received by a doctor (Jean Bouise).<br /><br />There are no words in Besson's work. The characters' actions and the progression of the events go through looks and gestures. Although the starting point and the backdrop are unnerving, the film has never the look of a despondent one. It seems that the man and the doctor try to reproduce gestures and actions linked to mankind before the disaster. The film opens with the man having sex with an inflatable doll. Later, the doctor tries to make him speak through a machine and he is a painter in his spare time. It's all the more intriguing as these paintings seem to come from the prehistoric times. Following this reasoning, one could argue that the bearded giant (Jean Reno) embodies evil and a threat to the efforts deployed by the man and the doctor to regain what finally made a human being. Ditto for the gang of baddies at the beginning of the film.<br /><br />The pessimistic whiff that such a film could convey isn't really at the fore and gives way to a glimmer of hope. Personally, the film could have gained with no music at all, except the one the man can hear with his cassette recorder. Luc Besson was to make better and still entrancing films like this one, he also boosted Pierre Jolivet's career as a director who will leave a patchy work behind him in the future: 'Force Majeure' (1989), 'Simple Mortel' (1991), 'ma Petite Entreprise' (1999) or 'Filles Uniques' (2003). | 0 |
**Possible Spoilers** From Dreamworks and director Peter Chan, `The Love Letter' is a romantic comedy that takes place in a picturesque, New England coastal village where single mom Helen (Kate Capshaw) owns a quaint, little bookstore. One day at work, Helen happens across an anonymous letter (the `love letter' of the title) that has somehow become lodged beneath the cushions of a reading couch. Upon reading the amorous prose therein, she believes it has been written to her, purposely placed in the couch for her to find, and, for reasons of her own, thinks she knows the identity of her secret admirer. Inadvertently, however, Helen leaves the letter out where her employee, Janet (Ellen DeGeneres) finds it, believes it to be for her, and, of course, thinks she knows who wrote it. Circumstances then bring it into the possession of a young man named Johnny (Tom Everett Scott), who thinks Helen has written the letter to him. And before it all gets sorted out, you can only imagine the hilarious situations into which all of those involved have been cast; and I do mean imagine, because the way this movie plays out, the audience gets little more from it than what it brings along itself. There are two specific areas in which this romantic comedy fails miserably: It simply isn't very romantic, and it's not funny; and that is a potent combination that causes this film to misfire practically from the opening credits. Once the setting and main character (Helen) have been established, it basically goes nowhere for the next ninety minutes or so. By the time you finally find out who actually wrote the letter, and to whom, you could care less. Rounding out the cast is Tom Selleck, Blythe Danner, Julianne Nicholson, Gloria Stuart and Geraldine McEwan. It's a shame to see such talent wasted on such claptrap as this, and looking bad in the balance. Kate Capshaw, who usually brightens up the screen just by showing up, looks tired here, while Selleck appears to have just come in off a three day bender that's lasted a week. Ellen DeGeneres actually comes away looking the best of the bunch. It is said that the journey is often a more heady experience than the destination. In the case of `The Love Letter,' however, it would have been best for all concerned if everybody had just stayed home in the first place. I rate this one 1/10. | 1 |
When you want to celebrate life and love, especially for precious little daughters, you have to shout it from the countryside. And what gorgeous countrysides! There are so many tears of joy even God joins in. See this movie.<br /><br /> | 0 |
I'd never heard of zero budget 'auteur' Neil Johnson before seeing 'Battlespace' on DVD at Hollywood Video. A few minutes into the movie I realize this isn't a bad thing. Like many straight to video Sci-Fi movies, this is a film dominated largely by overused bad special effects and a constant parade of pretentious sci-fi concepts that fail to create a story.<br /><br />Viewers are tortured with a religious sounding text introduction, then a spoken introduction followed by a narration by the main character's daughter. To me this seemed like a smoke screen to mask a film with militantly ugly visuals and zero character emphasis. Some people on here seem all too ready to take this film seriously and swallowed it's seemingly new age messages hook line and sinker. These favorable reviews must come from the same kind of people who can delude themselves into thinking that things like 'Battlefield Earth' was a brilliant movie, or that Shasta is just as good as Coke.<br /><br />Those who were lured in by the cheesy cover art can look forward to lousy acting (in small doses, spaced with long blocks of people not talking), rotten computer animated effects (in extra large doses), and irritating talking computers. What you won't get is excitement, emotional stimulation, memorable dialogue, or a good story.<br /><br />'Battlespace' is impenetrable bull and the constant irritant of the narration proves it. Real science fiction, hell, real film-making, is about characters and their dialogue, not special effects and dull predictions. This is right down there with similar direct to video sci-fi like 'Cl.One' and 'Recon 2022'. If the boredom of 'Strange Horizons' and 'Alien Visitor' is something you seek out, by all means, watch the crap out of this. If you enjoy good storytelling and hate fake lens flares, you're better off with a real movie. | 1 |
I hadn't seen this film in probably 35 years, so when I recently noticed that it was going to be on television (cable) again for the first time in a very long time (it is not available on video), I made sure I didn't miss it. And unlike so many other films that seem to lose their luster when finally viewed again, I found the visual images from the 'Pride of the Marines' were as vivid and effective as I first remembered. What makes this movie so special, anyway?<br /><br />Everything. Based on the true story of Al Schmid and his fellow Marine machine gun crew's ordeal at the Battle of the Tenaru River on Guadalcanal in November, 1942, the screenplay stays 95% true to the book upon which it was based, 'Al Schmid, Marine' by Roger Butterfield, varying only enough to meet the time constrains of a motion picture. This is not a typical 'war movie' where the action is central, and indeed the war scene is a brief 10 minutes or so in the middle of the film. But it is a memorable 10 minutes, filmed in the lowest light possible to depict a night battle, and is devoid of the mock heroics or falseness that usually plagues the genre. In a way probably ahead of its time, the natural drama of what happened there was more than sufficient to convey to the audience the stark, ugly, brutal nature of battle, and probably shocked audiences when it was seen right after the war. This film isn't about 'glorifying' war; I can't imagine anyone seeing that battle scene and WANTING to enlist in the service. Not right away, anyway.<br /><br />What this film really concerns is the aftermath of battle, and how damaged men can learn to re-claim their lives. There's an excellent hospital scene where a dozen men discuss this, and I feel that's another reason why the film was so so well received--it was exceptionally well-written. There's a 'dream' sequence done in inverse (negative film) that seems almost experimental, and the acting is strong, too, led by John Garfield. Garfield was perfect for the role because his natural temperament and Schmid's were nearly the same, and Garfield met Schmid and even lived with him for a while to learn as much as he could about the man and his role. Actors don't do that much anymore, but added to the equation, it's just another reason why this movie succeeds in telling such a difficult, unattractive story. | 0 |
ANCHORS AWEIGH is an entertaining MGM musical that fans of the genre will enjoy but I wouldn't rate it up there with classics like SINGIN IN THE RAIN or THE BAND WAGON. This was the first of three musicals that Gene Kelly and Frank Sinatra appeared in together. Kelly and Sinatra play Joe Brady and Clarence Doolittle, two sailors on leave in Hollywood who befriend a young boy (Dean Stockwell)who introduces them to his attractive young aunt (Kathryn Grayson) a struggling actress who is working as an extra at MGM. Though both guys are initially attracted to Grayson, she eventually voices a preference to Joe but Clarence later hooks up with a waitress (Pamela Britton)who, he learns is from his hometown of Brooklyn. The paper-thin plot leaves room for several great musical numbers including 'We Hate to Leave', Joe and Clarence's lament to their fellow sailors as they're leaving the ship; Grayson's torrid rendition of 'Jalousie'; Sinatra's dreamy rendition of 'I Fall in Love Too Easily' (a number which is sadly deleted from some prints of this film), and 'The Worry Song', a fantasy dance that Kelly does with animated Jerry the Mouse from Tom and Jerry fame. Kelly also does a sort of Kissing Bandit fantasy ballet which rivals his Pirate's Ballet in the later THE PIRATE. Kelly is in peak form here, in a robust and energetic performance that earned him his only Oscar nomination for Best Actor and Sinatra's endearingly shy character here is undeniably sexy. An entertaining diversion for fans of the MGM musical factory. | 0 |
This movie is an almost forgotten gem from 1979 which although in essence a comedy it was based on one of the UK's biggest ever bank heists. In fact one of the titles that this film is known by includes 'caper' therefore that in its self is an indication of the type of movie. A of a bunch of lovable rouges, who are not the violent or psychotic types, who with cheek an guile pull off the biggest job of their lives. To be honest I don't really know too much about the real crime and can't comment if it accurately depicted the events that unfolded or the characters involved.<br /><br />Richard Jordan handles himself very well playing PINKY Green and is very believable as an easy going small time American born crook who seems very comfortable with himself. I have to add that sometimes American actors struggle gel well with English actors in a British made film, the chemistry is not always there, however this is no problem for Jordon who fits right in with his role.<br /><br />It's worth pointing out that Jordan himself was probably one of the most underrated actors of the 70's and 80's and never really got the recognition he deserved. He seemed to get stuck in supporting roles and B movies, not a fair representation of his acting ability. He has played a corrupt cop in THE FRIENDS OF EDDY COYLE, a sadistic killer in THE MEAN SEASON. In THE SECRET OF MY SUCCESS he played a sort of comical Gordon Gehco character and also in the 1980's EQUALIZER TV show he played a good guy. All of this displays the versatility of his acting skills while mixing with the likes of David Niven, Kurt Russell, Edward Woodward and Robert Mitcham.<br /><br />In this movie he effortlessly plays his part as a small time crook with the eye for the ladies and you immediately take to his character and root for him from the beginning. You can't help liking Green, you see he really did want to go straight but once blackmailed it all seemed too much of an opportunity to pass up and in the end he relished the thought of all that money.<br /><br />David Niven is the boss and calls the shots, the police inspector was brilliantly played by Richard Johnson who typically portrayed a smarmy but thorough London detective who clearly loves his job. The other supporting cast don't say too much but looking at them they were all very well known British character actors who often found themselves playing either villains or coppers(isn't that ironic). Elkie Sommers, Oliver Tobias do what they have to do and it's good to see Gloria Graham in a cameo role.<br /><br />To some viewers particularly Americans it would seem ludicrous that somebody with Greens record could land a maintenance job at of all things a bank and come and go when he pleases. In addition the stunt he pulled at the crown court after sentencing was not as far fetched as it might seem, back in the 1960's and 70's security was not as nearly as tight as it is now.<br /><br />As for the movie itself there are a couple of interesting observations. With small time crooks the haul here was too much. There have been other movies where this occurs too i.e. THE BRINKS MAT. It's not just the disposal or the hiding of the loot but with so many people involved somebody is going to be careless, is going to blab or just simply break once leaned on. In addition the authorities come down on very hard on local rouges when such huge robbery is carried out. Also, they say there is no honor amongst thieves but Ivan was adamant that PINKY got his whack. You only had too look at his stare in the dock, if looks could kill, a look of total betrayal! How could he have dobbed them all in after taking care of him? You have to ask yourself a question why is it that crooks can be so stupid? Did Green really think that he could sweet talk his way out of suspicion a second time around? Inspector Watford was not at all fooled by his innocent looking face as well as a well constructed alibi, the whole caper reeked of inside job. In addition you have to wonder why they leave so many clues? A note pad with the safe numbers jotted down, travel brochures for overseas trips, still leaving his telescope around as well as unusual behavior on the day of the robbery which was out of character.<br /><br />With some decent but common sense police work Insp Watford quickly had the measure of Green, picked him up and soon had him singing like a canary. It just shows how despite well thought out planning things can unravel very quickly, there is never a clean getaway for every body, some are always going to get nabbed. Although it's worth pointing out that a lot of the money was never recovered.<br /><br />All in all an entertaining movie, interesting shots of London and England in the late 70's, well paced, with a great ending. I would highly recommend this particularly if you enjoy capers. ( Note: I recently purchased a DVD of this but the transfer was obviously taken from a VHS tape and is of poor quality. Therefore do not pay too much for it!) | 0 |
I liked this movie a lot, but the feeling that I most came away with was the memory of how much I´d enjoyed the novel. The film features two of the best actresses working today--Jessica Lange, who is great here, and the divine Jennifer Jason Leigh, who does the best she can with the thinly-drawn character she is given--as well as a surprisingly excellent Michelle Pfeiffer and a steady Jason Robards. The adaptation is basically faithful to the book, at least as faithful as it can be in an hour and forty minutes. The film doesn´t really dazzle, except for certain scenes between Lange and Pfeiffer, but it does a thoroughly competent job of visualizing this wonderfully tragic story. As far as movies adapted from novels go, this was definitely among the better ones. If nothing else, it has sent me back to my bookshelves to rediscover favorite passages from Jane Smiley´s excellent novel, and back to King Lear to brush up on the minor characters in order to see just how deep the parallels go. Worth your time as a film, definitely, and hopefully enough to make you remember that reading great literature is a joy as well. | 0 |
Bear in mind, any film (let alone documentary) which asserts any kind of truth, will generate an adverse and proportional amount of cynicism, from those to whom any suggestion of and or search for truths is already meaningless, those of you who are already Masters of psychology, film, and captains of the soul, will no doubt find this movie redundant, after all, you already know everything there is to know. Congrats.<br /><br />For those of us in the minority like myself, I found 'The Perverts Guide To Cinmea'....mostly brilliant, and worth watching for those interested in movies, psychology, and modern philosophy.<br /><br />A little like Scott Mclouds' 'Understanding Comics', director Sophie Fiennes, inter-grates Slovene philosopher, psychologist, and social critic Slavoj Zizek right into many of the films and specif scenes he discusses. The cover is an image from 'The Birds'(Zizek takes a boat out to re-create the shot).<br /><br />Lacanian Psycho-analysis, does not necessarily scream, an evening of great fun...but it is! If you like movies that is.... Having some knowledge of Lacanian psycho-analysis helps (Symbolic, Real, and Imaginary) are terms which get thrown around a little loosely at first, but the scenes which Zizek selects and analyze make remarkably clear what was always for me, a very abstract subject. In fact, it's probably better to have a familiarity with the films he's discussing than with the terminology he uses, which becomes clearer as the film goes on.<br /><br />Why I love, this film isn't because it picks great films to analyze or reveals great truths about Lacan, but shows in a very practical and clever manner, where film and psychology (and by default philosophy) meet.<br /><br />Why is 'The Sound Of Music' kinda fascistic, why is 'Short Cuts' about more than just class and alienation, why do the birds attack in 'The Birds', what is there to learn about the mind from 'Alien Resurrection', what does the planet of 'Solaris' want, what does 'Psycho' and 'The Marx Brothers' have to do with each other, and what the hell is David Lynch getting across in movie after movie...well Zizek has some ideas.<br /><br />The role of the voice in both 'The Excorcist' and 'Star Wars: Revenge Of The Sith', is maybe the movies strongest and most lucid moment, when he gets into feminine sexual subjectivity I begin to wonder...at one point Zizek admits his feeling that flowers are a kind of decorative vagina dentatta, that they are disgusting and should be hidden from children (jokingly, it seems but...).<br /><br />Anyway, it's a fascinating documentary, which anyone who has ever seen a movie, and thought it meant something more than was literally stated, should make an attempt to see.<br /><br />And anyone interested in Slavoj Zizek, this is a must as well, much less dry than 'Reality Of The Virtual', and more direct than 'Zizek!', two other pseudo-docs, about 'the Elvis of contemporary cultural criticism', as he is being dubbed, in the English speaking world.<br /><br />'The Perverts Guide To Cinema' is NOT about the role of sex in cinema. Zizek claims cinema is the ultimate pervert art, because it teaches 'how to desire, and not what to desire', and that it is the only contemporary art form that can allow for these desires to be articulated. This is not a film about finding the reality in cinema, it's about finding the cinema in reality, and how important and exciting that can be. Hard to find, and a bit long, but well worth the trouble, one of the most 'stimulating' movie watching experiences I've ever had. | 0 |
Makes 'Invasion USA' look like 'Apocalypse Now'. This one can only be recommended to US skinheads, John Birch supporters or militia members. The message is very simple : let's shoot them all - gooks, commies, latinos, everything that isn't American.<br /><br />Besides, this is badly acted, badly scripted, badly interpreted, incredibly stupid but no fun at all. This movie could be used as a toorture device by CIA torturers. oops, sorry, there can't be any US torturers because they are the GOOD | 1 |
I bought this movie sight unseen at a sci-fi convention and I got what I deserved for doing something so silly. Simply put this movie is implausible, boring and unwatchable.<br /><br />I was so bored and disgusted with the lack of plot development that I turned it off to watch a repeat of Mythbusters. I understand that this was a very low budget move, or least it looked like a very low budget move, but that does not excuse the horrible acting, terrible plot and even worse camera work. It looks like something a group of college students did in between classes and getting drunk.<br /><br />Maybe if the villain wasn't so laughable and the plot was something that actually could happen in real life with respect to law enforcement it might become so bad it's funny. This movie isn't funny, it's just bad. | 1 |
It's not really about wine. No, Nossiter's real targets are those who would streamline and assimilate the peculiarities of local (wine) production for business purposes. To this end he has made an excellent, objective film. Spirited, bumptious, emotional and flawed independent wine producers are juxtaposed with media-finessed, anodynesprech Amercians and auld-Europeans: the art of wine-making against market-driven, laboratorised product manufacture. It's an open show that doesn't lead conclusion.<br /><br />Nossiter's film is occasionally infuriating to watch - cameras are neither concealed, nor steadicam, by any means. There are also plenty of captions as well as subtitles to wade through, often too short a time on screen.<br /><br />However it does outdo Michael Moore at the game Moore can't play anyway. The characters speak for - and therefore condemn - themselves. Well worth a viewing 7/10 | 0 |
Moving beyond words is this heart breaking story of a divorce which results in a tragic custody battle over a seven year old boy.<br /><br />One of 'Kramer v. Kramer's' great strengths is its screenwriter director Robert Benton, who has marvellously adapted Avery Corman's novel to the big screen. He keeps things beautifully simple and most realistic, while delivering all the drama straight from the heart. His talent for telling emotional tales like this was to prove itself again with 'Places in the Heart', where he showed, as in 'Kramer v. Kramer', that he has a natural ability for working with children.<br /><br />The picture's other strong point is the splendid acting which deservedly received four of the film's nine Academy Award nominations, two of them walking away winners. One of those was Dustin Hoffman (Best Actor), who is superb as frustrated business man Ted Kramer, a man who has forgotten that his wife is a person. As said wife Joanne, Meryl Streep claimed the supporting actress Oscar for a strong, sensitive portrayal of a woman who had lost herself in eight years of marriage. Also nominated was Jane Alexander for her fantastic turn as the Kramer's good friend Margaret. Final word in the acting stakes must go to young Justin Henry, whose incredibly moving performance will find you choking back tears again and again, and a thoroughly deserved Oscar nomination came his way.<br /><br />Brilliant also is Nestor Almendros' cinematography and Jerry Greenberg's timely editing, while musically Henry Purcell's classical piece is used to effect.<br /><br />Truly this is a touching story of how a father and son come to depend on each other when their wife and mother leaves. They grow together, come to know each other and form an entirely new and wonderful relationship. Ted finds himself with new responsibilities and a new outlook on life, and slowly comes to realise why Joanne had to go.<br /><br />Certainly if nothing else, 'Kramer v. Kramer' demonstrates that nobody wins when it comes to a custody battle over a young child, especially not the child himself.<br /><br />Saturday, June 10, 1995 - T.V.<br /><br />Strong drama from Avery Corman's novel about the heartache of a custody battle between estranged parents who both feel they have the child's best interests at heart. Aside from a superb screenplay and amazingly controlled direction, both from Robert Benton, it's the superlative cast that make this picture such a winner.<br /><br />Hoffman is brilliant as Ted Kramer, the man torn between his toppling career and the son whom he desperately wants to keep. Excellent too is Streep as the woman lost in eight years of marriage who had to get out before she faded to nothing as a person. In support of these two is a very strong Jane Alexander as mutual friend Margaret, an outstanding Justin Henry as the boy caught in the middle, and a top cast of extras.<br /><br />This highly emotional, heart rending drama more than deserved it's 1979 Academy Awards for best film, best actor (Hoffman) and best supporting actress (Streep).<br /><br />Wednesday, February 28, 1996 - T.V. | 0 |
Skip McCoy (Richard Widmark) pick-pockets Candy's (Jean Peters) wallet which contains an important microfiche that is intended for the Communist cause. She is being followed by 2 federal agents that are waiting to pounce once she hands the microfiche over to her contact. However, Skip steals the purse on the subway under everyone's noses and so starts a hunt for him by both the police and Joey (Richard Kiley) and Candy who want the microfiche back. Skip can only be traced through Moe (Thelma Ritter) who sells information on criminals. It is made clear to Skip that what he has stolen is important and both sides want the film, but he intends to hold out for a high price. This leads to Joey hunting after him and a conflict between Joey and Jean, who has fallen in love with Skip. Joey has a deadline to deliver the microfiche to his boss. <br /><br />Its a well-acted film and it has a good beginning that gets you involved straight away. Its a bit unrealistic how Jean Peters immediately falls in love with Widmark, but this point is necessary as otherwise why would she later hold out from Joey. Its a good film. | 0 |
Me being of Irish origins, loved this movie, Not only was the guy hot and funny he was also sincere and honest. I loved the girl who he fell in love with too, she was pretty. They were such a cute couple. The ending was so sad. Love this movie! Although it is a little dirty, it reminds of a British or Irish version of Prime. If you liked this movie you should watch prime. Same story line young guy falls for older women, older women falls for young guy to. A lot of paths cross, in the end, the best decision is made or task is completed. Don't have anything else to say, without ruining the whole movie, all though I thought the french guy was ugly, less appealing to me. Umm...if you like Irish movies, I would recommend 'Circle of Friends' ,that movie is so good. Quick quote, you might not get unless you watch it' well, thats my dinner ruined.' LOL | 0 |
An unconventional historical drama, with some fine battle scenes. Tobey Maguire gives an excellent performance, and gets some pretty good back-up. The script is literate and pretty original, and the film is kept mercifully free of heroes. That said, it does drag a bit, and the last reel is too much like a TV mini-series. Still, Frederick Elmes's camerawork keeps one interested in the dull bits (and every now and again you see a shot which reminds you he worked for David Lynch). Worth seeing. | 0 |
I think it's incredibly hard to write any kind of full-scale review to Giorgino, merely because it's one of those viewer-dependent, complex, poetical and philosophical movies that are brain-wearing if, while watching them, you're trying to enjoy their shell and get to their core simultaneously, yet there are several things which are certain and beyond any doubt for any man of art (which, I hope, I am). The first thing: it's a certain masterpiece, even of that kind of art which remains through a long long time; the second: it's one of those rare 'dark' movies in which darkness is poetic, even romantic, attractive and much more sad than depressing, like the art of Pieter Brueghel or Caspar David Friedrich. As to the core of the movie, someone called it Kafkian, though I don't agree with that because actually it's far beyond Kafka's misanthropic logic and much more like Edgar Poe's parables: dark and scary but through that touching the most gentle strings of our souls. Actually, on the poetic side (which is much more important than the narrative), Giorgino is a tale about eternal peace and love which can be achieved only through eternal childhood of soul. Those who have such souls are usually branded as crazy by our society, but from another point of view, they all have the virtue all the others lost when become 'grown': the virtue of God's love. Indeed, Giorgino is a very Christian movie, 'Be like children' (Mt 18:3) is it's real hidden tag-line, though the movie never deals with any kind of moral and concentrates only on the Christian philosophy for, dare to suppose, true God is beyond any human moral. Yet I think that Boutonnat is too harsh portraying 'grown' people as a sort of demons trying to steal childhood from rare survived souls, but it's his point of view and he has a right to think so. While watching Giorgino don't try to look for some hidden symbols (though there are some), better look for thoughts expressed through characters and their behavior, and do learn from them. Also I cannot mention that the movie looks astonishingly through excellent photography, especially through rational use of color filters, incredibly apposite editing, wonderful acting of all the cast and, of course, due to the atmospheric beauty of winter mountains that reminded me of the Brueghel's 'Hunters in the Snow'. Also, interestingly enough, the scene with Death in the form of an old woman with sunken black-ringed eyes riding a cart, instantly reminded me of Pesta (Plague) from the series of drawings by the Norwegian painter Theodor Kittelsen, depicting how a black plague is sweeping out the population of a small town in the mountain valley. Is it a coincidence? | 0 |
An intriguingly bold film weaves the seemingly effortless camerawork with some superb casting and an explosive soundtrack to plot the damaging effects of the crime and corruption of the Santiago underworld on 2 naive young brothers from the southern city of Temuco.<br /><br />Film debutant Daniella Rios is the seductive erotic dancer Gracia, working in the nightclub owned by the face of the new mini-wave in Chilean film production, Alejandro Trejo. The elder brother, played maturely by Nestor Cantillana, is easily convinced to become Trejo's lead henchman, after a night at the stripclub to celebrate younger brother Victor's (Juan Pablo Miranda) seventeenth birthday. From the establishing shot of this opening scene, the film explodes into neo-noir exploration of everything the outside world doesn't usually expect to see in this country so stereotypically conservative and catholic.<br /><br />Gracia's charms of seduction attract the three men like bees to honey, although the circular narrative of the three-way fantasy romance revolves around the linear portrayal of major international drug deals between Trejo's men and the 'Gringo', Eduardo Barril. Power relations become a vital theme, as society's outsiders merge in a mini-family. The prostitute holds an exotic spell over all the chilean men in the film, emerging from her ambiguous position in the periphery of society, and is seen as holding the key to all three men's futures. The relationships between Trejo and Cantillana become important, as the boys' parents are conspicious by their absence (one assumes they still live in Temuco). Therefore it is Trejo, el padrino, who 'adopts' Cantillana, and effectively 'makes him' as a man in the city. Miranda rapidly becomes the desperate outsider, as his dependency on his 'father figure', Cantillana, becomes increasingly strained by jealousy over the beautiful Gracia. However, Miranda remains trapped by the constraint of still being in school - he is dependent on Cantillana, who is dependent on Trejo, for the money to survive. Trejo, in turn, is under the thumb of the 'Gringo', and his wealth has been accumulated through drug deals and well as his strip clubs. The figure of Gracia acts as a time bomb viewed as a beautiful firework, she wraps a web of beauty inside the patriarchy but the strain can only lead to one climax.<br /><br />As the tensions of these power relations come to head, Gracia remains ambiguously elusive. The viewer is never sure which male figure she will commit to. The film concludes tragically and explosively in a shoot out which realigns power relations and erases half the major male protanganists. The final shot of Miranda's beaten face speeding down the PanAmericano highway is despairingly powerful. The boy has been sucked in by the lure of the city's underworld, yet has lost his only visible family, and his woman, who is his only friend in the film. He has nothing. The overriding metaphors are bold and brave. This is a gangster film in Chile. The notions of family, no sex before marriage etc, are abolished, and instead the harsh realities of the other side of Santiago's coin are displayed in all their savage glory. Trejo beats Rios brutally, Rios and Miranda make love in a cinema reel room - a whore having sex with a minor she barely knows. The 'gringos' are seen to have a financial hold over this small Latin American nation, but not through the copper mines, through the illegal path of drugs.<br /><br />Waissbluth's triumph is in his presentation of this dark underworld, which raises so many social questions, more perhaps than the record-breakingly successful Sexo Con Amor, within a slick, smooth firecracker of a film, which place this film firmly alongside Sexo Con Amor, Taxi Para Tres, and El chacotero Sentimental, as cinematic evidence that Chile is well and truly artistically alive and kicking in the post-transition period 15 years after the censorship of the Military Regime. | 0 |
My fondness for Chris Rock varies with his movies,I hated him after Lethal Weapon 4,but I hated everyone in that movie after it.I like him when he is himself and not holding back,like in Dogma. Well this is his best yet,wasn't expecting this to be that good.Laughed my arse off the whole time. Chris Rock delivers a sweet wonderful story backed by some of the funniest comedy I've seen in quite some time. Loved it. | 0 |
Andy McDermott (Tom Everett Scott) is a shy American teenager spending vacation in Paris with his friends Brad and Chris. Andy saves Serafine Pigot (the gorgeous Julie Delpy) from committing suicide in Eiffel Tour and has a crush on her. He does not know that she is a werewolf. They go to an underground party and are attacked by werewolves. Andy is wounded and becomes a werewolf. He is advised that the only way to become normal again is killing the werewolf that attacked him and eating its heart. This movie is a violent black humor movie. The special effects and the soundtrack are excellent, highlighting the song of the band Bush. I do not know why some readers compares this movie with the masterpiece 'An American Werewolf in London'. The stories have nothing in common (only an American teenager, werewolves and a city in Europe). Highly indicated for fans of werewolf and black humor movies. My vote is seven.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): 'Um Lobisomem Americano em Paris' ('An American Werewolf in Paris') | 0 |
I liked it! The plot was weird, Drew Barrymore and DC making out was awkward for both of them. Drews acting was dodgy in places but this could be down to her life at the time. Dennis Christopher as the shrink was pretty cool, and as always he does his best - i'm a major Dennis fan anyway, that's why i bought the DVD.<br /><br />I didn't get the ending! that weird animatronic red skeleton thing looked just like it was out of filmschool, which is OK i guess but it could have been more. <br /><br />....and the whole thing with the knife- if it was that uncomfortable why didn't they just get rid of it? <br /><br />It was very confusing as to when it was the Doppelganger weird thing or when it was DC-or was it Dennis all the time? Because the Doppelganger made out with Dennis and Patrick. In the scenes with Patrick if it was Dennis as the Doppelganger then I think Patrick would notice.<br /><br />The music was OK but obtrusive in places, the whole orchestral score seemed to be revolving around a theme but this theme was overdone.<br /><br />A big mix of lots of blood and gratuitus shots of Drew nude. <br /><br />All in all a bit of a GPM-Guilty Pleasure Movie. Don't read too much into it, don't look for secret messages and a fantastic script because you wont find it. There are some diamond moments and goofs galore- WATCH IT AND JUST HAVE A BIT OF FUN WITH IT! | 0 |
This is such a beautiful movie! Not only does it portray war, it also has friendship & love. The life of Slama is filled with sadness, every aspect of his life fell apart. I can only imagine how he would feel when his friend make the ultimate sacrifice.<br /><br />I see a slight similarity to 'Pearl Harbor', which is also about two pilots falling in love with the same woman. However this film is much better made, because this does not portray the woman to be unfaithful & easy-going. The friendship between the two men is also much more convincing & well built-up. I definitely recommend this movie to all people. | 0 |
Back in 1982 a little film called MAKING LOVE shocked audiences with its frank and open depiction of a romantic love story that just happened to be about two men.<br /><br />I have been waiting for years for a good, old-fashioned romance between two men; LATTER DAYS is all that and more.<br /><br />Yes, it is soapy, melodramatic, cliché-ridden, and quite corny. That is what makes it so wonderful. There is nothing like a good romantic movie, and this movie is romantic in the best sense of the word.<br /><br />As to the issue of religion, sorry folks, but these things do happen and are happening to gay people even now. It is not just the Mormon church that rejects its gay members. Gay people in every religion have faced harsh judgment and rejection.<br /><br />I loved this movie. It has a perfect blend of a fantasy-romance grounded in the reality of the day-to-day lives of the characters. If I could give it more than ten stars I would. Good love stories never go out of style; great love stories like LATTER DAYS are unforgettable.<br /><br />It's about time! | 0 |
Gee, what a crappy movie this was! I cannot understand what people find so scary about 'The Grudge'. The director plays one trick (I'd have to admit a very good one, that is brought to life very stylized) and then he repeats it for the rest of the movie over and over again. As a consequence I startled a few times in the first quarter of the movie, but once I knew the drill I practically fell asleep as The Grudge grew more and more predictable by the minute. To conclude, I can say that there are a lot better movies in the genre to begin with, that the so-called predecessor 'The Ring' was way scarier and that buying a ticket for 'The Grudge' is a waste of money. | 1 |
After the success of 'Muppet Babies' Warner Brothers chalked up 'Tiny Toons'. But instead of making Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck and all the rest of the Looney Toon gang kids, they created new animal characters who were kids with their own distinct personalities but personalities that nonetheless mirrored their predecessors. The leads included Buster & Babs Bunny (no relation, which became their running gag or catch phrase), Plucky Duck, Hampton Pig, Dizzy Devil, Shirley 'the' Loon, Elmira, Montana Max, Furball, Sweety, the rats and assorted animals of Perfecto Prep, and the original Looney Toons cast themselves. The 'Tiny Toons' lived in Acme Acres and attended Acme Looniversity, where the Looney Toon gang worked as teachers who served as mentors to the younger generation the ins and out of comedy.<br /><br />During the show's run, various pot shots were taken at the Bush SR. administration, pop culture, and coupled with various other gags and spoofs.<br /><br />Buster & Babs, arguably the show's main characters, as mentioned above, were similar to Bugs Bunny in some respects, but they also had their own differing personality ticks and comic styles, namely, Babs' tendency to impersonate anyone and everyone, while Buster, capable of being a great goof himself, usually played straight man (or straight rabbit) to Babs' antics. Plucky Duck was a virtual copy of Daffy Duck (not screwball Daffy but egomaniac Daffy), with nearly as big an ego as Daffy and just as much of an obsession with upstaging the Buster & Babs as Daffy had with upstaging Bugs, though he usually fell flat on his face in his attempts, yet he remained strangely endearing through out. Hampton was an even more shy version of Porky Pig, and he had the thankless job of playing Porky to Plucky's Daffy. Shirley, the blond duck gal, was a new age valley girl type whom Plucky would go in and out of phases of mocking or vying for her affections. Dizzy was the purple version of the Tasmanian Devil. Furball was the silent Sylvester and Sweety was the pink Tweetie bird. There was also the purple female skunk who longed for a boyfriend and the pint sized versions of Wile Coyote and the Road Runner. Evil was defined in the form of Montana Max, a rich kid who was always out to make a buck or make people's lives miserable. There was also Elmira, a deranged animal lover whom everyone feared. And then there was Godo Dodo, an odd thing-a-ma-gig creature who had no clearly designated species except that he was from 'Wacky Land' or something like that.<br /><br />Pop culture references included Batman (quite frequently actually), Michael Jackson, Vanilla Ice, Dances With Wolves, Indiana Jones, Star Trek, Supergirl, fast food joints, the Ten Commandments, the Twilight Zones, Saturday Night Live and even the Simpsons, among others.<br /><br />Not only funny, but it also managed to be warm and touching, something it's successor 'Animaniacs' never quite attained. Also followed by 'Taz-Mania'. | 0 |
I saw 'A Page of Madness' in a silent film course at Wesleyan University and it haunts me still after 25 years. Truly ahead of its time - perhaps even still - this gem of a film reveals both the frightening and attractive aspects of madness. | 0 |
Having seen Carlo Lizzani's documentary on Luchino Visconti, I was bound to higher expectations before watching this film made three years later by Adam Low. But the viewer like me did get dissatisfied... I faced a need for critical opinion, which I generally don't like giving due to the fact there are no documentaries that will satisfy every viewer. There are also no documentaries that will examine a theme totally. But when I read the reviews already written on this title, I also felt a bit confused. People sometimes don't know what to criticize. Therefore, to be clear, I'll divide this film into two major parts that differ considerably: the former one about Visconti before his director's career and latter one about Visconti the director. <br /><br />The aristocratic background, all the hobbies, the wealth that young Luchino experienced and enjoyed are clearly presented. His effort in horse racing is mentioned as well as his relation with his mother so much disturbed after his parents' divorce. We also get a very accurate idea of where Luchino was brought up as a real count of Milano: in riches galore, with nannies, cooks with access to everything, in TRUE ARISTOCRACY. For instance, his father's splendid villa at Grazzano and other marvelous villas prove that. There is also an emphasis on Visconti's crucial visit in Paris in the 1930s where he met eminent people ('left wingers') who later had impact on his style and message in art. That clearly explains the idea of a communist with the aristocratic upbringing (a contrast at first sight). <br /><br />However, the part about his director's career, which started with OSSESSIONE during WWII and ended with INNOCENTE just before the director's death in 1976, is poorly executed. His movies are not discussed well. Why? Because there are very few people who really have something to say. Franco Zeffirelli, the director, remembers the works on LA TERRA TREMA and that is all right. There are also some interviews with Franco Rosi. But later, such movies like IL GATTOPARDO, LA CADUTA DEI REI, LA MORTE A VENEZIA or LUDWIG are mostly discussed by Helmut Berger. Although I liked the actor in the role of Ludwig, I did not like the interviews of his. Moreover, some thoughts he reveals are not accurate to entail in such a documentary... There is no mention of significant works of Visconti like CONVERSATION PIECE, there are no interviews with eminent cast Burt Lancaster. A mention about Silvana Mangano and Romy Schneider should also be made. There is one footage interview with Maria Callas that appears to be interesting but that is only a short bit. Franco Zeffirelli, though I appreciate him as a director, makes fun of it all rather than says something really precious. For instance, he mentions the event how Visconti separated from him after years of service. Therefore, I say: simplified and unsatisfactory. <br /><br />What I find a strong point here are footage interviews with Visconti himself. As a result, we may get his own opinion about his works. For instance, I very much appreciate the words he says about death regarding it as a normal chapter of life and as natural as birth itself. He also discusses his health problems after the stroke while filming LUDWIG.<br /><br />I believe it is better to see LUCHINO VISCONTI (1999) by Carlo Lizzani than this doc. Although it is shorter and condensed as a whole, you will get a better idea of the director. Visconti would be furious about that and the fury of his usually turned people's emotions and viewpoints into stone... 4/10 | 1 |
Maybe one of the most entertaining Ninja-movies ever made. A hard-hitting action movie with lots of gore and slow motion (eehaaa!). Made in ´83 and still the greatest swedish action movie made so far! And we can hardly wait to see the upcoming sequel, Ninja mission 2000 - The legacy of Markov! | 0 |
A beautiful new print of 'Zabriskie Point' is playing in Paris and seems to be doing well in the Latin Quarter. It's time for a full evaluation of the film. Let's hope that the new print means that a DVD with some insightful 'extras' will be out in the near future.<br /><br />I remember watching ZP when it came out and thought it was a crashing bore. This time around I was totally awed and would classify it as a 'near-miss' masterpiece. The first part of the movie is a time capsule of late '60's Los Angeles, I lived there then, and Antonioni did a masterful job of capturing the essence of the place. Kudos to production designer Dean Tavoularis who found some incredible locations and did outstanding work.<br /><br />The print I saw runs 1 hour 50 minutes. It is forbidden to those under 16 (or 18, I can't remember). I suspect there is quite a bit of restored footage in this print. SPOILER -- I wonder how much of the desert sex scene was originally cut. What appears today seems rather tame by current standards.<br /><br />There is no soundtrack music until almost 1 hour into the film. Before we hear extraneous noise such as radio broadcasts, etc. Antonioni was very daring to do this. I remember how much was made at the time of the lack of acting skills of non-actors Mark Frechette and Daria Halprin. This time Frechette did not bother me. Halprin is weaker but gradually improves as the film continues.<br /><br />Much of the student riot footage looks like stock footage to me. One shot is in a different aspect ratio & distorted by the wide screen. Of course, there is actual staged footage, but not all that much.<br /><br />I'm still trying to figure out how Antonioni did some of the shots of Frechette flying the plane. It looks like he really did some of the flying - there's no blue screen or double in some shots.<br /><br />I hope to get back to see the film a second time. Recommended highly to all Antonioni fans. | 0 |
What is about mathematical geniuses that get the critics juices flowing ? A BEAUTIFUL MIND wasn`t up to much in my opinion ( FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING deserved the Oscar that year ) while GOOD WILL HUNTING had several awards lavished on it undeservedly<br /><br />First off is the script . When I attended film school I was told GOOD WILL HUNTING is a very good example on how not to start a script and the tutor was right . This movie lacks any type of opening hook and for the most part it`s very very slow . If you wrote an unsolicited script like this the script reader would have given up on it by page 15<br /><br />Structure aside the idea of a member of the American underclass being some sort of intellectual god doesn`t really ring true . Ask yourself this : If he`s the cleverst character in the movie how come he`s gone through his short life without anyone noticing his abilities ? Not one single teacher from his childhood noticed his gift ? Highly unlikely as is the fact he`s read so much mind expanding litrature . And if Will`s so clever how come he`s so oblivous of what happens to young good looking boys in American prisons ?<br /><br />But it`s the casting that let much of the film down . You want to get a couple of actors to play rough tough Irish gang members ? Let`s get Matt Damon and Ben Affleck which is like getting Russell Crowe to play a pacifist or Charles Bronson to play a liberal do gooder . I failed to be convinced by the foul mouthed Damon and Affleck as they strutted about smacking people in the chops and couldn`t help thinking that even though they wrote the script the parts should have been awarded to different actors , after all Billy Bob Thornton has written screenplays for films he hasn`t been cast in and the same criteria should have been applied here<br /><br />There are some good points to the movie . Robin Williams is excellent as the man who tries to show Will his potential and also very good is Stellan Skarsgard who is quite simply one of the greatest character actors to stepped foot outside of Europe and despite my previous criticism of the script there is quite a moving piece of dialogue at the park as Williams character explains to Will what he has seen in life<br /><br />But I`ve got to repeat that there`s less plus points than negatives to this movie and I`ve got to agree with the people who`ve said GOOD WILL HUNTING is boring and unconvincing | 1 |
Hilarious!! I would have sworn Ed Wood wrote this. Terrible. I loved every frame. Bad movie aficionado's, this is your trophy! I will watch it again. Words cannot explain how entertaining this movie is. Pare's career must have dipped low, but I really think he's heading in the Leslie Nielson direction. He was perfect for this. Terrible, just terrible!! You'll love it!! Get some friends, lots of beer, and you'll have the time of your life. It's an MST3000 party, waiting to happen. Enjoy!! It is worth the rental!! You like the 'Colombo type' cop and the comic relief coroner. The bad guy will have you on the floor laughing. He's also in another Pare movie, Komodo vs Cobra, and he's just as good there. I don't know what the budget was but they'll get it back because this film is destined to be the best unintended comedy of the year. | 1 |
I bought the DVD a long time ago and finally got around to watching it.I really enjoyed watching this film as you don't get the chance to see many of the more serious better quality bollywood films like this. Very well done and but I would say you need to pay attention to what is going on as it is easy to get lost. When you start watching the movie, don't do anything else! I would actually advise people to read all the reviews here...including the ones with spoilers, before watching the movie. Raima Sen gave her first great performance that I have seen. Aishwarya was easily at her best. All performances were strong, directing and cinematography...go watch it! | 0 |
Beyond the excellent direction,production,acting & the predictable drama lies an essential message in the script:<br /><br />'Listening leads all the way' In order for the voice to flourish,listen.To harmonise with other in voice,listen. In order to approach yourself,listen.To discover the needs of any situation or others,listen. It appears that the script writers are conveying a 'life's secret'.Listening leads to an awareness of one's Self. It awakens the other senses, especially vision & expands the horizon.One's soul too can be discovered. The artistry of this movie 'As it is in Heaven' magnificently displayed the unfolding of life,not only its joy & sadness,but ultimately the hope of life. All this by the leading character's first instruction to the choir;<br /><br />'Just Listen,it leads all the way' | 0 |
The only thing that prevented this flick from being a total disaster were a couple of interesting stylish touches. <br /><br />(Moderate Spoiler Alert) Death by comic is a bit derivative of a scene in Twilight Zone: The Movie, which delivers death by cartoon. Still this was handled nicely, especially watching the ink bleed and the color being sapped out.<br /><br />Additionally, there is one other good scene with a demon motorcycle.<br /><br />Having said that, I was glad I got the DVD cheap at a store going out of business sale, because this was pretty awful. I bought 'Soul Survivors' at the same time and both movies were similarly annoying with the constant realizations that you have been watching a dream. However , where 'Soul Survivors' has nothing to redeem it, or have it make any sense, this at least had a couple of stylish notes, referred to above.<br /><br />Interestingly, the DVD lets you go to the 8 'nightmares' where something actually happens, which is the only way to watch this. The scripting between the creative gore moments is rather unbearable.<br /><br />3 out of 10. | 1 |
'Nacho Libre' (2006) <br /><br />Directed By: Jared Hess <br /><br />Starring: Jack Black, Ana de la Reguera, Héctor Jiménez, & Darius Rose <br /><br />MPAA Rating: 'PG-13' (for some rough action, and crude humor including dialog) <br /><br />Say what you will about it (I know some people who despise it to no end), but I have always thought that 'Napoleon Dynamite' was a funny movie--not the brightest brick on the wall, but a funny movie, nonetheless. Jack Black is also a very funny man--irritating at times, yes, and massively overrated by adolescent audiences who practically worship him, but funny. There has rarely been a Jack Black comedy that I did not enjoy to some degree. So, I was very happy to hear that Jared Hess, the writer and director of 'Napoleon Dynamite', and Jack Black would be teaming up for a movie about a Spanish friar who becomes a wrestler to save an orphanage. My only reservation was that the plot seemed a little too thin. Unfortunately, my one reservation turned out to be downfall of the entire movie. This plot, had it been done as a skit on some such show as 'Saturday Night Live' or possibly even 'Mad TV', would have worked flawlessly. Unfortunately, the plot runs far too thin over the approximate one and a half hour runtime and this one-joke comedy falls flat.<br /><br />Nacho was raised in a Mexican monastery and became a devout man of the Lord. Feeling shunned by the entire monastery, Nacho (Black), now the monastery's cook, decides to follow his dreams to become a professional wrestler. As the monastery's finances hit an all-time low, Nacho decides to join a wresting tournament so that he can win the prize money and provide good food for the monastery's orphanage. This plot sounds so sweet and caring. It seems like the perfect movie for Jack Black. Look what he did with 'School of Rock' after all. Well, to my displeasure, this plot is almost completely ruined by offensive and gross humor that just takes away from the heart of the movie. It is again Hollywood's way of showing that they feel that teen audiences will only understand fart jokes and stupid humor
of course, for all I know, maybe that is the general thought of teenagers, as many seemed to enjoy this movie. Watching an obese woman scurry like a mouse across the floor will certainly make people laugh, but don't expect to get an award for putting it in your movie. A seven-year-old could make up the same joke.<br /><br />The performances in 'Nacho Libre' are actually good. Jack Black proves once again that he is absolutely hilarious and that he can make even the most idiotic, worthless lines in ever put on paper comical. Unfortunately, this movie just wasn't enough for him. It didn't give him anything to go on and the only reason any of his jokes worked was because of him. I had never seen or heard of Ana de la Reguera before, but now I can say that, not only is she quite talented, but she is also one of the most beautiful women to have ever graced my eyesight. She just clicked in the role and it worked wonderfully well. Héctor Jiménez, who plays Nacho's bumbling partner, Esqueleto, kept me laughing continuously. He did a very nice job and it was very effective when partnered with that of Jack Black's. Darius Rose, who plays an orphan named Chancho, didn't have many lines, but, what can I say, I just enjoyed him. He was adorable. The rest of the cast did their job. It is unfortunate that they were wasted on such a sub-par movie.<br /><br />'Nacho Libre' just does not work. Its plot is stretched far too thin. The heart of it all is soiled by moronic humor and sickening jokes that just don't work. I very rarely laughed and, if I did, it was because of Jack Black or another member of the cast. And that leads me to the bright side of 'Nacho Libre': yes, the cast. This cast was just
well, for lack of a better word, they were on. They all clicked, had excellent chemistry together, and pumped as much life as possible into the flat script. After Jared Hess's 'Napoleon Dynamite' kept me thoroughly entertained for the entirety of the movie, I was surprised to find myself so often bored with 'Nacho Libre'. Something was lost here and I have yet to understand what it was. All I know is that 'Nacho Libre' is not a good movie and yet, because of its cast, it is completely worthless. There is a small reason to watch, if only to watch Jack Black work. But, if you are not a fan of Jack Black, then avoid this movie like the plague. I like Black, but I am done with this movie and with this review.<br /><br />Final Thought: Yikes! This is Jared Hess's surprisingly disappointing follow-up to his hysterical 'Napoleon Dynamite'.<br /><br />Overall Rating: 4/10 (C+) | 1 |
I generally like this movie a lot. The animation is supreme: meaning they took to trouble to animate the hair and fur on animals and people. And being an amateur at graphics and animation (self teaching myself through books. For those who are curious on the same matter, I use the program Gmax by Discreet. It is a high quality free program that can be downloaded from the internet) I see that the quality of animation shown here is of high standards.<br /><br />The plot of this movie is good. Though this movie lacks character development, this story is still understandable. Generally, I believe that this movie is primarily should be watched by people who are fans of the game as its plot closely follows the game. As for me, I do not play the games and therefore I don't have the wowing effect it probably does on fans of the game.<br /><br />For those who like the game, I suggest this movie to you, and if you haven't played the game, I would still recommend this movie to you. | 0 |
About the movie itself, there are ample comments. <br /><br />I just wanted to say something about the German version, which I have seen recently on TV. It is heavily cut. From 103 to 76 minutes! It is usual that the most bloody scenes are cut for German TV. I understand the reasons for that, but this movie was something else. They did not only cut 'gore-shots' - they have cut entire sequences, sparing only glimpses. Like: 'WE have to attack THEM' - one 5 second shot of explosions in the camp - protagonist running away.<br /><br />When the assault on the island begins, it isn't even possible anymore to follow the storyline. All the cuts create something that amounts to a string of erratic, disconnected scenes that don't make any sense anymore.<br /><br />I could not stand to watch the end after spending 60 minutes on this nonsense.<br /><br />I think I would have given the original 7/10 The German version is worth only 1/10<br /><br />Get it on DVD (and check the runtime first) or forget about it. | 1 |
I do not fail to recognize Haneke's above-average film-making skills. For example, I appreciate his lingering on unremarkable-natural-day-lighted settings as a powerful way to force a strong sense of realism. However, regarding the content of this film, I am very sad to see that in the 21st century there is still an urge to pathologize domination-submission relations or feelings (and/or BDSM practices). The problem that the main character has with her mother is unbelievably topical as is the alienation and uncomprehension felt by Walter (I don't mean the frustration of a lover which is not loved back in the same way, which is understandable; I mean that he looks upon her as if she were crazy, or as if he was a monk, come on!). I mean D/s is not something new in the world and I think it is rather silly to treat the subject as if it were something 'freakish' or pathological; it isn't. In general, films dealing with this subject are really lagging behind the times.<br /><br />So, for me, I feel that this film ends up being quite a programmatical film, worried with very outdated psicoanalitical theories (isn't it nearly embarrassing?), and that does not really relate with real-life lives and experiences of those engaged in D/s relationships (personal experience, forums, irc chatrooms even recent scholar studies will show this). | 1 |
This completely forgotten slasher flick is one of the best horror movies ever made.Very dark at times it reminds me a little famous thriller 'Deliverance'.Director Jeff Lieberman creates terrific atmosphere of dread and despair.All actors are decent and the climax is really exciting and memorable.So if you are searching for something creepy,try to find this little treasure.My personal rating:10 out of 10.P.S This one is even more chilling than 'Halloween'. | 0 |
I, like many this evening braved the frigid winter and long lines to see what I had anticipated to be one of the best movies of this year. However, I was left sadly wanting in many ways after the credits rolled. But to be fair, there were redeemable qualities (although very few). Let's start with what worked. First, the Lycans: on point in every way from their terrifying physicality to their sheer ferocity. The action: sublimely visceral when it did occur. Nighy/Victor and Sheen/Lucian: Perfect. Now, what did not (and there is plenty). This was less a movie and more a collage of sequences (and do not expect to see any supporting characters from the other movies except Raze and Tannis). Profoundly missing was a well written storyline and anything of real substance to bring these pieces of film together. The story seemed to start right in the middle at the cusp where Lucian had made up his mind to rebel. Therefore, there was no context; no tension; no sense of betrayal the devices needed to make everything else work. Moreover, it ended at where the climax should have begun (which needed to be after the feud had simmered for a bit). Oh and it was way too short. Purist will also find offense in some liberties taken to certain facts previously revealed in the first two movies
but judge that for yourself. In the end, this movie lingered to long on what should have been brief 'background' scenes (e.g. various council scenes), and as a consequence we never really got to know or care about the principal players...or the movie (ouch). -D | 1 |
This movie is pretty cheesy, but I do give it credit for at least trying to provide some characterization for it's principles. There are some great moments in the film and the dialogue has some great moments as well.<br /><br />The aerial assault sequence is perhaps the best part of the movie.<br /><br />I guess I really like the idea of what lengths a veteran will go for a fellow veteran. Sure it's not all that well done, but the premise is not at all bad.<br /><br />Tom | 0 |
Horrible movie. This movie beat out revenge of the living zombies for the WORST movie I have ever suffered through. What the !@$% were the morons who made this film thinking. Was it supposed to be scary. Because man let me tall you it wasn't. It was so dumb it wasn't funny. We all know that tropical islands are the natural hunting grounds for killer snowmen. And those stupid baby snowballs. Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid. Fake snow and lousy actors. OH and frost looks nothing like he does on the box. DO NOT WASTE YOUR TIME. REnt it and destroy it. | 1 |
The group of people are travelling to Belgrade in an awful bus led by a drunk conductor and his dumb son (who likes to drive with his eyes closed). Their journey is frequently interrupted by many hilarious events which with much irony describe the fall of nation`s spirit in 1941 and are so funny that they are even today used as a common jokes. The man who 'steals the show' is a peasant 4 feet tall with his 4 sons who are almost two times bigger than him. In the end, the movie takes one dramatical turn and the trip becomes nothing but a swan`s song of a dying country. | 0 |
I had to watch this movie with my 5-year-old. He didn't laugh once during the entire movie...and he loves dogs and will laugh at nearly anything! This movie was horrible from all aspects: poor script (even accounting for a children's G-rated movie), poor production (the jittery camera shots made me feel nauseous for the first ten minutes), poor acting (perhaps they were 'directed' to act cartoonish), and even poor sound quality (there are parts where the audio level seems fine, then you can't hear what the next actor is saying). I'm willing to put up with quite a lot when it comes to watching a child's movie, but this was worse than having a stick in my eye. I also didn't like being battered over the head with the god-heaven-belief thing. In all, it was the biggest waste of 90 minutes in my life...and I've done some serious time-wasting in my day! | 1 |
The Muppet Movie <br /><br />directed by <br /><br />James Frawley<br /><br />Kermit the Frog and friends relive the tales and stories of how they all came together.<br /><br />The Muppets star in their first feature film, bringing the magic they are known for to a bigger picture. The story is not too complex and is written as a prequel of sorts. The well written jokes appear as each character gets a worthy introduction. The cameos aren't just thrown in either, but written in as interesting characters, making one of the many peaks for our furry friends. | 0 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.