review
stringlengths 41
13.7k
| label
int64 0
1
|
|---|---|
There is no way on earth you are going to care about any of these characters. A bunch of spoilt middle class overgrown kids take some drugs at a party and get off with each other and argue. I've just seen this on TV and I didn't think it was a 'film' as such, more a post-'This Life' indulgence that really has no resonance or proper drama to it. Stuff like this will get commissioned for time immemorial unfortunately, irrelevant middle class 'lifestyle' crap that takes itself far too seriously. It's got David Baddiel in it and that bird out of 'Cold Feet', you know what to expect. There was a lot of this stuff about in 2000, it was a particularly British malaise...'they're educated and doing drugs? friends, but kinda dysfunctional and with incestuous relationships? sounds great!'. This kind of nonsense, and post-Guy Ritchie comedy- gangster stuff...dark days. If you have taste, this will annoy you to the point of violence. | 1 |
I rented this movie because I love Kristanna Loken and I've watched her on many TV shows and since she's having her 15 minutes of fame nowadays with her new T3 movie I wanted to check out what other movies she has been in.<br /><br />She's just OK in terms of acting. Not good and not bad either. She makes up for everything by being extremely gorgeous. YUMMMMM<br /><br />Rodney Rowland was quite a surprise as the hero. He provided the only solid good acting in the movie. He's a very good actor and should probably be an action star.<br /><br />Besides Kristanna being OK and Rodney being really good everything else about this movie is garbage in its purest form.<br /><br />A computer hacker hacks into the system of a plane from the ground and using a joystick he tries to slam the plane into a nuclear power plant ..... or something. And of course there are the heroes who stand in his way and ruin his game.<br /><br />This is one of the worst scripts I have ever seen and no wonder it was a low budget flick.<br /><br />What's shocking is that this movie was made in 2001 and it has way too many similarities to the September 11th tragedies.<br /><br />Why do they make movies like this in the first place?<br /><br />Panic * - one star (a waste of too good actors) (also a waste of time) (also known as Air Panic) | 1 |
Classe Tous Risques (The Big Risk) is a French gangster movie that doesn't try for style. That's why it has style. Because the movie is so underplayed and so matter-of-fact, it becomes more and more involving. And because Abel Davos is played by Lino Ventura, we wind up emotionally invested in this taciturn, tough killer who loves his wife and kids, has an encounter with customs agents on the shore near Nice at night that neither he nor we expect, and who proves just as willing to shoot a cop or a betrayer with as little emotion as flicking off a bit of lint. We first meet Davos in Italy with his wife and their two small boys, one about 9 and one 4. <br /><br />'This man was Abel Davos, sentenced to death in absentia,' we're told. 'On the run for years, he had watched his resources dwindle, even as his anxiety kept him on the move. With the Italian police closing in each day, France was again his best bet. Maybe he'd been forgotten.' <br /><br />Davos was a top gangster in Paris who took care of his friends. That was several years ago. A heist to give him money to return to France goes very wrong. Now he's hiding out with his two kids. He calls his friends in Paris to help him out. He and his kids need to get from Nice to Paris but the police are hunting him and they've set up roadblocks. For Davos' two best friends, time has passed and they've moved on. They don't want to put themselves at risk, and for what? Obligation gives may to caution. So they hire a young thief, Eric Stark (Jean- Paul Belmondo), to pick up Davos and the children in an ambulance, then to drive to Paris with Davos heavily bandaged and the children hidden. We're on a journey where Davos' options are increasingly limited, where he must find ways to have his children cared for, where he realizes there are no more ties of friendship, where betrayal seems likely, and where quite possibly his only friend left is Eric Stark. <br /><br />This somewhat cynical movie works so well because it does its job without fussing about. There are no trench coats with pulled-up collars, no toying with the melodrama of the gangster code so many French directors have loved. Classe tous Risques gives us Abel Davos, a man who once was somebody, who now is sliding down to be nobody, and who reacts with violence and resignation. <br /><br />Lino Ventura dominates the movie, yet when he is paired with Jean-Paul Belmondo a curious chemistry happens. Ventura as Davos is grim and worried about caring for his sons. He is humiliated by his situation. He is a tough man who sees killing someone, if needed, as just part of the business he's in. Belmondo as the young thief who initially is sent to be an expendable driver and winds up being a friend to count on, provides the brightness that keeps the movie from being just one more ride down the elevator. Belmondo was 27 and looks younger. His unlikely star power as a lead actor -- broken nose, under-slung jaw -- shines right off the screen. He makes Erik a match for Ventura when they share a scene. And Belmondo's scenes with Liliane (Sandra Milo), the young woman who becomes his girl friend, radiate charm and good-natured sex appeal. The ending is bittersweet fate, and without a stylistic posture in sight. We hear Davos say, 'Abel's gone. There's nothing left.' It would be well worth watching Classe tous Risques to learn what he means. <br /><br />There are many fine French gangster films. I'd place this one right there with Touchez Pas au Grisbi and Bob le Flambeur. To see one of Lino Ventura's finest performances, watch Army of Shadows. | 0 |
Generically speaking, Fay Grim is a highly entertaining thriller featuring two of the most inexorably enjoyable names in American movies, unshakably beautiful and gracefully spunky Parker Posey and endlessly charismatic and unavoidably hilarious Jeff Goldblum. They have many scenes in the first half of the film in which we see these two insatiable presences volleying off of each other, even radiating with charm when Goldblum rolls off Hartley's shamelessly epic info-dumps. Nevertheless, if one were to deconstruct Fay Grim, one would see many instances in which countless scenes could've been squeezed for much more benefit than they have resulted in being.<br /><br />This sort of filmed in-joke is the sequel to Hal Hartley's Henry Fool, which was made ten years earlier. It has title character Posey forced by CIA agent Goldblum to track down the notebooks that were the precious possessions of her missing fugitive husband, the predecessor's titular anti-hero. Available within them is information that could concede the safety of the United States. Fay first makes for Paris to get a hold of them but becomes engulfed in a bona fide celebration of espionage clichés featuring everything from car bombs to ambiguous helpers to Following the Girl to double-crosses to triple-crosses.<br /><br />The primary appeal of it all for me is that it's such a novel approach to the sequel of a movie about a garbageman and a struggling novelist in a small town. In the original Henry Fool, Posey played a simple woman leading a very simple life. Hartley's talents do not reach the heights of many of the other independent newbies from the 1990s, but I do admire his wild creativity in making an inadvertent Nearne sister out of her, giving her a terrific predicament, as he did to her character's brother, played by James Urbaniak, in Henry Fool, as she is trapped between whether or not she may still love her overwhelming refugee husband and the problematic but forceful plans of Goldblum.<br /><br />Hartley, however, is simply riding on that fragmentary idea. His plot, though complex and labyrinthine, true to the form of the spy film, it seems as if to be entirely capricious. The reason I was not bored was mostly due to the pace at which the story unfolds, not to mention the presence of Posey and Goldblum. The problem with the remainder of Hartley's cast is that I cannot seem to become fond of the rest of them. It has nothing to do with how obscure they are compared to the relative star power of the two said charm masters, but with how they don't seem to hold their own alongside them, though Saffron Burrows certainly comes close. Most of the scenes not involving Posey or Goldblum are far too light on their feet, stringing us along with info-dumps we have no choice but to listen to or else be totally lost in the ensuing sequence of scenes. They are shot almost entirely in tiled angles, as if Hartley is compensating for that implacable feeling of a lack of material.<br /><br />Liam Aiken, however, playing the now teenage son of Fay and Henry, has a certain allure about him, seeming wise beyond his years, certainly much wiser than any of the adult characters. Perhaps Hartley intended that, or maybe it's simply Aiken's presence. The problem with a Hartley film is that you never quite know what was intended and what just happens to be there. As Scorsese said, 'Cinema is a matter of what's in the frame and what's out.' One has to be able to trust that what we see is a conscious decision by the filmmaker to remain in the finished film. | 0 |
It is important to realise that Eisenstein was a committed Marxist film maker who held some very specific and particular theories about what film could achieve, and how.<br /><br />It is simply idle to compare Alexander Nevsky negatively with anything from a similar period in the US; this film comes from the oldest film school in the world, from another continent, from an entirely different approach to cinema.<br /><br />To appreciate this film a little more, try finding out about Pudovkin's and Kuleshov's theories of montage, for example, or read the Wikipedia entry on Marxist Film Theory. If you're feeling really bold, you might even investigate the triadic forms of Hegelian dialectic.<br /><br />It follows that if you watch this film without some understanding of Eisenstein's ideas and ideals, you probably won't get it. In Alexander Nevsky the main characters aren't playing themselves, they are meant to be distillations of their nation's character. Nevsky and his generals are deliberately shown larger-than-life, because they represent stylised, heroic aspects of the entire Russian people.<br /><br />The acting isn't wooden, it's meant to be slightly mannered. It represents a completely different school from the more naturalistic, narrative style which Hollywood was rapidly adopting. Eisenstein's films are especially designed *not* to be realistic. If anything seems somewhat 'obvious', whether lighting or language or a pose struck by an actor, it's meant to be that way. Eisenstein was one of the early proponents of film as an art form, not just as entertainment.<br /><br />If the editing sometimes seems to consist of a clash of images, well, that's the idea. Shots are meant to contrast with each other, Eisenstein's films contain and embody elements of a political/philosophical argument, namely Marxist dialectic.<br /><br />So sit back, shout hurrah for Russia and her folk-hero defenders, boo at the cowardly nobles and the Teuton invaders, and enjoy the difference. | 0 |
North and South is a miniseries from the 'golden age' of television miniseries in the 1980s, which was a time for long, sweeping epics with high production values and lots of star cameos. It is, for the most part, excellent for what it is, although I personally prefer the less soap-opera like elements of the story and the overall sense of history.<br /><br />James Read and Patrick Swayze deliver excellent performances--especially Read, whose George Hazard serves as kind of an emotional anchor in the midst of the often melodramatic story. The series also contains top-notch work from Kirstie Alley, Wendy Kilbourne, Hal Holbrook, Lewis Smith, Genie Francis, Georg Stanford Brown and others. The costumes, filming, sets and music are all first-rate as well.<br /><br />Don't take it as a history lesson, but take it for what it is--a well-made, sweeping epic from a bygone era. Book 2, which followed a year later, is also excellent, but I would advise viewers to skip Book 3, which came out 8 years after Book 2 and was not nearly as good as the first two parts. Books 1 and 2 are classics, though, even with their soapier elements, and they are well worth watching. | 0 |
'This Is Not a Film' works because it is so true in what it is trying to say. If you ignore the dynamics of the plot and focus in on the message, you will see a little bit of yourself in the main character, Michael. Whether male or female, all of us have come to a point in our lives where we want to look back and reexamine a situation or a relationship. Did it really occur like we remembered? What went wrong? Michael's desire to find Grace is completely selfish. More than anything, he wants to make himself feel better about how things turned out. But even so, he is a sympathetic character because everyone is selfish when it comes to relationships. We would not be in them otherwise. As the film ends, I am not sure if Michael has learned anything new about himself or not. Our best gauge on the relationship is through his friend, Nadia. She is the soul of the movie and reminds us of how there are always two sides to every story. I found Michael to be pompous, arrogant, and just plain clueless. Which is exactly why I liked him. He is a real character. If you've ever wanted to go back and analyze a previous relationship, then this is a film for you. In closing, it is a film for everyone. | 0 |
I watched an episode. Yes I sat through the entire miserable experience, and I have to say, this brand of comedy is one of the worst you will get. Imagine Peter Griffin, of Family Guy fame. Now imagine Peter Griffin as a(admittedly slim and minus the glasses) woman, except that he now lacks the something that made him hilarious. Peter Griffin is an idiot, but he doesn't know he's an idiot. Sarah has none of the genuine character, none of the acting ability to pull her character off. Maybe its the trite, formulaic jokes that pull her comedy even lower than her character can take it by herself. Maybe it's the lack of believable foils. Her insensitive, bigoted persona may appeal to insensitive, bigoted people unlike the mass appeal that Stephen Colbert's insensitive, bigoted character has. Like Bill O'Reilly, Sarah creates an annoying, unfunny character. She lacks something that is necessary for the genre of satire, let alone for the entire world of comedy. What Sarah Silverman lacks, its noticeable. And when you don't believe it and identify with it, it's not funny anymore. | 1 |
This is without question the worst screen adaptation of a Stephen King work, if not the WORST MOVIE OF ALL TIME! This is an unbelievably horrible movie. I fell asleep on this stinker several times and I wasn't tired! I would rather shoot myself than sit through it again! | 1 |
'Tourist Trap' is a genuinely spooky low-budget horror film that will surely satisfy horror fans.It contains extremely strange atmosphere and there are some quite unnerving moments of total dread and fear.Some scenes are downright bizarre for example there is one scene when Chuck Connors sits down to have dinner with a mannequin that comes to life and starts conversing with him before its head falls off.There is very little gore,but the violence is quite strong for PG-rated horror film.The mannequins look very sinister and the climax is horrifying.David Schmoeller returned to make several other genre films including 'Crawlspace','Puppet Master' and 'Netherworld'.Still 'Tourist Trap' is definitely his best horror film,so if you want to be scared give this little gem a look.9 out of 10. | 0 |
One of Chaplin's longest films up to that point, Burlesque on Carmen is a clever and surprisingly complex parody of what was then 'Prosper Merimee's' well-known story about 'Carmen.' I was a little confused about the difference between the IMDb's listing of the 1915 Burlesque on Carmen and the 1916 version. Based on the running time I assume that it was the 1915 version that I saw, since the 1916 one is a good 20 minutes longer, and from what I've read, those are 20 unnecessary and unimpressive minutes. <br /><br />From the very beginning, it's clear that Burlesque on Carmen is one of Chaplin's most complex and ambitious efforts to date, starting off with a long back story, told through inter-titles, about the tragic love story of Carmen. <br /><br />Carmen is sent by a band of gypsies ('A band who put the GYP in gypsy.'), to seduce a Spanish officer so they can pull off their smuggling operation. It's a clever, Chaplinesque band of criminals, the leader of whom, Lillas Pastia, has 'spent 50 years learning to steal, thinking he might be offered a job in politics.' <br /><br />On a side note, I've seen some almost misogynistic messages and jokes in some of Chaplin's earlier work, but probably none quite as overt as in this one. Near the beginning of the movie, as the band of gypsies are traveling, there is a scene where the mules and women are loading, and an inter-title explains that 'the mules are the ones with long ears.' In case you couldn't tell, I guess. <br /><br />Chaplin plays the part of Don Jose, the hapless officer who is to be seduced by Carmen. He is described as 'a brave soldier and lover of women.' Not exactly a stretch for Chaplin who removed any doubt about his ability to play a convincing comic soldier a few years later in the brilliant Shoulder Arms. And of course, he didn't have to act about being a lover of women.<br /><br />What is different here, of course, is his polished military uniform and straight-backed disciplinary manner, interspersed, of course, with some of his traditional slap-stick moves. He strikes me as a little guy in a position of authority, struggling to maintain the respect of his subordinates by exerting a gruff, stolid exterior.<br /><br />Soon Carmen enters ('Loved by all men under the age of 96
'), and she immediately begins flirting with Charlie. I should mention that for a good majority of the movie, it is surprisingly faithful to the original story, which was full of jealousy and tragedy. Chaplin is strangely convincing as a jealous lover, able to evoke a jealous passion that I've never seen from him. There's at least one scene where he is genuinely a little scary. <br /><br />Chaplin has some great sight gags in the movie, like a hilarious table dance and some classic sword fighting near the end. And his boyish charm and the role of a soldier is also definitely a winning combination, although there is another peculiar stunt involving a group of men pushing a huge door back and forth that wasn't very effective to begin with but just kept going on and on and on, probably about five times longer than it was worth. Although it was interesting that when it finally fell over it clearly was revealed as a movie prop. I always appreciate such glimpses at the old movie sets.<br /><br />The end of the film is it's strongest part. It bears striking resemblance to Romeo and Juliet, but just when you think that Chaplin is going to conduct a major thematic experiment by diverging distantly from his traditional style, there is a hilarious twist that is as vintage Chaplin as anything I've ever seen. Nice work! | 0 |
Radio is a true story about a man who did what he felt, in his heart, was the right thing to do. The viewer will be compelled to wonder what he or she would have done. The adversity that coach Jones and Radio both faced was both tragic and predictable. People did not understand; nor did they want to understand. But in the end, the power of circumstance forced people to understand and appreciate so much more than they did before it happened. Radio is a mentally challenged youth who understands very little, besides three of the most important things the are too often forgotten as we mature: Intuition, compassion, and love. Coach Jones is a high school teacher who cannot ignore the plight of the underdog who is just trying to play a bad hand of cards in the best way that he knows how. It was sad the way coach Jones and Radio met. The practical joke that terrified the life out of Radio was enough to make you want to severely punish, not only the boys involved, but every boy who knew what was going on and did nothing about it. However, on the positive side of the scale, the incident led to a friendship that would influence so many lives in the kind of way that most of us believe only happens in the movies. This movie is a real life fairy tale and not to be missed. Ed Harris was his usual brilliance. Gooding was flawless. Radio is an inspiration. | 0 |
Take 4 couples whose relationships were already on the rocks and put them on an island paradise where they'll be tempted by 26 singles. This was the premise of the show, simple yet outrageous & funny. Leave it to Fox to throw morality out the window & let the debauchery flow. It was like a real-life version of Melrose Place. The good thing about the show is that it wasn't about people conniving & manipulating each other for a cash prize. It was about lust & temptation, pure and simple & the ultimate test for a relationship.<br /><br />People either loved the show or hated it. It was kind of like slowing down to look at a horrific traffic accident. You know you shouldn't watch, but you can't help but look. Drama aside, there was a lot of eye candy. | 0 |
Hitch is a light-hearted comedy that will entertain you with some fine performances. Will Smith turns in a believable performance as a cloak and dagger Date Doctor who must remain invisible to protect his clients and his profession. Smith was excellent, never schmaltzing it up too much.<br /><br />The best piece of acting goes to the actor (don't know name) playing this accountant who has fallen for this woman who is out of his league. This actor did an excellent job of character development as he listens to Smith's directions, but in the end, just can't help being who he really is.<br /><br />And in the end, that's the main message of this film. Be who you are in love, and you'll be OK.<br /><br />At the same time, Will Smith meets this attractive lady and the Date Doctor gets a taste of his own medicine as he slowly falls for this woman. Don't know her name, but she was pretty good too.<br /><br />Overall, this was a delightful, light movie that is definitely worth seeing. | 0 |
My mom and I have just recently become addicted to this show, laughing our butts off! I've only seen about 10 episodes, and I am disappointed that I didn't pay attention to this hilarious series before they were canceled! The story line is very funny, the characters really have great personalities (or, not so great, but they're still funny!). I TiVO every episode of What I Like About You. Amanda Bynes and Jennie Garth, as well as all of the cast, never leave me bored while watching! There is some unsuitable language for children and some sexual content, but with a parental guide near, you shouldn't have too much problems. There is some sort of 'Friends' type of relationship that attracts me to this show. I really enjoy it. | 0 |
Some of those guys that watch films and complain about them for a living are forgetting something: DVD menu system. I tell you the people, I watched the main screen repeat in this one about 35 times. It was awesome. A cinematic tapestry of cascading brilliance that had me from where it was, which was the very beginning. Many times the sum and Bam! I was hooked. Over and over and over. And over.<br /><br />'Doot de doot, de doo de dodedo.' And that's just the soundtrack! <br /><br />I is laid aside in the bed, curled up with my Vaio. The rain is in the flat roof and tonight soft is again soft. The cat is comfortable and my ankle which crosses in me, is already rested. I popped in the DVD. I was mesmerized. Through the night. 'doot de doot, de doo de dodedo.'<br /><br />The Blob. See it. Steve Queen, two cops, and one girl in a dress. Two thumbs way up! | 0 |
'The Merchant of Venice' was one of Shakespeare's most popular plays during his own lifetime, but it has fallen on hard times during the 20th century because of its undeniably anti-Semitic content. The play has also been called schizoid in its careening from comedic scenes to tragic ones, leading some to say it is two plays trying to coexist as one. Bassanio (Joseph Fiennes, who played William Shakespeare in 'Shakespeare in Love') is in love with Portia (Lynn Collins, superb), but needs to borrow a considerable sum of money to woo her. He goes to his sometime gay lover Antonio (Jeremy Irons), who hasn't the funds on his person, but takes out a loan from the Jewish usurer Shylock (Al Pacino). Shylock is amused and offended that Antonio, who insults him for his religion, now comes to him for money, but he offers it, on the condition that the penalty for defaulting on the loan will be a pound of Antonio's flesh. Which is, of course, what happens. Bassanio and Portia offer Shylock considerably more then the original loan instead of the pound of flesh, but Shylock, distraught after his daughter leaves him and marries a Christian, refuses to take it. Portia, in a scene where the audience is never quite sure where to place its sympathies, deprives Shylock of what should be legally his, and then strips him of his wealth and religion. Shylock was originally essayed as a cartoonish villain, but modern actors and directors have turned him into a tragic figure, railing against the injustices of 16th century Venice. Al Pacino does an excellent job as Shylock, and Jeremy Irons is good as Antonio, but I think that Lynn Collins' work as Portia is the best part of the play. Portia is one of the few notable female roles in Shakespeare's canon, and Collins is wonderful in the part. Joseph Fiennes is more than a bit dull, however; I've never particularly enjoyed his often overwrought acting style. I give 'The Merchant of Venice' an 8/10. | 0 |
I think this movie deserves a 10 out of 10 because it is hilariously funny from start to finish. The plot is simple and straight forward but it keeps you watching and there are so many laughs that you really start to love it. When I went to see this movie I hadn't heard much about it and I didn't know what to expect. I thought it was going to be an old ladies' type of film like Calendar Girls or something but it took me completely by surprise. Even though I am still a teenager and the film was probably not directed at my age group, I still found it excellent and I think that people of all age groups would like it. I think it is a shame that it is not at all famous and it deserves more publicity so that more people will go and see it and realize what a great movie it is. | 0 |
Often laugh out loud, sometimes sad story of 2 working divorced guys -- Lemmon a neurotic clean 'house husband' and Matthau a slob sportswriter -- who decide to live together to cut down on expenses. <br /><br />Nicely photographed and directed. The script is very barbed -- that is, there's always more than one side to almost every line. Particularly funny scene involves 2 british sisters (Evans and Shelley) who seem amused by everything anyone says, but when Lemmon busts out his photos of kids and, yes, ex-wife-to-be, he has the girls sobbing along with him before Matthau can show up with the promised drinks!<br /><br />Very entertaining. | 0 |
OK, please believe me when I say that this is a terrible, terrible, sci-fi movie. Its done so poorly that much of the film plays out as unintentional surrealism and its absolutely a 100% waste of time. Awful, but somehow also deeply unfunny. I watched this as a double feature with 'Recon 2020: The Caprini Massacre' and although 'Battlespace' WAS an incredibly superior film, that's not saying much. The plot of 'Battlespace' is so completely convoluted that its impossible to follow. The narration is cryptic, often nonsensical, seemingly endless, and thoroughly exhausting. Literally half the film is duplicative scenes of the female lead, who looks like Brian Bosworth, walking through the desert. The movie actually starts out pretty cool, but then nosedives into pooptown and somehow continues to deteriorate, minute by minute. Absolutely horrible and truly an Absurdist Endurance Test. Zero stars. ---|--- Reviews by Flak Magnet | 1 |
Michael Caine might have tried to make a larger than life character to a successful degree but the whole storyline and Character's around him where not likable or interesting at all. It was all very Boring and somewhat predictable. Martin Landau , a favorite actor of mine had a nothing role.He was useless. Michael Caine got a bit irritating after a while and the film couldn't decide if it was a comedy or a serious thriller. Caine tries hard and good on him but i felt the direction and storyline let him down. Don't waste your time. It starts off well for the first 10 minutes and then that's about it. A film for Die Hard Caine Fans Only. Stay away from this One... | 1 |
I have read reviews of this film that found it 'disappointing' and 'confused'. I am at a loss to understand why this should be so. From the beginning I found it a remarkable experience and a complete joy to watch.<br /><br />Spoiler: The opening titles overlay a beautiful visual of the evolutionary process, and this introduces the story with a serene and sweeping style. The film isn't about the process itself though, it concerns Charles Darwin's struggle with his conscience, his love for his wife, his deceased daughter and his search for truth.<br /><br />The appearances of his daughter are the manifestations of a tormented mind that knows it has 'killed God'. The daughter is an adult, making adult comments about his work and torturing Darwin with personal doubts. Was he in some way responsible for her death? Husband and wife in real life Paul Bettany and Jennifer Connelly give truly wonderful performances as Charles and Emma Darwin, as does Martha West as Annie. Bettany's size and awkward gait give Darwin's character a genuine sense of reality, whilst Connelly seems very comfortable with her English accent and occasionally somewhat severe persona.<br /><br />It's easy to misunderstand the times in which this film resides. The grip that religion had on society and the inner struggles that a man like Darwin must have endured to seek the truth in what he witnessed. Science and religion have always been awkward bedfellows and although it didn't cost him his life, as it did with so many earlier men and women, science put a barrier between husband and wife, fact and faith. This film portrays that barrier supremely well.<br /><br />I give Creation ten stars, because I think it's beautiful, profound, superbly well acted and a genuine, no-extraneous-frills-required look at one of the world's true geniuses.<br /><br />What seems obvious to everyone today (well, almost everyone... see Bill Maher's wonderful 'Religulous') was hidden for millennia. The truth, once it was discovered, was undoubtedly painful for many. Creation examines that pain, and the realisation that we are all that we possess.<br /><br />A wonderful cinematic experience. | 0 |
I enjoyed Ramin Bahrani's Man Push Cart, and this film is equally good. This slice of life is almost a documentary about how life on the edges is lived.<br /><br />Alejandro Polanco and Isamar Gonzales do an excellent job as a 12-year-old brother and a 16-year-old sister who live in a small room over an auto shop. There are no parents; they are on their own surviving. Ali supplements his income by stealing auto parts, selling bootleg DVDs and selling candy on the subway. Izzie supplements her income working a food truck by selling herself. They are trying to make money to but their own truck.<br /><br />One is tempted to express outrage at the fact that these two children are left to fend on their own, and certainly one can be very upset that Izzie sells her body to willing truckers, but the fact is that this exists today in the world's richest country, not some underdeveloped land. Save the outrage and do something. | 0 |
Edge of Madness is a tale about a woman in the 1800's who gets hand-picked by dirty Scotsman who can't keep his penis in his pants. He just so happens to have a younger brother who is against rape and kills him, but continuously says it was an accident. This makes his wife go crazy, she gets delusional and she takes the fall because she loves George too much.<br /><br />Like I said, this type of thing has been done before. This is just more 'artistic' because it's Canadian and it's an indie production done on a low-budget with hardly known actors (except that one kid from Lassie, yea, he's in it). I dunno' whether this was going for Oscar bait, but it was sure as hell boring. And this is based on a 40 page short story. Half of that short story is incorporated into this flick, and I'm glad. Otherwise, I'd bore to death. Unfortunately, I had to watch it in my Media Fundamentals class, and I had an assignment on it. Read the short story and compare and contrast the flick to the story. BORING.<br /><br />You know, it's harder to answer movie questions when you don't like the movie. Ah well, I hope this is the last type of assignment me and my class get. For what it's worth, Annie Herron was totally hot, she had a nice, soft ass and I liked the nude parts of her in the movie.<br /><br />3/10 for boring, Oscar bait performance and graphic sexuality..plus nudity. | 1 |
I have to be 100% honest with you fellow IMDb users. I wanted to see this movie for a very long time only because of the poster. Doesn't Charlotte Gainsbourg looks extremely sexy and charming smiling that way? I'm in love with that woman! I got what I expected...but only half. This film should deliver expectations for those who enjoy all kinds of romantic comedies or stories involving intelligent humor and light dramatic situations.<br /><br />While I don't agree with another fellow IMDb user who states that the movie is overrated; I must admit that 'Préte-moi ta main' has plenty of flaws.<br /><br />My main problem with the film is the lack of on screen chemistry between the main characters. There isn't a single scene previous to the climax that shows the main characters sharing a moment 'of romance' or even a clue to suggest that they're interested in each other.<br /><br />In fact, the only scene were both share a moment is tremendously awkward (when both are in the couch) and does not help the audience understand about a possible love interest. I didn't buy the dinner sequence.<br /><br />Still, the movie delivers very funny moments and has a strong dialogs that support such an ingenuous premise. I mean with ingenuous that it would be very difficult to execute such a farse by a 43 year old man in these days.<br /><br />I understand it's a movie and that's why I accept it as a funny situation. Plus, the humor is versatile. There are moments involving S&M, funny lines with Chabat's best friend, some lesbian references, funny situations involving the family women, and more.<br /><br />Charlotte Gaionsbourg's performance is top notch and she's by far the reason to watch the movie. She's funny, sexy, looks very thin and fine, and demonstrates she's a versatile and talented actress who can pull out a comedic and dramatic performance in sheer brilliance.<br /><br />Alain Chabat is a fine actor and gives a very decent performance. I think the supporting cast do what they can.<br /><br />The score, art direction, and other technical aspects are really good and give a dynamic look to the film.<br /><br />Those who enjoy this kind of cinema should be pleased after the ending credits. It's a good example of feel good cinema. | 0 |
On Halloween a town is terrorized by a lunatic with a big pumpkin for a head. Bad acting compromised mostly of local talent and laughable special effects makes this one baaaaad. B-Movie Queen Linnea Quigley looks embarrassed to be a part of this one and even her considerable charm which has helped so many of her other films can't help this one. Pass this cheesy flick if you are looking for a good Halloween horror film and rent 'Night of the Demons' which also stars Ms. Quigley. | 1 |
This odd little film starts out with the story of Bruno (Alex Linz) in a catholic school who has no friends and gets beat up everyday. He likes to wear dresses and his obese mother Angela who is a dressmaker doesn't think their is anything wrong with what her son likes. Angela complains to Mother Superior (Kathy Bates) but gets ignored and as the two of them walk back to they're car they are harassed by the other kids and are pelted with eggs. Bruno's father Dino (Gary Sinise) is divorced from Angela and is totally disgusted by his son being a sissy and practically disowns him. Bruno meets a new student at school named Shawniqua (Kiami Davael) who is a free spirit and dresses like Annie Oakley with cap pistols. Angela has a heart attack and Bruno's grandmother steps in to take care of him when Dino refuses.<br /><br />The film starts out with a very hard and unsympathetic look at all the characters involved. Angela has a great deal to do with Bruno wearing dresses as she practically encourages him. Dino was told when he was a young boy by his mother that he was a sissy because he liked opera and now he refuses to help Bruno when he needs it. The catholic school that Bruno attends is very unruly and all the kids run rampant and even call Shawniqua the 'N' word. Once Shirley MacLaine steps in the film shifts and becomes more family oriented (So to speak). ****SPOILER ALERT**** The ending after the spelling bee is incredibly contrived and 'feel good'. Hugs and cheers for Bruno as reporters follow him and take his picture for their papers. All the while Shirley MacLaine is acting like the 'tough old broad' who snaps at everyone. There is one thing about MacLaine's character in the film that no one has mention in these comments and it has to do with the masculine nature of her. I think the character of Helen might be a lesbian! She's very tough and strong and at one point in the film she shares a shot of whiskey with Bruno and smokes a cigar at the same time. I don't remember anyone in the film mentioning who her husband was or if she was ever married at all! This is why I think her character might be gay. Lots of other good actors appear in the film as well. Joey Lauren Adams, Jennifer Tilly, Brett Butler, Gwen Verdon and Lainie Kazan all should have taken a better look at the script before they signed on. I guess when they heard that MacLaine was directing that it would be an honor to be part of it. Very difficult to feel any remorse or understanding towards any of the characters and the subject matter is probably impossible for most to relate to. The actors are not bad but what exactly was MacLaine aiming for? Tolerance towards a young boy who wants to wear dresses and freedom of expression? We get that in the first 10 minutes, the rest of the time I was trying not to cringe. | 1 |
This was a mish mash of a film that started out going nowhere, got lost on the way then suddenly found a plot in the last 5 minutes when the title character is FINALLY introduced. There were so many ugly, mutton-chopped guys in this film, I lost track of who was the owner and who were the overseers. I have a theory about the casting though; all the bad guys were played by ugly actors (and one ugly actress) and all the good guys/victims were played by beautiful actors. Indeed the actors who played the ultimate victims, the slaves, were gorgeous as was the innocent priest's daughter, while the plantation owner, his minipulative mistress and his overseers were pretty hard on the eyes. On purpose? You make the call.<br /><br />I hung in there till the end and some others might be able to make it as well. If you just want to look at bare breasts, there are plenty of them here and if you have a slave/master fetish then you'll love this film. Otherwise, watch it once, vomit, shower and never speak of it to anyone. | 1 |
'Wicked Little Things' really separates itself from other zombie movies.First off, all of the zombies in the movie don't exactly starting biting at you and tearing your flesh apart with their bare hands.They kill you with either a pickax or shovel and eat you after wards.Second, they can't die.In most zombie movies, you can shoot a zombie in the head and kill them, but these simply won't die.Third, which is the biggest reason why this movie separates itself, all of the zombies are children.How did they die exactly to become zombies? They were working in a coal mine when suddenly they were all killed in a collapse.Now they wander the forest carrying their pickaxes and shovels, waiting for someone to come by so they can kill them and eat them.Oh, they also come out at night.Yep, only at night.That makes the movie even more fun then it would be if they came out in the morning.Despite all of the violent and gory mayhem in this movie, 'Wicked Little Things' is a great choice if you're looking for a movie about zombie children.Don't expect anything great like 'Dawn of the Dead' or 'Land of the Dead', but do expect lots of gore and violence that makes this movie a real zombie fan pleaser.Everyone give Scout Taylor-Compton from Rob Zombie's 'Halloween' a big hand for delivering a great performance like the one she did in 'Halloween'.She really needs to start starring in more horror movies. | 0 |
Rumor has it that when the NASA Technical Advisors to this film were asked to keep the picture believable, they laughed for several hours. After all, unless you are a politician or work/crew the shuttle, you are not going to get in the shuttle. Furthermore, Space (Cadet) Camp is in Alabama, not Florida.<br /><br />The truth is everyone on Earth will win multi-billion dollar lottery prizes before the events depicted in this film ever become possible. This film was meant for kids, and had to have been written by one, because they are not aware of the myriad restrictions and requirements regarding access to KSC/CCAFS.<br /><br />This is the most useless film of all time, and it was a well deserved flop. | 1 |
A painfully protracted, maudlin and predictable drama, my twenty-fifth Sidney Lumet film, Garbo Talks, gets filed precipitously on the low quality end of my quest.<br /><br />The film documents a harried young working man named Gilbert (Ron Silver), who is son to Estelle Rolle (Anne Bancroft), eccentric, feisty and above all, an obsessive fan of Greta Garbo. When Estelle becomes afflicted with a brain tumor, her son decides to go on an obsessive quest of his own: track down Greta Garbo, and bring her to his mother.<br /><br />Anne Bancroft is in full-on, chew-the-scenery Auntie-Mame mode here, that kind of feisty ol' gal that film loves, where she mouths off to people, and stands up for her ideals, and ends up in jail all the time. She stands outside of the film as an obvious artificial construct, and every scene with her is yuk-yuk lame; every note striking false. The rest of the characters are equally as one-dimensional, but tremendously less-interesting. Ron Silver is flat as can be, and his attempted love triangle is as telegraphed as anything else in the film: He is dating affluent Lisa Rolfe (Carrie Fisher), but becomes smitten with oddball co-worker Jane Mortimer (Catherine Hicks), and I called every scene three scenes before they happen.<br /><br />That's the other problem. One-dimensional characters can survive if they are posited in an intriguing and captivating story, but there's simply nothing here. The film's pace is glacial, resplendent with extraneous material that strengthens absolutely nothing, and when the film does begin to follow a linear plot, it's both plodding and uninteresting. There are plenty of guest stars, so to speak, including Harvey Fierstein as a gay New Yorker (imagine that) in yet another highly inessential scene.<br /><br />Late in the film, it attempts to make a halfway-decent statement on the nature of idolatry and its role in our lives, but by that time, none of the characters exist as real people, and the film had bored me into submission, so it functions as a case of far-too-little, far-too-late. The film is my twenty-fifth Lumet-directed film, making him easily my most-viewed director, but outside of a couple egregious misses (A Stranger Among Us, anyone?), he hasn't plumbed the painfully uninteresting depths of Garbo Talks.<br /><br />{Grade: 4.5/10 (C/C-) / #21 (of 24) of 1984 / #23 of 25 Lumet films} | 1 |
In a future where an industrious travel agency uses time travel technology to send wealthy clients back in time for explorations to the age of dinosaurs, the future is inexplicably changed when one of their clients breaks the cardinal rule not to stray off the path. In an attempt to fix the damage done, a seasoned time scout (Edward Burns) teams with the inventor of the technology (Catherine McCormack).<br /><br />The premise is pretty good and engaging. It may have a few flaws in it but it could still make for an interesting movie. Unfortunately, A Sound of Thunder fails to really hook the audience in. It suffers from a number of problems and it takes itself way too seriously so it's hard to actually have any fun while watching the movie. Personally, I thought the script was the film's biggest problem. The were more plot holes than expected and the movie was kind of lazy in explaining things. I was hoping for a more in depth look into 'the butterfly effect' but the film was more escapist fun than anything else. That's okay with me since 90 minutes of mindless fun is still a nice way to spend an evening. However, all the fun this film offered was unintentional and lame. There were a few scenes that kept me entertained but I was pretty bored.<br /><br />The acting isn't much better since most of them seem more interested in a paycheck than anything else. The only person that gave a good performance was Ben Kingsley. He kept the first half of the film enjoyable and he seemed to be having the most fun as well. Edwards Burns was pretty pale and bland. I don't think he has what it takes to be a leading man. However, he could make for a decent supporting actor. Catherine McCormack was just really annoying and not very believable. I haven't really seen her in anything else but she could have potential. The rest of the actors also give bad performances though most of them are relatively unknown so it shouldn't effect their careers too much.<br /><br />Looking at the message boards, most people are complaining about the special effects. There's no way to sugarcoat them and they are terrible. All the dinosaurs look really bad. The Gibbon-lizards (part monkey, part dino), while a creative idea, become stale after awhile and they are most likely to encourage laughter rather than fear. The green screen work just looks awful and unprofessional. I was really wondering what director Peter Hyams was trying to accomplish here. He fails to deliver the suspense, action and thrills and makes this movie a long sit. For the most part though, the film is pretty harmless and it's far from the worst movie of 2005. Hopefully they will remake this film in the future. There is potential in this project but for now this is the best we got. In the end, unless curiosity gets the better of you, there is no reason to see A Sound of Thunder. Rating 4/10 | 1 |
This is one of the most irritating, nonsensical movies I've ever had the misfortune to sit through. Every time it started to look like it might be getting good, out come more sepia tone flashbacks, followed by paranoid idiocy masquerading as social commentary. The main character, Maddox, is a manipulative, would-be rebel who lives in a mansion seemingly without any parents or responsibility. The supporting cast are all far more likeable and interesting, but are unfortunately never developed. Nor do we ever really understand the John Stanton character supposedly influencing Maddox to commit the acts of rebellion. At one point, I thought 'Aha! Maddox is just nuts and is secretly making up all those communications from escaped mental patient Stanton! Now we're getting somewhere!' but of course, that ends up to not be the case and the whole movie turns out to be pointless, both from Maddox's perspective and the viewer's. Where's Ferris Bueller when we need him? | 1 |
It just goes to show how wrong you can be. I had not expected to like this film. I was disappointed by both the Kill Bill films (although i preferred the second) and Death Proof (although it was better in the shorter cut of the double-bill release). I love Reservoir Dogs, admire Pulp Fiction and think that Jackie Brown is Tarantino's most mature piece of film-making - technically his most superior - including the last great performance elicited from Robert De Niro. Since then it seems to me while his films have been okay (i haven't hated them) he has been treading water in referential, reverential, self-indulgent juvenilia.<br /><br />Then i read the script last year for Inglourious Basterds - and i hated it! Sure it had some typical QT flourishes and the opening scene was undeniably powerful. There were a couple of great characters. But on page it was more juvenile rubbish, largely ruined by the largess of the uninteresting Basterds of the title. It made me seriously contemplate not seeing the film. The trailers did nothing to convince me. I only changed by mind when i had the opportunity to see the film with a Tarantino Q&A following in London. I figured it would be worth enduring to hear him in Q&A as i know from interviews how entertaining he can be in person.<br /><br />So little was i prepared for the sheer exuberant fun and brilliance of Inglourious Basterds.<br /><br />Easily Mr Tarantino's best work since Jackie Brown it is a triumph.<br /><br />Yes the references are there but they do not interfere with the story, they are not the driving force. Yes Eli Roth is stunt casting but he works fine, with little to do but look aggressive, and does nothing to hurt the film as i had feared. While i admired Mr Tarantino for using stuntwoman Zoe Bell as herself in Death Proof in order to amp-up the exhilaration of the major stunt scene her lack of any acting ability in a key role was a problem for the film. The same could be said of Tarantino's own appearances in several films, especially Robert Rodriguez's From Dusk Till Dawn, which Tarantino wrote.<br /><br />What really makes this work is how BIG it is. The spaghetti western vibe to much of the style, dialogue and performances is wonderfully over the top without descending too far into the cartoon quality of Kill Bill. The violence is so big. The audacity so big. Brad Pitt is so big! In the trailers the Hitler moment and Pitt's performance bothered me but in the context of the film they are hilarious. Pitt is actually brilliant here, exactly what he needs to be. He is Mifune's blustering samurai in Yojimbo, he is Robards Cheyenne from Once Upon a Time in the West, there is a very James Coburn vibe to him, and of course a suitably Lee Marvin edge.<br /><br />Christoph Waltz (who i did not previously known) and Melanie Laurent (who i first noticed in a brilliant French-language British short film by Sean Ellis) are sensational and i expect to see both used a lot more in the future. Tarantino has clearly not lost his eye for casting, which seemed to desert him in Death Proof. Waltz is equally large in his performance. Chilling, yet theatrical. He is Fonda from OUATITW, Van Cleef from Good, The Bad & the Ugly. And Laurent is suitably Cardinale innocence but tough, a fighter. They both dazzle here.<br /><br />That every member of the cast gets the fun to be had from what they are doing while not indulging themselves in just having fun and trying to get laughs helps tremendously. The laughs - and there are loads - come organically. Only Mike Myers comes close to tipping the wink and pushing it too far but his scene is reigned in just enough - with the help of a fantastic Michael Fassbender who seems pulled directly from the mold of Attenborough's Great Escape leader.<br /><br />All the actors shine and Tarantino throws in wonderful flourishes, but ones that work with the story. The introduction of Schweiger's Hugo Stiglitz is a riot. After a sensational slow-burn opening and a glorious intro to those inglourious Basterds the pace never lets up and over two and half hours flies by.<br /><br />It also looks beautiful, marking this as a return to real film-making rather than just self-indulgent silliness. The musical choices, as always, are inspired from Morricone on.<br /><br />The film is audacious and hilarious. After a summer when nearly every film has disappointed me it came as a huge surprise that the real fun and entertaining, but also involving and impressive film should be this one, when i would never have believed it from script form. Welcome back QT. | 0 |
Just watched on UbuWeb this early experimental short film directed by William Vance and Orson Welles. Yes, you read that right, Orson Welles! Years before he gained fame for radio's 'The War of the Worlds' and his feature debut Citizen Kane, Welles was a 19-year-old just finding his muse. Besides Vance and Welles, another player here was one Virginia Nicholson, who would become Orson's first wife. She plays a woman who keeps sitting on something that rocks back and forth courtesy of an African-American servant (Paul Edgerton in blackface). During this time a man (Welles) keeps passing her by (courtesy of the scene constantly repeating). I won't reveal any more except to say how interesting the silent images were as they jump-cut constantly. That's not to say this was any good but it was fascinating to watch even with the guitar score (by Larry Morotta) added in the 2005 print I watched. Worth a look for Welles enthusiasts and anyone with a taste of the avant-garde. | 1 |
The acting was flat (at least none of the actors sounded like they'd just got the script that morning) and the film and sound quality made me think of the 70s movie of the week bombs. The only thing that told me that it was indeed not a 70s movie of the week was the reference to DNA testing. But for me, being Eastern Orthodox, the most egregious thing about this....film.....was the total Romishness of the religion. Romania is 88% Orthodox but you'd never know that from this movie: Father Soren is Irish. And I'd have known this even if I hadn't seen the actor play the Irish pub keep, Michael Sullivan in Star Trek: Voyager's 'Fairhaven' episodes. The Bishop was wearing Roman vestments (and for the record not even Orthodox bishops wear their vestments unless they're saying the liturgy, especially if they live in a monastery). About the only non-Romish paraphernalia I saw was the 3-bar cross on the door of the church, and even then I had to squint to see it. The first reviewer said the producers had done their research. Well, if that's true they messed up on the religious aspect of the film. | 1 |
For Urban Cowboy John Travolta plays one of the stronger alpha males ever portrayed on the big screen. He's a decent enough young kid who leaves his parent's homestead and strikes out for the big city of Dallas where his uncle Barry Corbin has promised to find him work in the petrochemical industry. In 1980 that was beginning to boom and Texas was definitely a growing place in the USA.<br /><br />Travolta does a good job in making we the audience care about his character who when you come right down to it is a sexist pig. He meets and marries Debra Winger who's from the same background, but she's got some ideas that women should not be shadows of their men. And when she beats him at Gilley's mechanical bull, a man's game, that's it for him.<br /><br />Scott Glenn who's an ex-convict is working at Gilley's and this film was his breakout role. He's a real snake in Urban Cowboy, he gets Travolta's goat with a mere look and he moves in on Winger. Travolta in turn takes up with rich girl, Madolyn Smith Osborne who's slumming at Gilley's. <br /><br />Despite the characters, Urban Cowboy was really one gigantic commercial for the self-styled biggest honky tonk in the world. Gilley's is no longer there in the suburban Texas community of Pasadena, but the memories do live on. And the best thing about Urban Cowboy is the wonderful score of country/western songs that were featured in the film. I'm not sure if some of the songs were not written specifically for Urban Cowboy, but it's the only reason I can think of why the Motion Picture Academy ignored the musical aspects of this film. I especially liked Johnny Lee's Looking For Love, if it was specifically written for this film, it's a disgrace that it wasn't nominated for Best Song.<br /><br />I liked Debra Winger's character best in this film. She doesn't lose a trace of femininity, but she stands up to Travolta and does it in style. And this review is dedicated to that yet as unknown woman who will one day be the first woman bull-rider in the Professional Bull Riders. | 0 |
I missed the beginning but I did see most of it. A friend got it on DVD in the cheap room at FYE.<br /><br />The skits are all very short, and yet most of them are still too long. The majority of them, they seem to have forgotten to have something funny! Quite a lot of racist/sexist/'homophobic' humor in it, skits based on stereotypes, or skits which use racist terms for people.<br /><br />I'm trying to remember anything I thought was funny in it, and I'm having trouble.... The logo for the Tunnel Vision network is a lipsticked mouth with an eyeball in it. The mouth opens and closes over the eye like eyelids. Kind of creepy.<br /><br />What a disappointment. Most of the actors went on to better things, and it's lucky this bomb didn't hold them back. | 1 |
The time I wasted seeing this movie, I demand back! I felt sick afterward, but not because it touched me in any way. It's pretentious, trying to get the audience to feel bad for the people involved, but I couldn't care less. The characters are soulless and stupid. You don't get an explanation for some of the scenes and it doesn't leave any thoughts afterward to come up with your own explanation. All of the students in the movie has issues, but since you don't feel for them you don't believe their problems.<br /><br />If I could write better in English I'd never stop. But I can't, so, I'll stop now.<br /><br />Don't watch this. | 1 |
This, I think, is one of the best pictures ever made. It's so pure and beautiful. It really touched me. I'm glad David Lynch proved that a film doesn't necessarily need SFX, a twisting, complicated plot or flashy images. Way to go,Dave. I'd like to see Cronenberg do that! | 0 |
I hated this show when I was a kid. That was back in the day when kids show characters actually had accents, not just the bland, generic, General American Dialect we're used to. Jack Wild had a British accent and Pufnstuf's was southern. Like one of the others mentioned, though, I never quite understood what the deal was with the witch wanting the flute. That always seemed odd to me, probably because the flute just annoyed me and I wouldn't have gone to any trouble to take it away!<br /><br />Just a comment on the similarity of Pufnstuf to early 70s McDonalds commercials that others have mentioned: Pufnstuf ripped off McDonalds. At the height of McDonalds popularity, the TV show (or rather, their creators) sought to license McDonalds characters for their show, but when McDonalds declined the TV show changed the characters slightly and passed it as their own. They even hired former employees of McDonalds ad agency and the voice actors to make the TV shows. McDonalds sued and won. Search for Pufnstuf McDonaldland lawsuit and you'll find plenty of articles about it. | 1 |
'The Haunted World of Edward D. Wood, Jr.' is the definitive documentary on the life of the man who brought us such movies as 'Glen or Glenda', 'Bride of the Monster', and, of course, 'Plan 9 from Outer Space'. This exquisite film far exceeds where other documentaries, such as 'Look Back in Angora' and 'The Plan 9 Companion', failed. It rounds up his surviving entourage, many of whom have passed away since filming, and gives an honest examination of Ed Wood and his work. Nostalgic in the fact that it looks back at the darker corner of yesteryear Hollywood, sentimental in its treatment of the director (down to the haunting music), this documentary is an absolute must-see for anyone who loves the director who so failed in his day. The entire two hours of the film lovingly and retrospectively pieces together Ed's life and untimely death for the viewer. Best watched at 3 am while wearing an angora sweater. | 0 |
This is the kind of film one watches in gape-jawed, horrified silence, and yet continues to watch, mesmerized, as if watching a train wreck in slow motion. And yet, in the back of your mind, thoughts are churning: 'Who on EARTH green-lighted this garbage?'<br /><br />Some of the preceding user comments say things like, 'A good way to introduce children to Laurel and Hardy' -- an insult to children everywhere. That children would need some sort of training plan to learn to love slapstick comedy shows a profound misunderstanding of the nature of children the world over. Others have commented on the faithfulness of the two stars' characterizations of Laurel and Hardy to which I would respond: so WHAT? One would think that the rash of movie BOMBS based on beloved series (Rocky and Bullwinkle, Avengers, Flipper, Mod Squad, ad nauseam) would have taught Hollywood that there are some things that simply can't be recreated. The films of Laurel and Hardy are readily available on video: why bother with this?<br /><br />As for F. Murray Abraham, a fine actor of stage and screen... well, all I can say is, he must have been in trouble with the IRS.<br /><br />Run, don't walk, away from the television if this trash comes on! | 1 |
I should have gone without seeing the movie after reading the review here. I saw the whole movie by fast forwarding and ended in 25 minutes. though its a low budget movie it could have been made better. <br /><br />The movie starts more like a thriller and in few minutes it tells you that you should switch off immediately. And why was the movie named 'crash landing' when it was landed so well in such a bad climate. <br /><br />Without any acting, all the characters where just moving or doing like kids.<br /><br />And should not forget to comment on the joker - the main hijacker who would have been more suitable if this movie was a full time comedy. | 1 |
'Creepshow 2' is little more than a pale imitation of the original, designed with little purpose other than to cash in on the name of the previous film. It even amplifies the flaws of its predecessor, which was often predictable and heavy-handed. Still, the first time around, there were enough thrills to make up for it's periodic lulls, resulting in an uneven but overall fairly entertaining effort. The sequel has few worthwhile moments, so the transparency of the stories are even more apparent. Once in a while, it delivers, but most of the time, it just lingers there.<br /><br />As in the original, all the stories revolve around the common theme of revenge and just desserts. A wooden Indian comes to life, wreaking vengeance upon the killers of its owner. Teenagers are devoured by an aquatic monster. A hitchhiker returns from the dead to pursue a careless motorist. None of these premises are inherently bad in themselves, but they are utterly lacking in inspiration. There are few surprises and no scares. This a textbook example of unmotivated, by-the-numbers filmmaking. It doesn't help that this cheap-looking movie suffers from a flat directorial style, although to be honest, there wasn't much to work with. In the end, the second story comes off best, but not by much. <br /><br />For the most part, the performances are okay at best. George Kennedy, as the ill-fated general store owner, does an adequate, if not particularly inspired job. Dorothy Lamour, on the other hand, is quite good as the guilt-ridden motorist, evoking sympathy for her plight despite the predictable, redundant material. However, most of the characters are pretty thin overall. <br /><br />One would think that 'Creepshow 2' would have turned out better. George Romero, who directed the original, returned to pen the screenplay, based on more of Stephen King's stories. Makeup effects artist Tom Savini turns in some good, gory work. So why is the film a letdown? I guess Romero didn't really want to make a second film, but was forced to do so for financial reasons. It was a decade of horror sequels, clones, rip-offs, and whatnot, so this one was certainly inevitable. I can imagine the guy writing the script in a hurry, picking up his paycheck, and running off. I guess he had to do what was necessary to get his own projects financed; we can't blame him.<br /><br />Rating: *1/2 (out of ****)<br /><br />Released by New World Pictures | 1 |
No matter how you look at this movie, it is just awful.<br /><br />If you view it as a horror, then it is an unscary movie with the monsters being hand puppets.<br /><br />If you look at it as a comedy, then you will notice most of the humor falls flat and is just lame.<br /><br />If it is a romance you will wonder why a guy would stay with such a B**ch!<br /><br />If you look at it as an action you can't really pull for the whiny hero.<br /><br />As you can see this movie just fails to deliver anything remotely entertaining. As mentioned the monsters are obvious puppets and this film was another attempt at a Gremlins type movie. This however has the worst looking monsters of that genre. Critters looked pretty good, so did the Ghoulies, heck even the puppets from the Munchies looked better than these. The characters in this film are thouroughly unlikable. The hero is a whiney security guard, his girlfriend is always complaining, they have a tramp friend who has a jerk military boyfriend, and another friend who is a spaz. At one point in the movie the hero and the military guy fight with rakes...this movie is just utterly stupid. I like the scene when they are in the dreaded club scum (which is obviously not a club, but more likely a diner) and the hero tells the waitress that none of them are 21. Give me a break, I am 25 and I look younger than any of them. | 1 |
There really is only one reason to watch this barely adequate and utterly predictable movie about an uptight chef Kate Armstrong (Catherine Zeta Jones) whose life changes when she inherits her orphaned niece Zoe (Abigail Breslin) after her sister is killed in a car wreck. And that reason is to watch Aaron Eckhart (Nick) who, with his floppy haircut and appealingly laddish attitude, looks good enough to slap between two slices of organic Pannini and eat with an olive oil and balsamic vinaigrette dip and a few finely diced sun dried tomatoes. He reminds me of Sean Bean. The thought that he might take his shirt off really was the only thing that kept me awake until the end. He removed his apron petulantly several times, but to my disappointment, never went further.<br /><br />I can't be too critical because I was watching it on pay per view at home, so it hadn't cost me the price of two movie tickets at least, and I was brought up to be grateful for small mercies. But really, this is Rom Com at its most formulaic. Zeta Jones gives a very flat, monotonous performance, she seemed utterly lacking in passion, (possibly due to the amount of time she apparently spent in the cold store at the restaurant? Thirty takes in there can't have been fun) and her face barely changed expression throughout the whole movie. Abigail Breslin was pretty good as the niece, she's such an appealing little girl that it's quite impossible to criticize her, and anyway I loved her in Little Miss Sunshine. Patricia Clarkson is always good value and I can't really fault her performance as the restaurant owner, because she seemed very underused, given what a good actor she is and how little she had to do here. But the whole thing is just so clichéd, much of the dialog banal, and the outcome so obvious. This is the cinematic equivalent of paint by numbers, and Zeta Jones and Eckhart generate little heat on screen.<br /><br />Nick likes Italian food (doubtless indicating his burning inner passion) and cooks to the sound of Puccini. His appearance in Kate's kitchen at 22 Bleecker (the restaurant's name) predictably ruffles her feathers but his uncanny ability to bond with her niece by cooking pizza and building a Bedouin tent in the living room, brings Kate around and, despite a few stumbles along the way, she ends up giving him her prized possession. No, not her honour. But her recipe for saffron sauce.<br /><br />I'm being very unfair here, aren't I? I mean Rom Com is Rom Com, and we all know what we are letting ourselves in for when we sign up. But does it always have to be so mind numbingly dull? | 1 |
The only pure life, is one that ends with a signature in blood.<br /><br />So says Mishima anyway, a young sheltered boy who becomes a celebrity author. The life of one of Japans most celebrated literary voices, is told from three perspectives, his life just before he and four members of his private army take over a Japanese military base and commit ritual suicide(shown in color), flashbacks(shown in black and white), and scenes from his novels(shown in a kind of dreamy Technicolor set design somewhere between traditional Noh Theater and 'the Wizard Of Oz'. These stories are often told at the same time, but are edited to reinforce, the slow fusing of Mishima's life with his fictions, until the end(or the beginning) when like the ancient samurai he so admires, he will be at a balance of pen and sword (when his words and actions are the same, and he is a full and 'pure' being).<br /><br />Paul Schrader wrote the screen play for 'Taxi Driver', and directed 'Cat People'(a bizarre erotic horror film, which left strange impressions on me as a boy), and in Mishima, he comes closest to making a really excellent film.<br /><br />Whats interesting is to watch the poet, the homosexual, the shy and awkward man with a low body image who overstates his Tuberculosis to get of of WW2 (of which he seems forever ashamed), become a body building, samurai obsessed, a-sexual, media phenomena, all the while still writing prolific amounts of novels, plays, and short stories.<br /><br />A short and sweet version is to say Mishima has no father, and becomes obsessed with masculinity, beauty, sex and self destruction, in some tragic attempt to feel connected to something bigger than himself, that he was always missing. Watching him with his fellow suicidal cadets, you see him happy, delivering his big paternal speech, giving orders, and loving the control...until the speech itself, the point where pen and sword meet? Of course, this ignores the subtlety of the story telling craft here which makes this transformation so natural and remarkable. <br /><br />Though the story, fascinating at times, really isn't this movies greatest success. The cinematography, performances, editing,music(by Philip Glass), and set designs, are really what make this worth seeing, and more than a traditional bio-pic.<br /><br />One day I will pick, up a Mishima book, he does seem to have an ear for prose, and for staging ideas, but for now I'm satisfied with the film.<br /><br />Those interested in Japanese Literature, and post-war culture, should check out. Fans of inventive combinations of facts and fictions, should enjoy as well. | 0 |
When Las Vegas came out one review described this show as, quote 'A harmless bit of fluff'. Needless to say that after seeing a dozen or so episodes I think this description is right on the money. An assortment of pretty boys and strutting model types play out an assortment of paper thin stories while all the time trying to pretend they are serious business people. One dimensional characters, in a one dimensional setting, pursuing one dimensional stories. That pretty much sums up Vegas. I still watch from time to time to see if the show is trying to evolve and take itself a little serious but alas to no avail. So far. | 1 |
here in Germany it was only shown on TV one time. today, as everything becomes mainstream, it's absolute impossible, to watch a film like this again on the screen. maybe it's the same in USA, or especially GB. The Message is a brutal truth : Find friends to make your ideas come a bit closer to reality, or you become a loser, if not an asshole instead.<br /><br />The whole film is not particularly as simple, as it may seem here. Every little scene, every sentence, every behavior of the characters show a sharp look at what could happen, when one person is not accepted in a sadistic crowd, which calls itself normal.<br /><br />Very well played by all this is a must seen. Who is the main character? John (not Cox, folks, remember ;-) ore Niles (who still is Bimbo) Decide and you will get the plot as it is intended.<br /><br />A bitter look at what society becomes in a repressive system. Kind of Salingers Catcher in the rye and Goldings Lord of the flies thought to the very end.<br /><br />The Final maybe change your own mind. Word | 0 |
seriously people need to lighten up and just accept that funny is funny, and this movie is f**king hilarious. Better than the first and Knoxville really grew a pair for this film and did way more crazier stunts then the first. If Ebert and Roper(not saying that I'm a huge fan of theirs) can look past the pure idiocy of this film enough to give it 2 thumbs up then i think other people can to. I wasn't sure what to expect from this but i was floored and it is rare when a sequel is better than the original. This new one I believe exceeds the first big time. so do what i did,just relax kick back try not to barf at some points and laugh your ass off. | 0 |
Although a made for cable film by HBO, it is an enjoyable movie and a fascinating look at the back-stabbing and double-dealing world of television. Allowing the viewer to peek behind the scenes of the so-called late night talk show wars in the early 90s, as Jay Leno and David Letterman competed for the coveted position as host of the Tonight Show. Kathy Bates gives a bravo performance as Leno's mercurial manager Helen Kushnick and one can feel empathy for what Leno/Letterman endured at the hands of tv executives. It is just as timely now, considering the recent events involving the failed attempt by ABC to replace Nightline with Letterman. No matter how many times I have seen this film, I still find it as much a pleasure to watch as I did when it first aired. If this should ever be released on DVD, I would certainly add it to my collection. | 0 |
This covers just about every area of the creative process, and goes through the three stages chronologically, with the main focus squarely placed on the production. There are documentaries that go into more detail, and cover the other two groups better. This consists of artwork, behind-the-scenes footage, clips of the movie, and many interviews. With a running time that comes in at just over two hours the audience is entitled to a lot of information, given that this is nearly the same length that the film itself is. It could be argued that a lot of the time is spent on the people, with the craft and the result of their collaborative efforts coming in second. This is well-done, with tight editing. It gets into the technology some, and reveals how certain effects were achieved. This spends a lot of time on the physical training, in preparation for the fighting and such. You do get nice candid shots of the people, crew and actors alike. The Ultimate Matrix 10-Disc Set of this also holds nearly three hours of music, in a simple system, with individual track selection and a Play All function, about 38 minutes worth of BTS material in addition to the title itself, in various featurettes. The original release, however, has several very brief extras, including clips of the making of the sequels, a preview of The Animatrix and Yuen Wo Ping's Blocking Tapes(a complete run-through of a couple of the biggest martial arts sequences, with stunt performers and almost the exact cinematography, with the same shots and angles of those bits in the finished silver screen effort). The language is quite strong, but rather infrequent, nearly non-existent. I recommend either version of this to anyone who enjoys the concept, and/or wants to know about how they put the first one together. 7/10 | 0 |
Let start off by first saying that I have been a punk fan most of my life. I always kind of had a lack of respect for the LA scene of the early 80's, which The Decline of Western Civilization documents, with the exception of X and Black Flag, being more of New York and English punk guy. After I saw this movie that completely changed. The people shown may look like a bunch of idiotic, strung out kids who think they might accomplish something beyond street-Cree through their lifestyles, but it is a great display of hedonism at it's best, coupled with some fun, loud rock n roll. One of the best scenes, and actually most insightful, is the interview with Claude Bessy of Catholic Discipline, or 'Kick-Boy' as he was known to Slash magazine readers. Originally from France, he rants about punk like a dirty old Frenchman and clues in viewers to many aspects of the punk, or DIY, attitude to music, politics, and life in general. Darby Crash of the Germs comes off as a complete idiot most of the time, but the Germs' performance of Manimal is pretty decent, complete with a young Pat Smear. Black Flag's performance with Chavo Pederast on vocals (it was filmed a couple of years before Henry Rollins joined the band) is decent, and X and FEAR give the best performances in the movie. Look out for the interviews with the young punk kids. You'll hear some of the funniest things you have ever heard in a documentary. Highly recommended. | 0 |
If you want to know what kind of music white people listened to in 1974, this is the movie for you. But you'll have to listen to a lot of flutes and violins, too (see my remarks on My Girl 1 for the reference).<br /><br />Indulgent admission: I approached My Girl 2 with cynicism and annoyance, having just viewed its predecessor. But as an adoptee preparing to finally set upon a search for my birthmother, My Girl 2 made me look, with its theme of searching for mother.<br /><br />Put another way, anything I liked about My Girl 2 had nothing whatsoever to do with My Girl 2, but relating to a protagonist who asks, like so many adoptees, 'who's my mama'? And if there are home movies of my mom in an acting troupe, I'll be sure to make my own movie about it.<br /><br />People are listless. Movies should not be listless. My Girl 2 (like My Girl 1) is just...listless.<br /><br />Avoid unless you're a complete sap who's comforted by a series of small annoyances. | 1 |
This movie lacked... everything: story, acting, surprise, ingenuity and a soul. Fifteen minutes in, I was staring at the screen saying, 'How could all of these guys get together and consider themselves friends (even without the girl)?' Another fifteen minutes in, I was praying for as much Amanda Peet as possible. When a bad movie quietly rears it's ugly head, eye candy is a nice consolation. But there wasn't much of that! Cheated on all fronts! | 1 |
One of the greatest film I have seen this year.Last maybe before sun rise, which is also seen late at night alone in the lab. I like the idea of the film,which suggest free will of man and our weakness against fate.With time past by James and Kathryn are destined to fail and an indescribable sorrow comes. I do like the end. but a big question also comes. The virus shall not be released again, should it?<br /><br />In the last scene in the airport. Jose is sent back to meet James again by future scientists. When he tell him that scientists had already got his message and know someone else would spread the virus. And they two together meet Kathryn when Kathryn tell James the true man is DR. Goines assistant. So it is clearly Jose also get the true information about the virus,(James keep an eye on him at the time remember?) and he has teeth. So why everything is still happen?? Why future scientists don't do anything after the truth is revealed?? My biggest question after the film... | 0 |
This is an incredible movie that begins slowly. It leads you along in thinking of it as a typical maudlin family drama. Then, in the second half, there is a plot twist that utterly transforms this into a profound tale of global scope.<br /><br />If you are unaccustomed to films from India, with song and dance routines seemingly grafted on for no reason, stick with this movie. Especially beginning with the second half, you will find this movie an amazing experience.<br /><br />*********** Minor Spoiler Here ************* I have but one complaint with the movie. The dialog at the end (between Amudha and MDS) seemed very weak and missed the opportunity to bring in the war as a force that transforms people's lives. It was implied all along, but there should have been something about the importance of the struggle for MDS. | 0 |
The only thing I remember about this movie are two things: first, as a twelve year old, even I thought it stunk. Second, it was so bad that when Mad magazine did a parody of it, they quit after the first page, and wrote a disclaimer at the bottom of the page saying that they had completely disavowed it.<br /><br />If you want to see great sophomoric comedies of this period, try Animal House. It's so stupid and vulgar it lowers itself to high art. Another good selection would be Caddyshack, the classic with the late Rodney Dangerfield and Bill Murray before he became annoyingly charming, with great lines like greens keeper Carl Spackler's 'Correct me if I'm wrong Sandy, but if I kill all the golfers they'll lock me up and throw away the key.' | 1 |
I am a huge Robert Taylor fan and I have been trying to find all of his films. This is one I did not have, but I watched it recently on Fox Movie Channel, and was very disappointed. I know he was a contract player with little control over his scripts, but the acting was as bad as the script. Victor McLaglen was even bad, and Brian DonLevy was almost unrecognizable. Considering the relations off screen between Taylor and Stanwyck, it was surprising how little chemistry there was on screen between the two of them. But the premise of the film was so ridiculous: that the President of the U.S. would order a Navy Lt to leave the service secretly to hunt down bank robbers, and report only to the President, that it made it hard to appreciate anything else about the film. The death row scenes were entirely unmoving. The only thing worse than Taylor's acting was Stanwyck's singing. She got better later in Ball of Fire-thank heavens. | 1 |
Troma founder, Lloyd Kaufman is The Crapkeeper in this anthology film made up of two films that were such celluloid feces that Llyod tried to salvage them by combining the two into one anthology film and throwing in copious amounts of nudity whenever possible. Does it work? nope, it's still crap that I'd have to scrape off my boots if I stepped in it.Will anyone like this mess? Sure, Young teen aged mongoloids with the combined IQs of a Vienna sausage have to laugh at something, I guess. For those who have brains that are even semi-functioning steer clear though and watch something less insulting to your intelligence, even 'Dude, Where's my car' would do.<br /><br />My Grade: F | 1 |
This film has to be the worst I have ever seen. The title of the film deceives the audience into thinking there maybe hope. The story line of the film is laughable at best, with the acting so poor you just have to cringe. The title 'Zombie Nation' implies a hoard of zombies when in fact there are six in total. This cannot be categorised as a horror film due to the introduction of cheesy 80's music when the zombies 'attack'. The zombies actually talk and act like human beings in the film with the only difference being the make up which looks like something out a La Roux video. If you ever get the chance to buy this film then do so, then burn the copy. | 1 |
Special effects? Good.<br /><br />Script? Terrible. No plot. No depth. No meaning. This film rendered Superman as a meaningless hero, a hero with no archetype. In the original film, he represented America in the Cold War. Here, he represented nothing but a Hulk.<br /><br />Sure, the actors were fine. Kevin Spacey was a fine choice, among others.<br /><br />This still does not resolve the problem that this film had no depth whatsoever. I cannot see how anyone can come away with anything meaningful from this film, when Superman was, and is, daily created to be a meaningful hero in not only comics but also in people's minds. This was a real waste of money considering how many directions this film could have taken.<br /><br />Just a few instances: Lex Luthor could have been a villain of global corporatism, political domination, totalitarianism, and on and on and on. He was just another goofball Hackman incarnation.<br /><br />And Superman? For what did he stand in this film? Nothing but another hack 'savior' figure.<br /><br />Wait until it comes to the dollar theater if you see it at all. | 1 |
I'm a Christian who generally believes in the theology taught in Left Behind. That being said, I think Left Behind is one of the worst films I've seen in some time.<br /><br />To have a good movie, you need to have a well-written screenplay. Left Behind fell woefully short on this. For one thing, it radically deviates from the book. Sometimes this is done to condense a 400-page novel down to a two-hour film, but in this film I saw changes that made no sense whatsoever.<br /><br />Another thing, there is zero character development. When characters in the story get saved (I won't say who), the book makes it clear that it's a long, soul-searching process. In the film it's quick and artificial. The book is written decently enough where people like Rayford Steele, Buck Williams and Hattie Durham seem real, but in the movie scenarios are consistently given the quick treatment without anything substantial. In another scene where one character gets angry about being left behind (again, I won't say who), it seems artificial.<br /><br />I realize as a Christian it's unedifying for me to say I disliked this film, but I can't in a good conscience recommend a film that I feel was horribly done. Perhaps it would've been better to make the first book into 2-3 films. Either way, Christians need to realize that to be taken seriously as filmmakers, we need to start by putting together a film in a quality way. I realize a lot of effort probably went into Left Behind, but that's the way I see it. | 1 |
The plot is simple: an American couple is in vacation in Thailand. Somehow they are attacked by the 'almighty' Chinese vampires, and the girl is kidnapped by the big boss of the vampires. This is OK till now. The girl's partner is left to search for her. And now the horror begins. He comes upon a strange group of semi-vampires or something (they only drank animal blood). These vampires are in conflict with the bad guy for about...800 years. However, with the help of the 'good vampires', the guy begins to search his girlfriend.<br /><br />Now the fight scenes begin, what a karate movie without fight? Another thing i have noticed is that the vampires are very ugly guys. I mean....a vampire is an old-fashion guy(he is alive since...for ever), he's got style. There are also modern vampires, but in this movie, the vampires are....weird. Like, come on, they ride a bike, they are all dressed in leather and they destroy everything in their way.<br /><br />The worst thing is that you can clearly see that this movie it is an low budget one. The script is boring and the actors aren't too talented. The music is pretty good, but the effects are not that great.<br /><br />To sum up the movie it is not that great, but if you have a free afternoon, watch it and tell me if i'm right or not. | 1 |
Absolutely one of the worst movies of all time.<br /><br />Low production values, terrible story idea, bad script, lackluster acting... and I can't even come up with an adjective suitably descriptive for how poor Joan River's directing is. I know that there's a special place in Hell for the people who financed this film; prolly right below the level reserved for child-raping genocidal maniacs.<br /><br />This movie is a trainwreck.<br /><br />(Terrible) x (infinity) = Rabbit Test.<br /><br />Avoid this at all costs.<br /><br />It's so bad, it isn't even funny how bad it is. | 1 |
'Sky Captain' may be considered an homage to comic books, pulp adventures and movie serials but it contains little of the magic of some of the best from those genres. One contributor says that enjoyment of the film depends on whether or not one recognizes the films influences. I don't think this is at all true. One's expectations of the films,fiction and serials that 'Captain' pays tribute to were entirely different. Especially so for those who experienced those entertainments when they were children. This film is almost completely devoid of the charm and magnetic attraction of those. Of course we know the leads will get into and out of scrapes but there has to be some tension and drama. Toward the climax of 'Captain' Law and Paltrow have ten minutes to prevent catastrophe and by the time they get down to five minutes they are walking not running toward their goal. They take time out for long looks and unnecessary conversation and the contemplation of a fallen foe with 30 seconds left to tragedy. Of course one expects certain conventions to be included but a good director would have kept up some sense of urgency.<br /><br />One doesn't expect films like this to necessarily 'make sense'. One does expect them to be fun, thrilling and to have some sense of interior logic. 'Captain' has almost none. Remember when Law and Paltrow are being pursued by the winged creatures and they reach a huge chasm which they cross via a log bridge? Well how come they are perfectly safe from those creatures when they reach the other side? They can FLY!!! The chasm itself means nothing to them. The bridge is unnecessary for them so where is the escape? If the land across the chasm is 'forbidden' to the flying creatures the film made no effort to let us know how or why or even if.<br /><br />I know that Paltrow and Law (both of whom have given fine performances in the past) were playing 'types' but both were pretty flat. Only Giovanni Ribisi (who showed himself capable of great nuance here) and Angelina Jolie seemed to give any 'oomph' to their roles although Omid Djalili seemed like he could have handled a little more if he'd only been given the chance. He did a pretty good job anyway considering how he was basically wasted.<br /><br />The film had a great 'look' but there are so many ways in which CGI distracts. CGI works best when it is used for the fantastical, when it is used to create creatures who don't exist in nature or for scientific or magical spectacular. When it is used to substitute for natural locations it disappoints. There is no real sense of wonder. A CGI mountain doesn't have any of the stateliness or sense of awe and foreboding that a real mountain does. I know that the design of this film was quite deliberate and it wasn't necessarily supposed to LOOK real but shouldn't it FEEL that way? It just didn't. <br /><br />As for the weak and clichéd script...homage is no excuse. Even so, had the movie had some thrills and dramatic tension it might still have been enjoyable. 'The Last Samurai' was as predictable as the days of the week and I am no fan of Tom Cruise but it had everything that 'Captain' didn't most notably it drew the viewer into its world and made us accept its rules and way of being in a way that 'Sky Captain' most definitely did not.<br /><br />I'd like to see a similar approach taken for films about comic book heroes of the 30's and 40's. The original (Jay Garrick) Flash or Green Lantern (Alan Scott) come to mind as being ripe for such treatment. Maybe the better, more well known and fully realized characters that those character are would make for a much better film. It would be hard to be worse. | 1 |
A true comedy.The dialog is fast and very witty.Eleanor Parker at her physical peak .Flynn as only Flynn can be'the charming rogue'..although now past his prime.. Most of the scenes between the principals are short so the movie moves well. If you haven't seen this movie please give a look.You will be surprised at Flynn's comedy timing.The scenes between him Tucker, Parker and 'Cudddles' Sakal are hilarious.Just on the basis of the outfits worn by the most attractive Parker,this movie is worth a look.The romance of this 40's movie will not be lost on those so inclined to watch movies from Hollywood's golden past. My bet is that Never Say Goodbye won't disappoint. | 0 |
Greeted with derision by most critics when it first appeared, 'Frenzy' has recently done the rounds of UK TV. I remember seeing it on its original release, and thinking then that if Hitchcock wanted to parade some kind of screen confession about his ingrained misogynism, he couldn't have found a nastier little vehicle to do so.<br /><br />But Time alters perspective, and so what was nauseatingly bad in 1972 might, all these years later, be worthy of upward re-evaluation.<br /><br />Might. . . but not. 'Frenzy' is dross. The dross of an ageing director who desperately wanted to exploit the artistic freedom of 70s movie making without seeming to realise that freedom imposes its own obligations -- notably, the need to bring integrity to one's work.<br /><br />There's none here. And not much evidence of the earlier directorial brilliance, either -- the switch from spine-tingling implicit to odious explicit is neither shocking nor, for a supreme stylist, stylish: it's just banal (the prolonged murder scene is precisely that: prolonged, without pace, without reason, without purpose other than the cheapest of directorial desires to appear as contemporary an artiste as, say, that other acclaimed practitioner of cheap sleaze, Michael Winner).<br /><br />And it goes from bad to worse, with dialog that defies any human provenance (not least in the ludicrous diversion into the Home Life of Our Dear Wooden Inspector, and his wife's cooking).<br /><br />Perhaps the scene that best sums up 'Frenzy' (and endures as the most explicit indictment of Hitchcock's persona) is the clunking exchange between two lawyers in a bar, where they discuss the serial killings and then agree that at least the women had a good time first by being raped.<br /><br />I remember my revulsion at that scene back in '72, and it's still undimmed, because this wasn't Hitchcock being clever, or sardonic, or trying to make some universal point (big themes, big truths, were not Hitchcock's forte, nor personal preference.) It was just Hitchcock, allowing a reflection of his own distorted mirror on life to shine through the texture of the movie.<br /><br />Calling 'Frenzy' Hitchcock's last great masterpiece is to betray little if any understanding of just what Hitchcock actually achieved in the way of cinematic trickery, cinematic thrills, and dazzling cinematic mastery.<br /><br />'Frenzy' is therefore now what it always was: a cheap, nasty, and ham-fisted movie that did no service to any of those involved, or to the memory of a film-maker who really was, in his Hollywood days, one of the greatest there has ever been. | 1 |
I discovered this movie on IFC, and I thought it would be interesting. For 'tiny' love stories, some of the stories really dragged on in this movie. The fact that none of these women had names almost makes you suspect that the actresses were talking about their own real sex lives, including Kathy Baker and Alicia Witt. I have to admit, I want to start seeing some more romantic views of first sexual encounters again, like in 'Strike!(1998),' when Odette Sinclair's acquaintances started asking about her presumed first time, and Tweety asked 'Was it beautiful?'<br /><br />Some might think re-enactments and flashbacks would improve this movie. I think it would make things even worse. It doesn't necessarily have to be hardcore porn to get my attention, but somehow I just expected more. | 1 |
save your money. i have been a fan of fullmoon productions for a long time and i have never seen them make a movie as bad as this. the casting is terrible, the story is even worse and the special affects are worse than any movie iv'e seen sence the 80's. this movie is so bad i cant even suggest renting it. | 1 |
Amy Heckerling's second film Johnny Dangerously is a parody of 1930's gangster films made in the Warner Brothers' tradition. Michael Keaton stars as a middle aged gangster looking back at his life of hard knocks when he catches a kid trying to steal something from his pet store in 1935. Keaton's mother (Maureen Stapleton) has continuing health problems, so Keaton falls into crime at an early age via Peter Boyle. Meanwhile, the fargan Richard Dimitri plays a rival crime lord to Boyle and Keaton eventually rises through the ranks. Joe Piscopo has a hilarious turn as Danny Vermin, yeah that's right, Vermin! Griffin Dunne is Keaton's younger brother turned district attorney, Glynnis O'Connor his wife, and Marilu Henner plays Keaton's moll. The film looks notoriously cheap, making it seem like a television show instead of a theatrical film.<br /><br />The film starts out great and then slows down as expected after the first half hour. Due to the combination of dialog and gags, the film holds its own for the first half, but then it rapidly loses steam and descends into mediocrity and vulgarity in the second half. Keaton chews the scenery doing his best James Cagney impression. Stapleton has several vulgar lines that are only obnoxious, not funny. Piscopo does the 'once' bit one time too many. Several supporting actors try to hold up the fort like Danny DeVito, Dom DeLuise, Ray Walston as a street vendor, Alan Hale, Jr. as a desk sergeant, and Sudie Bond as an unscrupulous cleaning lady. The second half evolves into a hit or miss television show type tone and never recovers. The closing scene utilizing The Roaring Twenties is an anachronism as is The Call Of The Wild Clark Gable film seen on a marquee earlier in the film. I think Heckerling should have known better, since the targeted audience would certainly be aware of The Roaring Twenties' actual 1939 release date. *1/2 of 4 stars. | 1 |
THE ALARMIST is so abysmally scripted that you have think to yourself why on earth did an up and coming actor like David Arquette agree to be in it. It has to be one of the weakest plots I have ever seen and without any humour at all, it borders on the brink of tedious. It staggers along to a dreadful conclusion which appears to only happen because the director got bored and just wanted to wrap up quickly in order to get home for his dinner. Stay away!. | 1 |
This cosy middle class sitcom became the subject of much hatred by the new breed of talented comedians in the 1980s, such as Ben Elton. Did it deserve such malice? Well Terry and June was never clever, it was never a well-written tale with different threads which intersect at the conclusion. It was the show your mother and father and probably grandparents watched. They chuckled rather than laughed, but they were never likely to be offended by the show, so the fact that it never challenged them was immaterial.<br /><br />One Foot In The Grave suffered initially because it appeared at first sight to be just another Terry and June.<br /><br />A few days after the death of Terry Scott an episode was broadcast on terrestrial TV, and that has been its final outing. There have been few repeats of the show on any TV channel.<br /><br />Thankfully TV comedy has advanced since Terry and June. It's hard to find kind words for it - Terry Scott did make the best of weak scripts. | 1 |
Tired, garbled dreck. The chemistry between Argento and Madsen was as exciting as a wet doughnut. Their dialogue was dramatically uninteresting. The storyline was a mess. The acting forced. The cinematography lingered on the uninspired. Lazy and pointless. Kim Gordon and her character had no reason to be there. Nor did anyone else for that matter. I couldn't have given two farts for any of the 'characters'. Their emotions skipped and jumped like a junkie who hates his heroin. Empty and dull. Why do I have to write ten lines of text on here to make my point? I think I summed it up in the first three words. But, obviously it's not enough. I think this is the last time I'll bother to waste my time critiquing a film. Anyway, I saw 'Clean' and thought that was quite ineffectual as well. Again, I cared not for the characters, whether they lived or died. | 1 |
**SPOILERS** The killer in the movie doesn't wait a second as we see him sneaking into a girls shower and hacking her to death taking her severed and bloodied arm as he makes his getaway. We then get this official looking prologue, as if were watching a true story, stating that a number of gruesome murders were committed in the late fall of 1985 in a small mid-western collage.<br /><br />Grandfatherly looking, and hearing impaired, Sheriff Ron Delboys is baffled by this murder and later when the murders of local collage students, all women, continues his run for state senator is in jeopardy with him bumbling the investigation at every turn. There's at least two times when Delboys says that they'll never be another murder as long as he's on the case and within minutes another murder happens.<br /><br />Finding a golden amulet at the scene of each murder the sheriff's daughter, the collage librarian, Tina finds this reference book about Withcraft indicating that the amulet is a symbol of a witches cult that originated in the early 1700 just after the Salem Witch Trials. This cult was out to avenge the 19 accused witches hung by the local townspeople back in 1692 and they went out at night killing men and women of authority and taking off with a body part. When the body parts would form a complete person they would be burned in an occult midnight bonfire ritual.<br /><br />You never get a handle to what's exactly happening in the movie 'Blood Cult' not just because it's totally disjointed story but it's ever more outrageous and grad-school level acing especially by Charles Ellis playing the butterfingered sheriff Ron Delboys. Getting himself into more trouble then even the on the loose killer could have gotten him into. The bumbling Sheriff Delboys ends up with his head busted coffee spiked as well as almost burned alive, after being dismembered. The only reason he wasn't is because he seemed to have dreamt it all up while under the influence of some strong and unnamed drug.<br /><br />There's a weird dream sequence in the movie suggesting that a number of highly respected members of the community are members of the Witches Cult that's responsible for the sorority murders. The movie doesn't bother to explain at all if the dream, that the drugged Sheriff Delboys had, was a dream or actually a real experience on his part by dropping the whole thing as if it were cut out of the movie!<br /><br />Getting out of the hospital and staking out the collage sorority house, while munching down a bag full of McDonald cheeseburgers, Sheriff Delboys finally comes face to face with the killer. Shefiff Delboys find out to his shock and amazement that not only does he know who he, or she, is but he's also willing to let the killer escape!<br /><br />The very first straight to video motion picture and it shows. Not only would no one it their right mind be crazy enough to pay admission, at least with the video you can tape over it Thank God, to see this disaster but no movie-house owner would dare play it on their screen without the danger of the outraged patrons, in a justifiable show of righteous indignation, tear the place apart! | 1 |
If you like cars you will love this film!<br /><br />There are some superb actors in the film, especially Vinnie Jones, with his typical no nonsense attitude and hardcase appearance.The others are not bad either....<br /><br />There are only two slight flaws to this film. Firstly, the poor plot, however people don't watch this film for the plot. Secondly, the glorification of grand theft auto (car crime). However if people really believe they can steal a Ferrari and get away with it then good look to them, hope you have a good time in jail!<br /><br />When i first read that Nicolas Cage was to act the main role, i first thought '...sweeet.', but then i thought '...naaaa you suck!' but then finally after watching the film i realised '...yep he suck's!'.Only joking he plays the role very well.<br /><br />I'll end this unusual review by saying 'If the premature demise of a criminal has in some way enlightened the general cinema going audience as to the grim finish below the glossy veneer of criminal life, and inspired them to change their ways, then this death carries with it an inherent nobility. And a supreme glory. We should all be so fortunate. You can say 'Poor Criminal.' I say: 'Poor us.'<br /><br />p.s. - Angelina Jolie Voight looks quite nice! | 0 |
It just so happens that IVAN THE TERRIBLE, PARTS I and II both had entries in the 50 Worst Movies book by Harry Medved. Now, I do think that declaring they are among the worst movies ever is an overstatement, though they are still both pretty poor films--particularly the first one, as it featured more eye rolling and 'googly eyed looks' than I have ever seen before!! Director Eisenstein and an awful lot of other people out there thought this made the film 'artsy and profound'--and since I am legally sane, I must say that I hated this first film!! The second, while still very incomplete-looking, is a vast improvement, as eye rolling is minimal, though overacting and long boring scenes are present in this film just like in part 1! While part 2 looks pretty incomplete and needed at least another hour (especially since it never gets to Ivan's insane behavior later in life--like killing his son and heir while in a fit of anger). Since both parts 1 and 2 were commissioned by Stalin to both excuse his own murderous reign and glorify him, it's no surprise that Ivan's life story is left very incomplete. Even without all the truly awful behaviors of Ivan, apparently the supremely evil Stalin STILL didn't like the film and wouldn't allow its release during his lifetime. Maybe he didn't allow this because he was more worried people would see what a HUGE waste of money and resources the film was instead of seeing Stalin as a crazy guy just like Ivan! <br /><br />By the way, there was one segment of this tedious film that was just so cool that the film merits a 4 (without it, a 2)--and that's the scene with Prince Vladimir at the banquet! It is well-done and pretty funny in a dark way. And, the scene was done in a Russian version of 2-color Technicolor. This is VERY odd, by the way, because by the mid-1930s, a vastly improved true color process was developed by Technicolor that no longer made everything look all orangy-red and greenish-blue. So, this film during the color sequences looks a lot like a silent or early sound color film. Very odd indeed for the 1940s. | 1 |
An excellent thriller of all time. Vijay Anand excels as Director and Editor. Performances by Dev Anand, Vyjayantimala, Tanuja and Ashok Kumar prove to be an asset to the film which has its screenplay worked out to the minutest detail. Cinematography adds to the mystery, glamour and other requirements of the story as it evolves. And to top it all, music by Sachin Dev Burman is unforgettable. 'Yeh dil na hota bechara' by Kishore Kumar, 'Raat akeli hai' by Asha Bhosle, 'Rula ke gaya sapna mera' by Lata, 'Aasman ke niche' by Lata and Rafi and 'Hothon pe aisi baat main' by Lata, again reaffirm Burman Dada's unique stature as a top notch composer with a style of his own. | 0 |
This is one of the worst action films I have ever seen. This is particularly due to much of the factual implausibility (like an obvious agent posing as a bank loan officer while making obvious that he is speaking to someone through a wire or the scene where the scientists assume it is safe to enter a room in which a virus has been released even though 'it has not found a viable host' does not mean that it will never find one), the cheap sets (the bank looks like it was poorly constructed to resemble a dungeon), and the bad acting. It is the story of an organized crime group that has successfully stolen a capsule of the lethal virus. However, the head honcho who decides to remove it from a bank security deposit box, does so at the same time a bank heist is going down, at the same FBI agents have been informed of this, and at the same time a terrible earthquake erupts. Needless to say, the aftermath of the quake is messy in more ways than one. However, the results do not make for an enticing action film, but instead, one that has been obviously z-grade junk from the beginning of the film. (Perhaps this is why some of the screen captures on the packaging look to be created with computer graphics rather than being actual screen captures from various sequences of the film). What the hell Ron Perlman was doing in this, I have no idea. I wonder if he was as embarrassed to be in it as I was to have watched it. | 1 |
Dallas stars Gary Cooper, Ruth Roman, Steve Cochran, Barbara Payton & Raymond Massey. It's directed by Stuart Heisler, photography is from Ernest Haller & pen duties fell to John Twist. Produced out of Warner Brothers, Dallas is vividly filmed in Technicolor out of the Iverson & Warner ranches in California. Very much a film with its tongue firmly in cheek, the film is a throwback to the Westerns of yore that exist without pretensions or deep penetrative meanings.<br /><br />The plot sees Cooper's Civil War renegade, Blayde 'Reb' Hollister, fake his own death so as to kill off his reputation and to free himself for the pursuit into Dallas of the brothers who massacred his family. In essence a routine plot, Twist's story is perked up along the way by many a fun and exciting diversion. There's role reversals, dandy fashions, horseback pursuits, shoot outs, a love triangle, vigorous dialogue and deft little twists to keep the piece purely from painting it by numbers.<br /><br />Cooper seems to be enjoying himself too, which further enhances the feel good factor on offer. It's true he isn't really asked to do anything more than be a laconic dude on a mission. But when called on for action duties, he delivers the goods that his fans have come to expect during his successful career. The villains entertain {particularly Steve Cochran's vile and dopey Bryant Marlow} because each have their own little peccadilloes to keep them from over familiar blandness. The two ladies of the piece look gorgeous and hold up well in amongst the machismo, while the high production value allows Haller to really treat the eyes with the lush Technicolor and involving camera work around the locations.<br /><br />It has ideals to being an A list Oater does Dallas, something it just can't quite attain. But it's not for lack of trying and the end result is one of pure entertainment, that, in truth, should be enjoyed on a cold winters day when the viewer needs a pick me up. 7/10 | 0 |
This effort is based on the true story of Jim Morris, a high school science teacher/baseball coach, who is inspired by his players to try out for the pros and fulfill his life-long dream of playing in the majors. Dennis Quaid, no stranger to sports films, plays Morris with enough conviction to make the part work and the producers do a credible job of recreating the real-world events that led to Morris brief stint as a relief pitcher for the woefull Tampa Bay Devil Rays. The first half of the film, dealing with his rag tag bunch of High School Baseball players (all of whom look way too old to actualy be in High School) is less effective and probably a bit too long. Overall the film does suffer from some pacing issues and a few extra subplots that we probably could have done without. However, it is still a fairly involving movie with an inspirational theme that proves once again that baseball is the national pastime for a reason. GRADE: B- | 0 |
Cradle of Fear<br /><br />This isn't a movie where intricate delicate little narrative nuances occupy our attention. This is not a film where the special effects are supposed to leave us slack-jacked uttering that sense of whoa. What it is though is a slice of lo-fi goth horror which leaves little to the imagination, created in the eyes of the director, Alex Chandon, as 'a throwback to sleazy '70s and '80s horror'.<br /><br />This is a very visceral experience for 2 hours, where four plot lines are connected through lots of watery blood, reams of dismembered body parts and innards, tied by an intestinal thread of revenge. <br /><br />The purveyor of such horrific violence is Dani Filth, lead-singer of the metal band Cradle of Filth, executing a role he was destined to play. <br /><br />As other's have said, there is nothing new about wanting to carryout occultist revenge. In this particular context a convicted sexual predator and murderer, Kemper, the father of our devilish avenging-angel, compels his son to exact retribution on those who are some how connected to convicting him to purgatory within an insane asylum.<br /><br />What this provides for the Chandon, who should be congratulated on also penning and editing this piece, is the opportunity to let his sick mind run free. He seems to take delight in the idea of splattering blood into the orifices of those on screen, and into every nook and cranny that can be reached. We are also treated to close-ups of skull's being crushed, demonic rape, and other assorted imagery to engage those who relish getting up close and personal to their horror. And for some of those who closely follow these type of films, there is the odd sequence which may have you thinking, 'Did I just see what I thought I did', because of course Pretty Woman this 'aint. It reminds me of some of the gore-fests created out of Italian horror some 20 to 30 years ago, and a number of other works where disgusting images have left their mark but not the context in which they were viewed.<br /><br />Story 4 of the set is particularly intriguing where the idea of ones obsession can ultimately lead to death in the pursuit of internet violence through the 'Sick Room', where the user is in control of how a life can be snuffed out. Further acknowledgements should also go out to a pounding soundtrack that allows Filth to exercise his daytime talent, and an effective use of drum and bass, often overlooked in film-making as a viable form of supporting visuals. Using the city of London as a backdrop with real people as opposed to movie stand-ins also adds support to the commando feel of the film. OK, classic it may not be, but blood, guts, intestines, occult and demons in a slightly perverse unproblematic way it is. | 1 |
Frankie Darro was a wonderful child actor who excelled at playing pugnacious little toughs with gigantic chips on their shoulders. He appeared in a couple of top films of the early 30s - 'The Public Enemy' (1931), a ground breaking crime drama and 'Wild Boys of the Road' (1933), a topical depression era movie about kids who ride the rails. He was essentially a younger version of James Cagney. Although short of height, his willingness to do his own stunts kept him employed in a series of programmers when the bigger studios had no more use for him.<br /><br />'Crime School' was supposed to be a remake of 'The Mayor of Hell' but it had far more humour in it and featured The Dead End Kids and Humphrey Bogart as a very laid back Deputy Commisssioner. 'The Mayor of Hell' is really a combination of 'Hell's House'/'Crime School'/ 'Boy's Town'. Even though Cagney didn't make his appearance until around the 25th minute his impact (as usual) was immediate. He plays a hot headed gangster who is on the payroll of a political group run by the mob.<br /><br />Jimmy Smith (Frankie Darro) and his gang (including 'Farina' from 'Our Gang') run a car washing racket but bite off more than they can chew when they rob a general store and push the owner through a plate glass window. They appear before the juvenile court and are sentenced to go to the state reformatory. It is painted in glowing terms - a model school where boys are given a chance to learn a trade. In reality, it is a hellish place run by a sadistic warden, Mr. Thompson (outstandingly played by Dudley Digges). The only compassionate person is Dorothy Griffith, the live-in nurse (played by Madge Evans).<br /><br />'Patsy' Gargan (James Cagney) has been given the job as the new Deputy Commissioner, as a favour. On his arrival at the school he witnesses a failed escape attempt and after talking to Dorothy, realises the school needs sweeping reforms. He is soon running the school and brings in a system of 'self government' - rather along the lines of 'Boy's Town'. Even though Cagney doesn't have a lot to do, the picture is carried along to it's gripping climax by the energy of Darro. After 'Patsy' is temporarily out of the picture (he accidentally shoots a mobster and has to leave the state), Thompson returns and his brutal treatment, resulting in the death of a boy ('Skinny') turn the rest of the boys into an angry mob. They burn down a barn and Thompson falls to his death - 'Patsy' returning just in time to quieten the mob with some sobering talk.<br /><br />Sure, all the boys seemed to get was a stiff talking to for their crimes but I do disagree with one of the reviewers - Thompson was more than just a 'meanie'. His sadistic treatment resulted in a boy's death. There is a scene at the beginning where the boys are served some inedible slop - Thompson orders ham and eggs and keeps piling the butter on his bread while talking to Dorothy. <br /><br />Allan Jenkins plays 'Uncle' Mike and Sheila Terry, although billed only as 'a blonde' has one of the most memorable lines when she pouts and says 'I thought there was going to be young boys here, where are they?'!!!<br /><br />Highly Recommended. | 0 |
I really wanted to like this western, being a fan of the genre and a fan of 'Buffalo Bill,' 'Wild Bill Hickok,' and 'Calamity Jane,' all of whom are in this story! Add to the mix Gary Cooper as the lead actor, and it sounded great. <br /><br />The trouble was.....it wasn't. I found myself looking at my watch just 40 minutes into this, being bored to death. Jean Arthur's character was somewhat annoying and James Ellison just did not look like nor act like 'Buffalo Bill.' Cooper wasn't at his best, either, sounding too wooden. This was several years before he hit his prime as an actor.<br /><br />In a nutshell, his western shot blanks. Head up the pass and watch another oater because most of 'em were far better than this one. | 1 |
Now i have read some negative reviews for this show on this website and quite frankly I'm appalled. For anyone to even think that the Sopranos is not Television then i'm afraid i don't know what the world has come to. Let me tell u something. I started watching many T.V shows like Lost, Prison Break, Dexter, Deadwood and even Invasion. But all of those shows lost their touch after the first season, especially Lost and Prison Break which i refuse to watch because the companies took 2 genius ideas and butchered them by making more than one season. Then we have The Sopranos. I can honestly say that this is the only television series that i have ever watched where i have been enthralled in all of its season, and more importantly all of its episodes. There is no department that this show doesn't excel in. Acting- Nothing short of superb. James Gandolfini is one of my favourite actors and i feel that his acting is absolutely stunning in every episode, after i heard that HBO wanted Ray Liotta to play Tony i felt that it would've been the better choice, however after watching the first few episodes, i knew that HBO had done a great job in casting James as Tony. The raw emotion he displays is superb. Then we have everyone else, Edie Falco, Michael Imperioli, Lorraine Bracco, Dominic Chianese (whom i remembered as Johnny Ola in the Godfather Part 2) and my personal two favourite characters Tony Sirico and Steve Van Zandt Paulie 'Walnuts' Gualtieri and Silvio Dante. All of these actors perform to the best quality, and all giving an excellent performance in each episode. Then we have the story, never have i been so sucked into a T.V show before. The story is nothing short of excellent. Each episode is directed superbly and the Score of this show is just fantastic. I feel that The Sopranos is one show that i can watch again and again and never get bored of. Its got everything from hilarious humour to brutal violence, but nonetheless it is and will always be the best thing to ever grace the Television, and I challenge anyone to find a real flaw in the show. Not just say its too violent, or they feel that the character of Tony is immoral, i mean it is a mafia show at the end of the day, i don't think that the characters are going to be very honest or loyal to God. I implore everyone to watch this show because believe me, you'll be hooked from the very first episode, i was and i have even gotten a few friends who had firstly refused to watch the show, hooked on it. Trust me when i say that this show is a Godsend compared to the crap that comes on T.V. After you've watched the first season, you'll inevitably agree with me when i once again say that this show dominates Television, and no T.V show current or future will ever upstage the marvel that is The Sopranos. | 0 |
Ingrid Bergman (Cleo Dulaine) has never been so beautiful. Gary Cooper as 'Cleent' so perfectly cast as a laconic Texan who knows this gal is up to no good. When the two lock eyes at the French Market, we know this match will be full of sparks. When they stroll in her garden in her restored French Quarter house and the love theme plays it is a dream for all us romantics.<br /><br />The costumes are lovely; the set decoration makes you wish the 'Quarter' was just that way. And that Saratoga still had that hotel with the wide veranda with all the old biddies gossiping.<br /><br />From Edna Ferbers novel, the story is of revenge for old wrongs and the fights over who would run the railroads in the early days of that industry.<br /><br />In the Saratoga scenes, Florence Bates as a grand dame steals every scene.<br /><br />But it is the scene of Cleo taking on the little lawyer her New Orleans relatives have sent to buy her off that is a Magic Movie Moment. After Cleo has bested him in the negotiations, he looks at her with longing and says 'may I say - you are very-beautiful'. And Cleo with a happy, wicked smile says 'yes, isn't it lucky.' You want to shout 'YES'!!!<br /><br />One of my all time favorite romantic films. | 0 |
We actually watched this twice in the theater because we could not believe how bad it was the first time. Maybe we'd missed something... nope, what's missing was missed from the beginning of preproduction. I actually went back to Robbin's novel to see if I could find the problem, and I discovered that what I thought was funny and exciting back in the day is now just so much disconnected and fuzzy-headed junk.<br /><br />So, the initial problem with the film was deciding to do it at all, and the rest of the train wreck progressed from there. Absolutely nothing works - not a blessed thing. Some beautiful exterior photography gets steamrolled by random camera placement in interior shots. All of the actors look at least uncomfortable - Angie Dickenson looks positively mortified - except for Rain Phoenix, who gives the impression that she is too unaware to realize how awful her performance really is. The dialog is one, long, unwavering cringe. Scenes don't make sense from second to second, and the connections between them are nonexistent. And yet, the movie stumbles blindly on, convinced that it is saying something profound.<br /><br />This is too bad to even be funny; it is simply excruciating. Gus Van Zant has done other good-to-great movies which I encourage you to see, and I'm happy he survived (and appears to have learned from) this mess. | 1 |
Though I saw this movie dubbed in French, so I'm sure it lost something in the translation, lack of accents, etc., it was an excellent, fun movie for a lonely night in a hotel room--a real pick-me-up that portrayed accurately and positively the complexities of individual sexuality, gender role, and finding a place within the communities to which one is supposed to belong--male, gay, urban, 30-ish, etc. I was very proud of French television for showing such an honest and positive portrayal of the gay community. While the fact that the gay lead character ends up somewhat 'straight' in the end is mildly disappointing, that's life, and that happens sometimes. This is a great movie, whether alone or with a date! A really enjoyable experience. | 0 |
Most Lorne Michaels films seem to fail because they're essentially just extended versions of skits that barely managed to make people laugh in five-minute segments. 'Tommy Boy' is a character right from 'SNL' - a big fat lovable (in their opinion) goof who doesn't know anything.<br /><br />David Spade gets the Thankless Overwhelmed Everyman role. He's paired with the Annoying Overweight Slob and they endure Miserable Misfortunes as they travel cross country to Save Daddy's Business.<br /><br />The plot, for starters, is really faulty. The whole premise - daddy dies and rich stupid son has to save the family biz - can be traced back to just about any movie you want. Like any SNL style film it is reduced to a simple motivation - empty, shallow; just a reason to see a fat guy and a thin guy be 'funny' together.<br /><br />The movie's biggest 'influence' is the 1987 comedy classic 'Planes, Trains & Automobiles.' That movie is great because the plot isn't stale and recycled. It's basic, yeah - a guy traveling home for Thanksgiving gets stuck with a slob. But it's real, dammit. It makes all the difference. The characters are real, the situations are far more real. 'Tommy Boy' is pure slapstick and its ridiculous situations undermine the characters - we feel nothing for them, and we don't care about what's happening on-screen. 'PTA' walked the careful line between outrageous and utterly believable and relate-able - 'Tommy Boy' is simply absurd, with jokes like a simple deer-in-the-headlights turning into a crash turning into a struggle with a dead deer that really isn't dead, then awakens and wrecks their car.<br /><br />The whole wrecked car thing is stolen completely from 'PTA' and it's eerie how much stuff in this film actually does resemble the Steve Martin/John Candy movie.<br /><br />Farley is simply way too obnoxious to find likable - I've never enjoyed watching him in any movies and this hasn't changed my mind. Spade's given very little to do, serving as the movie's most thankless character.<br /><br />Dan Aykroyd is wasted as the Evil Baddie who plans to destroy Daddy's Business. The ending is a joke, and not in a 'har-har funny' way. More like a 'oh god are they serious?!' way.<br /><br />Some people dig it, that's cool. But I just can't get into it, nor do I appreciate all the stuff it 'borrows' from - not just counting 'PT&A' - without any credit whatsoever. | 1 |
A film starring Salma Hayek and Colin Farrell, two respected and talented actors, sounds like a great idea. An independent film sounds even better. The studios will control less of the content allowing the actors and writers and director more creativity.<br /><br />But then why is this movie so bland? Ask the dust.<br /><br />This film assumes right off the bat that we are deeply invested in the characters. No one is given a proper back story, so we don't ever know why the characters act the way they do.<br /><br />Explanations for physical and emotional scars are left to our imagination, if you still have one left at the end of this movie.<br /><br />I told a friend that I went to see this film, and that I thought it was awful.<br /><br />Her question: 'Not even Colin Farrell could save it?' My response: 'Not even Colin Farrell's ass could save it.' | 1 |
Well made and stylish while still ultimately making sense this thriller would work better for non giallo fans to get interested in the genre than the later Argento entries which go overboard in all directions.<br /><br />For fans of these crazed Italian thrillers, they will appreciate George Hilton and the turns his character takes and what he's put through. The camera-work is fresh with dashes of graphic violence and odd, but appropriate choices and a good not overblown music score as well. The less you know about the story the better to make it work.<br /><br />The only thing lacking in keeping this from being a great Sergio Martino directed giallo is that the story doesn't have that extra sexual or psychological, or both element to put it over the top. It's more a routine mystery, the characters are well defined but live or die according to the plot not according to their own virtues and flaws.<br /><br />The recent DVD (2005) release is beautiful looking and definitely the way to see the film, unless these ever get art house screenings which seems unlikely. | 0 |
Once I heard that the greatest and oldest preserved Germanic heroic poem was transformed into a film it almost became my obsession to see it. The first glints of its appearance I caught never disappointed me. A futuristic interpretation With Lambert our favourite highlander and Mitra, tomb raider to be,in leading roles seamed appealing, though some doubts came to life (an important female character in Beowulf?)... Two hours ago I saw the film. After I had read the director's name my world fell apart. As I said - from that point on, there was not many surprises. First and foremost, the film has NOTHING to do with the original Beowulf if we disregard a couple of violently and pointlessly stolen names. If they had not stolen the names and declared it to be a new story, it might have passed as an f-class action stupidity with nice costumes and scenography. This way it is simply a crime! An attack on a legend and its ideology as well as on common sense. Ok let me be positive for a second... apart from the general electro-goth atmosphere which is nice it also has good music. That was it for both the positive part and this comment. | 1 |
When I saw that Icon was on TV, I was surprised. I know that the first clue of where it was headed was the fact that it was on the Hallmark Channel - Has to be said - sorry!! I was hopeful when I saw that FF himself was the Exec Producer but very quickly saw that the only real way that the TV movie and the book were similar were in the name and the character names only. The TV plot was a ho-hum to say the least but I concur that in and of itself, the action was worth a 3 stars. In my personal opinion, Mr. Swayze could have portrayed a valid Monk, however I think that in order to do the movie justice, it would have been a far longer movie, and I don't think Hollywood itself would have gone for the plot of discreditation by subterfuge. A case in point is the terrible film version of The Sum of All Fears - need I say more? | 1 |
I have seen previous movies from Cédric Klapisch, and therefore expected a quality movie with psychological depth. Having been an Erasmus student myself and having visited several friends studying abroad, I know very well what it means to spend some time abroad and mix with different cultures at the same time. Yes, it is great fun! Because of that I thought I should not miss this movie. Unfortunately I was disappointed to find that L'Auberge Espagnol fails to satisfy in many ways: the characters are stereotyped, the events are trite and the story is shallow. Although there are quite a few familiar situations, they are irritatingly cliché and do not go beyond the trivial events. This made the movie uninteresting to watch, and gave me a strong 'been-there-done-that-don't-you-have-anything-to-add?' feeling. Apart from that, the movie lacks a firm story. It sometimes looks more like a documentary or 'real-life' show than a seriously made movie.<br /><br />However, I can imagine that if you haven't studied or travelled abroad, this might be fun to watch. | 1 |
'House of Games' is a flawlessly constructed film, and one of the few films I have seen that had me gaping at the screen in astonishment at how cleverly and unexpectedly it ends. I first saw it on video a few years back after reading Roger Ebert's review, which proclaimed it the best film of 1987. I had my doubts, mainly because it is not quite as well known as other films from that year. Boy, was I in for a surprise. This was one of the smartest, most well-written movies I had ever seen.<br /><br />The screenplay is quite a piece of work, not only in terms of the plot (which twists and turns and pulls the rug out from under you just when you think you have it all figured out), but also in terms of character development. On my second viewing, I began to realize that Mamet's screenplay succeeds not only as a clever suspense film, but that each plot development contributes to our understanding of the characters and their motivations. The climax of the movie is particularly effective, because it is absolutely inevitable. It stems naturally from what we know about the characters, and it is therefore much more than just an arbitrary twist ending. The performances by Lindsay Crouse and Joe Mantegna also add enormously to the film. I cannot picture any other actor besides Mantegna playing the role of Mike, and Crouse plays her role with just the right amount of restraint to suggest a repressed criminal mindset. Their work, plus Mamet's extraordinary screenplay, combine to create one of the greatest films of the 1980's. It is truly a must-see. | 0 |
Mean spirited, and down right degrading adaptation to the classic children's tale not only lacks the charm of its forefather but lacks any talent what so ever. Mike Myers should not only be ashamed of himself for his horrible performance that is a clear rip off of what Jim Carrey did but he should give up acting all together. He is so annoying that you would want to beat the crap out of him if you were able to jump right in the film. The sets are ugly and the cinematography is very poor. I have seen a lot of bad film this year, but this not only takes the cake but it is with out a doubt one the worse films ever made. | 1 |
Now I remember what the 'indie' filmmakers were ripping off before Pulp Fiction. It was David Lynch, right?<br /><br />I hunted this thing down to see Kyle Secor. What a waste of a perfectly good Bayliss. It was so painful to watch him, sort of like when someone you love is horribly sick and there's nothing you can do.<br /><br />Nearly every cliche in the book: the desert, the psycho, the quirky mob boss, the biker, Tracy Walker (who fortunately was only in one scene, but I kept expecting him to reappear and say something strange and profound like 'If a man wants to know where he's going, he's got to look at where he's been,' or some contrived garbage like that). I have a theory as to why so many indies are short on location in the desert. I think it's because they can save money on lighting.<br /><br />If you like to be in pain, find this movie and give it a viewing. If you're a fan of Kyle Secor, watch reruns of Homicide on Court TV. If you want a good, quirky road thriller, check out Wild At Heart.<br /><br />There is a reason that no one has heard of Delusion! My god, what a waste of a good title. | 1 |
Low budget 'films' like this just give me hope as an aspiring screenwriter. In other words, if there are people out there who are willing to finance a piece of schlock like this, than there's certainly much more than a glimmer of hope for someone like myself who can actually write stories. This film is right up there, or should I say 'down there' with the Ed Wood's of the world. The story, if you can call it that, and the dialog, not to mention the sophomoric acting, is a travesty toward the genre itself. Someone should have driven a stake through this stinker while it was still just on paper. It follows that since literature has pretty much been killed off, that film should follow. In order to have a good or even just passable movie, you must have at the very least decent writing. The legendary Curt Siodmak springs to mind. They used a lot of his stories for low budget films way back when but they still come off today as good, serious entertainment, i.e. 'Donavan's Brain'. The cast for this 'work' should seriously consider going back to work at their respective hamburger joints or shoe stores and forget about any future feeble attempts at appearing in front of a camera. Avoid this one like the plague itself!!! | 1 |
EDDIE MURPHY DELIRIOUS is easily the funniest stand-up concert film I have ever seen. Most stand-up acts usually have lulls at some point, but not this one folks. For 90 min there is not one moment that is not side-splittingly funny. From the moment Eddie does a hilariously dead-on impression of Mr.T, the laughs are non-stop.<br /><br />Sadly, this was done in 1983, and Eddie hasn't done anything nearly as funny. it's unbelievable that the man who wrote this phenomenally brilliant show, wrote a movie called HARLEM NIGHTS which was not very funny at all.<br /><br />Eddie, if you're out there, please go back and do a concert film in the vein of DELIRIOUS. Believe me your fans will love you for it. And I think you know that. | 0 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.