review
stringlengths 41
13.7k
| label
int64 0
1
|
|---|---|
If you've not seen this then look out for it. It is available on DVD. It is a channel 4 (uk) production, possibly, in conjunction with German and danish TV. If you've seen the film it is basically the same plot. Several interleaved stories are connected through the drugs trade. The story jumps between the housewife (played by the excellent Lyndsay Duncan) trying to complete a deal on behalf of her husband, who to her surprise is an international drugs dealer (and generally dangerous man).<br /><br />A minister, who is embedded in his job to the detriment of his family, is investigating the whole state of affairs with international drugs trafficking. He gets a few eye openers to the reality of heroin when his daughter turns out to have a 'problem'. He then visit Pakistan, officially, where he seems to be taught that the abuse (not simply the drug or its casual use) is the problem and also gets to sample some produce (an excellent scene where he simultaneously realises what the attraction is and why it is and why it is such a problem). In Pakistan we get to see the other side. The desperation of farmers who can barely survive turning to opium production and crime lords. The pointless attempts at subsidy resulting in the system getting rich. And a country so drenched in drugs yet only a relative fraction of the abuse we have in the west. Around all this a customs official/interpol agent tries to catch the 'dutch' connection in heroin smuggling. Seeking justice for his murdered partner. This really is a masterpiece. Super, understated performances from all the main actors in a way only European cinema can really do.<br /><br />A must see. Especially if you have seen the film, they compliment each other abd present some subtly different opinions/attitudes from both sides of the pond. | 0 |
This pointless film was a complete disappointment. None of the characters is likeable in the least, so you watch what befalls each without really caring. What was worst was renting this movie at a gay owned establishment only to find that this story of male hustlers was filled with homophobic young men engaged in plenty of scenes of straight sex and not one single scene of gay sex. | 1 |
Without Peter Ustinov and Maggie Smith, this could easily have been a turkey. But they are brilliant. Ustinov is at his best, and for fans of Maggie, it is great to see her in her early days, matching Ustinov every step of the way for with and timing. For Englishmen in their fifties (and I am in that bracket), it is always entertaining to see glimpses of and hear sounds of the Swinging Sixties, and although this film spends a lot of time in offices, it has plenty of Sixties nostalgia, including red buses, Carnaby Street, a song by Lulu and a delicious shot up the micro-skirt of a waitress, the like of which England has never seen since in public places. As an I.T. engineer, I know that the computer hacking tricks are laughable, but they are not meant to be taken seriously. Nor are the wonderful stereotypes of Italians, French and Germans. | 0 |
Now I'm a big animation fan -- love Svankmeyer and usually am into all applications of stop motion so I had high hopes for this one. Then I came on IMDb and paused --- I'm always real suspicious of films with a bimodal distribution of votes on IMDb. Here we've got another --- a bunch of 10s (shill anyone) and then some real low ones. I'm also suspicious of 10s with the word 'visionary' in them. <br /><br />Sure there are visionaries but this character isn't one of them. Despite my misgivings, I saw this film and have to side with the ones. The stop motion animation was okay but the plots were banal and overall it seemed amateurish. Treat yourself to the real deal get some Svankmeyer and leave this also ran on the shelf. | 1 |
When Samantha Eggar (as Phyllis Dietrickson) answers the door of her house swathed in a towel, you realize that as competent an actress as Eggar may be, she doesn't have the hypnotic allure of Barbara Stanwyck. And it is not entirely Eggar's fault. In the original film, Wilder had Stanwyck not only appear in a towel, but she enters the scene on the second floor balcony of the house. And she doesn't 'come out'; she appears, almost as if by magic. Walter Neff is staring up at her from below on the first floor. There is a reason for this. Stanwyck is much higher than Neff (Fred MacMurray) when they are first introduced. It is not just the towel. The towel adds to the seductive allure. Her pose is like a Greek Goddess overlooking her domain, and, in a strange way, you feel as if, from the start, she is actually controlling the entire situation. She has sexual, even magic, power. This person is no ordinary housewife. This person is a mystery with secrets hidden within.<br /><br />Back to 1973. The remake has Crenna knock on the front door. Stanwyck's stand-in, Eggar, answers the door with a towel around her. There is no 'appearance'. She simply opens the door. The alluring superiority that grabs the audience at the first appearance of Stanwyck in 1944 is entirely absent in 1973. She opens the door with a towel around her. It may be sexy in a Charlie's Angels sort of way, but it's not nearly as mysterious. The filmmakers of the remake seem to misunderstand Wilder's point. The script may have said 'Phyllis appears in towel' so the filmmakers of the remake simply follow the instructions and include the required towel. The point is not the towel. The point is the enigmatic quality of Phyllis, and the potential power she wields. Wilder gave her a towel to add to her mystique. The filmmakers of the remake gave her a towel because that's what Wilder did. And in the choice of shot, lost all of Phyllis' mystique.<br /><br />Richard Crenna also seems miscast. He seems like he's 'acting' and not really in the midst of the dilemma. Part of the problem is Crenna appears so much like a 70's actor. He can't get into the 1940's. When MacMurray first speaks into the microphone, sweat begins to drip from his face. No sweat on Crenna. And they also changed one of the crucial lines at the beginning. In the original, Neff says, 'I didn't get the money, and I didn't get the woman.' In the 1973 version, Crenna says, 'I didn't get the money, and I didn't want the woman.' Did the filmmakers completely misunderstand the entire point of the story? Or were they dumbing it down for a 'television' audience?<br /><br />This made-for-TV movie is a by-the-numbers rendition. All the sharp edge of the original is lost. The only stand-out, maybe, is Lee J. Cobb in the role made famous by Edward G. Robinson. But he cannot save the loss of intensity of the original. This 1973 boring remake is a forgettable TV-movie made probably by the same people who did 'Gilligan's Island'. They might as well have tried to remake 'Citizen Kane' or 'Gone with the Wind'. If mediocrity is the best one can hope for, what's the point? The 1944 classic is a Film with a capital 'F'. This made-for-TV remake deserves an 'F' grade, or, maybe a 'D' for dumb. | 1 |
Okay, so Ghoulies 4 is kind of bad. And it doesn't really even have the ghoulies in it. And the acting is bad. The storyline is stupid. But I forget to mention how funny this film is. It is so campy, and so ridiculous it is too fun not to enjoy. There are only 2 ghoulies in the movie, and they don't really seem to be in relation with the Ghoulies in the other film. But they are pretty funny. And funny thing, that Jonathon Graves returns for this one. If you saw the first, he was a character in that. In my opinion, this is better than the first. There are some classic scenes and some classic lines, one which is in a grocery store. 'Attention K-Mart Shoppers!' Watch this if you enjoy bad movies. It's so bad it is good. And did I mention Barbara Alyn Woods is hot? | 0 |
I wanted to see this movie ever since the previews came out. I don't understand why everyone is so hard on this film. It may not all be technically true to the sport of rugby, but this film is not mainly about the sport. It's about a rugby team that is taught how to be more than the world expects of them. They are taught to become men, and not temporally vain boys. Hollywood is never 100% correct in their productions. They are there to make a product that sells. Something entertaining. The story of Coach Gelwix and what he has taught over the years is simply amazing. He teaches about service, honor, integrity, and moral cleanliness. How many other movies are teaching that to our youth these days? I was proud to see such an amazing story that taught reverence and respect. | 0 |
OK, this movie, was the worst display I have seen in years. The actors weren't to bad (I figured it was a b-movie so they were doing b-movie acting). Anyways, I watched this movie, thinking, OH COOL a UFO Sci-Fi movie. WRONG. It was just an excuse for radical Christians to push a message onto people. The last scene was extremely messed up. That is a horrible thing to do to a person to make them believe in something. What someone believe in is a matter of opinion. This movie just shows how corrupted religion is, especially Christianity.<br /><br />If you want to watch a b-movie, this ain't. If you want to watch a movie that is TRYING to brainwash the masses. Well this is the pick of the litter. go right for it. If you are going to convey a message, do it, don't force it. Ridiculous, that people would abuse the media to such a degree. Especially, Christians. | 1 |
wow...I just watched this movie...American people have this stereotypical view towards Hindi films such as, ALL Indian films have dances, songs and a love story....Its pathetic how far away from the truth that is. This film simply exposes the stereotypical western view of Hindi films. Horrible acting, horrible direction, horrible cinematography. And all this by a Hollywood director. Most Indian films today are much more content driven, realistic, touching and meaningful than this piece of crap. Indian cinema (not just Hindi) also cover a variety of different subjects. Just like most other Hollywood films these days, this shows a very stereotypical view of of another country, where truth is thrown out the window. This is a highly NOT recommended movie. Instead watch good Hindi films like black Friday, eklavya, omkara, khakee, awarapan, gangster, don, zakhm, dor, sholay, mother India, lagaan...Those films are what real Indian cinema are all about. | 1 |
Last weekend I bought this 'zombie movie' from the bargain bin and watched it with some friends thinking it was going to be a budget version of 'Land of the Dead'.<br /><br />Boy, was I wrong. <br /><br />It seems as if they spent a good portion of their budget on the cover-art, which is very misleading to fans of the zombie genre.<br /><br />We watched up to the point where the zombie chicks come alive and get in the car with some yuppie who is out in the middle of nowhere talking business on a cell-phone. They actually speak to the guy before one of the girls kills him; but once they started driving the car, I couldn't suspend my disbelief anymore.<br /><br />Some people actually consider this a 'so bad, it's good' movie, they are liars. I didn't finish the movie, but one of the other reviews mention that they actually somehow become police officers at the end of the movie, which makes me glad to not have watched it all the way through.<br /><br />This is even worse than 'Zombiez' DO NOT WATCH! | 1 |
I was so looking forward to seeing this when it was in production.But it turned out to be the the biggest let down. A far cry from the whimsical world of Dr Seuss. It was vulgar and distasteful I don't think Dr Seuss would have approved.How the Grinch stole Christmas was much better. I understand it had some subtle adult jokes in it but my children have yet to catch on. Whereas The Cat in the Hat screamed vulgarity they caught a lot more than I would have liked.Growing up with Dr Seuss It really bothered me to see how this timeless classic got trashed on the big screen .Lets see what they do with Horton hears a who.I hope this one does Dr Seuss some justice. | 1 |
There's something about a movie that features female bodybuilders that gets me in front of the screen every time. <br /><br />I've seen 'Pumping Iron II', 'Aces: Iron Eagle III', 'Raven Hawk', and even the TV movie 'Getting Physical', which featured some big names in the sport. They were tolerable in their own ways (mostly, because they featured Rachel McLish. ROWWR!!).<br /><br />Then I went and watched 'Nemesis III: Prey Harder', on the sole basis that it featured such luminaries as Sue Price, Debbie Muggli, Sharon Bruneau and Ursula Sarcev. Love the ladies, always will, but after this I'm kinda glad I missed the first two 'Nemesis' flicks.<br /><br />Well, the first one, anyway. Most of the footage here is lifted bodily (and kicking and screaming, I would guess) from 'Nemesis II'. Actually, that one looked marginally entertaining from the evidence supplied here.<br /><br />But even though Price and company flex and pose, they don't get much of a chance to do anything else (like, say, ACT!). In fact, this whole film is an exercise (Get it? Ha-ha...) in oblique story-telling, ambiguous characters and open-ended movie-making (in terms of filming as well as the story-line). <br /><br />Nothing makes much sense but even if it did, there would still be issues - such as making such small parts for such larger-than-life women as these. What a crime.<br /><br />Of course, it was written and directed by Albert Pyun, so what did you expect: cohesion?<br /><br />One star only, in consideration for all the hard work that Price, Muggli, Bruneau and Sarcev obviously put into their bodies, NOT the 'craft' work done within the movie itself.<br /><br />Thanks, ladies. | 1 |
There is such rubbish on the cable movie channels that I hit a gem with this one. From beginning to end it had me gripped and deserves top marks.<br /><br />Father of two sons hears messages from 'God' to kill people who he is told are 'demons'.<br /><br />When the opening credits showed the director as one of the cast that can often be a warning of a bad film; exceptionally it is the reverse here as the drama is non-stop from beginning to end.<br /><br />And there is not one moment in the movie when one is not fully enthralled as there are no unnecessary or needless sub-plots, and the script is first class. <br /><br />All the actors give wholly convincing performances especially the lead child actor who is exceptional. <br /><br />This film is at least as good as the likes of 'Silence of the Lambs'. | 0 |
I think the problem with some reactions to this film is that - with few exceptions - they don't focus on the main disconnect, hence the main split in the audience.<br /><br />On the one side, there are those who are taken by the visual design, pretty costumes, and variety of elements going into the film. Some children's movie fans love the colour and animation, and all the un-scary 'magical' effects, shapeshifting animals, and so on. Some culture vultures like the complicated references, the layerings of different folklore elements, and the fact that they can watch Zhang Ziyi singing and quasi-miming, in two different languages, in what really was intended to be a children's comedy.<br /><br />On the other side, there are those who say that a children's movie should still have a point, that a blend of folktales is not a tale at all, and that it's easier to believe in magic when enough thought and care has gone into the technical aspects to make it seem real.<br /><br />In other words, the ideas could be lovely; but when you put them onstage they have to deliver. Here, they don't.<br /><br />A good folktale - from any country - has a clear story, a point, and characters who interact strongly with each other. This lacks them all. A few over-sophisticated gestures to opera, Western and Japanese, are no replacement for a solid theme.<br /><br />As a fantasy fan, I must say that I've sat through some turkeys and loved a few, but this one really tries to do too many things - cheaply. Putting in Zhang Ziyi to try to add a little glitter smacks of exotic flower syndrome. The other problem isn't that there's no plot; there's half a plot, which means that you keep getting pulled in, then dropped again as another none-too-sharply-executed dance number kicks off.<br /><br />The characters all seem to know that they're starring in a movie. Unless you really like watching other peoples' amateur video, this ain't good. I'd like to test this on real children; I think they'd drop it for Uproar in Heaven after about 20 minutes. | 1 |
I am a VERY big fan of Jenna Jameson, but this movie is horrible. At the time Jenna Jameson was married to Brad Armstrong and he was the director of this film and Jenna was the hottest porn star ever. So, of course, Brad tried to make as much money as he could off her by making this big budget porn film. Now I know why they don't make big budget porn movies anymore. In a fantasy world, porn stars could act, but this is the real world and they can't act. That's why there porn stars, if a women as beautiful as Jenna could act, then she would have tried to go into mainstream movies instead of porn. Just because your beautiful doesn't make you a movie star. A fine example of this is Traci Lords, when she was a teen thru her 20's she was one of the most beautiful, sexy women on earth. She made her move into low budget mainstream films and couldn't act. Where is she now? I gave it a 2 instead of a 1 rating just because Jenna is so hot, but there are better movies she has made then 'Dream Quest'. Come on Jenna, we don't want to hear you talk, as much as we want to see you have sex. Also, you Jenna, would have a lot more fans and more money in your bank account if you would have done anal on film. | 1 |
The film had it moments, but was disappointing in my eyes anyway. It was a reworking of Trespass (Walter Hill) and so The Treasure Of the Sierra Madre, with less tension, bite and human emotion. There was some nice acting but the story was limp and lacked any real depth. I watched the movie for Mr Reno and Mr Fishburn, neither were inspired and both had little to say or act out of their skin for. This movie has been done to death in the past and did not have to be made, eats up money which could be used on better movies. For an action movie it was sparse of action and as a thriller did not thrill. Better than watching snow fall, but not for me. | 1 |
Three girls, the youngest descendents of the Gaylord family, one of America's most royal families, are orphaned at a young age. Right before he goes off to France to fight in WWI, their father tells the oldest, Fiona, never to sell the land. By the time the sisters have become adults, they have had to squander most of their money to pay for lawyers to defend their property. Through certain loopholes in the father's will, a man named Charles Barclay stands to gain possession of the Gaylord land, on which he wants to build a complex called Barclay Circle. Barclay is actually based on John D. Rockefeller, who was buying up land and buildings from affluent families in New York so he could build Rockefeller Center.<br /><br />This film deals mostly with the melodramatic concerns of the three sisters. Fiona, well played by Barbara Stanwyck, although it's certainly not to be counted as one of her best roles, seems like a cold, domineering woman, and it becomes clear that she has some skeletons in her closet. Susanna, played by Nancy Coleman, is a little ditsy and completely in love with a young modern artist named Gig Young. Coleman's was my favorite performance in the film. Evelyn, played by Geraldine Fitzgerald, is a rather pretentious seductress with a monocle who married into noble blood in England, but that doesn't stop her from trying to steal Gig from her sister. The three sisters are developed quite well but, as is the major trend in The Gay Sisters, never well enough. Charles Barclay is played by George Brent. He isn't very good. Well, he would be satisfactory if the story had played out the way it should have, but he always seems like a scumbag in the film. When we're asked to sympathize with him late in the film, it's impossible. Gig Young is played by, huh?, Gig Young. No, he's not playing himself. What happened is that the actor, who had acted in several movies previously under his real name, Byron Barr, was pressured by Warner Brothers to change his name to something more catchy. I'm not sure who made the final choice, but he eventually changed his screen name to Gig Young, after the character whom he plays in The Gay Sisters. Weird, eh? Young is quite good through most of the film, but the script does some unfortunate things with his character late in the film which ultimately harm the audience's sympathy for him. In two other supporting roles, Helen Thimig and Gene Lockhart are quite good.<br /><br />The Gay Sisters had great potential to turn out to be one of the great cinematic family sagas. The characters are all interesting, as are their situations. Unfortunately, the script never strives for anything more than the simplest melodrama. If it had made the interrelationships of all the major characters more complex, fleshed out, for example, the rivalry between Evelyn and Susanna or made the flashback more intricate, the film could have been fantastic. It also could have fleshed out the prologue more, let us know more about the Gaylord family. We need to care more about the characters and we need to sympathize with them more. And the ending needed some major fixing. It basically just gives up at the end. Fiona's problems are solved so poorly that it hurts. Whatever sympathy her character had gained as the film progressed falls apart. It's also far too happy. This story seems moving towards tragedy, or maybe just a sense of historical significance or loss. And we still hate Barclay. And the conflict between the two sisters and Gig is never solved. As bad as Fiona's story ends, Susanna's, Gig's, and Evelyn's is even worse.<br /><br />I still liked the film. It's thoroughly watchable, even if it doesn't involve us like other great films of the era. 7/10, mostly for its potential. It should have been remade, or the novel should have been re-adapted, at some point during the studio era. It is too dated to be remade now. The 1950s would have been the best time, during the time of films like Giant. | 0 |
For some strange reason the film world is driven by fashion . Someone makes a film about a killer shark then all of a sudden the film world`s oceans are awash with giant Squids , killer octopusses and sea monsters of every ilk . A man is stalked by an erstwhile lover from hell then every film character is stalked by a cop from hell or a flatmate from hell or a babysitter from hell . Then when a major Hollywood company produces a big budget FX laden blockbuster about tornados then other film producers jump upon the bandwagon , the fact that they don`t have the budget to pull it off doesn`t stop them. NIGHT OF THE TWISTERS is a case in point . What struck me about this made for television film is the fact that it tries to hide its lack of budget by cutting to the ad breaks . Everytime a tornado appears the camara locks onto the horrified expression of the actors as they scream things like ' Oh my gawd it`s heading this way ' and ' Run for your lives ' then the screen fades to black saving the producers the need to up the special effects budget . Unfortunately NIGHT OF THE TWISTERS budget should have been upped to include better actors . The cast are by no means bad but they are unimpressive and lack the skill to carry a film which is character driven . Where`s Josh Hartnett and Elijah Wood when you need them ?<br /><br />And the last word on this being a TWISTER clone ..... Yes NOTT was released a couple of months before TWISTER but TWISTER had been hyped for several months as being the Summer blockbuster of 1996 and NOTT has a rushed feeling to it which leads me to believe that it was made and released to tie in with the hype surrounding TWISTER | 1 |
It's hard to say which comes out on top, James Cagney's charm and energy or the mouth- opening excesses of Busby Berkeley's three grand showstoppers at the close. I give it a tie, with Footlight Parade one of the funniest and quickest of the early Thirties musicals. Although the movie clearly belongs to Cagney, Joan Blondell adds immeasurably to the good-natured story line. <br /><br />And what's the story line? It's about Chester Kent (Cagney) who produces musicals, and who now is just about out of business as the talkies take over. He starts doing Prologues, live musical entertainment offered on stage before a movie starts. He gets the idea to do bigger ones and more of them, moving them around the country. He's a ball of fire and ideas, and he needs all the ideas he can get to keep relentlessly producing these things. But a rival is spying on him and stealing his ideas; Nan Prescott (Blondell), his wise-cracking secretary, loves him but he's too busy too notice; an office girl in black-rimmed, round glasses (Ruby Keeler) wants a chance to dance; his wife turns up saying she didn't divorce him after all; a blonde gold-digger is setting her hooks in him; his partners are cheating him...my gosh, what's next? This may all sound like a lot to digest, but everything happens fast, with Cagney bouncing, strutting, striding, finger-snapping, barking orders and occasionally - until the big last number when he goes all out singing and dancing -- doing a step or two just to show how it's done. <br /><br />Instead of 'Let's put on a show, gang' we have 'We need to build three shows in three days, so lock the doors and let's start rehearsing.' These three super Prologues are going to feature 40 chorines, spectacular effects and will mean a rich contract, with forty Kent units in deluxe movie houses...the whole Apollo movie house circuit! Exhaustion threatens, feet ache, but all those unbilled chorines in skimpy costumes (which include Ann Sothern and Dorothy Lamour; you can quickly spot Sothern but Lamour is more generic) stay the course, dancing their hearts out, giggling and chattering and looking remarkably unsweaty. <br /><br />And then the curtains go up as each Prologue is presented in separate movie houses, one after the other on the same night, with the owner of the Apollo circuit going to determine that night whether he'll save Chester's skin or not. <br /><br />First up is 'Honeymoon Hotel' with Dick Powell and Ruby Keeler in a 9 minute production number that features a lot of wholesome lasciviousness, with brides and grooms (some might even be married), bedrooms and beds, and doors with 'Do not disturb' signs. <br /><br />Then on to the next theater and 11 minutes of 'By a Waterfall' that probably had the Warner Brothers accountants worrying about bankruptcy. This number is so excessive -- dozens of swimming girls, trees, fountains, a huge grotto with waterslides, a giant pool -- you'd never think there was a Depression on. Berkeley pulls out all his tricks -- synchronization, human patterns, legs and arms doing all sorts of precision things -- and he does it in the water, with a lot of underwater photography looking up. The girls are sure game. They come up smiling with water in their eyes and still hit their marks. The whole thing must have been incredibly difficult and exhausting. Ruby Keeler, who has a couple of quick shots in the water, is the only one who looks a bit cautious. <br /><br />And finally, the smash finale...11 minutes of Cagney dancing and singing with Keeler to 'Shanghai Lil,' with all sorts of bar girls and their customers, unusual in that the races are mixed up. There's Cagney and Keeler dancing on the bar, dancing on a table, Cagney fighting. There are what looks like fifty or sixty marching marines, hupping back and forth, rifles tossed and caught. Then...this is true...a human picture forms of Franklin Roosevelt and the NRA eagle. This may be the only Hollywood musical production that has ever featured Roosevelt, a big federal agency and a bevy of sexy Chinese prostitutes. <br /><br />That's entertainment, folks. It's great! <br /><br />Of course, Chester's Prologues get the big contract and Nan gets Chester. The movie is full of juicy clichés that make us smile. Ruby Keeler is so endearing as she earnestly stomps out her taps with her arms flying that you want to help her along. Joan Blondell makes us forget about a lot of Hollywood females who might have been more beautiful but who had a lot less wit and personality. The movie, however, belongs to Cagney, who grabs and shakes it, and to Berkeley, a man for whom too much was never too much. | 0 |
This was just plain terrible. I read this book for school, i made As on all of the tests, and to see it like this! My teacher forced me and 20 other people to watch it, and it was worse than Leonard Part 6, Plan 9 from Outer Space, and Hudson Hawk put together. The thing that made this film so terrible was enough reasons to want to kill yourself over. First of all, it was made on Hallmark. Second, the acting was terrible. Third, it was like completely different from the book. Literally, it was so bad I asked myself to be excused. Basically, I would rather watch Basic Instinct 2 than watch this. Take my advice, don't watch this film. No one would want to watch this. It was horrible. HORRIBLE! | 1 |
I like both this version of DORIAN GRAY and the MGM version. Both add a little girl early in the story who grows up to have an association with Dorian (this is not in the original book), and that is my only complaint. I especially like Angela Lansbury as Sybil Vane and George Sanders as Harry in the MGM version, but Shane Briant as Dorian in the TV-version is much better looking (I think) and far more ruthless than Hurd Hatfield in the MGM version: I think Briant is more true to the novel's Dorian. In the end, this is a very good adaptation of the novel (it even hints at Dorian's liaison's with men, as does Wylde, which could not be done in the MGM version). | 0 |
Oh, my. Poor Jane must have done the old rolling-over-in-the-grave thing. Even allowing for poor production values for the time (1971) and the format (some kind of mini-series), this is baaaaaad. Whatever else you do with Austen, the dialog should sparkle (even in this, perhaps her most serious work), and melodrama should be strictly out of bounds. Alas, not the case with this production. By the time you get to Anne's 'Frederick, Frederick, Frederick,' you'll either be laughing or crying. Unless you're just out to visually 'collect' all extant films of Austen's work, you can skip this one. If you do watch it, however, there are small consolations: The actresses playing Anne's sisters each do a wonderful job with their roles. | 1 |
Reading the other comments here at the IMDB, I had very high expectations before seeing 'Angels of the universe'. I wasn't disappointed, and giving the movie an 8, I would say that I can justify that grade.<br /><br />The movie has some incredible acting, especially by the main-person, Pall. The supporting actors are also doing a very good job like the patients in the mental institution, the parents and the siblings of Pall. The music is also worth mentioning, supporting the movie throughout, giving depth and feeling.<br /><br />Although the movie is very scandinavian, it doesn't leave out some humour and has a sort of objective authorship about Pall's life. Still, if you want to see a cheesy comedy or something light-weight, this is not for you. It is a story about people with mental problems, about the way they are being dealt with in society - but most of all, a story about Pall.<br /><br />I recommend this movie to all movie connoisseurs. It is one of the best movies that has ever come out of Iceland, if not out of Scandinavia. | 0 |
This movie was made by Daiei Studios, known for its Gamera movies. It is about a samurai lord who was murdered by one of his own men. He claims his throne, forcing his former's two children to flee into the woods, where they hide near a huge stone statue for 10 years. In those time that passed, the new samurai lord has proved to be very brutal and ruthless towards the village people and the valley. Therefore, it seems that the good people's only hope is the stone statue, which is where a demon god sleeps; they want the god to help them. <br /><br />This samurai movie brings to us traditional Japanese aspects including sword-fights, geisha and worshipers. It is a superb and powerful story of survival and hope, with the protagonists attempting to triumph over pure evil. It is full of excitement, particularly the parts where the children struggles to remain in hiding as the evil warlord is out to get them. In addition, it has beautiful cinematography, with luscious landscapes of the village and countryside-instantly reminds you of the ancient times in Japan. <br /><br />As with most samurai movies like 'The Seven Samuari' and 'The Last Samuarai,' this movie is no less than pure, sometimes graphic, action. There are several disturbing scenes in the film. Therefore, it is not the casual sci-fi film. Yet, it is strong and powerful, and delivers a message that a good-natured human can overcome any adversaries, as depicted in this film, even the young innocent girl can calm the wrath of the demon god. The scenes of the demon god, known as Daimajin, trampling on its enemies and anything that stands in his way will instantly remind you of a Godzilla or Gamera film. Overall, a powerful and serious, yet hopeful film.<br /><br />So, be careful with your samurai sword. You wouldn't want to rattle Daimajin's cages.<br /><br />Grade A | 0 |
But, lets face it... it got a few nostalgic sighs out of me.<br /><br />The show is just so consistently great that it is allowed to have a few hiccups. I get a new season, and just power through them like I have 2-days to live. I like the idea of wrapping it up, but it was much more of an end of season episode which would explain the following:<br /><br />Dr.Cox isn't supposed to be bald for a couple more episodes, only explanation I can think of is they changed the rotation of the episodes or had to re-shoot the beginning.<br /><br />and that my friends, is why the hell cox is bald.<br /><br />Anyways, the show is awesome...bring on the 7th season. | 1 |
Every time this film is on the BBC somebody in the Radio Times says how it is a satire against the post war world of rationing and the welfare state. I do not think this is the point of the film at all. The film parodies the spivs(small time criminals who ran the blackmarket) and the housewives league who campaigned against government restrictions but were really a Tory front organisation.<br /><br />Yes of course the film sends up the political/social situation but in the end the people realise that they need all the controls to ensure a fair society,they want to be British and muddle through rather than foreign.<br /><br />But I don't think they go back to being exactly like they were before. | 0 |
Paint by numbers story and mediocre acting saved by some authentic color - and a few moments that are really wonderful and deeply felt. It does effectively capture the delicate transition of a girl into adulthood, and deals very sensitively and inventively with the cultural conflict the main family experiences.<br /><br />Unfortunately this germ of a good movie is imprisoned in an aimless and extremely convoluted plot that manages to incorporate religious strife, a conflict over a road construction project, the sex life of secondary and even tertiary characters, a mysterious man who lives in the woods, a bunch of racist hooligans, at least three different carnivals, the intricacies of local church politics, and on and on and on. And all of that doesn't even include the actual central plot, which is only about the hopes, dreams, and frustrations of two girls (and their entire families) at the turning point of their lives. I was actually shocked when I realized the whole thing was supposed to take place over the course of one summer (and that so much movie got accomplished in 1.5 hours!) <br /><br />Ultimately the movie is melodramatic, every plot point is predictable, major life altering events happen and then are forgotten about 10 minutes later...and some of those events are extremely distasteful. Most shockingly the fact that one of the characters is involved in a horrible crime (in a totally predictable 'twist') and then is completely forgiven and the entire incident forgotten about from then on. Similarly, a secondary character is introduced solely to die a couple minutes later and provide another 'twist.' It's all totally mechanical, right up to the ending that neatly ties up all the loose ends (well not all of them, just the ones the movie thinks you care about.) | 1 |
For many years I thought I was the only person on the planet who had seen TEMPEST, and I am so glad to learn that I am not the only person who discovered this sleeper somewhere in their movie-going travails. Loosely based on the Shakesperean play, TEMPEST follows an architect (the late John Cassavettes, in one of his best performances), bored with his work and his crumbling marriage (to real life spouse Gene Rowlads), who decides to chuck it all, say the hell with the rat race and go live on an island with his daughter (Molly Ringwald, in her film debut), and new girlfriend Aretha (a luminous Susan Sarandon). Even though Paul Mazursky is credited as director, Cassavettes hand is all over this film...the long scenes filmed without cutting, the improvisatory feel to the dialogue..., the self-indulgent storytelling style, this is definitely his show from beginning to end, and if you're not a fan of his work, the film will seem laboriously long and dull but if you are a fan, there are rewards to be had. Cassavettes is surrounded by a first rate cast...his scenes with Rowlands crackle with intensity and his surprising chemistry with Sarandon is a stark contrast to his scenes with Rowlands. Ringwald shines in her film debut and there is a scene-stealing performance by the late Raul Julia as Kalibanos, Cassavettes' manservant on the island. Julia stops the show in one scene dancing with a flock of sheep accompanied by Liza Minnelli singing 'New York, New York'. This film is sad and tragic and funny and intense. Yes, it's a little long and disjointed and it works a little too hard at being different (there's even a curtain call at the end of the film), but it never fails to hold the attention of those who like something a little different in their filmgoing. | 0 |
Ridiculous thriller in which a group of students kidnapped their bad and neurotic teacher (Mirren) just to prevent her action against them. Interesting premise could render a good movie but this one is just lame and far fetched. Boring with an ending embarassing, just to say the least. Mrs. Mirren tries to give some dignity to this misfire but even she - a good actress, no doubt about it - could save this garbage. I give this a 4 (four). | 1 |
While driving in a highway to the wedding of his beloved Betty-Ann, Adam (Eric Jungmann) is surprised by his former schoolmate Harley (Justin Urich) on the backseat of his car. Adam has broken off with the inconvenient and moron Harley because of Betty-Ann. Along their road trip, Harley makes fun of some rednecks in a bar and later their car is chased by a giant monster truck on the road. After some incidents, they give a lift to the hitchhiker Sarah (Aimee Brooks) and sooner the trio is terrorized by a scary monster driving the monster truck.<br /><br />In spite of having one of the most annoying characters I have ever seen in a horror movie, the irritating Harley, 'Monster Man' is a surprisingly good trash horror-comedy. The story is a collection of clichés, beginning like 'Joy Ride' or 'Duel'; then it turns to one of the countless rip-offs of 'The Texas Chainsaw Massacre'; there is a surprising twist, ending with a hook for a sequel. There are hilarious scenes, Aimee Brooks is extremely sexy and this film really entertains. My vote is seven.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): 'Monster Man' | 0 |
My comments may be a bit of a spoiler, for what it's worth. Stop now if you care enough....<br /><br />Saving Grace should have been titled 'A Paper-Thin Excuse for Old British Women to Get High On-Screen.' This film is dumb. The incidental music is an annoyance as are the obvious, hackneyed tunes that sporadically pop up to comment on the narrative ('Spirit in the Sky,' for example - Oh, I get it!) This is basically a Cheech and Chong movie made credible by its stodgy English setting and Brenda Blethyn's overwhelming power to inflict emotion on an audience using her voice alone. I could literally hear the folks over at High Times magazine receiving their jollies over the enormous 'buds' that litter this picture. Worst scene? Easy. Brenda attempts to peddle her illicit wares on the street of London in a blaring white dress-suit. Not funny. Not original. Not interesting. Not a good movie. The 7.2 rating is the result of zealots over-voting. Don't waste your time... | 1 |
I wouldn't give this movie a rating, it's not worthy. I watched it only because I'm a Pfieffer fan. I love her and would watch anything she made. Even in this dud, she didn't disappoint. Every scene with her in it, kept the viewer watching...waiting...for something to happen but nothing ever did. It had some good story lines but they ended abruptly as soon as it started. Some of the other characters had potential but nothing became of it.<br /><br />Pfieffer was 29 when she made this film and at her most lovely. The wardrobe and set was surprisingly good. <br /><br />I can watch mostly anything and rarely come across a movie I can't find something to like about it, but this was a dud. I don't understand. <br /><br />The worst thing about it all, it had a big cliff hanger at the end. It had an ending scene that woke you up and say wow, this film is finally going some place, then the credits roll. Good grief. <br /><br />I agree with the review that said .99 would have bought 3 cans of cat food and watching my cat eat would have been more exciting. Well said. Actually, that comment was more entertaining than the film because it sums it up so well. I too wasted .99 cents on this dud.dud.dud. | 1 |
Since the characters begin with 'Unknown' identities, they not identified by name, so you start with handsome James Caviezel waking up in a warehouse. He finds out the place is locked up tight. Don't ask - the windows are made with security glass, and it's impossible to get out. Four other awakening men make it a quintet - Mr. Caviezel in his 'Jean Jacket', Barry Pepper in a 'Ranger Shirt', Greg Kinnear with a 'Broken Nose', Joe Pantoliano as a chair 'Bound Man', and Jeremy Sisto shot and 'Handcuffed Man'. Oh, Man
<br /><br />These five men have collective amnesia. They think that three of them are kidnappers, and two are victims - but, they don't know who is which or which is who. The forgetfulness is due to a pipe leak. Don't ask - it happens. Meanwhile, on the outside, lead lawman David Selby (as Parker) sends his cops to solve the kidnapping while one of the men's wives, Bridget Moynahan (as Eliza Coles), frantically waits. But, criminal element's gang leader, Peter Stormare in 'Snakeskin Boots', is also on his way to the scene.<br /><br />Like the DVD synopsis says, 'As secrets are revealed and clues unraveled, (the five men) must race against time to figure out who is good and who is evil in order to stay alive.' This story reads a lot better than it looks on film, unfortunately. When the secrets are finally revealed, and memories become clear, there is no longer much interest in what has happened. Simply, director Simon Brand has a great premise with Matthew Waynee's idea, but they encumber light investment in the characters holding the short end of the stick.<br /><br />**** Unknown (11/1/06) Simon Brand ~ James Caviezel, Barry Pepper, Greg Kinnear, David Selby | 1 |
A really good Australian film .Beautifully recreates the look and feel of Sydney as it was in the 1950s. This movie greatly impressed me when I first saw it during it's initial cinema release and it still stands up very well. Fine directing job by Phil Noyce, wonderful camera work , thoughtful lighting and some fine performances across the board. An absolute 'Must See' for any students of 70's Australian cinema.One out of the box ! | 0 |
The film made no sense to me whatsoever. Good actors(SergioCastellittoaparticular favourite; he was great in 'Uomo DelleStelle'/'TheStarmaker'but that was made by Giuseppe Tornatore, a great Italian director as opposed to the mediocre one who made this effort),but awful, rambling script, terrible editing,and a director who seemed to have no idea of what he was trying to say, and ended up saying exactly nothing. Apretentious load of rubbish, but the sort of film that certain Italianpseudo-intellectuals whom it was my misfortune to have known in the dim and distant past would have loved it, and unfortunately Italy has no monopoly on these, they can be found everywhere and probably acclaim this as a great masterpiece. I never thought much of Bellochio as director. I remember seeing his first film 'PugniNella Tasca'/'Fists in the Pocket' (or some such title) in Rome when it was first shown close on 50 years ago (I was living thereat the time). All the usual pseudos raved about it, but it left me pretty cold. I didn't think he was much of a director then, and still don't. Age has certainly not improved him, and this film must rank as one of his worst. | 1 |
This is the worst movie I have ever seen. I was going to get up and leave at Tape 4 but I stuck it out. I now consider myself a Masochist! Afghanistan? Come on guys! Who's the idiot who forgot to hide the Sanskrit billboards? I thought the lead actor(George Calil) was particularly inept. Apart from the bad acting and over zealous camera shake, I thought using the events of 9/11 as a reason to make 'Larson the Lunatic Implodes, all over a screen near you' disgraceful and irreverent to the victims of 9/11. Using a phone call from Larson's wife, Sarah, supposedly from one of the terrorist held planes on that day, was appalling. The camera shake didn't make me feel sick, that cold hearted stunt did. | 1 |
This flick reminds me some really bad science-fiction movies from 50's and 60's.It is not scary or interesting,but it's dull,cheesy and stupid.Special effects are laughable,all actors are ludicrous and the ending is simply awful.Don't waste your money,rent or buy something better.I give it 3.5 out of 10( I found this turkey quite amusing because of its stupidity). | 1 |
Spacecamp is my favorite movie. It is a great story and also inspires others.<br /><br />The acting was excellent and my wife and I went to see Lea Thompson in Cabaret years later due to her performance in the movie. It is unfortunate that the Challenger Accident delayed and hurt the movie.<br /><br />The 20th Anniversary of the Challenger Accident is coming up. I knew one of the Challenger Astronauts off and on since childhood on the Carnegie Mellon campus where my father went to school; I also know a close friend of the late pilot.<br /><br />I was the technical review last year for National BSA for the Boy Scout Astronomy Merit Badge and I still find Spacecamp a great movie to recommend to Scouts doing the Space related merit badges I teach.<br /><br />I ran into the late astronaut again as an adult and was following a schedule of engineering education we had put together when Challenger blew up. I wound up sitting in with Willard Rockwell and his engineers,'invisible', going over things after the Accident at the Astrotech stockholders meeting by chance as a result, so I'm much closer to the Accident and any movie similarities. I made sure that I was a good student and finished the degree four years later, strangely enough, on the recommendation of the Rockwell engineer who told them not to fly Challenger in 1986 and who later built Endeavour. | 0 |
In Chicago, four electricians leaded by Dean (Richard Grieco) come to an old building to disconnect power. They accidentally activate a portal and arrive in another dimension, where Chicago was destroyed by a Spider Queen and inhabited by mutants. The group meets survivors leaded by Crane (David Nerman) and Elena (Kate Greenhouse), and finds the inventor of the portal, Dr. Richard Morelli (Colin Fox), who has been living in this dimension for thirty years. They join forces, trying to rebuilt a portal to bring them back home. 'Webs' is a watchable plagiarizing of 'Sliders', only worse. Most of the dialogs seem to be written by a person who has not concluded the elementary school, so imbecile they are. Further, the story is illogical, and seems that Chicago is the only city in the world. The scientist trying to start his sophisticated machine with broken wires as if he were stealing a car is very funny. The face of Richard Grieco looks like a white version of Michael Jackson and is horrible. If the viewer shuts-down his or her brain, he or she may like this forgettable TV movie. My vote is four.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): 'Na Teia do Terror' ('In the Web of Horror') | 1 |
Although this film changes reality to make it more heroic and entertaining, sometimes fantasy is more enjoyable than real life, and also nothing could be more real than Errol Flynn playing Custer. This remains the best film made about Custer. The music of Max Steiner is magnificent and also all through the film the Irish song 'Gerry Owen', which was a favourite of Custer is played. The film should have more villains, because they try to concentrate all the bad guys in Arthur Kennedy. The relationship between Flynn and De Havilland flows like in no other off their films together, and director Raoul Walsh with his experience in outside scenes with a lot of actors is at his best. | 0 |
The real star of the last of the Airport films is that big supersonic carrier the French created called The Concorde. If you bear in mind that the whole film is dedicated to showing what that needle nosed plane could do in the sky, than the whole film kind of makes sense.<br /><br />But if you're expecting some serious drama here, than by all means take some of the evasive action the Concorde shows here when some nasty folks try to shoot her down.<br /><br />Susan Blakely plays a television news reporter who also happens to be the mistress of military industrial tycoon Robert Wagner. One of Wagner's aides just happens to bring her information on some of Wagner's dirty business dealings, selling arms to folks not friendly to the USA. When the source, Macon McCalman, is killed in front of her and she's nearly done in by a hit-man whom she escapes from of course she confronts Wagner with the information. And of course he denies it. But right before Blakely boards The Concorde, McCalman's widow Kathleen Maguire hands her the necessary documents. <br /><br />But on the way to Moscow with a stop in Paris, Wagner and his minions try to put the big bird down. But the fearless crew of Alain Delon, David Warner, and George Kennedy is up to all their tricks. It's quite a bag full as you'll see if you want to watch the film.<br /><br />If you're an aviation enthusiast, you absolutely won't care about the plot. It's like the film Le Mans with Steve McQueen which has a legion of auto racing fans who have made it a cult item. Maybe Le Mans is better at that because they just didn't bother with any kind of story.<br /><br />Among the passengers is a pot smoking saxophonist played by Jimmie Walker, a distraught mother accompanying a new heart for her child, played by Cicely Tyson and Martha Raye a woman with a weak bladder who spends the entire trip from Washington to Paris in the loo. She's actually the best one here.<br /><br />Robert Wagner must have been psychic though because I'm sure on the strength of this film he got the part of Doctor Evil's number two in the Austin Powers series.<br /><br />I'm sure all concerned got a big pay day out of this film, but it seems to have killed the Airport saga of movies. | 1 |
I have seen so many bad reviews on Supervivientes de los Andes that I felt compelled to stand for it (or at least I'll try). First of all, of course that it looks dated, it was made in the seventies with very low budget, but that's part of it's charm. I like contemporary films but also dig the old ones for what they worth. I'm not the one to feel the urge to only see or like movies with modern treatments and effects; besides, almost every movie buff likes old fashioned motion pictures (who doesn't like films from El Santo or Plan 9 from outer space, no matter it's overall quality?). In the aspect of pace, is just a tool for covering (again) it's low cost, and I think the constant dialogs are in order of a better character and situations development. Sure, Alive has better FX, but I won't despise the old one just because of that, and I don't feel quite attracted to English speakers in an event involving people from Uruguay and for me, that gives a plus to Supervivientes de los Andes. It's like, even if Canoa, from the seventies and based on a true event too, would have a better remake now due to the advance of technology, but I think I would stick to that one based on the emotions that offers regardless it's production date.<br /><br />All of this is based in the impact that had on me because the first time I saw it was on TV, and nowadays I don't think it has lost some of it's primal force. Of course it's been a long time and I've seen tons of better movies in every aspect of cinema, but that doesn't diminish it's true value. It's not a bad film, and I place it above Alive without hesitation. Just give it a break. | 0 |
I've seen many of Guy Maddin's films, and liked most of them, but this one literally gave me a headache. John Gurdebeke's editing is way too frenetic, and, apart from a tour-de-force sequence showing a line of heads snapping to look at one object, does nothing but interfere with the actors' ability to communicate with the audience.<br /><br />Another thing I disliked about this film was that it seemed more brutal than Maddin's earlier works--though his films have always had dark elements, his sympathy for the characters gave the movies an overriding feeling of humanity. This one seemed more like harshness for harshness' sake.<br /><br />As I'm required to add more lines of text before IMDb will accept my review, I will mention that the actor playing 'Guy Maddin' does manage to ape his facial expressions pretty well. | 1 |
Normally, I don't like Chuck Norris films. I appreciate his work as a martial artist, and his fight scenes are usually fairly well-choreographed. Chuck is undeniably one of the martial arts greats. So, in my local used bookstore, I found a film I hadn't seen before and took it home.<br /><br />While the acting in this movie was worse than most Chuch Norris films, I was hoping to see at least one fight scene. I quickly began to realize that this wasn't a typical Chuch Norris film; rather it was a Christian film, destined to illustrate the 'good will win out' paradigm.<br /><br />There is really nothing on the packaging to indicate that this is a Christian film, with the exception of the label ... Goodtimes Entertainment, which I had never heard of before. I'll certainly keep that in mind the next time I see a film from that company.<br /><br />I don't have a problem with Christianity ... I do have a problem with sneaky proselytizing. If someone is going to make a religious film, at least have the good sense to indicate to the viewer that such is what they will get. The only redeeming part about the exercise is that I spent only $3.25 to spend 97 minutes to watch a great martial artist not fight. At least it was during supper-time, and I spent some of that cooking and eating.<br /><br />In short, if you're looking for a mediocre martial arts film, and not hoping for much, don't bother with this film because it doesn't even offer that. | 1 |
just watched it on sky TV missed the first half an hour. i did wonder if it was a true story so watched it to the end. there was no brief at the end to say what happened to everyone. it did remind me of speed but at the end of the day i don't suppose it was released at the cinema as we did see the following error. the goof that we saw was that they remove the bonnet (hood) and then later on there are two shots of the car with the police car in front trying to slow it down when the bonnet is back on. it did have me on the edge of my seat especially when i thought the baby was going to hit the bridge and of course when the bridge wasn't going to be lowered and then it was. I'm afraid i did burst into tears so it wasn't that bad!!!! | 0 |
By far this has to be one of the worst movies I've ever seen in my life. I watch practically every movie that is on at night (either showtime, hbo, cinemax, etc). 'Three' AKA 'Survivor Island' keeps you in as much suspense as watching paint dry only to let you down even more miserably. If you want to feel like you just wasted what seems like an eternity on the worst film ever created then by all means watch this movie. I must have screamed at a minimum 900 times from the idiotic twists. If I had 4 hands I'd give this movie 4 thumbs DOWN.<br /><br />In my personal opinion, I believe the only people who would like this movie are those with terrible morals. | 1 |
Everybody just seems to be raving about the subject, and not really noticing how the movie was made. The deaf, mute guy is fine, the underdog wins - that's good, the cricket aspect is great, but the movie is average overall. I think it could be made much much better than it is.<br /><br />The plot is too predictable for a movie that is not based on a real life event. I'm sure the movie could have been made more interesting. The songs are just stuffed in there, and I had to literally forward the scenes where the same thing would be shown from different angles.<br /><br />Good acting, though. Watchable. | 1 |
I really like 101 Dalmations when it came out in 1996, now 5 years later i went to see 102 dalmations in 2001, i thought it was fantastic but i think 101 is better because i think it's more funnier, more humor, and also that movie was based on the same story as the cartoon version (one hundred and one dalmations (1961) i wonder if there are plans for 103 Dalmations. I hope there is, maybe yes, maybe no, all of us dalmation fans will have to find out if there is going to be 103 dalmations in the future. | 0 |
My favourite story from 'tales from the crypt'. Brion Jones was born to play the part of the maniac lumberjack,axe swinging madman Steve Dixon.Having seen him before in Tango&Cash I can state this actor never got the proper credit he deserved. A jealous husband takes offence in his wife showing an interest in a hunky young worker he's just employed.And you know when Dixon finds out there's gonna be hell to pay!The young worker Ted(Billy Wirth)receives an almighty beating from Dixon leaving him blind.Now how is a blind lumberjack supposed to work? A tribute to black humour if there ever was one! The co stars do a pretty good job too supporting Ted when Dixon when he has his initial suspicions about his wife desiring another man.Dixon's behaviour making the bond stronger closer between the colleagues.One even stated he became a changed man when he got married.Though Ted should have done the wise thing and left when he could! | 0 |
I was hoping that Pulp would be a interesting movie, but was profoundly disappointed.<br /><br />Pulp has very little storyline, and what there is never holds your interest. It was a real struggle to keep watching it. When its over you say to you self 'huh? that's it?!?'. This is one where you think after watching it - why did they ever bother?<br /><br />Its too bad since Michael Caine is a good actor. I was also hoping to see the great Lizabeth Scott in this, but she only appears on screen for a total of perhaps one minute. Scott is one of the all time great film noir femme fatale girls and this was her last film.<br /><br />Oh well... | 1 |
Want to know the secret to making a slasher film set at a fitness center work? Just pad the film out with lovely ladies in super tight workout outfits and have them bump and grind the floor like they are at a gentleman's club. That's what the makers of this horrid slasher film did and that little gimmick kept me watching till the bitter end. This is the worst slasher film I have ever seen, but every time I was ready to switch the channel, they'd add another scene with the workout girls and I'd stay put. As a slasher film, Killer Workout fails in every category I can think of. As a showcase for beautiful girls working out, it is a success. Strong recommendation to avoid, unless the thought of half the film being a big T&A show appeals to you. | 1 |
An accurate review of nuremburg must consider the door to history inadvertently opened with the movie 'valkyrie' (Tom Cruise). 'Valkyrie' (2008) at long last tells the world there was a German resistance during world war two professionally organised with bureaucrats, military generals, soldiers and civilians who tried to over throw the Nazi political regime, install a new chancellor, obtain peace and close the concentration camps. However, these unknown absolute heroes received no help at all from the allies who helped the French resistance just next door. History writers have used an institutionalised agenda ever since to conceal an allied evil which cost many tens of millions of lives with everyone conditioned to believe a deception that the German people completely supported the Nazis and consequently deserved the 24 hour bombing genocide and 'unconditional surrender' that was imposed on the Germans. <br /><br />The German enigma codes were broken by English scientists in 1943 so much of what the Germans were doing was known. During 1943 the Germans developed new jet fighters and jet bombers by companies including Arado, Heinkel and Messerschmitt. However, even if the Nazis were eliminated and the German resistance succeeded the allies wouldn't allow any democracy in the world to have jet fighters, jet bombers, high speed submarines, ballistic missiles and radio guided missiles without the USA having them first! This is where the institutionalised agenda is relevant. Consequently, the German resistance got no help at all from the allies although they always had crucial intelligence to eliminate Adolf Hitler. The 20 July 1944 coup is proof there were significant efforts by the Germans to obtain peace. Instead, the Germans got ultimatums of 'unconditional surrender' and 24 hour saturation bombing in an agenda to avoid peace. The allies wanted to steal the world's greatest technology and scientists from the Germans and contain complete ownership through an 'unconditional surrender.' It was a premeditated allied agenda to allow the war to perpetuate and keep the Nazis in power to justify the 24 hour bombing but it took one year after d-day before allied armies advanced into Germany to steal the world's greatest technology and scientists at the barrel of a gun. However, tens of millions of people had died since the allies abandoned the German resistance for their own greed. <br /><br />The allies imposed 'unconditional surrender' on the Germans as a pretext to complete ownership and control of German property and government and it was done without using the German resistance to over throw the Nazis. The allies wanted to steal the world's greatest technology and scientists from the Germans to achieve world technological supremacy. Consequently, everything else took second place to the evil allied agenda which killed millions of German people in the 24 hour bombing; the concentration camps stayed open; the war was prolonged and led to the 'cold war' with weapons based on German industrial achievements, technology, and scientists taken from the Germans in world war two.<br /><br />The 1946 Nuremburg war crimes trials were a public relations deception and mass murder perpetrated by the allies as retrospective justice to the Nazis. It was a smoke screen to hide the evil and greedy allied agenda for world technological supremacy rather than help the German resistance overthrow the nazi political regime.<br /><br />Tens of millions of people died because the allies abandoned the German resistance to an agenda but they inflicted retribution against the German chiefs of staff anyway whom paid with their lives at Nuremburg war crimes or not although the allies had perpetrated genocide to achieve world technological supremacy. | 1 |
Directed and co-written by Eytan Fox the writer/director of the highly acclaimed 2002 mini feature 'Yossi & Jagger' (2002). This comparative epic, at 1hr 53 minutes, is another fine romantic drama in which we must deal with tragedy as well as celebrate the beauty and joy in life. Westerners, especially urban gay men like myself, need to be moved outside our safety zone and be informed of the real life and death struggle elsewhere to be able to love with equity.<br /><br />While 'Yossi & Jagger' focused on a pair of gay lovers in the closeted confines of Israeli military service, 'Ha Buah' is centred on a group of civilian friends, both straight and gay, who share a unit in the heart of Israel's generally gay-tolerant, but not always gay-friendly, capital Tel Aviv.<br /><br />'Ha Buah' opens with a dramatic border check point scene in which Noam (Ohad Knoller Yossi from 'Yossi & Jagger') first meets handsome young Arab Ashraf (Yousef Sweid). Romance soon blooms but in that political climate opportunities would have to be seized quickly or lost altogether.<br /><br />From there we follow an intricate interplay among the members and lovers of the housemates and the unavoidable effect of Ashraf's very conservative family. If you follow this film's dialogue attentively enough then you will have no reason to be disappointed with the ending.<br /><br />The soundtrack for 'Ha Buah' is vibrant and the visuals are both beautiful and stark i.e. real life in the Middle East.<br /><br />The English subtitles are very easy to follow and you quickly relax and appreciate world cinema at its best. | 0 |
Would anyone really watch this RUBBISH if it didn't contain little children running around nude? From a cinematic point of view it is probably one of the worst films I have encountered absolutely dire. Some perv woke up one day and thought I will make a film with little girls in and call it art, stick them in countryside and there isn't any need for a story or explanation of how they got there or why they don't appear to live anywhere or have parents because p*rn films don't need anything like that. I would comment on the rest of the film but I haven't ticked spoilers so I will just say avoid, avoid avoid and find yourself a proper film to watch | 1 |
DOes anyone know where or how i can get a copy of this film?!! I've been searching for way too long, someone help! Back in 1997 my girlfriends and i were extras on this Long Island based film, and we actually never got to see it. :( <br /><br />i was hoping i could find a copy somehow so i can finally check it out, and share it with the girls! Is there anyone out there who knows where to get a copy of this, so i can stop driving myself crazy? (also, it doesn't matter if its in in VHS format, i'm still in the ice age myself.) If you, or anyone you know, has a copy of this film please help, i would be willing to pay for a good copy of it! | 0 |
If you are a fan of Altman's large ensemble casts, as evidenced in major films like M.A.S.H., Nashville, Gosford Park, and lesser seen films like A Wedding, then you will no doubt be entertained by HealtH. Centered around a Health Convention where two women are running for President, HealtH contains many of Altman's latter 70s regulars like Paul Dooley (who helped write the film), Carol Burnett, and Henry Gibson, while also including top star Altman newcomers like Lauren Bacall, James Garner, and Glenda Jackson. Like a lot of Altman ensemble films there are numerous subplots in this film, but it is not nearly as overwhelming as films like Nashville or A Wedding, rather it has a more centered feel, perhaps like M.A.S.H. or Gosford Park. The whole thing is an obvious satire on the Health movement, filled with over-top, outlandish, contradictive characters, with guest stars like Dick Cavett providing a wry commentary on the whole thing. Underlining the whole election process is Altman's characteristic pessimism about politics and public appeal but what is most appealing about this film is the sheer fun most people seem to be having. This would be one of Altman's last films like this for a while! | 0 |
After getting hooked on the mini series, 'North & South,' I could hardly wait for the continuation, 'North & South II.' Then years later, along came Book III, 'HEAVEN & HELL - NORTH & SOUTH - BOOK III.' FINALLY, the last installment came for the on-going saga of the Maine and Hazard families. I was so enraptured by this series that I taped each part off of TV and then managed to get family and friends hooked and I watched it AGAIN, each time someone new wanted to see them. My tapes are old and I crave this trilogy on DVD. If you missed Book III, you didn't get full satisfaction and you don't know how it all turned out. Do yourself a favor and demand this set on DVD! | 0 |
good job.that's how i would describe this animated Scooby-Doo adventure.this is so far the best of the animated Scooby movies i have seen.i liked the story.i thought it had some depth to to it.the movie is also well paced.it doesn't get boring for a minute.it also has an interesting group of characters(besides Scooby and Shaggy and the gang,of course)plus,the movie was a real blast.i has a lot of fun watching it.i also liked the great Scottish music.it was very catchy and infectious.naturally,we know that Scooby and the Gamg will solve the mystery,but it's still fun getting to that point.the animation is also pretty good for this movie.i would love it if they did a 3D animation Scooby adventure,but we'll just have to wait and see.for me,Scooby-Doo and the Loch Ness monster is a 7/10 | 0 |
Lily Powers works at a speakeasy until her father dies.She then goes to New York to work at an office building.There she notices that if she wants to get any higher she has to give the men what they want.And what men want is her...well, you know.Alfred E.Green's Baby Face (1933) is a movie of high sexual content.For a movie of that era, anyway.This was one of the last Pre-Code films that were made.Barbara Stanwyck gives a very sexy performance as Lily.Other actors of this film include George Brent (Courtland Trenholm), Donald Cook (Ned Stevens), Alphonse Ethier (Adolf Cragg), Henry Kolker (J.P.Carter), Margaret Lindsay (Ann Carter) and Theresa Harris (Chico).The young John Wayne is seen as Jimmy McCoy Jr.This movie deals with a brave topic and it does it good.Baby Face is historically significant movie and therefore good to watch. | 0 |
There are certain horror directors for whom I've built up so much respect & admiration over the years, that they can't possibly disappoint me know matter what garbage to decide to put on film. Lucio Fulci is surely one of them, but damned, he's trying to disappoint me with his later efforts! You can easily afford yourself to skip most of the films Fulci directed or produced during the late 80's and simply watch 'Cat in the Brain' instead, because that one title gathers and repeats the best and absolute goriest footage of no less than SEVEN other Fulci-flicks, including the sickest murders sequences featuring in 'When Alice Broke the Mirror'. As a whole, this movie definitely ranks among our director's weakest and most pointless achievements. The script is incoherent as hell, the basic premise is totally implausible and somewhat stupid and there's absolutely no suspense to enjoy. I love the title, but it's actually quite meaningless. There is a character named Alice in the story, but it's only a supportive role and she certainly doesn't break any mirrors. I suppose she could break stuff simply using her voice, as she's an opera singer, but she doesn't. The plot revolves on a middle-aged and gambling-addicted playboy who spends his days seducing wealthy widows and killing them for their money. Lester Parson butchers the ladies (as well as unwelcome witnesses) in gruesome ways, makes steaks out of their juiciest body parts and feeds the remainders to his cat. There's also a silly psychological sub plot in which he thinks his own shadow is responsible for the murders instead of him. The difference between 'When Alice Broke the Mirror' and some of Fulci's greatest horror films ('The Beyond', 'City of the Living Dead',
') lies in the fact that he totally doesn't bother to create a horrific atmosphere. The characters, Lester included, are colorless and boring and the murders are ordinarily depicted; like it's the most common thing in the world to put a woman's head in a microwave or repeatedly run back and forth over a human body with a car. The lighting is poor, the cinematography super-ugly, the editing clumsy and amateurish and the acting performances are downright miserable. If I didn't know any better, I would think Lucio deliberately made a lousy film in order to protest against all the harsh critics that dislike his repertoire no matter how much spirit and effort he put into it. The obvious element to enjoy here is simply the outrageous gore & bloodshed, because even the attempt to blend in black comedy doesn't work properly. As long as Lester swings around his chainsaw and cuts off women's feet, 'When Alice Broke the Mirror' is an undemanding piece of horror entertainment, but other than that, there's isn't a whole lot to recommend. | 1 |
A very interesting addition to the Scandavian surrealistic collection. Recommended viewing for those who like their movies complicated. My interpretation of the 'strange' ending would be that Andreas' journey ends in Hell. He dislikes the bland consumer-led emptiness of purgatory; a sort of 'living' but not progressing, i.e. not getting anywhere - even the city's metro trains don't stop at the stations. It has a Metro system, like you should be able to travel, freedom, escape, but you can never actually board those trains. He is unable to reach fragrant, sensory heaven and winds up continuing his bus journey to its final destination. The old Norse version of Hell (Hades, NOT Hell the terrestrial city) isn't burning hot like the British version, its cold, freezing, the land of Niflheim (land of cold and mists). This appears to be where Andreas end up, having just failed to access Heaven through that tunnel. | 0 |
For the longest time, I liked this movie better than the original Care Bears movie. Well last summer, I watched them both together and decided I was wrong. The first one is a better Care Bears movie (as you may have guessed if you read my review for it). This one isn't a BAD movie, it's just... VERY STRANGE.<br /><br />Well first of all, as a few people have mentioned, it completely disavows any knowledge of the first movie. I can't think of another sequel that contradicts the original so blatantly (especially with the genders of some characters and how they all met). When I was little and watching this, I was quite a bit confused and distraught. I felt the same way watching it as an adult!<br /><br />On to the reasons why the movie is actually pretty good (IF you disassociate it from the first movie). I can't think of another movie for little kids with a DEMON as it's villan! Now I am not for a minute suggesting that evil demons who want to steal the souls of campers and Care Bears are good, I just find it cool that there's a SUPREMELY EVIL BEING in a movie for little kids! It's like that bizzare 'Santa Clause vs. Satan' movie from Mexico you hear about sometimes. <br /><br />Anyhow, the demon's name is Darkheart and he wants this chick to help him get the Care Bears in return for him giving her special powers. Very dark for a kiddy flick eh? And did I mention that Darkheart appears to the girl most often as a WHINEY VOICED 10 YEAR OLD BOY??? Freaky! Meanwhile some other kids are in Care-a-Lot looking after BABY CARE BEARS! Oh, man! Demons and baby Care Bears IN THE SAME MOVIE!!!!!<br /><br />Needless to say, everything gets cleared up in the end (but not before we get to see Darkheart trap the Care Bears' souls in this scary chandelere thing in one [surprisingly] deeply disturbing scene). But I am left with the question of wether this movie has found the cult audience it so richly deserves. I might just watch it again myself. | 0 |
Henry (Don Ameche) turns up at the entrance to Hell and recounts his life story to His Excellency (Laird Cregar). The story focuses on his relationships with females throughout his life, and in particular, his relationship with Martha (Gene Tierney). At the end of the film, we cut back to Henry and His Excellency for a very predictable ending.<br /><br />Unfortunately, there is nothing more to say about the film because nothing happens. Its a sentimental story of one man's life and its very boring. I watched it with my girlfriend and my dad and we all thought it was rubbish, despite the Lubitsch touch. I yawned more than 15 times. Hugo (Charles Coburn) is good whenever he is on screen as the grandfather and there were a few funny moments of dialogue. The colour made it a good spectacle but it wasn't enough to save this plodder from going into the reject pile. In the same mould as 'Its A Wonderful World' and 'You Can't Take It With You', and so, not surprisingly, it was nominated for an Oscar. A story about ordinary people, none of whom are interesting and with no storyline of any interest. Boring, sentimental and the biggest damp squib of an ending that I can remember... | 1 |
The creature? Yeah, it and the movie it stars in. Hell would seem infinitely more frightening if the damned were forced to watch this for all eternity. Six college students shack up in a condemned hospital to save money and end up victims of an ancient monster who must claim five victims before it returns to 'the shadowy world from which it came!' Other than having major logic and coherence problems (plus the fact it appears to be unfinished), this disaster is terribly acted, written, edited (by J.R. Bookwalter) and directed, and the make-up FX are almost nonexistent. It's also significantly shorter than it claims (at only 80 minutes), but I'm not complaining. It's the worst movie I've seen from executive producer Charles Band's Full Moon productions and boy is that BAD!<br /><br />To note, I almost didn't bother with a review, but this has gotten inexplicably good reviews on here and I figured a varying opinion was in order. Proceed with caution! | 1 |
I watched this movie for the first time around 1990 as a young kid and it scared the Jesus out of me. I loved it so much and I was dying to get my hands on it.<br /><br />In 2002, I remembered that this movie existed but I had no idea what it was called, so, I went to the I Need To Know section on IMDb and explained what the movie was about and tried to get the name of it. Anyway, eventually someone on IMDb told me, so I researched and tried to buy the movie. So eventually i got a hold of it on DVD, and I now keep this movie as one of my most valuable horror movies. I really love it, and I think anyone who watches it, will be very scared in the woods the next time they go. 9/10. | 0 |
I have a piece of advice for the people who made this movie too, if you're gonna make a movie like this be sure you got the f/x to back it up. Also don't get a bunch of z list actors to play in it. Another thing, just about all of us have seen Jurassic Park, so don't blatantly copy it. All in all this movie sucked, f/x sucked, acting sucked, story unoriginal. Let's talk about the acting for just a second, the Carradine guy who's career peaked in 1984 when he did 'Revenge of the Nerds' (which was actually a great comedy). He's not exactly z list, he can act. He just should have said no to this s--t bag. He should have did what Mark Hamill did after 'Return of the Jedi' and go quietly into the night. He made his mark as a 'Nerd' and that should have been that. I understand he has bills to pay, but that hardly excuses this s--t bag. Have I called this movie that yet? O.K. I just wanted to be sure. If I sound a little hostile, I apologize. I just wasted 2hrs of my life I could have spent doing something productive like watching paint peel, and I feel cheated. I'll close on that note. Thank you for your time. | 1 |
I just finished a marathon of this series, and it became agonising to watch as it progressed. From the fictionalising of the historical elements, to O'Herlihy's awful accent in later episodes, the show just slumps the further it goes. If you are looking for some low quality production generalised WW2 fluff, then I could recommend season 1, but avoid anything after that, it degenerates into being one step from a soap opera, with increasingly worse story lines and sensibility.<br /><br />The old B&W film is by far the best of any form of entertainment with the Colditz name attached to it, and even that is not what one could hope for. | 1 |
Farscape - is the one Sci-Fi Show which restarted the Interest in Science Fiction in me.<br /><br />But Farscape is so much more then plain and simple Sci-Fi. Comedy, Drama and much more :) The Acting is very good. Luckily Farscape survived also it's cancellation and showed with Peacekeeper Wars that it is not dead yet :) I hope there is a future for Farscape :) In my opinion it is also not problematic that some of the characters in the Show are muppets. You have to look behind that and you will see what a beauty Farscape is.<br /><br />Farscape set a new Standard in Television and i think it will be truly hard for new shows to prove that they can be equal or better than Farscape. I love this Show :)<br /><br />SaphirJD | 0 |
This small John Ford western with no 'stars' but a cast of character actors is one of his masterpieces. It has a documentary-like feel to it as it traces the journey West of a party of Mormons and it may be the most authentic looking of all Ford's films, (it's on par with 'The Sun Shines Bright' which he made a couple of years later).<br /><br />There is a plot of sorts, (a group of bank robbers join the wagon train at one point), but the film's dramatic highlights are almost incidental. The splendid performances of Ford's stock company, (Ben Johnson, Harry Carey Jr, Ward Bond, Jane Darwell etc), adds considerably to the film's authenticity while the nearest the film gets to a full-bodied star performance is Joanne Dru's Denver. Dru was a much finer actress than she was ever given credit for as were Bond and Johnson, who at least was finally awarded with the recognition of an Oscar for his work in 'The Last Picture Show'. As he said himself, 'It couldn't have happened to a nicer fella'. Add Bert Glennon's superb location photography and you have a genuine piece of Americana that couldn't have some from anyone other than Ford. This is a film that truly honors America's pioneers and is full of sentiment and feeling. | 0 |
if you are like me then you will love this great coming of age teen movie.i think it is up there with mischief/book of love/high school USA/shout/calender girl/crybaby/ all great movies set in the lat 50s & early 60s and it has a wonderful soundtrack.not as many songs as in some of these type of movies but still great.it is all so very funny at times and has a great love interest.all the young cast are great.i wish there were more type of these wonderful movies.my favourite movie of all time is back to the future when Marty mcfly gos back to 1955 well in these wonderful movies it stays in the fab 50s(early 60s) there are some movies of this type better than this but not many. | 0 |
Now, I flicked onto this just out of curiosity and had to keep watching - in the same way that you watch a car crash...<br /><br />I appreciate the fact it's a spoof, but that should not stop me from criticising the god-awful directing, acting and dialogue. Seriously, this rated as one of the poorest movies I have seen - it looked more like an episode of Tales from the Cryptkeeper, and a poor one at that...<br /><br />Okay - a few criticisms (1) when the doctor had his heart attack in front of the monster (we never see the monster attack him, so we assume its a heart attack), the army then launch shells, rockets, bullets at the monster - which was feet from the doctor - yet the doctor is not touched by any missile and is still alive (2) the army attack from about 100 yards away, and we see a flame-thrower being used - geez, those things have a range of no more than 30 metres! (3) when the monster tries to take the professor, the soldiers run into the classroom and fire into the ceiling; the monster drops the kid, and the soldiers don't try to shoot the monster??? come on! (4) the monster looks like it something out of Power Rangers! (5) there is one scene where the five 'good guys' (the priest, the girl, the doctor, the reporter and the kid) all look shocked and we get reactions (along the lines of hand to mouth) one after the other - so natural! (6) the general just runs away, time after time (7) the general refuses to try electricity and wouldn't listen (8) the acting is awful (9) did I mention the rubber suit monster???? (10) that god-awful music, non-stop! | 1 |
I can sum this movie up using 20 words or less. Way too predictable of a story line with potential to be funny but instead falls flat on its face. See, 19 words, however, I didn't completely pan this flick with just one star but instead decided to bump it up to two stars due to the fact that Julie Bowen is smoking hot and provided just enough eye candy to keep me from ripping the DVD right out from the machine and blowing it up with an M80. My advice, take the $4.00 rental fee you would have paid to see this movie and just send it right to me as an advance thank you for saving you the time and frustration of having to sit through this train wreck, or you may want to send me the $50.00 replacement fee you would have been charged from taking out your twelve gage to use this piece of garbage as skeet shooting practice. | 1 |
Ah yet another Seagal movie.In no less than a few mere months arrive to populate the video store shelves.As bad as Submerged?No.But that is not saying much.Like perfume on a pig.<br /><br />Seagal is professional thief who wants to quit,but goes for one last job only to be double-crossed by his boss.He lands in Prison and is befriended by a Gangster who helps him to break out and seek payback.<br /><br />Its good to see Seagal finally not playing an agent,cop,or what he usually plays.We actually get a USA Location in Las Vegas it seems. Then an eastern European territory as usual. There is no wire-Fu either here.Don Fauntleroy does an okay job.<br /><br />However most of the action and fight scenes with Stevie are clearly doubles.Scenes from other movies,a lack of realism and logic in even tiniest situation.Seagal and Treech make a so-so team inspiring(unintentional) laughs one minute.Sighs the rest.<br /><br />Several notable faces turn up to slum it.. sleepy Kevin Tighe is a long way from his emergency days.Nick Mancuso shows up in sleepwalking mode to take a check.No more rappers.Please?<br /><br />At this point the action scenes and plots are more predictable and recycled generically more than ever.Its a stale scene that Seagal needs to get out of or hang it up.He should have gotten out a while ago. | 1 |
by saying that,I mean that this is not a well made movie but it's a very good version of the real event and the best depiction so far.and if you are a WW2 buff then this is a treat for you,cause there are three out of four saboteur members playing roles in this movie. It's theater acting at best but then this is still as said before a semi documentary.<br /><br />Me personally am a die hard fan of our nearly over-human heroes of the second world war,and there should be hundreds of these movies showing us what they did so it won't get forgotten by next generations.Cause nowadays kids doesn't read books,they watch movies.<br /><br />So if you want a action extravaganza,rent Private Ryan,this is the truth about lingering pain,outrageous endurance and the will to fight when all seems lost. | 0 |
'War is in your blood' Rambo says early in the film, 'don't fight it'. Say, what? Is the scriptwriter taking the Mickey out of Sly? It is impossible for any person with a primary school education to miss the joke here. Yet, Stallone utters it without a hint of irony.<br /><br />The same lack of humour applies to the movie. Rambo IV is an over-the-top, idiotic actioner that would have been funny without intention if it weren't sickeningly violent. A redneck fantasy of the basest kind where villains are so villainous, it is not enough just to kill them you have to dismember them with relish. Stallone stops at no blue-collar cliché to make his point. It is not enough for the chief villain to be feed-them-to-the-pigs, throw-babies-into-fire kind of sadist. He is also a pedophile homosexual.<br /><br />What is happening to IMDb? Is it taken over by the Rifle Society? How can this loathsome excuse for gross exploitation rate that high? I like a good action movie as much as the next man, but this is not entertainment this is pornography of violence that trivializes and ultimately denigrates the real tragedy of Myanmar. The only good thing about the movie is that Sly doesn't take his shirt off. For this I will give it one star... | 1 |
A group of us watched this film are were really disgusted. We were willing to forgive the fact that our favorite character Jo wasn't on (it's not like the writers/producers could do anything about that). The writing was poor, the script was sub-par. What REALLY annoyed us: 1. When the two guys realized they were both dating Natalie, they didn't just leave they put up with that stupid (and ultimately degrading) contest - but only because they were macho competing guys, not because they really wanted Natalie. 2. Despite being unable to choose between the two guys before the reunion, Natalie suddenly decides that she really loves one of the guys and is now ready to marry him? (and there was no foreshadowing that he was really a better guy, it's as if the writers flipped a coin and then just had her spit it out at some convenient point in the film). 3. Blair makes a point of talking about how she does not want children and then all of a sudden when her husband says he wants to have children, she blissfully agrees with him. | 1 |
If you liked 'Blair with' you'll like this one. It has the same lousy camera-work and soundtrack, and it has the same non-existent plot and suspenseful moments.<br /><br />It also has Tom Savini, so if you like Romero's 'Dawn of the dead' or Tarantino and Rodriguez' 'From Dusk Till Dawn' you're in for a treat. He is an icon and a very good actor as well.<br /><br />No, seriously. This movie is definitely the lousiest movie I've seen in a long time, and I've seen quite a few movies -- bad ones as well. I can tell you that I find most horror movies entertaining in some respect, but this was just a pure waste of time.<br /><br />The only reason why I gave this movie 2 instead of 1, was the naked chicks and the hot action with all the sharp-looking plastic teeth... No, I'm just kidding. I must have missed before I hit 'submit' on the vote form.<br /><br />Stay away, even though it has sexy girls with teeth on the cover! | 1 |
I could not believe how terrible and boring this Hollywood remake was.It's so dreadful. It easily lands a place in my top 10 worst films of 1998.About the only thing it had going for it was Bruce Willis,who should stick to action films,as a completely emotionless killer who'd kill his own mother for the right price.But I'd rather listen to Robbie Coltraine talk American for a week than listen to Richard Gere's nauseating Irish accent again.But this film is also implausible,unconvincing,uneven,unexciting,unimpressive and lands Sidney Poiter in a rubbish role to make a possible career comeback.One for filmroll-footie purposes entirely. | 1 |
Having just wasted a couple of hours watching this and for 80% of that time in complete disbelief, I can give this garbage the turkey of the year award, no problem. To say the plot was unbelievable is some big understatement. Frankly I am lost for words to describe this utter tripe. Not only are the characters completely and utterly without any semblance of originality (this sort of stuff has been done much better in dozens of 'serial killer flicks')but the acting was dire. For those who pay to see this, I hope you get your money back, for those who were paid to do this, I hope you GIVE your money back. Believe me folks there are many new releases out there that are much, much better. Go see. | 1 |
Don't Torture a Duckling is an absolutely stunning giallo diversion for Lucio Fulci. Unlike other subgenre heavyweights like Mario Bava and Dario Argento, Fulci takes a decidedly gritty, grounded, and socially perceptive approach to the giallo narrative in this film. There is nothing glamorous about the child murders and borderline pedophilia (a gutsy subplot for 1972) going on here, and Fulci wisely shoots with a staid and lugubrious eye, avoiding flash, melodrama, and directorial histrionics. The proceedings are punctuated by gory and instantly mind-searing set pieces that are bolstered even further by Fulci's jarring sense of realism the deeply disturbing 'witch killing' scene in particular, with its bald-faced brutality, feels like a snuff film. Composer Riz Ortolani bookends these carnage-filled scenes with ferocious reverberating string blasts.<br /><br />The film is capped by a simultaneously lyrical and violent conclusion wherein theology, morality, fanaticism, and superstition collide. It is a deeply effective ending that has the capacity to leave the viewer in a befuddled and disarmed torpor.<br /><br />Fulci couldn't have picked a better location for this film. Don't Torture a Duckling was photographed in and around the ancient city of Matera, Italy. As Matera continues to modernize to this day (highlighted by its shift from an agricultural economy to an industrial one), it is grappling with its UNESCO-sponsored reputation as a receptacle for mysterious paleolithic ghosts. The anxieties of the real-life Materani are reflected by the characters in the film, who, wearing their Christianity on their sleeves, fretfully confront any exotic fringe tradition (namely witchcraft) that strays outside of the norm.<br /><br />Interestingly enough, Matera was also used as a stand-in for Jerusalem in Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ. If anything, this adds even more potency to Fulci's message. Catholic guilt and grisly slayings are such a resonant combination. | 0 |
Okay, when it comes to plots, this film is far from believable and also a bit silly. Yet despite its many deficiencies, the film manages to work--provided you turn off your brain and just let yourself enjoy the zaniness of it all. If you can't, then you probably won't like this film very much at all.<br /><br />In one of the oddest plots of the 1930s, Robert Montgomery plays a guy living near the Arctic Circle at a wireless station. How exactly he came to such a remote outpost is uncertain but into this very, very lonely and isolated existence come a steady string of guests--even though it had been years since he'd seen anyone but Eskimos.<br /><br />First, Reginald Owen and Myrna Loy arrive when their plane crashes. They are supposedly on their way to Montreal--how they got THAT far off course is beyond belief! Reginald is a stuffy and dull fellow who is really worried about Montgomery, since Robert hasn't seen a woman in a very long time and Owen seems in constant dread that Montgomery is out to steal Loy for himself. As for Montgomery, that's EXACTLY what his plans are! For the longest time, you never really understand why Loy is engaged to Owen--since he is about as appealing as soggy bread.<br /><br />Soon, Loy and Montgomery fall in love but this is all for naught when, out of the blue AGAIN, Montgomery's old fiancée arrives to announce she's there to marry him!! Considering that for over two years she never wrote and refused to follow him, Montgomery naturally assumed the relationship was over--but the chipper and annoying fiancée's sudden arrival is enough to destroy the plans Loy and Montgomery were making.<br /><br />How all this is resolved is something you can just see for yourself. As for the film, that the plot is very silly and contrived--I can't defend this. BUT, it also is pretty funny and charming and I see this film as a kooky comedy that is just a step or two below contemporary films like BRINGING UP BABY. Silly, slight but also very charming. It's worth seeing despite not being especially believable. | 0 |
Just as a reminder to anyone just now reading the comments on this excellent BBC mini-series, published in 1981, it was not available on DVD until the last few years. Since then, it has become available, but initially only in the British format (for which I bought an 'international' DVD player, which you have to hack--illegally, I suspect, to see it), but the series is now available through amazon.com--3 discs-- for between $19-21, to be viewed on DVD in the US format, no hacking. There were 41 reviews, average 5 stars. This mini-series is one of the very best on Oppenheimer, or the Manhattan Project, or virtually anything produced by the BBC. | 0 |
SPOILER!!!! Mind Ripper hmmmm.... I had just watched the nightmare on elm street movies and had just found out about Giovanni Ribisi. I thought Giovanni Ribisi hadnt done any horrors so I checked into it. I saw 'the outpost' (mind ripper) I checked on my Tivo for it. There was an air date on Sci Fi. So I was set. I got my pop corn ready came in and set on the couch and what the hell is this? A freakin bold guy in blue sweat pants running around yelling! Nothing is scary about this movie at all! If anything its funny! Funny how low the budget is, funny how predictable it is, funny how bad the acting is and funny how much money it DIDNT make. Ok giovanni ribisi is a good actor but this movie is dumb. It is so stupid. They killed him at the end and then they go on this plane and the 'monster' is on it. They shoot him in the head with a shotgun and it falls a long way to the ground. And<br /><br />-GASP- The killer ending, Its Still Alive! WOOHHH! Scary! woooohhhh! Sucky fat sack of crap waste of 2 hours.<br /><br />Bottom Line: You have somewhere to go and you need to kill some time. Mind ripper isnt the suggestion. I'd rather sit out naked in the snow than watch this movie a second time.<br /><br />OVERALL GRADE: F- - - - - - - - - - (ENTERNAL) | 1 |
So I turned on HBO which I just got thinking that it would have some quality movies and I saw this. Carrot Top is so unfunny it's nauseating to watch. I've seen unfunny movies before but I think I find this one so impossible to watch because Carrot Top seems to think he's hilarious. Watching this movie is really like watching a movie designed for 5 year olds with crazy, over the top overreactions replete with ultra stupid jokes that only a 4 year old would appreciate.<br /><br />What is amazing is how some other talented actors actually signed on for this project, such as Larry Miller and M Emmet Walsh. If you've ever seen Carrot Top's absolutely horrible MCI commercials (or whatever they were) then this is more of the same, just worse. It's a slapstick fest that is a waste of a high budget that could have done something, saved homeless people... anything but this. I'm not sure it's in the bottom 50 of all time but for the $10 million spent it's a disgrace. | 1 |
Interesting and short television movie describes some of the machinations surrounding Jay Leno's replacing Carson as host of the Tonight Show. Film is currently very topical given the public drama surrounding Conan O'Brien and Jay Leno.<br /><br />The film does a good job of sparking viewers' interest in the events and showing some of the concerns of the stakeholders, particularly of the NBC executives. The portrayal of Ovitz was particularly compelling and interesting, I thought.<br /><br />Still, many of the characters were only very briefly limned or touched upon, and some of the acting seemed perfunctory. Nevertheless, an interesting story. | 1 |
We have to remember that the 50's were practically a blank slate when it came to movies. Hollywood was in transition from patriotic war movies, noir, two reel oaters, etc to movies with a message. We had Blackboard Jungle, On the Waterfront and so on. Some folks might think that was an improvement. I don't. Who was the mogul who said: If you want to send a message, call Western Union? He was right. These psychological thrillers are less entertainment than some kind of remote therapy.<br /><br />This one is a pip. It's about three sisters trying to wrest control of their dead father's estate. One of them, maybe the only one worth redemption enlists the aid of the company pilot to help her keep the rest of the family at bay. He's initially in it for the bucks, but eventually falls for her. Meanwhile the rest of the family schemes to sabotage the romance. The results are predictable. You get a little bit of everything in this movie. Sexual tension between the sisters. A little subtle masochism. Hereditary insanity - if there is such a thing. We never get to meet the parents, but they must really have been screwed up The cast is practically unknown. One or two of the actors sound vaguely familiar. The acting is so bad it's hard to believe. It was released under the United Artists umbrella by a company called Bel-Air Productions. It was shot in and around LA mostly at night and probably without permits. The end was so bizarre that I thought it was a joke. It was as if they ran out of money and the producer decided to wrap it up in the middle of a scene.<br /><br />I can't explain it - not even to myself - but I gave this pile of trash an 8/10. I'm familiar with the term 'It's so bad it's good', but I don't think I ever ran into the phenomenon before. Well, maybe 'Hot Rods to Hell', but this one certainly fits. You might want to try this if you love movies that seem like they were made in somebody's basement. | 0 |
Okay, you have:<br /><br />Penelope Keith as Miss Herringbone-Tweed, B.B.E. (Backbone of England.) She's killed off in the first scene - that's right, folks; this show has no backbone!<br /><br />Peter O'Toole as Ol' Colonel Cricket from The First War and now the emblazered Lord of the Manor.<br /><br />Joanna Lumley as the ensweatered Lady of the Manor, 20 years younger than the colonel and 20 years past her own prime but still glamourous (Brit spelling, not mine) enough to have a toy-boy on the side. It's alright, they have Col. Cricket's full knowledge and consent (they guy even comes 'round for Christmas!) Still, she's considerate of the colonel enough to have said toy-boy her own age (what a gal!)<br /><br />David McCallum as said toy-boy, equally as pointlessly glamourous as his squeeze. Pilcher couldn't come up with any cover for him within the story, so she gave him a hush-hush job at the Circus.<br /><br />and finally:<br /><br />Susan Hampshire as Miss Polonia Teacups, Venerable Headmistress of the Venerable Girls' Boarding-School, serving tea in her office with a dash of deep, poignant advice for life in the outside world just before graduation. Her best bit of advice: 'I've only been to Nancherrow (the local Stately Home of England) once. I thought it was very beautiful but, somehow, not part of the real world.' Well, we can't say they didn't warn us.<br /><br />Ah, Susan - time was, your character would have been running the whole show. They don't write 'em like that any more. Our loss, not yours.<br /><br />So - with a cast and setting like this, you have the re-makings of 'Brideshead Revisited,' right?<br /><br />Wrong! They took these 1-dimensional supporting roles because they paid so well. After all, acting is one of the oldest temp-jobs there is (YOU name another!)<br /><br />First warning sign: lots and lots of backlighting. They get around it by shooting outdoors - 'hey, it's just the sunlight!'<br /><br />Second warning sign: Leading Lady cries a lot. When not crying, her eyes are moist. That's the law of romance novels: Leading Lady is 'dewy-eyed.'<br /><br />Henceforth, Leading Lady shall be known as L.L.<br /><br />Third warning sign: L.L. actually has stars in her eyes when she's in love. Still, I'll give Emily Mortimer an award just for having to act with that spotlight in her eyes (I wonder . did they use contacts?)<br /><br />And lastly, fourth warning sign: no on-screen female character is 'Mrs.' She's either 'Miss' or 'Lady.'<br /><br />When all was said and done, I still couldn't tell you who was pursuing whom and why. I couldn't even tell you what was said and done.<br /><br />To sum up: they all live through World War II without anything happening to them at all.<br /><br />OK, at the end, L.L. finds she's lost her parents to the Japanese prison camps and baby sis comes home catatonic. Meanwhile (there's always a 'meanwhile,') some young guy L.L. had a crush on (when, I don't know) comes home from some wartime tough spot and is found living on the street by Lady of the Manor (must be some street if SHE's going to find him there.) Both war casualties are whisked away to recover at Nancherrow (SOMEBODY has to be 'whisked away' SOMEWHERE in these romance stories!)<br /><br />Great drama. | 1 |
The title suggests that this movie is a sequel to 'An American werewolf in London'. None of the characters from the previous movie return and aren't even mentioned in this movie by name. So as a sequel, AAwiP fails, one would say.<br /><br />I dare to say the opposite.<br /><br />An American werewolf in Paris is a charming, effective horror movie. It's one of the better werewolf films I have seen in a long time too. And I have seen quite my share, such as An American werewolf in London, The Howling, Wolfen, The Wolfman and the Underworld trilogy.<br /><br />The story tells of three Americans visiting Paris on a vacation. At the top of the Eifel Tower one of them saves a woman trying to commit suicide. What starts out as a romantic relationship slowly turns into a nightmare when the dark secrets that lurk in the city are revealed...<br /><br />I really liked the acting in this film. Especially the two stars of the movie: the woman who tried to commit suicide and the guy who saves her. They have good chemistry together. But the other two Americans also play their roles nicely. I didn't really find anything annoying about the acting, so thumbs up for that! <br /><br />The effects on the werewolves are nice. It doesn't look too cheap or fake to me. Of course, the opinions are divided about this subject. But let's just say that I wasn't disappointed.<br /><br />There's also a good amount of humor in this movie. There are some really funny scenes you will probably remember for a long time.<br /><br />So, to sum it up, An American werewolf in Paris might not be a direct sequel to it's predecessor, but it's still an enjoyable movie. Perfect for fans of werewolves! 7 out of 10 stars! | 0 |
I saw this at an arty cinema that was also showing 'Last Days' and some Charlie Chaplin films. Based on the quality of the other features, I decided to give 'Immortel' a chance. I nearly walked out of this movie, and I LIKE science-fiction! The story is set in a futuristic New York city, filled with Blade Runner-style sky advertisements and some similar debates about cloning/synthetic humans. Unfortunately, the screenplay was not condensed enough for an hour-and-forty-five-minute movie. Three groups exist in this world: humans, artificial humans, and Egyptian gods. The artificial humans seem to have the upper hand and control the politics of the city. The humans are slaves and are used for eugenics and organ donation. The Egyptian gods have a floating pyramid (modeled on the Great Pyramid of Khufu, and complete with a deteriorated exterior, leaving a smooth 'cap' on the pyramid. Wouldn't a floating futuristic pyramid be in perfect condition?). The pyramid rests above the city and nobody on the ground understands what it is or why it's there. I won't bore you with the so-called plot, but there is lots of unnecessary gore and many gross-out scenes. The film, as I said, looks to have been influenced by Blade Runner, and perhaps also by The Fifth Element and The Matrix. At the end of the film credits were listed thank-yous to the United Kingdom, France, and Italy. The film is FRENCH, but uses British actors who don't speak French. Hence, it is obvious that their French dialog has been dubbed. This is a distraction, and I also thought that switching back and forth between real humans and animations quite distracting. It doesn't help that the animations are poor--no better than a video game. Skip this one. | 1 |
I have seen this film on countless occasions, and thoroughly enjoyed it each time. This is mostly due to the lovely Erika Eleniak- a great actress with incredible looks. Plus, any film starring Tom Berenger and Dennis Hopper is bound to be entertaining. | 0 |
....because if I was, I may have wished it was me being crucified on a wooden cross! I'm still trying to determine the plot of this movie - and I'm being 'generous' that there was even a plot to begin with. As previously mentioned, it's a misnomer on the cover of the DVD that Richard Dreyfuss is actually the star. He was barely in the movie. And if he was indeed 'frustrated' as the back cover indicated he was, well, that's probably because he said YES to be in this disaster of a movie and couldn't get out of it! The movie really seemed to focus on Jared Martin, and what his role in the movie was supposed to be, other than the extreme close -ups, was not as big of a mystery as to what Gene Barry's role actually was - or wasn't. And speaking of 'big'...whomever had the bright idea to fit Gene Barry in the Humpty Dumpty attire, which showcased his trousers literally pulled up to his chin, should be sentenced to hard time by watching this movie stoned sober. I could go on and on about how horrendous this movie was, from the dialogue not matching the 'actors'' mouths (think Clutch Cargo), to the erratic jumping from scene to scene (again, being generous even calling the frames of pictures 'scenes'), to the lack of a plot.... However, if you're into bad early 70s genre and if you're in a cottage in Michigan with nothing but this movie and a box of kid & cat pictures, I recommend having a good bottle of wine before you embark on this weird ride of a movie because you'll be thankful that you may not remember it the next day! | 1 |
Hi guys, this is my first review and I would had to have picked the worst movie to review. As I only watched 5 minutes of it but trust me you could see this movie was going nowhere. The acting was deplorable, the camera work and lighting looked as though it was shot and run by a pack of 10 year old's. No offence to 10 year olds.I just couldn't take anymore I got off my couch, took the The House of Adam DVD out of the DVD player and threw it in the garbage. Maybe if you are a Colin Farrell fan this movie may interest you, because the character in the movie, Anthony, is a Colin Farrell look a like. But that is as far as it goes, he certainly will never have col's acting abilities. I gave this movie a rating of 1 (awful) only because there were no minuses in the drop down list cheers. | 1 |
Though the title may suggest examples of the 10 commandments, it is a definitely incorrect assumption. This is an adaptation of 9 SEEMINGLY unrelated stories from Giovanni Bocaccio's 14th century 'Decameron' story collection.<br /><br />Set within a medieval Italian town's largely peasant population, it is a diatribe on the reality of sex (and its consequences) within that world and time. A realistic view of Life within this world, it sometimes feels like a journey back in time.<br /><br />Given the depicted human element of its time, one can also see the more adventurous side of morality in its protagonists - as well as the ironies of Life, at times. Or it may also be viewed as a general satire of the Catholic Church's rules.<br /><br />Nothing terribly special, but definitely interesting if one comes with no expectations or assumptions. | 1 |
This is not my favorite WIP ('Women in Prison'), but it is one of the most famous films in the sub-genre. It is was produced by Roger Corman, who at this point had already produced a few WIPs. It is obvious that the film tries to play with the established formula. The movie takes place in an USA prison, not in a 'banana republic' like most WIP films. I'm not sure if that was a wise move, but it is an acceptable change of pace. Writer-director Demme really gets into his job, always digging for new ways to present a familiar scenario. In fact, he is a little too ambitious for his own good. The filmmaker creates a few surreal dream sequences that are borderline pretentious but it is fun to see how hard he tries to put this film above your average chicks-in-chains flick. But do not worry, Demme still operates within the parameters of the sub-genre. There is plenty of nudity and violence, something that will satisfy hardcore fans. The film is a little slow, but it is very entertaining. The cast is good. Roberta Collins is a WIP veteran, so she does not need an introduction, and Barbara Steel is a hoot as the wheelchair-bound crazy warden. Pam Grier is sorely missed, though. | 0 |
Just read through the other comments here, and was a little surprised to find that no one had said anything about the acting or plot.<br /><br />Richard Pryor and Eddie Murphy can both deliver an amazing Stand-up comedy show. Great actors they are not. Enough about that.<br /><br />As for the plot? Oh man. Every time the movie tries to 'fool' you into believing the good-guys are going to lose, you know those scenes: 'What? The good-guys loses? Oh.. I see, it was just a trick', it's done so terribly bad, you can spot it a mile away.<br /><br />It had 2 or 3 funny moments, but not enough to save the day.<br /><br />It's a little silly that these comments has to be 10 lines now. A lot of people will fill it up with crap, for it to be eligible. Being brief is an art. | 1 |
I saw this movie as a child and fell in love with it. It has a sweet sensitive story. Something children can appreciate. I loved so much as a child I had to find it for my daughter. It is definitely a movie I would watch with kids. It reminds me a great deal of story's of a Disney nature like Pete's Dragon and Mary Poppins. Both because of the live action and cartoon features but on its premise. It is also a good story to show kids that if they tell the truth they can be trusted and adults will listen to them. I think all kids should see it and would enjoy it. It is such a break from the violent movies of bad taste so many kids watch these days. It has all the charming qualities so many of today's movies don't have. | 0 |
Bravestarr was released in 1987 by the now defunct American animation company, Filmation on the back of He-man: Masters of the universe and She-Ra: Princess of Power, in 1983 and 87' respectively. The plot of the cartoon was about a Native American cowboy named Marshall Bravestarr, who possesses the strength of the bear, ears of the wolf, speed of the puma and eyes of a hawk, and his trusty sidekick, a talking horse named Thirty- Thirty, who carried with him a gun aptly titled, 'Sarah Jane' and with the help of Deputy Fuzz and Judge J.B serve to protect New Texas from the evil Tex Hex and his band of outlaws.<br /><br />Set in futuristic Texas, this was and still is to this day, one of the very few cartoons set in a particular city, in the US- hence in the South- thousands of light years ahead in the future. Considering this was made in the 80s, the creators did an impressive job trying to recreate the wild west look but from a Sci-Fi based outlook. Bravestarr didn't just evoke morality and good verses bad, as well as teaching children lessons about life, but it also highlighted themes of culture and community and that we shouldn't take things and life for granted. And despite the fact that this was an action adventure cartoon, many of the story lines, themes and issues it addressed resonate with children and adults in a way that makes sense to them. In addition, Marshall Bravestarr was one of the very first major cartoon characters from a (ethnic)minority background, to make an impact on TV.<br /><br />The sound effects were amazing, the music was great, the theme song equally memorable and the animation was wonderful. The characters were well designed and the stories were diverse and taught kids morals and the importance of what is right and what is wrong. Something of which the same cannot be said about today's cartoons, sadly.<br /><br />Whilst Bravestarr was overshadowed by the success of He-man, it is still a personal favourite for many 80s cartoon fanatics. Suffice to say, I preferred Bravestarr over He-man because of the diversity of the story lines, characters and that the depth of the situations and problems that the characters faced themselves, were more what I would say realistic and identifiable in contrast. For some reason, they resonated more with people because like for instance,in 'The Pledge' where a kid dies from a drug overdose, the fact that there wasn't a happy ending was important- in the sense that when kids watch that episode, well, in fact anyone who watches that episode, will realise for themselves the devastating consequences of drug usage and that no one should underestimate the dangers of drugs.<br /><br />Bold, brave and at times thought-provoking, Bravestarr is definitely that- bold, brave and thought provoking. A cult cartoon classic for many years to come, it dared to take some risks, but it had well and truly paid off in the end. It will be remembered by many cartoon fans as one of the most interesting as well as best 80s cartoons ever, and rightly so<br /><br />8 and a half out of ten | 0 |
I enjoyed this film far more than anything had led me to anticipate; from reading other comments here, I suspect it benefits enormously from being seen on a full-size screen in the cinema, in the company of a cheerful and enthusiastic audience. I was lucky enough to have that experience, borne up on ripples of laughter from all around, and had an immensely good time with this undemanding comedy.<br /><br />For it is as a comedy that it shines, if it shines anywhere at all. The music is nothing special -- in fact, I hadn't realised it *was* a musical, and was very surprised when the assembled ancestors burst into half-spoken lyric -- but I do have to admit that the half-threat, half-promise of 'Oh, what I'll do...' has proved far more catchy than it ever seemed at the time, as it's still going round and round in my head!<br /><br />The plot, such as it is, largely pivots around the past history of the eponymous Francesca, a sixteenth-century portrait sporting a distinctly anachronistic hairstyle and fur-coat. Her idea on the sanctity of marriage don't quite jibe with those of her distant descendant, the Countess Angelina, and one can almost hear the storyline creaking at the seams under the strain of the Production Code in order to ensure that the heroine arrives unsullied in her much-delayed marriage-bed with the right man...<br /><br />The romance is scarcely earth-shattering, and in fact the first few scenes, played pretty well straight, verge on the tedious. But where script and film really come to life is in the battle of the sexes that follows. The impudence of Douglas Fairbanks Jr's courtship of Betty Grable's married Angelina is equalled only by Betty-Grable-as-Francesca's pursuit of him in turn, culminating in complete role-reversal in the hilarious fantasy sequence where she -- literally -- sweeps him off his feet. This is probably the comic climax of the plot, although the consequences of the Colonel's understandable confusion are worked out with a deft touch in the remaining two 'acts' of the operetta-structure, and the spectacle of Fairbanks' blissful, bemused awakening is more or less worth the price of admission on its own.<br /><br />Grable is entirely convincing in establishing her two contrasting characters, wisely gets almost all the (limited) singing opportunities, and shares the honours where the swathes of quotable dialogue in the various verbal duels are concerned. But in the field of unspoken reaction she is really outclassed by her male supporting leads; Fairbanks in particular is an absolute treat in a number of wordless sequences whose set-up and humour is worthy of the silent screen.<br /><br />This film is too uneven in style to be a classic, varying from sparkling repartee to hackneyed tedium. But at its best it is quite honestly very funny indeed, and brought a round of spontaneous applause and laughter across the auditorium at the end as the lights went up. Out of tune with its times, it may have failed to draw contemporary audiences -- but, on this showing, really didn't deserve to be disowned by both Grable and Preminger, the (uncredited) director. This is no masterpiece, but a thoroughly entertaining minor work, and I for one found myself grinning in remembrance all the way home. | 0 |
John Heder was absolutely horrendous in this movie. I felt like I was watching a bad college kid act for the first time in a student film. Anna Farris was par for the course, not good, but not horrible (plus she's cute). Dianne Keaton should have known better. Jeff Daniels was the only saving grace in this movie (even though it was poor judgement on his part as well). <br /><br />All in all, I would avoid this at all costs. I'm just glad I didn't pay to see it! <br /><br />John Heder will forever be stuck in the typecast role of' the dorky kid,' unless he does some SERIOUS work on his acting chops. | 1 |
<br /><br />I'm sure things didn't exactly go the same way in the real life of Homer Hickam as they did in the film adaptation of his book, Rocket Boys, but the movie 'October Sky' (an anagram of the book's title) is good enough to stand alone. I have not read Hickam's memoirs, but I am still able to enjoy and understand their film adaptation. The film, directed by Joe Johnston and written by Lewis Colick, records the story of teenager Homer Hickam (Jake Gyllenhaal), beginning in October of 1957. It opens with the sound of a radio broadcast, bringing news of the Russian satellite Sputnik, the first artificial satellite in orbit. We see a images of a blue-gray town and its people: mostly miners working for the Olga Coal Company. One of the miners listens to the news on a hand-held radio as he enters the elevator shaft, but the signal is lost as he disappears into the darkness, losing sight of the starry sky above him. A melancholy violin tune fades with this image. We then get a jolt of Elvis on a car radio as words on the screen inform us of the setting: October 5, 1957, Coalwood, West Virginia. Homer and his buddies, Roy Lee Cook (William Lee Scott) and Sherman O'Dell (Chad Lindberg), are talking about football tryouts. Football scholarships are the only way out of the town, and working in the mines, for these boys. 'Why are the jocks the only ones who get to go to college,' questions Homer. Roy Lee replies, 'They're also the only ones who get the girls.' Homer doesn't make it in football like his older brother, so he is destined for the mines, and to follow in his father's footsteps as mine foreman. Until he sees the dot of light streaking across the October sky. Then he wants to build a rocket. 'I want to go into space,' says Homer. After a disastrous attempt involving a primitive rocket and his mother's (Natalie Canerday) fence, Homer enlists the help of the nerdy Quentin Wilson (Chris Owen). Quentin asks Homer, 'What do you want to know about rockets?' Homer quickly anwers, 'Everything.' His science teacher at Big Creek High School, Miss Frieda Riley (Laura Dern) greatly supports Homer, and the four boys work on building rockets in Homer's basement. His father, however, whose life is the mine, does not support him. John Hickam (Chris Cooper) believes that Homer shouldn't waste his time on the rockets, that the coal mines are all that matter. The coal from the mines is used to make steel, and without steel, the country would be nothing. The difficult relationship between Homer and his dad is one of the most poignant relationships I have ever seen in a film. Miss Riley introduces Homer to the idea of entering the local science fair, with a chance to go the nationals and win a college scholarship. 'You can't just dream your way out of Coalwood,' she tells Homer. Homer and his friends act upon their dreams by working constantly on the rockets, improving the models with each attempt. Despite the many attempts, the boys do not lose their determination. 'What are the chances of us winning that science fair,' O'Dell asks Homer in one of their more despairing moments. 'A million to one,' answers Homer. 'That good?' O'Dell replies, 'Well, why didn't you say so?' The music, composed by Mark Isham, conveys sadness and hope at the same time, especially sad at a point when Homer descends into the mine shaft and loses sight of the sky and his dreams of getting out of Coalwood. Rollicking 1950s' rock and roll, including songs by The Coasters and Buddy Holly, occasionally pushes the instrumental pieces aside to create a light-hearted mood that contrasts the teenagers' lives with the lives of the miners. The film, photographed by Fred Murphy, also uses colors to set moods and symbolize. The town of Coalwood, actually filmed in Tennessee, is washed with blues, grays, and browns. It's as if the grime from the coal sticks to everything- faces, clothes, houses, and roads. When a couple in a gleaming red convertible stops to ask for directions from the boys, it is obvious that they are from the world outside of Coalwood and the Olga Coal Company. The book on guided missile design that Miss Riley gives Homer is red. The red stands out enough against the blue-gray world of Coalwood to symbolize 'getting out', but it is still subtle. The reds are fleeting hints of a world that Homer only dreams of. Jake Gyllenhaal expresses such zeal, hope, and pertinacity as Homer Hickam that it is hard to believe he isn't the real Homer we see in actual footage at the end of the film. Chris Cooper is also extraordinarily believable as Homer's stubborn father, who doesn't recognize, or just doesn't want to admit, that the mine is not producing enough to keep the town alive. Homer, and everyone who encourages him in his rocket-building, is aware that the town is dying. With the community disintegrating, the only way they stay together is by gathering for the rocket boys' demonstrations. Again, I'm sure things didn't happen exactly as the movie portrayed them, but what would a movie be without a bit of idealism? 'October Sky' has just enough of that to make it a great motion picture and enough rawness to keep it real. | 0 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.