review
stringlengths 41
13.7k
| label
int64 0
1
|
|---|---|
This is one of my favorite films of all time. Al Pacino acting is at its best and the story is excellent. Too bad it didn't do to well in the 80's when it was first released because people didn't get a chance to experience this classic. | 0 |
This is definitely one of the best kung fu movies ever, and may be one of the best movies ever... It's got a great plot that functions like a puzzle, with lots of intrigue and suspense. This film is full of cat and mouse games and deceptions, with people hiding their identities and their natures. The characters in this film live and breath much more than your average kung fu movie characters. They are all interesting and compelling and the movie does a good job at giving them scenes to show their personality's and desires.<br /><br />The fight scenes play out like little stories and many of them are very original and exciting. It has cool training sequences and martial arts skills that are so awesome they enter the realm of fantasy. There are 5 members of the poison clan each one with his own style that mimics the special skill of a venomous animal. The styles of each of these characters are fun to watch and you can see the techniques they use in training applied during the film... When this happens, The director uses quick cutting back to the training scene to draw a parallel. These cuts are accompanied by music changes and sound effects and the whole thing really works nicely.<br /><br />One thing about this movie that is very original is the way it treats death. The director Chang Cheh was obviously very concerned that the film not trivialize death. This makes some of the scenes in the movie much more effective. We actually care when people are killed in this film. This is because the camera lingers on the horror of death even when the bad guys are killed. Some of the sequences in this movie are truly gut wrenching. When characters go in search of vengeance you really feel their anger and pain.<br /><br />At the same time, this is also a fun movie. It has all the typical things you expect from a traditional kung fu film. There is bad dubbing, The characters are willing to fight at the drop of a hat. Some of the sound effects are hilarious and at times the behavior of the characters is incredibly unrealistic... all this just adds to the greatness of the film.<br /><br />And lets not forget that this director was a visual stylist much more gifted than most of his contemporaries. If you watch this movie closely you will notice that the technical prowess on display is virtuostic. Everything goes by so fast (because of the quick cutting style and the rapid camera movements of the genre) that it is easy to overlook how beautiful the movie really is. The lighting and composition are spectacular at times. The camera work and movement is extremely sophisticated along with very interesting fast paced editing... In the scenes that portray suspense and intrigue for example, imagine Hitchcock moving at about twice the speed. Chang Cheh was truly a master craftsman and artist who knew his genre and was able to produce important material while working within it's confines. He doesn't rattle the boat of the kung fu genre film, but in a subtle way his skills permeate every scene and every shot and they add greatly to the quality of the work. He is an important filmmaker who continues to influence many people.<br /><br />This is the real package A kung fu movie that delivers on every level. It's art, it's trash, it's emotionally moving, and it's fun, it has a true sense of morality, but doesn't allow that morality to get in the way of delivering good action. I recommend it to everybody whether you are a fan of this genre or not. | 0 |
The worst movie I have ever seen. The sound quality was bad, the cutting of the scenes was even worse and above all it was not logic and it had no speed...<br /><br />I first tought: 'Oh No, I don't want the trail that proves that poor Patrick was an innocent killer'. But this turned out to be even worse. Typically in this American film you get a super-hint or no hints at all. I want very tiny small hints that direct you to the killer. The audience isn't involved. And now, when I don't get any hints at all, you can expect a several 's/he-is-the-killer' sweeps in the end. And that is not all. ah... This is hopeless, lets make an end to it...<br /><br />In one word: Disgusting..<br /><br /> | 1 |
The animation looks like it was done in 30 seconds, and looks more like caricatures rather than characters. I've been a fan of Scooby Doo ever since the series premiered in 1969. I didn't think much of the Scooby Doo animated movies, (I'm talking about the TV Series, not the full length movies.), but some of them were pretty cool, and I like most people found Scrappy Doo to be an irritant, but this series is pure garbage. As soon as I saw the animation, and heard the characters, (and I use that term loosely) speak, I cringed. Also, Mystery Inc., was a team, and without the entire crew to compliment each other, it just seems like opening up a box of chocolates to find someone has already ate the best ones, and the only thing left are the ones nobody wants. What's New Scooby Doo was better than this. If you're going to have a Scooby Doo TV series, include the elements that made the series endure so long. The entire cast of characters, and quality animation. They need to put this one back under the rock from where it came. | 1 |
A better film could have been made to portray the tragedy of Bosnia. Some parts are very effective and the film does well to give some idea of the suffering of the people specially the children, but overall it looks less like a film and more like a documentary. Woody Harrelson is very good but the rest of the cast has performed well without being extra ordinary. Should be watched in order to get a rough idea of what the war did to the children of Bosnia. If one expects a great and gripping movie, Welcome...... will be a disappointment. | 1 |
Few movies have dashed expectations and upset me as much as Fire has. The movie is pretentious garbage. It does not achieve anything at an artistic level. The only thing it managed to receive is a ban in India. If only it was because of the poor quality of film making rather than the topical controversy, the ban would have been more justifiable.<br /><br />Now that I've got my distress out of my system, I am more able to analyse the movie: <br /><br />* From the onset the movie feels unreal especially when the protagonists start conversing in English. The director, of course, did not make the movie for an Indian audience; however it underestimated its international audiences by over simplifying it. Watching the character of the domestic help conversing in perfect English is too unreal to be true.<br /><br />* Next we get regular glimpses into Radha's dreams. These scenes are not very effective. They coming up as jarring and obstruct the flow of the movie. I'm still wondering how that philosophical dialogue connected to the story. I felt that the surrealism was lost.<br /><br />* The love scenes felt voyeuristic and are probably meant for audience titillation rather than being a powerful statement. In any case, they do not achieve either of the two.<br /><br />* The names chosen for the women, Radha and Sita, are names of Hindu deities and hence been selected to shock the audiences. However, since the film wasn't meant for Indian audiences in the first place, the shock-through-name-selection is not meant to achieve its goal, which is absurd.<br /><br />* The quality of direction is very poor and some key and delicate scenes have been poorly handled. A better director could have made a powerful emotional drama out of the subject.<br /><br />* The acting felt wooden although Nandita Das brought some life into the role, the others were wasted. I always thought that Shabana Azmi was a good actress but her talent is not evident in this film. The male leads were outright rubbish.<br /><br />In case you are a fan of Earth and wish to see more of the director, stay away from this one. Please. | 1 |
I have only praise for this film. From start to finish it captured the brilliance of Stephen Sondheim's musical. I am not a big fan of musicals most of them are very overdone. This one however changed my mind. I am an actor myself and have actully played Sweeney and I know how hard this role is. George Hearn gave a stunning, masterful and rounded performance worthy of the highest awards that we can give him (He won an Emmy and that's something.) Everything he does he turns to gold. He is so good it will blow your mind why he's not in films winning oscars. Lansbury is also very good and very funny. Sara Woods is creepy and wonderful as the Beggar Woman. All in all a great video. Pick it up if you can. | 0 |
Takashi Miike's incursion into kiddie territory won me over almost immediately because he demonstrates nerve and bravery in dealing with fantasy elements. This is a fairy tale that dares to be dark. Even as a kid, I thought that there was something sinister about most fairy tales; horrible things happen to people in most children's books. Miike understands that these classic tales are a bit scarier (and more disturbing) than what they appear to be at first glance. The filmmaker takes the archetypical story of a kid on a wondrous quest out of the preschool classroom. He accentuates the very real fears of a world filled with never-ending hazardous missions. Westerners like to downplay the seriousness behind bedtime stories written specifically for kids. I appreciated the fact that Miike was more honest than most American filmmakers. He goes for the jugular of the story but he also shows signs of restrain. But a self-possessed Miike is still stranger than most filmmakers. I thought it was a great film. Highly recommended. | 0 |
I am amazed that movies like this can still be made. I watch all kinds of movies all the time with my friends and i can say that this is one of the best i ever seen. Never thinked that a movie of 146 minutes can make me think about it on and on.<br /><br />Washington, charismatic and intense as ever, plays Creasy, a washed-up ex-counter-terrorist agent who's taken to the bottle. Once he's assigned to protect young Pita (Dakota Fanning) in Mexico City, his emotional and redemptive arc is jump-started in the way only an adorable little girl can provide. Inevitably, Pita is kidnapped by thugs, and Creasy decides that most of Mexico City must pay the price for daring to take away his character's teddy-bear-clutching catalyst. Yes, he has become...a Man on Fire. <br /><br />You must see this movie. | 0 |
I had never heard of Robert Roy MacGregor before 'Rob Roy' came out, but the movie is definitely worth seeing. Playing the title character, Liam Neeson brings the same spirit to the role that he brought to Oskar Schindler, and Jessica Lange also does a really good job as his wife Mary. Archibald Cunningham (Tim Roth) is one person very likely to make your skin crawl.<br /><br />All in all, this comes out as good as 'Braveheart' (maybe even better). I laugh when I think of how Hollywood released two movies almost back-to-back taking a swipe at England. Very good. Also starring John Hurt, Eric Stoltz, Brian Cox and Jason Flemyng. | 0 |
Ray Liotta and Tom Hulce shine in this sterling example of brotherly love and commitment. Hulce plays Dominick, (Nicky) a mildly mentally handicapped young man who is putting his 12 minutes younger, twin brother, Liotta, who plays Eugene, through medical school. It is set in Baltimore and deals with the issues of sibling rivalry, the unbreakable bond of twins, child abuse and good always winning out over evil. It is captivating, and filled with laughter and tears. If you have not yet seen this film, please rent it, I promise, you'll be amazed at how such a wonderful film could go un-noticed. | 0 |
I don't see why everyone loves this film so much. True, it does have good intentions and meaning, but you cannot compensate for such a poor script. Woody Allen is a brilliant filmaker, but I'm afraid this is just a piece of garbage. It's extremely predictable and the subject matter is all too visible. I happen to be a huge Woody Allan fan and love most of his work, but this I cannot recomend. | 1 |
This is one horror movie based TV show that gets it right. Friday the 13th the series had no connection to the movies. Poltergeist the legacy: I'm not so sure. It may have been loosely connected to the movies. It feels like they just throw a famous title on a show so fans will watch it.<br /><br />It shows Freddy being burned by the Elm street parents(in the 1st episode I believe) and the amount of parents were disappointing. With all the kids he targeted in the 1st 3 movies, you'd expect there to be more parents. But oh well.<br /><br />Freddy is basically the narrator for the show. He watches the actions of people in the real world sometimes getting involved somehow. Just like other anthology shows like Tales from the crypt, there's a supernatural or surprise ending twist involved.<br /><br />The acting lacks but believe it or not: the violence sometimes surpasses that of the movie. This show lasted a couple of seasons and was made around the time of the 4th movie. i heard it was canceled due to protesting parents. I watched a lot of R rated stuff as a kid, so its a shame parents had to ruin it for everyone. 4 more movies came after the series , so it wasn't a total loss. | 0 |
The violent death of Fernando Ramos Da Silva only eight years after the completion of this film, only adds to the poignancy of dierector BAbenco's powerful message. The film is split into two halves - the first in a reformatory where a group of youngsters are abused and violated by the violent law enforcers and guardians. The second backdrop is the city where they are confined instead by their own actions and morality, which includes mugging, pimping and killing different characters who enter their lives.<br /><br />The differing gender and sexual roles in the film allow for constant changes in the characters as they interact with other people. Particularly interesting is teh character of Lalica, a transvestite who is mother and lover to some of the children. Her reaction to the arrival of Sueli, a prostitute is both poignant and tragic. <br /><br />There is no happy ending to this story and i reccomend to watch it with caution as there are some very uncomfortable scenes to watch especially in teh opening twenty minutes. But whilst watching it, it is important to remember that this is not just a fictional tale. The actors are not trained professionals but instead boys selected from the streetsof Sao Paulo. They actually lived this life that is portrayed so vividly on screen and in da Silva's case, died at the hands of the police who are depicted so brutally. A documentary? A piece of fiction. It borders on both but it certainly makes for heart wrenching material and is a film that actually leaves you breathless and thinking long after having watched it.<br /><br />10/10 | 0 |
This film is an almost complete waste of time. I am studying the book for my English A level, and the film only contributes in one way, and that's getting across that the whole scenario is set in a rural idyll. The acting is wooden, the filmography is laughable, and the so called dramatic scenes in the film had the majority of my class (including me) snickering into their texts. The book, although not my favourite literary choice, is miles better than the film is, and the sound track is just plain irritating. Don't watch this film unless you are looking for a timeless, quality storyline transformed into mindless, media waste. | 1 |
Judging from this film and THE STRONG MAN, made the same year, I would not place Harry Langdon at the top of the list of great silent screen comedians. There simply is not enough there. Perhaps he was on his way to developing his style but sabotaged himself by taking his first big successes too seriously. In any event, all of his tricks are reminiscent of the greater funny men, but he lacks the acrobatic skills of Keaton and the prodigious ingenuity of Lloyd. He also undermines his own persona by dressing and walking like Chaplin's tramp character. His trademarks are childlike innocence, timidity of approach and a tendency to under-react to calamity by looking perplexed, batting his eyes or touching his pursed lips with the tip of his forefinger. The comedy in Langdon's films results from fate throwing various obstacles in his path which he tries to overcome in wimpy or naïve ways or with a minimum of physicality, such as throwing rocks at an approaching tornado to drive it away, propping up a collapsing building with a two-by-four or dodging boulders by lifting a leg so that they roll under him. In this story, about the son of a shoemaker who joins a cross-country walking race to publicize a rival company's footwear, he manages to win by sheer luck. There is nothing here that hasn't been done far better by the Big Three. | 1 |
The Polish brothers are unique film artists, and they've really pushed the envelope here. A fantasy that has points in common with 'Wings of Desire,' 'Northfork' tells the story of a '50s era small town in the middle of nowhere that is two days shy of being inundated and submerged thanks to the U.S. government's desire to make a reservoir on the place where the town stands. It's a wry parable about loss and remembrance, featuring angels, dreams, premonitions, and the most hilarious government reclamation functionaries since 'Repo Man.' The performances are all outstanding, especially Nolte and Woods. I've noticed in reading down some of the comments that there are people who were offended simply by the fact that the Polish twins use elliptical storytelling tactics, and I want to say, that's one of the things that makes this film so great: its willingness to embrace the mysterious as an aspect of everyday life. David Mullen's cinematography is stunning. Highly recommended; if you've suffered a meaningful personal loss, such as the death of a parent, I would even call this film necessary viewing. - Ray | 0 |
I had the privilege of seeing this powerful play on Broadway with Kathy Bates in the lead. I only saw one other play in the 1970's-1990's that had an emotional impact like this play did. I really looked forward to the play being made into a movie but was very disappointed when I learned that Kathy Bates wouldn't reprise her role in the film--she wasn't well known off Broadway at the time and the producers must have wanted star power I suppose and cast Sissy Spacek instead. Sissy did an adequate job in the lead role but did not measure up to Kathy Bates in any way. I love Anne Bancroft but she seemed too young for this role. The movie plot was true to the play. Anyone who ever contemplates suicide should have to watch this movie to realize the devastation on those who are left behind. | 1 |
This was an atrocious waste of my time. No plot. The acting was so far below par, it should be used as an exemplar in acting classes of what NOT to do. It is merely a commercial rip-off of the earlier Universal Soldier, which also scrapes the bottom of the acting barrel. Its sad that VD needs to assert his ego every few years, and sadder still that people will pay good money to sit thru it. This kind of schlock gives Martial Arts movies a bad name. By comparison, it makes Segall, Norris, and Arnold look almost talented.<br /><br />Perhaps VD should take the Leslie Nielson track and do send-ups of his genre. At least then we could be laughing with him instead of at him. | 1 |
First of all I am a butch, straight white male. But even with that handicap I love this movie. It's about real people. A real time and place. And of course New York City in the 80's. I had many gay friends growing up in New York in the eighties and the one thing about them i always admired was their courage to live their lives the way they wanted to live them. No matter what the consequences. That's courageous. You have to admire that. This is a great film, watch it and take in what it was like to be a flamboyant African American or Hispanic Gay man in the New York of the eighties. It's real life. Bottom line it's real life. | 0 |
There is just one word for this film. Appalling. The director clearly has talent but like his character Robert Carmichael he throws it all away.<br /><br />Carmichael has potential, but like Cray he can't be bothered to use it. Being drawn into petty crime and then descending into depravity is Cray's vision of British youth. Like the British tabloids this film portrays young people with no aspirations or respect. Cray cries out for attention, but deserves none.<br /><br />I was appalled by the act of violence that Cray chose to shove in the faces of the audience. He assumes the audience are ignorant of world atrocities. Like a piece of obscene graffiti on a toilet wall he shows us male depravity with adolescent glee.<br /><br />Some actors of quality have small parts in this film. Danny Dyer and Leslie Manville both make short appearances. The acting is otherwise amateur, the young men Joe and Ben are cringe making. Carmichael played by Daniel Spencer is creepy. Miranda Wilson plays Monica, the attractive wife of celeb chef Jonathon (Michael Howe); how she was able to subject herself to such an ordeal is beyond belief. The film is never subtle and Monica is treated to the most gratuitous violence which is cut with war action. War imagery is used to convey the idea that young men cannot help themselves, that acts of violence will occur within even 'civilised' countries. This is most certainly true and is symptomatic of our altered society where males have an increasingly less important position, but Cray descends to the level of the barbaric males he seeks to expose through his use of such brutal and violent images. The female characters in the film offer no relief. They are either victims or in Manville's case a washed out mother. The community is represented as dysfunctional.<br /><br />This is Cray's first film. I listened to what he had to say during a Q and A session at Edinburugh and he is not unintelligent, he simply lacks experience and his film exposes his naivety. The film is due to be released later this year, but I hope the company goes bust cos the public really don't need this kind of messed up material. | 1 |
In watching this early DeMille work, it was once again reinforced to me that early DeMille is far superior to late DeMille. His attention to use of light within scenes is remarkable. His pacing is very good, enabling much to be told in the space of an hour or so. It is a pity that he wasn't as intuitive about the style of his later sound films as he seemed to be in his silent films.<br /><br />This was the first film in which I had seen Cleo Ridgely. She was remarkable, quite restrained and yet conveyed a broad spectrum of emotions.<br /><br />The ending is wonderful. | 0 |
'Christmas in Connecticut' is an absolute gem, and a must-see for Christmas! Elizabeth Lane, a precursor to Martha Stewart, is a magazine columnist and the ne plus ultra of homemakers--the perfect wife, mother, and domestic goddess. Only thing is, she is none of these things--a total phony. Unfortunately for her, she is about to be found out. Her publisher, Mr. Alexander Yardley (a brilliant comic turn by Sydney Greenstreet) gets the bright idea of inviting a famous war hero to Elizabeth's 'perfect farm' for the Christmas holiday. Only thing, there is no farm, 'perfect' or otherwise. The comedy involves how Elizabeth is to keep her real identity under wraps so she will not lose her job. Elizabeth's colleague, John, happens to have a farm in Connecticut, so that solves that problem. However, he wants to marry Liz, but she does not want to marry him. He offers her marriage, though he knows she doesn't feel the same way about him that he does about her. He makes the offer anyway, and assures her that he is willing to wait. And here Barbara Stanwyck, as Liz, delivers one of the most devastating put-downs I have ever heard. With perfect innocence, she replies: 'Could you wait that long?' OUCH! In addition, the scenes between Una O'Conner and S.Z. Sakall are hilarious. They don't seem to like one another (though one suspects they really do). They are rivals in the household, and S.Z. Sakall's mangled English is equaled by Nora's strangled pronunciation of his name ('Mr. Basternook'). 'My name is FELIX!' It is amazing how Christmas-y these black and white films are. Great character work by all involved. Don't miss this one! | 0 |
Considering all of the comedies with a military situation that have been done in history, someone had to be the first. One could make a case that in Shoulder Arms, Charlie Chaplin invented the genre.<br /><br />Hard to believe that back then this was a daring move. When you consider that some of the best films involving such people as Bob Hope, Abbott&Costello, Laurel&Hardy involved military service and made during war time, it's just something you accept and laugh at.<br /><br />In the First World War Chaplin along with fellow stars Douglas Fairbanks and Mary Pickford went out on bond tours. He was a great supporter of the Allied cause, unusual for someone of his left wing views. It would seem only natural that the Tramp would be drafted and unfortunately would flummox around and wreak havoc on all.<br /><br />A lot of things you'd see in the service comedies of World War II got their start in Shoulder Arms. Chaplin had no more imitators because within a few weeks of the film's release, the war was over.<br /><br />But a comedy art form had been established by one of comedy's greatest geniuses. | 0 |
Plunkett and Macleane is a wonderful updating of the swashbuckling tradition, predating Johny Depp and his pirate friends. The tone is lighthearted, with a touch of social commentary, but nothing too heavy. One could almost see Errol Flynn and Basil Rathbone in this.<br /><br />It starts out in low gear, with the introduction of the characters and the establishing of the themes of social inequality and rebellion; but, it kicks into high gear once the boys hit the highways. The robberies are grand and stylish, with romantic touches that are the bread and butter of swashbucklers. The actors are engaging and help elevate the material a bit, which is fairly hollow. There's not much depth to the figures, but they are played with such charm and skill that it doesn't matter.<br /><br />Muh has been said about the modern music. Period music tended to the more serene, which seems out of place. A classical score with Celtic rhythms for the action pieces could work, but the more modern, rebellious rock and techno music seemed to add an edge to the action. Since the characters are more legend than reality, accuracy in the music seems pointless. The pieces tend to fit the mood of the aired scenes, so it mostly works well. I just wonder how they missed Adam Ant's 'Stand and Deliver.' Make no mistake, this is not a serious film. It's pure escapism and a wonderful lark. Tony Scott shows some of the visual flair of his father, but I don't think we are going to see many Oscar nods in his career just yet. He seems to understand the material here and pulls off a fine film. With time he may prove to be a name to reckon with. His father took a while to mature beyond visual stylization and become a more rounded director. This is definitely one to watch for an entertaining evening or for a swashbuckling film fest. | 0 |
Two page boys working at a radio network go from trying to solve murders to performing in black-face in between work shifts. Jack Moran and Sidney Miller star in this whodunnit from 1945. Lots of fast talking, everybody yells at everybody, and the two page boys call the police detective 'Marty' (played by Ralph Sanford). It's a real 'shortie' at 59 minutes, and it has the feel of being adapted from a play, since it mostly takes place in a radio station soundstage. We don't really care about any of the characters, which is probably why its hardly ever shown. No big deal. This was Phil Karlson's second film as director. We're not given any clues as to who might be knocking people off, so we just kind of follow the police detective and the page boys as they all try to solve the mystery first. I'll say no more so as not to give away any spoilers. | 1 |
Hey HULU.com is playing the Elvira late night horror show on their site and this movie is their under the Name Monsteroid, good fun to watch Elvira comment on this Crappy movie ....Have Fun with bad movies. Anyways this movie really has very little value other than to see how bad the 70's were for horror flicks Bad Effects, Bad Dialog, just bad movie making. Avoid this unless you want to laugh at it. While you are at HULU check out the other movies that are their right now there is 10 episodes and some are pretty decent movies with good plots and production and you can watch a lot of them in 480p as long as you have a decent speed connection. | 1 |
<br /><br />It wasn't the worst movie that I have ever seen. However, that is only if I get to count home movies made by 8 year olds. This movie was horrible from start to finish. Nothing about it made it worth watching unless you wanted to show new filmmakers how not to make a film. | 1 |
if my grandma did films they would probably do much better figure than this one... incredible bad... the main characters (the mom, the dad and son) are OK. Specially the mother she's a nice actress and the kid also proves to be a nice one specially on the scenes where he is supposed to be scary. But does the the director know the meaning of the words Plot Point, Triller and Good Script. the script hasn't any evolving atmosphere to become a suspense thing. If you like being chased by trees you can probably enjoy it, otherwise just stay at home and sleep. oh... actually there was something funny: the movie's from 2001 but we couldn't realize it since the image is so bad (like on mini-dv) and the cars are so old (like 70 and 80's). | 1 |
Predictable, hackneyed & poorly written. Foolishly I reasoned such a prominent cast would not be involved unless it had merit. I guess competition amongst actors is so intense these days (and will only get worse) that one cannot pick and choose much any more. Early on we were given an inkling who was was instrumental in the assassination and we had it rammed down our throats ever since. The movie lacked intrigue, giving us little insight into the victim and only one possible motive for the murder. Some of the discourse was, frankly, embarrassing! It's hard to believe anyone would even consider, let alone commit to, the spending of tens of millions of dollars to make this tripe. | 1 |
This is another great movie I had the good fortune to see for the first time on the big screen (thanks to Rick Baker et al). Back in the late 80's I was a relative newcomer to the genre and only really new about the big three JC, SH & YB. I wasn't sure what to expect when I payed my hard earned money to see this in a 'Triple bill of Classics' at the old Scala. I need not have worried, I was left breathless by this movie. If you're a fan of Hong Kong Action / Kung Fu movies and haven't seen this movie, do so NOW! | 0 |
Sheba Baby is always underrated most likely because it has a pg rating instead of the usual r rating that a Grier movie gets. all that the pg means is that Pam doesn't take her top off, she takes her top off in every other movie she's been in though so. it is more exciting than Coffy, more action. it takes off slow but by the time she's on screen the thrills have started. like Dolemite d'urville martin is the heavy trying to get Sheba's father, but she ain't having that. she wages a one woman war against martin and his gang of cronies. the best scene is with a stupid pimp in his car which i'm still laughing about. i thought it would be stupid because of the pg rating but i was wrong it replaces sex with violence and in a blaxplotation film that can only be good! | 0 |
In The White Balloon and Crimson Gold, the two other films by Jafar Panahi that I've seen, the director mines surprising amounts of depth in subjects that seem, on the surface, slight. In Offside, Panahi's seriocomic tribute to Iranian women standing up for their rights, I don't think he's as successful. Not that what he's saying isn't important, of course (and it's too bad that, like pretty much every other Panahi film, Iranians can't see it). But, after a while, the film feels a tad flat, and it feels long even at 90 minutes. Not saying I didn't like it, though. The actors are all fantastic, and the celebration at the end of the film is infectious. But it's not an important work, in my opinion. | 0 |
...through the similarly minded antics of Eric Stanze. A not-particularly talented director has helmed a not-particularly good movie, yet I still found myself sitting through it to the closing credits, if for nothing more than to see what happens next.<br /><br />A rapist escapes from prison and calls up his old flame. After capturing her (even though she came willingly) and threatening her into having sex (another event she was also willing to do) he reveals that he has kidnapped three guys who wronged her in the past. He then decides to kill her (huh?) but is foiled and dies instead. The girl's mind snaps (or something like that) and she takes out her rage on the unlucky chaps in the basement.<br /><br />Alright, the writing sucks: it's long winded, loaded with ten-cent words and there is WAY too much of it.<br /><br />The acting sucks: what a minute, what acting? <br /><br />The filming sucks: home video is bad enough, but 20 minutes of graveyard footage is just a damn insult.<br /><br />And the budget is a joke: get it...'budget', that was the punchline.<br /><br />And yet there was a charm to the thing. Back in the 70's these kind of movies came out in theatres with actual budgets and talent attached to them, not in this day and age though. If you want to watch this kind of violent, sexually exploitive trash (don't lie, some of us do) then this is all your gonna get nowadays.<br /><br />Some brief hardcore shots in a sex scene, torture with fecal material, fun with axes, anal rape by broom stick and a lengthy shot of the crazy chick masturbating with the same broom stick are some of the better items on the menu.<br /><br />It's not good and it won't be remembered, but not since the heyday of Joe D'amato have people made movies like this.<br /><br />4/10 | 1 |
My first child was born the year this program came out, and I played the record album for the boys every Christmas thereafter. When the CD came out, I bought about ten copies and still give them to friends and relatives as they start families...it invariably becomes their favorite Christmas album. I recently found several DVD's (made on DVD-R from video tapes, probably) for sale on eBay. The one I bought was an excellent copy, and it was so great to see the show again after more than 25 years. There are some songs on the show that were not on the album, and some of the songs on the album were studio versions of the same songs on the show. But both the CD and DVD will stay in our library as the best Christmas entertainment ever. | 0 |
This movie has to be seen for the music, which is actually a wonderful cantata composed by Sergei Prokofiev. Obviously, the original soundtrack is not exactly hi-fi, but there are many excellent versions available in classical music selections. The cantata can be appreciated for itself, but having seen the movie helps.<br /><br />The story itself is fairly standard Soviet wartime anti-German propaganda. An amusing anecdote is that Stalin was later so eager to buy time by appeasing Hitler at the onset of World War II that Eisenstein was seconded to a German movie for a short while, as penance.<br /><br />Prince Alexander Nevsky (revered as a saint by the Russian Orthodox), having earned his nickname by defeating Swedish raiders on the river Neva, musters Russian resistance against an invasion by the Teutonic knights, and concludes his victory with a stern warning to other would-be invaders.<br /><br />An interesting scene: Alexander sees a convoy of Russians being taken as slaves by Mongolian soldiers, and does nothing to stop this, as the Teutonic knights are his priority. The historical Alexander Nevsky paid tribute to the Mongol khans, as his father before him, while working to consolidate his realm's future independence. | 0 |
Revolt of the Zombies is BAD. There is nothing remotely entertaining about the movie. It is dull, lifeless, poorly acted, and poorly scripted. I've often complained that the original Dracula is a little slow for my taste, well this movie makes Dracula look like a roller coaster ride. The 65 minute running time seemed like 165 minutes.<br /><br />The story: An expedition is sent to Cambodia to find the secrets of mind control through 'zombification'. One man finds the secret and uses it to make the woman he loves marry him. Once this happens, he releases the zombies under his control to horrific consequences. That's it. That's the whole story.<br /><br />For most of the movie, I was trying to figure out where I had seen the male lead. He looked so familiar. I had plenty of time to think this over. Nothing was happening in the movie. Just before the 'zombies revolted', it hit me. It was Dean Jagger. I had seen him recently as the General in White Christmas. This is how I 'entertained' myself throughout most of the movie.<br /><br />I'm just glad I didn't buy the DVD for this movie. King of the Zombies is on the other side and it's a masterpiece of film making compared with this movie. For what it's worth, I'll give it a 2/10. (I won't go to 1/10 because, believe it or not, I've seen worse.) | 1 |
Oy vey... Jurrasic Park got Corman-ized. As usual the plot is wafer thin, from 1 foot tall dinosaurs that weigh 150 pounds and leave tracks bigger than they are, to inexplicable science which uses lasers to keep the dinosaurs in check and poultry trucks which have chickens loose in cages large enough for big dogs (I've seen chicken trucks they are all in cages the size of shoe boxes). And all that is in the first 15 minutes of this disaster of a film. All the male actors are imbeciles (thinking a grizzly might be loose in the desert, constantly dropping items to give the raptor an easy kill) and the female actors all look like they just came from a modeling shoot for Fredrick's of Hollywood. The raptor itself is the worst thing since the Hobgoblins (from the movie of the same name), it looks like they had a hand puppet version and a plastic model for the 'motion' shots. If you want a good movie to sit around and heckle MST3K style, this is gold. If you want competent film making and good acting... don't watch a Roger Corman film. Acting gets a 4 out 10, some of the players upon this stage did try. Story gets a 2 out of 10, it reads like a drunken storytelling session gone bad. Special effects gets a 2 out of 10, I've seen worse, but not many. | 1 |
Doris Day never lets a bad script get her down. Even in the most trying of circumstances, Day gives 100% and usually comes out unscathed. This comedy, perhaps inspired by a real-life New York City black-out in 1965 but actually adapted from a late-'50s French play by Claude Magnier, gives Doris little to do but spoof her own goody-goody image and, in the second-half, be comically sedated (which is amusing because of the spin Day gives to the situation). There are some funny lines here, yet the staginess of the material has obviously been carried over from the play...and instead of conjuring up some amusing incidents within the Big Apple, we get stuck in the suburbs. Doris' co-stars (Patrick O'Neal, Robert Morse, and Terry-Thomas) are not well-suited to her, and neither is the shapeless hairdo they've got her wearing. Still, it's not terrible, it features a few big laughs, and for Day-buffs it's a must-see. ** from **** | 1 |
I really refused to see this movie. I refused to go with the school and I refused to go with my parents. Just by looking at the trailer it looked stupid, to me anyway. One of my friends wanted to take me to the movies that day and he offered me 2 choices, 'The Dukes Of Hazzard' or 'Wallace And Gromit: The Curse Of The Were-Rabbit.' It took me 17 minutes to decide. Time was running out. I had to choose. It came up on the screen 'Few' as in a few tickets left. By the time we had to line up and get our ticket, only one of us could go in. I desperately wanted Nicholas to go in to see it. But he forced me. I crossed my arms and was very moody and disappointed that I was going in to see this childishness. I walked in, sat in the only seat that was available and prepared for the movie! must say I was very surprised that I sat through that MASTERPIECE! It was amazing. I don't know what I was complaining about. The Clay Animation was by far the most best i've ever seen in my life. The story was brilliant. About a rabbit disrupting and crashing a carnival that had been planned for over 500 years. Basically Anti Pest Control are protecting the people who are competing in the Vegetable Competition. Anti Pesto known as Wallace And Gromit (Who are in charge of this business) try to keep all the rabbits away from the Vegetable carnival. I wont say anymore. It's just too good to tell. I'll admit that the whole idea of a Were-Rabbit is ab-it unbelievable and ab-it childish, but Nick Park adds substance to it which what makes everyone love it. I mean, there wont be a 10 foot rabbit on the loose and there definitely wont be 8 foot werewolves as said in ' Dog Soldiers.' Then again, Were-Rabbits and WereWolves aren't actual creatures. But either way, it worked out very well. <br /><br />The jokes also were more grown up. The kids wont get some of the jokes. It goes way above their heads. It had a lot of British jokes in there. If you love British humor, this is the movie for you.<br /><br />I also loved the cast and the voices. Everything about the movie is so incredibly well done. The direction and pacing was absolutely...FANTASTIC! I recommend this to fans of the old Wallace And Gromit shorts (And no, I haven't seen them yet), and I recommend it to fans who liked 'Shrek' and 'Shrek 2 and most importantly, I recommend it to the people who love Clay Animation. Cracking good movie! 10/10 | 0 |
I would give this movie high marks for the cinema-photography and performances. I just read a user comment concerning the performance of the actress who plays a conniving courtesan who fleeces Sinuoeh, the lead character. I remember a mini-biography of this actress following the movie the last time I saw it. Apparently, she was a Holocaust refugee, discovered by a French husband and wife in the movie industry who were taken with her extraordinary beauty. She died very young and under tragic circumstances. Gene Tierney is also outstanding in this film. Like other neo-Biblical films of the 1940's and 50s, 'The Egyptian' reflects the morals and values of that time, but is still great entertainment because the performances are terrific and the story so well told. | 0 |
Much about this movie was beautiful. The acting, the scenery, and without a doubt, Aaron's cinematography background showed through on the beautiful shots. Definitely worth watching, as your attention will be captivated the entire time, and it ends on just the right note.<br /><br />The acting by newcomer Jonathan Furr was superb, as one would think he was a pro acting since he was born. He has gone on to act in other feature films, but this starring role will always be remembered.<br /><br />The film does have that academy award feel to it at times, where it's slow and scenic and quiet, so it's not a movie that a.d.d. kids can sit through. However, the rustic feel of East Bend and Yadkinville played out well as a 1940's era film. | 0 |
Taste is a subjective thing. Two people can watch the same movie with one of them loving it and the other one hating it. As it concerns 'Halloween:the Curse of Michael Myers' I fall into the latter category.<br /><br />I'm of the opinion that John Carpenter, in 1978, made one of that decade's finest fright films, which despite its flaws, still holds up well into the 21st century. It reused many of the old horror film devices but utilized them in original and effective ways. It had no pretensions that it was anything other than a movie about an escaped mental patient stalking babysitters on Halloween night. And yet there were 'ideas' in the film but they were subtly introduced and not hammered into your skull. It juxtaposed the myths of the macabre festival with the reality of what was taking place in the story and it did this with a wonderful ambiguity. <br /><br />The 'filmmakers' of this 'film' probably wouldn't even understand that previous paragraph. That's why we're saddled us with this miserable and inept piece of disposable celluloid. Direction, script, acting are of the lowest strata imaginable. This is the type of film that is so mind numbingly dull and nausea inducing as to make you want to crawl back into the womb and die. It is also truly, truly sad to see veteran British actor Donald Pleasence wasting his acting abilities with this saliva puddle of a movie. He seems drained of all his energy and resigned to the fact that this may be his last film. Maybe that's what killed him. | 1 |
I remember when I first heard about Jack Frost. I was in Video Ezy at Miranda with my family on a monthly video hiring tradition. It was at this time that I worked up the courage to venture over towards the horror section of the store. Browsing the various titles, I finally came across Jack Frost. The cover was enough to convince me that the film was beyond my viewing pleasures. Years later the film disappeared, only to be replaced with the inevitable yet unnecessary sequel. I once again ventured to the horror section and picked up the case only to come to one conclusion: the film would be scary
but not intentionally.<br /><br />Jack Frost 2: Revenge Of The Killer Mutant Snowman (quite a title) follows off where it's predecessor left it. Sheriff Sam is seeking counseling after his ordeals and Jack is now in the form of anti-freeze. To escape his past, Sam and his wife head to an island hotel where he is in the company of a wide variety of slasher film stereotypes including busty female models, thick headed sports jocks and Caribbean staff. However, Jack is released from his liquid grave and is back to his icy methods. He heads over to the island and proceeds to kill anyone that would prove to have an awesome death. Only Sam can stop him.<br /><br />Let me just say that this is a straight-to-video film so it's bound to be bad. But this is terrible even in the eyes of other over the top films. The camera work is poor, using a camera that would make a soap opera look majestic. Half the actors look like they've come out of a porn shoot and the other half look like they've come out of a retirement home, but in actual fact they've actually come out of an asylum. There is an extensive use of special effects used in the film which tends to alternate between bland puppetry and CGI that can be bettered by an infant, and the death scenes are mostly off screen showing us little of what has happened to the hapless, yet deserving, victims. But the film is most memorable for it's killer one liners such as 'There's something that needs a little Christmas stuffing' and 'I know pronounce you officially f***ing dead!' Ultimately the whole purpose behind a film like this is to make a popcorn flick for those Friday nights of boredom and even it fails at that. To make a sequel to a film that was a poor slasher with a concept that a child would find unbelievable must've taken some nerves of steel
or a total frontal lobotomy. To director Michael Cooney
thanks for wasting my time. To everyone else
avoid like arsenic. | 1 |
Aldolpho (Steve Buscemi), an aspiring film maker, lives in a battered NYC apartment and relies on his mother to help make the rent. He has a beautiful neighbor named Angelica (Jennifer Beals)who may or may not be married but who Aldolpho would love to star in his movie. When Al unexpectedly gets a financial promise of funding for his film from a strange man named Joe, he thinks he's got it made. That is, until Joe takes Al along on an adventure to steal a Porsche for part of the financial backing. Will the film be made before Aldolpho is completely without a moral backbone? And, will Angelica star in the film? This is, in this viewer's opinion, an awful movie. The script is abysmal, with a plot that wanders willy nilly. Beals practically snarls all of her lines and Buscemi, though likable, is nondescript. There is a good deal of distasteful material and unsavory characters to boot. Finally, the production values are very poor, too, making the film look second rate at all times. If you have time on your hands, it is still a good idea not to take a chance with this movie. But, if you are the proverbial glutton for punishment, go ahead and watch the darn thing. Beals does look beautiful, after all. | 1 |
It carries the tone of voice that narrates the book into the jungle of Vietnam and into the wild-eyed look of Martin Sheen and Dennis Hopper and the mystical morbidity surrounding Colonel Kurtz.(I don't say Marlon Brando because after watching the documentary, 'Hearts of Darkness,' I am skeptical as to how much credit Brando is due for that quality). The tone of voice I'm talking about is brooding and dramatic without being overbearing: 'Everybody gets what he wants. I wanted a mission, and for my sins they gave me one. They sent it up with room service.' It is indulgent without being narrow and alienating. A good example of is Hopper's indulgence into aphoristic madness, generously installing lines written by T.S. Eliot and Rudyard Kipling into his stony monologues: 'I mean, the man's a geniussometimes he'll walk right by you without even saying a word, and sometimes he'll grab you by the collar and say 'did you know that 'if' is the middle word in 'life'
if you can hold your head while all around you they are losing theirs' and then 'I mean he's a wise man, he's a great man; I should have been a pair of ragged claws scuttling across the floors of silent seas' (The first one's Kipling, the second one's Eliot. | 0 |
Sean Connery is very good as the Great Raisuli, Lord of the Rif and Defender of the Faithful. This is an adventure movie with Arabs, Germans and the USMC all coming to grips at one point or another. There is also a lot of humor in the interplay among the main and supporting characters. The story is based on the true incident in which a wealthy Greek-American businessman was kidnapped by the Raisuli in the early 1900s. Milius has substituted Candace Bergen and her two children as the victims of the kidnapping, and this opens the story to a lot of literary license.<br /><br />On the other hand, the movie gives Milius the opportunity to remind the viewer of two of the most famous (though mostly forgotten) political quotations of the TR era. Brian Keith (very good as TR) says, 'Pedecaris alive or the Raisuli dead!'; and John Huston (also good as Sec of State John Hay)asks the Japanese Ambassador at a White House dinner, 'You likee knifee, you likee forkee?' | 0 |
Perhaps because I was so young, innocent and BRAINWASHED when I saw it, this movie was the cause of many sleepless nights for me. I haven't seen it since I was in seventh grade at a Presbyterian school, so I am not sure what effect it would have on me now. However, I will say that it left an impression on me... and most of my friends. It did serve its purpose, at least until we were old enough and knowledgeable enough to analyze and create our own opinions. I was particularly terrified of what the newly-converted post-rapture Christians had to endure when not receiving the mark of the beast. I don't want to spoil the movie for those who haven't seen it so I will not mention details of the scenes, but I can still picture them in my head... and it's been 19 years. | 1 |
First of all, I'd like to tell you that I'm into comics, anime, animation and such stuff. It is true that everyone has his own preferences, but you can trust me on this movie. I'll be objective. To begin with the story - it's OK. Follows the story line of the comic books as far as I'm familiar with them. But the animation... Well, it's not actually terrible, but it's definitely cheap and mediocre. It would be a lot better if they didn't try to imitate the anime style and sticked to the original comic book style drawings. If we pretend not to see the rare sloppy effects like fire and lightnings you could tell that the movie is made about 10 years ago and even more. Looks a little bit like the original Vampire Hunter D from 1985. Take a look at Heavy Metal FAKK 2000 for instance - 4 years ago they made a movie that looks a hell lot better! In addition to this the voice talents do nothing remarkable, the music is nothing special. So all in all - it lacks atmosphere. I watched it, but I cannot tell I really enjoyed it. It just does not capture you. There's plenty of blood and violence, but that does not impress me at all. May be it will be shocking for someone who was never watched more mature oriented animations and sees animated blood for the first time (is there anyone around?), but I don't think this is the audience for this movie. So they could add a little nudity and spice to it. The chicks around Lucifer were quite tasty, and hell, we have Lady Death herself! There are few sexy looks, but that's not enough. Instead of Bill Brown's music I think it would look better on a hard rock / heavy metal soundtrack. All in all - the movie isn't that bad, but if you want something better take the original Heavy Metal, Heavy Metal FAKK 2000, Ralph Bakshi's Fire and Ice or Wizards maybe. And of course - Vampire Hunter D: Bloodlust | 1 |
Wow! I caught this on IFC recently after I watched But Im A Cheerleader. Id never heard of this movie but the description sounded remotely interesting. I went in with low expectations and now I must say this is one of the best love stories ever in film. Robin Tunney does an excellent job portraying a person with tourettes. The relationship between the two and just the slightest details in the film are so acurate and believable. I usually hate 'romance' and love films but this movie truly touched me. I so recommend this movie to anyone with the ability of vision. | 0 |
Antonioni, by making this film, had assumed the role of Papa Smurf to all the little long-haired, American, radical student-Smurfs. He had taken them under the guiding protection of his European communist wings, showing appreciation and support for their confused American ways. (These Smurfs are red and wear blue, not the other way around.) The radical Smurfs were happy to get the guidance of a wise old man with gray hair who regularly preys to the God of all long-haired Smurfs, Lenin the Communist - another wise old man whose beard made the Smurfs take him even more seriously, for it symbolized something wise, though they did not quite know why they regarded the beard to have this kind of deep effect on them. Castro, another wise bearded man, has often profited from this confusion and exuded magical powers with his beard over his naive overseas admirers. (Not to mention Che Guevara: that beard has a certain je-ne-sais-pas-quoi about it, makes one want to immediately embrace Marx and his lovely, pacifistic teachings
) The film starts with a muddled meeting of radically stupid radical students, who engage in dialogues that truly redefine the word 'confused'. As confused as a blind-folded dog falling of a high-story building into a bottomless pit. Suddenly, the movie's 'hero' (well, Antonioni's hero) rises up and says something to his pathetic left-wing peers and then leaves, hoping that this display of 'mega-coolness' will improve his James Dean image and vastly increase his chances of getting laid with the best 'chicks' in the next mass hippie orgy. Eventually he gets into trouble with cops (i.e. pigs) at a rally, and spends the movie under the blue American capitalist skies, looking for freedom
Or something like that.<br /><br />Antonioni's predictable assault on capitalism is not only intellectually hollow, but has (or had) nothing new to offer; it's just the same old trigger-happy one-dimensional cops, businessmen discussing business deals (and what's wrong with that, isn't that how Antonioni's movies get made?), and endless shots of TV commercials and billboards advertising the oh-so morally decadent products for the abhorrent, selfish, and greedy right-wing rabble-population who thinks of no one but themselves, their families, their work, and their children.<br /><br />Papa Smurf Antonioni, just like his long-haired Smurfs and Smurfettes of the late 60s, failed to notice the most obvious and vital aspect about their silly movement: they were allowed to have their laughable meetings and express their anti-establishment opinions freely within that very establishment, whereas the students in those countries whose left-wing systems they admired, did not (and still do not). By far the greatest irony about the hippies - and Antonioni, naturally, failed to realize this as well (his judgment being clouded by cocaine-snorting and an excessive intake of LSD) - is that hippies were (are) the garbage-residue of capitalism. This is an incredible irony. Only in a successfully-functioning capitalist system can you find that species called 'hippie'; a spoiled, ungrateful, and selfish bunch of middle and upper-middle class losers.<br /><br />The film itself seems to go on forever. Antonioni takes his sweet time with getting on with it, while including overlong scenes of pointlessness, with a high dullness factor. His attempts at symbolism are annoying and trite. His statements are highly dubious, at best. This film is Antonioni's way of saying that violent revolution is the solution. And this is what we get from an old, saturated, filthy-rich, fat film-maker who lives in villas and dines in the best French and Italian restaurants.<br /><br />I don't remember seeing any major Western movie about the Tiananmen massacre of thousands of students in China. But when one Western student gets shot for waving Che Guevara's face into all our faces, we get ten major films about it at once. I suppose this means that a Chinese life is worth a thousand times less than a Western one at least to the left-wing hypocrites who infest movies.<br /><br />If you're a Marxist neo-hippy and disliked this awful review, please klick 'NO' below. | 1 |
All this show is, is the same plot. Kuszko (spelling?) is in danger of failing school, he needs to pass to become emperor. He needs to learn something, which he thinks is stupid, he then uses it/ learns more about it and realizes it's not so stupid. Eezma, posing as the principal, tries to transform Kuszko into some animal to stop him. Every episode.<br /><br />Jokes from the movie are copied (Eezma's incredibly complicated plans, Kuszko breaking the 4th wall constantly, squirrels.) They should try hiring some writers.<br /><br />2/10 | 1 |
A touching story told with tenderness: awkward young Jewish girl in WWII America befriends an escaped German POW who is hiding out in her clubhouse. They discuss their lives and beliefs (he's anti-Hitler), she sneaks him food, he becomes her only friend and ally. All this reminded me of the much-better theatrical film 'Whistle Down The Wind', where Hayley Mills befriends convict Alan Bates, but you certainly can't fault the direction here, which is smooth, or the performances, which are sterling. Mature in her pre-teen years, Kristy McNichol carries most of the picture and never hits a false note. Suddenly, when the prisoner is discovered (and Kristy is found out as well), the movie gets very tough. Her father, shocked and ashamed that his child would consort with 'that Nazi', lays into her with a quiet fury I have seldom seen before (he tells her 'You are dead to me,' which must be devastating for a little girl to hear). The final scenes don't cop out; there are no big reunions, no hand-holding climaxes. The girl has to face the world, and in doing so learns a bitter lesson about neighbors, friends, and family. A startling film. | 0 |
I rented this film courtesy of Netflix, thinking I would receive the 1972 version. I sat clueless, watching this new version, thinking: Gee, the production values were spectacular! I was convinced the soundtrack had a slightly 70s' sound to it. I was even more convinced that this was a 70s film when it occurred to me (almost every five seconds) that the one thing that was missing between Gene and Finney was an intense hug, a loaded stare, a passionate kiss.<br /><br />I'm sorry, although John Knowles himself has indicated that this was not a homosexual relationship, it is painfully obvious that yes, that's exactly what it was. When people (usually adolescents) of the same sex have 'intense' friendships, it means that those longings for love, togetherness, the desire to express oneself sexually, are all spilling over. These boys needed to connect, but they were never allowed to.<br /><br />Also, despite a spirited performance by Toby Moore, I never felt any of the emotions were real. I never connected to either of the boys, for the very reason their relationship was not truly honest.<br /><br />People want to live in a fantasy and think that because this took place in the 1940s that these boys couldn't have had these sexual feelings for each other. But I say they did -- at least in the book they did, and in this movie, Finney had them, almost painfully, for Gene. The 'intensity' that John Knowles suggests existed between them was a closet homosexuality, a hero worship, an idolatry -- that would, under normal circumstances, be expressed in a sexual way. Even if these boys were repressing it, it should have been crystal clear, but this movie doesn't even really hint at it. <br /><br />Lastly, there is an unbelievably bizarre moment when Finney, who has broken his leg, is playfully jumped on by all the other boys during a ball game. Unless they were just a bunch of nincompoops, they would know they could not possibly throw their bodies against him. Obviously this bone-shattering moment was lost on both the director and the producer. | 1 |
Now, I love bad, old skifee movies as much as most people. And I understand that a budget is a budget. That said, Planet of the Dinosaurs is as bad as a bad movie can get. The thing has no actors, and only one attractive female whom they kill off two minutes after swimming ashore. There are literally no redeeming qualities to be found in this pile of wasted celluloid. The only thing not wasted was paper...the screenplay must have been no more than four pages long. Surely no one actually WROTE dialogue this pointless. I'm constantly amazed that such movies ever got made, much less released. I'm only glad I didn't pay to see this waste of time. It's 75 minutes of my life I'll never get back. | 1 |
Antitrust falls right into that category of films that aspire to make some great point while being uplifting yet falls completely flat. I don't hate the film, but it is missing key elements, such as suspense. There have been other attempts to make an engaging film about computers, such as Hackers and The Net. They all fall short. The improbable ending of both The Net and Antirust seem to be nearly identical. These movie endings suffer from one huge error in perception: People in the PC business having this over-indulgent self ego that assumes the general population lives it's life waiting to hear the latest news about PC's and software. I have worked for many companies and industries, and they all seem to suffer from an expanded view of their own self-importance, as does this film.<br /><br />The way they introduced plot lines was pathetic. Showing Milo, who is deathly allergic to Sesame Seeds, almost ingest one from a restaurant breadbasket crossed the line of stupidity. Only his 'girlfriend' prevented him from sure death. This makes one wonder how Milo could have survived as long as he did, braving the perils of Big Mac buns and Sesame Seed breadsticks, as they cloak themselves as, well.... Sesame Seed breadsticks and Big Mac buns.<br /><br />Antitrust also doesn't provide much suspense. The patterned and predictable plot twists are easily figured out long before they are revealed (come on, was anyone REALLY stunned when Yee Jee Tso was killed?), thereby destroying any real shock value. And here again we have yet another film/story where at the end, the bad guys are chasing the good guys to 'get the disk'. We need to have a moratorium on this Simple Simon plot line for about 20 years. Still, I pressed on. Maybe the ending would be the payoff, but no. The completely ridiculous ending where we have the head of company security, another supposed evil guy, turn around and be the good guy that enables Milo to bring down N.U.R.V CEO Gary Winston was laughable. And of course, the news coverage of the arrest of Gary Winston is more fevered than when Hinckley or Oswald was brought into custody. Gary Winston, played by Tim Robbins, is a cardboard cutout of the same character Robbins played in Arlington Road. But that fits perfectly here in Antitrust, which should be called 'Anticlimactic' or 'Anti-Original'.<br /><br />In the years to come, this film will likely be banished, to be shown only on your local third rate UHF channel. | 1 |
I lived in London most of my adult life before I moved stateside so missed this film when it came out and only saw this now on HBO. I disagree with anyone who thinks this should have been a Hollywood production, the UK team gave it a chilling and foreboding atmosphere from day one and I was on the edge of my seat for the last 30 minutes wondering what was going to happen to my home city. And of course,nine months after the film comes out 7/7 happens. Yes, the truth is stranger than fiction. Having lived in both countries, it is also clear the likelihood of this happening in the UK is much greater than in the US, muslims live in ghettos and isolate themselves in the UK, in the US they assimilate much more readily. | 0 |
I love this show! It's like watching a mini movie each week!!! The first episode was so gripping and terrifying...so was part 2 of the pilot... I'm definitely gonna keep tuning into this show! This is the real Survivor! I've looked at a few of the other comments and I can see that already after just one or two episodes the morons here are already crying wolf... Sorry if it's not another reality show, kiddies! There was once a time where there were...now brace yourself! Actual TV shows! And this one is actually good unlike most of the crappy sitcoms today or the ump-teenth carbon copy of a Law & Order or NYPD Blue or CSI series they're dishing out... Watch this yourself to form your own opinion, don't take one from the boneheads here! | 0 |
After the success of Die Hard and it's sequels it's no surprise really that in the 1990s, a glut of 'Die Hard on a .....' movies cashed in on the wrong guy, wrong place, wrong time concept. That is what they did with Cliffhanger, Die Hard on a mountain just in time to rescue Sly 'Stop or My Mom Will Shoot' Stallone's career.<br /><br />Cliffhanger is one big nit-pickers dream, especially to those who are expert at mountain climbing, base-jumping, aviation, facial expressions, acting skills. All in all it's full of excuses to dismiss the film as one overblown pile of junk. Stallone even managed to get out-acted by a horse! However, if you an forget all the nonsense, it's actually a very lovable and undeniably entertaining romp that delivers as plenty of thrills, and unintentionally, plenty of laughs.<br /><br />You've got to love John Lithgows sneery evilness, his tick every box band of baddies, and best of all, the permanently harassed and hapless 'turncoat' agent, Rex Linn as Travers.<br /><br />He may of been Henry in 'Portrait of a Serial Killer' but Michael Rooker is noteworthy for a cringe-worthy performance as Hal, he insists on constantly shrieking in painful disbelief at his captors 'that man never hurt anybody' And whilst he surely can't be, it really does look like Ralph Waite's Frank character is grinning as the girl plummets to her death.<br /><br />Mention too must go to former 'London's Burning' actor Craig Fairbrass as the Brit bad guy, who comes a cropper whilst using Hal as a Human Football, yes, you can't help enjoy that bit, Hal needed a good kicking.<br /><br />So forget your better judgement, who cares if 'that could never happen', lower your acting expectations, turn up the volume and enjoy! And if you're looking for Qaulen, he's the one wearing the helicopter. | 0 |
As the first of the TV specials offered on the elaborate box set, 'Barbra Streisand: The Television Specials', released last November, this disc is being released separately for those who do not want to fork over the dollars for all five specials. As an investment, this is indeed the best of the bunch if only for the fact that this is Streisand at her purest and most eager to impress. That she succeeds so brilliantly is a key component of her legend. Signed to a long-term contract with CBS to produce hour-long variety shows, an almost extinct format nowadays, Streisand was all of 22 in this CBS special first broadcast in April 1965. At that point of her career, her notoriety was limited to a handful of best-selling albums, a few dazzling TV appearances on variety and talk shows, and her successful Broadway run in 'Funny Girl'.<br /><br />Filmed in crisp black-and-white, the program is divided into three distinct parts. With the creative transitional use of 'I'm Late' from Disney's 'Alice in Wonderland', the first segment cleverly shows her growing up from childhood through numbers as diverse as 'Make Believe' and 'I'm Five'. Opening with a comic monologue about Pearl from Istanbul, the second part moves on location to Manhattan's chic Bergdorf Goodman's where she is elegantly costumed in a series of glamorous outfits while singing Depression-era songs like 'I've Got Plenty of Nuthin'' and 'The Best Things in Life Are Free' with comic irony. Back to basics, the third segment is a straight-ahead concert which opens with a torchy version of 'When the Sun Comes Out', includes a 'Funny Girl' medley, and ends with her classic, melancholic take on 'Happy Days Are Here Again' over the ending credits. Also included is the brief introduction she taped in 1986 when the special was first released on VHS. For those who know Streisand only for her pricey concert tickets and political fundraising, this is a genuine eye-opener into why she is so revered now. | 0 |
Wow! Stacy Peralta has followed up Dogtown and Z-Boys with an equally stunning documentary about the history of the big-wave surfing culture in America. Piecing together insider archival footage along with interviews from surfing legends, we are transported into the daring and free-spirited life of the early pioneers whose sheer passion for the sport spawned an industry that today touches the lives of millions.<br /><br />It's getting to know these icons and their stories that gives the film its warmth. You can feel the respect Peralta has for this group as we hear accounts of Greg Noll striding from a pack of awestruck fellow surfers on the beach to singularly challenge 50-foot swells off Hawaii's North Coast. Or Jeff Clark, surfing the outrageously dangerous Maverick off the northern California coast all alone for 15 years before it was discovered and became the surfing destination in California. And the storybook history of Laird Hamilton, today's surfing icon. Hearing Greg Noll reverently refer to Hamilton as the best surfer ever sent chills up my spine.<br /><br />(As an aside, Noll, Clark and others were at the Sundance screenings. Noll humbly described himself as an old, over-the-hill surfer. He was deeply moved by the audience reception of him and film. Both he and Clark were as likable in person as they were in the film.)<br /><br />Riding Giants pays homage to these extraordinary athletes while at the same time rewarding us with an insight into the magnitude and terrifying power of the waves they seek to conquer, the gut-wrenching vertical drops required to get into them, and the almost unfathomable combination of adrenaline and fear that the surfers experience each time they take on a monster swell.<br /><br />All this, and the movie has more. For those of us that didn't live in California in the 60's, we get an insight into the impact of surfing on American pop culture. (And, to my surprise, the impact of the movie Gidget on surfing!) Peralta also weaves in a primer on some of the technical aspects of the sport and the history of innovation in equipment. I'm not a surfer, but like the rest of the Sundance audience, I was absolutely captivated by this film. Peralta is staking his claim as the Big Kahuna of American documentaries. | 0 |
This second film is just as interesting as the previous one except that there is no suspense. We know what he is going to do and what is going to happen before it is even hinted at on the screen. Then the pleasure comes only from the way the various tricks happen and the succession of them. We know there will be dynamite in the car, that he will lose a wheel, that the car will have a crash, just to speak of the car. And that is what happens. Now the details and the particulars are for you to discover them in the film. That he may be baited by some dumb woman is obvious and has to come but we know that he has already seen through her and that he knows he is being dragged into a trap. Now, how is he going to get out of it? That's what you must discover by yourself. And don't worry he will get the main trafficker but how is another story. A speed boat is no match to our busy beaver on the river. We also know when he is going to be wounded. They did not know what bullet-proof jackets were in those days. It's true recently it was discovered that some GIs did not have that kind of equipment in Iraq. But what is the meaning of such a film? This insistence on hunting the traffickers and this blindness that does not see that it is the prohibition that creates the problem. But the film is a constant and perfect illustration that there is no value what so ever that can stand in the way of this moralistic crusade against the forces of evil. Why not simply legalize these goods so that they can be properly observed and under surveillance? When something is not illegal or pushed out of the way it is all the less fun to use them, to do them. It is the forbidden or the restricted that is attractive.<br /><br />Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris Dauphine, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne & University Versailles Saint Quentin en Yvelines | 0 |
Teenager Tamara (Jenna Dewan) has it rough. She's ridiculed by all the popular 'kids' for being shy, bookish, frumpy and because of her interest in witchcraft. All of the football players and cheerleaders are especially angry at her for writing an article on steroid abuse for the school paper. On top of this, her dad's a drunk, her mom's not around and she's secretly in love with her supportive English teacher (Matthew Marsden). The popular kids set up a cruel prank to humiliate her, accidentally kill her during a struggle, bury the body in the woods and make a pact to keep silent. To their shock, the very next day Tamara walks back into the classroom looking seductive and, uh, dressed to kill. Yep, back from the dead and ready for supernatural revenge against everyone involved. She also takes time out to make her sexually abusive pop eat a beer bottle and tries to seduce her English teacher away from his wife (Claudette Mink), a guidance counselor at the school.<br /><br />Acting and writing are strictly mediocre. You can also tell the people responsible for this have seen such movies as CARRIE (1976), HELLO MARY LOU: PROM NIGHT II (1987) and THE CRAFT (1996) because it borrows wholesale from all three of those superior films. There's some gore (a guy cutting off his ear and tongue and then stabbing his eyeball probably being the best bit), a nasty vomiting scene and a few campy/witty one-liners. Not an awful film by any means, but not much originality went into it either. | 1 |
S. Epatha Merkerson shines as Nanny in this touching and vibrant look at the life of Ruben Santiago, Jr. (Marcus Franklin) while growing up under the guardianship of Nanny. The film gives a good character study of both Nanny and Ruben and manages to capture life's ups and downs in a realistic fashion unlike so many memoirs that are made into film. The supporting cast adds much spark and many recognizable faces appear in smaller roles including Mos Def, Macy Gray, Terrence Dashon Howard, Rosie Perez, Louis Gossett, Jr., Liev Schreiber, Jimmy Smits, Ernie Hudson, Delroy Lindo, and Patricia Wettig. Loses some steam and vibrancy towards the end, and the ending sequence leaves a bittersweet feeling. But, overall a great film with a truly outstanding performance by Merkerson. | 0 |
I'm a fan of the horror movie, regardless of which hemisphere it comes from. I know what to expect from the West, the East and most horrors in the middle. So I received the DVD of 'Acacia' in the post and looked forward to a slow build of ever increasing tension and scary children with odd, disjointed movements hiding under duvets.<br /><br />The major selling point for this film was that it has a far more linear story line than many of this ilk - you get who the characters are, where they are from and what they do. You get the baseline information (nice couple, can't have children) and realise that the premise is just too normal for something freaky NOT to happen.<br /><br />And then comes the bad. The number one complaint is that the story is OBVIOUS. I got it pretty much the moment the kid hugged the tree. I knew where the film was going and was even able to predict the order of death and for what reason.<br /><br />The editing is shocking and unfortunately, not to the benefit of the film. Even were I still pondering the events, tension isn't allowed to build because the director seems to have gotten a new editing suite for his birthday and wanted to use it as much as possible.<br /><br />And my final gripe is this....the tree was unnecessary. This would have been a perfectly good tale of subtle horror with just the couple breaking down over the death of the child - the titular tree bought nothing new or exciting to the film. So I'll finish where I started - my overall impression was 'Oh.' | 1 |
Farley and Spade's best work ever. It's one of the all-around funniest movies I've ever seen. Watch it once and you'll be hooked and soon have all the lines memorized. No sleepy for Tommy Boy! | 0 |
This is an amazing movie from 1936. Although the first hour isn't very interesting (for the modern viewer), the stylish vision of the year 2036 that comes afterwords makes up for it. However, don't plan on being able to understand all of the dialog - the sound quality and accents (it's American - but '1930s' American) make it difficult.<br /><br />Basically, the story is a sweeping 100 year look at a fictional US town called 'Everytown'. It spans from 1936, when a war is on the horizon, to 2036, when technology leaps forward and creates its own problems.<br /><br />The first one hour is a bit slow - although it's tough to tell what audiences back then would have thought. The events, suspense and visuals are pretty low-key in today's terms. However, when it gets to the future, it's just plain fun to watch. The large sets and retro sci-fi look of everything is hard to beat.<br /><br />Unless you have great listening abilities, this movie is hard to listen to. I think I understood only 80% of the dialog. It could use closed-captioning.<br /><br />If you're a sci-fi fan, this is one of the genre's classics and is a must see (well, at least after the first hour). For the average viewer, wait until there's a closed caption version and then watch it if you're comfortable with movies of this time period. | 0 |
This definitely the most tension filled X-Files episode of the first season. this episode is what I think of when I hear 'X-Files'. the plot is simple but exiting. Our main cast plus a few scientist go to investigate an Alskan outpost in which it's research team appears to have killed each other. It turns out a small parasite that got dug up from the ice, had infected the research team. The parasite attaches itself to the brain and causes paranoia and insanity. Soon none can tell who they can trust, or who's infected or not.<br /><br />This episode was a direct tribute to John Carpenters great horror film 'the THING'. the Thing is set in Antarctica and a team of scientist find a destroyed outpost in which it's occupant have been killed or killed themselves. An alien that had been buried in the ice for a 10000 years had been thawed out. It has the abilities to imitate any life form. therefore the main characters can no longer distinct friends from foes.<br /><br />Believe me The THING is one of the most exiting, and tension filled horror movies you'll ever see. if you liked the episode ICE I advice you to see it. Or if you have only seen the THING I advice you to see ICE.<br /><br />ICE is the best direct tribute/homage to John Carpenter's The THING I have ever seen, and it lives up to it's inspiration as one of the best X-Files episodes. I give it a 10/10. | 0 |
I think that movie can`t be a Scott`s film. That is impossible. Do you remember Blade Runner? And Alien? Two greats movies versus a one. I hope didn´t see ever it. good bye!! | 1 |
This is the worst piece of crap I have seen recently. There is nothing good about this movie. The plot is plain stupid, dialogs don't make any sense, humorous scenes never heard anything about the real humor. Actors just don't play, the worse they don't even try. The script itself is somewhat which is in the same league with Ed Wood and Uwe Boll. There is only one good thing in this flick, the fights. They are well choreographed as one would expect of the Hong Kong guys, and are the only reason to watch Prince of the Sun. Although I believe the fights are just supposed to fill the empty space so that the screenwriter didn't have to bother thinking about the storyline. However, this weak and absurd plot may prevent you from watching it to the end. Avoid it unless you are fan of the dragon lady Cynthia Rothrock. | 1 |
The latest Rumor going around is that Vh1 is starting casting calls for I Love New York 3 mid 2008. So does this mean Budah or Tailor made dumped New York or does this mean New York dumped the winner?<br /><br />I know Flavor of Love is coming up to it's 3rd season, so now with a Flavor of Love 3 and a I love New York 3.....will there ever be a true winner???<br /><br />I've also heard a few rumors that Chance WILL be brought back for the 3rd Season of I Love New York!!!! I have also heard rumors that New York will be Specially featured on Flavor of Love 3. <br /><br />Hopefully this was not too much of a spoiler for the ending of I Love New York 2....I'm just stating the latest rumor. | 1 |
The concept of having Laurel & Hardy this time in the role of chimney sweepers works out surprisingly hilarious. It guarantees some funny situations and silly antics, from especially Stan Laurel of course as usual.<br /><br />The movie also has a subplot with a nutty professor who is working on a rejuvenation formula. It doesn't really sound like a logical mix of story lines and incoherent but both plot lines blend in perfectly toward the memorable ending. It's still a bit weird but its funny nevertheless, so it works for the movie.<br /><br />The supporting cast of the movie is surprising good. Sam Adams is great as the stereotypical butler and Lucien Littlefield goes deliciously over-the-top as the nutty professor.<br /><br />The movie is filled with some excellent timed and hilarious constructed sequences, which are all quite predictable but become hilarious to watch nevertheless thanks to the way they are all executed. It all helps to make 'Dirty Work' to be one of the better Laurel & Hardy shorts.<br /><br />8/10 | 0 |
A young basketball-playing professor of genetics is doing research on the genetic sequence, using human fetuses. He hopes to be able to find a cure for all diseases and aging. He's pressured into concluding his research because he hasn't published, so the university is having trouble justifying funding him (I think).<br /><br />He does a trial injection on a monkey, which quickly dies. He then tries it on himself. He starts a relationship with the single mother of an extremely annoying little boy; she's the one who had been demanding results from the research.<br /><br />Initially, he seems to have no effects from the injection, except some new strength. He then realizes that he had some memory loss, and starts recalling what happened. Additionally, he starts to appear very unhealthy.<br /><br />Since the movie is named metamorphosis, he does eventually change into something else. You won't believe your eyes - either what he turned into, or the absolutely crappy costume the actor is wearing to depict what he's turned into. Incredibly, there's a further change in store - the end of the movie is really, really absurd.<br /><br />About the only thing this movie has going for it is that Laura Gemser is in it, but she has a very small part.<br /><br />I'd once seen a the video box for this with a sculpted plastic form glued to the boxcover. Possibly it might even have had some electronics in it at one time, perhaps eyes that light up (the main character's eyes occasionally turn green in the movie). The copy I watched had a box that only showed tear marks where the glue had held on the plastic, which had been removed. The novelty boxcover, if it still had it, would have been the only reason I would have held onto this movie; I'm definitely getting rid of it. | 1 |
this movie, i won't call it a 'film,' was basically about nothing and functioned mostly for the popular acts of the time. yeah the war was on full swing (pun intended), and this movie gave the troops and our audiences a treat.<br /><br />but let's have something with a bit more substance.<br /><br />loved seeing a young Buddy Rich on the drums. the music was good throughout.<br /><br />but one cameo after another gets old fast.<br /><br />i didn't even recognize Zero Mostel! so if you're one from the 'greatest generation,' as they say, you'll definitely enjoy this...<br /><br />movie. | 1 |
That's pretty ridiculous, I hope many people are exposed to Muslims who live all over the U.S, U.k, and all over the world. The religion has over a billion followers. I Myself born and bread in America and through my religious classes and teachings I have been taught to cherish my country and work to contribute to the society. I am very dedicated to the followings and teachings of my religion have been stressed through out life to educate and prepare oneself for success through education in order to contribute back to the world. I have know many Muslims from all over and I have traveled to countries like Pakistan..I have yet to meet one person who believes that we should hurt anyone or not accept any other religion except from the people in the media...I wonder why... Also its sad that these extremists are the ones the media use to represent a whole religion. Its a religion of one billion people, and these are less than one percent, I am sure the other people of other religions would not like to be represented by the KKK, IRA and many more which are simple small percentage extremists who use outdated and not literal passages from the respected books in order to pursue their own revenge, personal, or business matters through their so called religion | 1 |
Roll up! Roll up! It's Big Gay Bruce and his Big Gay Death Cannon! Plausible plot? Unnecessary! Decent acting? Unnecessary! Respect shown to its mighty progenitor? Unnecessary! Yes it's another offensively stuffed turkey in the Butch Bruce canon.<br /><br />I mean where do you start with this film? Okay, let's begin with the woeful misapprehension people might have that this was, in some way, related to either the book or the original film, The Day of the Jackal. It's not. In fact it's so different (and so bad) that Fredrick Forsyth asked to have his name taken off it. Now I'm not necessarily a stuffy Brit who can't hack Hollywood remaking British films. Well, okay, maybe I am a bit like that, but fortunately it's a redundant point in this case. This film is so different to the original that the name and the odd reference are the only things that survive.<br /><br />Now let's move to the premise. Cheesy Russian gangster gets killed in a Moscow police raid (somehow involving the FBI although no one bothers to explain why). In revenge, brother of gangster decides to wreak vengeance by killing the wife of the US President (although again no one bothers to explain why this is a good move although to be fair it was pre-9-11, so he wasn't to know it would have resulted in the US airforce carpet bombing Eastern Europe). Gangster hires 'nasty' killer (Willis). Police hire 'cuddly' killer (Gere), 'cuddly' killer tracks 'nasty' killer. Police fanny around and periodically get killed. 'Cuddly' killer kills 'nasty' killer. First lady is saved and we all realise that the IRA are just this bunch of real sweet guys y'know, who just happen to want to kill innocent people. Nice.<br /><br />Let's put to one side the distasteful Hollywood habit of playing in the troubles of Northern Ireland like it was a sandpit in a theme park (I deal with this point more extensively on the message boards). If Hollywood directors want to cast the Belfast butchers as hookers with hearts of gold, that's up to them. I, of course, reserve the right to despise them for it. It's a free country.<br /><br />More egregious, however, is the fact that the film manages to patronise and insult the Irish while trying to support them. That's not politically distasteful, it's far worse: it's incompetent. It's no wonder, for instance, that Gere still looks so damn good, given that he slept through the entire six months it took to make this piece of cra*p. The fact that Gere's accent is not only Southern Irish, but an appalling parody of Southern Irish shows that the filmmakers weren't looking much beyond America to make money from this film. Then there is that lovely scene at the end where Sidney Poitier (a complete waste of space in this film) says he's off for a coffee, offers to get our 'cuddly' IRA man one, then casually says 'Ah, but then you guys drink Guinness don't you'. Yeah that's right Sidney; the Irish live on Guinness and potatoes.<br /><br />While we're on the subject of Poitier: why? In the original film the detective is the tracker. In Jackal, Gere is the tracker. So what does Poitier do? Well, he just hangs around and looks like a tw*at of course. He's got absolutely nothing to do apart from call in the marines at the end, and he only does this because the nice IRA man tells him to.<br /><br />While we're on the subject of Gere: why? I suppose it's only a matter of time before Hollywood remakes Gandhi with Vin Diesel playing ex-Mujahideen Commando Mahatma Gandhi beheading his way through 1940s and 50s India (he is, after all, a bit dark of hue and therefore very likely to be a Muslim fundamentalist). Let's not forget that Gere's character is a killer and therefore a nasty piece of work. And if he's not, why does he know The Jackal? If he's not, why does he know all his moves? And if he is, why is he such a limp biscuit and such a 'loveable' person? <br /><br />All this goes to show that the makers of this film couldn't be bothered to (a) think about the plot (b) have the characters making decisions that were in keeping with their character(c) avoid cheesy stereotypes like having the big boss bad guy kill his own friend I honestly thought this had turned into a Bond movie (d) give the 'central' characters something to do (e) credit the audience with a modicum of intelligence.<br /><br />This film is an insult to the British and Irish killed at the hands of terrorists, it's an insult to the Irish people, it's an insult to not great, but pretty good film it rips off, and an insult to the intelligence. But most of all and most unforgivable it is an insult to my a*rse for having to sit through the over two hours of run time it took to finish. Honestly, you'd think with no plot, no characters and no dialogue, it would be over in no time. But they didn't even have the decency to quit early. | 1 |
Starfucker (which reads Starstruck on my box) was the most amazing movie I have ever seen. I thought that it was one of the best movies I have ever seen. So why not a 10? Nothing is perfect. Jamie Kennedy proves why he is one of my favorite actors in this very interesting look at a darker side of Hollywood. I have forced a few others to watch the movie and they all agreed that it was an outstanding flick. | 0 |
This film has not exactly remained fresh in the minds of film buffs, and it's a crying shame. Its witty screenplay adaptation should have netted Oscar nominations for the great screenwriter I.A.L. Diamond's adaptation, and Ingrid Bergman's flawless performance. It must have been an honor for Goldie Hawn at such a young age to work with Bergman, looking more than a decade younger than her 54 years--fifty four! When she's on the screen, it positively twinkles.<br /><br />This is a film which may appear dated at first, but it actually made me wish I was around during the swingin' 'sixties. Hawn's fashions are as tacky as Bergman's are chic. (That's one minor flaw--isn't her character a little too soignée for a gal who still lives with her sister? But then again, would we have Ingrid any other way?) And who wouldn't want to hang out at a nightclub called The Slipped Disc?<br /><br />The best compliments I can pay to this film is that it somehow made me nostalgic for a decade that I never saw, and that it left me wanting more. Speaking of wanting more, I wonder what ever became of sexy supporting actor Rick Lenz? (He resembles Griffin Dunne in this film.) This was his film debut, and I don't see any other major roles in his filmography. As for Goldie Hawn, she's done so much since then it's easy to not be impressed, but I can't imagine any other actor in the role, either.<br /><br />Since the movie is based on a play, the line delivery may seem a bit stage-y, but it did not inhibit my enjoyment at all. In fact, I am amazed at how funny it still is after over thirty-five years. Because this film represents a bygone era, it has unjustly slipped from the consciousness of film buffs. It is more linked to the era films that came before it than the ones that followed. But don't let that stop you from savoring the delights it has to offer. Grade: A | 0 |
Burt Reynold's Direct's and star's in this great Cop film, Reynold's play's the Sharkey of the title, who is a tough cop whilst working in undercover a drug bust goes wrong, and is demoted to vice, <br /><br />The machine of the title refer's to the motley crew Reynold's's assemble's to bring down a crooked governor who is involved in high class prostitution Cocaine and contract murder,<br /><br />The motley crew is played by Brian Keith, Blackploitaion favorite Bernie Casey, Richard Libertini,(as alway's quirky as an ace sounds-man) Charle's Durning, as the chief, The beautiful English rose Rachael Ward play's Dominoe a $1000 dollar's a night hooker whom Reynold's's protect's and eventually fall's for, When staking out an apartment used by the governor.<br /><br />Italian actor Vittorio Gassman, play's the High stake's pimp, who has a deadly gang of triad's at his disposal, And Henry DeSilva, play's His psychotic brother hit man who is highly strung On prescription painkiller's and angel Dust,<br /><br />The action packed finale see's the remaining member's of the 'Machine' Engaged in a deadly shootout with Desilva, which culminate's in one the Most spectacular stunt's ever put to Celluloid,<br /><br />Alas Hollywood has ran out of idea's and is contemplating a remake of Sharky's Machine! Why bother a 25th Anniversary Special Edition DVD would be ideal, not a silly ass remake, | 0 |
Master of Italian horror Dario Argento is called a lot of bad things by non-fans. And is deserving of absolutely none of the backlash. In fact, every time I hear something bad about Argento- I think they're really talking about Michele Soavi. He just doesn't get the same amount of attention because his films were never as successful in theaters. In fact, his best film - 1994's Cemetery Man - was probably his least successful. Or just didn't get the attention he felt it deserved, because after that, he left film and went into directing television. He's never gone back. So people really don't know how inferior his other films are because by the time they've seen them, they're already fans of the Italian horror aesthetic. Which means you have to accept the fact that they make almost zero sense and are usually very unattractive films. This is where The Church stands out from the pack. Because visually, it's so cheap and ancient-looking, you can smell the dust. But it has its' charms too, though they are few. The camera-work is truly arresting and the music score is hugely elaborate and grand.<br /><br />Since Argento is the reasons people have seen Soavi's work all, I don't know anyone who caught The Church before Argento's Suspiria and Deep Red. Soavi is a bit of a hack. Sort of like an Italian Mick Garris- the utmost example of a director preferring style over substance. The flaws of The Church are constant and plenty. The film opens with a somewhat interesting prologue showing knights on white horses charging through a peasant village akin to those you see in any Robin Hood adaptation, in some long-ago century. These scenes are intense enough, energetic, and get quickly to the point. Then, we cut to the present, where the film's style takes over. Yeah, the movie is okay to look at. And for about 35 or so minutes in the present, 1980's wherever-Italy, the movie is just interesting enough to get us to the slowly revealing horror elements. So now we know the purpose of the film is the build up of it's horror. And it's a decent build up, for the most part. But as the movie approaches the halfway point, we realize the movie's driving by, and... nothing is happening.<br /><br />The plot is very simple. I think. Two people working in a church, one as a cataloger of books and the other as a restorer of the building's wall artwork, discover a scroll / scripture that the man thinks will lead them to some kind of buried treasure or priceless artifact that he can sell and get rich off of. So he follows his 'map' only to uncover a force underneath the church that has him hallucinate, while he's slowly becoming a demon who will make everyone else hallucinate. So while he is doing his demon-work, someone he passed the force onto kills himself in a manner that traps everyone in the church while the demon 'contagen' spreads onto everyone, leaving a Black preacher and the little girl who sneaks out of the church every night to go clubbing as the only 2 people who can stop the plague from spreading beyond the church walls. That probably sounds action-packed and Soavi's style is far more lethargic than Argento. But never before have I seen an attempted surrealist film this agonizingly boring. I kid you not. Absolutely nothing happens in the entire film! I've seen expressionistic (or impressionistic, I'm no film school super-grad) films before, but most of them actually show things happening (John Carpenter's Halloween for one).<br /><br />It follows pretty closely in the footsteps of Lamberto Bava's Demons films (since Argento co-produced). We're shown to a location where a bunch of people gather, one turns into a demon, all the others are isolated, that person infects everyone except a couple survivors, then the demons either get out- infecting the world, or the survivors get out when the demons die. This film puts all those same elements in place. Except, unlike Argento's work, nothing happens. Okay, a few things do happen. But only one bizarre sequence has the panache of Lamberto's much more fun Demons films. A random woman's neck is impaled by a demon using a section of fence he rips out of the floor. What's bizarre about that, you wonder? It happens in front of about two dozen people. What do they do? Nothing. She dies, her head trickles blood in closeup. But all those people don't even notice, though it happens in plain view and no less than 8 feet away from them. Maybe 4 people notice the demon running up to stab anyone he can as he runs toward her, so they duck out of the way. She's killed and in the shot after she dies, everyone is just sitting around, being quiet while a boy plays a saxophone. I kid you not. That's what happens. That's more than logically incoherent- it's plain stupid.<br /><br />The scene is suggesting that the woman just sort of disappears and no one saw her death. They all just up and forget about it. And this 15-second thing is absolutely the only event that takes place in the movie. I'm not saying it's the only violence, gore, or murder we see. It's not. It's just the only thing we can tell is happening. For example, in one scene a beautiful woman sees herself in a mirror looking old and ugly. She starts clawing the skin on her face off, but when she reappears minutes later- no scratches. People are devoured by fish and their faces are squashed by subway cars. But later they turn up as totally unharmed members of a possessed cult, in a scene that commits the ultimate horror heresy- copying a famous scene from Roman Polanski's 1968 masterpiece, Rosemary's Baby, the greatest horror film ever made, shot for shot. Even if Argento did that, I would be furious! | 1 |
Joseph H. Lewis was one of the finest directors of film noir. This is surely his best.<br /><br />It doesn't have some of the standard features of what we now call film noir. Though American-made, it is set entirely in England. It lacks gangsters. It lacks a femme fatale. It does not lack crime.<br /><br />The title character answers an ad. She is overjoyed that she'll be making some money as a secretary. Instead, she wakes up days later as the pawn in a frightening plot. Only a very strong person could survive such a terrifyingly unsettling ordeal. And Nina Foch gives the sense of a strong woman as Julia.<br /><br />Part of the excitement comes from casting against type: Ms. Foch has an elegant manner. She is no screaming, cowering victim. She is actually a bit icy and patrician, albeit impecunious. This makes her character's plight all the more believable.<br /><br />Surely the single most fascinating element is the casting of Dame May Witty. She was (and is) probably most famous for the charming title character in 'The Lady Vanishes.' She has a sweet manner and a harmless, slightly dithering manner. But here she is far from a heroine.<br /><br />George Macready is excellent as her extremely troubled son. The whole cast, in fact, is superb.<br /><br />It seems that this famous and brilliant movie was made almost by accident. Undoubtedly the director knew exactly what he was doing. But he did it on a low budget. That is the thrill and charm of film noir, the real film noir: It is small, convincingly lowlife, and, in this case, unforgettable. | 0 |
Mr. Accident is a deliberate series of non-stop disasters and near death experiences reminiscent of Saturday Morning's Warner Brothers Cartoons. Like the coyote who falls off the cliff 5 times per episode, the 'leading man' (more like an over grown klutzy child) always manages to postpone his meeting with the Grimm Reaper.<br /><br />This Australian 'surprise' is offensively unfunny, and at times even depressing. The 2 (out of ten) are is for the visual stunts (some never attempted by anyone since Daffy Duck) and the use of vivid colors (like in those high class national laundry detergent commercials).<br /><br />There may be an age bracket where this 'comedy' finds a following. I have definitely passed that age long ago. Calling all preteens: Here's a 'ha-ha' for ya! | 1 |
Reed Hadley makes a better foppish Don Diego than he does a dashing and daring Zorro, but that's almost beside the point because this serial features the bar-none best theme song of any serial, ever -- and the best version of Yakima Canutt's famous stagecoach stunt. There are other good stunts, and lots of action, and plenty of hair-raising cliff-hanger chapter endings, but if for no other reason, you must see this film to watch the stagecoach stunt, then re-watch it in slow motion. It is incredible, and, despite the lower budget for this chapter play, Yak turns in a better take on the stunt here than he did in the far more celebrated film 'Stagecoach.' Indiana Jones, eat your heart out: This is the real deal! | 0 |
The Merchant of Venice 8/10<br /><br />(This review assumes a basic knowledge of the story and so may be thought of as containing spoilers to anyone unfamiliar with the plot.)<br /><br />As a film version of the famous Shakespeare play, Merchant of Venice does what few adaptations have done since Polanski's rather gritty Macbeth: it takes the spirit of the play and brings it out not just as well as, but better than the play alone could readily achieve. <br /><br />Lord of the Rings Director, Peter Jackson, has argued that in adapting a book or play there are three options: attempt to replicate the original as perfectly as possible, use the original idea as an inspiration but take full license for cinematic change, or (the one he avowedly preferred) stick to the original as much as is cinematic ally viable but make such changes as are necessary for the film and while remaining faithful to the intention or spirit of the original.<br /><br />In Macbeth, Polanski used the rain-sodden beaches and realistic rapes and murder to convey what a bloody and horrific period the play was set in, thus bringing to mind the horrific context in which the characters make such ill-advised decisions. It differs from (say) Branagh's Hamlet, which achieved new heights of faithful rendition, but otherwise offered little new. Macbeth, on the other hand, maybe enabled audiences fresh to Shakespeare to appreciate some of the drama's fullness without extensive study; similarly, more familiar audiences might find a greater depth than the unaided stage performance could accomplish. Such interpretation plays a vital part if audiences are to fully engage, not only intellectually but also emotionally, with the points Shakespeare wanted to make.<br /><br />Radford's adaptation of Merchant of Venice does just this. It takes crucial moral dilemmas involving religious bigotry or the keeping promises and, with minimal messing of the Bard's holy tome, conveys them faithfully within the spirit of the original story.<br /><br />The first of these, religious bigotry, gives meaning to Shylock's otherwise outlandish behaviour. We see the Jews of the period relegated to a walled ghetto, only allowed out if wearing an identifying red cap. Not being allowed to own property, one of the few ways they can earn a living is by money-lending. This makes them both useful to their Christian oppressors and at the same time the object of their vilification. The idea behind (both old and new testament) biblical prohibitions against usury probably stems from not making a profit by helping one's friends. This is extended by the bigoted Christians to curse those they spit on (we see Shylock not only spit on, but fellow Jews thrown into the waterways for sport - in an atmosphere that can only be described as threatening).<br /><br />The topicality of the film is curious, since the bigotry of right wing Christianity (as personified by Bush-following Americans) has turned full circle, as they are now the main supporters of Zionism, and the Jewish political leaders bite at their Palestinian neighbors much as Shylock tries to bite at Antonio (once he thinks the law gives him the power to do so). The psychology is self-evident - kick a dog repeatedly and it will become vicious. The circle easily continues as the victims of oppression themselves easily lose their sense of moral values and become oppressors.<br /><br />The stringent sleight of hand that the disguised Portia uses to save Antonio has some merit, both as a clever interpretation of the unsophisticated law that the Venetians of the play so rue and also as a moral pointer. Shylock may 'have his pound of flesh' according to his contract, but may not have any blood. An easy analogy could be made as far as warfare and terrorism goes - it is much easier to justify fighting among combatants or attacking ill-doers if soldiers or evil-doers are the only victims - when there is massive collateral damage, as when innocent citizens, including women and children, are killed in their hundreds, the warmongers' arguments (whether those warmongers be Israeli, Palestinian or US American) carry far less popular support. <br /><br />There has long been much argument whether Shakespeare was being anti-Semitic in this story. One wonders if he had to adapt the ending for a largely Christian audience who had little dealing with Jewish people. Far from teaching him a greater good, the ending enforces Christianity and humiliation upon Shylock - a course likely simply to perpetuate pent up resentment. Both camps look just as bad - one simply holds more power than the other. The slight amelioration of the judgment simply gives the Christian judges a better public image, or as Bassanio so acutely (observes when choosing the caskets and solving the riddles to win Portia's hand):<br /><br />In religion, What damned error, but some sober brow Will bless it and approve it with a text, Hiding the grossness with fair ornament? There is no vice so simple but assumes Some mark of virtue on his outward parts.<br /><br />Of course, the bigotry applies to organised religion (rather than spirituality), especially when organised for political purposes, but one that easily goads ordinary god-fearing people who are not in the habit of splitting hairs. The kindness, mercy ('Chesed' in Judaism) which is so fundamental to true Christianity, is something also practiced to a wonderful degree in Judaism as in most creeds. The Jewish faith distinguishes between kindness and charity, ways of practicing both effectively, and ways of making it part of one's being rather than just an outward show. Both Shylock and Antonio are bigoted and use their respective faiths to abuse those of another faith. While Shakespeare maybe pointed up the chasm between the goodness prescribed by different faiths and its absence in practice, the film version reduces much of the window for interpretations of anti-Semitism and brings a greater degree of realism to the psychological causes.<br /><br />The keeping of promises (the men to their wives) is dealt with less well, as are the comic elements inherent in the cross-dressing sub-plots. Bassanio, however strong his love for Antonio (are there homosexual elements there?) cannot make sound moral judgements when showing his gratitude to the 'judge', and so breaks his promise (for which Portia forgives him, displaying a triumphal character for women, not only as supremely intelligent and witty but also as more truly merciful and considerate of others than her bigoted male counterparts, including her husband.)<br /><br />Some of the acting is a bit stilted, and there are too many regional (English) accents, but on the whole Merchant of Venice delivers a fresh and rewarding reworking of Shakespeare. I enjoyed the acting, and also the very beautiful soundtrack by Hayley Westenra and others, singing ballads penned both by Shakespeare and Edgar Allen Poe. All in all, Merchant of Venice is a not inconsiderable achievement of British (as far as any film can be said to be of a particular nationality these days) cinematic tradition. | 0 |
I'm not in favor of death penalties but in this movie, it couldn't happen fast enough. Just to end the movie. I don't understand why this movie is rated as high as it is. It fooled me into a bad night. | 1 |
Thunderball and Never are two of the biggest box office misses and Never is a surprise farce from Empire Strikes Back hero Irvin Kershner. Klaus Maria Brandauer seems to steal the show, when, in the midst of the unfolding plot, Bond's mission turns more to Hollywood romp (Sometime around when Basinger comes in). How about Klaus Kinski? I still think that the casting of Largo makes or, as is evident in both films, breaks the story. Worst of all is the attempt to pass off the aging and very hairy Connery off as the sex symbol he indeed was in the '60s. The '80s was a barren time for Bond flicks mostly, though For Your Eyes Only is a great title. At times, when I happen to need to waste some time over the holidays by watching this film in the often string of Bond re-run festivals, I think the best attribute of the film is its score, and I'm not into soft '80s 'jazz'. | 1 |
In fact it was awful. The main chick in it who gets topless was obviously sleeping with the director at the time. It was shot at some warehouse most likely owned by family or friends. Also they chose not to bother coming up with a story. Sure these are ways to cut cost, but are they smart ways of keeping costs down? No they aren't. At the very least they could have found a middle school student in a 'creative writing' course. Those kids may have at least had a lesson about story structure. At the very least, they could have read up on 3 act structure but acting obviously wasn't a priority either. Watching these jerks run around in funny clothing that was stupid by 1980's standards was an embarrassment. The fact that none of these actors committed suicide in humiliation is probably a testament to the limited distribution this film received. Had the actors actually seen the final result of their hard work, there would have been a line of people waiting to jump off the Brooklyn Bridge.<br /><br />I'd give this movie 10/10 stars but it only deserves 1 for being released at all. This movie should be shown to film students everywhere. It's better than 90% of student films I've seen and wow is this movie a piece of shiiiit. | 1 |
The film begins with a 30 minute explanation about the war, the human cyborgs, battles, history, and then dumps 2 actors into a gravel pit. They run around this gravel pit/desert area for about an hour shooting at each other. That's it. Must have cost about £10.00 to make, with change. Avoid.<br /><br />Marks out of ten: Acting -9 Sets 1 Costumes -9 Direction -50 Production 1 Titled intro 4<br /><br />I think to improve this film would be to: Lose the commentary. (Let the watcher decide what's going on). Remove some of the awful CGI. Add some techno rave music to it. They might just rescue it....... | 1 |
I watched Asterix and Obelix in Operation Cleopatra, which was my first exposure to the live action version of the classic comic. Like the comic the whole movie is full of jokes based upon puns, anachronistic jokes and slapstick gags which rarely fall flat.<br /><br />Asterix and Obelix are Gauls who use a strength potion to fight the Roman legions in their native Gaul. Here they end up in Egypt helping a friend build Cesar's palace (yes its puny) in three months to prove the Egyptians are just as good as the Romans.<br /><br />The reason I picked this up was because Monica Belluci is Cleopatra. She's good but the role is little more than a cameo. However, even though she's rarely in the film I didn't care since its so clever and the jokes so funny I was in hysterics. I loved it. I loved it so much that I can't understand why the movies have never been released in the United States.<br /><br />The import DVD has the film in English dub- which is quite good especially when you consider that when you watch it in the longer French version the puns (and hence the jokes) are not always apparent since they are aural, so if you read the names wrong the jokes are lost. Most of the jokes between the full French version and the shorter English dub seem to be exactly the same, though some have been changed sometimes for the better and some times for the worse. Personally I'm gonna stick with the dub when I watch this again since its easier to pick up the jokes and enjoy the humor.<br /><br />You really will want to see this if you love puns and low brow, but clever humor This is a great comedy | 0 |
Let me begin by saying that I had been eagerly anticipating this film's release for awhile. After finally getting the chance to see it last night, I'm sorry to say that I was incredibly disappointed. It's hard to imagine a film that could make last fall's 'Exorcist: The Beginning' look good, but 'Dominion' does just that. No wait...it makes it look like a GREAT film. <br /><br />Perhaps I got myself too excited about this movie, and that contributed to the let down. After all, the idea that Warner Bros. was releasing two versions of what is essentially the same film within six months of each other was an exciting attraction. Plus, I'm a huge fan of Stellan Skarsgard, and in true fashion he gives a great performance, despite the often ridiculous content of the film. On the other hand, the supporting cast in this film is abysmal. Clara Bellar seems to be capable of only one expression - blank stare, and delivers all of her lines with the same monotonous tone, while Gabrielle Mann's Father Frances is just ridiculous. The effects in this film are laughable at best and the sheer cheesiness of it all is enough to rob the film of any chance of being taken seriously. This movie brought about more stifled giggling than anything else, and with the exception of one really chilling shot that lasted about three-seconds and made my friend cover her eyes and whimper, it neglected to offer anything in the scare department either. I could go into more detail and possibly give away some spoilers, but frankly I'm too exhausted from thinking about how bad this film was to write all the things I'd love to say.<br /><br />The saddest part about the whole thing is that the basic idea that both versions of the film tried to give...a story about a priest who has lost his faith and then regains it after coming to terms with his troubled past...had huge potential, especially with Skarsgard as leading man. Unfortunately for us, that potential was wasted. Go and see this film only if you're really curious about how it differs from the Harlin version, but don't expect to see a good film or you'll regret wasting your money and two hours of your life. Otherwise, be content with the version first released and move on. | 1 |
Film critics of the world, I apologize. It is your job to give advice to the moviegoing public so that they can wisely choose what to spend money on. But I ignored your advice and I have been deeply hurt. However, my decision to see 'The Cat in the Hat' wasn't made haphazardly. You see, three years ago all of you critics said that we should all avoid the 'calamity' known as 'How the Grinch Stole Christmas'. Then some friends of mine took me to see it and it turned out to be a colorful, funny and almost hypnotic yuletide treat. So when the critics unleashed their fury against 'The Cat in the Hat', another big budget Seuss update with a big name star in the title role, I thought that it must be the same old song. How wrong I was.<br /><br />For five whole minutes I thought I was in the clear. The opening credits are clever, the kids are charming and the production values are top notch. Then the cat showed up. There are many problems from this point on, but the biggest one was the woeful miscasting of Mike Myers. Where 'The Grinch' was saved by the inspired casting of Jim Carrey, 'The Cat' was destroyed by Myers. He can be very funny when his energies are applied where they belong, comic sketches. Every movie he's made that was truly funny was really just a feature length comedy sketch, from 'Wayne's World' to 'Austin Powers'. So he tries to do the same thing here, it's just that these comedy sketches are more like the stuff that they stick at the end of SNL, not funny, just painful. Not that the writers helped him out any. After the charming prologue the movie turns into an hour of repulsive bodily humor gags, poorly timed pratfalls and insultingly stunted attempts at hip humor. This movie was the most disheartening cinematic experience I have ever had. Period. So much talent and work went into something so vile. I know that the adult stars of this movie will be relatively unscathed by this mess, I just hope that the wonderful Spencer Breslin and Dakota Fanning will get more chances to show their charms in far better movies. If you are a parent, please avoid this like the plague. With movies like 'Elf' and 'Brother Bear' currently in theaters, you have far better choices. | 1 |
I found this a very enjoyable light hearted comedy set in Wales with some truly funny sequences highlighting the rivalry between two funeral directors. The showbiz ideas used by Christopher Walken's character to liven up his funerals are genuinely laugh out loud moments. | 0 |
What an absolutely stunning movie, if you have 2.5 hrs to kill, watch it, you won't regret it, it's too much fun! Rajnikanth carries the movie on his shoulders and although there isn't anything more other than him, I still liked it. The music by A.R.Rehman takes time to grow on you but after you heard it a few times, you really start liking it. | 0 |
My kids picked this out at the video store...it's great to hear Liza as Dorothy cause she sounds just like her mom. But there are too many bad songs, and the animation is pretty crude compared to other cartoons of that time. | 1 |
Let's see: what are the advantages to watching Piranha, Piranha? Well, if you've never seen anything to do with Venezuela, there's a lot of travelogue footage of both Caracas and the countryside (and jungle-side), and of the various native peoples at work and play, as well as plenty of indigenous wildlife. If you like William Smith, he plays a bit of a git (as he has always been wont to do).<br /><br />And that's about it. If it wasn't for William Smith, this could probably pass as a fund-raising film for Save the Children or some other organization that benefits the 'third world'. The only time you really see the fish of the title is during the opening credits. No mutant killer fish like in Roger Corman's singly-named Piranha. You'd figure with twice the fish in the title there would be twice as many monster fish preying on the characters, but alas, this is not the case.<br /><br />The story starts with a photojournalist and her brother coming to Venezuela to do a story on one of the last untouched places on the planet, but their motivation quickly changes to one of wanting to find diamonds, which are apparently fairly plentiful there.<br /><br />There's not a lot of real action or danger in this movie. What could've been an exciting motorcycle race is dulled by the mass of landscape and animal footage that is inserted in it to draw out the films running time. There's not a whole lot more action until the last fifteen minutes or so of the movie (which is probably about how long the movie would last without all the traveloguery).<br /><br />In my view, the only ways that a movie can really be a BAD movie is to be boring or incredibly stupid. Piranha, Piranha certainly qualifies for that former badge, and is pretty damn close to the second. The only reason I won't rate it a '1' is that the added footage is more interesting than the rest of the movie. | 1 |
First of all, I loved Bruce Broughton's music score, very lyrical, and this alone added to the film's charm. The best aspect of the movie were the three animals, superlatively voiced by Michael J.Fox, Sally Field and the late Don Ameche. Whereas Fox has the funniest lines, Ameche plays a rather brooding otherwise engaging character(the voice of reason), and Field adds wit into a character that is always seen telling Chance off. The humans weren't as engaging, and sometimes the film dragged, but that is my only complaint. This is one beautiful-looking film, with beautiful close up shots of Canada, I believe. Although the film itself is quite long, there is never a seriously dull moment, and this is advantaged by the voice work and a well-written script. All in all, a charming and perhaps underrated film, with a 9/10 from me. Bethany Cox. | 0 |
Really enjoyed this little movie. It's a moving film about struggle, sacrifice and especially the bonds of friendship between different peoples (the child actor who plays Miki is especially good). There's so many large scale impersonal films set around WW2, that this convincingly told little story is a real break from the norm, and an original one at that. I'll also add that this film is far from boring, very far!! Of course the Horses are wonderful and the scenery breathtaking. To anyone who really treats their animal as part of the family (I do), you'll find this film especially rewarding. Recommended to movie fans who look for something a little different. | 0 |
No bullets, no secret agents, a story that is entertaining, funny, and believable. Met some of the producers/actors in this film at the theater. They seemed as interesting in person as their characters on screen. You may not hear about this movie on TV with high-dollar ad spots, but it is definitely worth checking out. I have spent $8 for a movie ticket on a lot of other movies that weren't this entertaining. Looking forward to future projects by this production company. | 0 |
Not the best of the Lone Star series, but it moves along quickly with good performances. <br /><br />Introduced as 'Singin' Sandy' in the main title, John Wayne as a 'singing cowboy' isn't successful-- you never even see a front close-up of him while he's 'singing.' The actual singer is the director's son, Bill Bradley, who warbles away sounding like many popular singers of the day such as Hutch or Joseph Wagstaff. <br /><br />The film features: Cecilia Parker (also seen in 'The Lost Jungle' serial, 'Tombstone Canyon,' and as older sister Marian in the Andy Hardy movies) doing her best Katherine Hepburn-- 'Really they mustn't; really I'm not'; Al St. John, before he literally became 'Fuzzy' filling all his available screen time with his characteristic business of hat flipping, head and chin scratching, grimacing, and gawky physical gestures and movements; George (pre-Gabby) Hayes as a gentle pipe smoking father; and Forrest Taylor, minor vet of 395 movies and TV shows, playing the oily villain with string bow tie and prop cigar. <br /><br />Fun or odd moments: Yakima Canutt's great 'under the stagecoach' trick; the 'gay' scene when Singin' Sandy ties Bert and Elmer together face to face, drags them roped to his horse, and dumps them at Kincaid's office, where Kincaid says, 'You're a fine pair of lovebirds!'; Denton's rapturous comment after an atrocious song and guitar playing performance by 'Sandy,' -- 'Ummm. I could listen to that all night!'; Kincaid's reply, We won't go into that,' after being told by a rancher 'You've got the soul of a snake!'; and, of course, he utters the immortal, 'I've made Denton an offer he can't refuse.' <br /><br />The plot of the movie is saved by Sandy's tricking Kincaid, and later saying the three magic words in many of these films: 'I'm from Washington.' FDR has saved us from the Depression! (Is that why the villains are always either bankers or in real estate?) <br /><br />The shootout sequence is taken from the earlier Bradbury film 'Man from Hell's Edges' (1932). All of the Lone Star westerns are special because of their unique mixture of interesting characters, the troupe of actors and stunt people, and the spin on the clichés and repetitive back stories and situations. This one ranks a little low, marred by the inappropriate and mis-used 'Singing Cowboy' gimmick. I'll give it a 4. | 1 |
A Great show.<br /><br />First, to the people who don't like it..Don't like it, then DON'T WATCH IT...<br /><br />This is(was) an awesome show. Better than According to Jim (A favorite of mine). It shows a REAL family household (As opposed to 8 simple rules,etc, where everything goes peachy).<br /><br />They're loud, they're messy....I can sympathize with their dragging all the garbage into the kitchen. It happens in real life..Sorta like the 'Portal to hell', and everyone growling like dogs over the fast-food boxes.<br /><br />It's a 'Been there' show....You know what's coming, but fun to watch, because YOU have been there before.<br /><br />A good cast, they work great together, a admirable enough show to warrant a DVD release. Mel Gibsons 'Safety videos' were a highlight of the series as well.<br /><br />Opinion? Good show, REALLY deserving of a DVD release (Deserving to not be canceled as well). | 0 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.