review
stringlengths 41
13.7k
| label
int64 0
1
|
|---|---|
Not only does the film's author, Steven Greenstreet, obviously idolize Michael Moore, but he also follows in his footsteps by using several of Moore's Propaganda film-making tactics. Moore has expertise in distracting the viewer from this focus though, while Greenstreet is obviously less skilled here.<br /><br />Having been privy to all of the issues surrounding Moore's speech at UVSC, I was disappointed to see that the major complaints of the community -- that Moore was being paid $40,000 of the State of Utah 's educational funds to basically promote John Kerry's campaign and to advertise his own liberal movie -- were pushed to the background by Greenstreet while lesser issues were sensationalized.<br /><br />The marketing methods for this video have been equally biased and objectionable... promoting the film by claiming that 'Mormon's tried to kill Moore'. Not only is this preposterous, but it defames a major religion that Greenstreet obviously has some personal issues with. I followed Moore's visit very closely, and all of the major news agencies noted that Moore's visit came and went without any credible security problems or incidents in Utah.<br /><br />Greenstreet has banked on this film to jump-start his film-making career to the point that he has even dropped out of film school to help accelerate this. This seems to have been a severe miscalculation though, since Moore's visits to roughly 60 other colleges and Universities across the country in 2004 diluted interest for this rather common event. Greenstreet's assumption that American audiences would be interested in this film due to the promoted religious and conservative angles doesn't seem to be well founded.<br /><br />Even the name of the film, This Divided State, is somewhat of a misnomer since Utah voted overwhelmingly for Bush's re-election and thus appears to be more politically unified than any other State. The division in the movie title seems more indicative of the gulf that exists in Greenstreet's ideological differences with his religion and State. If anything, I find a humorous correlation between the religious angle of this supposed documentary and Woody Allen's hilarious contention in Sleeper (1973) that, 'I was beaten up by Quakers'. | 1 |
Anyone that has see Tammuz's Child Eaters knows that this is a director that can do better. Let's hope it was not a case of too many hands in the pot (Telefilm anyone?)and that is was a case of second feature jitters. The characters are one dimensional and over used. The scenery is terrific however and showcases the Pacific Northwest beautifully.<br /><br />The cinematography is great. Shot almost entirely outside, the images are crisp and beautiful. You can almost smell the wind blowing through the leaves.<br /><br />Technically this movie is as sound as they come - it just lacks a heart. | 1 |
Thanks to a smart script and a steady hand from Writer/Director Kevin Meyer, 'Perfect Alibi' is an entertaining and very likable mystery thriller. The movie starts methodically and builds up steam as the clues begin to reveal that nothing is what it seems to be. Teri Garr and Hector Elizondo are terrific as they team up to unravel the mystery, reminding me of Nick and Nora Charles, from the 'Thin Man' movies. Kathleen Quinlan is excellent as Alex McArthur's tormented wife and the character roles, played by veteran actors Charles Martin Smith, Bruce McGill, Anne Ramsey and Estelle Harris are well done and provide plenty of light moments at just the right time. There's even a cameo by Rex Linn. In all, I felt like I was reading a good book by the fire. | 0 |
I pretty much liked every character on this show from the start except Reba herself. She comes off as an holier than thou type and quite frankly a big Bully. And that stinks because she is in every scene and every episode. In the later seasons Van becomes unlikeable too,like a spoof of his former self. and Kyra walks around sneering and being miserable.The first 3 to 4 seasons are pretty good if you overlook Reba. Towards the end its pretty bleak.. In basically every episode Barbara jean Is walking around being dumb,Reba is being mean to her,but poor Ole Barbara jean desperately wants Reba to like her which results in Barabara jean telling Reba how awesome she is in every episode. I think it is pretty clear to see Reba has self esteem issues and wants to be seen as this all forgiving saint. Its really a shame too because other than her the show had such potential. | 1 |
The story and the characters really REALLY needed work. The world idea is kind of neat, but no one bothered to develop any of it either through exposition, or through the plot. Despite the cheesy notes at the beginning of the film, it makes sense that you wouldn't use exposition, since no one is new to this world. And yet, when Matt Owens (Bill Paxton) and Byron (Bob Peck) stray off-course and get lost, and get introduced to the wind-worshipers and the fat, lazy, rich people in the museum, we don't get any real idea of who these people are, or why we should care about any of them. Smart films have ways of developing this simply by having the characters live in the world. Simple things, like ordering a drink at a bar, or talking about something in the past -- these are the kind of things that make the film world memorable, not endless shots of crappy planes, and cheap CG effects of someone trying to do loops in an ultralight.<br /><br />If this is too difficult for you, here's a little tip -- pare down the multiple locations. If everything's becoming disjointed because you're pulling up to often, stay in one place for a little while and have the characters talk a little. All the superfluous crap should be removed. Get rid of the entire wind-worshipers scene. Get rid of the stuffy museum people. Get rid of all the crappy flying crap unless you can make the wind relevant to the story. Have the entire thing set on a big plane, or something. Just get people talking about something we care about.<br /><br />Hey, get rid of Bill Paxton. Have the film center around Tasker's character and his relationship with the robot, Byron.<br /><br />Indeed, the biggest problem of the film is that we don't care anything about anybody, because no one takes the time to either explain their motivations or delve into their characters. We don't like Matt (well, because he's played by Bill Paxton, among other things). He's a scoundrel, who doesn't redeem himself enough, except to let the android, Byron, go. And this action has even less meaning than most because of three key points: <br /><br />1. Byron is a murderer. 2. Byron is indestructible 3. Byron can leave any time he damn well pleases.<br /><br />We try to like Byron, because there's a kind of pathos there, but it's largely undeveloped. All we're left with is a whiny, glassy-eyed robot guy who's acting is subdued and wooden one moment, and practically zany the next. We don't know why or how he develops emotions, but we do know for a fact that he's murdered someone. We don't know why he murdered someone, or the circumstances of this grisly event, because it isn't developed. We can't feel pity for him if we don't know the story. All we know for a fact is that he murders people. And he likes Bill Paxton.<br /><br />We don't hate Tasker enough (partly because he's played by good-guy Mark Hamill), since while gruff and ruthless, doesn't do anything out of the ordinary for his character -- a post-apocalyptic peace officer. Sure he kills Montclaire (Robbie Coltrane) and his team, but they are drug dealers, on their way to grow poppies for heroin. And they shoot at him first. He doesn't kill anyone who doesn't get in the way, or who does not try to physically harm him first. That goes equally well for the final confrontation in the museum. He uses a smidge of police brutality against a lazy dilettante (F. Murray Abraham is wasted in this role), and everyone else draws a gun on him.<br /><br />I really don't understand what's the deal with Belitski (Kitty Aldridge), Tasker's partner. After only an accumulated 10 minutes with Matt, she's ready to switch sides, despite her shouts of loyalty, and despite Matt's trash-talking her, and punching her out. If that's love, then I'll choose hate any day.<br /><br />Really. Paxton's character is about as lovable as Simon in 'True Lies', or Pvt. Hudson from 'Aliens'. Does anyone fall for him in these movies? No. Why? Because he's a loud-mouthed idiot, and a loser. Why put him at the helm of this film? | 1 |
I cringed when I heard the first canned laugh track in the first few seconds of the show but yet I gave it a chance. You KNOW when someone offers a line which is only slightly amusing and you hear an obviously fake laugh track explode in uproarious laughter that it's a show aimed at morons who need to be told 'yes, it's funny, go ahead and laugh'.<br /><br />Ugh. I couldn't stand this show as it revealed itself. I can't speak for everyone - after all some people actually like that IDIOTIC show 'Stacked' (which makes me wish to vomit). I can imagine those who like 'Stacked' might actually like this drivel, too. Some people still get a kick out of the old 'pull my finger' gag. To me, this show is just about as witty - and just about as original.<br /><br />The themes were old and tired. The jokes were lame and hackneyed. The characters were ones we've seen everywhere before - and the worst of any you might imagine.<br /><br />So... if you like things like burping words and neighbors who say 'pull my finger'... you might actually like this show. Otherwise... pass it by. It's stupid - and not in a clever or original way. This one is about as old and tired as any show has ever been at its premiere. | 1 |
Who made this film? I love this film? Somebody has a wacky sense of humor...<br /><br />This Zany, Surreal style of film making is appealing, but it is hard to create - or easy to forget - that substance, and characters who actually have souls, are what give such a film depth. Without that a comedy is just a bunch of ideas. Who cares. It may get laughs, but it goes through you like a half-good hamburger...next...<br /><br />Crosseyed may not intend to change anybody's life, but I appreciate the depth and substance. They sneak up on you. I started this film thinking 'Oh, I get it - indie comedy - off the wall - gonzo...yup.' And it is that - but if you pay attention there is sub text and character moments filling it out. In this sense the film breathes. It makes propositions that give pause - if you're available to see them - and then, of course, it goes on its insanely merry way.<br /><br />You will miss the point if you don't sign the contract to suspend belief at moments in the film. Stepping between reality and surreality IS one of the points of this movie.<br /><br />Crosseyed isn't perfect, but smart people made it. I want more.<br /><br />The dining room scenes are an absolute HOOT.<br /><br />Put on your seat belt. | 0 |
The Prophecy II, what's there to say about it? They've completely abandoned the originality of the first film, and simply made a Chris Walken splatter film. It's not even written by the original writer!<br /><br />If you've seen Nr. 1 don't watch Nr. 2 it's a real disappointment...<br /><br />If you haven't seen Nr. 1 don't watch Nr. 2! Go see Nr. 1 to experience something original and fun | 1 |
I first saw this film when I was about 6 ish - my grandma thought it'd be a nice kiddies film to entertain me and keep me occupied....however, every time I watched it I had nightmares the same night. Yes it masquerades as a kids' film, but even now I find it really dark in places, particularly the haunting music that is played each time the guardian angel woman is on the screen, and her rather hypnotic eyes and voice. The actual 'baddies' of the film, ie the sharks, Mr Grimes etc didn't scare me at all, I just always found the whole film rather creepy and dark. This is obviously something I can appreciate now that I'm 21 years old, but speaking from experience there is no way I would show it to my kids! | 0 |
I love movies...and rarely do I see a movie that I hate...but this was the worst movie I have ever seen, or at least close to it. Any movie that ends with a rape scene is awful. Hands down... I cant believe I wasted 2 hours of my life watching this movie. I'm really mad, I want my money back and my time back. AWFUL! Do not go to see it, the cinematography is awful, the plot is awful, the ending is awful. I didn't know what was going on during half the movie cause I could not see it(and I was watching on a very nice, and big, TV) Rent saw, the hills have eyes, or house of wax...any of those are better if u want something scary. | 1 |
This is one of the most horrible 'scary' movies I've seen for awhile. I had to wonder if John Ryhs-Davies was just bored and wanted a distraction to do this movie. Th Chupacabra looked like a cross between the Sleetaks from Land of the Lost and the Creature from the Black Lagoon. Additionally they should have used someone who was a bit smaller as the Chupacabra of legend is much smaller. All in all however the movie was soo bad it was funny. Why couldn't bullets and electrocution stop the Chupacabra but the captain's kick-boxing daughter do OK?? Watch if you are sick at home or feeling down and need a good laugh. | 1 |
Just reading why this show got canceled makes me rather steamed. This was a favorite of mine as a kid and I always watched it when it came on no matter how many times I saw the episode. Sure the effects were not great, but they were also not horrible either. They did a fairly good job with the costume and it had the nice 70's vibe to it that is always enjoyable to see and hear as the music was also very 70's. It did not really have any villains from the comics, but then most comic book live show adaptations had none to very few actual super villains from the comics. Spidey's powers were a bit different here too, he had his Spidey sense and he could climb walls, but he was not nearly as strong as the Spider-man of the comics. He was super strong though as I do remember an episode where he broke into a room by breaking the door knob off, he just was not the car hurler that the one from the comic book can be. The show was set in Los Angelos so there were not as man buildings to swing from, but they did okay with the web. It is nice that this show actually has the web shooters and not organic shooters of the movie. I love the movies, but part of me wishes they would start over and do the more smarty pants Spidey that has the mechanical web shooters. This show had a good star as Peter Parker and he was okay as Spider-man, it is nice to see a Spidey who does not basically live in the slums like he does in the movies. Neither this show nor the movie though has a Spider-man that is quick with the insult like the one in the comic. Still, this show was fun without being as corny as the Batman show. | 0 |
I cannot see how anyone can say that this was a real good entertaining movie. With a few well known actors I found it hard to believe that this was only made in 2005. It's crap! The acting is tantamount to amateur dramatics, poor amateur dramatics. Unless you want to laugh loudly at an amazing 100 minutes of pure corn, don't bother to download it or rent it, worst that I have seen in years. It's from the bygone days of acting, where cowboys are shooting 8 bullets from the six-shooters. The more well known the actor, the worse they were, Drury was just sad. I was extremely disappointed with Lee Majors, has he actually stooped to this sort of garbage? It was bad enough when he played the six million dollar man. | 1 |
Love this little film, that reminds me somewhat of the original Japanese gem, SHALL WE DANCE? (not the overblown Gere/Jlo remake...) Luckily I found it and taped it when it was showing on a STARZ Promo Weekend, because as far as I know, it's not available on DVD. I'll watch just about anything with Yancy Butler (anyone remember the short-lived TV series MANN AND MACHINE ???) in it, and she positively shines in this. She does a dance routine to a disco song that is verrrryyyyyy HOT!! Loved all the other characters in it, especially the ones played by Patrick Stewart and Leslie Caron (where's she been all these years?). This is one of those films that I take out from time to time and always come away smiling after watching it. Recommended highly!!! | 0 |
I enjoyed the movie very much, emotionally, intellectually, and visually. It contains no violence or sex or drugs or special effects, and doesn't need them one bit, holding my attention the entire time with the visuals, story, and interspersed words of wisdom.<br /><br />However: [1] some of the foreign language accents made the dialog difficult to hear & understand; [2] there is unnecessary overuse of swearing (especially the F-word, which is the only reason this movie was rated R). [3] The movie is balanced with humor and emotion, but most of the emotion that holds you throughout the film, except the final resolution last minutes, is unpleasant due to the exaggerated long-lasting dysfunctional reaction of some of the characters to loss, living in the depths of bitterness and depression for too long. [4] I will not recommend this movie because of 5-seconds of background narration, which did not add one bit to the side-character it applied to, or the film -- it only turned me off to the movie and stuck in my brain through the whole movie and afterward: the main character's mother of German ancestry, when watching old WWII movies, 'secretly roots for the Germans.' There would be no 'local color' or art if the Nazi's won the war. I don't know of any Germans today except radical skinheads who think the world would be a better place if the Nazi's won WWII. | 1 |
A wonderful little production. <br /><br />The filming technique is very unassuming- very old-time-BBC fashion and gives a comforting, and sometimes discomforting, sense of realism to the entire piece. <br /><br />The actors are extremely well chosen- Michael Sheen not only 'has got all the polari' but he has all the voices down pat too! You can truly see the seamless editing guided by the references to Williams' diary entries, not only is it well worth the watching but it is a terrificly written and performed piece. A masterful production about one of the great master's of comedy and his life. <br /><br />The realism really comes home with the little things: the fantasy of the guard which, rather than use the traditional 'dream' techniques remains solid then disappears. It plays on our knowledge and our senses, particularly with the scenes concerning Orton and Halliwell and the sets (particularly of their flat with Halliwell's murals decorating every surface) are terribly well done. | 0 |
In the old commercial for blank audio cassettes, the tag line was 'is it real or is it Memorex?' The same might be said for the events in this episode - a compilation and remix of 'The Cage,' the first pilot of Star Trek. Mr. Spock has cleverly commandeered the ship to take it to the forbidden planet Talos IV in order to allow Capt. Christopher Pike, his first captain who has been burned and paralyzed, to return there. Why the finagling? Because to have any contact at all with Talos IV invites a death sentence. Why this is so is never explained - that bothered me tremendously - but, if nothing else, it adds to the story. After he has gotten the ship to travel to Talos IV, Mr. Spock turns himself in to Dr. McCoy (the senior-most officer present; Capt. Kirk was off the ship) for arrest and says, 'The charge is mutiny, Dr.; I never received orders to take over the ship.' What follows is a court martial in which - thanks to the Talosians - we learn why it was so important (besides the obvious paralysis) for Capt. Pike to get to Talos IV even at risk of Mr. Spock's death. The illusions the Talosians create, the background music and the entire storyline are fantastic. And Meg Wyllie as The Keeper (the head Talosian) is wonderful. Call me sexist but it never occurred to me to have a woman in that role but she was perfect! The Talosians, having given up almost all physical activity and becoming almost completely reliant upon the power of illusion, are also unisex; you can't really tell if they're male or female and it really doesn't matter. This episode, more than almost any other in the series, makes me hope and pray there are other worlds out there and that there are civilizations that are so far advanced! What a neat thing if this were so! This is one of my favorite episodes and, no matter how many times I've seen it (I even have it on video), it never fails to fascinate me. Meg Wyllie LOOKS like an alien and I do NOT mean that unkindly. | 0 |
This is horrific. No really, this is ,bar none, the absolute worst...worst...I hesitate to even call it a @&$%in' _movie_. It is a ninety minute visual root canal. The plot is practically non-existent: a mad scientist who looks like the frontman from 'The Cars' impregnates a woman in his secret lab, a lawn chair in what I think may be a garage, via an injection of Palmolive. Within hours she births a full grown monster who then goes on a rampage. Thats the whole movie. The death scenes: these are poorly set up, take _forever_, and the acting...how can you mess up _screaming_?? The victims stand there while the growling, wheezing, congested freak advances on them and proceeds to limply strangle them for about three days. The sets are cheesy, the lighting for most of the movie consists of a single maglite (yes, a big honkin' flashlight), the sound quality is poor, theres only about 40 words of dialogue for the entire movie and the acting is generously described as wooden. Footage is shamelessly recycled to pad out the movie. And the special effects would make any BBC sci-fi production shake their head and proclaim 'They didn't even try'. The 'monster' is some nameless in a $3 halloween rubber mask with a few bandages slapped on. In its encounter with the lone cop of the movie the cop fires flashless, smokeless, invisible bullets that apparently travel so slow the monster can dodge them at five paces. Don't see this movie. No really, thats not a dare. Don't see this movie. The director should be shot. The writer should be chained to a giant rock where his liver will be devoured every morning by Ed Wood. Enough rentals and there could be a sequel, don't let it happen! | 1 |
I live up here in croc territory and remember well the true events that inspired this movie. Our guts fall out each time we hear of a croc attack. BLACK WATER is, quite simply, the best croc movie I have ever seen. While I loved ROGUE last year for all its effects and splashy scenes, it was the local scenes that captured our audience. We laughed in ROGUE more than anything. BLACK WATER, however, really resonated with the eeriness and fear that you can experience when you are alone in the mangroves (you guys call them swamps or bayous - but they're mangroves). Every tourist should see this film before heading to the Northern Territory. The ending was a bit of a letdown after the rest of the film, but I'll be adding this one to my DVD collection when it becomes available. | 0 |
Wracked with guilt after a lot of things felt apart on that ledge, an ace mountain rescue climber Gabriel Walker (Stallone) comes back for his girlfriend Jessie (Janine Turner), while over the cloudy skies where the weather looks a bit threatening, a spectacularly precarious mid-air hijacking goes wrong and $100 million taken from a Treasury Department plane get lost in the middle of nowhere followed by a crash landing
<br /><br />Stranded off the snowy peaks, and needing mountain guides to win back the stolen cash, the high-trained hikers make an emergency call asking the help of a rescue unit
<br /><br />Unfortunately, Gab and Hall (Michael Rooker) have to team up to arrive at the scene of the crash unaware that the distress call was a fake, and a bunch of merciless terrorists led by a psychotic (John Lithgow),are waiting for them only to find out a way off the stormy mountain with the dumped cases of money
<br /><br />With breathtaking shots, vertiginous scenery, dizzying heights, perilous climbs, freezing temperatures, 'Cliffhanger' is definitely Stallone's best action adventure movie
| 0 |
I'd like to start off by saying that I am NOT an anime fan (with a few notable exceptions), and I generally have a low opinion of so-called otakus, as they are so in love with their particular brand of cartooning that they label every movie starring spiky-haired, big-eyed characters as a work of art without even considering other more vital factors, such as the plot. And no anime movie better represents this division between otakus and people with actual taste than this elegant piece of trash, Fatal Fury: the Motion Picture.<br /><br /> As seen through the glassy, witless eyes of an otaku, there's little to find fault with in Fatal Fury-- there's plenty of quirky Japanese-y humor, one-on-one duels, some 'dramatic' moments, and everything is beautifully drawn. But everyone else will be turned off by the cliched, predictable plot with cliched, predictable characters, culminating in a cliched, predictable ending. The love scenes are hilariously overblown-- the scene in which Sulia 'heals' Terry is obviously intended to be a tender moment, but it's virtually impossible to not be thrown into spirals of giddy laughter by the sheer ludicrousness of it. And of course, Fatal Fury is not without the obligatory cartoon T&A-- this is supplied gratuitously by the huge-breasted Mai Shiranui. And since Fatal Fury IS based off the video game series of the same name (oh boy), we're treated to numerous pointless cameo appearances by popular characters with little or no relevance to the plot whatsoever (they go through all the trouble of introducing Kim early on, only for him to disappear from the movie totally after that point). This mess of a movie reaches its climax with the unintentionally farcical final battle, in which all the main characters engage the all-powerful main villain in one-on-one combat in turn. That's some thing that's always amused me... even when battles in animes AREN'T taking place in a tournament, they always happen as if they were, regardless of the fact that it makes no sense whatsoever!<br /><br /> Otakus always rave about how anime movies should be treated as MOVIES as opposed to merely cartoons, and a disturbing portion of those same people love Fatal Fury. So would Fatal Fury have been good if it wasn't an anime? The answer is an emphatic 'no'-- all of this movie's charm, what little of it there is, resides in the actual drawings. Had Fatal Fury not been an anime, it would have been worthy of an episode of Mystery Science Theater 3000, if the show was still on the air. That's the key-- this is nothing more than a laughably bad B-movie in the guise of an anime epic. If you're a fan of movies so bad that they're actually entertaining, consider renting Fatal Fury (or catch it on the Sci-Fi channel), as it is definitely one of those. If you're an otaku, please WAKE UP and realize that a good 90% of the stuff you're watching is garbage. As for everyone else, buy a Dreamcast and Fatal Fury: Mark of the Wolves, but don't even consider seeing this movie. | 1 |
admittedly, I first picked up Ranma 1/2 when I was around twelve. I was in the library and searched desperately for something good to read. Then, I went to the Comic/Manga section and spotted this book. At my first few reads through the chapters I didn't really know what was going on, but I knew that I LOVED it. I even took it home for a few more reads over. Frankly, I wasn't getting anywhere. And then, about five months (I'm 16 now) ago my friend was watching some anime series and I remembered about this Manga. I couldn't remember what it was called, but recalled that the author was Rumiko Takahashi, creator of Inu Yasha. I Googled it, and then made a rash decision to watch all 161 episodes. At first I was a little thrown off by the 1990 graphics, but it didn't really matter in the end. No anime has ever made me laugh so hard and rewind, watch again. I once watched 45 consecutive episodes within a day. I don't know how I did it... but I couldn't stop. Eventually, after about two days, I grew obsessed. I even dreamt--as crazy as this sounds--about watching Ranma. Never have I found a series so enjoyable, so funny, and so heartwarming to watch. To this day 161 episodes are not enough to keep me satisfied. Of course the cliffhanger ending was enough to make me go bonkers, but the series alone was enough to make me continue reading. <br /><br />Ranma 1/2 is about a boy named Ranma Saotome and his dad Genma Saotome. INTENSE martial artists. They are so intense, that they went to the ancient training grounds in China and became 'cursed'. The grounds were full of different pools of springs, and if you land in one, you take the shape of whatever drowned there when doused in cold water. For Genma, that was a PANDA, and for Ranma that was a... girl! It's a very crafty fun loving story. On top of that, Genma promises his friend that Ranma will marry one of his daughters to keep the Tendo dojo alive. 'Course the one he gets matched up with hates his guts and the feelings mutual. Obviously they start to like one another, but both way to stubborn to admit it. But.. Genma has a history of doing this. He promised Ranma to many girls. <br /><br />Trust me. It's worth watching. It's humorous, heartwarming and all around amazing. | 0 |
As an Army veteran, I was deeply offended by this film. In my opinion, it is a disgrace to those who fought in the Vietnam war. To say that the real SF soldiers I knew were offended by this crap is an understatement. If the film were presented as satire or even as a cartoon (it was), it would have been better received. But it was taken seriously my many people, especially overseas. Silly as it sounds, wherever I went in Europe in the late 80's people seemed to judge me and Americans in general by this film. Unrealistic? Hmm, let's see. A monosyllabic, muscle-bound cretin is pulled off a prison work gang to go on a secret mission to SE Asia to free some American POW's. In a running battle he kills about 500 enemy soldiers with an M-60 machine gun that never runs out of ammo and never overheats. And he never misses, running with a 32lb gun held up with one arm. I could go on, but I'm getting a headache. I gave this a 2/10 only because it's slightly better than Rambo III. | 1 |
I hadn't heard of this film until I read an article about it on the Unknown Movies website, which made me curious. As a cartoonist and illustrator myself, I'm an admirer of Richard Williams's work - I rate Ziggy's Gift as one of the finest Christmas specials of all time, and even though Who Framed Roger Rabbit stopped being one of my favourite films when I got past the age of sixteen, I still have the highest of regard for the amount of work, care and attention to detail that went into creating the visuals - but it seems the man has his faults, most notably a propensity for going over budget and over schedule, and this film is a testament of just how far wrong even a super-talented individual like Williams can go, given the right circumstances.<br /><br />Raggedy Ann and Andy is a strange confection that tries to be weird and experimental and off the wall within the confines of a children's cartoon. It tries also to be a musical. It tries to be a thousand and one other things as well - is it a freakout? Is it a mind-blower? Is it a paean to the innocence of childhood imagination? - until it finally collapses under the weight of its own limitless ambitions and aspirations. It's beautifully animated, for the most part, though the bland backgrounds could have used a little more attention, but even that doesn't count for much when you're confronted with the hallucinogenic absurdity that constitutes much of the 'action' here.<br /><br />There are a number of problems with the film, but let's start with Raggedy Ann and Andy themselves. They're the stars of the show, yet they have no personalities. Actually, we get the message that Andy is a wannabe tough guy ('I'm no girl's toy', he sings) and that Ann has a unique perspective on things because her owner, a little girl called Marcella, carries her upside down, but that's all we get to find out about these dull-as-mud characters because the overwhelming weirdness of this film kicks in not long after. I use the word 'weirdness' advisedly, because some weird films can be hugely entertaining, but this is just flat-out strange. The toys and dolls in the playroom are supposed to be cute and lovable, but they're actually bizarre and disturbing. The two marionettes who do and say everything in sync are a prime example of this. But even they're relatively normal compared to the constantly sneezing pirate captain, whose moustache becomes erect and whose groin visibly swells when he first catches sight of a glamorous French doll. Yes, this is supposed to be a children's film! Then there's the music, none of which is memorable, and all of which is sung by actors who can't sing. And to add insult to injury, there's a lot of singing in this film. When Ann and Andy finally make it out of the playroom, the first thing they do is sing a LONG number in the woods about how scared they are, about how they'll always have each other and...yes, we get the message. This seems to go on forever, but at least it brings some semblance of normality back to the film. Not for long, though, because the Camel with the wrinkled knees leads us into a bizarre world where everything looks like it's made from worn and faded denim, and - bad enough that he's clearly a paranoid schizophrenic - he also starts hallucinating. But this is nothing compared to the scenes that follow. The Greedy, a living, breathing. belching, farting, constantly eating pool of taffy, is so trippy, creepy and ultimately disturbing, you'll hardly believe what you're seeing - this is as close to a drug-free psychedelic experience as I've ever seen on film. Then, after a l-o-n-g time spent with the Greedy, along comes the psychotic Sir Leonard Looney and his master King KooKoo, whose throne resembles a urinal. I can't believe I'm actually writing a capsule description of a real film here - I just had to rub my eyes and remind myself that I'm not blogging about an overwhelmingly whacked-out nightmare I had. Part of the sequence in Looney Land resembles one of the old Winsor McCay / Little Nemo cartoons, for no good reason other than somebody felt like doing it, probably. All this would be fine if there was some kind of rhyme or reason behind it, but there isn't. These scenes are just strange, and very, very long. Surrealism only works when there's a strong idea behind it, or takes place against some semblance of reality. But NOTHING in these scenes points towards any kind of reality. Take away this element, and you're left with pure self indulgence.<br /><br />As the final scenes unravel, even the animation begins to look less impressive (the pirate ship, ludicrously detailed, jerks about on the water in a manner that suggests some of the cels went missing during the production) and there's a non-event of an ending that simply suggests money ran out. Even at a meagre 86 minutes in length, the film feels like a never-ending ordeal, and it's understandable why it flopped on its original release. Animation buffs will probably scratch their heads and wonder just how Williams managed to flub this one so spectacularly, but he did, and there's nothing anyone can do about it. | 1 |
Nobody could like this movie for its merit but, if you have a sense of humor and enjoy schlock movies for their MST3 quality, then this is for you. It ranks up there with 'Road House' for its preposterous characters, sets and story line. The bad writing really cracked me up: 'I want you to dust those guys off' instead of '. . . dust those guys.' F-14s take off from the carrier but, when they get into formation, they're F-16s! Without a hint of anger or skepticism, Segal goes back to work for the general who, only minutes before, was overseeing a covert 'mind wipe' on Seagal. Segal runs out of bullets and resorts to a knife to kill the guards. So naturally, the guards all drop their guns and fight with knives too! The hand grenade is a dud but explodes anyway. The little stealth fighter can fly all the way from California to Afganistan without refueling. Then Segal flies it back to California - the long way, i.e., by way of Europe - even though there's a carrier giving him air support 20 minutes away in the Arabian Sea. The CIC in the carrier consists of 3 black PCs, 2 flat screen TVs and pictures of gauges and maps on the walls. What a hoot! | 1 |
please re-watch all 3 series and do not go see this movie, the trailer is completely misleading and the 3 weakest characters in the series stretch a badly thought out 25min TV episode into the most painful 2hrs of my life, truly an awful film. tubbs and edward are in it for a few mins, micky has 1 line, and her lipp just reels out the same tired old puns, also mr briss's accent just changes about 5 times in the film tons of badly acted extras, and really a few laughs that they seem to recycle for 2 hrs i honestly feel this series has been completely ruined by this god-awful piece of crap..........batman and robin all is forgiven | 1 |
Wow! It's hard to put into words my feelings for this episode. Ice is one of the best episodes of season one for sure. It's my favorite of the season. Six people and a dog in a claustrophobic structure isolated in the middle of the arctic with an unknown organism that causes murderous aggression, the drama can't get any better than that. Paranoia reigns supreme as even Mulder and Scully have doubts about each other's sanity. I've heard people complain about this episode's similarities to the movie 'The Thing'. I haven't seen it, so I wouldn't know. Ice is more than worth watching just to see Mulder and Scully truly testing their still developing trust of one another. This episode is intense and suspenseful to the end. You won't be disappointed! | 0 |
Loaded with fine actors, I expected much more from 'Deceiver' than was delivered. The plot is extremely contrived and manipulative. The many flashbacks only add to the confusion. Believability flies out the window and with the ending becomes unbearable and downright ridiculous. I would strongly advise anyone who likes their movie plots to be based on something that is at least possible to avoid 'Deceiver' because you will be very frustrated. Maybe I am just not hip enough to get it, but my suspicion is that many others were totally confused by the story line and especially by the ending. Blurring the line between reality and lies simply does not work because the entire movie made no sense. - MERK | 1 |
From the very beginning I was so excited to see this movie. The poster is possibly the funniest I've ever seen for a movie. I immediately bought one for my dorm this September.<br /><br />Every element came together in this movie so beautifully. It's not often you see a movie with so many penis, gay, and racial jokes so praised by critics. Carell and the rest of the cast deliver each raunchy joke sensationally. Carell remains sweet throughout the entire movie where by the end of the movie you're rooting for him to succeed in his relationship more than you are for him to get laid. The supporting cast is brutal, each of them having some problems with the ladies themselves.<br /><br />One of the things about this movie is the abundance of memorable scenes we're given. This is what makes a movie easy to remember fondly. This movie will often be brought up when the words 'chest waxing' and 'condoms' are mentioned in conversation.<br /><br />Watching it in the theater I was surprised how many older people were there to watch it. I saw a group of four mid-60s women come in. Despite an older audience, this movie still filled the entire theater with laughter.<br /><br />I think the type of people who will like this are the fans of the Office and Steve Carell. A lot of the jokes remind me of the type of jokes you'd see on Family Guy, too. The movie is shallow enough for adolescent boys and still sweet and clever enough for middle aged women.<br /><br />I don't recommend going to this movie if you aren't a fan of profanity or if you are easily offended. However, when you are at the movie, just remember this movie is all in good humor. The jokes aren't 'gay jokes,' they're just jokes. And they're funny. | 0 |
On this site I've often lambasted the Americans for not knowing how to write comedy, BUT, while they've never produced anything of the quality of 'Fawlty Towers', 'Blackadder' or 'The Fall and Rise of Reginald Perrin', they have also never (to my knowledge) made anything as bad as this: the nadir of British comedy.<br /><br />On my Richter scale of comic awfulness, it rates only behind the truly execrable 'Are You Being Served' as the worst comedy show in the English language, with bad acting, annoying characters and humour that I'd grown out of before I left primary school. Unfortunately, it was part of a large crop of shows back then, along with 'Dad's Army', 'It ain't Half Hot Mum' and 'Allo, Allo' that relied on ridiculous situations and familiar catch-phrases to keep audiences 'amused'.<br /><br />Michael Crawford proved later on that he's a talented performer, but personally, I'd rather be sentenced to a month of watching 'Rhoda' than endure a single episode of this drivel, which makes me ashamed to be British. | 1 |
I'm aware that there are some fans who might like this movie. I'm aware that the idea of 'searching for god' might appear interesting to some, to me, however, it's really boring.<br /><br />The movie is simply boring. When it does get a little bit interesting, it gets stupid. Come on... Kirk fights against god and wins? How low can we possibly get? The only good part in the film is the camping scene at the first 5 minutes, which is truly great, but after that, the movie becomes boring, irritating, with nothing more than a good music.<br /><br />Thank god we have Star Trek VI. (Oops, Kirk beat him). | 1 |
When it opened in London during the Christmas season of 1969 this musical version of James Hilton's famous story was drubbed by the critics. The same reception greeted it when it opened in the US, prompting MGM to withdraw its 'Roadshow' status and cut almost all of its songs. What a mistake!!!<br /><br />Watched years later, when the trendy world of the 60's and 70's has turned in upon itself, this version of GOODBYE, MR.CHIPS is a total delight. First of all, as 'Chipping', Peter O'Toole gives one of his greatest performances. To watch him turn from the hated, cold, emotionless Latin teacher at a boy's boarding school, to a man who finally can see the colors in the world (after falling for and marrying musical star Catherine Briskit) is to see a genius at work. (If you can, watch LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, THE LION IN WINTER, MY FAVORITE YEAR and CHIPS back to back over a number of days or weeks. Then you will see what a truly great actor O'Toole is, and how magnificent he is in CHIPS.) <br /><br />Catherine, as played by the glowing Petula Clark, at the height of her popularity, is ever man's dream; beautiful, loving, understanding, with a great voice to boot. Most of the songs are beautiful and fit the story perfectly, while the direction by the late Herbert Ross brings the proceedings wonderfully to life.<br /><br />Okay, this film may be a bit too romantic for some people, but for those who are looking for a beautifully acted, sung, and directed love story, look no further. (If you can get your hands of the laser disc wide screen version, better yet. I am anxiously awaiting CHIPS' debut on DVD.) | 0 |
If you're a North American 'TOURIST' looking for a 'TRAP' here it is. Was this 'Trading Spaces visits TUSCANY?' There were way too many stereotypes. Little attention was given to character and plot development. YAWN. Highlight of the film: the flag throwing. Poor guy! I thought he was going to loose an eye! | 1 |
I agree with so many of the other reviewers here. This was a great film and an even better novel by Robert Fish. Unfortunately, I believe the author died before he could see this film made. The performances are all top rate, with the three principles (John Glover, Ben Cross, and Veronica Hamel) seemingly made for their roles. The exteriors, both in Europe and Israel, seem very authentic, and the 4-hour miniseries length was just right for the telling of this story. Fortunately, I DID tape this when it was on television and have enjoyed watching it ever since. I can say unhesitatingly that it holds up even to this day. I gave it a rating of 10. If you haven't read the book, you should really find a copy. This would be an outstanding film to release on DVD with extras that could easily include interviews from the cast. | 0 |
If you r in mood for fun...and want to just relax and enjoy...bade Miyan Chote Miyan is one of the movies to watch. Amitabh started off pretty good...but it is Govinda who steals the show from his hands... awesome timing for and good dialog delivery.....its inspired from Bad boys... but it has Indian Masala to it... people think it might be confusing and stupid...but the fact that David Dhavan is directing and Govinda is acting... should not raise any questions....other recommended movies in the same genre(David Dhavan/Govinda combo)...are Shola Aur Shabnam, Aankhen, Raja Babu, Saajan Chale Sasural, Deewana Mastana, Collie no. 1, Jodi no. 1, Hero no.1, Haseena Manjayegi, Ek Aur Ek Gyarah. | 0 |
If you haven't seen this yet, you really should, on DVD. I can't believe how much I enjoyed it! It is amazingly realistic and believable. True, much of it is speculated, and I would have liked to have known more about what was speculative and what were proven facts (there aren't many of them), but it handles everything quite well with a 'Cruel Mother Nature' theme. It will remind you of the nature programs that you've seen on Animal Planet and the Discovery Channel, only the animals here are Dinosaurs. They act natural; they eat, kill, mate, play, and fight for survival. You will actually find yourself rooting for some of them and against others.<br /><br />For the most part, the effects are excellent. At times they will look a little too much like CGI's, but then you will see them in a different angle that makes them look more realistic. In some cases, you will actually be convinced that you've seen a dinosaur. My favorites were the Coelophysis, the raptors, the diplodocus, the iguanadons, the allosaurus and the arctic bipeds. I was most disappointed with the T-Rex, however, which looked a little too computer generated at times.<br /><br />In any case, you should definitely see this production. It is educational, well made, and very entertaining. For what it is, its an A! | 0 |
The film moves along quite well but the acting, direction and editing leave a lot to be desired. The characters are mostly lifted from other films and the Vinnie Jones lookalike is straight out of Gone in 50 Seconds. The comedy gangster movie is a genre that should have lots of contrast, the stupid dealers in Lock Stock and the shoot out that leaves everyone dead. You should never really know whether to laugh or just sit there in shock. This movie had the right elements but it is too easy to sit there like a person knitting and tut at the small details that should have been fixed somewhere along the line and once belief has been unsuspended one just become increasingly critical. A pity cos it was a brave attempt and although Clint Eastwood is famous for saying that'll be OK for a scene, he puts the work in before he shoots and he is Clint Eastwood. Here a bit more imagination with the camera and and a bit more coaching and rehearsal for the delivery of the lines would have made a big difference. | 1 |
Pun intended. This low budget action/horror vehicle for Don Wilson's ability to kick things is the stuff direct-to-video fare is made of.<br /><br />The plot: Wilson is a humorless vampire hunter who comes under fire from local law enforcement after he is forced to slaughter creatures of the night in view of the public. Police chase him, vampires chase him, he responds by kicking...a lot.<br /><br />There is a little more to the story, but it is so inconsequential that I honestly can't remember it; I think people actually spoke in the movie, but that's up to debate. The plot is nothing more than a set-up for Wilson to kill as many vampires as possible in the running time, usually by kicking them.<br /><br />The technical specs are, in a word, anemic. Little color treating, amateurish use of lighting, simplistic use of camera and angle. Blood and gore is noticeably limited, odd for this type of film. The most hurtful of the filming foul-ups is the jarring shift to super-shaky cam during each and every fight scene. If the camera begins to bounce around like a reese monkey on speed, then you know Don is about to start kicking everything in sight.<br /><br />All in all, this is the kind of bad movie that can be made good with a few friends and a lot of cynical humor. Otherwise, do not watch, unless you really like to watch things get kicked.<br /><br />3/10 | 1 |
Idiotic hack crooks, a babe, a safe, a plan and a baby. Add them all up and you get the best comedy you've never heard of. <br /><br />Even with some a-list star power (at least a-minus...okay, b-plus?) this movie got very little publicity.<br /><br />But that does not diminish its genius.<br /><br />Terrific writing, solid delivery and a believable group of characters. Some truly classic lines, and a fun twist at the end.<br /><br />This is not some watered-down 'Nutty Professor' comedy. These are low-life bad guys. They speak low-life bad guy language and they do low-life bad guy things. But they do it for your amusement and entertainment, and they do that well.<br /><br />One of the best comedies I've ever seen. | 0 |
(Some Spoilers) Early 1930's educational movie about the horrors of contracting a social disease and the consequences that come along with it: blindness madness loss of ones abilities to function as well as infecting other people with it, even one's unborn children, and finally death. 'Damaged Lives' is far ahead of it's times in educating it's viewers about the dangers Venereal Deasise. viewed now over 70 years after it's release back in 1933 is as good, if not better, then the many films about that subject made back in the 1940's 1950's and even 1960's.<br /><br />Donald Bradley, Lyman Williams, is a top executive of a major shipping company who's been going study with his girlfriend Joan, Diane Sinclair, for some time. both are finally planing to get married and raise a family. Out at a party one evening Donald meets Elsie Cooper, Charlotte Merriam, and together they have one drink too many and before you know it end up spending the night together in Elsie's home. <br /><br />Thinking nothing of his one night stand with Elsie Donald later marries his long time love Joan and they both plan to have a child, or so they thought. At the office Donald get a panicked call from Elsie telling him to come over to her place right away about something very important. Rushing over Donald finds out, to his horror, that Elsie has a sexual infection that she got from her boyfriend Nat, Harry Myers, and that she may have given it to Donald, and he in turn may have infected his wife Joan. Telling Elsie that she's wrong about him being infected and that she should seek medical attention Elsie shoots herself as Donald is just about to leave. <br /><br />Getting over Elsie's tragic death Donald gets another surprise later when his doctor Dr. Bill Hill, Jason Robards Sr, comes over to his office telling him to immediately come with him to the hospital to talk to Infectious Disease Specialist Dr. Vincent Leonard, Murray Kinnell, about his wife Joan who's just been admitted there. The terrible truth about Donald and his wife Joan hits him like a bolt out of the blue and leaves him speechless, just like it did Joan earlier. Both have been infected and the infection is the dreaded and unspeakable,back in the 1930's, infection called Venereal Disease. <br /><br />Told by Dr. Leonard that it would take some two years of treatment for both Donald and Joan to be completely cured it leaves Joan in a state of dangerous suicidal thoughts. Later in the film Joan, feeling that she has nothing to live for, closes all the windows in her and Donald's apartment and turns on the gas stove, full blast, in order to kill herself and Donald who was asleep at the time. <br /><br />Honest film about the ravages of Venereal Disease and the damage that it does to those who are infected by it, both psychically as well as mentally, and how it could be cured if given immediate medical care instead of hiding it from one's doctor and keeping it hidden, for fear of shame and embarrassment, until it's too late. | 0 |
This is probably the best movie of 2002 regarding Romanian cinema. I do recommend it being an intense drama with no lack of action and thrills. The movie concentrates upon teen life in the Bucharest suburbs trough the main character, not focusing so much on the character's shape or definition but more on the anger that he and other characters feel. The title 'Furia' means rage rather than anger, but could be regarded in the movie in both senses from the behavior of actors. The rather odd love story (not a typical romantic one, but rather a modern suburban conception) is well shaped towards the end. It is a captivating picture, and cinematography is pretty good in catching the suburban night life thus making it a nice movie to watch and.<br /><br />You won't get bored for a minute, i promise! | 0 |
A long time ago, way back in the early '80s, a late-night TV show 'Fridays' came to ABC, trying to steal the limelight away from NBC's badly-listing 'Saturday Night Live'. It didn't but it did introduce some repugnant sketches and semi-talented 'comedians' to the world. Like Mark Blankenfield, for example.<br /><br />Which, in a roundabout way, brings us to 'Jekyll and Hyde... Together Again'. Which is repugnant in ways all its own.<br /><br />Blankenfield is about as subtle as a pew full of whoopee cushions going off after Communion. And about as tasteful, too. This is just his drugged-out druggist character he played on the ill-fated 'Fridays' show stretched out to feature length. And if you didn't like him there, why are you reading this review?<br /><br />Any time it takes more than one or two writers to write a movie, that's a bad sign. Then when it goes for dunder-headed jokes that would get you thrown off every improv stage in the Western hemisphere and replaces gags with gross-out, things can only get worse.<br /><br />A comic take on a Robert Louis Stevenson story? About as good an idea as making a sitcom out of Poe's 'Fall of the House of Usher'.<br /><br />Aside from a few (VERY few) gags that give a slight grin, this whole film is an exercise in waste - wasted actors, wasted film, wasted opportunities.<br /><br />No wonder they showed original author Stevenson turning in his grave. What more observant a review could they give themselves?<br /><br />No stars. No, not even for Armstrong, who should have known better. <br /><br />'Hyde' from this one. | 1 |
Not a bad MOW. I was expecting another film based on womens issues but was pleasantly surprised at the element of suspense. Sure, parts of the plot were pretty hokey but for the most part the movie kept me guessing. Was the nut bar connected with the ex husband, somebody in the tavern or was it the guy (person) that she cut off? Daniel Magder was excellent. I've seen him in Mom's on Strike and in Guilt by Association, both MOW's and he is very creditable, especially the way he challenges his mother the way a preteen would typically act.<br /><br />Laura Leighton also played the typical mother (ex-wife) that both men and women can relate to. She was frustrated enough to seem real.<br /><br />See it if you missed it. It's worthwhile. | 0 |
I saw this film for one reason: the tagline is 'Upset the head
and you're dead!' Cracking. It's not surprising that this silly horror comedy runs out of steam before the tape is out of the box, but it wrings a few laughs from its oddball premise and cast of characters: an eagle-eyed human radar, a huge strongman, and a big-breasted sexual magnet are all mind-controlled by a huge head in a chair, who's not happy about his family being blackmailed by a murderous scumbag. This looks like being a promising mixture of ham and cheese before it becomes clear that the characters are one joke wonders and the plot is pretty ordinary if you, erm, ignore the giant head. | 1 |
First i will say that i am going to be as subjective as I can.<br /><br />There will be some potential spoilers ahead so beware.<br /><br />I hardly ever review movies, but this one in particular i felt i had to review. This movie Final Fantasy 7 Advent Children, based off the ultra popular rpg (Final Fantasy VII) for the ps1 has been in the works for quite some time. After the years of hype and the dozens of trailers (none of which i ever saw, i had only seen stills) this movie got the legions of fans really excited about seeing their favorite characters on the big screen. I myself had played and completed the game a few times like any good fan, and being such a movie freak i was pretty excited myself. So i had thought to myself, 'WHAT COULD GO WRONG?'.<br /><br />Well, the movie started out OK in the first 20 minutes, but then things get out of hand as the movie progressed. Without a doubt, this is the best looking CGI animation around, but that won't help a weak plot, undeveloped characters,and over indulgent action scenes. <br /><br />Here is the story basically. These three silver haired nancy boys in leather who have nothing to do with the game, are supposedly clones of Sephiroth (he's the villain of the game who had supposedly murdered all his supposed clones)are trying to kidnap all the children for some reason that was not really explained all that well, probably to make an army (of kids?) They also center some of the story on some kid named Denzel, i don't know who this kid is, or what his point is, he just seems depressed all the time. So the sephiroth clones also are involved in some kind of scheme involving some disease called geostigma, that only affects the children, this disease seems to cause boredom and small amounts of skin discoloration.<br /><br />So now Cloud must save the day from these guys. Apparently Cloud and his fellow team mates have learned the ability of flight, i felt a little insulted that these characters where flying around a city fighting a dragon and landing on there feet all the time. Maybe if the movie wasn't so over the top, then the view relax into it and then they can be amazed by something incredible. The real problem of this movie is logic. Now i know what you are gonna say, 'But it's called Final FANTASY! it should have those ideas in it!' well that is a foolish way to think, the game based itself in some kind of reality and the movie should follow through in that CONTEXT. Context and logic in this movie is inconsistent, i could explain it all, but if i did, i would end up writing the screenplay.<br /><br />Also some scenes in this movie were extremely contrived and trite. like when all of the characters from the game show up just in the nick of time for their obligatory screen time so as not to upset the fans. They show up, do there bit and pretty much have no point in the story.<br /><br />If this is too long here is the simpler review-<br /><br />the pros- the first 20 minutes top-notch cgi animation decent action scenes visually stunning<br /><br />the cons- illogical over indulgent action/ unbalanced action (leaves the viewer jaded at the climax) weak plot super human characters=no suspense the j-rock soundtrack/score (what happened to the orchestra?) Horrible ending<br /><br />BIG TIME SPOILER-<br /><br />Now the ending of this movie really disappointed me. they could have had gone the really cool and sweet ending where cloud dies and meets up with aeris in the after life but after the great battle at the end cloud gets shot in the back, the kinda wound where the bullet blast out through the chest. then cloud has his 100th flashback in the movie and then wakes up in a pool of lifestream. (now i remember the lifestream in the game, but it did not have resurrecting properties, if it did, they could have brought aeris back to life, thus making a completely different story) so cloud is brought back to life and everyone has a party and dives into the pool and we have a ultra cheezy hallmark/ lifetime type moment.<br /><br />not that the movie doesn't have it's moments. its is worth seeing for its visuals. but thats all.<br /><br />other than that it's not really a good movie. it is strictly for blinded fans of the game. not for people who care about plot and character and story telling. | 1 |
Ching Siu Tung's and Tsui Hark's A Chinese Ghost Story, aside from being one of the greatest wuxia pian films ever made, is a beautiful and romantic love story as well as an impressively choreographed martial arts film that should belong in every film lover's collection. The sorely missed Hong Kong superstar Leslie Cheung plays a traveling tax collector who spends the night at a haunted temple. While staying at the temple, he meets a colorful cast of characters that include the swordsmen Yin (Wu Ma) and Hsiao Hou, the Tree Devil, and the beautiful ghost Lit Sin Seen, played by the lovely Joey Wong.<br /><br />To free her from the clutches of the evil Tree Devil, he must reincarnate her body and travel to the underworld to defeat an even more powerful demon.<br /><br />Enough good things can't be said about this film. The pacing is perfect, with a great combination of romance, action, fantasy and humor, and the feverishly paced finale should leave you with little chance to breathe. The chemistry between the wonderfully tragic Joey Wong and Leslie Cheung (whose legendary career ended much too soon) really allows the viewer to feel for both of them. Indeed the acting on the whole is so vivacious and full of life, I would say this is one of the most fun viewing experiences I've ever had. Much of the credit goes to Wu Ma in his portrayal of the mysterious Swordsman Yin. His over-the-top persona of a disillusioned swordsman hell bent on vanquishing evil leads to some great moments of humor and traditional HK drama. A wonderful score, lush cinematography with eye popping colors, and frenetic action pieces courtesy of Ching Siu Tung round out this wonderful film. Find a copy anywhere you can. 10/10 | 0 |
It's a soap-opera drawing upon an applied ethics idea. A movie about human suffering and death is not necessarily a good movie. I didn't get any emotion from it, the ideas are not at all new, the tension lacks, it becomes tedious towards the second half but towards the end I think it becomes quite interesting in a burlesque way. I mean you have this middle-aged, paralyzed bald guy who gets more women than Don Juan. He doesn't seem to suffer as much as you would expect from someone completely paralyzed for over 28 years, he has no issues with God (and one would probably expect that too), the people around him seem to be the perfect slaves (I can't get out of my mind Bergman's Cries and Whispers, similar to this one in many respects, which simply bursts with emotions, and not all of them humane) etc. This movie is the perfect recipe for housewives who look for some emotional thrill but don't expect to be blown away. The movie is worth seeing among all the cynicism we get today for its sincere intention to present a modern ethical issue without any desire to arouse the viewer. Amenabar doesn't rub your face in it and he doesn't take sides, he doesn't want to make us fanatics for a particular idea. Still I have no clue as to why this movie was so highly regarded. | 0 |
How could this get a 6.0 rating? Are we as horror fans so used to horror films being so utterly bad these days, that when one comes along that has some, and i repeat 'only some', redeeming quality's, we get much too excited and give a rating that is just a wee bit too high? The director has a certain visual flair. No doubt about that. But in between some decent shots he forgot a good story, mood or scares. It had a very slow first act, lazy killing scene's, annoying and flat characters and a very stupid and very unbelievable twist. And what's with the portrayal of American teenagers in so many of these kinds of films? Do they always have to be this stupid, irritating and so godd#mn superficial. I don't remember teens being like this when i grew up here in Holland. All things considered, in can't give this film anything more that a 4 out of 10 rating. | 1 |
Crackerjack is another classic Aussie film. As so many Australian films like The Castle, The Dish and Sunday Too Far Away, it goes somewhere that hasn't been widely explored in film before, this time it is the game of Lawn Bowls and bowling clubs. Crackerjack is a much slower paced sports movie than many you will find such as Remember the Titans or Million Dollar Babybut the characters involved are athletes in their own right. This movie is a show case of a large area of Australian culture and features a sport that is popular and on the rise of popularity in Australia. Mick Molloy presents a classic, unforgettable character. It really is a must see. | 0 |
I'm surprised over the number of folks that have rated this entry as their favorite 'Chan' (didn't they ever see '...at the Opera' or '...at Treasure Island?'--- the latter ironically written by John Larkin, who dropped the ball here). This plot is a train wreck and overloaded with pointless characters. First, viewers are required to recall the sordid details of Steve McBirney's (played by venerable thug and HUAC squealer Marc Lawrence) 1929's murder spree. Let's not forget he escaped a capital murder rap at the courthouse with a lone policeman on his tail. There's also a victim that was fished out of a river 11 years earlier that no one ever seems concerned about. Then there's the suspension of disbelief required when all the characters are seemingly trapped in the wax museum (although Inspector O'Matthews manages to wield his fat wet rear end inside through a window). Why is Joan Valerie (as Cream's assistant) in this movie? She can't even handle pliers properly--- I realize Chan suffers the same boo-boo but yeesh, he's 66 years old here-- (and has less than 10 lines--- and her character's motivation is too weak to ever be adequately 'splained (excuse me, when I'm on a rant I write like Ricky Ricardo). The Mary Bolton (Marguerite Chapman) character is written to as a eager wide-eyed moron, apparently existing only for the vapid romantic interest of horndog lawyer Tom Agnew (played by the ferret-faced Ted Osborne). Why is Willie Fern a character? Why couldn't McBirney's henchman pulled the switch at 8:20? (not a spoiler, okay?!). One wonders how, with the IQ of lint he manages to dress himself or why he hadn't stepped in front of a bus years ago. Toler himself is given a little more acting rope than usual (a plus) and the real kudos go to set designer Thomas Little and cinematographer Virgil Miller who created some genuinely spooky atmosphere... but this entry has less logic than a Ritz Brothers film. I'm still boggled by how a toothpick can be used as a blow gun. | 1 |
(Note: I saw I SELL THE DEAD at the Glasgow International Film Festival on 20th January 2009.) I Sell the Dead is a jet black horror comedy set in late medieval times, and stars Dominic Monaghan (Lost, Lord of the Rings), Ron Pearlman (Hellboy), Larry Fessenden (Session 9) and Angus Scrimm (Phantasm).<br /><br />The movie opens with grave-robber Willie Grimes (Fessenden), still indignant and unremorseful, being dragged to the guillotine and executed. His apprentice and partner-in-crime Arthur Blake (Monaghan) is locked in the tower awaiting his turn when Father Duffy (Perlman), a whiskey-swilling priest with an unhealthy interest in the occult, pays him a visit with the apparent intention of recording Blake's final confession. It soon becomes apparent, however, that Duffy main interest lies in the more... otherworldly side of Blake's exploits. Most of the plot from here is told in flashback form as Monaghan regails Duffy with tales of his macabre career.<br /><br />Initially, Grimes and Blake start out as simple wise-cracking body snatchers, working in the employ of the ghoulish Dr Quint (Scrimm), a callous, corrupt anatomist who uses blackmail as leverage over our two anti-heroes, and takes a rather unhealthy relish in his work. The pair have their first run-in with the undead when, one evening, Quint sends them on a mission to a bleak moonlit moor to retrieve a corpse that has been mysteriously interred at a crossroads, apparently according to some ancient custom. But there's something different about this corpse. This one has been wrapped in cloves of garlic... and buried with a stake through it's heart...<br /><br />Following a terrifying encounter, not only do they devise a plan to rid themselves of the scheming Doctor's machinations, but they also uncover a secretive subculture of occultists who will pay good money for corpses, and even better money for LIVING SPECIMENS of the undead. This leads our intrepid duo into the hidden underworld of the 'ghoul hunting' trade, where they find themselves going head-to-head not only with vampires, monsters and zombies (and one other paranormal entity for which I will not spoil the surprise), but also rival ghoul hunters in the form of the inbred and murderous Murphy clan.<br /><br />I went into I Sell the Dead expecting a low-key, mildly distracting, low budget chiller. I was not prepared for the incredible imagination, giddy humour, quality acting, great dialogue, thick atmosphere and sheer personality that makes I Sell the Dead a strong early contender for my horror film of the year.<br /><br />With the exception of a couple of rough edges, the production values are truly fantastic for such a low budget flick - it looks like it was made for about $20 million, and I was surprised when the director told the audience it was made for significantly less than half of that (although he was unwilling to give exact figures as the film was still being sold to distributors). The 'look' and tone of the film is a visual comic book somewhere between Tim Burton and Hammer Horror, with smart little Creepshow-esquire artwork inserts. The plot is wonderfully surreal, but the idea of a hidden underworld, running parallel to everyday life but which the general populace is either unable or unwilling to believe in, is one that actually makes quite good sense within the context of the film.<br /><br />The acting, as you'd expect from this cast, is top notch. The characters are fleshed out surprisingly well, particularly Grimes and Blake, and all the actors deliver their sharply scripted lines with just the right amount of deadpan tongue in cheek to make the dialogue both hilarious and realistic. Angus Scrimm also turns in a good performance in a somewhat brief but memorable role as the gently menacing, violin-playing anatomist Doctor Quinn.<br /><br />Conclusion - I loved it. It's a long time since I was so entertained by a movie. I struggle to find anything bad to say about it. Mark my words, this is one of those cult films like Evil Dead 2 or Phantasm that people will still be discovering and falling in love with 20, 30, 40 years down the line. | 0 |
Contrary to most of the comments in this section, I have to say this film just barely escapes the definition 'rubbish!'. The only readers who seem to be aware of what a catalogue of clichés it is are those who, like me, live in the north-east and know at first hand what the area is like. I am totally sick of films that are supposed to be 'realistic', yet portray the working class (of wherever) as stupid, criminal low-lifes, but then excuse them because of their social background. And funny? I smiled briefly twice and laughed once, but that was at the incongruity of two boy actors with Sunderland accents supposedly trying to hide their Newcastle accents from Sunderland football fans! There was only one likable character in the whole film, and that was the senile grandfather played quietly but very competently by Roy Hudd -- the only non-Geordie in the cast.<br /><br />As for the writing -- well, I just wonder what university sociology department the author studied at. He certainly had no ear for the local accent. And I too have never heard the expression 'Purely Belter' -- and not only am I a native, I'm a linguist who's written articles on the local dialect.<br /><br />Don't waste your time and eyesight on this garbage. It isn't funny, it isn't realistic, it isn't entertaining, and it is fundamentally dishonest. | 1 |
I saw this fine flick shortly leaving college. As I sat there happily watching Alice go from repressed virgin to sexual adventurer, I got to wondering why her sexual encounters seemed familiar. Then I remembered-- Intro Psych 101 Lecture! One of the lectures dealt with the Psycho-Sexual Stages of Developement, basically the shift over time on what part of the body and its attendant stimulations gets our main attention, as well as the changing emphasis on what gives us pleasure. Alice's first encounter is being bathed, with emphasis on the genitals and bottom. Her next encounter is an oral one with the Mad Hatter's dingaling. I forget the rest of the lecture and the order of Alice's encounters, but I do remember how well they matched. It's interesting to see a skin flick with some brains behind it, rather than the cliche 'I'm here to deliver your pizza. Let's screw.'<br /><br />I don't see how Kristin DeBell's career could be wrecked by this film, as it was her first film. And Reagan's tiresome hypocrisies had yet to mar this land when it was released, but in a way he and his stooge Meese did affect Ms DeBell. When Meese was staging his anti-pornography commission (to distract people from his own criminal activities), Meese hired the services of an anti-porn activist named Judith Reisner. Reisner was obsessed with images she perceived as child pornography. She saw the 'Alice' cover Ms DeBell did for Playboy and promptly announced she had scientifically proven that Ms DeBell was in fact a photo collage of parts from several grown women and the face of a ten year old. Yeah, right.... | 0 |
I can't believe that someone actually paid to have this film made. Stupid, unrealistic, and stereotypical. Right from the take off of the massive 747 the pilot pulled the throttles back to increase speed. then you have 5 armed persons with semi to fully automatic weapons firing without so much as one bullet breaching the walls of the pressurized cabin at 38,000 feet. Then once below in the belly of the plane a stray bullet hits a FUEL line and we see the fuel leaking from the side of the plane. The acting was just horrid and forced. There just didn't seem to be any direction. I have seen some pretty horrid B movies in my lifetime but with the names that were in this film I was extremely disappointed. | 1 |
Should have been titled 'Balderdash!' Little in the film is true except the name of the island and the fact submarines were involved. Little more than training film quality with poor camera work, muddy stock footage and perhaps the low point of stereotyping 'Japs' with laughing Japanese infantry, laughing Japanese fighter pilots and one-dimensional square-jawed Americans dying left and right. Sixty years later it is unintentionally funny as an odd artifact and as an opportunity to see what is possible when the war fever is upon you. The plot and the dialogue remind me of playing guns on a summer's afternoon in my childhood, peering through the neighbor's hedge to gain a fatal advantage on my best friend Steve and my little brother. In actual fact, the Makin Island raid was a near total failure with Carlson and his men wandering around in the dark exchanging gunfire with shadows until finally, thirsty and completely disoriented, looking for someone to surrender to, before they happened upon some equally confused Japanese soldiers who promptly surrendered to them! In the withdrawal several of Carlson's Marines ended up on another island and were abandoned! The film, of course, couldn't tell that story, not in 1943, so this bit of whimsy was fabricated and rushed into release to the beating of drums. With Randolph Scott, and his jaw, as Colonel Thorwald (Carlson) leading a unit comprised almost entirely of stock caricatures, the green recruit (Harry Landon, Robert Mitchum), the grizzled veteran (J. Carroll Naish, Milburn Stone, Sam Levene), the country-bumpkin (Rod Cameron), the all-American boy (Alan Curtis), and scores of sneering (when they weren't laughing) 'Japs'. And yet the cast nearly overcomes the material. Almost. Randolph Scott's narrow range is well suited to his role of earnest commander and he is supported by a solid group of professionals who do their best with thin gruel. But in the end, the one-note object of the exercise wins. Any pretense is totally abandoned at the close when Randy Scott simply looks directly into the camera and delivers a stirring (well sorta stirring) call to arms. The cast was better than this material. So was the audience. Should be viewed with Reefer Madness and a bottle of moderately priced Merlot. | 1 |
I seems in the beginning a interesting film, a Spanish thriller in a interesting nowadays Madrid, but it isn`t none of that, is actually a film only interesting for future films directors learning about what not to do making a film, it can`t be worse in others words, even the presence of a oscar winner ( Mira Sorvino ) isn`t enough to justify the $ 3.00 dollars expended to see this film , the acting is horrendous and it seems the actors were just waiting to finish the daily shots to go home, it lead to nowhere and is boring, weak and bad, don`t expend time or money on this film. | 1 |
I didn't expect much from this film, but oh brother, what a stinker.<br /><br />I found this gem in a giant crate of awful $5 DVD's at Walmart (where else)? As cheap as this disc was, I feel ripped off. The special effects had a high school look to them, the camera work marred by wobbly tripods and sketchy lighting and the acting was a perfect example of the 'Christian School'. One can imagine the long and exhausting 'prayer meetings' by the production company after seeing the rushes come back - the people who bankrolled this thing must have had seriously anti-biblical feelings towards the inept production company that cranked this thing out. Think of their anguish as they saw their $914.86 investment go up in smoke.<br /><br />Someone asked why Christian movies are so bad - perhaps the Xian film-makers need to look at GOOD movies and attempt to copy some of the things that make them so good. Believable stories and characters, less hysterical arm-waving and fanaticism, oh, and a story that appeals to -everyone-, not just true believers. I.e. Stop The Sermon, Save It For Church. Take the Omen or Prophesy series, for example. Excellent films with compelling story lines, great cinematography and intense music. No hysterical arm-waving. No preaching.<br /><br />If this film had a laugh track it would have been MUCH better. | 1 |
Original Claymation Rudolph: Pretty good. Original Frosty cartoon: Needs a little work, but could be worse. But Frosty and Rudolph together on the Fourth of July? C'mon! Give me a BREAK!!! This was one movie that shouldn't have been made. It was bad. It didn't really go for any holiday in particular, except July 4. That made it especially bad since Frosty and Rudolph are usually associated with the Christmas season. And any movie can be ruined by too much singing. The frequent songs made this movie seem a lot longer than it really was. The movie tried mixing two familiar Chirstmastime characters with an American traditional holiday (which almost seems to 'limit' it to America), too many pointless songs, and a lousy plotline. The result? A bad movie that can't really be watched at any time of year. I would suggest you forgo this movie even if you like Frosty and Rudolph. | 1 |
As I mentioned in other comments, I became a real big fan of David Bradley ever since I saw him in 'American Ninja 3'. The guy is great doing martial arts, has some kind of charisma and is a cool looking dude on screen. Sadfully, he went to the DTV department ever since his debut and has remained as one of the king of TV movies until 2001 where he apparently stopped making movies. Now, one thing is watching Cyborg Cop or Hard Justice which are crappy clichéd movies but real fun to watch (coz they're entertainingly bad if that has any sort of meaning) but another thing is watching a tasteless piece of boredom like Total Reality. I mean, this and Crisis are the two biggest pieces of horse-dung this guy ever did. I wouldn't recommend this not even to the biggest Bradly hardcore fans. If I had known this and Crisis were going to be so f*****g crap, I wouldn't have spent the 3 or 4 euros they cost me. Total Reality is just as boring as Crisis although funnily, it starts promising. A group of military prisoners in the future are given a chance to stop some kind of disaster in the past (I'm sorry, I didn't really pay much attention to this atrociousness) and they only have 24 hours to get back or something like that. If they don't, they're stranded there forever. The poor director who oversaw this, 'tries' some humorous (?) clichés like the convicts arriving on Earth and not knowing what a truck is for example (wow, hilarious...). The movie follows up with David Bradley teaming up with some Earth girl for the rest of the flick. This bored me so much that I had to force myself to watch it in like 3 or 4 installments to at least make use of the 4 or 5 euros it cost me. That's coz every time I tried, I fell asleep. And if you get a movie with David Bradley with just one crappy 10-second fight scene in it, then that's the final touch which would contribute to you throwing it off a hundred foot cliff so as never to see it again. I wish I could meet the 'director' of this pile of poo on the street and I swear to God I'd ask him back for mi 5 euros. I'd also love to meet David Bradley to ask him why in God's name did he choose to star in this poor excuse for a movie. Don't even bother with this film, I mean it from the bottom of my heart, not renting borrowing it and specially not buying it. | 1 |
Edge Vs. Michaels-Boring in general (loved the sweet chin music into the chair) 4/10 Taker Vs. Heidenreich-One of the worst matches I've seen, predictable as hell 1/10 Tripe Threat WWE match-Why do I watch them, nobody ever wins a championship at the rumble, its not the main event. Liked it when Show drove JBL through the wall. 3/10 World Heavyweight Championship-Pretty OK match, kind of more a beat-down by Tripe H than a match, but I was happy to see it after watching crap. 5/10 Royal Rumble-Good Rumble,Liked the brand showdown,the Hassan thing, and the end. 7/10 Overall still crap. Why does anyone watch the rumble??? | 1 |
Maybe I'm a sap but this is the sweetest movies ever! I saw it for the first time when I was around 4 or 5, and I cried my eyes out. Between then and now (embarrassed at age 15) I have seen it over 25 times and have sobbed each and every one of them. Don't worry they're tears of happiness! And it's not all sap! There's a lot of humor and comedy in it too. Usually the whole talking animal thing can be a huge drag but in this movie it's not the case. My only word of advice: Even if you love this-Don't see the sequal...cornyness! I suggest everyone checks this out...you won't be sorry, no matter how old or young you are! | 0 |
Chan is in New York and he gets involved with an attempt to sabotage a new aircraft design.<br /><br />The war was over a year away from reaching America but the second world war was already raging everywhere else in the world and so it colored everything since most people probably realized that war was coming. Here the War isn't mentioned but the fact that the film deals with the production of planes at the very least alludes to it. The mystery itself is pretty good, it the notion of plane sabotage lends itself nicely to a couple of rather tense moments. To be certain we are talking about Charlie Chan so we can be certain that he would live to fight another day, but there was no guarantee what condition he would be in, not whether anyone around him would survive.<br /><br />I really like this film a great deal. Its not one of the nest, and far from the worst. It is one of the truly rare things, a truly enjoyable one. Definitely worth a look or six. | 0 |
HORRID!!<br /><br />The special effects make the TV version of 'Tremors' look real!<br /><br />No one in the cast can act.<br /><br />Kind of like the '62 'Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea' meets the cartoon ocean going electric eel cartoons. | 1 |
When I watched L'Appartement with my girlfriend, she sighed: 'How complicated!' And she is right, of course. When you are used to simple, one-linear plots, especially violent hero vs crook schemes, L'Appartement is hard to follow. A couple of the negative reviewers here also have missed one or more important points. Other whine about the confusing flash backs. Come on! This is not the kind of movie from which you can leave to visit the toilet, come back and get hooked again within a few seconds. This one demands full concentration and a keen eye on details. Then it is really not that hard to figure out what's happening and when. The director has left more than enough clues in all scenes.<br /><br />The first 3/4 of the movie centers about the question: why did Max and Lisa split? The film, as my girlfriend remarked, begins as a romantic lovestory, suggesting that two lost lovers will find each other again. Having experience with French movies, I predicted that the story pretty soon would get a sick twist and I was right. In the end of the first part it becomes clear, after many twists and turns, that Max and Lisa were manipulated by Alice. Max did not know, that Lisa had left and why. Lisa did not know, why Max did not contact her in Rome and left her without a trace, when she returned to Paris. The only one who did was Alice and she had her own reasons to keep her mouth shut.<br /><br />After both Max and Lisa have found out the truth, the question of course becomes: can Alice's manipulations be undone? Well, of course not, time has passed by and things have changed.<br /><br />Many European movies use a story telling technique I fully enjoy. There is no exposition of the basic conflict in the beginning, after which two (or more) interested parties try to decide in their own advantage. Instead the spectator is gradually fed with bits and pieces of the plot and hardly knows more than the main characters. L'Appartement is a fine and subtle example of this technique. In the first half Alice seems to be a side character; slowly it becomes clear, that she is key figure.<br /><br />Acting is simply great. Vincent Cassel is perfect as the somewhat naive and impulsive character, who risks a secured life just to hunt a dream from the past. Monica Belucci is very beautiful of course, but also competent. Jean Paul Ecoffey provides the necessary comical touch. Romane Bohringer is very convincing as the neurotic woman, plagued by feelings of guilt and regret.<br /><br />The only reason I did not gave it a 10 is the somewhat unsatisfying end. Of course it was necessary because of the desired symmetry. After all the events Max is exactly on the point where the movie begun, only wiser and sadder. Alice has paid for her sins. But still the little twists on the airport are a bit artificial. Max too easily exchanges Lisa for Alice; Alice too easily decides to reject Max, who has been her dream for so long; Max too easily returns to his fiancée. But then again, I don't know how how this could be achieved without sacrificing the elegant symmetry. I guess sometimes artists have to give up realism for beauty. | 0 |
- The Best Bit : When the dull mobster (Nicholas Turturro) calls out to the runaway (Matthew Modine) 'Shane !.. Come Back Shane !' and when the older wise guy asks him 'What Are You Doing ?!' he replays simply 'Enjoying My Time !' Actually like me at the moment ! <br /><br />- The Most Creepy Part : I've been wondering all the time of watching : where did I see that girl before ? where ? where ? Till I found out while the closing credits.. OHH MY GOD ! She's (Elizabeth Berkley) .. From the showgirls' fiasco ! But I just couldn't recognize her with her clothes on ! To tell you the truth I felt a brief tremor. She's really cute and nice but maybe Hollywood had no mercy at all ! <br /><br />- The Most Sexy Bit : When (Berkley) says 'Do You Mean The Stuff Which Gives You A Boner ?!'. <br /><br />- The Most Dull Thing : The retarded assistant after a day and a night in the back of the car is still alive and healthy at the end !!??, moreover the Mexican smuggler took 3 bullets (at the same car !) and he's not dead either !!?? <br /><br />- The Most Ugly Thing : All of those murdered people, as well as the numerous (F) ward to a boring extent ! <br /><br />- The Most Beautiful Thing : The crazy clever script with all the funny characters and the tumultuous situations, the acting looked sweet also especially from (Paul Rodriguez) who stole the show for (as he had the best dialogue Also !). <br /><br />- The Most Disappointing Thing : Although the direction didn't mess about the story's wittiness at all but in the same time it didn't give it a unique touch, a matchless signature, some kind of insane hilarity like the one in the story itself. However maybe the low production wronged it well ! And of course the easy tasteless music which could be like that because of cheap production too ! <br /><br />- The Most Confusing Part : (Matthew Modine) is a talented guy but what did he do exactly to be out of Hollywood's 'A' list of stars ?! What could possibly be the thing he made (or didn't make !) to end up in light independent jest like (The Shipment) ?!! <br /><br />- The Most Absent Scene : Where did (Jose) the Mexican smuggler go at last ?! I thought that we'll see him again at the end, smuggling once more as the surviving little criminal who, in a brief gimmick like this, could materialize the continuous disorder of such a world. <br /><br />- The Most Question I had After The End : When we'll see (The Shipment - 2) ? As I'm so eager to see that fine small comic hurly-burly atmosphere again ! <br /><br />These were my own answers. If you interested in giving answers of your own for this questionnaire, please E-Mail me. | 0 |
I bought this movie for a couple of dollars at a 'Clearance warehouse sale' one day when just looking around. The cover looked pretty good, (in colour), but the movie is B&W, (I wish they wouldn't try to trap us with coloured covers on B&W movies, but it's a common thing to look out for!).<br /><br />When I watched it I was pleasantly surprised. It turned out to be better than I expected. I was disappointed that it was a B&W, but the effects are pretty good, certainly better than, say, 'Invaders from Mars' which has crappy effects, and it is great to see John Banner in something else apart from Hogan's Heroes.<br /><br />Overall, this movie isn't too bad for a B grade, and certainly worth the two dollars from a nostalgia point of view. It isn't my favourite sci-fi, but it's not my worst either. It's o.k. | 1 |
To sat how awful The Shield is, you'd have to write pages and pages, so suffice it to say that it is a monument to bad directing.<br /><br />'When Directors Go Awry' should have been the title of this production. Indeed, directors are supposed to infuse their work with a sense of visual style and story-telling that propels the story forward.<br /><br />How is constantly shaking the camera and playing with the zoom lens a 'style'? How is it propelling the story forward? Of course there's also the 'editing by random numbers' nonsense. Apparently it's become hip to just cut randomly.<br /><br />I guess it's too much work to do good editing.<br /><br />Well, that made it too much work for most people to watch The Shield which languished as one of the most over-hyped and unwatched shows of all time. | 1 |
Beautiful and touching movie. Rich colors, great settings, good acting and one of the most charming movies I have seen in a while. I never saw such an interesting setting when I was in China. My wife liked it so much she asked me to log on and rate it so other would enjoy too. | 0 |
To borrow from Dorothy Parker: This is not a film to be tossed aside<br /><br />lightly. It should be thrown with great force.<br /><br />This is an excruciating mess. And I'm a Greenaway fan.<br /><br />MIND-NUMBINGLY AWFUL<br /><br />'The Mummy Returns' has much more artistic merit | 1 |
Let me begin by saying that there is no bigger fan of the original 'Lonesome Dove' than I. Both the Pulitzer Prize-winning book and the towering mini-series adapted from it stand alone in my experience as moving, dramatic, believable, and engrossing works. There is no comparison between 'Lonesome Dove' and any Western film- at least not since the legendary collaborations of John Ford and John Wayne. It was with real reservations that I sat down to watch this new mini-series, what with McMurtry's non-participation, and the missing original cast members. After watching the first episode it was clear that this is no 'Lonesome Dove'. In almost every measurable way this sequel falls short of the original. But so what? I wasn't expecting it to measure up. Taken as an effort of it's own this film is engaging, entertaining and of a very good quality. If it were done as a new story, not as a sequel to 'Lonesome Dove', there is no question in my mind that it would not have received as many negative ratings. Jon Voight did a creditable job as Call, Barbara Hershey was a terrific Clara, and the new characters like Gideon Walker and Agostina Vega were well rendered and believable. Louis Gossett jr. deserves special mention as the horse wrangler Isom Pickett. The film made me care about the characters, and I don't ask any more than that from an actor. it is unfortunate that this worthy effort stands in the shadow of it's predecessor- it is worth viewing in it's own right. | 0 |
I remember this movie from the 50s when I was in college. It is one of the funniest satires of American Westerns that I have ever seen. I'm only sorry that I have not been able to see it recently and that it is is not out on tape or DVD. It is a real treat. | 0 |
Well , I come from Bulgaria where it 's almost impossible to have a tornado but my imagination tells me to be 'very , very afraid'!!!This guy (Devon Sawa) has done a great job with this movie!I don't know exactly how old he was but he didn't act like a child (WELL DONE)!Now about the tornado-it wasn't very realistic but frightens you!If you want to have a nice time in front of the telly - this is the movie! | 0 |
I love the Satan Pit!!! David Tennant is such a great actor and so is Billie Piper!!! Who else loves Will Thorp to pieces??? He is so cute, isn't he? I hated the bits where he got possessed by the devil and where he got told to 'go to hell', as Rose so bluntly put it. Mind you, he was quite funny when he said, 'Rose, do us a favour, will you? Shut up!'. Mr Jefferson was so brave, wasn't he? Dying to save the others. I felt really sorry for Toby (Will Thorp) when he came out of the possession for the 2nd time because he was so scared. I was like 'Oh my god if I was Rose I'd be so scared for him'. And when she hugged him I was like 'grrrrrr, he's mine! hands off!' but I thought that was really sweet. And the doctor....well, I thought he was gonna say to Ida 'tell Rose I love her' but he didn't. Oh well. | 0 |
My first Mamin film, saw it on IFC long ago, and LOVED it. It seemed absolutely artistic, original, fun and hilarious. Not a moment in the film let me down or made me bored, and i was laughing a lot or had a smile on my face. I mean this movie is truly funny. But here's the catch: it's also very artistic and creative - if you don't know Yuri Mamin (probably, sadly, because so many of his GREAT films aren't available here) he has a very original style like no one else's, and for me this isn't even my favorite film of his (right now it's the insane ('Saideburns/Bakenbardy'). Also, i have to say as a Russian, this film is great because you really do see what Russians are like. And this is possible because this is a true Russian film to me, NOT a foreign film trying to be American or trying to appeal; Mamin did not sell out (nor has he since, Gorko (1998) was as good if not better. This is true Russian style filmaking that came out of communist Social realism.<br /><br />If you liked this film, i think you have a very high chance of loving Mamin's other films, in fact i like quite a few of them more than this one. I guess this one is his most accessible film. A similar film is Fountain, taking place 6 years before during perestroika, it has the same actor in the leading role, and more of Mamin's regulars who you will recognize from Window to Paris; this one has one supernatural twist in the end but is mostly a realistic comedy, a great one. Viva Mamin, hopefully Criterion will hook all of his movies up one day, he's still working, and his catalog is so great! See any of his films if you can. | 0 |
I have recently found this film on one of my husband's VHS tapes (the blank variety which he uses to record stuff from the telly). The film looks as if it was last shown in the eighties and I don't remember having seen it since. It has not (to my knowledge) been released on DVD or VHS although I shall browse around for a copy.<br /><br />The film tells the story of three young people: two girls, one on the edge of puberty and the other much younger, and a young boy who go to live with their mother's brother and his young, mute Irish wife. His wife also has two brothers who live with them. The children's uncle is an unpleasant control freak who forces his young wife to wear a silver collar whilst she watches a marionette show put on by him and her brothers in his toyshop.<br /><br />The eldest girl and one of the Irishmen (the younger) develop a love for each other whilst they live in the same house. The girl helps her aunt out in the shop whilst her brother helps his uncle to make things in the workshop.<br /><br />There are a lot of very disturbing elements to the film. There is the uncle's treatment of his wife as some kind of dumb (literally) possession (illustrated by the collar) whilst the Irish indulge dancing, drinking and somewhat forbidden love. Interestingly, though, I have seen far more explicit themes played out in other movies made in Hollywood today.<br /><br />Makes you wonder whether the British film industry and the BBC have some kind of hidden agenda going on.<br /><br />Still, despite it not being a children's movie, there are a lot of playful, magic moments in it and the one Irishman does some beautiful paintings. | 1 |
Sorry if I disappoint anyone about what I am about to say to this made for TV movie. But, I paid money for the movie and turned out this movie is disaster. The directing is really awfully bad. But, after I looked up its information here, I realized there might be reasons for the low quality of directing and producing. Maybe they don't have budget, but anyway, Ang Lee's Sense and Sensibility had little money too but it turned out a hit. The director in this movie did really bad job in telling the story and the movie couldn't even keep up a rational continuity in itself. It keeps pulling me outta scenes. Maybe someone need to work hard on story line/ board. The dubbed sound is also awfully bad. My god.... Normally, I would appreciate every movie because behind it lie ideas and imaginations of an individual. but, this time I am just mad , 'I really wanna hit something HARD.' ...Just don't do the job if someone can't fulfill it to its best. Bad arts (its' not even art, what is it? )really hurt people. | 1 |
'Perhaps we can arrange a meet. ' 'Where are you now? ' 'I'm sitting in my office. ' 'I doubt that. ' 'Why would you doubt that? ' 'If you were in your office right now we'd be having this conversation face-to-face. '<br /><br />Bourne remains street tough, and elusive. Only his inhuman resilience leads the film a little too far into fantasy. Conversation is macho, to the point with only shards of Bond type gallows humour. Its all about the action.<br /><br />The feeling that there is something going on at another level to the world we live in is what the trilogy coveys so well. A scene set in Waterloo with a Guardian journalist does this to great effect. There is no meeting of worlds - you are in it or just a superfluous body.<br /><br />If the shaky cam doesn't annoy you too much, enjoy this film and hope they somehow keep the franchise going. | 0 |
It's interesting to watch how late 1950's society is depicted in this film. Men are lecherous, chain-smoking boozers with one thing on their minds (time hasn't changed men all that much, but 'sexual harassment' has) & women are in the workplace only passing time until they find a husband & settle down. Some of the dialog is cringe-worthy but yet it's charming in an innocent, passé way. I love the opening credits that show a romantic, exciting view of Manhattan with Johnny Mathis singing 'The Best Of Everything' on the soundtrack. I want to jump right into some scenes, filmed on N.Y. streets, circa 1959 & experience a time I've only seen on film & in photographs. Some scenes in this movie reminded me of Melanie Griffith's 'Working Girl'. Especially when Hope Lange (who's a cross between Grace Kelly & Dolores Hart) gets bombed in handsome Stephen Boyd's apartment, he tucks her in & just watches her sleep (like Melanie, she wants to know if 'anything' happened between them the following day). Joan Crawford is definitely comparable to Sigourney Weaver's horrible female boss except she was outwardly nasty (with a soft core), but Sigourney's character was sweet on the outside & horrible on the inside. I found it distressing how the Suzy Parker character (Gregg) started out as an independent woman with career goals to be an actress, who supposedly didn't need a man to complete her, ended up. She becomes a stalker/lunatic/nut-job when she lets the man she falls in love with drive her bananas after he's done with her. I loved the character Mary Agnes, the office gossip, with her thick New Yawk accent. If you enjoy films like 'Valley Of The Dolls' you'll like this one too. | 0 |
This movie was a rather odd viewing experience. The movie is obviously based on a play. Now I'm sure that everything in this movie works out just fine in a play but for in a movie it just doesn't feel terribly interesting enough to watch. The movie is way too 'stagey' and they didn't even bothered to change some of the dialog to make it more fitting for a movie. Instead what is presented now is an almost literally re-filming of a stage-play, with over-the-top characters and staged dialog. Because of all this the storyline really doesn't work out and the movie becomes an almost complete bore- and obsolete viewing experience.<br /><br />It takes a while before you figure out that this is a comedy you're watching. At first you think its a drama you're watching, with quirky characters in it but as the movie progresses you'll notice that the movie is more a tragicomedy, that leans really more toward the comedy genre, rather than the drama genre.<br /><br />The characters and dialog are really the things that make this movie a quirky and over-the-top one that at times really become unwatchable. Sure, the actors are great; Peter O'Toole and Susannah York, amongst others but they don't really uplift the movie to a level of 'watchable enough'.<br /><br />The story feels totally disorientated. Basicaly the story is about nothing and just mainly focuses on the brother/sister characters played by Peter O'Toole and Susannah York. But what exactly is the story even about? The movie feels like a pointless and obsolete one that has very little to offer. Like I said before; I'm sure the story is good and interesting to watch on stage but as a movie it really isn't fitting and simply doesn't work out.<br /><br />The editing is simply dreadful and times and it becomes even laughable bad in certain sequences. <br /><br />More was to expect from director J. Lee Thompson, who has obviously done far better movies than this rather failed, stage-play translated to screen, project.<br /><br />Really not worth your time.<br /><br />4/10 | 1 |
This begins a series (which I'll hopefully keep up every week-end) of films that came out during my childhood in this case, it's one I've only managed to catch now. It was clearly intended as the last word on the subject, which basically had been debased to the level of hokum over the years; however, in its uncompromising striving for a serious-minded approach (a sure measure of which is that the protagonist is never once referred to by the name he's been known all this time the world over!), the film-makers rather lost track of the fact that the thing was intended primarily as entertainment! Consequently, we get a decidedly staid representation of events with more care given to meticulous period reconstruction than in providing a functional thematic environment for its mythic jungle hero! Even so, Christopher Lambert rose to stardom as did another debutante, Andie McDowell, playing his love interest (named Jane, of course) with the title role, which he handles creditably enough under the circumstances. However, Ralph Richardson (to whom the film is dedicated, this being his swan-song) steals every scene he's in as Tarzan's natural grandfather who, in spite of showing obvious affection for his long-lost kin, can't bring himself to forget tradition in an effort to understand his predicament; the hero, in fact, is much more comfortable interacting with primates (even contriving, after having gone back home, to save his adoptive 'dad' from captivity). The film is otherwise very good to look at (with cinematography by Stanley Kubrick regular John Alcott, no less), features an appropriately grandiose score as well as remarkable make-up effects (by Rick Baker) and, while essentially disappointing as a Tarzan outing, retains considerable value nonetheless as a prestige picture of its day. | 0 |
I really felt cheated after seeing this picture. It felt like I sat watching this movie 101 minutes for nothing. I don't understand what they were thinking when they made this. It hardly gets into Jeffrey Dahmer murdering and it has no ending. It felt almost like they were leaving this movie open for a sequel. It was like watching a television episode of the Sopranos. It ends suddenly, and you know there's going to be another episode next week. It also felt like I just watched part 1 to a two part movie. There are many possibilities for what went wrong here; they got lazy, they ran out of money, they didn't know the rest of the story, they wanted to make a Dahmer 2. After seeing this movie they all sound very accurate. I was watching Jeffrey Dahmer walking through the woods. All of a sudden I hear this music playing, then writing comes on the screen and says how Dahmer served 2 years of his sentence and was attacked by a fellow inmate and killed at the age of 34. Wow, he goes from a walk in the woods to his death in jail. How about showing how he got there. How about showing Dahmer's trial. How about showing some more detail. I can't even explain what happened in this movie because it jumped all over the place. I actually found myself saying in disbelief, 'That's it, that's the end?' I want to conclude this review by saying there is still a good Dahmer movie yet to be made. To the filmmakers I'd like to say, if you're going to do it, do it right. | 1 |
After the lead actress of the opera is killed in a car accident, her young understudy, Betty, is brought to the forefront. That's very lucky for her, with one problem: she has an admirer that has decided he will kill all her friends and make her watch. What is his connection to the opera, and what is his fascination with Betty? <br /><br />I love Dario Argento with every part of my body. And I'm not an orthodox fan, I think. Many people, particularly critics, praise his earlier work ('Suspiria' and 'Deep Red') but really frown on later films, such as 'Sleepless', which I liked. My favorite, 'Phenomena', is usually vastly underrated. 'Opera' tends to fall somewhere in between. Some consider it one of his last great films, others see it as part of his so-called decline. I loved it.<br /><br />The picture is crisp, the music is great (unlike other critics, I love the metal soundtrack), the female lead is someone I can feel for (not unlike Jennifer Connelly from 'Phenomena'). And the imagery... wonderful. Great cinematography, and some amazing kill scenes. The concept of taping needles to a person's eyes so they cannot blink... brilliant. My assistant Tina thinks this looked fake, but even if it does, the idea is more than enough to pay off. And some great effects, like a knife blade coming up inside a man's mouth? Awesome.<br /><br />Jim Harper calls the film 'stunning' and calls attention to the 'innovative cinematography, well-constructed shots and exceptionally violent murders.' I agree with this completely -- one shot follows the camera through winding tunnels, and there is a very interesting visual use of crows throughout the story. Mike Mayo likewise calls it 'visually fascinating eye-candy' and lauds the 'crisp editing and flowing camera-work'. It's really a wonder that this is not one of Argento's more highly-praised works.<br /><br />Argento returned to the opera with 'Phantom of the Opera', which was a bit of a failure despite the casting of his daughter Asia and Julian Sands. Even more interesting, this same year offered the release of Michele Soavi's 'Stagefright', which (like 'Opera') has a killer loose inside a theater killing off the people involved with the presentation. Both are great films, with Soavi's more on the slasher side. (Soavi actually served as second unit director on 'Opera'... you can make your own conclusions.) <br /><br />My only complaint with this film is the length and pacing. While it is very beautifully shot and the kill scenes are glorious, they are not as frequent as they should be. The first one takes over a half hour, and then we get down times between them. The lead actress should be in constant terror, but she is given time between kills to calm down as if everything is normal again. Not cool, Dario. We need to keep the suspense low and the intensity high. | 0 |
An original uncensored print of this amazing film was discovered in 2004 in the Library of Congress, and has been shown in a few specialized theaters around the world in 2005. According to current reviews that I've found online, the original has all of the nastiest dialog and innuendos intact; they were later either removed or completely re-shot by the studio prior to initial release, in order to pass the New York state censors. I have also read that a DVD is 'expected in 2006' and one can only hope! If we're really luckily, it will include comparisons between the 2 versions. Note that the released censored version was originally available on Laserdisc, which I have seen. Stanwyck rules! | 0 |
I have no idea what these people were thinking when they made this film. No plot, very limited action, and what is with the 3rd person commentary throughout the film???? Instead of running around the planet to shoot on all of these locations, they should have spent some money on script writing and actors. What acting there was, was lousy. This was 90 minutes of my life I will never be able to get back. I should bill the director for the cost of renting this film. To the director and the writers of this film....please quit now. This film should have a tag on the front of it saying beware of boredom. The only good thing I can say about this film, is the computer generation. It's OK as generation is. This movie should never have a sequel....ever. | 1 |
The idea of young girl, who gets pregnant at the age of 16 is nothing new to the drama genre. But it is pretty new if you take a look at the comedy genre. There is this basic plot of Lorelai and Rory, mother and daughter. Lorelai comes from a wealthy background, got pregnant with 16 and ran away from her parents' house at 17. But this series does not start there, it starts when Rory is 16 and everything is just about the problems of a single mother, who has terrible problems with her parents and about all those problems you have when you are 16.<br /><br />Okay, now again this sounds pretty normal, but there is this little thing called joke. The Gilmore Girls talk incredibly fast and they make like 60 jokes a minute. Even if you don't understand all of the jokes, since they contain hundreds of references to films, music, gossip, history, literature and politics. Sometimes you even get confused, but that really is the fun. And not only it is fast, it's smart and wonderfully sarcastic. In addition to that it is not only funny, it has great drama parts in it and you can take some lessons from it even home. Which is a thing that does not go for every single TV- Series.<br /><br />So watch it! It'll lighten your mood and help you through hard decisions! | 0 |
While I don't claim to be any sort of expert in marine life, I must say anyone with a modicum of intelligence could not possibly buy in to this notion of a whale (and not even the mother!) having a clue about revenge because it witnessed his dead mate having a forced abortion by humans! I mean, really! This is basically the whole plot. Richard Harris must have been extremely hard up for roles to have accepted this junk. This is the kind of movie that is so bad that if you paid 50 cents to see it, you would feel like demanding your money back. | 1 |
It is great to see a new batch of puppets creating havoc in this series. I found this chapter a lot of fun. In fact, it would probably be my second favorite in the series. This movie has very little violence and is only rated PG-13. This is notably different from the other R-rated puppet master movies which were loaded with gore and violent mayhem. The lack of violence does not diminish the fun though. This film also has notably better special effects than the last movie in this series. Good. | 0 |
Like most, I rented this after I heard the universal praise. And despite COUNTLESS bizarre, unexplainable moments along the way, I was very interested and entertained through 100 minutes of the film. Then the two women went to the 'performance' late at night. The rest of movie (which is another 40 minutes by the way) is even WEIRDER than the first part AND completely contradict and dump on what I had already seen. Then the movie abruptly ends.<br /><br />Baffled, I wandered over to my computer to see if I could buy a clue as to what just happened. Nothing made sense, and I'm a pretty clever guy. None of these other user comments made sense, even when they say 'SPOILERS.' I still have no idea what they're saying. Someone's dream? Not real? Then what's the point of a 2 hour 30 minute movie if it's 'not real?' Or is it real? I'm forced to make a choice. Either:<br /><br />[a] The movie is a work of genius on a MENSA level and I'm simply too stupid to understand it.<br /><br />[b] The movie is weird for weird's sake and just doesn't make sense. Everyone who loves it is trying to save face and pretend like they 'get' it.<br /><br />I choose [b]. Screw you guys, I'm going home... | 1 |
this movie is a very relaxed, romantic-comedy, which is thoroughly enjoyable. Meg Ryan does a very good job as the genius niece of Albert Einstein, though she does believe in her own skills. Tim Robbins does an equally good job as the mechanic who falls in love with her when she comes into his shop with her fiancé after her car stuffs up. I loved Walter Matthau as the one and only Albert Einstein. This movie just has a very relaxing feel to it, while still keeping some sort of seriousness to it (if that is actually possible, it happens here).<br /><br />I personally found this movie extremely entertaining, especially the old scientists - i thought they were fab and hilarious! This movie seems to have been underestimated beyond comprehension. If you have a cheeky sense of humour, this is the movie for you! | 0 |
This is a documentary about homeless women. It was interesting in the sense that this focused on women who are engaged socially - having jobs and lasting friendships - but are in situations where they can not afford housing.<br /><br />I found some of the women covered to be interesting, but there was little focus or progression in the story. The direction and editing failed to maintain my attention. There were differences in the stories of these women, of course, but the message was essentially the same and could have been told by focusing on any one of them in more depth.<br /><br />I made it to the end of the movie, but it was a rather boring journey. | 1 |
I first heard of this film when Patton Oswalt talked about it on his 'Werewolves and Lollipops' CD. He said it was a lost classic that is completely ridiculous. Being a lover of terrible cinema, I knew I was in for a treat.<br /><br />This film is, hands down, one of the weirdest I've ever seen. Certainly one of the weirdest shlock films. Basically, a demon took human form years ago for a woman, the woman died or something, the demon cried blood, the blood fell on the bed, the bed is now possessed and it now eats. Along with fruit, flowers and chicken, it also has a taste for people. The people can range between horny teens, mayors, gangsters, servants or professional orgy throwers. There's also a sick guy who the bed ate but put his soul behind a picture in the room.<br /><br />Most movies let you figure out the plot through exciting action. Death Bed takes another path: it basically tells you through narration exactly what's happening while slow, dull murder scenes take place. Also, I must say everyone who's eaten by the bed are surprisingly quiet. I would think if a bed is eating you through the ways of a 5th grade science fair experiment, it would sting a little. I guess nerve endings weren't invented until 1981 or so.<br /><br />The story is wacky, the direction is slow and pretty awful, the sets are sparse, the acting it fairly painful and the brother is one of the unintentionally ugliest actors I've ever seen. Probably would make a great party film if alcohol and smart-asses are involved. Certainly one you shouldn't miss. | 1 |
My husband brought this home from the video store, so I could watch something while stuck home sick. The sort of sick where you could never concentrate on a book, but a sorta silly, light, romantic flick sounds just right (that, and a bowl of chicken soup). Well, he meant well.<br /><br />My first thought (as some others post here also) was that the house MUST be fake...it's not only isolated alone on the beach, but set on moorings into the loose sand, and so close to the ocean that the surf waves go directly under the house! This looks so obviously dangerous (in hurricane country, in THE FALL), so potentially disastrous that I was sure filmmakers had simply CGI'd the whole thing (or used movie magic to plunk a cute B&B into the surf).<br /><br />But I have to tell you guys, thanks to 'teh interwebs', I can say that the house, 'Serendipity' is very real, is indeed near Rodanthe and except for some window dressing and shrubs, appears mostly as it does in the film. You can rent it yourself, off season, for $1710 a week (or about $3850 in summer)! Go for it! But...interestingly, the house has severe problems. The second thing that struck me after 'would be washed away' was 'what about the plumbing/electrical? in that surf?', and sure enough, 'Serendipity' was condemned for a break in the sanitation, caused by overwash from the ocean. (They are rebuilding.)<br /><br />And the house isn't from the 'Civil War'. Not to mention that Viola Davis, playing 'cliché black best friend' (thankless role for a fine actress, last seen in 'Doubt'), is not remotely old enough that her GRANDMOTHER could have built anything in the Civil War! HELLO! that was 150 years ago! Try great-great-GREAT! (In reality, 'Serendipity' was built in 1988, laughably recently.) <br /><br />The basic film is built on a typical Nicholas Sparks weeper, which means a lot of coincidence and trite predictable happenstance. It is also aimed in a very pandering way towards 'women' -- you know, us women who love B&Bs, fusty antiques and knick-knacks...who dream of romance and guys who look like Richard Gere and dancing in the moonlight. Don't give us plot, or thoughtful character development; just set up some mechanisms and bring on the love scenes!<br /><br />Gere plays a plastic surgeon, who lost a female patient during a routine surgery for a benign cyst on her cheek. Of course, she died of an overdose of ANESTHESIA, so you wonder right away why the surgeon is guilted up and not the anesthesiologist! HELLO! where is that guy? Why is the wrong doctor feeling guilty?<br /><br />Gere has come to pout and confront the woman's husband, and is staying at the remote B&B...who should be there, why the ONLY OTHER PERSON IN THE INN...Diane Lane! She's a lonely divorcée, with rotten kids, and an ex-hubby who wants her back. While she's trying to decide about that, the cliché best black friend has her subbing as hostess at the B&B.<br /><br />Now, in the real world, if this set up ever even happened, the doctor would look like Ernest Borgnine...and the lonely divorcée, like Rosie O'Donnell. He'd spend his vacation horndogging 22 year old girls on the beach, while she sulked and thought about going on a diet. But this isn't the real world; I digress.<br /><br />The couple confess all, fall in love, a hurricane hits...they make love, fall in love, he has to go away, he dies and she cries a lot about that. The end.<br /><br />There, I've saved you from it; now you don't have to torture yourself or any male acquaintances (husbands, sons, boyfriends) from sitting through this tripe. Very wearying.<br /><br />Someone else asked why Diane Lane, a perfect tiny woman (whom filmmakers seem to love to cast, because she's just pretty and thin enough that most women would like to look like her, but she's 45ish and not over-the-top, so she isn't threatening) is constantly covered in big tarp-like shawls. This would make sense if she was chubby, but she isn't.<br /><br />Anyways, someone throw a pretty, paisley shawl over this film. So we don't have to watch it. Conclusion: read a book, unless you are too sick. If too sick, go to sleep. | 1 |
I would have given this LESS than a 1 rating if it were possible. The entire film should have been left on the cutting-room floor. What a pathetic waste of time, money and effort! Let's see...assemble the prettiest cast you can find (which of course is in direct proportion to the amount of talent they lack)...throw together the thinnest plot you can dig up...and viola! An abominable piece of trash that the director and/or producer should be ashamed to put their name on. How much WORSE can the horror genre get? And don't use 'low budget' as an excuse...I have seen many GREAT low-budget films....in fact some of the best horror classics of all time were low-budget. If you don't have the talent and ingenuity to make a GOOD horror film, then for God's sake don't make one at all!!! | 1 |
I'm sorry to say that, but this is actually one of the worst documentaries i have EVER seen.<br /><br />Due to its name 'Darwin's Nightmare' i expected a documentary on problems relating to the Nile perch in Lake Victoria.<br /><br />What I actually saw in this 'documentary' is a loose accumulation of individual stories, most of which have no relation to neither fish nor lake. And for a large part you can hardly call them stories - it's more like some accumulated scenes that lack a meaningful connection...<br /><br />Why does this movie waste time on: - Showing us non-relevant information on the families of the Russian pilots (several minutes are wasted for example on their private digicam snapshots of wives and daughters) - Mourning the death of an African child who got bitten by a crocodile (as if that could not have happened without the Nile perch) - Showing us about 100 times how planes land and start at the airport - Showing us strange religious events for several minutes - Discussing in detail the life and death of a whore at the airport - Talking to kids about their mothers, fathers - what they work and/or how they died (well, guess what: some died of HIV - who would have guessed that?) Those are just some examples, i could go on for several pages...<br /><br />This movie is absolutely unfocused, and does not know at all what it wants to tell the viewer. If you have never heard of Africa and have no idea that this continent has Social/Health/HIV/Violence/War problems then this movie might be right for you. If you haven't had your eyes closed for the last decades 90% of what this movie shows won't be new to you - and the way it's presented here will try its best to make you fall asleep.<br /><br />Perhaps my expectations on this movie were to high, but i really didn't like it even though this is a topic that I would generally find interesting. If this movie wants to show how the poverty is related to the Nile perch, than it perhaps should have spent some time on discussing that matter... | 1 |
The acrobatics mixed with haunting music, make one spectacular show. The costumes are vibrant and the performances will just boggle your mind! Simply amazing! | 0 |
Had this movie been made just a few years later, I would have knocked down the score a point or two because the sound quality was rather poor. At times, the movie appeared to be a silent film during the in-between-scenes (normal ambient sounds are missing). But, given it was 1931 and a French movie, this is quite forgivable. Especially since this also occurs in later French films--by which time the sound difficulties should have been worked out completely (such as in L'Atalante from 1934).<br /><br />Okay, apart from some minor sound problems, this is a cute little film about a missing winning lottery ticket and a long list of people trying to get it. And, during the search there are lots of jaunty little songs that you can't help but like. A nice charming film all-in-all. | 0 |
Slaughter High is intrinsically your emblematic 80s slasher flick. A prank goes out of hand leaving a geeky guy horribly burnt. A few years later the geeky guy returns and starts killing the people who hurt him. Now the story might sound intriguing and very entertaining, but what makes this horrible film so different from the rest of the 80s slasher flicks is that it has some humorless flaws and continuation errors.<br /><br />The acting is horrendous, however, actually not as bad as one would suspect. Though it doesn't help that every character in the film are so grody and unlikable. The lead, Carol Manning (Caroline Munro) is the easily the biggest tormentor of them all and she's the one that we are ostensibly supposed to share compassion and root for. Not to mention, the geeky guy is almost too geeky and I think that even stereotypical geeks themselves would be rudely maddened and just downright antagonized by how geeky he his, so when he gets mauled, does anyone really care? <br /><br />There is much unintentional laughter potential. Munro's lack of acting talent is quite apparent, which puts her down at the same level as the rest of the awful cast. However, the most amusement is easily when the film poorly attempts to pose Munro, who is in her mid 30s at the time, as a teenager amongst a cast of teenagers. And then when it comes to later life and Munro is playing around her real age, the rest of the cast do not pass as adults. This all goes well with a theme song that is a hilariously pose of heavy metal thrash accompanied by maniacal laughter and a voice shrieking 'I'll get you.' With that being said, Slaughter High really isn't a very good slasher flick, but it does have a bad cheesy entertainment value to it. Perhaps an essential for hardcore slasher fans, but don't expect dilemma, suspense, or any credibility from it. Horrible!!! | 1 |
The film is visually stunning: from the dusty interior of the church with the lighted stove, through the drizzly street and the run-down garage to the blaze that is the climax of the film. It also has a wonderful sense of time, both 1950's (the film's opening) and 1960's. All of the performances are top-class, especially Mathew MacFadyen as the psychotic preacher and Gerard McSorley as the father who finds his own intolerance terrifyingly magnified by his son. What a pity, then, that the story is so ridiculous. For a start, in concentrating on the relationship between Gabriel (McFadyen) and his family, it utterly fails to show how he has managed to hold so much influence on the community. In the church, we see five or six of the main characters at the front, and another two or three at the back, but the rest of the congregation might as well be mannequins: they show no sign of hearing him, heeding him or dissenting from him; at the cockfight, nobody says yea or nay when he disrupts the proceedings, but neither does anybody applaud or condemn when Caroline throws a pint over him; a situation that results in a stone thrown through the pub window is mysteriously resolved by the onset of labour pains. Secondly, Middletown (which isn't actually a town, but a tiny village) seems to lack some essential services, such as police and fire service: murder can only be dealt with by a family member with a crowbar; residents watch an inferno that threatens to engulf the whole town as though they were at the cinema. For that matter, everyday things such as telephones and newspapers are conspicuously absent, the rural community is strangely devoid of farm animals or wheat-fields, and most puzzling of all for a 'typical' North of Ireland setting, there is only one Christian community - not even a couple of Anglicans to season the mix. Even if you're willing to suspend disbelief, the story itself is pretty threadbare, a pale imitation of an A.J. Cronin melodrama. And the music? Well, it's beautiful for the first two minutes, but when the same four chords are repeated non-stop for 90 minutes it gets more than a little irritating. My advice: watch this with the sound off. | 1 |
A long time ago, I watched this movie from the middle on cable. I then had a crush on Mary Moronov. I saw her again in Eating Raoul. I was convinced that she's the hottest woman on screen.<br /><br />I maybe biased about this movie. 9 out of 10.<br /><br />This's the only movie I own on original tape. | 0 |
This film is terrible. Not only is the story unbelievable, the situations the characters put themselves in are so silly, to the point where it isn't shocking. I find it sad that Daisy Eagan, star of Broadway's The Secret Garden, decided that this would be a career step. The idea is interesting, two young girls coming of age very quickly. But the sex isn't even arousing. The film is silly, the story is silly, the performances are silly, and the whole concept while interesting falls flat. I'm sure all 14 year old girls make out with guys after they've had their first period and tried to flush their panties down the toilet. Better Luck next time guys. My Scale * T-Scale * | 1 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.