review
stringlengths 41
13.7k
| label
int64 0
1
|
|---|---|
When I saw the previews for this movie, I didn't expect much to begin with - around a second rate teen horror movie. But wow, this movie was absolutely awful. And that's being generous.<br /><br />First of all, the casting for the movie was terrible. You feel no sympathy (or for that matter any morbid feeling) for the characters. The acting was so terrible that I was just simply waiting and hoping for the God-awful thing to end.<br /><br />Secondly, there are points in the movie that had absolutely no relation to the plot whatsoever. Can somebody please explain to me why the girlish-looking boy starts screaming 'PANCAKES!!!' at the top of his lungs while going into Jackie Chan moves I've never seen before, and even further biting the guy who has the virus? Why does the father of the kid proceed to get angry with the virus-infected guy, and go on a redneck hunting spree to find him? I was left with a feeling of such confusion and utter disbelief that I literally said out loud, 'Where the hell did that come from?'<br /><br />I just simply couldn't believe what I had seen. I really thought I had seen some bad movies, but I have to say that Cabin Fever tops them all. This movie made me want to puke and then puke again. Then blow my brains out.<br /><br />Please, save yourself an hour and a half and do something more productive. Watching grass grow, perhaps, is a proper alternative. | 1 |
Very few movies have had the impact on American culture the way Urban Cowboy has. Thank god it was temporary. But UC is almost in a class by itself as one of those flicks that when you're flipping channels at 3:00AM you just can't take your eyes off....my top three are Animal House and Walking Tall BTW but that's beside the point. I remember Urban Cowboy hit the theaters and overnite there were honkytonks being opened on every corner, men were sporting cowboy hats with their penny loafers, and if you didnt know how to two-step you were considered a social moron! Personally I think it's a great movie. Travolta really surprised me on the heels of SatNiteFever. Who'd a thunk. He's actually believable too. The soundtrack is awesome. Too bad Charlene Tilton, of TV's Dallas fame ruined Johnny Lee's career cause that guy was just terrific. The show stealer here is Scott Glenn as the greaser ex-con redneck cowboy. And I ain't got nothing against greaser ex-con cowboys semi-being one myself, but I've always envied what I feel to be the greatest power line of all time....'Pack-at S*#t!' Sort of like Clint's 'make my day.' And watching him slap Sissy around is the closest thing I'll see to my Julia Roberts fantasy so..... Like I said, beautiful. 9/10 | 0 |
Mixing small town sheriffs, high-school students, fake rock music, and some weirdo who kills for, well, no reason in particular, this film is essentially a re-make of 'The Giant Gila Monster' - except without the gila monster, of course.<br /><br />Now, anyone who has actually seen 'Giant Gila Monster', knows that it is one of the worst made films of all time, frequently so slow, it's not even funny. And I can't believe that by 1967, 'Giant Gila Monster' had earned such a reputation that young directors were just dying to get to work on a sequel, let alone a remake. So will someone please explain to me why this film was made?! The dance sequence, by the way, is historically interesting, although about three years out of date; but even that's spoiled, since it goes on... and on... and... on.... | 1 |
Sometimes, things should just not be made. And while the set-up seemed good enough, it proceeds to only make the audience gasp in horror. But the problem is, its not another Saw film. Its just so bad you wish you were receiving punishment from Jason Voorhees.<br /><br />I lost track of how many sports movies and spoofs it incorporated into the film. And generally, it flopped in its attempts. True, telling his team they should fail every subject to be true players was somewhat funny at first, but that grew tiring to watch. That and the joke about 'Radio' and 'IPod'.<br /><br />Overall, I can't stand to watch this film again. Even Trantasia is worth more than this. 'D-' | 1 |
First of all this movie is not a comedy; unless you really force yourself you can hardly laugh. Secondly, the movie is slow and boring. The acting is not bad but not special. There is a Lucky Luke comic about two families (one with big noses and one with big ears) fighting each other in a small town... you will laugh much more if you read this instead of wasting your time with this movie. Religions and dogmas are not the best source to make a good comedy and this movie does nothing more than confirm this rule. There is a similar subject comedy '' The home teachers'' ; this had some good moments. My final comment is: do not waste your time and money to watch this uninspired and boring film. | 1 |
OK, about 11 years ago the awesome, funny movie, 'The Mask', came out and everyone loved it and now, 11 years later the mask is brought back in this awesome movie right? WRONG!!!!!!!!!! this movie was the stupidest movie that i have probably ever seen!! i mean when i rented it i thought that i would be laughing so hard that i would almost pee my pants like from the first one. but after i saw this 'sequal' i barley even let out a chuckle. i mean no offense to the director or the cast of this movie, but what a waste of time and money. so, the plot of the whole story was about this little baby that has part of the mask in him and this evil person is after him for some thing, because that is all i really got, i would have least added some more things to it so it would be higher than a 2 out of 10 stars. | 1 |
This is one of those made-for-TV B movies that is so awful it kind of endears.<br /><br />Bad acting, predictable script and cheesy special effects that were pretty much some of the cheapest tat seen make you have to keep watching to see if it gets any better.<br /><br />It doesn't! | 1 |
This movie is pretty awful but I have some interesting information about it:<br /><br />It was filmed in 1976 at Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff, AZ, as well as at Oak Creek Canyon near Sedona, AZ. A good bulk of the extras in the film are then-drama students from NAU. I was a freshman there that year, minoring in theatre, but for some reason I didn't get involved with the production. I did however know several people who did and can supply this rather odd fact:<br /><br />There is a scene in this movie where two of the principals, as part of their hazing ritual, have to run naked into the woods. They are seen from behind in the movie, doing just that. The thing is, those aren't the actors at all but two guys I knew from the theatre department. The identity of these 'stunt posteriors' will remain anonymous, at least to this website, unless they decide to, um, 'reveal' themselves! | 1 |
Awesome Movie! Great combination of talents! I'm a HUGE fan of David Duchovny and he is outstanding in this movie! I would love to see him in more movies of this nature. His talents are definitely under-used and has SO much more to offer besides 'Agent Mulder' (although I'm a huge fan of that series too), Anyway, I want to see more of him. He is easily the Cary Grant of our generation. If you haven't seen this movie, you MUST! Great love story that shows love never dies... it's with you forever. Minnie Driver is great and how can you go wrong with a cast containing Mr. O'Connor and Mr. Loggia and Mr. Belushi? This movie didn't get any type of awards nod, but deserved one. Great job Bonnie Hunt! ** By the way... the soundtrack is great too! ** | 0 |
Another in the they don't make em like that category. This story of a family with some real skeletons in its closet still qualifies as good clean, sometimes over-the-top fun. Robert Stack and Dorothy Malone are at their peak as the troubled Hadley siblings, and they really took the roles and ran with them. Malone won an Oscar and Stack was nominated in the supporting categories, both honors being eminently well-deserved. They counterbalance the somewhat bland leads. Neither Bacall nor Hudson could ever be called bad actors, but they've both had better parts and played them far more convincingly than they do here. It's kind of hard for me to accept Rock Hudson playing such a red-blooded heterosexual as he does here, but that's more of a personal bias than anything else. But that doesn't take away from the movie's overall entertainment value, which is considerable and this movie is extremely watchable. If you're up some night and this movie comes on I'd say watch it. It's well worth it. | 0 |
at first I had the reaction a lot of people left with after seeing this: that shots of fat people sunbathing, etc were cheap shots in a way. OK so he's doing diane arbus meets. . . whatever. . . but it wasn't long before I realized that this wasn't being done in a dehumanizing way, as the images unfold I felt that the problem was entirely the audience's: we are conditioned by Hollywood and also movies from just about everywhere actually to feel that to watch people above a certain age behave in a sexual way is something unseemly, something that ought not to be shown. if this were all the film offered it would be a great deal. however, the story of the woman with the abusive boyfriend and his drunk friend really hits like a ton of bricks: very eloquent storytelling, incredible performances, and to think the scene was improvised. that blonde guy is a genius actor. finally I want to contradict those who say this film is all about how pathetic all these people are. the old man who is on the make with the woman who finally dances for him is completely an a OK character that breaks that mold, so don't oversimplify the film by overlooking him. yes his dog gets killed. this ain't a rosy picture of the world but it's not . . . completely hopeless. anyway I felt really grateful to the filmmaker for making such a beautiful film all in all. I wouldn't say each of the threads were as strong as the strongest, but I say this movie basically kicks ass and would highly recommend it. . . | 0 |
This is one of the best movies I have seen in years. I took me to a new time and place. It was as though I was right there with Ray through his many trials and triumphs. Jamie Foxx transformed himself into Ray. During the movie he was Ray. Also, Kerry Washington, Sharon Robinson and Regina King were superb. The movie was well cast and directed, the music was fantastic.<br /><br />I've seen the movie four (4) times with different people and the last time was just as enjoyable as the first time. I will buy the DVD as soon as it is released. This is a movie that will viewed over and over for years to come.<br /><br />Thank you for a great experience. | 0 |
I was lucky to see this sequel before the original because i'm not sure i would have gone out of my way to see it if the contrary had been true. I found 'Mission Cléopâtre' better than it's predecessor for different reasons, but the major one is this : it was almost word for word an adaptation of one book not an amalgam like the first movie. The physical resemblance of some characters to their animated self were very funny especially the bad guy (who's name is escaping me, but he's the other architect). I don't know how this movie played in English; my first language is french so i didn't have that problem... I imagine some of the jokes weren't that easy to translate. I've learned something with years it's better to watch a movie with the subtitles than with the dubbing maybe you wont understand what is said, but you wont lose the rhythm and i think that's important too. I would recommend this movie to anyone who really loves 'Astérix et Obélix'. | 0 |
Wow, this movie was absolutely brilliant. I really don't know why everyone says it has a slow pace. I thought the pace was perfect. The movie is about Michael Sullivan played by Tom Hanks with perfection who is a sort of hit-man/ killer working for John Rooney (Paul Newman). He disslikes this job but does it because Rooney payed for his house and helps him financially. He had nothing and Mr. Rooney gave him everything. But, his children are unaware that this is his job, and when one witnesses a cold blooded murder by him, he is placed in an awkward position. And when an atrocity occurs, he leaves with his son and is bent on revenge. They rob abanks and much more and build a bond. They're the perfect team. Hanks does a great job as always as well as Jude Law who plays his creepy role to perfection. This drama is highly recommended as it shows a beautiful story and greatly shows how the 1930s were. | 0 |
I thought the movie was pretty good. I really enjoyed myself as I viewed it. However, the last scene at Johnny's birthday party was cut way too short. I, myself, was an extra in that scene and was upset with the results. But other than that, (and the weird casting), the movie was superb. | 0 |
Can you say 'All shock, no plot?' There were so many unexplored directions in this movie. There was no history about the room other than the deaths. *WHY* was it evil? What made it that way? Why an 'hour' countdown? Then, there were the unexplored things hinted at; for example we *saw* a camera in the air vent, which he mentioned. But when he climbed up said vent, there was no camera.<br /><br />How about the fact that all the ghosts looked 'Digital', and things 'winked out' before hitting the ground making a static noise? Hmmm... when you put all of *those* things together, it makes room 1408 look like a high-tech spook house. Except that there was no follow up on that.<br /><br />Oh... by the way... electronics don't work in 1408. Well, except for the TV... the cell phone has no signal, but Wireless Internet works fine. How many incontinuities can you possibly add? I'm sorry, but this film was nothing but 'shock after shock'. It's all been done before. Reflections in the mirror. Things just out of site. Changing paintings. Bleeding walls. The 'Oh, it was all just a dream... no it wasn't.' And, if the room was 'evil', why make our main character come to terms with his daughter's death, if it was going to keep him trapped there forever anyway? It just didn't make sense.<br /><br />Additionally, there was no background information about 'The first book' that he wrote. Just some vague information about the 'dad was a jerk' and so forth. Speaking of dads, what was with the bit about his father? 'You'll be in my place'.<br /><br />Overall, a truly HORRIBLE movie. It was 100% adrenalin shock factor, without any new or innovative effects, and certainly no back story, character development, etc.<br /><br />My overall impression is that the entire movie was made on the 'Cheap'; pretty much using one set and a couple of location shots, and was nothing but an effects film of recycled, cheesy, 'seen-that-before' effects. | 1 |
After seeing this film, I did not want my money back. I wanted my TIME back. I wanted that hour and a half back in my life - it was the most amazing, hideous torture to know that I had squandered precious minutes of my life on this dreck. I am scarred for life, and ever since this 'film' entered my life I have had trouble sleeping. I am trying to suppress the memories, really I am. . . but they make me want to burn things.<br /><br /> | 1 |
After watching KHAKEE i felt i'll get to watch another good film but sadly The film is a joke and actually trying hard to introduce Aryeman Afterall his father Keshu is the producer<br /><br />RKS spoke so highly about the film during promotions, saying the film has meat unlike films released that time, I wonder which films was he talking about<br /><br />The film is actually a typical Masala film with loads of comedy, romance, action everything jumbled<br /><br />The ease at which the kids kidnap the family, is one of the funniest parts ever, Imagine kids kidnapping Dawood's family<br /><br />The end is a complete jumble mumble with sudden change of characterization<br /><br />RKS gives his weakest film till date, except some Bachchan scenes the film is a bore<br /><br />Music is boring<br /><br />Amitabh tries to give the role his all, he does his part well, though not his best though he contorts his face too much when pulling a trigger and does a weird look while smoking the cigar His dubbing too isn't matched properly at times<br /><br />Akshay is there for some minutes and just repeats his act and hams<br /><br />Aryeman seems expressionless, tries too hard but overdoes it in some scenes<br /><br />Bhumika emerges the best of the lot<br /><br />The rest are okay | 1 |
i strongly recommend it to anybody who likes good plots, good actors (even if not well known)(often, it's just better that way), science and/or science fiction presented in an intelligent way on the (small) screen, good special effects even if they did not have billions of dollars to produce it... <br /><br />much better than any war in the stars...<br /><br />there was only one comment which was not necessary: talking about the comet, the commentator says that LIFE was maybe brought on earth through a comet... that's fun, there must be always a chance for a magic way, huh?! That's what's great about LIFE, can come anywhere, no need of extern force | 0 |
This is a typical 'perfect crime' thriller. A perfect crime is executed and the investigating police officer, ignoring all the clues, immediately knows who guilty is. The audience has to wait around the whole movie for the guilty to be caught. The result is like every single episode of 'Columbo' or 'murder she wrote'. The director himself refers to the hackney story by showing the police officer watching an episode of Matlock! This story barely fills up 90 minutes but the director insists on using all 120 minutes filling with every cliche in the book. Skip this one, you are not missing anything. | 1 |
This movie just screened on Channel Seven - Australian TV - today.<br /><br />In my opinion, it was a very interesting take on how the Nazi's treated the Russian Jews as mercilessly as everywhere else.<br /><br />Kellie Martin did a really great job, and her tears and frustration as 'Frusia' were quite convincing.<br /><br />The Holocaust is a part of our history that WE MUST NOT FORGET. Schindlers List wasn't the first - and it wont be the last - account of survival and courage in that five year nightmare. My family is Dutch, and I will always applaud any movie makers who want to keep the candlelight alive by telling of someone's courage to stand up and help those who were being abused, violated and murdered for being 'A Jew.' | 0 |
When I went to see Bon Voyage, I expected a good, skillful multidrama on the order of Grand Hotel (1932) and Les Enfants de Paradis (1944). It was better than that. With few exceptions, none of the characters were totally good or totally evil--just as in real life. The acting was wonderful, especially those who played Frédéric, Raoul, and Camille. The photography was amazing, as it recreated the period perfectly and managed to be shot in/around Bordeaux during a time of new public works but managed the 'look' of June 1940. Costumes and make-up were accurate. There is so much in this movie that it's worth a second viewing. It's exciting, funny, and, ultimately, touching. N.B.--Be sure to see it in a theatre with good quality projection. It's in wide-screen, and in the theater where I saw it (the Clairmont in Montclair) the first 30 minutes had the subtitles at the bottom in focus but the actors' faces slightly fuzzy! This was ultimately corrected but detracted from the pleasure of the film. | 0 |
I don't usually write a comment when there are so many others but this time I feel I have to. I have spoken of taste in another review, saying it's all in the eye of the beholder but when it comes to this film, if you like it, it simply means you have bad taste.<br /><br />I love films. I loved 'Isle of the Dead' which is pretty much an unknown B&W film. I even liked 'Scream' and 'Scary Movie' I liked these films because they have, if not a lot, at least something good about them. I appreciate 99.9% of the films I've seen because they tell a story which I haven't heard before, and most directors only make films with a good storyline. Throughout this film I was thinking 'Where is this going?' (even near the end) 'Where did they get these awful actors from'? 'Was that supposed to be a joke?' and suchlike. With the obvious twist looming I was sceptical, but hoped it would perhaps 'make' the film and prove I hadn't wasted my time. I was sadly mistaken. The storyline was bad to begin with and the twist actually ruined any glimmer of hope there was. Here's a rundown: Storyline much like the first film, which was alright, this one is slow and sparse with no audience relation to the characters or the situations. The situations are cringeworthy and shallow and completely boring and predictable. The twist was terrible, it didn't make me feel a thing, like excitement or WOW. Just 'My GOD.' There was nothing in the bulk of the film that you could look back to and think 'Oooo wasn't that clever' because it wasn't. In 'Fight Club' there are flashbacks at the end showing bits where Tyler's true identity was cryptically shown, and when you watched it again you saw more, it really was a work of genius, how it was written, laid out and directed. This was a meaningless attempt at an awesome twist. I think it was 'wild things' that had like a pretty poor double twist and I still liked the film because the rest was OK and it wasn't trying too hard to be a big twist. Its like the CI2 writer thought it was gonna be the best twist ever. But really, its just a bad story with a bad twist dumped on the end. The film ended almost immediately afterward, with the whole film void by Sebastian's whole story build up meaning nothing and a horrible half forced, paedophilic ending with a particularly young and innocent acting girl. Acting the actors in this film are appalling. Almost as bad a 'Sunset Beach.' - Extremely corny and badly performed. It's not even so bad it's good like 'Hunk'. The worst acting I thought came from Amy Adams who played Kathryn, it was a rigid, pathetic and badly thought out performance by her. Robin Dunne was also poor. I haven't seen 'American Psycho II' yet, but no doubt his laid back 'cool' style has ruined that film also.<br /><br />I can't even say it is a good film for teens, as its not. If my son or daughter liked this film I'd be ashamed. But they wouldn't anyway, as they would take into consideration all the things that make a good film, which this film has none of. Really. I'm disappointed that some have said 'you might not be in the age bracket for this film, and so dislike it' I like all the films now that I liked as a teen and had very good taste. Also, do you really think that when you reach 20+ you suddenly don't like any teenish story lines? No. I liked 'Mean Girls' and other generic teen films, and watch 'Beverly Hills 90210' all the time. There's no excuse for poor directing, acting and screenplay I'm afraid. Besides, I was 16/17 when I first watched it. If anything, being older just makes you a better judge of a terrible film. I can't believe anyone can give it 10/10 either, one of my favourite films is 'Memento' and I gave it 9 as I know there can be better. It is a shame for this site that people do that, give 10s flippantly, or don't get the films/show, and so give it 2.<br /><br />Anyone who liked this film really should vary their taste, and perhaps their lives, and with this realise that this is the worst film EVER made. (worse than 'Loch Ness')<br /><br />If you aren't a teenager with bad taste, or simply don't have bad taste you will absolutely hate this film. | 1 |
Title: Zombie 3 (1988) <br /><br />Directors: Mostly Lucio Fulci, but also Claudio Fragasso and Bruno Mattei <br /><br />Cast: Ottaviano DellAcqua, Massimo Vani, Beatrice Ring, Deran Serafin <br /><br />Review: <br /><br />To review this flick and get some good background of it, I gotta start by the beginning. And the beginning of this is really George Romeros Dawn of the Dead. When Dawn came out in 79, Lucio Fulci decided to make an indirect sequel to it and call it Zombie 2. That film is the one we know as plain ole Zombie. You know the one in which the zombie fights with the shark! OK so, after that flick (named Zombie 2 in Italy) came out and made a huge chunk of cash, the Italians decided, heck. Lets make some more zombie flicks! These things are raking in the dough! So Zombie 3 was born. Confused yet? The story on this one is really just a rehash of stories we've seen in a lot of American zombie flicks that we have seen before this one, the best comparison that comes to mind is Return of the Living Dead. Lets see...there's the government making experiments with a certain toxic gas that will turn people into zombies. Canister gets released into the general population and shebang! We get loads of zombies yearning for human flesh. A bunch of people start running away from the zombies and end up in an old abandoned hotel. They gotta fight the zombies to survive.<br /><br />There was a lot of trouble during the filming of this movie. First and foremost, Lucio Fulci the beloved godfather of gore from Italy was sick. So he couldn't really finish this film the way that he wanted to. The film was then handed down to two lesser directors Bruno Mattei (Hell of the Living Dead) and Claudio Fragasso (Zombie 4). They did their best to spice up a film that was already not so good. You see Fulci himself didn't really have his heart and soul on this flick. He was disenchanted with it. He gave the flick over to the producers and basically said: 'Do whatever the hell you want with it!' And god love them, they did.<br /><br />And that is why ladies and gents we have such a crappy zombie flick with the great Fulci credited as its 'director'. The main problem in my opinion is that its just such a pointless bore! There's no substance to it whatsoever! After the first few minutes in which some terrorists steal the toxic gas and accidentally release it, the rest of the flick is just a bunch of empty soulless characters with no personality whatsoever running from the zombies. Now in some cases this can prove to be fun, if #1 the zombie make up and zombie action is actually good and fun and #2 there's a lot of gore and guts involved.<br /><br />Here we get neither! Well there's some inspired moments in there, like for example when some eagles get infected by the gas and they start attacking people. That was cool. There's also a scene involving a flying zombie head (wich by the way defies all logic and explanation) and a scene with zombies coming out of the pool of the abandoned hotel and munching off a poor girls legs. But aside from that...the rest of the flick just falls flat on its ass.<br /><br />Endless upon endless scenes that don't do jack to move the already non existent plot along. That was my main gripe with this flick. The sets look unfinished and the art direction is practically non-existent. I hate it when everything looks so damn unfinished! I like my b-movies, but this one just really went even below that! Its closer to a z-level flick, if you ask me.<br /><br />The zombie make up? Pure crap. The zombies are all Asian actors (the movie was filmed in the Philippines) so you get a bunch of Asian looking zombies. But thats not a big problem since they movie was set in the phillipine islands anyway. Its the look of the zombies that really sucks! They all died with the same clothes on for some reason. And what passes for zombie make up here is a bunch of black make up (more like smudges) on their faces. One or two zombies had slightly more complex make up, but it still wasn't good enough to impress. Its just a bunch of goo pointlessly splattered on the actors faces. So not only is this flick slowly paced but the zombies look like crap. These are supposed to be dead folks! Anyhows, for those expecting the usual coolness in a Fulci flick don't come expecting it here cause this is mostly somebody else's flick. And those two involved (Mattei and Fragasso) didn't really put there heart and souls into it. In fact, when you see the extras on the DVD you will see that when Fragasso is asked about his recollections and his feelings on this here flick, he doesn't even take it to seriously. You can tell he is ashamed of it and in many occasions he says they 'just had a job to do and they did it'. And that my friends, is the last nail on this flick. There's no love, and no heart put into making this film. Therefore you get a half assed, crappy zombie flick.<br /><br />Only for completest or people who want to have or see every zombie flick ever made. Everybody else, don't even bother! Rating: 1 out of 5 | 1 |
Lil Bush is a 30 minute cartoon show comprised of 2 15 minutes episodes shown on Comedy Central. It takes place in a fictional, cartoonish Washington D.C., and centers around the satirical, childish representations of George W. Bush, Condoleeza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheyney. Other politicians are also satirized in the same manner, and act as minor characters.<br /><br />The pilot of little Bush, much to this commentator's expectations, proved to be a rather shallow and esoteric production, which barely delivers on its featured promise: a satirical look at the current presidential administration. While one must admit that premise of the show does have SOME merit, even though it would be hard to imagine a show based almost completely of the denigration of a single political persona would survive to continue to produce episodes after his term of office expired, execution that can only be described as sloppy at best, and downright awful at worst, has marred what little potential the show had.<br /><br />Lil Bush, which may be technically classified as 'satire', tends to disregard its actual use of the particular tool of comedy in order to lambaste its targets in exceptionally vulgar (but not particularly original, entertaining, or funny) ways. The show's consistently weak writing often consists of little more than recording Bush/Cheney jokes heard elsewhere ad nauseam and placing them all in a single 30 minute block of television. As such, most of the jokes that presented by the writers were shameless clichés, some of which that been in public circulation for more than 6 years already. Comparing the Vice President to Darth Vader, for example, may have been funny in the first 300 times one has heard it on the Daily Show/Colbert Report/Letterman/Conan O'Brien/Leno monologue/any late-night-talk-show-ever, but it is not funny here. As if that were not enough, the show's plots seem to exist simply as a means to advance the same old, tiresome Bush jokes that the writers have made the center of the program.<br /><br />In the show's defense, when the writers dare to write in a truly original joke (which seems to be a rarity) it is often somewhat humorous. If the show were to expand its depth somewhat, and place its characters into new situations, exotic situations, rather than the same old mistakes and 'quagmires' perpetuated by the Bush administration, therefore not having to rely on the same old Bush jokes over and over again, the show might be considered somewhat tolerable, and possibly even innovative.<br /><br />Ultimately, it is difficult to ascertain which shortcoming causes the Lil Bush series the most damage; its clear lack of originality and weak writing quality, or its painfully narrow minded ambitions. It is reasonable to expect that Lil Bush will be able to maintain a small base of left wing fans, that is, if they are able to endure the exceptionally poor writing; so long as the program continues to lampoon the Bush administration thoroughly. Even so, the majority of viewers will soon recognize the program for what it really is, a weak and pointlessly vulgar attempt at satire, and tune out in search of something more intellectually stimulation; The Price is Right, perhaps. | 1 |
First of all I have to say that I'm a huge Lucio Fulci and Dario Argento fan. Although I have not seen absolutely all of their movies, I really enjoyed almost every one I did see. I really like giallos and I thought Argento was the master of this genre, after seeing films like 'Tenebre' and 'Phenomena'. But after I saw 'New York Ripper' by Fulci, I found out that he could do pretty good giallos besides his graphic zombie movies and even outdo Argento, on a certain level.<br /><br />I love Fulci's style, and yes I love gore, but this film I think, although it has a more developed plot and characters than his other films, is not his best one. What I don't like is that it can be confusing at times, especially at the end. And the fact that we go from one suspect, to another, and then another until we even suspect the retarded little girl for a moment, I think it goes too far. I know giallos are supposed to keep you guessing until the end, and the killer should be very hard to find, but this film plays a little too much with our minds. However I did like the scene when the witch is killed, I think it is very well done and gave me the chills. The acting is also pretty good and the photography is great.<br /><br />Although this is not a bad film, I think Lucio Fulci has made better films than this, and I think his best one is 'The Beyond', a very different movie but a more atmospheric and visual experience.<br /><br />I give 'Don't torture a duckling' a 7 out of 10.<br /><br /> | 0 |
This movie is S-L-O-W. Spent most of the movie actually waiting for it to 'begin'.<br /><br />The setting was bleak, the script was bleak, the cinematography was bleak, the plot was bleak, the budget was low (not that all low budget movies are bad, but this one had no redeeming features).<br /><br />The plot was more consumed with a vengeful, slightly deranged hunter than the actual Wendigo which made a very brief appearance toward the end of the movie. This in itself was disappointing as this 'Wendigo' was just a bizarre mix of a tree and a stag. Everything about the movie was uninspiring.<br /><br />The parents of the little boy appeared to be rather aloof and at times seemed completely detached from their son. Whether this was down to bad acting or a bad script I'm not sure, but it only heightened my disappointment and boredom levels.<br /><br />There was no food for thought, nothing to pique an interest. With no real intrigue or chill factor, this movie creaked along so painfully, you just couldn't care less what happened by the end.<br /><br />Wendigo's ambiance reminds me of the dull movie shown at the awards ceremony toward the end of 'Mr Bean's Holiday': a movie which is artistic and nonsensical, trying too hard to to be deep and meaningful, but coming across as pretentious and boring.<br /><br />I would never want to watch this again. I only watched it to the end in the vain hope that something interesting might happen ... but it didn't. | 1 |
A fairly enjoyable kidnapping caper set in New Orleans, but its main downfall in my opinion is that it packs way too much political intrigue and double-crossing, and not enough of the sexy young actors, scenes of vibrant colour, original cinematographical style and biting humour. These aspects combine to give refreshingly daring cinema, which makes a whole bunch of recent stuff look unbearably dull. Let's hope Sébastian Gutierrez continues with such flair - he looks like a talent to watch out for. The mismatched bunch of small-time crooks in the film are outshadowed by the investigative partnership of Emma Thompson and Alan Rickman, the humour of whose scenes is much needed in making the movie what it is. The pair pull off their obligatory southern drawls just as well as the Yanks, and it's a delight to hear these two stalwarts of British cinema yapping away to each other with Lethal-Weapon-style fluidity...just a pity that the only scenes they have the opportunity to steal are exclusively theirs. Anyway, with a bit less politics and authoritarianism (!), the film would be near-perfect, so I'll give it a healthy 8/10 and hope that a few people remember it a bit better than the box-office did. | 0 |
Sorry guys, I've already written my opinion of this movie but today was the first day I looked at some of the other reviews. There are a quite a lot of people who agree with me but what's scary is that there are some people who seem to really like this movie. I don't like to write nasty reviews or criticise other people's opinions but I think it's only fair to warn anybody out there who may be debating whether or not to see this movie. This is not a good movie. I really like movies and I'll watch just about anything but this movie made it onto the incredibly short list of movies I watched and was happy to leave halfway through. If you really are incredibly tempted, watch the trailer...that's the mistake I made because the entire movie is essentially in the trailer...after that there are no surprises, just some shockingly bad dialogue to waste time. I love Michael Vartan in Alias and would hate to criticise him but I think it's my duty to stop other people wasting hours of their life on a movie like this!! | 1 |
Why do people make bad movies? Didn't anyone working on the picture know that what they were making had no point? There is something about this picture that threw me off, besides the fact that I found this 'movie' to be unrealistic, pathetic, and POORLY ACTED. I admire them for the try, but the 'actors' in the movie at times seem to be trying to hard and no single character has substance or says anything mildly intelligent. This movie deserves zero stars. But I did not have that option, so it gets a 1. | 1 |
I'm a nice guy, and I like to think of myself as genre-tolerant. And, I guess by that, I mean I try to consider a movie in the context of the genre that it resides in. If nothing else, that saves me from feeling like I should be saying really nasty things about people or films, which I don't like doing.<br /><br />The plot in this one was patently obvious, the production values very low and sets, uhm, simplistic. The acting rose into 'good for a high school play' territory from time to time. My feeling was this was filmed in a day -- please tell me it was.<br /><br />Worst of all, the sex , while reasonably plentiful, was fairly mundane, hampered by, at least in my copy, a 'sound-over' that was inconsistent with the action (climatic moans and shrieks while lying on a bed undoing a bra???). There was definitely no 'edge' to it at all--nothing distinguishing or interesting, and with surprisingly quick cuts.<br /><br />My vote is a '1' then, with the following summary statement: would have been better if the filler stripper material at the club was expanded, and the rest of the movie condensed. | 1 |
I'm a huge comedy show fan. Racial humor is always a little risky but the greats like George Lopez, Dave Chapelle, Lisa Lampanelli etc. pull it off perfectly.<br /><br />They don't go overboard, make the audience uncomfortable or *cough cough* STEAL JOKES! But I won't harp upon that.<br /><br />Carlos makes racial humor totally unenjoyable. His jokes continually scream racial humor to the point were it's not funny or clever, but it's insulting. I'm not one to turn cold towards racial humor. But his execution of these jokes is sloppy that cause people to recoil at his comedy.<br /><br />His humor is only surpassed by his stage presence in annoyance. I feel as though he's SCREAMING at me constantly! And he runs around the stage like a maniac. It only comes off as annoying! | 1 |
From the weeks and weeks of promotion for this, ABC's 'The One' was supposed to be 'The Real World' meets 'American Idol.' We were to watch these singers perform, compete and see how they lived together in a house as well. The Drama! The Tension! <br /><br />Where does one begin with this atrocity? Let's start with the 'judges' who were known as 'Music Experts' on this program. 'Experts' implies they have expertise. Andre Harrell at least had a pedigree. He was in charge of Motown Records for a time. The other two... eh. Kate Hudson's uncle, who could have been labeled Mr. Weird Beard. He dyed his facial hair three distinctly different florescent colors. I wonder how scary he would have been with a black light! And The Paula Abdul wannabe, who did something I didn't think could happen: she was even more gushing and cloying than Paula! She then over corrected and became harshly critical after the first episode. The farce of 'critiques' that these three offered was a true joke and an insult, not only to the process of finding the best singer, but to the audience that is now quite savvy, already having done this numerous times on Fox.<br /><br />There was the host. George Stroumboulopoulos was no Ryan Seacrest. In fact, he was as lackluster as can be. He actually sucked what little energy there was in the program, dry. How he got that job was the second biggest mystery of the show.<br /><br />The first was how did they pick the 11 competitors for this program? This was literally a talent-free talent show. OK. Perhaps that's an exaggeration. And granted, the performers all have to be relatively close in ability, because if they were not, there wouldn't be a 'contest.' If only one person was 'good,' there would be no 'suspense.' So, I get that they all needed to be comparable. But they all should have had *some* chops! Additionally, the judges were running a 'Singing Academy,' so the program was part 'Fame,' as well. Clearly these performers desperately needed those lessons. But you need some extremely talented people to teach those with little talent to be talented. And that definitely wasn't what was happening here.<br /><br />It seemed in casting the show, the priority was on the 'homelife' elements, as all of the players were very attractive to look at, in equal parts to how badly they vocalized. But the filmed segments in their house were so chopped and sliced, you couldn't get into the stories that were starting to happen, so the show didn't capture the events there, either.<br /><br />As badly devised as all of that was, 'The One' had an incredible, unbelievable, fatal design flaw built into the results that made it completely laughable.<br /><br />The audience phoned in their votes for who they liked the best, just like on 'AI.' But then, after the audience vote was revealed, the bottom three contestants were forced to sing a final song. The 'music experts,' based on that performance, chose one person from the three to save for the following week. And THEN, the contestants who were safe got to vote for who they wanted to keep from the remaining two, sending the remaining contestant home.<br /><br />The 'design flaw' was that the contestants had the final say. I mean, if you were in a music competition and you wanted to get as far along the path as you could, would you vote to KEEP the better singer, or would you try to get rid of your toughest rival? Any first season viewer of CBS's 'Survivor' could answer that one! And that's exactly what happened on the program. The person who had the better potential was lost, and the contestants voted back 'the one' who had no talent at all! On top of that, the contestant who was just saved from the bottom by the 'experts' was also allowed to vote against the remaining two! It was a complete farce! <br /><br />Maybe if they let the contestants vote first, at least the 'experts' would save the better of two evils to finish. But this just confirms how not ready this show was for broadcast, how unsatisfying the whole process was to view and how misguided the producers were in attempting it. | 1 |
i wasn't a fan of seeing this movie at all, but when my gf called me and said she had a free advanced screening pass i tagged along only for the sake of seeing eva longoria and laughing at jason biggs antics.<br /><br />overall it was actually better then i expected but not by much. this was like a hybrid of how to lose a guy in 10 days and just like heaven. a typical romantic comedy with its moments i guess. the movie was quite short though (around 85 min.) but it was enough to tell the whole story, build some character development and have a decent happy ending. the whole idea of a ghost haunting its former husband was a interesting plot to follow. eva did a good job of keeping up the sarcasm and paul rudd and the rest of the supporting cast (especially jason biggs) kept the laughs coming at a smooth pace.<br /><br />overall i liked the movie only because it had a good amount of laughs to keep me going otherwise i would have given this movie a lower rating. hey its a chick flick and i'm reviewing this movie from a guy's persepctive alright, it would be more of a fair fight if females reviewied this movie and gave there thoughts about it. | 0 |
The first film is somewhat good to me, I enjoyed it for the most part, but I thought it was really nothing all that special. However, when compared to this mess it looks a whole heck of a lot better. Why they felt the need to make the movie is beyond me, but they should have known it could not match the acting of the first movie when they only could get Ruth Gordon back to reprise her role. The story kind of follows Rosemary's baby around and stuff, but in reality it is kind of a mess, it does not help that the movie is a television movie and the television look shines through very well. It has more of a comedy tone to it as well which hinders it greatly, if they really felt the need to make a sequel they should have made it an R rated movie that had some nudity and gore in it. I am sure it would have still been quite bad, but at least it would have been more watchable and fun which this movie is not despite its trying to be funny. I saw this one on Monstervision and Joe Bob had nothing really good to say about it in the intro and I do not have to much to say either. I do have to say it was a sequel that should have never seen the light of day. | 1 |
This is the greatest movie if you want inspiration on following your heart and never giving up on your dream. Elizabeth Taylor is Velvet and in her prime (of her childhood, at least), Mickey Rooney is a cynical friend who eventually becomes her trainer and they go off to the Grand National steeplechase with her beloved horse 'the Pi'--short for 'Pirate'--only to have Velvet become the jockey and have a chance at victory. To those of you who have not seen it yet, I won't give away the ending but you should see it and once you do you'll love it. Notice a very young Angela Lansbury as Velvet's eldest sister. | 0 |
Why did I buy this movie on DVD?, Well the short answer would be: I really don't know. As for the longer version, it pretty much comes down to the fact that I genuinely like Tatyana Ali and she plays Alicia in this.<br /><br />Now does Tatyana Ali give a genuinely good effort in this movie? I must say that it is one of the better, and she is shaping up to be a rather decent actress. I am very much looking forward to see her in action, when better material will be available.<br /><br />This being said, this movie was terrible - and my score is given based on this: 1 star for not being the worst movie I've seen, 1 star for the performance of Tatyana Ali, and 1 star for not thinking that it only deserves 2 stars, there are worse movies for that.<br /><br />Ja Rule should stick to rapping, not my favourite rapper to say the least, but some seem to like him - and if he is contained there, I would be delighted not to see him contaminate the acting scene.<br /><br />Ving Rhames: Ah man, Marcellus Wallace what are you doing here - you used to be cool man. Just because Michael Caine is a fiercely brilliant actor, who has been in so many terrible flicks as well as good, you don't have to copy him Ving.<br /><br />The rest of the semi big names in the cast: It's OK, there are bills to be paid, and we all have to do things we're not proud of time to time.<br /><br />The movie itself. It so massively flawed, it's pretty difficult to know where to start. It's more like a bunch of scenes thrown in together, as were the director to say 'we need to tell this, and we need to tell that'. There is a story, unfortunately there is nothing surprising about or within it. To say the least, the plot changes in the story were overly obvious and it was therefore predictable what was going to happen all the time.<br /><br />To sum up in one word: Reallynotgood | 1 |
Nicolas Roeg's projects are variable to say the least, but are never less than interesting. 'Insignificance' is obviously, first and foremost, an adapted stageplay: it's wordy and pretty-much 'room-bound'. BUT, it pays to view this film more than once: the underlying themes are not overtly presented and, what's more, it takes a while to adjust to the juxtaposition and role-reversals of the four protagonists: Einstein, McCarthy, Munroe, and DiMaggio. <br /><br />Einstein is wracked by guilt over Hiroshima yet fancies the simplicity of a sexual liaison with Munro; Munro is sick of being seen as a bimbo and craves intellectual credence; Senator McCarthy is at the height of his witch-hunting powers but is an impotent sleazebag; DiMaggio is insecure about his celebrity, self-obsessed, and prone to violence. Each of them contains the seeds of their own destruction. Each character has a troubled, abused/abusive past and a questionable future. Gradually, we see that obsession itself is the central theme. America's obsession with its postwar cultural icons and mores; the obsessions of the protagonists for something none can have: peace-of-mind and/or happiness.<br /><br />Compared with the theory of relativity, a proposed unified-field theory and, indeed, the cosmos itself, all the aspirations and interactions of Roeg's protagonists seem insignificant. Yet these aspects of the physical universe (it's all quantum, trust me!) affect us when they are applied to the development of the means to destroy us. Monroe's mention of the principle behind the neutron-bomb (without naming it as such) is not an anachronism per se, but can only be understood by a contemporary audience. Indeed, ALL the references within the script are only accessible to a knowledgeable viewer: one au fait with '50s occurrences/personality cults and how they affect us in the 21st century.<br /><br />This film and its screenplay are either very, very clever, or extremely opaque and pretentious. Ultimately, however, probably insignificant.<br /><br />live long and prosper :) <br /><br /> | 0 |
If you are a fan of either of the two origin franchises (Aliens & Predator...duh...and even if you liked or disliked AVP flick in 06) you WILL hate this movie. The innumerable plot holes, flakey and unbelievable human characters, terrible special effects and even worse directing and fight scenes make this one of worse films I've EVER seen.<br /><br />***SPOLIER*** One of the HUNDRED huge plot holes included the Pred/Alien hybrid going from chest burster, to full-grown bad-ass in seconds (it takes off on an onboard Predator-ship killing spree and wipes out a ship of Preds before the ship even breaks Earth orbit.) AS IF. In the first AvP we saw a ship of Sr. Pred hunters drop off three juveniles hunters going on an 'earning their stripes' hunting party, and then in the end saw them picking up the 'honored body' of the juvenile that was left over at the end of the flick. Are we expected to believe that the single chest burster hybrid killed all these Sr. Hunters before the ship even broke orbit? Also, (and this was EXTREMELY cheap production value on the director/producer's parts) jars and jars and jars of face-huggers somehow magically appeared aboard the Pred ship, even though the entire temple complex and queen Alien were destroyed in the AvP flick. These face-huggers end up playing an intregal part in movie...of course. And how about all these face huggers becoming full-grown Aliens in a days time? What a joke. Although there were many many more plot holes, I don't think IMDb would appreciate me filling up their servers by writing them here.<br /><br />On the flakey and unbelievable characters, well, where should I go boys and girls? Where to start...almost all of these goof balls are cliché people from other films or TV shows. The town bad-boy who left to avoid jail time but shows up just on the day everything happens to save the day??? Where did I see that? Oh yeah, last season on JERICHO!!! Then there's the 20-something town sheriff (a former trouble maker himself) who was best-friends at one-time with the bad-boy. Where did we see that? Oh yeah, JERICHO and Walking Tall! Then there's the generic soldier (WITH NO RANK) coming home from some generic war-front that isn't met like a long-missed loved one and hero at the airport or bus station, but at her OWN front door by her daughter and husband. And who is this soldier? What did she do in the Army/Air Force/Marines/Navy/Coast Guard? We DON'T KNOW because the movie NEVER TELLS US. But ... dunh, dunh, dunh...she was some kind of soldier/airman/Marine/sailor/coasty that knows how to drive a Stryker Infantry vehicle and ...magically... A HELICOPTER!!! This character is just a generic copy of every 'coming home' service person...except that she brings home a set of night vision goggles to her daughter that cost SEVERAL HUNDRED dollars. These are things soldiers have to sign for and don't just 'bring home.' UGH!<br /><br />THe special effects and fight scenes are what pi-sed me off the worst though. These are the things I enjoyed the most in the first movie...watching Preds and Aliens go at it! The way this was filmed though, the action sequences were so dark and filmed so close up that you couldn't tell what was going on. You couldn't see who was doing what and what was going on as they were fighting it out. All in all, these hundreds of items are going to kill this franchise and the fanchise. No one is going to care anymore about seeing their favorite sci-fi movie monsters, and can only guess that the series will go down from here as producers won't like dump millions of dollars more on a sequel. | 1 |
This movie is stupid, made by stupid people. The plot I suppose works well enough for a Horror movie, but the actions these characters take is insanely STUPID! Like, incredibly non-sensical stupid to the Nth degree! Basically the whole movie consists of these 4 idiots being captured, repeatedly, despite having many, many easy ways and opportunities to overcome their captor. It does not make one lick of sense and is not entertaining whatsoever. Stabbing yourself in the eye is more is more rational, and probably more fun than watching this.<br /><br />****SPOILERS**** The ending is hilarious!! The only good part of the movie! I nearly died laughing at the end! That whole stupid movie, and it ends with the dumb girl getting shipped off in a crate to white slavery in Asia!! Hilarious! I thought it was a totally awesome ending to a really sh!tty movie. | 1 |
This is a truly wretched little film. Admittedly the original (un)holy trinity was governed by the law of diminishing returns with the third, 'The Final Conflict' degenerating into a ridiculous sub-plot about half-way through the film apparently merely to provide the requisite needlessly convoluted deaths that had by now become the whole raison d'etre for the 'Omen' series. But then to foist this jumped-up TV movie (beware purchasers of the Omen box set on DVD - don't be fooled by the widescreen ratio of the transfer, this was and is strictly small-screen stuff) on the back of a series of generally fine demonic chillers was unforgivable, particularly, endorsed as it was, by the exec.producer and producer of the first three movies Mace Neufeld and Harvey Bernhard. I'd give-away the plot if there was any, besides the usual death scenes (hopelessly toned down for TV sensibilities) and some of the worst acting I've seen. All involved in this project down to the catering people should be ashamed this travesty ever made it to the screen, let alone masquerading under the Omen name. If one person is convinced by my review to avoid this mess, I'll feel better for it. | 1 |
Recently, I had opportunity to view a working print in Kansas City (Olathe, KS.) of this title. It is difficult for me, being a lover of the art as I am, to report the following, but, the truth sometimes hurts, and quite frankly after sitting through this tripe (I'm using the slang definition here - worthless statements or writing) for an hour and a half, I feel obligated to share (WARN) any interested parties. Let's begin at the beginning, a good place to start as always. The first 15 minutes are not really that bad, a couple of laughs, and decent development, but then it is downhill from there. This is the story of a woman, in her mid thirties, that (as the writer would like for you to believe) is dissatisfied with her life and unfulfilled. The first major difficulty occurs when if you don't know that fact going into the movie, you won't know it when she suddenly risks it all for, in my opinion, a very unkempt and unlikely fling with a local salesman. There is little development (drastically insufficient development) to justify her actions for the affair she has, and when it occurs, one feels, as I did, that she is just of low moral character. The word 'slut' comes to mind, hopefully, they'll let that pass the review and post the comment. This, in my opinion, is the first fatal flaw of the film. If you're married or have ever been in love, irregardless of whether you are male or female, its going to turn you off. Quite frankly, I feel that it would have made a much better 'blue movie' - that's the level in my opinion of which the screenplay is deserving. The second fatal flaw is the casting, Diane Lane just didn't work for me here, and Viggo Mortensen is not the right man for the job, believe me. The only saving grace to the entire film is Anna Paquin, the depth of her ability as a fine actress shines in places, conveying a subtle yet very blunt (I apologize for the dichotomy but it is accurate) portrayal of an emerging teen. Bravo, well done. I'm not going to give the ending away, but I was disappointed, being billed as a slice of life romance is one thing... but an ending like that.... Well, if that teased you enough to see this picture, don't say I didn't warn you, but you better look fast - if this celluloid is released, I doubt it goes four weeks before bursting into flames. I'd say wait for the video, but the free sex education tapes at most video rental outlets have more entertainment value. Hmmm, Dustin Hoffman produced this, you think he'd learn after Ishtar. This film once carried the working title 'Blouse Man' and should have been left on the rack. If you've never in your life wanted to walk out on a film, give this one 35-40 minutes, the only thing worth staying for is Anna Paquin, if you can stomach the fact that you'll find your mind drifting to whether or not you took out the garbage before you left home, which is probably where you should have stayed in the first place if you're off to the movies to see this one. That's my two cents, for what it is worth. | 1 |
Following the brilliant 'Goyôkiba' (aka. 'Hanzo The Razor - Sword Of Justice', 1972) and its excellent (and even sleazier) sequel 'Goyôkiba: Kamisori Hanzô jigoku zeme' (aka. 'Razor 2: The Snare', 1973), this 'Goyôkiba: Oni no Hanzô yawahada koban' aka. 'Razor 3: Who's Got The Gold' is the third, and sadly final installment to the awesome saga about the incorruptible Samurai-constable Hanzo 'The Razor' Ittami (brilliantly played by the great Shintarô Katsu), who fights corruption with his fighting expertise as well as his enormous sexual powers. As a big fan of 70s exploitation cinema made in Nippon, 'Sword Of Justice' became an instant favorite of mine, and I was therefore more than eager to find the sequels, and full of anticipation when I finally stumbled over them recently. While this third 'Hanzo' film is just not quite as brilliant as its predecessors it is definitely another great piece of cult-cinema that no lover of Japanese exploitation cinema can afford to miss. 'Who's Got The Gold' is a bit tamer than the two foregoing Hanzo films, but it is just as brilliantly comical and crudely humorous, and immediately starts out fabulously odd: The film begins, when Hanzo's two assistants see a female ghost when fishing. Having always wanted to sleep with a ghost, Hanzo insists that his assistants lead him to the site of the occurrence... If that is not a promising beginning for an awesome film experience, I don't know what is. Shintaro Katsu, one of my personal favorite actors, is once again brilliant in the role of Hanzo, a role that seems to have been written specifically for him. Katsu IS Hanzo, the obstinate and fearless constable, who hates corruption and deliberately insults his superiors, and whose unique interrogation techniques include raping female suspects. The interrogated women than immediately fall for him, due to his sexual powers and enormous penis, which he trains in a rather grotesque routine ritual. I will not give away more about the plot in 'Who's Got The Gold', but I can assure that it is as cool as it sounds. The supporting performances are also very good, and, as in the predecessors, there are plenty of hilariously eccentric characters. This is sadly the last film in the awesomely sleazy 'Hanzo' series. If they had made 20 sequels more, I would have happily watched them all! The entire Hanzo series is brilliant, and while this third part is a bit inferior compared to its predecessors, it is definitely a must-see for all lovers of cult-cinema! Oh how I wish they had made more sequels! | 0 |
This is hardly a movie at all, but rather a real vaudeville show, filmed for the most part 'in proscenium', and starring some of the greatest stage stars of the day. 'Singing in the Bathtub' is an absolutely amazing production number that must be seen-- be sure to wear your shower cap! | 0 |
I went in expecting the movie to be completely dumb. With such a low expectation, any form of entertainment would be a pleasant surprise. The soundtrack was the best part of the movie, but poking fun at the nonsense that goes on in singles wards was also amusing.<br /><br />This said, there were many things about The Singles Ward that were completely annoying. The entire film was poorly dubbed and made watching mouths while listening to their voices very irritating. This lack of professionalism was surpassed only by the cameos of Mormon celebrities who have no business acting.<br /><br />This film will do well among Mormondom, especially in college communities where singles ward exist. However the conclusion will offer no hope for the poor losers who find themselves unmarried. (Only the pretty girls in the Singles Ward get married, the fat, ugly ones don't, but all the ugly men do) Ultimately we realize that the whole film was an advertisement for LDSSingles.com | 1 |
Jennifer Egan's novel was brought to the screen by Canadian director Adam Brooks in a film that, based on some comments from contributors to this forum, sounds a bad proposition, but in fact, it's much better than one is led to believe.<br /><br />This is a story about two sisters who loved one another dearly. Faith, the fair headed and happy-go-lucky hippie girl, takes her younger sibling, Phoebe, under her wing. Phoebe plainly loves Faith; when the older one decides to follow her boyfriend Wolf to Europe on a summer vacation from Berkley, she promises she will send Phoebe a post card every day. Faith does that, until the cards stop coming in and one night, some time later, the family receives a phone call to inform them Faith has died under tragic circumstances.<br /><br />Phoebe can't forget Faith. That is why after some years pass by, she decides to take the same route the older sister took. She takes the cards from Faith and visits each place, starting in Amsterdam, then moving on to Paris and she wants to end up the trip in Portugal, where Faith encountered her untimely death.<br /><br />In Paris, Phoebe hooks up with Wolf, who by now, is not a hippie anymore and is living with his girlfriend. Wolf, tries to persuade Phoebe into abandoning her trip and to go back home; she suspects that Wolf holds the key into solving the mystery, and as she is going to depart for Portugal she makes a discovery when she finds a picture that clearly contradicts Wolf's version he has told Phoebe. He feels guilty and, against his girlfriend's wishes, decides to accompany Phoebe to the town where Faith died. The story changes at this point and we go back in flashbacks to what Faith experienced in Europe and what happened in her final days.<br /><br />The best thing in 'The Invisible Circus' are the performances of the principals, something that Mr. Brooks has to take the credit for. The big surprise is the range of Cameron Diaz, who, as Faith, seems to select light comedy parts, when she is quite able to do good dramatic work under the right director. Jordana Brewster is seen as the older Phoebe and makes a wonderful contribution to the film. She is a stunning beauty with what seems to be a naturalness for acting. Christopher Eccleston is Wolf and shows he also is capable of doing more serious drama. The sweet Camilla Belle plays the younger Phoebe quite convincingly. Blythe Danner appears as the mother of the girls.<br /><br />The European locations are gloriously photographed by Henry Braham. The film is also enhanced by the musical score of Nick Laird-Clowes and Petra Haden's original song. Elizabeth Kling edited with great elegance. Ultimately, this film shows Adam Brooks in great form as he gives the right tone to the adaptation of the novel and gets rewarded by having the right cast doing wonders for him. | 0 |
I used to love watching 'Sabrina, the Teenage Witch' Friday nights on ABC's TGIF. I think this was one of the best shows on TGIF. My friends and I used to get together every Friday just to watch this show and we never missed an episode.<br /><br />My favorite character was Salem. He was adorable and sooo funny. I liked Sabrina's boyfriend Harvey, too. He was HOT. I think Melissa Joan Hart played a good teenage witch, too. My favorite episodes were 'Sabrina Through the Looking Glass' and 'Hilda and Zelda: the Teenage Years'. Those episodes were great.<br /><br />Overall I really miss this show. I hope one day ABC brings it back with new episodes. I give this show 10/10 stars. | 0 |
Zero Day is a film few people have gotten to see, and what a shame that is.<br /><br />When I saw the end, where the two main characters descend upon the room and mercilessly kill people, then commit suicide, and it made me grab my stomach. I was shaking, that's how strong this movie is.<br /><br />The movie is amazing. It's too incredible not to get a perfect ten. It's sad that so few people understand the true beauty of this film. It is not a budget which makes a film good, it is the amount of feeling the makers put into it which makes it good.<br /><br />It leaves a permanent impression in your mind that you simply cannot get out. It makes you realise the true horror of shootings- especially if you were to know that person, and this movie makes you feel like you know these people.<br /><br />I recommend Zero Hour to those who feel they are mature enough to watch it. I am fourteen, and I feel that this film is just too amazing to be put into words. It feels like you're watching something that actually happened. | 0 |
Kurosawa weaves a tale that has a cast of characters as diverse as any Shakespearean drama, and the acting is true to the story, with each star playing their role as a part of the larger tale. It is touching, funny and intriguing in all parts. The character development is near perfect, the cinematography is vivid and engaging, and the story draws you in.<br /><br />I would like to say that the 'Samurai freaks' and those obsessed with late 18th and 19th century dynastic tales of Japan may snub this film as not Kurosawa's best work. Perhaps not his best, but even at his worst, Kurosawa is better than many of the best. This story is so based in elevating the mundane lives of ordinary people in a time of great change, that it is timeless, despite being set in the not-so-distant past.<br /><br />I would heartily recommend this to any movie buff, and especially to those who are likely to continue on to read the novel on which the film is based. | 0 |
Only the glandular secretions -- and please don't ask for any more details -- of young virgins can keep the rapidly deteriorating body and mind of the crazed old amateur horticulturalist's wife fresh and youthful. Since, like most people except those taking part in medical trials, virgins seldom give up their secretions willingly, Dr. Lorenz (Bela Lugosi) arranges for them to be abducted and preserved. He'll do the extracting himself. <br /><br />What a great cheese ball of a premise for a low budget horror movie. If The Corpse Vanishes turns out not to be the Havarti of horror, as a plain limburger it leaves an interesting aftertaste. <br /><br />Sure, the acting is almost awful except for the actors fortunate enough to be playing the crazed dwarf (Angelo Rossitto, who later played The Master in Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome); his crazed brute of a brother, Angel (Frank Moran), who grunts a lot and has a fetish for the virgins' hair; the crazed mother of the two (Minerva Urecal); the crazed wife (Elizabeth Russell), who sleeps in a plush coffin and, of course, the crazed doctor (Lugosi). <br /><br />An enterprising young reporter, Patricia Hunter (Luana Walters) tracks down the doctor because of a strange orchid with a peculiarly sweet odor that had been worn by the victims. When the doctor and his wife invite Pat to stay the night, a raging storm immediately breaks out. That clue tells us some raging violence is about to erupt inside. Since it's well known that in Hollywood at this time all unmarried young women were virgins, Pat may have some unpleasant surprises to deal with. They include dark passages, a crusty laboratory where a near dead virgin is stored, a basement mausoleum and, later, a direct threat to Patricia's own glandular secretions. If she survives, what a story she'll have to give her editor. <br /><br />If you sample this moist slice of moldy Velveeta (and why not? Don't be superior), don't judge Bela Lugosi by the company he keeps here. He had a huge impact in Dracula (1931), but my favorite movie of his is The Black Cat (1934). As Dr. Vitas Werdegast he's a sad, ironic man protective of his two young friends. When he finally takes a scalpel to Hjalmar Poelzig (Boris Karloff) and begins to flay the man alive, ah, well, it's a great scene. | 1 |
This movie is a real waste of time and effort. The film lacks plot and depth. The visuals are decent but nothing to write home about. There are far better films out there. | 1 |
This is so blatantly a made-for-TV ripoff of Black Widow (1987) - even the insect titles are so similar.<br /><br />If you want a better 'marrying for money' movie, check out Black Widow, starring Debra Winger & Theresa Russell.<br /><br />These movie is cheesiness at its best..! I just had to watch it entirely to see how it ended. | 1 |
There have been some great television movies in that past. Epics such as 'Roots' and 'Lonesome Dove' come to mind. Category 6: Day of Destruction will not be remembered for advancing the cause of made-for-TV movies. A laughably bad story, surpassed only by the horrible screenplay, Cat6DD, as I like to call it, inspires more sympathy for the actors involved than terror in nature that the movie was supposed to bring out. That sound you hear during the movie is supposed to be the sound of wind, but instead it's actually the careers of Randy Quaid, Brian Dennehy, and Thomas Gibson (Greg, of the Dharma & Greg duo) plummeting faster than houses and trucks and cows can fly away from one of the 15 tornadoes we see in the first 5 minutes of the movie. The movie was advertised as 'nature gone amok,' instead we get a lame story about how 15 different weather systems conspire to produce 150 degree days in Chicago, then a blizzard the next day from a hurricane that was in the Gulf of Mexico that combined with a storm system from Canada but actually had it's origins in a jet stream changed by global warming.... ENOUGH!! It didn't matter what the story was, the acting was terrible, the words the actors said were dumb, and 13 scientists throughout the country had coronaries after hearing the dribble that came out of the movie. I didn't care what happened to any of the characters, the special effects were sub-par, even for made-for-TV standards, and the story lines were pointless. All in all, I really really dislikes this 'TV event.' | 1 |
Have just finished watching this film, which upset me greatly. Have also been to South Africa twice, around the time this film is set.<br /><br />It is certainly hard-hitting, and the opening scenes tend to 'set the scene'. The slow but steady increase of pace hardly allows a break, and there are certainly few light moments.<br /><br />Will never be able to view Nigel Hawthorne the same again. He came across as a very twisted individual, and I found myself disliking him more each time he appeared.<br /><br />Totally agree with Steve-thomp's articulate and well thought-out comments. | 0 |
I will spend a few days dedicated to Ron Howard before I swear off his work entirely. Having, unfortunately, dealt with Lucas at such a young age, Howard is now caught up in so many of Lucas' traits. How else do you explain his rampage of disasters? His only useful film, of course, has been 'Willow'. Everything else, including this, is too reliant on superficial junk.<br /><br />Some spoilers.<br /><br />He can't even have semi-intelligent focus like Peter Weir. No, poor Howard so stuck on his Spielbergian knockoff qualities that he will be quickly forgotten. <br /><br />Here we have the old adage: 'love conquers all, even disease.' Too bad for Howard that Lynch already got through the whole subtext with more skill. Heck, even Disney did better than this. Ron even goofs up on the possibilities presented by imagined realities.<br /><br />Howard's commentary track is just awful. Don't even rent the DVD.<br /><br />Final Analysis = = Cinematic Dud | 1 |
H.G. Cluozot had difficulties working in France after he had made 'Le Corbeau' in 1943 which was produced by the German company and later judged by French as a piece of anti-French propaganda. Louis Jouvet, an admirer of Clouzot's work, invited him to direct a thriller 'Quai des Orfevres' where he played an ambiguous police inspector investigating a murder that happened in Paris Music Hall. Without each other knowledge, the seductive cabaret singer Jenny Lamoure (Suzy Delair) and her jealous piano-accompanist husband Maurice who is madly in love with her (Bertrand Blier, father of director Bertrand Blier) trying to cover up (without each other's knowledge) what they believe to be their involvement in the murder? Enters tenacious policeman (Louis Jouvet) who is determined to discover the truth. Jouvet practically stole the movie with wonderfully cynic and sentimental in the same time performance. 'His character, his eagle-like profile and his unique way of speaking made him unforgettable.' 'Quai des Orfevres', witty and atmospheric observation of human weaknesses was a great comeback of H.G. Cluozot, the fine director, 'French Hitchcock'. | 0 |
Although I do not recommend this film, neither do I recommend reading this review without first seeing the movie. Though I have not given away the ending, or most of the plot twists, this movie would be best viewed without any prior information. It's hard to pinpoint the chief problem with the film Donnie Darko, as there are many to deal with. Richard Kelly, in his first feature film, seems to have collected enough scenes of adolescent rage, late-night stoner diatribes, self-righteous justifications and inoffensive, banal philosophy to inspire twenty teen-angst dramas; then mashed them into a single two hour package with a sci-fi twist. The result is deeply distressing-- for all the wrong reasons. The film attempts to lead the audience down convoluted paths without any sense of symbolism or meaning, to make them sympathize with one-dimensional characters, and above all hopes that they will ignore the underdeveloped plot, full of unreconciled loose ends, by hiding it under a veneer of CGI effects and neo-surrealism. The main character, Donnie Darko, is a young man, committed to therapy, misunderstood by his friends, and rendered hostile and disaffected by his suburban life. We are meant to feel that he is more intelligent than his schoolmates, although sometimes that is a difficult assumption to make. For example, when one of his friends comes up with an absurd theory about the Smurfs, and Donnie counters with a theory of his own, his friend complains about Donnie acting 'all smart.' Donnie's speech, however, is no smarter than that of his friend-- just angrier. The only clear evidence of his intelligence is his principal's description of his standardized test scores as `intimidating;' but given the director's slant against simple categorization of human elements (as shown in the FEAR-LOVE sequence), this is a poor substitute for character development. Donnie takes prescribed drugs to combat mental problems, which are not addressed directly in this film. In fact, the entire issue of the drugs is understated, and one of the first chances the director has to redeem the film is lost. The ambiguity of Donnie's strange destiny, the possibility that all of this may be a product of his imagination, is pushed into the background, making the film 100 percent science fiction. This would not be a bad thing in itself, except that the 'science' behind the 'fiction' is very shaky. The explanations of time travel are weak, at best sounding like detached, uninformed rambling. We get the idea that the film's writer once read a book about time travel or a few chapters, and can't quite remember how it worked, but was sure that it was really interesting and wanted to work it into the film. The scientific portion, as a result, depends more heavily on expensive computer animations than actual development of the theories involved (at one point, a teacher discussing time travel states that if he continues to speak on the subject, he'd be fired. Apparently no further explanation is needed). Donnie's dealings with a visitor from the future lead him to commit several vicious actions. The justification for these actions is a tricky business. He damages his school, but it's okay, because his school doesn't treat him like a person. His punishment of a creepy self-esteem advocate (somewhat similar to Tom Cruise's character in Magnolia) results in the man's public humiliation. But should the audience believe that Donnie is some sort of avenging angel, striking out against ignorance and debauchery? He himself seems ignorant of the effects of these actions until after the fact. Aside from these flaws, the film is riddled with flat, uninteresting generalizations of humanity. The story is set in 1988, just before the Bush/Dukakis election, and the director touches on this point during the film. The focus, however, extends exactly this far: Donnie's gruff, blue collar father is voting for Bush, while his free-spirited, rebellious daughter plans to vote for Dukakis. There is nothing even remotely resembling a political statement here; simply a statement of the obvious. The former are not necessary to make a good film, but the latter should be left out. Likewise, Donnie's heartfelt speech about not being able to lump all human emotions into the bland categories of 'fear and 'love;' this doesn't ask the audience to make any great leaps of understanding. Everybody knows that there are more that two human emotions, and particular emphasis on this fact is worthless. Mr. Kelly gives homage to several symbols of 80's pop culture in his film: E.T., Stephen King, the Smurfs, Back to the Future. At it's heart, this film feels like the director's homage to himself, a collection of his own experiences, interests, personal heroes and adversaries, affirmations and disenchantments, roughly stitched together by untrained hands. Entire songs are played in music video format to the characters actions, seemingly because the director likes the songs. Characters who have little to no bearing on the plot (including the archetypal bully, fat girl, and right-wing idiot teacher) are given unnecessary focus, because the director really wanted to pack them in somehow. The awkward mess that is Donnie Darko leaves us wondering if Mr. Kelly has enough ideas left in his head to make another film, or if he has wasted all his creativity in one pointless, cluttered, meandering effort.<br /><br />My rating: 1/10. | 1 |
<br /><br />Summary: Not worth the film<br /><br />As an avid Gone With the Wind fan, I was disappointed to watch the original movie and see that they had left out many important characters. Luckily, the film on its own was a wonderful piece. When the book Scarlett came out, I read it in hopes of following two of my favorite literary characters farther on their journey together. While the book lacks any true quality, it remains a good story, and, as long as I was able to separate it from the original, was and still is enjoyable. However, I consider the six hours I spent watching the 'Scarlett' miniseries to be some of the worst-spent hours of my life. Discrediting any of the original character traits so well-formed in Margaret Mitchell's book, this series also turned the story of the sequel into one of rape, mistrust, murder, and misformed relationships that even the book Scarlett stayed away from. The casting for many of the characters refused to examine the traits that had been so well-formed in both the original novel and film, and even carried through in the second book, and again leaves out at least one incredibly crucial character. In the novel, Scarlett O'Hara Butler follows her estranged husband Rhett Butler to Charleston under the guise of visiting extended family. After coming to an 'arrangement' with Rhett, she agrees to leave, and proceeds to reconnect with her O'Hara relatives in Savannah. Eventually, she accompanies her cousin Colum, a passionate leader of the Fenian Brotherhood, to Ireland, to further explore her family's 'roots that go deep,' and is eventually named 'The O'Hara,' the head of the family. While her duties as The O'Hara keep her engaged in her town of Ballyhara, Scarlett ventures out into the world of the English landowners, and instantly becomes a sought-after guest at many of their parties. She, having been scorned by Rhett time and time again, eventually agrees to marry Luke, the earl of Fenton, until Rhett comes along in a clichéd 'night-on-white-horse' - type of a rescue. The 'Scarlett' miniseries fails even to do this justice. Raped by her fiancé and scorned by her family, the series shows Scarlett thrown in jail after she is blamed for a murder her cousin committed.<br /><br />I heartily advise anyone considering spending their day watching this to rethink this decision.<br /><br /> | 1 |
For some reason, TV Guide gave this two and a half stars, plus Faye Dunaway is in it, so it definitely looked like something to see. My, oh, my, this may be the worst film I've ever seen. Ever. From its horrid acting (every time the girl asks the boy what's wrong with him, I shouted to the TV 'I can't act!' When she asks what he needs, I yell 'I need acting lessons!' to the unbelievably bad dialog ('Give me back my organs!').<br /><br />And the Brian DePalma wannabe ending, too, it was all just beyond awful. I wanted to like it. Dunaway is one of the best actors ever. And the production values were pretty good.<br /><br />But wowzers, this had me laughing, LAUGHING!, most of the time.<br /><br />Don't even bother out of curiosity, that was my first mistake. Staying with it was definitely my second, and third and fourth. | 1 |
A Murder investigation goes on back stage while The Vanities, on its opening night, plays on to an unknowing audience. Odd combination of musical and murder mystery is worth a look for its cast, its production numbers, and the sheer novelty of the film.<br /><br />Gertrude Michael has the showy role of a bitchy actress intent on stopping the marriage between the show's stars, Kitty Carlisle and Carl Brisson, as well as starring in the infamous 'Sweet Marijuana' number (which was also on a 70s Bette Midler album). So while the chorus girls shuffle around backstage, bumbling detective Victor McLaglen ogles the girls while he tries to solve the backstage murder of an unknown woman.<br /><br />We quickly learn that the maid (Dorothy Stickney) loves Brisson from afar, that the wardrobe lady (Jessie Ralph) is Brisson's mother, and that the stage manager (Jack Oakie) butts into everything. Lots of plots twists among the musical numbers. The show's best-known song is 'Cocktails for Two.' Kitty Carlisle also sings the haunting 'Where Do They Come From?' And there's a weird rhapsody that erupts into a Harlem specialty number featuring Duke Ellington! Quite the cast.<br /><br />Some terrific acting here, especially Gertrude Michael and Dorothy Stickney. Kitty Carlisle is quite good as well. Brisson is a total zero though.<br /><br />Charles Middleton plays Homer, Toby Wing plays Nancy, Donald Meek plays the doctor, and also see if you can spot Ann Sheridan and Lucille Ball among the show girls. | 0 |
'Shadows and Fog' is surely one of Woody Allen's weakest films, right up there with 'September' and 'Hollywood Ending' (though nothing Allen has done equals the awfulness of 'Anything Else').<br /><br />'Shadows and Fog' is Allen's homage to the German Expressionist style of film-making, all stark and stylized light and shadow and...you guessed it.....lots of fog. But you can tell Allen got caught up in the technique and the parody and forgot to make a movie that anyone would care about.<br /><br />Luckily, he made 'Husbands and Wives' the same year, so things weren't a total wash for him.<br /><br />Grade: D | 1 |
STAR RATING: ***** Jodie Marsh **** Michelle Marsh *** Kym Marsh ** Rodney Marsh * Hackney Marsh <br /><br />Harlan Banks (Steven Seagal- not quite as bad an actor as Kevin Costner but.......aaaaahhhh, you get it) is a modern day Robin Hood (listen close, you can hear Brian Adams music playing in the background...no, not really), the kind of guy who steals ill-gotten blood money from drug dealers and uses it to keep run-down orphanages open. But now he's been approached to drive a getaway van in a heist from Las Vegas in one of those last things before retirement type jobs. But, of course, it all goes wrong and he winds up the patsy for the big guys at the top and in jail. Here he meets a guy named (although you wouldn't know it from paying attention to the movie) Ice Cool (Treach), who he forms a friendship with and ends up breaking out of jail with. Once free, he's out to prove his innocence, locate the missing money and, naturally, get even with those who framed him!<br /><br />Of all Seagal's recent straight to video films, Today You Die has that look about it most of all that it belongs in a cinema, even with a rap star as his co-star like his previous cinema films Half Past Dead and Exit Wounds. Yes, it seems when he's not making films about looking after the environment he's pretending to be black and co-starring with rappers. But TYD is not a cinema film and that's a luxury The Great One is never going to be enjoying again until Under Siege 3 materializes (if ever!) <br /><br />The film opens with a slick, polished look that commands attention but it all quickly goes down hill from there. Once Seagal hits prison, the plot quickly loses it's coherence. Indeed Treach's character just seems to pop up out of nowhere without any introduction as his sidekick and from there you quickly lose interest in it.<br /><br />That's it. I know I've said it before but I think I mean it this time. I don't think I'm going to be giving any more of these straight to video Seagal films any time. I honestly have no enthusiasm to watching Shadow Man at all. In fact, I can honestly say that I've not really enjoyed ANY of his STV films up to this point, and Today You Die is certainly no exception, an apathetic, boring effort all round best avoided by all. * | 1 |
I'D BUY THAT FOR A DOLLAR!!!<br /><br />I did buy this film for a dollar and I've seen much worse for much more!!<br /><br />This is a Scottish sci-fi film from Mark Stirton and according to the Making of (hysterical by the way) the production only cost $8000. Eight grand!!! That wouldn't pay for half a minute in Hollywood!! Nevertheless ---- This is top fun film making. If you like things gritty then you're in for a treat. These are some rough character with rough voices and harsh swearing. I didn't mind, but my girl friend did!! The actors do a fine job and it's interesting to see people that I've never heard of or seen before. It meant I had no idea who was going to die first.<br /><br />If you watch a movie for it's 'latest of the latest' visual effects then watch a Star Wars. The effects here are OK, but kinda weak in space. But the monsters are very well done if a bit pred like.<br /><br />Stirton does an amazing job with not very much and I'd love to see his take on a real Hollywood movie. It least it wasn't predictable and I almost fell off my chair when one dude got his head blown off!!! OK, so it is a little derivative of other sci-fi, but for this budget it is an amazing attempt and anyone who thinks making a sci-fi film for 8 g's is easy or happens a lot clearly knows nothing about the film industry.<br /><br />Good marks for a good film, extra marks for working so hard, extra extra marks for a really interesting Making of. No standard bull here, all the problems of production are gone into making it like Lost in Mancha only with a film at the end. But why no commentary? KEEP GOING SCOTS! | 0 |
I happened to rent this movie with my sister in hopes of watching a great entertaining movie, that was humorous, however my expectations were let down. This movie was beyond disgusting and revolting for a PG-13 movie, this should have been rated R for the many mature references that went on in this movie. I wouldn't recommend allowing a 13 year old teen see this.<br /><br />Even if no one under the age of 17 is watching this movie, beware of a truly stupid movie, there's no humor in the movie, just a bunch of disgusting sexual references including a small touch of pedophilia, something that shouldn't even be joked about. <br /><br />I would like to know what happened to PG-13 movies, that were actually safe for actual a 13 year old? This is beyond a deplorable movie and should be re-rated. | 1 |
Sure it is a new take on vampires. Who cares. I would rather the old take if it is entertaining. This was not entertaining. It was a dull story, poorly acted, with annoying cinematography. Save your money, don't even watch it on video. | 1 |
The fact that after 50 years, it is still a highly watchable movie, says a lot about it. It is more intelligent and interesting than almost all recent movies of the same genre you can find, and has a certain endearing feeling of innocence to it. I am not a big fan of this type of movies, but I could watch the whole thing without being bored, which makes it a good movie to watch with someone who does not necessarily share your taste in films. I liked the black and white palette, the excellent casting, the clever heist scene that keeps you guessing about what trick they will pull next, and the ending like everyone else. Watching the heist sequence makes one realize the power of silence, which is unfortunately so underused in today's cinema. | 0 |
Warning: Spoilers Galore!<br /><br />Tim Burton remaking this sui generis movie is about as sensible as remaking Psycho - oh, that's right, some idiot already did that - I rest my case.<br /><br />Movie opens with chimpnaut blundering a simulation, proving he's not that smart from the outset. Marky Mark appears in shot without his characteristic underpants showing, then is turned down by a plain woman who prefers the touch of chimpanzees.<br /><br />The perfunctory establishing shot of the space station orbiting Saturn for no apparent reason, interior of ship a-bustle with genetic experiments on apes. Must we travel 1,300 million kilometers to Saturn to conduct these experiments? The special effects team decrees it.<br /><br />Marky's chimp gets lost in that staple of 60s sci-fi cinema - the Time Warp. Marky then demonstrates the space station's mind-boggling security ineptness by stealing a pod without anyone noticing, while simultaneously demonstrating his abject stupidity in mounting a deep-space rescue mission into a worm-hole for an expendable test chimp, with a million dollar vehicle with limited fuel and oxygen supplies.<br /><br />Before anyone can say `Pointless Remake' Marky has surfed the worm-hole, crashed on an alien planet, removed his helmet without any thought to the lethality of the atmosphere and is being chased through a sound stage that almost resembles a lush rainforest, if it weren't for the kliegs backlighting the plastic trees.<br /><br />Surprise! It's APES doing the chasing - or at least, it *would* have been a surprise if no one saw Planet Of The Apes THIRTY-THREE YEARS AGO.<br /><br />Since Marky Mark did not get to show his pecs, take down his pants, or bust his lame whiteboy rap, he was characterless. Michael Clarke Duncan's gorilla teeth being inserted crookedly helped immensely in establishing *his* lack of character. Helena Bonham-Carter (aka irritating chimp activist), at a loss without a Shakespearean script, did a fine job of outdoing both Marky and Clarke as Most Cardboard Cutout. Paul Giamatti, the orangutan slave trader, secured the role of token comic relief and interspecies klutz. Though I have grown bilious in hearing puns relating to this movie, one review headline captured the essence of this Planet Of The Apes `re-imagining': `The Apes Of Roth'. While everyone else minced about looking like extras from One Million Years BC or Greystoke, Tim Roth, as Chimpanzee Thade, chews massive amounts of scenery and hurls kaka splendiferously. As entertaining as his portrayal of the psychotic Thade was, his character lacked a behavioral arc: Thade is mad when we first meet him... and he's pretty much at the same level of mad at film's end. Nice twist.<br /><br />The original POTA (1968) featured a leading character, Charlton Heston's Taylor, who was so disenchanted with mankind that he left earth for space with no regrets - yet as that film progressed, Taylor unwittingly found himself locked in a battle to prove mankind's worth - as their sole champion! The original film was ultimately a tale of humiliation, not salvation: when Taylor discovers the Statue of Liberty, he is forced to realize that his species had NOT prevailed. Is there anything that cerebral or ironic to Marky Mark's Leo? Or Roth's Thade? No, but there's lots of running.<br /><br />The slogans cry: Take Back The Planet .but it's the APES' planet. In this movie, humans and apes crash-landed here together, the humans having degenerated to cavepeople, allowing the apes to acquire speech and sensual body armor; the apes DESERVED to inherit the planet! Along comes Marky Mark, in true anthropocentric arrogance, taking it for granted that humans HAVE to be the apex predators, simply because they're there. `Taking it back' is as ludicrous as apes landing here in 2001, complaining, `A planet where men evolved from APES??!!' and then causing trouble with their overacting and hairy anuses.<br /><br />Heston was cast in the 1968 POTA because he had established his reputation as a maverick: he WAS Ben-Hur, Michelangelo, Moses! To cast him as the mute, dogged animal in an alien society was to stupefy an audience's expectations: how crazed must a world be where Our Man Charlton cannot command respect? Marky Mark has currently only established that he has tight underpants.<br /><br />Though Heston was denigrated constantly by the ape council, he dominated the screen with his charisma and stupendous overacting. When Marky Mark tries to instill fervor in the mongoloid humans, it's like that unpopular guy in school suddenly being made classroom monitor, who tells you to stop drawing penises on the blackboard and you throw a shoe at him. Burton tries to elevate Marky to humanity's icon, but he comes off as a chittering deviant. In the original film, the apes deem Taylor a deviant, yet he was, to audience and apes alike, an icon of humanity. That irony again.<br /><br />It was apt that a man who elevated scene-chewing to an acting technique - Heston - should play the father of this film's primo scene-chewer, Thaddeus Roth. As Roth's ape-dad, Charlton utters his own immortal lines, turned against the HUMANS this time, `Damn them! Damn them all to hell!'<br /><br />The movie gets dumb and dumber towards the end. While Thaddeus is giving Marky an ass-beating lesson, a pod descends from on high with Marky's chimpnaut in it. Apes demonstrate their hebetude by bowing in obeisance to this incognizant creature, while Marky proves his own hebetude by muttering, `Let's teach these monkeys about evolution.' Firstly, they're not monkeys, you ape! Secondly, it was genetic tampering and imbecilic plot fabrications which brought the apes to this point, not evolution. And what you intend to teach them by blowing them away with the concealed lasergun is called misanthropy, not evolution.<br /><br />Giving away the twist ending would only confuse viewers into believing that Estella Warren's half-nekkid role was actually integral to the plot (be still my pants.).<br /><br />No matter that he was humankind's last underpanted hope; in the end, cop apes take Marky away to Plot Point Prison where he was last heard ululating, `It's a madhouse! A MADHOUSE!!...' | 1 |
I was willing to go with the original _Cruel Intentions._ It went along with the plot and stayed true to the characters of one of my favorite stories. However, this movie was, in my opinion, a crummy rehash with essentially the same story line and no clear character choices. I didn't honestly care what happened to any of them. The strongest part of the original story (Les Liasons, not CI) is the characters and their interactions, not the events themselves. I wasn't clear until I read the IMDB that this movie was meant to be a prequel, especially since the title includes a number '2,' I expected a sequel, but then determined that it must be a companion piece. Over all, I must say that this movie read, to me at least, like a soft porn version of Les Liasons. I was not impressed. | 1 |
Elfriede Jelinek, not quite a household name yet, is a winner of the Nobel prize for literature. Her novel spawned a film that won second prize at Cannes and top prizes for the male and female leads. Am I a dinosaur in matters of aesthetic appreciation or has art become so debased that anything goes?<br /><br />'Gobble, gobble' is the favoured orthographic representation in Britain of the bubbling noise made by a turkey. In the film world a turkey is a monumental flop as measured by box office receipts or critical reception. 'Gobble, gobble' and The Piano Teacher are perfect partners.<br /><br />The embarrassing awfulness of this widely praised film cannot be overstated. It begins very badly, as if made to annoy the viewer. Credits interrupt inconsequential scenes for more than 11 minutes. We are introduced to Professor Erika Kohut, apparently the alter ego of the accoladed authoress, a stony professor of piano. She lives with her husky and domineering mum. Dad is an institutionalised madman who dies unseen during what passes for the action.<br /><br />Reviewing The Piano Teacher is difficult, beyond registering its unpleasantness. What we see in the film (and might read in the book, for all I know) is a tawdry, exploitative, nonsensical tale of an emotional pendulum that swings hither and thither without moving on.<br /><br />Erika, whose name is minimally used, is initially shown as a person with intense musical sensitivity but otherwise totally repressed. Not quite, because there's a handbags at two paces scene with her gravelly-voiced maman early on that ends with profuse apologies. If a reviewer has to (yawn) extract a leitmotif (why not use a pretentious word when a simpler one would do), Elrika's violently alternating moods would be it.<br /><br />A young hunk, Walter, studying to become a 'low voltage' engineer, whatever that is, and playing ice hockey in his few leisure moments, is also a talented pianist. He encounters Elrika at an old-fashioned recital in a luxury apartment in what may or may not be Paris. In the glib fashion of so much art, he immediately falls in love and starts to 'cherchez la femme'.<br /><br />Repressed Erika has a liking for hardcore pornography, shown briefly but graphically for a few seconds while she sniffs a tissue taken from the waste basket in the private booth where she watches.<br /><br />Walter performs a brilliant audition and is grudgingly accepted as a private student by Erika, whose teaching style is characterised by remoteness, hostility, discouragement and humiliation.<br /><br />He soon declares his love and before long pursues Erika into the Ladies where they engage in mild hanky panky and incomplete oral sex. Erika retains control over her lovesick swain. She promises to send him a letter of instruction for further pleasurable exchanges.<br /><br />In the meantime, chillingly jealous because of Walter's kindness to a nervous student who is literally having the shits before a rehearsal for some future concert, Erika fills the student's coat pocket with broken glass, causing severe lacerations to those delicate piano-playing hands.<br /><br />The next big scene (by-passing the genital self-mutilation, etc) has Walter turning up at the apartment Erika shares with her mother. Erika want to be humiliated, bound, slapped, etc. Sensible Walter is, for the moment, repulsed and marches off into the night.<br /><br />At this point there's still nearly an hour to go. The viewer can only fear the worst. Erika tracks down Walter to the skating rink where he does his ice hockey practice. They retire to a back room. Lusty Wally is unable to resist the hands tugging at his trousers. His 'baby gravy' is soon expelled with other stomach contents. Ho hum.<br /><br />Repulsed but hooked, perhaps desirous of revenge for the insult so recently barfed on the floor, Walter returns to Erika's apartment. Can you guess what happens now? It's not very deep or difficult. Yes, he becomes a brute while Erika becomes a victim. One moment he's locking maman in her room and slapping Erika, the next he's kicking her in the face, having sex with her and renewing his declarations of love. <br /><br />Am I being unfair in this summary? Watch the film if you want, but I'd advise you not to.<br /><br />Anyone can see eternity in a grain of sand if they're in the right mood. I could expatiate at the challenging depiction of human relationships conveyed by this film if I wanted. But I 'prefer not to', because this is a cheap and nasty film that appeals to base instincts and says nothing.<br /><br />I'm supposed to say that parentally repressed Erika longs for love, ineffectively seeks it in pornography, inappropriately rejects it when it literally appears, pink and throbbing, under her nose, belatedly realises that she doesn't like being hurt, blah, blah, blah.<br /><br />The world has, for reasons not explained, stunted her. She apparently makes a monster out of someone who appeared superficially loving - but surely we all know that any man is potentially a violent rapist, because that's his essential nature however much he tries to tell himself and the world otherwise.<br /><br />At the end, if you have the patience to be there, there's a small twist. Before going to the final scene, where she's due to perform as a substitute for the underwear-soiling student with the lacerated hands, Erika packs a knife in her handbag. For Walter?<br /><br />Yes, you're ahead of me. She stabs herself in a none life-threatening area and leaves. Roll credits.<br /><br />If this earned the second prize at Cannes, just how bad were the rest of the entries? | 1 |
'Voodoo Academy' features an 'Academy' like no other, one that houses only six male students in one bedroom. These teenage guys are instructed in religion by a sinister young priest, who enjoys tormenting and comforting them simultaneously. The sole administrator of this 'Academy' is a young and seductive headmistress, and she retains her handsome charges on a short leash, so to speak.<br /><br />Sexual overtones abound, and the director obviously has high regard for young male bodies. These young actors occasionally strip down to their designer underwear to sneak about the 'Academy,' and their sexuality is the entire focus of the movie. If you're not interested in the male form -- stay away!<br /><br />Burdened by weak and awkward dialogue, this low-budget exploitation piece just stumbles along with a few laughable special effects tossed in between the yawns. The mood is claustrophobic, with tediously long takes, a handful of cheap sets and few costume changes. These visual elements come interspersed with seemingly unending sequences of banal dialogue, intended as character and plot development. It gives one the feeling it was filmed in three days... | 1 |
Why can't more directors these days create horror movies like 'The Shining'? There's an easy answer to that: modern day directors are not Stanley Kubrick. Kubrick proved once-and-for-all with this movie that he is truly one of the greatest directors and auteurs of all time.<br /><br />So, the plot is fairly simple. A man named Jack Torrance (played brilliantly by Jack Nicholson)and his family move into a large, secluded hotel to watch over it for the off-season. The kicker is that the previous caretaker of the hotel savagely murdered his wife and two girls. What follows can most readily be summed by the title of the movie, but you have to watch it to see what I mean.<br /><br />This is the first movie in a very long time to strike me as 'scary'. It's some seriously messed up stuff, but in a good way. One of the things that adds to the scare factor is the amazing music. Music has been a major part of Kubrick's movies (2001: A Space Oddysey and A Clockwork Orange, just to name a couple) and he definitely doesn't disappoint with this one. The score completely sets the tone and this film would not be the same without it.<br /><br />Finally, I must comment on Nicholson's legendary performance. Jack is terrifyingly convincing as a crazy killer. In fact, just his stare steals a few scenes of this movie. This is top-notch acting that must be seen to believe.<br /><br />There will never be a horror movie that quite matches this one. R.I.P. Stanley. | 0 |
Also titled--> The Magical Castle--> This one is a stretch. Why bother? Why create another rockbart and then add another story line that has nearly nothing to do with the play nor swan lake. Only some girlfriend of rockbart, the stolen book of forbidden arts and the original characters (not voices remain). Stripped to to its bares this is a continuation by a thread. Next thing you know some bird will have memorized the 'forbidden arts' and Swan Princess 4: the magical bird will be born. Thankfully though the chapters are supposedly closed and this will beginning but bad ended trilogy will come to a close. | 1 |
My wife and I met doing a professional production of 'The Merry Widow' in 1982 -- in English, but a straight translation.<br /><br />Only the very basic skeleton of the original plot is visible in this 'adaptation'. Most of the characters have been deleted, along with the entire B plot, and all but one of the characters remaining have been renamed. Most of the characters in the movie aren't in the operetta, either. The action has been moved from Paris to, at first, Washington, DC, and then to the fictional country of Pontevedro, which the movie has renamed 'Marshovia', and only later to Paris. The net result is that we don't reach the beginning of the original play until about 45 minutes in.<br /><br />And the main source of tension in the plot is deleted, too. In the original, years before, Count Danilo and the heroine were very much in love, but his family refused to allow them to marry because she was poor; it's his broken heart that has rendered him a careless playboy. Now that, as a widow, she's the richest woman in the world, she still loves him, and he still loves her, but his pride won't let him admit it to anyone, even himself, and she must spend three acts playing mind games to break him down. The trope of the aristocrat with money problems who won't admit that he's in love with a rich woman for fear of what people will think supplied the main plots of a substantial fraction of Viennese operettas for decades after the 1906 'Widow'. In this movie, they've never met before, which rips out not only the heart of the whole thing, but nearly all the comedy.<br /><br />Lamas does a pretty decent job, though.<br /><br />An interesting musical point is that several times we hear a snippet or so of 'Trés Parisien', an extra song written (in English, despite the title) for the London première, which was not, as far as I know, usually found in American productions until the 1980s or so. | 1 |
This is an excellent, heartbreaking movie. It is by far the best I've seen that depicts the current reality in Latin America...kidnappings, corruption, ruthless and greedy police officials and heartless mayhem towards innocent victims. Denzel Washinton gives the most moving performance in his career, in my opinion. Dakota Fanning is an amazing young actress. The relationship between Washington and Fanning is wonderfully written and portrayed, I believed every minute. The cast is brilliant, Christopher Walken, Mickey Rourke are great as always. Walken lights up the screen for me like no other actor. I would have loved to see more of both of them. The authentic locations are remarkable. The camera work is interesting and different. There are many famous Latin actors in the cast, making it all the more interesting for people familiar with Latin American cinema. I highly recommend this movie. | 0 |
Of course I was watching BG. I loved S1, I liked season 2, season 3 was OK, and loved the final one. Yay, there is a spin-off show! I didn't know about this at all, one of my friends told me about this. I was really excited.<br /><br />I watched the first 3 episodes... What a piece of rubbish! Teenage girl drama fest. There is no science fiction... well, hardly any. At the end of every episode we can catch a glimpse of a Cylon. That's all. Who cares this? Did they decide that the next show's target audience will be females under 18? Boring religious nonsense talking, moaning, bitching... and some more.<br /><br />It is just sad that there is nothing out there at the moment to watch. Stargate ruined, BG over... | 1 |
Deep Water (2006) ****<br /><br />'It is indifferent... it's there waiting for you to make one slip up.' Those words (paraphrased) are perhaps the best sum up of the nature of the ocean I have ever heard muttered. Its furies are boundless, not least of which, her loneliness. Those words come from the mesmerizing and heartbreaking documentary Deep Water. It is the story of Donald Crowhurst, an amateur sailor who partook in the 1969 Sunday Times Race around the World. If you do not know his story, it may be best to stop reading now. Don't read this or any other information on Crowhurst or the race. Find the film and just watch it. <br /><br />After the first solo circumnavigation of the ocean in 1967, adventurers and watchers of adventurers began seeking the next one-up. This time the journey would have to be done without making landfall or stopping along the way. Having fallen on hard times, Crowhurst saw the race as a great chance to get his family back on their feet. He had lived through financial hardships as a child, and wanted part in going back to such a life. So he set out to find sponsors, and soon did in Stanley Best and Rodney Hallworth. The two men spelled the potential cash cow, and granted Crowhurst a boat, on the condition that if he should pull out of the race he would be forced himself to pay the expenses. His boat however was in serious need of repairs, and he feared it would not be ready in time for the final departure day. He was informed however by his sponsor's that he simply must go after all, they ponied up the dough and expected it back many a time over. <br /><br />The details of the story are infamous: Crowhurst's boat began taking on water, and his progress slowed to a crawl. Faced with the decision of trying to round the horn of Africa (certain death in such a boat) or turn back (financial devastation and destitution), he searched for a third option. He chose to hide out, alone on his yacht, waiting for other competitors to round Cape Horn in South America. From there he would rejoin the race. He reported false positions, and record breaking speeds. Then he stopped all communication for fear that his position would be given away. He also had to painstakingly construct fake log books for each day of a journey he did not take. Eventually the loneliness, the guilt, and the realization that he would likely be caught weighed too heavy on Crowhurst. His final log entries make the musings of a Kurtz seem entirely sane. Only a few weeks from home, he turned his boat away from home, and is reported to have jumped overboard soon thereafter. <br /><br />Crowhurst's odyssey is a fascinating one, and its ending is heartbreaking, but strikes of inevitability. Our dreams so often turn into fears, and the consequences of our actions often leave us so few options for a happy ending. It is a story of a descent into madness, teased on by the infinite abyss of the cruel seas. The filmmakers do a wonderful job in telling this story. It's put together with chilling audio and video recordings done by Crowhurst, and narrations of his ever-increasingly maddening log notes. The story starts slowly, and may distract some viewers, but the rewards of the story are entirely worthwhile as it progresses. <br /><br />There are also inquiries into some of the other competitors, such as Frenchman Bernard Moitessier, who was on par to likely win the speed competition, only to pull out and begin a second trip around the world. Also in the film is Robin Knox-Johnston, who was the winner of the competition. He donated his prize money to the Crowhurst family. <br /><br />To read briefly on the Crowhurst saga simply does not do justice. It's interesting of course, but a quick browse bypasses the raw emotions and oddness presented here. The final moments of Deep Water are genuinely heart breaking, hearing the thoughts of his widowed family, and the adoration and understanding of his friends. This is a fascinating story, and it is that which carries the documentary into such great channels. | 0 |
I remember seeing the trailer for this movie when it was first released and it looked pretty cool. I never got the chance to see it though. When I went to Blockbuster to rent some videos, I figured I should watch it. After all I did love 'Silence of the Lambs' and 'Se7en', and if you enjoyed those movies, you might get a kick out of 'The Cell'. The whole story concept is very interesting. Going physically into the mind of a killer, I can't imagine the world they live in. The acting is actually pretty decent. Jennifer Lopez is the only one I have to say that wasn't that great, but she does a believable job. I would recommend for a scary thriller.<br /><br />7/10 | 0 |
Warning: Avoid this super duper awful movie...if you watched it you will be SOOOOOOOOO disappointed.<br /><br />Pam and Denise are grandma age now what are they doing? Trying SO HARD to be young innocent and sexy, just not working AT ALL. Pam and Denise act so horribly in this movie.<br /><br />Plus The script is absolutely atrocious, I can't believe someone can came out with such crappy ideas. With the development of movie industry, movie lovers are not as easy to satisfy as the ones in the last century. I bet the movie goers from last century will hate this too.<br /><br />Stay away from it. I think watch 'White Chicks' from 2004 it's so much better that this...make no mistake at that time I thought that's the worst movie I have ever seen. | 1 |
I'll say this much--This director is all about RAW images...things most of us are not ready to confront head-on. Images of sex, suicide, murder, and people 'relieving themselves' are constantly bombarding the viewer, which makes me wonder if the director was trying to communicate the concept of relief or release. Although I don't think that I could ever see this movie again, I will say that the director does have a good eye. There were some really nice shots and 'picture moments' in the film (the fans, the wire fish in their hair), but the story left me needing more (strictly in the since that we were left asking ourselves 'what the heck did we just see?').<br /><br />Note: If you have a tendency to gag or vomit easily...don't see this film. | 1 |
ANDY HARDY MEETS DEBUTANTE (1940) is the ninth (9th) film of the series and it shows the direction it was inevitably headed into. Characters ANDY HARDY (Mickey Rooney) and JUDGE HARDY (Lewis Stone) were going to be front and center. The rest of the cast was going too just punch the clock and collect their checks. The series would rise to the occasion again and have its moments but a fatal decline had set in.<br /><br />Lewis Stone throughout the series would continue too portray the character of JUDGE HARDY in a sympathetic manner. The rest of the cast would be professional even though given less and less to do. Mickey Rooney on the other hand would continue his character as if there was no learning curve. ANDYs' reaction to any situation was in a naive and unbelievable way. Even after he returned as a veteran of World War II service in LOVE LAUGHS AT ANDY HARDY (1946) his reaction to any 'teapot tempest' was the same, juvenile.<br /><br />In this film it is clearly illustrated. ANDY gets himself into several unbelievable situations that with a simple explanation would have been resolved. This screen writing device was known as the 'idiot plot'. A means of stretching a poorly written scenario. Maybe it was less Mickey Rooneys' fault then the Director and the Writers. Most likely George B. Seitz had directed one too many and a firmer hand was needed too control Rooneys' excesses. To see our overview of the entire series go to YOU'RE ONLY YOUNG ONCE (1937). | 1 |
This movie was great. It had everything a true action fan could want. Plenty of people getting shot and/or maimed, minimal romance involving sex, a hero that can be identified with, violence at many intervals instead of pointless plot storing up just one scene at the end, and villains that are just asking for it. Bronson appears to be at his lowest level of tolerancy in this film and it shows. Ed Lauter makes a great cop and was seamlessly worked into Bronson's plot without stealing his spotlight. The movie doesn't involve a plot so boring or over-consuming that you watch this film once and never again. Rather, you want to see Kersey in action and the storyline just juices it up. This is great stuff. | 0 |
This movie was thought to be low budget but it turned out to be awesome. I just rented it from blockbuster and i loved it. The acting was very good, hot women and some scary parts. It is plain and simply worth the money to pay for. | 0 |
I sat down to watch this film with much trepidation and little hope. I didn't think it would be possible for this film to live up to its subject matter. But it absolutely did, and then some. First, I must say that Jared Harris did an extraordinary job as John Lennon. At times it seemed that Harris was channeling Lennon. The resemblance was often uncanny, and he clearly studied Lennon's mannerisms and vocal inflections. Aiden Quinn was quite good as McCartney, also bearing a striking resemblance to Macca, although he did occasionally trip over his Scouse accent.<br /><br />This work of fiction was well-written and well-directed. It was pure fantasy, of course, but sometimes I felt like a voyeur peeking through a keyhole at this reunion. The rooftop scene was especially moving, as McCartney told Lennon what he had never heard as a child--that he was worthy and important, and it could never be his fault that he was abandoned by his parents. I also enjoyed the scene in the park where the pair of them danced with absolute abandon to the reggae band!<br /><br />My one complaint would be this: I am not so sure that John was as caustic as he was portrayed in the film at this stage in his life. He had settled in to his domestic situation quite nicely, and he was actually known to be quite friendly when approached by fans. Only a few years later, he was very friendly when he was first approached by his assassin for an autograph on the day he was murdered.<br /><br />Mostly this film served to stir up those feelings again about what might have been had John lived a bit longer. I am quite sure the Beatles would have come back together at some stage. And I am quite certain that Lennon and McCartney would still be friends today.<br /><br />Well done, VH1. I will watch it again and again.<br /><br /> | 0 |
I saw this movie at a college film festival back in the 70's - I have been waiting FOREVER for this movie to come out on video (finally it's out). It was made in Brazil, so I assumed that was why it hadn't made it to video yet. I have been checking video stores for the past 15 years waiting for this outstanding movie to come out! It is one of my all-time favorites - but be warned, it is weird, like Werner Herzog weird - its weirdness stems from its super-realism.<br /><br />The movie is based on a true incident back a few centuries ago, in pre-colonial times, when Europeans were first encountering the tribes in the Amazon. A white man is mistaken by a savage tribe of cannibals as their enemy, so they intend to kill him. Before they dispatch him, though, they make him part of their tribe (their custom). The entire movie is like watching a National Geographic documentary as he becomes an accepted member of their tribe. That's it. Cosmic plotline? No. Intense insight into the variety of human life? Definitely.<br /><br />Oh yeah... be warned... this film has definite nudity - this is not some Hollywood schlock flick about noble savages... this film tells it like it was (re-read above: National Geographic, super-realism)<br /><br /> | 0 |
I am not even willing to vote a single star for this crap but IMDb does't have zero as rating option... worst movie i have ever watched.. Story of the movie 1. Predator ship crashes on earth 2. One alien and some face huggers are released and they start killing humans. 3. One predator arrives on earth and he starts killing aliens and humans. 4. Then one human jet drops a bomb and kills human, aliens and predator. 5. Some humans find the shoulder canon of the predator. 6. The End Directors should consider refunding money back to the viewers. If still you want to watch this movie, download from some torrent site and say thanks to me for saving you money.. all the movie has been filmed in some dark corner of the earth, you see just dark shadows even in action scenes.. too much violence.. I didn't expect it from a fox movie | 1 |
Dietrich Bonhoeffer's writings have had a profound influence on my life as a Christian, and I eagerly anticipated watching this movie and finding out more about his life. Words can hardly express my disappointment. This movie was disjointed...it gave no background about his life, no historical context, and nothing about his great writings (except a brief, passing reference to 'The Cost of Discipleship' by a colleague at the beginning of the movie.) Instead, we see him enjoying jazz (apparently in the States) and chilling out with his friends before he decides to go back to Germany. Apparently to show his human side. OK, I'm ready for the dramatic part. The part where he stands up for his faith. Instead of emphasizing that, we get a very badly acted romance with a 17-year-old schoolgirl. Whether or not that actually took place, it should not have been a major portion of the movie. Now...still waiting for the dramatic part, or some narration explaining what his writings were all about...or SOMETHING to make us know a little bit of the greatness of this man. drum-roll.....waiting..... ....waiting.....ZIP. Nada. This is the kind of movie that gives 'Christian Films' a bad name. All they had to do was set up a structure for the movie to follow, with some background...even some voice-overs, or flashbacks to him preaching from his works...some narrative about who he was and where he had been. But no...this is what we got. Hardly fitting for a hero of the Faith. | 1 |
This may be the worst show I've ever seen. Aside from the tastelessness of having a sitcom about Hitler, it just isn't funny or entertaining in any way. It is very similar to a 1950's sitcom in its cornball humor and contrived situations, but while it can be well done like in I Love Lucy, it's just not funny here. I think the show was based around the novelty 'look, it's Hitler as a bumbling sitcom figure' but it just fell flat in every regard. The guy playing Hitler is so hammy that its hard to sit through that alone. I wonder what could have possibly made the network think this was a good idea to air. I thought America had some tasteless show, but the Brits had us beat this time. America would never air a sitcom about Hitler, although we did have that show about Lincoln's slave, The Secret Diary of Desmond Pfeiffer. Chances are you'll probably never see this show, since it only aired one episode and will probably never be released on DVD. | 1 |
I happened to leave HBO on last night following Six Feet Under. What ran next has left me speechless. What an incredible piece of work. I don't just recommend this, I MANDATE that you see this. It's better than anything Hollywood could ever ruin. I just hope they never get their hands on it. | 0 |
I guess I do not have too much to add. I found the comedy to still be funny after more than ten years since it came out.<br /><br />The one thing that I did notice was the music during the dialogue to be distracting and often made the movie very hook than it should have been. The use of songs is fine during the movie but the orchestral background is too busy, too contrived and if the movie was ever to be edited for DVD, I would seriously recommend that the background music be toned down to an almost inaudible level. It has cheapened the overall feel for the whole film and I can see subconsciously why a lot of people have passed it up.<br /><br />The film had a lot of levels working for it on the script, plot and comedy level. It is too bad that the producer and director felt they needed the musical schlock to enhance the mood. Now knowing this, I find it hard to watch and I quietly curse whoever was involved with the musical editing in the film. It had all the subtlety of a jackhammer. | 0 |
This is a beautiful, funny, vivid film. It's even better than 'Nuovo Cinema Paradiso' -- which it parallels but doesn't replicate. The story completes a full circle and had the theater beaming as the credits rolled. A hundred years after this story takes place, we're just as intrigued by flickering images in a dark theater. | 0 |
I've been intrigued by this film for a while, in part because of the extremely high score here on IMDb -- a 9.0 average with over 300 votes gives it the highest rating of any accessible silent film! How had I not heard of this film before this website? Well, you can't always trust the ratings. This is actually a very good film, preserved quite well if the fine VHS transfer I rented is any indication -- excellent acting by the principals, especially William Haines as Brown, and good location work at Cambridge with some fine action footage in the climactic Harvard/Yale football game -- but the story must have seemed a hoary chestnut even in 1926. Obnoxious, self-centered and charismatic guy goes to school and gets put in his place, becoming in the process a caring, self-sacrificing friend; I doubt people in 1926 found much that was really exciting in the last few reels, the predictability factor is high. Still, it starts out very well, and is certainly deserving of being remembered, if not praised to the heavens. Maybe the previous 350 voters are mostly Harvard men...<br /><br />EDIT Now 600+ voters and the score has actually climbed to 9.2! Seriously, folks, there is ballot-stuffing going on here - I defy anybody to explain why this is a better film than 'Metropolis' or 'The General'! | 0 |
It must say something about the state of our nation that this programme is one of the most popular currently screened. <br /><br />The 'square' is peopled by such a miserable, untrustworthy, amoral, spiteful, unrelentingly dour group of characters as can be imagined. Everyone is stabbing someone in the back, everyone is attempting to commit adultery, everyone is trying to cheat someone. That, or they are being stabbed, cuckolded or swindled. Nobody is cheerful. Nobody laughs. Nobody has a blinding stroke of luck or a really nice day. It's hell, with cockney accents.<br /><br />I suspect this programme must be sponsored by The Samaritans. It's perfect viewing for the depressed. It doesn't cheer them up; what it does do is present a whole community of such terminally despondent sad-arses that viewers are moved to believe their lot really could be worse - they might be living in 'Albert Square'.<br /><br />Apart from the above; as a representation of London's east end, it is pure hokum. The programme-makers have evidently never been across town. The first thing you encounter on the Mile End Road is a colossal mosque. And this pretty-well defines the racial majority of the population. White British Londoners are a dispersed and rapidly diminishing minority. A large advertisement hoarding presently near the Bow Road flyover, and sponsored by Tower Hamlets Health Care boasts that 'Eight out of ten members of the community can now see their doctor more quickly'. Ten healthy, smiling faces beam down at the observer in confirmation. Eight of them are dark-skinned... <br /><br />What's more, I used to work with a bunch of Anglo-Saxon - dare I say 'pukka' - cockneys a few years ago. And I can tell you that a more obnoxiously racist experience I've never had. Each day was like an Oswald Moseley rally. They couldn't pass 5 minutes without denigrating some other race or nationality than their own, and in terms that were repulsive and obscene. 'Fackin' Pakis' and 'fackin' Maceroons' were the small change of conversation. In fact their entire (and extremely limited) stock of adjectives fixated upon sex-organs and their application. Alf Garnett was a paragon of liberal virtue in comparison.<br /><br />Any programme that purported to represent London's native east-end Caucasians in their true nature would be completely unfit for broadcast - even after the 9 o-clock watershed. Imagine a Ku Klux Klan script written by Quentin Tarantino and you'd be somewhere near the mark. But when they weren't being inveterate bigots they were at least extremely cheerful.<br /><br />I don't know how such a soap-opera came to be. This imaginary castaway island of white misery has absolutely no bearing upon real culture whatsoever. And if you're of a comparatively sanguine disposition, it will quickly reduce you to tears of grief. Comparatively ordinary actors pretending to be comparatively ordinary chronic-depressives with cockney accents - what's the point of that?<br /><br />Dull, dreary, unrelentingly disillusional, and ethnically preposterous. The most popular programme of an apparently diseased and dying nation.<br /><br />Avoid it like the plague. | 1 |
This is a badly made, poor remake of Bimalda's classic Parineeta. The story is based on Sarat Chandra's book of the same name and it is a distortion of the original. Well one can appreciate some degree of creativity but not sham creativity. The acting by everyone is affected and the entire movie is a sham. Shekar's father's choice of words in abusing Lolita ( Balan ) sounds cheap and morbid and destroys the spirit of the original story. Again the scene where Shekhar ( Saif ) slaps Lolita is quite out of place with the flow of the movie and the characters, is quite jarring to the senses, and could have been easily avoided. Similarly the sex scene between Saif and Balan is quite unbecoming the movie and a cheap gimmick to attract the audience. When a creative work is not faithful to the original and destroys it's spirit, the work falls apart. The song 'piyu bole' is quite OK. Another silver lining in the dark cloud of this movie is the scene where Saif stands up for himself and rebels against his father. This is a positive departure from the original and deserves credit. On these counts this movie deserves 3 stars. The song and dance by Rekha smacks of artifice and it is a put on. The song is tuneful but I remember having heard it somewhere before and if Iam not mistaken the tune appears to have been plagiarized. <br /><br />Well, agreed the times have changed from then to now. But then this movie is not even reflective of the modern times.<br /><br />This is what happens when the modern Bollywood film makers get increasingly obsessed with impressing the NRIs and grabbing the lucrative NRI entertainment market. Such movies end up neither belonging to India nor to any other part of the world. | 1 |
Great movie - especially the music - Etta James - 'At Last'. This speaks volumes when you have finally found that special someone. | 1 |
This was the best movie ever has seen on 'Germen's Cine Club' (Buenos Aires) This movie is a realistic critic of the society of the past and the next century. It cause a very good impression to all the partners of 'Germen's Cine Club'. I recommend this movie to all the fans of Troma and to all the people who like the good movies, not the commercial movies. | 0 |
After a day at work, I sat down to relax and turned on the movie channels. The movie came up on the guide and sounded interesting so I tuned in just before it started. The first 30 minutes were enough to make me interested, but the lack of acting ability in Jamie Foxx and the slow plot movement made me want to get up and find food during the movie. If there is any credit to be given for acting in this movie it should go to David Morse who at least tries to make the movie interesting. All in all, don't plan on impressing your friends by picking this one as a renter for a movie night. | 1 |
'Dead Man Walking' is a piece of incredible filmmaking. All the acting is top-notch and realistic, and the script examines the issue of the death penalty from both sides, paying equal homage to both. Above all, this is a deeply moving story of redemption, of death with dignity and loss of ego. Any film that deals this courageously and maturely with such incredibly difficult subject matter deserves a rating of 10/10. Thank you, Tim Robbins! | 0 |
Well acted drama based on a novel by Arthur Miller. Something as simple as a pair of glasses becomes life altering. Lawrence Newman(William H. Macy)is a man that has chosen to be satisfied with his mundane life; the same job for twenty years and still living with his mother. He is told by his boss to correct his vision with a pair of glasses. Newman's life drastically changes and delves him into hell. The glasses he chose makes him look Jewish. He looses his job and becomes the object of heavy scrutiny by his Brooklyn neighborhood. Searching for a job, he encounters the attractive and outspoken Gertrude(Laura Dern), herself living with conflict because of her Jewish appearance. Soon the couple's new life together becomes a nightmare filled with humiliation and bigotry driven attacks. A very apt cast that features: Joseph Ziegler, Peter Oldring, Kay Hawtrey and of musical fame, Meat Loaf. | 0 |
I just don't get these reviews! I can't help thinking they are written by the sort of L.O.G fan who would worship anything they ever do without questioning whether it is actually any good.<br /><br />I'm a massive fan of the programme but thought this film was a pointless project. I could forgive the ridiculous plot if I had come out of the cinema having laughed more than twice. At one point, I thought it might just me before I realised hardly any laughs were minting from the rest of audience.<br /><br />I wasn't expecting much of a plot (very few TV comedies stand up to being stretched over 90 minutes) but thought the odd bit of classic L.O.G dialogue or visual joke (like at the start of each programme) would carry a film. After 5 minutes of the 17th Century plot, I was begging for it to end (little did I know it would carry on for the rest of the film). It just wasn't funny.<br /><br />I was just massively disappointed and can't see history being too kind to it, even if a few die-hard fans write enthusiastic reviews. | 1 |
Why it's none other than Ator played hilariously bad by Miles O'Keefe. Surprisingly I had the misfortune of sitting through this turkey before Mystery Science Theater 3000 tore it to pieces. I highly recommend checking out the MST3K version since it's hilarious and one of their best episodes ever.<br /><br />The movie on it's own is basically the kind of typical B-movie crud that Italian film-makers were churning out in the early to mid 80's. This film was apparently made to cash in on the Conan craze, but it fails miserably on all counts.<br /><br />Keep an eye out for the scenes where Ator fights a giant rubber snake and also manages to make a complete hang-glider during a cutaway.<br /><br />'Thong, fish is ready!'<br /><br />rating: the movie itself-1 The MST3K version: 10 | 1 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.