review
stringlengths 41
13.7k
| label
int64 0
1
|
|---|---|
ANOTHER great performance by Kiefer Sutherland. I love his movies, because he always plays his role very well. For a low budget film, this was done very good, and kept me on the edge the whole time. I love these type of movies, and I was glad I caught it on. I'll be buying the dvd or tape for sure.<br /><br />9/10. | 0 |
I cringed all the way through this movie. First of all, the idiotic plot has little to do with Parson's own story. Hollywood has attempted to create a kind of comedy car chase movie. Imagine 'Englebert Sings Hendrix'.<br /><br />Do not take anything about this movie to be accurate. The name Parsons in the title and stealing of his body is just used as springboard for a low budget chase movie, a blatant attempt to grab a few bucks from the Parsons legacy and his fan base. Gram's father had long since been dead in 1973, the other global characters are fictional, none of this has anything to do with Grams life or death.<br /><br />If you are a Gram fan, I advise you to not see this movie. I wish I hadn't. It's saddening to see something special be treated as such disgracing fodder. I'd swear I could hear Gram turning in his grave while the movie was playing. If you are not familiar with Gram's life and legacy, do not take anything in this movie as being representative of Gram.<br /><br />I cannot say enough bad things about this movie. If Gram were alive and saw this movie, he would kill himself. Then again, maybe he'd be afraid to if he knew this movie were to result. | 1 |
There isn't a whole lot going on in this story -- just two men employing very different ways of handling memories of Vietnam. But what it lacks in premise, it more than makes up for in acting and realism. It's a quiet film about the bonds of friendship and shared experience. We even get romance (not gratuitous -- just another very real piece of this story). It's well worth seeing. | 0 |
I sat down to watch a documentary about Puerto Rico, and I ended up watching one about Nuyoricans. When I go to Puerto Rico, I fail to see the 50% that live in poverty. When I do see struggling people, they are usually Haitians, Dominicans, or Cubans that have recently arrived to the island. There is no such thing as spanglish... either you speak Spanish, or you don't.... and from what I heard... you don't. Pedro Albizo Campos IS NOT MLK to me. MLK was a great man. Campos is a great man to those that want independence which is 1%. To the rest he as loco as Osama Bin Laden. Puertoricans that want independence are a bunch of fools. If you want any proof to all of you dreamers of an independent Puerto Rico see Cuba, Haiti, Dominican Republic, Bahamas, all of South and Central America, and Mexico. Its worked wonders for them. This documentary is not about Puerto Rico, this documentary was about the Nuyoricans and their struggles.<br /><br />To the person that complaint that not enough of Africa was on the show... it was suppose to be about Puerto Rico... not Africa. Denzel will make one shortly just for you.<br /><br />In conclusion... to all those ignorant white people that think we need green cards to come to the US, and want to learn how the prime minister runs things, this is not a good documentary about Puertorican culture. Tell your kids to pay attention in Geography, and History class.<br /><br />***Update***<br /><br />Bocabonita... 'doc.' was about Nuyoricans. She promoted it as if its how we all feel. Should have been titled... 'yo soy nuyorican... lunche...can't speak Spanish.' PLEASE STOP USING PUERTO RICO, RICAN, BORICUA, OR ANYTHING ELSE ASSOCIATED WITH PR WITH THIS NUYORICAN HISTORICAL LESSON. God forbid they play this on the island. | 1 |
I noticed at once that this movie really wasn't based on Dodie Smith's novel. In any case, it was a nice idea that Pongo and Perdita's son now had his own puppies. The cutest of the Dalmatians was, of course, little Snowball who was completely spotless till the very end of the film. <br /><br />To be honest, I didn't know what to think when Cruella de Vil seemed to have changed completely kind. In fact I have often thought about the possibility that she could become friendly, but now that she so quickly changed into 'herself' again and announced that she was Cruella once more, I almost began to be really worried about Chloe's Dalmatians.<br /><br />Actually, the scene in which the puppies watched Lady and the Tramp while Chloe and Kevin had their dinner, was much better than I had expected. I also was fond of the parrot who played to be a dog, and it was incredible that the dogs had learned so many tricks for this movie. <br /><br />Of course I was content that at the end the Dalmatians were saved again, but I would have liked to know what was going to happen to Cruella after she had lost her whole property. And what on earth could the dogs' home do with such a huge sum of money?<br /><br />Finally, it was quite touching that Snowball also had spots at the very end of the film. | 0 |
With various Bogdanoviches and Gazzaras scattered throughout cast and crew 'They all laughed' is very much a family affair.If you add the fact that B.Gazzara and Miss A.Hepburn had a brief but passionate affair in an earlier picture it has the air of almost a private movie made for the enjoyment of the participants and that the entertainment of a wider audience merely an ancillary consideration.If this all smacks of smug 'in - joke' self gratification you will be pleased to hear that Mr Bogdanovich sails well clear of that particular hazard and delivers a sweet and rather innocent 'I love N.Y.' paean that is also an altar at which we can worship the ethereal beauty of the late Miss Hepburn. Make no mistake this is her picture.Mr Gazzara concedes it to her most self - effacingly in all their scenes together. The plot - a detective agency gets involved too personally in its clients' affairs - is of minimal importance,it is the performance of the two leads that dominates the movie. Mr Bogdanovich's triumph is in the way his camera seems to love his actors,from 'Targets' onwards.There is a glow about every one of his films that only special artists can coax from an inanimate piece of optical equipment.Miss Hepburn in particular benefits from this love. Extra insights into his work can be obtained from reading the published collections of his essays on stars and directors,principally 'Who the hell's in it?', recently remaindered in UK bookstores. The soundtrack to 'They all laughed' varies from Louis Armstrong's 1947 New York Town Hall concert to Sinatra to Country to Latin,as eclectic as the city it portrays. Mr B,s 'Golden Boy' image was sure to tarnish,for such is the nature of the movie business,but it is equally sure one day to be restored,and when that day comes 'They all laughed' will be recognised for the fine work that it is. | 0 |
Diana Guzman is an angry young woman. Surviving an unrelenting series of disappointments and traumas, she takes her anger out on the closest targets.<br /><br />When she sees violence transformed and focused by discipline in a rundown boxing club, she knows she's found her home. <br /><br />The film progresses from there, as Diana learns the usual coming-of-age lessons alongside the skills needed for successful boxing. Michelle Rodriguez is very good in the role, particularly when conveying the focused rage of a young woman hemmed in on all sides and fighting against not just personal circumstances but entrenched sexism.<br /><br />The picture could use some finesse in its direction of all the young actors, who pale in comparison to the older, more experienced cast. There are too many pauses in the script, which detracts from the dramatic tension. The overall quietness of the film drains it of intensity. <br /><br />This is a good picture to see once, if only to see the power of a fully realized young woman whose femininity is complex enough to include her power. Its limitations prevent it from being placed in the 'see it again and again' category. | 1 |
Travis (James Franco) is a young man riding a train for business reasons (we're to assume) who leaves his beloved phone behind. It gets picked up by a prostitute, Terri (Rachel Miner), and when he goes to her city to pick it up, a series of events occur that are sure to stay with him forever.<br /><br />Both characters have barriers they've put up to defend themselves from communication. But despite their facades, it's obvious both are eager to bust them down. In total there are about 30 or so spoken lines, but from the way James Franco and Rachel Miner use their faces you might as well turn off the volume, words are unnecessary. A scene to look out for is Terri staring at herself in the mirror. You can just feel her despair permeating the room.<br /><br />But, the movie isn't perfect. It's mostly filmed using hand-held cameras, which gets a bit distracting. Mainly due to the acting of Mr. Franco and Miner and the photography, the script's flaws don't stand out as much. Still, sometimes it seems as if the story doesn't really know where it wants to go.<br /><br />All in all, this is the type of film that truly stays with you long after you watched it. An hour after you've seen it, you're still 'what-if'-ing yourself on the behalf of certain characters. It's not flawless, but still leaves you wanting more, wishing it were at least 4x as long. | 0 |
I didn't know what to expect when I rented this widescreen DVD. I knew it had a cult following but I had also seen a lot of the director's later works which although delightfully gory were also pretty much incoherent. DON'T TORTURE A DUCKLING actually had a linear storyline and a mystery that kept me guessing almost until the end. And after all was said and done, it was a genuinely unsettling and creepy experience. One major caveat: I would much rather have heard the original soundtrack and read English subtitles than the uneven dubbing found here. | 0 |
...This would be the worst film i'd ever seen. Hmmm, OK maybe tied with Boogeyman then. Awful, truly awful.<br /><br />I had low expectations and it failed to meet them! I honestly cant think of one good thing. so here are the worst points...<br /><br />1. THE ACTING 2. THE PLOT 3. THE CGI (Xbox 360 has better graphics....seriously) 4. THE PLOT 5. THE DIALOGUE and finally.... 6. THE PLOT <br /><br />There are so many unanswered questions, Did they make a 2:32 hour long movie then realize they hadn't put Lex Luthor and Superman in a scene together and were forced to settle for the 3 minute bit or did they actually think no-one would notice that the main hero and villain have less screen time together than Superman's son and the henchman he kills?!!<br /><br />Was half the budget spent on persuading Kevin Spacey to do it?<br /><br />When Superman goes to hospital, why don't the doctors ask 'What the F*** do you want us to do?! He's a F***ing alien! We don't know jack about his anatomy!'? <br /><br />What happened in the 5 years Superman was away to cause technology to advance 28 years? <br /><br />Where the people who wrote good reviews watching the same movie?<br /><br />and finally, Why? Just, Why? <br /><br />BTW, for those of you wondering how come Superman could lift an entire continent of krypyonite, i think i've figured it out...<br /><br />...since superman is unaffected by the kryptonite till he sees something green in the rocks, it is clearly all in his head. therefore the continent thing is just him suppressing his fear of shiny green rock....<br /><br />either that or the writers are slack-jawed half-wits who didn't think that was a fairly obvious mistake. | 1 |
There are no spoilers here... Because there is no plot to spoil. Madchen Amick is living proof a face can make a living acting-- no talent required. The only bright spot are a few really good one-liners delivered very nicely by Alice Krige, but then again, she IS Alice Krige. Her soft dreamy voice gives the only hint at just how seductively dangerous these odd creatures can be. She is believably creepy in this otherwise unbelievable plot. How they got her to agree to this project remains a mystery. The screenplay writers must have been medicated when they submitted this script. It has major continuity problems, superficial stereotypical characters, horror formula writing, and simply falls short of making any sense what-so-ever. The creatures, while they have neat skills like going 'dim', the question of where they come from and what they are is never so much explored. <br /><br />Don't waste any time on this one. | 1 |
I couldn't disagree more with those who says this is a lousy movie. Me and my friend went to see it during the Stockholm film festival and this was actually one of my favorite movies during the festival. Dolls being used in horror movies aren't something new but I haven't seen that many movies were it has been as well carried out as it is in this movie. The atmosphere, the setting, the actors, the camera-work.. everything is just beautiful. And they really work well with each other. Now if you expect this film to be another Grudge or Ring then you probably won't like it. But if your out for a good, stylized scare then it's perfect. Even though it's pretty predictable and at some times laughable I still recommend this to anyone who likes horror flicks. Go see it. Now. | 0 |
This is the worst movie I've ever seen. Boring, illogical, terrible. Don't waste even a minute in your life to watch this crap! I hope the directors won't make any other movie because this movie bankrupts them. The movie seems to be created in one or two days with some friends of the directors (if we can use this word for these 2 guys). They use only camera in hand. Many scenes are in darkness and nothing can be seen. Lots of scenes (80% of the movie) are with conversation only. ! There are movies like Vampire vs. Zombies which you can laugh on but this one is simply bad, no point to making such movies. Please, stop Jason Horton and Shannon Hubbel. Don't make more movies! | 1 |
This is a film for entertainment; I did not think the world made social commentary from one small film. I personally find this film funny, audacious, and memorable. It is a fantasy not unlike a cinder girl becoming a Princess. This film was done very well I might add, in the 70's a time of the best experiments in film with being able to mention a person's sexuality. This movie is not about a person being homosexual or not, it is however about love, in all it's strange forms. This film does show some of the realities of being gay in the 70's in Hollywood, or in California. Pretty boys being looked after by older not so pretty men. Women who had to stay deeply locked in the emotional closet or risk not having a career. Bathhouses were an integral part of the gay community.<br /><br />THEN the fantasy begins!! Let us mix a lesbian with a gay and add some liquor and what do we have? Well this movie, which in ANY way was better than that dismal redo 'The Next Big Thing'. Perhaps someone should have asked the entire crew to see this movie and then try to do better.<br /><br />I enjoyed this movie when I saw it in the 70's and it still brings a smile to my lips now. I heartily advise anyone who wants a funny, tender movie- to curl up with some popcorn and have some fun. Some people need to lighten up!!! And this is the film you should do it with!<br /><br /> | 0 |
I loved this movie. The scenery was breathtaking, the plot had some nice twists and turns, and the characters were well rounded. On two fronts, however, 'Rob Roy' scored far above average. First, I have rarely seen a 'popular' film in which the quality of dialogue was so high. There were many verbal slashes and thrusts to accompany the brilliantly choreographed swordplay. I could give numerous examples, but why should I? Just watch the film. Second, this movie understood a principle rarely acknowledged any more. For a drama to succeed, it needs not only a hero, but a really believable villain. If you don't have one, there's not much joy in rooting for the good guys. And 'Rob Roy' has not one, but three--the Earl of Montrose, his henchman Kilairn, and Archie. Not one-dimensional villains, either, but fully fleshed and very nasty. It takes a bit more patience than 'Braveheart'--there's more dialogue, and the accents are a bit tough, but it's a much more clever and subtle piece. (As I said, I loved this movie!) | 0 |
It amazes me that production companies will sue because of reproductions they will not supply. I've been looking for this movie on DVD for a while and VHS for years. One can get all sorts of movies on line...old movies, new movies... but it all targets a particular group. This movie is very nostalgic for many. I'm not sure why I can't get a copy. Maybe if enough people will write in, the copyright holder will get a clue. It's about time for this to happen. Yes, it's date, but so is The Wizard of OZ. It doesn't seem like this should be so difficult. So, for now, I'll keep seeing those illegal copies on search engines like many others. | 0 |
Age of Steel follows up the previous episode, Rise of the Cybermen, which was excellent in some respects, lacking in others. RotC had some positive elements, the most important being Tennant's excellent portrayal of the Doctor. Indeed, his sort of daft giddiness bears, to this writer, the shadow of Tom Baker's Doctor, with his sort of subconscious asides (as when ticking off time periods when Mickey is holding down the button in the Tardis), yet brings his own aloof superiority a la McCoy's Doctor as he lets events coalesce around him. Some reviewers and fans whose pieces I've read seem a bit dismayed at having such a young actor portray someone who must by now be over a 1000 old, but I disagree. Tennant's Doctor does indeed 'bear the weight of the world on his shoulders' as he points out in this episode, and one can see this in his almost smug characterization, as when he finally confronts Lumic/The Cybercontroller in the climax. His world-weary, eyes-rolling 'anothermaniacherewegoagain' sort of attitude is refreshing, especially after Eccleston's excellent pseudo-working class, bada** interpretation of the character, more the man of action than Tennant's fresh-faced pseudo-doofus. Tennant's best moment is perhaps after the end when he is restoring the Tardis with his big goofy Baker-esquire grin as the Tardis re-starts. Here we begin to get a feeling for this new Doctor, a character who is little more than the average person's different personality facets split up into 13 different people; some contradictory, some more likable than others, yet all forming part of a whole. This aside, these two episodes were passable, but weak. The concept of reviving the Cybermen is much welcomed, and they look fantastic, but the plot involving a parallel Earth where this action takes place doesn't seem to work right. True, the allegory here of humans' reliance on technology and their need to serve it, as the Doctor points out, is outstanding, but this could easily have been placed on contemporary Earth or thereabouts. Some other weak spots are, as others have pointed out, the ease with which the Doctor and Co. get out of the tight spots, viz. the death ray from the Tardis component, the seemingly endless array of uses of the Sonic Screwdriver (my wife laughed when they were using it to burn through the rope ladder at the end; she has barely watched Who, so I had to explain that it was used traditionally as a plot device to extricate the characters from situations from which there is no other escape! Used here sadly). Some of the acting was wanting, especially Mickey, who really needs his due, and some of the supporting cast. Lumic was creepy, as he needed to be, his voice even sounded Cyberman-esquire. The score was horrific, though, with the music's volume often swamping out the scene. Overall, I found Rise of the Cyberman more entertaining, though the second half was passable. The build-up to what we knew was inevitable plays out well, however the resolution was disappointing. Too many unlikely escapes, no development of the supporting cast, and not enough Tennant in my opinion. This new show is outstanding, and Davies is taking it in a good direction, but the dialogue (beyond the Doctor's) needs to be tightened up, as Mickey's farewells illustrate, which were pure ham. | 0 |
Okul is the first of its kind in Turkish cinema, and it's way better than I expected. Those people who say it's neither scary nor funny have a point, it's not all that great indeed. But it must be kept in mind that everyone involved with the movie is rather amateur, so it's basically a maiden voyage. And comparing this one to Sinan Çetin's other films such as the 1st class garbage 'Propaganda', this movie is pretty damn good.<br /><br />One thing that MUST be said: It deals with the highschool students' life in Turkey VERY realistically! That's exactly how it goes! The scenes that are meant to scare are somewhat cheap, and Hollywoodish. Most of them even if not all. But that religion lesson scene made me laugh in tears, and Emre Kýnay performs the best acting of this flick as a religion teacher.<br /><br />It's NOT a waste of your time, go and watch it! You'll find it rather amusing especially if you know Turkey enough to relate to Turkish youngsters' school lives. | 0 |
This has to be my favourite film. The script is sharp and played to the limit by an excellent Miller and fantastic Carlisle! Sharp wit, excellent narrative and no Hollywood polishing; a totally immersible film which has you gunning for the bad guys! Stott excels again as the detestable Chance, while Liv Tyler truly beats her other, lighter performances as the excitement-hungry Rebecca! The soundtrack may not be known to you by name, but anyone who has ever seen Top Gear, watched the football or seen any TV action sequence is probably familiar with it, particularly due to Craig Armstrong's, 'Escape' which must allow him never to work again! The soundtrack on first play may seem out of place in a costume drama/action/comedy, but one re-watching shows it is perfectly at home in giving the the script it's drama.<br /><br />My one gripe about this film is that it isn't shown enough on TV! Where is it? Truly excellent, sharp and classy - you'll not regret watching it - again and again! (exits to switch on DVD player!) | 0 |
It felt like I watched this movie thousand times before.It was absolutely predictable.Every time the story tried to get a bit twisted,every time I awaited something interesting to happen, I saw nothing but what I expected. Like 'The bread factory opened up another facility,because there was not enough bread'. In two words:Flat story,that has become a cliché,bad acting,bad special effects...Only the dumb Russian cop,Vlad, was a bit funny while punishing around the bad guys.The pile of muscles was so incredibly STUPID,that it made me laugh at him for a moment. I wonder why i waste my time spitting on that shame-of-a-movie... It won't get worse (because it is not possible) :D | 1 |
If I had known this movie was filmed in the exasperating and quease-inducing Dogme 95 style, I would never have rented it. Nevertheless, I took a dramamine for the seasickness and gave it a shot. I lasted a very, very, very long forty minutes before giving up. It's just boring, pretentious twaddle.<br /><br />The last French movie I saw was 'Romance' and it too was pretty dismal, but at least the camera was steady and not breathing down the necks of the characters all the time. I am baffled at the continuing popularity of Dogme 95 overseas -- it'll catch on in America about the same time as the next big outbreak of leprosy. (It's called Dogme 95 because that's the average number of times the actors are poked in the eye by the camera.)<br /><br /> | 1 |
I'd never seen a Tarzan movie before so when I saw it on the tele I thought I'd give it a shot. Unfortunately I have to say I was disappointed. Tarzan was over 40 years old and somewhat overweight. Not how I'd imagined Tarzan would look. And, unless I missed it while making myself a cup of tea, Tarzan never gave his traditional warbling yell. Also missing was Tarzan swinging through the trees - leaping from vine to vine.<br /><br />Oh well, so much for expectations. Anyway, Jane was there - The monkey Cheeta was there. There was some guy with a guitar there. There were villains and good guys and a romance... all very harmless and predictable. Nothing bad, you understand, but equally nothing good.<br /><br />Probably not the best movie to introduce Tarzan: 4/10 | 1 |
'Jefferson in Paris' is a truly confounding film. It presents Thomas Jefferson (Nick Nolte) in the most unflattering light possible, painting him as a liar, racist and pedophile, yet offers not a shred of condemnation for those sins. This is the way he was, the film seems to say. End of sentence, end of movie, the door's behind you.<br /><br />After arriving in Paris with his daughter Patsy (Gwenyth Paltrow), Jefferson proceeds to win the heart of Maria Cosway (Greta Scacchi), the wife of a homosexual English painter (the criminally underused Simon Callow). A turn of events sends Maria to England, however, and Jefferson proceeds to forget her with astonishing speed for a man who, mere minutes of screen time before, was asking her to live with him in America.<br /><br />He's been bewitched, you see, by Sally Hemmings (Thandie Newton), one of his slaves just arrived from America. Just why he's bewitched is hard to tell--although Sally is undeniably beautiful, she acts like a simple-minded child in front of Jefferson. When she isn't telling ghost stories in exaggerated 'darky' speech patterns, she's slinking around his bedroom, practically oozing lust for her distinguished massa.<br /><br />If her behavior is an attempt to excuse Jefferson's, it doesn't work. Jefferson damns himself further when Maria, tired of waiting for his letters, travels from England to see him. I've not changed toward you, he insists, offering weak excuses for not writing. To her credit, Maria sees through his brazen lies immediately. When Sally appears, and she and Jefferson flirt openly (and cruelly, to my mind) in Maria's very presence, the illusion falls apart completely.<br /><br />No one today believes that Jefferson, Washington and the rest were utter paragons of virtue and morality. Yet, are we supposed to believe that the learned, distinguished Jefferson would be attracted to Sally, a woman whose most intelligent conversation is about how 'massa's Frenchie friends don' unnastan' aw corn' and who rubs herself against his front as she passes, right before Maria's eyes?<br /><br />Even if we let that slide, it's followed by the horrifying revelation that Sally was only 15 when this affair took place (Jefferson was 41). Strangely, this fact comes out only toward the very end, when Sally's brother James is understandbly furious at her blase announcement that she is carrying Jefferson's child.<br /><br />Jefferson is equally blase when told that Sally is carrying his child, and patronizingly tells her that she'd be far better off under his protection than free and living in France with her brother. But, he promises, I'll free her when I die and our children (including any more that come, Jefferson says, in a chilling declaration of Sally as *his*) when they reach 21. Oh thank you, massa, you feel like telling the screen. Big deal.<br /><br />The worst scene is still to come, however, involving Jefferson's daughter Patsy. She is already angry at him, first for breaking his vow, made to her mother on her deathbed, not to marry again. (Obviously the woman wasn't just talking about matrimony.) Jefferson has also refused to allow Patsy to become a nun as she wishes, despite earlier moralizing about freedom of religion (that seems to mean freedom to agree with him).<br /><br />Having promised Sally and her brother their freedom, Jefferson calls in Patsy to witness the bargain and promise to fulfill it should anything happen to him. Sally's brother blurts out the impending birth of the child, and Jefferson asks, 'do you swear?' Paltrow's performance in this scene is brilliant, although she has almost nothing to say. Her face nearly contorts in agonizing pain at this revelation, yet she controls her grief and whispers yes.<br /><br />If anything, and the filmmakers could have had something if they'd emphasized this point more, 'Jefferson in Paris' is an indication of the status of woman in the late 18th century, viewed even by men like Jefferson as attractive property, pleasing but without true intellect or souls. We see Jefferson shed a few tears over a letter from Maria, obviously telling him where to get off, but he's soon laughing away at a wild dance from Sally, complete with tossed hair and heaving bosom.<br /><br />I don't know whether this is an accurate portrait of Jefferson or not. I don't care to watch it, however, just for the sake of watching it. This Jefferson is no hero or even an anti-hero. He's a selfish, lying child-molestor--and one who gets away with it--not the kind of man I want to see a movie about. | 1 |
If the following sounds tempting, then by all means rush down to your local Blockbuster and rent this movie post-haste:<br /><br />1. Awful 60's hairstyles, from pathetic perms to dodgy ducktails.<br /><br />2. The worst child actor in the world ever, who does nothing but cry and say DADDY in the most annoying voice imaginable.<br /><br />3. Lots of stock footage of alligators and monkeys that doesn't mesh with the film. At all.<br /><br />4. Stereotypical Indians who use blowpipes and talk gobbledegook. Oh, and it goes without saying they whoop around a campfire.<br /><br />5. Hilariously fake plane crash mechanics where the cast actually throw themselves into the corners of the cardboard set.<br /><br />6. The exterior shots of 5, which look suspiciously like a toy jet on a string being led around a studio lit with blue light.<br /><br />7. Terrible special effects which make the ones used in the first Star Trek series look cutting edge by comparison. ( Special mention: The little boy's blond hair glowing. Oh dear..) <br /><br />8. Laughable editing and continuity, where background items move between scenes, the soundtrack changes completely without any warning etc.<br /><br />9. Not got enough money to hire a professional dancer? Get any lady from off the street to prance about like an idiot! No-one will notice the difference! Er..<br /><br />10. A 'thrilling' climax involving quicksand, snakes (more stuff from the archives) and a ton of fake blood. Don't forget to put in a stupid 'tribal' sounding song either!<br /><br />The more sensible among you however, will wait for it's inevitable appearance on MST3K when this classic TV show is resurrected and then you can watch it in the spirit it was intended. Any other kind of enjoyment to be derived from this crap is unthinkable.. not to mention unworkable. So don't even try it. 0/10 | 1 |
A comedy of epically funny proportions from the guys that brought you South Park, and most of the guys from Orgazmo. This vulgur, obscence movie has utterly disgusting, eggotistical, and satirical content. It portrays incredibly cruel treatment of humans and animals. I LOVE IT!!!!! This is some funny stuff. Really funny. Two loser friends create a game in thier driveway, which explodes into a national sensation. Corruption and greed and blackmail turn the sport sour, and its up ta Coop ta fix it. And along the way, you will laugh. Alot. That's all there is. Enjoy!!!! | 0 |
As a Michigander, I got the Michigan jokes. Very funny - make fun of Pontiac, Ann Arbor, all those lame suburbs of Detroit. Yes, yes, I've heard these jokes a million times. I'll give them credit for accurately depicting the lameness of Grosse Pointe. It couldn't get more White. Did you hear those lovely Michigan nasal accents? Where the girls talk so fast you can't understand one word that comes out of their mouth (nose)...? As much as I love Michigan, I hated this movie. <br /><br />I have never met one person from Grosse Pointe that I liked. Listen to that awful live band and that annoying and horrid background music! What is that? One of your Gross Pointe homeboy's band? Probably. Wow, what a great 'Detroit scene' you guys have over there. Funny how people from Grosse Pointe always say they're from Detroit. They're so White and rich, they wish they had something to complain about.<br /><br />Anyway, this movie blows. All the way from the lame jokes about girls in thongs to the terrible character development. Oh wait a minute, you mean the entire basis for a character is that he says the f-word a lot? What a deep personality. Great job, Grosse Pointers! And I love all the sexist lingo, like how the narrator calls the first girl who gets killed that we never even hear speak a 'naive b*tch'. That's really lovely.<br /><br />And those homemade masks with the Marilyn Manson contact lenses are really great. And I love how it made perfect sense as to why the bikers came by and killed people. And how their narrating master had such a obvious role in the movie... ?? The main boyfriend dude was so boring I fell asleep looking at him. The three idiot guys (or was it two or four? how can I tell, they all look and act the same!) were so desperately trying to make me laugh, but Beavis and Butthead already got out my butt humor laughs back in 1994. And what's with the gay jokes? No wonder this movie sucked - everyone involved must have some minor problems with their masculinity, eh boys?<br /><br />The only saving grace to this film was the main girl. Despite what the other people on here have said, she actually was a good actress. Teenage girls talk the way she talked. They really act the way she acted. Her acting was very natural and believable. I really thought she was a Grosse Pointe convenience store employee. .. maybe she is! And yeah she had big boobs, most the women here do. Michigan is the fattest state in the union, you know. In all aspects.<br /><br />So, those of you who think this is a representation of Detroit, it's not. It's the suburbs of Detroit. They are very White and full of aimless teen angst. Limp Bizkut, ICP (yes, ICP is from one of our suburbs) and $75 baggy khaki pants all the way! Lame rich kids who are mad because they have lots of money and nothing to complain about. And they make bad movies, too.<br /><br /> | 1 |
Martin Sheen, Michelle Phillips, Stuart Margolin and the late Vic Morrow are the human stars of this movie about a young man looking for answers about his brother's death. Mr. Sheen, Mr. Margolin and Mr. Morrow all turn in first rate performances in their respective roles; Ms. Phillips has the slightly less than enviable task of trying to spice up a made-for-TV movie (twenty-five years ago), by supplying the 'sex interest' in an otherwise sexless film. The real star, however, is the 'California Kid'; a 1934 Ford coupe, borrowed from 'Jake' Jacobs, put before a camera and given a workout that'll leave the viewer panting, gasping and holding the edge of the seat with breathless anticipation.<br /><br />The action scenes are spectacular, (although some of the dialog is a bit lame) making for a fine evening's diversion. This is how all 'car movies' should be made.<br /><br />Try to catch this one on the late movie channel; it's well worth the missed sleep. | 0 |
I saw this movie a few months ago in the town which appeared as Greendale in the movie, which is the only reason I went to see it. Another local who was there just forwarded to me an email announcement of a repeat showing because the first had sold out and people were turned away. His editorial comment in his forward is a good summary:<br /><br />'Yuk.'<br /><br />Unless you're a Neil Young fan or live in/near 'Greendale' (if the latter you know the real name), skip this movie. It's mostly an ego trip for the filmmaker. It has no discernible plot, the music is merely OK, and too much of the lyrics are unintelligible making it impossible to follow what little shreds of plot there may be.<br /><br />I don't need to put in a spoiler warning because there are no surprises to give away.<br /><br />I'd give this a 1.5/10, but that's just for the amusement value of seeing the locales made into a movie. It wasn't worth the $6. I could rent a video camera and drive around 'Greendale' and make a better movie myself.<br /><br />If you want to see a *good* environmental-message movie with no plot, go rent Koyaanisqatsi. | 1 |
...you know the rest. If you want a good zombie movie, DON'T RENT THIS MOVIE. If you want a documentary-esquire look at 'hood life' you're at the wrong place as well. If you're looking for a laughable piece of film, this is a real winner! The acting is as flat as a piece of paper. The best example of this is definitely the officer investigating the drive-by. I can tell that he did the voice for the 911 operator as well by the flat tone of his voice. If I could hear a cardboard box talk, it'd probably sound like this guy. Oh yea, and the 'zombies' did their best snake impression which is on par with their FANTASTIC acting overall (note sarcasm...HOW DID THIS NOT WIN AN Oscar FOR BEST MAKE-UP) The Quiroz......did not do any sort of directing. I felt like I was watching an improvisational period piece (the period is more like 1990's LA) The direction is however one-uped by the worst script I think to ever grace a movie. I haven't heard such lovely lines, like the epic one word beginning to the movie 'F**k!', since Ice Grill which was another 'urban' thriller. This only works of course in conjunction with the also-epic hip-hop soundtrack! All 3 or so songs of it! All in all, what the hell did you expect from a movie entitled 'Hood of the Living Dead'? I rented this movie with full intention to laugh at its every scene, and boy it delivered and MORE! I would definitely recommend this to anyone who wants to get together with a bunch of guys and laugh at a low budget horror (yea right...) movie for the night. A memorable experience for sure! | 1 |
Seeing Laurel without Hardy in a film seems strange, yet it's entertaining all the same. It's a well done parody of what became a classic silent film and it showcases Stan's talents very well. While his pictures with Oliver Hardy were great, these early solo efforts give you an idea of how skilled he was at his craft and how great he might have been had he continued in the tradition of Keaton and Chaplin as an individual star on his own. The dance sequence with his real-life wife in the café scene is the best part of the picture, and has some pretty funny bits to go with Laurel's excellent dance steps. And the bullfight climax is a gem, as even the bull takes a pratfall. And I like the irony in the scene where he's buried in hats and comes up wearing his familiar Laurel and Hardy bowler hat. As much as I love the Laurel and Hardy team and feel that there was never a funnier comedy duo on screen during their prime, it's nice to see them on their own once in a while (check out THE FIGHTING KENTUCKIAN that Hardy made with the Duke as another fine example.) Dale Roloff | 0 |
This movie is watchable, but nothing special. Four girls on a road trip to Vegas foolishly decide to pick up a hitchhiker (because he is cute). They all end up staying the night at a motel in the middle of nowhere, and the hitchhiker's psychotic issues with women become apparent.<br /><br />The characters are clichés--there is a married, responsible woman; a slutty party girl; an unsure bride-to-be; and a man-hater who just got dumped. The hitchhiker is genuinely nice until he goes crazy.<br /><br />There's not nearly enough gore, and way too much rape. I enjoy slasher horror/thrillers a lot, and this one did nothing for me. The ending was just as lame as the rest of the movie.<br /><br />On the positive side, the actors did a great job with that they had to work with. The dialogue isn't awful, and overall I was impressed with the cast, having never seen or heard of any of them before. And the plot wasn't out of the realm of possibility (although I really doubt any woman in this day and age would pick up a hitchhiker--no matter how attractive he is), so I wasn't groaning that things didn't make sense.<br /><br />Overall, 'The Hitchhiker' was well-acted and made sense, but wasn't very interesting. There are a lot of better movies in the same genre that I would recommend over this one ('Rest Stop,' 'The Devil's Rejects,' 'Texas Chainsaw Massacre,' even 'The Hitcher' remake). Do yourself a favor and skip it unless you don't have any other options. | 1 |
Duchess is a pretty white cat who lives with her three kittens in her wealthy owner's mansion in Paris. When the evil butler hears that the rich old lady is leaving everything in her will to the cats first, the butler is angered, because he wants to get everything first. So he puts them to sleep and abandons them off the side of the road. When the cats wake up, they start on a long trek home. A street wise cat named Thomas O'Malley meets up with them and offers to help them. When Edgar sees them arriving home, he is furious, and starts to mail them to Timbucktu. But Thomas' friends arrive to help save the day. The wealthy lady decides to leave her home for every alley cat in Paris.<br /><br />This is a charming film. The songs, including 'Everybody Wants to be a Cat', are lively and upbeat. The voice cast is excellent, with Eva Gabor(who would later play Miss Bianca in Disney's THE RESCUERS films) as Duchess, Phil Harris(Baloo in THE JUNGLE BOOK, Little John in ROBIN HOOD) as Thomas, giving interesting personalities to their characters. Supposedly Walt Disney, before he died in 1966, gave the go-ahead to this film. Recommended for Disney fans or cat lovers everywhere! 10/10. | 0 |
If you like to comment on films where the script arrive halfway the movie then this is the one. A setting and acting as in a Porn movie but nothing is happening only some groping and touching of the third kind. Which actually becomes very boring after 45 minutes of touchy feely but no action. A few of the actors I've seen in real x rated movies and there their acting then was a lot better. All the special effects are done by the great 'Rondo' Whom performs all the magic whit his mind. A cult movie is written on the box. Does that mean that this film is not to be watched at all???<br /><br />Get drunk with some friends and watch this movie on new years eve ore thanks giving. | 1 |
A most recommendable masterpiece, not only for the underlying themes of the story but also for the unmatchably brilliant and ingenious picture work of Angelopoulos, not to mention the acting of giants, Mastroianni and Moreau, and the remarkable character play by Ilias Logothethis. Gregory Karr's performance may seem overshadowed by his 'tough' partners' at first stance but in fact he perfectly plays his character, which is revealed in his very last scene with the girl (Khrysikou) and the man (Mastroianni), albeit hinted beforehand. (Hence the spoiler.)<br /><br />Get your expectations straight! It's an 'art movie' in whatever meaning that phrase has to offer and requires attention. Not for spending free time, but for watching an artwork with the necessary concentration as in reading a book or attending a concert. Due to the overall photographic style, large screen viewing is recommended.<br /><br />Dialogues are used sparingly. But the film includes -in addition to the standard Greek and English speaking- fragments spoken in Albanian, Kurdish and Turkish, which will be attractive for those who are charmed by the beauty in hearing various languages. | 0 |
Yes, it is a bit cheesy. But it's suspenseful and entertaining, and one of my favorites; there are some excellent actors in the film, and they do a commendable job given the limitations of plot and characters. It's interesting to see David Soul in a 'bad guy' role; I thought he was quite believable--and rather chilling--as the ever-more-paranoid CO. Robert Conrad is a long-time favorite--I think he brings his character to life very well; and Sam Waterston has been star quality in everything of his I've watched--movies or TV. <br /><br />I watch this movie every so often but our tape (a VHS TV copy I got) is such poor quality it's difficult to fully enjoy it. This is a movie I think they should put out on DVD; maybe it wouldn't be universally sought after, but I'm sure there are lots of people like me out there who like this sort of film so there WOULD be a market for a DVD version. I'll keep hoping! | 0 |
Imagine turning the American national anthem into a cartoon. Throw in a couple of cute animals, some terrible puns and a pair of roller skates and you'd find yourself with almost an exact replica of this film.<br /><br />I remember seeing this when I was younger; I made my Mother rent it from the video shop about 5 times. The story itself isn't too bad, it's just that any Marxists watching would certainly have something to complain about.<br /><br />If you don't like America you won't like this film. | 1 |
The Kite Runner began as one of those 'important' films that most people fawn over because they are told that they should if they want to be among the elite and quickly descended into an idiotic film of absurdly outlandish proportions.<br /><br />I've never read the book, and never felt the need because I honestly don't care. Sure I'm called uninformed for saying it but I truly have no interest whatsoever in just another 'pull at your heartstrings, copy off of all other story lines to get emotion from the readers' novel, even if it is set in Afghanistan.<br /><br />That said, I watched the movie. I heard good things about its beauty, and how touching it was and decided why not? As it turns out, there was a very good reason why not. Not only was the so called main character completely unsympathetic (I get it, he was young and this is a film about redemption but honestly he was horrible. I hated him and not in that good 'Anti-hero' way, he was just a dull, idiotic, self-absorbed character that I felt nothing towards) but the rest of the story was so completely absurd that I couldn't believe how everyone else was fawning over how beautiful it was, and how they cried and it moved them. I'm sorry, but I only feel moved by something that feels realistic, Sci-Fi has been known to move me, fantasy as well...but this? Please. This surpassed many other movies for pure absurdity! My biggest peeve, Hassan was Amir's brother...really? You sure you didn't just rip that off from a thousand other stories? Positive that that particular tidbit wasn't just added in to try to pull more tears out of your audiences (y'know the type of people who look for reasons to cry during a movie)? I was rolling my eyes when that 'twist' was revealed knowing that it could only go downhill from there (not to mention flashing back to Star Wars 'Amir, Hassan is your brother' 'NOOOoo, that's not true, that's IMPOSSIBLE!') Oh, and it certainly did. Filled to the brim with cliché's and just plan dumb storytelling. Like 'good guy miraculously escapes bad guy against all odds with help from spunky kid who despite being viciously sodomized and having no clue who you are is willing to help out with a conveniently placed weapon that holds special meaning to you'. Ooh and don't forget the oh so idiotic 'finally getting vengeance on the kid who teased you when you were little who, surprise surprise, has turned into a psychopathic adult' (trust me guys, I understand you like to live vicariously through movies but that'll never happen. You know that kid who teased you in high school...he's no terrorist, he's probably an accountant.) <br /><br />Oh, and I must mention the CGI-tastic kites! I think those were on par with the 'Matrix' movies and 'Transformers' bravo you guys! BRAVO!<br /><br />It seems this movie was just made for western audiences who need to a reason to care about the Middle East (hey an overly emotional friendship story will work!) This is one of the most shallow movies I've had the misfortune of seeing, it poses as deep well...but when you get right down to it, it's nothing special.<br /><br />Unfortunately, the core of America's audience will do what they're told and follow the 'It's about controversial material so it must be good!' way of thinking. | 1 |
Flavia the Heretic is an undeniable work of art and probably my number one recommendation to state that the euro-exploitation cinema is severely underrated and not to be ignored. This is an intelligent and complex film, beautifully realized and surprise pretty damn accurate! This is more than just meaningless sleaze or gratuitous violence and it's about time those prudish film committees who categorize Flavia as forbidden trash reckon this as well. Flavia is a beautiful 14th century adolescent, forced to live the life of an obedient nun in a strict convent. She refuses to accept her being inferior just because she's female and she curses her fellow sister for being so tolerant about this. After a fruitless attempt to escape, she befriends another rebellious nun and she even guides a troop of bloodthirsty Muslims into the walls of the convent.<br /><br />Flavia is a downright mesmerizing film! Almost impossible to believe that director Gianfranco Mingozzi managed to make it appear so realistic and so disturbing. I challenge you to come up with a title that centers on the topic of pioneer-feminism more intensely than Flavia does. Several sequences are quite shocking (on the verge of nightmarish, actually) as the camera zooms in on brutal rapes, torture and mutilation. Yet all this raw footage isn't just used to satisfy perverted gorehounds, mind you. I'm strongly convinced that they're part of the statement 'Flavia' is trying to communicate: Humanity (the Catholic Church in particular) historically proved itself to be a hypocrite and discriminating race and there's no use in denying it any further. Films like 'Flavia, the Heretic' have the courage to question and openly condemn our precious ancestors and I truly admire them for it. Flavia is an outstanding and fundamental exploitation film because of its substance, but it's even brought to an higher level by the wondrous cinematography, the glorious costumes & scenery and a breathtaking musical score by Nicola Piovani. Florinda Bolkin is very convincing as the ambitious and headstrong nun but it's María Casares who steals the show as Sister Agatha. She's a man-hating and loud-mouthed nun who likes to urinate in the open field! Amen, sister! | 0 |
There's really not much need to begin this little review with a plot synopsis. I mean it's Shakespeare's Hamlet for goodness sake probably one of the best known plays ever written. I'm not embarrassed to admit that I came to this version of Hamlet the way most people on IMDb have through Mystery Science Theater 3000. While the show may not be the best venue to use to judge a movie, in this case I cannot imagine attempting to watch it without the comedic quips. In a word, this German, made-for-TV version of Hamlet is dreary. 152 minutes? No way! It's too dark and depressing to be anything I want to spend almost three hours on. I've said it any number of times, but entertainment is the thing for me. And this wrist-slitter is far from entertaining. I will, however, give it a couple of points for what I felt was some reasonably good acting. A 3/10 sounds about right to me.<br /><br />As much as I enjoy MST3K, their comments don't help to make Hamlet any more palatable. There are a few good riffs here and there, but overall, Hamlet is just the wrong movie for MST3K. Shakespeare is far too talky to allow the comedy to have any sort of rhythm or flow. As much as it pains me, I've got to give Hamlet a 1/5 on my MST3K rating scale. | 1 |
Ed Harris and Cuba Gooding Jr. where cast perfectly in this film. It's a heart-warming story that reaffirms the belief that we can all make a difference if we just care. I think there was a lot of realism with the characters. The screenwriter didn't incorporate racism in the film in a way that most films do, which I thought created a more realistic story line.<br /><br />Writers tend to inject incidents of racism in an attempt to create realism but usually go overboard. <br /><br />There are so many towns like this one where people of different races live harmoniously. Ed Harris should have been nominated for an Academy Award because he was great as a leader and coach, realistic as a father and showed a warm caring side when helping Radio. | 0 |
I am a huge fan of the original Assault On Precinct 13. The ice cream scene haunts me to this day. I'm 33 now and I still remember being horrified by it as a child. When I heard they were remaking it, I thought it might be good but when I saw the film, it's 100% not the same film. It's not a remake. It's a bad stolen idea. It was completely ruined. The cast, Maria Bello, Laurence Fishburne, Ethan Hawke, Gabriel Burne, John Leguizamo and Drea De Matteo are all great actors but even they couldn't save this film. It was just wrong. Even the setting was completely opposite. And how in the hell did no one in that city notice that there was a war going on next door? Why didn't help show up sooner? Stupid. No sense. | 1 |
When someone refers to the independent cinema realm in the United States it's often inferred that it means the filmmaker or people behind the project had much more creative freedom and did what they wanted. This, today, is not really always the case unless someone is a solid 'auteur' and creative freedom still comes with the caveat that one has to find distribution with one of the independent divisions of major studios or by getting picked up somehow for some kind of low-level deal at a worthwhile film festival. But Putney Swope, Robert Downey Sr's film about a tough-as-nails African-American accidentally promoted to head advertising guru at a production company, *is* independent cinema, the kind of work that went right along with the likes or Romero's Night of the Living Dead and Cassavetes Faces at the same time of getting no real typical studio distribution but causing waves, kicking ass and taking names in the cinema world. For all its moments that are rough and crude, it's unforgettable.<br /><br />It's also a film that is funny, very and excruciatingly funny. Sometimes the sense of humor is just so ridiculous it's nearly impossible not to laugh, from the mere appearance of the President Mimeo with his wife to lines of dialog from the advertisements Swope's team puts together like 'I can't eat an air conditioner' in a real 'soul' voice. It is as smart as the audience it is aiming at, which is anyone with two brain cells to put together who can see that this work isn't offensive or *too* shocking because it's meant to rattle the cage, and it does this pretty well in the first five minutes. Once that's past Downey Sr goes on his blitz of sorts as far as being a filmmaker with nothing to lose: his protagonist is part Fidel Castro, part Isaac Hayes circa 1972 (and yes it's 1969 in the film) and part hard-assed ad exec with a firing streak to make Mr. Spacely on the Jetsons look kind. And don't forget those side characters, dear God.<br /><br />There's so many memorable lines and moments that it's hard to keep track. From maybe the most hilarious botched assassination attempt in any movie to the one ad for 'Face-Off' skin cream that includes lines that would give South Park a run for its dirty-mouth money, to just little asides with the one guy from Jack Hill's movies playing the Muslim who keeps giving lip to Swope and that one boy with the the nun who curses up a storm and impresses Swope in a swift stroke. It's a pretty direct message about media and advertising, but there's also a lot of powerful moments where it just hits the nail on the head about racism in America, sometimes without having to do more than a gesture and sometimes with doing something HUGE like having black panther types going this way and that around Swope's advertising regime. And for a low-budget production (I mean super low, hence the comparison to Night of the Living Dead and Faces) Downey got some really good actors, all non-union, and it's hard to imagine that some of them might have had their first time on camera here.<br /><br />It should be mentioned that Downey's style doesn't make it perfect: it is crude and sometimes too crazy and dated for its own good, and I'm sure I didn't get some of the underlying humor of a couple of the ads since I'm from a full generation after these ads were aired (albeit the 'Miss Redneck Jersey' was definitely not lost on me). In general though this is one of the finest of its time period, a satire that stings and a feature with a predominantly black cast that is all too knowing of what comes from an excess of power, regardless of skin color. It is, as someone might say, 'good s***.' | 0 |
How can anyone even begin to like this film is really beyond me.<br /><br />The idea? It has none. 'A guy fell apart'. That's the idea. Wow. An environment was slowly killing him... now THAT's original and worth watching.<br /><br />This is the first Fasbinder's film I've seen... I've heard that he's a genius of mise-en-scene, but I've seen student films with more attention, inspiration, idea, and craft than this... this.... this nothing. It has nothing!<br /><br />Each and every shot is too long. There's so much emptiness in them... The acting's horrible. You can see the actors had no preparation at all, no understanding of their roles, not even an attempt at showing emotions... it's so... superficial... The lines are so explicative that you could removed 90% of them and still have the same crappy film. Tempo? Who cares about it. Atmosphere, dynamics, that's for pussies! One shot per scene, 80% of the time people staring unrealistically, having no idea how to represent emotions and importance of the moment besides hollow staring at the camera or one another... EDiting? All rules of editing have been disregarded with no pa pay-off of any kind... Photography? Half of the shots have reflection in them, and crappy lighting with no stylization of any kind. Shadows, play of shadows... who needs that? We need a guy pissing, drinking, hitting his wife like he's... like he's acting. We need a bunch of close ups of a not-so-beautiful woman... we need an amateurish climax of his capture by an unconvincing arabian torturer... This film has so much wrongs that it isn't worth the no-budget it had.<br /><br />Frankly, I haven't seen a film this bad since American Pie 5. Yup. That bad.<br /><br />I've just started watching his 'Veronica Foss' movie, which seems much better, based on the first 15 minutes (since it does have a hint of directing and artistic idea, unlike this crap), so I won't argue that Fasbinder's clueless.... but this.... this film SUCKS! | 1 |
The movie is excellent. Acting, cinematography, direction and music are spellbinding. It seems to me that the reason so many give the movie a low score is because of the devotion they have to the original, 1937 version starring Ronald Coleman. That movie - for good reason! - engendered an unbelievable level of commitment. From talking with people who saw the original when it first came out, I believe the impact was something akin to the first 'Starwars' movie in modern times. I have seen it. It was and is wonderful. But that does not mean that this version is not also worthy. From the first scene the 1973 version grabs you. The noise and tumult are fantastic, especially in they way they prepare you for the peace of Shangri La. And Burt Bacharach's music is beautiful. So - by all means enjoy the 1937 version. But do not let it detract from your enjoyment of this 1973 version any more than you would let the 1935 King Kong destroy Peter Jackson's of this year. | 0 |
All I could think while watching this movie was: 'Will it ever end?!' It was unbearably boring to watch. I was wishing I could just turn it off, but I wanted to do this review justice so I fought the good fight and withstood the torture of watching this movie all the way through so that you, the good reader, need not bear that pain also.<br /><br />This movie sounds like it has a great premise if you read the premise on paper. However, the actual movie does not deliver on this premise at all.<br /><br />The opening scene features a mineshaft in the early 1900's, where they are forcing kids to carry dynamite into the tunnels that aren't big enough for the adults to fit into. This seems to be setting up the premise for an interesting movie. But after 4 minutes, it becomes clear that is not the case. The adults who committed these crimes are never punished; there is no consequences shown in the movie for their actions. The opening scene is way better than, and completely irrelevant to, the rest of the movie. The last time an opening scene misrepresented a movie so grievously was the opening scene of 28 Days Later which was the only good scene in *that* whole movie. Wicked Little Things/Zombies (a movie so crappy they changed the title to try to disguise it's crappiness and sell it again) is exactly the same in this regard. The opening scene is the only watchable scene in the whole movie.<br /><br />Instead, the movie flashes forward to present-day. A single mother and her two bratty, foul-mouthed kids. Right here is when it would have been wise to press the STOP button and never go near the movie again.<br /><br />In the first hour, the zombie kids are barely even seen. They get maybe 3 minutes of screen-time, total. All they do is kill a pig, that's it. The rest of the hour is spent showing the dumb mother and her dumb kids buy things at the local store, wander around the forest, and have inane conversations with each other. The dumb teenage daughter goes and hangs out with some other idiot teenagers and smokes weed with them.<br /><br />There would be no reason to care at all if the zombie kids dispatched anyone in this movie. Every single character is both dumb & annoying, with no redeeming qualities at all. Not to mention one-dimensional and clichéd.<br /><br />This movie would have been *vastly improved* if the mother and her dumb kids were dispatched in the first 10 minutes by the zombie kids, as they were driving up to their new house, then the end credits rolled. That right there would instantly change the score from 1/10, to 10/10. Honestly! When the dumb mother takes her eyes off the road and almost crashes into a pedestrian on the road, her daughter scolds her: 'You almost killed us, mom!' Of course, anyone with common sense knows that if the mom had hit the pedestrian, it would be the pedestrian who would be dead --- not the people safely encased *inside* the car. I guess this line was put into the movie to show firsthand that the utter stupidity of the main characters knows no bounds, and runs in the family.<br /><br />Wicked Little Things/Zombies runs for 1 hour and 34 minutes, but it definitely felt like 5 hours or more to me. Trying to not fall asleep was a tremendous challenge. It's not until over an hour has passed into the 1 hour and 34 minutes that the zombie children actually bother to kill any person. Then the scene shows the dumb teenagers drinking beer and making out in a car and saying lines like, 'If you ever wanna get in my pants again, you better start the car and get my ass out of here right now.' Seriously, that's verbatim from the movie. The teenagers are so clichéd, one-dimensional, badly-acted, dumb & annoying that when the zombie kids finally get around to hacking 3 of them up 1 hour and 5 minutes into the movie, it feels like a cause for celebration. Of course the 'Princess' dumb weed-smoking foul-mouthed beer-drinking loser daughter of the main mother character gets away scott-free. What a buzzkill that was! She was on the screen longer than the others and hence the most annoying of the 4 of them, and most deserving of a pickaxe to the head. All the more reason why she should have been dispatched within the first 10 minutes, as aforementioned. To still keep her around past 1 hour and 5 minutes though, is totally inexcusable.<br /><br />The reason for this of course is that feature length movies need to be padded to at least 1 hour and 30 minutes. So by keeping her alive long-past when she should be, they have an extra 27 minutes to pad the movie with her and her mother running through the woods. By 1 hour and 22 minutes in, it's the *second* time in the movie where the annoying daughter is trapped in a vehicle where the engine won't start whilst the zombie kids are coming to get her.<br /><br />The zombie kids are completely generic. Never say anything. No character development at all for any of them.<br /><br />In the end, all 3 of the annoying, idiotic main characters live. Which in my opinion, is the filmmakers' way of giving a final flipping the bird gesture to the viewing audience. In my opinion, the filmmakers surely know that they have bamboozled anyone who has had the great misfortune to watch the whole movie. Why not rub their faces in it by not even giving them the satisfaction of seeing any of the 3 main characters who should have been dispatched within the first 10 minutes, die.<br /><br />Avoid Wicked Little Things/Zombies like the Bubonic Plague. | 1 |
I had the pleasure of watching this two chairs down from (one of?) the Executive Producer at the Atlantic Film Festival, Which was interesting because he laughed at very different times than the rest of us.<br /><br />Filmed in Atlantic Canada, the movie is about three teen-aged girls who in one of their last summers of their youth, devote a large deal of energy to sleeping with a married 30-year old man, despite much protestation.<br /><br />It's definitely worth a watch, but the humour was geared a completely different demographic than the one I inhabit (Male 18-25), so I was shaking my head at the character's antics rather than laughing. Inspite of this, the story is strong enough to hold up for itself make it entertaining, without so much laughing. | 0 |
Another French film with absurdity. Baise-Moi(F*ck Me) tells the story of two young women who come together to kill and f*ck. One of them is a porn star who escapes from her community after being raped and killing her boyfriend. Second one is a hooker who kills her flatmate and sees her boyfriend being shot dead. After those incidents they meet at a tube station(both misses the last train)then the whole thing starts. They find a bound and come very close. They abuse men sexually, take drugs, drive around the country and have lots of sex. Thats all about Baise-Moi really. We can see that they have no mercy for their victims. They even kill a woman for her money. Both actresses are real porn stars in France that affects the movie in two different ways. They look so comfortable in sex scenes, nonetheless, they can't make the whole film worth watching as ,to me, the film does not require no further ability of acting than that. It is a version of Thelma and Louise on a different level. I could recommend you loads of things to do instead of watching Baise-Moi. So, bother to watch if you wanna see a pointless, kinky film. * out of ***** | 1 |
Previous comments encouraged me to check this out when it showed up on TCM, but it was a severe disappointment. Lupe Valdez is great, but doesn't get enough screen time. Frank Morgan and Eugene Palette play familiar but promising characters, but the script leaves them stranded.<br /><br />The movie revolves around the ego of Lee Tracy's character, who is at best a self-centered, physically and verbally abusive jerk. The reactions of 'the public' are poorly thought-out and unbelievable, making the 'shenanigans' seem like contrivances of a bad writer. And it strains credulity that the Lupe Velez character could fall for him.<br /><br />The 'stinging one-liners' mentioned in another review must be dependent on the observer, since I didn't even notice that an attempt was being made. | 1 |
Kimi wa petto is a cute story about a girl who one day finds a boy inside a box that is outside her apartment one day. She decides to bring him in and fix his cuts. She then leaves a note for him to eats some food she made then go home because she had to go to work. When she gets home however she finds that he is still there. He tells her that he wants to live there with her like a brother or cousin. In desperation to get him to leave she tells him that if he became her pet then he could stay. And as a pet she says that he would have no rights and do whatever she told him. (not in that perverted way!) To her surprise he agrees and from then on he is known as Momo, her pet. | 0 |
A trio of buddies, sergeants all in the British Army, carouse & brawl their way across Imperial India. Intensely loyal to each other, they meet their greatest & most deadly challenge when they encounter the resurgence of a hideous cult & its demented, implacable guru. Now they must rely on the lowliest servant of the regiment, the water carrier GUNGA DIN, to save scores of the Queen's soldiers from certain massacre.<br /><br />Based more on The Three Musketeers than Kipling's classic poem, this is a wonderful adventure epic - a worthy entry in Hollywood's Golden Year of 1939. Filled with suspense & humor, while keeping the romantic interludes to the barest minimum, it grips the interest of the viewer and holds it right up to the (sentimental) conclusion.<br /><br />It is practically fruitless to discuss the performance nuances of the three stars, Cary Grant, Victor McLaglen & Douglas Fairbanks Jr., as they are really all thirds of a single organism - inseparable and, to all intents & purposes, indistinguishable. However, this diminishes nothing of the great fun in simply watching them have a glorious time.<br /><br />(It's interesting to note, parenthetically, that McLaglen boasted of a distinguished World War One military career; Fairbanks would have a sterling record in World War Two - mostly in clandestine affairs & earning himself no fewer than 4 honorary knighthoods after the conflict; while Grant reportedly worked undercover for British Intelligence, keeping an eye on Hollywood Nazi sympathizers.)<br /><br />The real acting laurels here should go to Sam Jaffe, heartbreaking in the title role. He infuses the humble man with radiant dignity & enormous courage, making the last line of Kipling's poem ring true. He is unforgettable.<br /><br />Montague Love is properly stalwart as the regimental major, whilst Eduardo Ciannelli is Evil Incarnate as the Thuggee guru. The rest of the cast, Joan Fontaine, Robert Coote, Lumsden Hare, are effective but have little to do. Movie mavens will recognize Cecil Kellaway in the tiny role of Miss Fontaine's father.<br /><br />The film picks its villains well. The demonic Thuggee cult, worshipers of the hideous, blood-soaked Kali, Hindu goddess of destruction, was the bane of Indian life for 6 centuries, ritualistically strangling up to 30,000 victims a year. In 1840 the British military, in cooperation with a number of princely states, succeeded in ultimately suppressing the religion. Henceforth it would remain the stuff of novels & nightmares. | 0 |
This film was so disappointing. From the blurb that made me decide to see Phantom Love (why is it called this?)I had expected something arty and thoughtful with beautiful imagery. It did have some interesting images but these often seemed random and made no sense. In fact they seemed like they were inserted to fill in time. In the end the effect was listless.<br /><br />I believe the film was meant to be atmospheric, but it just wasn't. The lack of a coherent plot did not help matters. You might say it was mysterious, but I think it was just incoherent with no atmosphere.<br /><br />The main character seemed to be disturbed but the plot did not draw me in enough to care about her situation. Without looking at the cast list I would not have known that you see the main character as a child. The film has very little context for the time, place or character. I am not a prude but the sex scenes (there were several) seemed pointless and confused me further, I recognised Lulu but I was not sure if it was the same man, different men, a lover, her husband or was she a prostitute. It was only when I saw the credits that I discovered the hairy back was meant to belong to her lover. This film did manage to make what should have been shocking (dream sequences involving Lulu's mother) seem a bit boring.<br /><br />The nail filing actually made more sense, as it did give some indication of Lulu's emotional state. I will not fault the actors as I don't they had a lot to work on.<br /><br />I do not know if the lack of context or flow in the film was because of ineptitude or because it was pretentious but the end result was dull.<br /><br />I can't be bothered talking about it anymore. | 1 |
Due to reading bad reviews and being told by friends that they couldn't believe how bad it was, I didn't go and see this film at the cinema. After watching it on DVD, I have to say I regret that now. I'm not saying it is brilliant, but I would venture to say that it is a good movie. I enjoyed it.<br /><br />People have skulls thicker than Ned's helmet if they go to see a movie like this and expect it to be a documentary. If you read up the actual history behind most movies based on historical figures, there is usually a huge difference between the fact and the fictional portrayal. I don't think Ganghis Kahn has ever once been portrayed even remotely close to historical fact. What kind of man Ned Kelly actually was is a matter of debate, and quite passionate it seems. In spite of the efforts of governments and some historians, Ned Kelly has become a legend. Legends are stories, and stories say as much about those who tell and listen to them as they do about the actual figure himself. Ned Kelly has become such a popular identity because he does represent that aspect of Australian culture that doesn't trust or accept authority. A society in which there is no dissent or challenge to authority is crazier and more dangerous than any bushranger.<br /><br />So not expecting this to be an accurate recreation of the historical Kelly gang, I actually found it a surprisingly unencumbered and refreshing movie. It was sentimental and romantic, but thankfully not anywhere as cheesy as it could have been; for my fellow Australians, watch 'The Lighthorseman' and you will see what I mean (it is a pity the way that story was treated so poorly). Perhaps the love affair business could have been forsaken for a bit more detail in other areas, such as the shooting of the troopers. Ironically, I actually enjoyed the movie because of that, because it would be those details that most of the focus on Ned's story would dwell. And they are the details of the story that are best discovered by reading the different viewpoints given by the various historians.<br /><br />This movie was always going to have a hard time, having make a compromise of appealing to a global movie market (to pay the pills) and the legend as it means to Australians; perhaps a little of Ned's spirit is in this movie, because I think it rebelled against people's expectations, and unfortunately missed both targets. Fortunately it made for an enjoyable quirk of a film. For me it was an unexpected kind of movie about Ned, and that is why I liked it. Orlando Bloom's performance did a lot for the movie too - he really added something. I think he would have enjoyed being the monster instead of the pretty elf, for a change.<br /><br />When you consider some other movies that are far worse than this one, your opinion of this movie should be reconsidered. Send me this on DVD for christmas rather than Croc Dundee or The Man From Snowy River anytime. | 0 |
I can always tell when something is going to be a hit. I see it or hear it, and get a good feeling. I did not get a good feeling watching the preview. I was not at all enthusiastic about this film, and I am not at all surprised that it is rated here as one of the worst 100 films. I was in fact proved right.<br /><br />The first thing that threw me off was the title. Not that I have a problem with ebonics(I am black by the way), but for a movie they could have used a better title, and for this time use a title that doesn't have bad grammar. I heard the dialog, saw the acting and all I could do was make faces.<br /><br />I also think that the dance movie theme is being overdone. At least 'You Got Served' was better than this in my opinion. Even the soundtrack didn't thrill me. | 1 |
Aside from a few titles and the new Sherlock Holmes movie, I think I've watched every movie Guy Ritchie has directed. Twice. Needless to say, I'm a big fan and Revolver is one of the highlighted reasons why. This movie is a very different approach from Ritchie, when you look at it comparatively with Lock, Stock... and Snatch. Revolver sets us up for a psychological thriller of sorts as a gambling con finds himself at the mercy of a set of foes he didn't expect and a guided walk for redemption that he didn't know he needed. Along with seeing André Benjamin of OutKast fame strut his acting ability, other standout acts are Ray Liotta playing the maniacal Mr. D/Macha and Mark Strong playing Sorter, the hit-man.<br /><br />After being sent to prison by a tyrannous casino owner, Macha, Jake uses his time in solitary to finesse a plot to humiliate Macha and force his hand in compensating him for the seven years he spent. When he wins a card game and amasses a decent sum from Macha, Jake finds himself on the brink of death as he collapses and is diagnosed with an incurable disease that's left him with three days to live. A team of loan sharks, however, have an answer for him and a ticket to life- only if he gives them all the money he has and relents to working for them, all in a ploy to both take Macha down and show Jake how dangerous he has made himself to himself. Along with having the air of death loom, and a pair of loan sharks having a field day with his money, Jake also has to deal with having a hit put out on him, which introduces Sorter - a hit-man under Macha's employ. The depth with the story comes when Jake realizes that some co- convicts he spent time with in solitary may very-well be the loan shark team out to take him for all he has by crafting all of the unfortunate events that Jake seems to find his way into. When faced with this reality though, Zack (Vincent Pastore) and Avi show Jake just how twisted he has become from being in solitary, having only the company of his mind and his ego then makes it so that their actual existence is elusive even to Jake. The movie unravels to a humbling process for both Jake and Macha as they both come to grips with their inner demons.<br /><br />The style of the movie is top-notch as you get the gritty feel of the crime world represented and the characters it includes. Although a lot of nods at Ritchie's previous films are here it still has a presence of its own from the dialogue, the sets and the experimental take on the gangster genre. It's also a great trip on humility and recognizing when you can easily let your ego or a preset notion mask you ability to accomplish what you want or overcome what you should. The characters are well crafted in this movie with all sides being fleshed out and, true to Ritchie fashion, they're all tied in by some underhandedness that throws a wrench in everyone's affairs. I could and would like to go on about this film and its unique nuances but I don't want to take too much away from it if you haven't seen it yet.<br /><br />It may take a few sittings to get through all the intricate layers but it's a great movie and it should be seen. If you're lucky and you haven't seen the watered-down US release, see if you can get the original UK version as it will make for a great discussion piece among friends as you try to puzzle in your take. I saw it with my crew around early-2006 and we're still talking about it with little things we've picked up on today. It has garnered its cult status, and it's well- deserved as the film where Ritchie stepped out the box and broke his norm a bit.<br /><br />Standout Line: 'Fear or revere me, but please, think I'm special. We share an addiction. We're approval junkies.' | 0 |
I've commented once on this Chucky great, but I had to do it again to say some things about the film, when I first saw it in a great balcony in a great theater. The film was a lot of fun in the theater and my first Chucky film ever in a theater, and that was a special moment for me, because I cherish Chucky. The other horror villains are referenced with GREAT COOLNESS!!! And the gore was shockingly great! The scene where the gay kid gets nailed by the truck was amazingly cheerful! That was a great gore scene!!!!! And the ending was so bizarre and shocking it made me s*%@ my pants. The idea of having the Seed of Chucky was very, very bizarre and shocking! When I left the theater I just loved it and I could'nt believe it was real. The bizarre and different qualities of this Child's Play installment for some reason made me mark it as the Jason Goes To Hell of the Child's Play series. It just had that intensely shocking, bizarre and different quality that reminded me of Jason Goes To Hell. A sure ***** out of *****. Here's how I rank the series : 1,4,2,3. I loved it but not quite as much as Tom Holland's original Child's Play classic. I can't wait for Seed of Chucky! Bring it on! | 0 |
I watched this movie again yesterday with a 20-year-old intern from my office (OK - it was the quiet day after Thanksgiving) and we both loved it. I love the unique plot, David Duchovny, David Allen Greer, and the way the dog keeps waiting at the door. Isn't part of each of us just like that dog after someone we love dies?<br /><br />I also love the old folks at the restaurant - they remind me of some of the older people around Southern New England, where your ethnic group is a very important topic of discussion. And I love the wedding at the end.<br /><br />Minnie Driver is great in this movie - and Bonnie Hunt should have won an award for everything. <br /><br />Bonnie - make more movies! | 0 |
I have loved this movie since I first saw it in 1979. I'm still amazed at how accurately Kurt Russell portrays Elvis, right down to how he moves and the expressions on his face. Sometimes its scary how much he looks, acts, and talks like the real Elvis. Thankfully this is being released on DVD, so all of us that have been waiting can finally have an excellent quality version of the full length film. I have heard the detractors, who say that there are some inaccuracies, or some things left out, but I think that keeping in mind that John Carpenter only had about 2 1/2 hours to work with, and that this was being shown on television (just two years after Elvis's death!) that he did a fine job with this. In fact I haven't seen another Elvis movie that even comes close to this one. Highly recommended. | 0 |
I almost laughed out loud when during the commentary the director said this movie is original with a strong plot line. There is not one... repeat ONE original plot line or special effect in this blah movie. <br /><br />The Crows.... Hitchcock did it superbly back before CGI and even with CGI this film falls short of a well done attack scene. The creepy crawly boy... The Grudge did it and did it better. The psycho...done in Cold Creek Manor most recently, however it has been done to death. No pun intended. Disconnected/rebellious teen who no one listens to... about a dozen films have used this one right down to Beetlejuice. The oozy stuff from the basement... can you say Amnityville Horror? Doors opening unbidden... What Lies Beneath did it with much more flair. Creepy farmhouse... too numerous to mention. <br /><br />The backdrop of metaphysics-- which should have been the central focus, gets lost once you figure out what is happening, which by the way is pretty early on.<br /><br />One thing (of many actually) they never even try to explain in the movie is how they explain to the police that their attacker was sucked down the ooze in the basement, so they really don't have a body. <br /><br />Overall... DON'T BOTHER | 1 |
This one gets better with each new look. Certainly one of Paul Sorvino's best roles. Outstanding music score which was also outstanding on sound track LP (so why no CD?). One the very early dolby stereo sound film releases. By the way, the original 35mm theatrical trailer for this is really GREAT! | 0 |
All right, here's the deal: if you're easily offended then you might want to stay far, far away from this one. There are some painfully funny moments in the movie, but I probably blushed about as much as I laughed. Actually, I probably blushed MORE than I laughed. And if I wasn't literally blushing on the outside, then I was blushing on the inside. If there is absolutely nothing in this movie that embarrasses you then you simply have no shame. Whether that's a badge of honor or not is in the eye of the beholder I suppose.<br /><br />I will not deny that I laughed quite a bit, but this is a movie that I simply cannot give a blanket recommendation due to its subject matter. If I were to say, 'This movie is hilarious, go check it out!' and some sweet, little old church-going lady heads to the theater and has a heart-attack during one of the graphically explicit sex situations, well, that's just something I don't need on my conscience.<br /><br />So how raunchy is it? Hmm, try about 100 times worse than The Wedding Crashers. Honestly. My mom would've walked out during the first scene. I feel it's my duty to at least warn you of what to expect.<br /><br />There is some cleverly intelligent comedy here, but that's what I come to expect from the man (Judd Apatow) who had a hand in both Freaks and Geeks and Undeclared. I'm all for making fun of Michael McDonald; the only man whose hair and beard are white enough to give Kenny Rogers a run for his money. Paul Rudd proclaiming, 'If I hear Ya Mo Be There one more time I'll Ya Mo burn this place down,' is hilarious, but it's one of those things that the majority of the audience won't appreciate.<br /><br />And when we see a quick 3-second flashback of Steve Carrell singing along to Cameo's Word Up, I laughed for a good two minutes after the joke was over, whereas most everybody chuckled and then forgot about it.<br /><br />Strangely enough, despite the raunch, there's an admirable moral to the story. The movie doesn't portray Carrell as some freaky loser just because he's a virgin. He's really portrayed as a likable, admirable character. Sure, he's a little weird. After all, he has a framed Asia poster, 'more videogames than an Asian kid,' and a toy collection that features the Million Dollar Man's BOSS, but we're never led to believe that there's actually anything wrong with the fact that he's a virgin. As odd as it may seem, there's a bit of an 'it's OK to wait' message.<br /><br />But man, oh man, please be warned that this pushes its R rating about as far as it can go. That was certainly Apatow's intention. According to him, he just let some of the guys (particularly Rogen and Malco) improv and talk the way they normally talk, all in an effort to find lots of new ways to be dirty. If you can handle that or talk that way yourself, then you'll love the movie.<br /><br />I'm not a big fan of excessive profanity and sex jokes. I find that subtle, clever humor is much more entertaining than about 200 uses of the f-word or fratboy sex discussions. But that's me. Like I said, there are some absolutely hysterical moments here, but you have to ask yourself if they're worth sitting through one of the most vulgar movies you're likely to ever see at the theater. I just don't know how interested most women will be in what's discussed by men while playing poker. Honestly ladies, you might not want to know. If you've ever been curious why some girls think guys are gross, well, this gives you a good idea.<br /><br />There you go - my humble, honest take on what to expect. Be that your guide. It definitely should not be seen with your Sunday School class, mama, grandmama, any family members of the opposite sex, children of any age, or anybody who is easily offended by excessive profanity or explicit sex discussion. If you'd see it with any of the above then you apparently do not have any concept of what it means to be uncomfortable. | 0 |
Thank God! I didn't waste my money renting it but i downloaded it! This happens to be the worst movie i have ever seen in my whole life, f*****g visual effects, unnecessary gore and nudity! Far apart from other Zombie movies like Night of the Living Dead and others. There are lots of loop holes and mistakes in the movie. OK if you get time after reading this comment, please check out the director's(Ulli Lommel) profile. After seeing that i got a self explanation why the movie is like this, i mean every movie directed by Ulli Lommel gets a rating between 1 and 2. And now am not willing to search what kinda movies these are directed by him, but i can finish all this by saying one strong sentence. Even for fun or time pass or even at an extreme bored situation please DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE. | 1 |
This film is bundled along with 'Gli fumavano le Colt... lo chiamavano Camposanto' and both films leave a lot to be desired in the way of their DVD prints. First, both films are very dark--occasionally making it hard to see exactly what's happening. Second, neither film has subtitles and you are forced to watch a dubbed film--though 'Il Prezzo del Potere' does seem to have a better dub. Personally, I always prefer subtitles but for the non-purists out there this isn't a problem. These DVD problems, however, are not the fault of the original film makers--just the indifferent package being marketed four decades later.<br /><br />As for the film, it's about the assassination of President Garfield. This is a MAJOR problem, as Van Johnson looks about as much like Garfield as Judy Garland. In no way whatsoever does he look like Garfield. He's missing the beard, has the wrong hair color and style and is just not even close in any way (trust me on this, I am an American History teacher and we are paid to know these sort of things!). The real life Garfield was a Civil War general and looked like the guys on the Smith Brothers cough drop boxes. Plus, using some other actor to provide the voice for Johnson in the dubbing is just surreal. Never before or since has Van Johnson sounded quite so macho!! He was a fine actor...but certainly not a convincing general or macho president.<br /><br />In addition to the stupid casting, President Garfield's death was in no way like this film. It's obvious that the film makers are actually cashing in on the crazy speculation about conspiracies concerning the death of JFK, not Garfield. Garfield was shot in Washington, DC (not Dallas) by a lone gunman with severe mental problems--not a group of men with rifles. However, according to most experts, what actually killed Garfield (over two months later) were incompetent doctors--who probed and probed and probed to retrieve a bullet (to no avail) and never bothered cleaning their hands or implements in the process. In other words, like George Washington (who was basically killed by repeated bloodletting when suffering with pneumonia) he died due to malpractice. In the movie they got nothing right whatsoever...other than indeed President Garfield was shot.<br /><br />Because the film bears almost no similarity to real history, it's like a history lesson as taught from someone from another planet or someone with a severe brain injury. Why not also include ninjas, fighting robots and the Greek gods while you're at it?!?! Aside from some decent acting and production values, because the script is utter cow crap, I don't recommend anyone watch it. It's just a complete and utter mess. | 1 |
Hey what do you expect form a very low budget movie!?!? Although I haven't seen 'Dahmer' (2002) I can say that following what the media put out about Jeff this is a pretty accurate depiction. I have studied the Jeffrey Dahmer case and learned all I can about this man. This is a low budget movie but it shows the mentality of a serial killer. If you can get past gore and see what the underlying story of a sick mind. I loved this movie! Just brace yourself for low budget and no blood. Its a story as seen through the eyes of a killer and his actions and thoughts from childhood up through his arrest. My favorite line is : 'If they had bothered to look in the back seat it might have saved a lot of lives' Enjoy! | 0 |
This movie literally had me rolling on the floor (well at least on the couch) laughing. I didn't think I would like it, but it came on cable TV one afternoon, and I watched the whole thing and thoroughly enjoyed myself. Since then, I've also seen Black Sheep, which was pretty good, but not as non-stop-funny as Tommy Boy. | 0 |
Other than it reassembled the characters from the first film and gave them more backstory. Essentially, Lucian the Lycan (werewolf) fell in love with Sonia the Vampire, a Romeo and Juliet scenario you know is going to end badly if you've seen the first movie. So with absolutely no suspense, we blunder forward with two hours of unremitting CGI and actors with little or no screen presence. All shot in that monotone color that the first movie had because nothing was shot in daylight.<br /><br />Worth your time.. probably not. In fact, the quality has gone down, even the CGI looks like it was done on the cheap, you don't buy for a minute that these are real werewolves. | 1 |
-surprisingly enjoyable movie <br /><br />-A group of thieves lead by Mark Wahlberg rob a gold safe in Italy and thankfully for them the heist is successful and they get away with it without any big problems. Before the group can celebrate however Steve played by Ed Norton decides he want the gold all for himself and pulls a Cout De' Ta on the group and shoots one of the members. He and his accomplices leave thinking that the group is dead but luckily the group is not dead. A year later we get back into the story where the group has tracked down Norton and decide to steal the gold back and spend the rest of the movie coming up with plans to steal back their gold and settle a score.<br /><br />-This was a surprise for me, it had all the makings to be a typical forgettable summer movie but it was actually memorable and really fun to watch. What I like is how smart and well thought out the plans in the movie are, and how the movie feels realistic. Watching the trailer would make you think it was some mindless action movie but in fact there are only two action scenes in the movie and they are all really well done. The latter action scene is a very long 20 min. scene that has one of the best car chases ever done. I like how real the chase is and how everything is done old school style without the aid of CGI. Me personally I enjoyed this car chase more than the CGI filled chase in 'Matrix 2'. I remember watching music videos by director F. Gary Gray and always noticed how well made they were and thought he'd make a great filmmaker, turns out I was right as always and he proves it here. Can't wait to see what he does with the sequel. <br /><br />-The actors do a decent job too with Seth Green being my favorite of the group. The other thing I loved was the excellent score by John Powell, ever since I heard his score for 'Robots' this year I've been a fan of him and paying close attention to his music and the man is really good. He does a great job of avoiding all the typical summer action movie musical cliché's and provides a very well done score. I haven't seen the original that this is based on so I can't really say how well it stacks up to that one.<br /><br />-So yeah this is a great popcorn movie that actually has a brain unlike most of the summer movie crap that comes out. Has great characters, is funny as hell and has a amazing score by John Powell. If you love heist movies then you'll love this one <br /><br />-you know if I was in the group they'd call me handsome mike | 0 |
It probably isn't fair that I have got to see the majority of all the interesting reviews on the Sopranos and then get to add what people have forgotten, but oh well.......<br /><br />From a standpoint of acting, how could any actor fail with these characters? Each one mesmerizing and intense in their pursuits of life. Tony Soprano-while a mob 'Capo' and suffering from mental illness, still sees his life in front of him and knows what has to be done to survive. Each of his men, you see their lives virtually from the inside like the truest form of voyerism. It definitely brings out a sort 'nosey' side in each and every viewer, and I include myself in this!<br /><br />While some above don't care for Bracco, I have to say this is the freshest role she has had in years since Good Fellas. She is the side of Tony that makes him listen to reason, that makes him decent, that offers him respite when dealing with his human emotions that he has failed to feel for so long, if ever. She is simply put, his savior. (Not speaking in religious tones)<br /><br />But the knockout performance here is without doubt, Edie Falco. To see her prison guard role in the other acclaimed HBO series, 'Oz' and then see her as Livia is the ultimate compliment for any actor or actress. She has transcended the boundries of a recognizable actress, something only actresses like Merle Streep can get away with. A sort of chameleon quality to transcend roles. But as I have mentioned before, with a characters a strong as these, how can any actor fail?<br /><br />Livia's strength is in her daily affirmation of faith in herself. She is a survivor, as she hopes her husband and family will be survivors. She is prepared for the worst because she knows the hazards of her husband's business, yet knows the lifestyle she has is more then most women from Jersey. She is wise if not wiser and more street savvy then Tony himself.<br /><br />All in all, the biggest crime from the Soprano Family is that we the viewer have to wait until January 2000 to see the next season. This in my opinion is the worst thing about the HBO series. It was what brought The Larry Sanders Show, Sex and the City, Dream On, and others back down to earth in popularity and eventually killed them. Too much space in between seasons and very sporadic. Until then, I will watch the reruns with the hope that this gap in programming is filled. | 0 |
I saw this film at the Adelaide Film Festival '07 and was thoroughly intrigued for all 106 minutes. I like documentaries, but often find them dragging with about 25 minutes to go. Forbidden Lie$ powered on though, never losing my interest.<br /><br />The film's subject is Norma Khoury, a Jordanian woman who found fame and fortune in 2001 with the publication of her book Forbidden Love, a biographical story of sorts concerning a Muslim friend of hers who was murdered by her family for having a relationship with a Christian man. A few years later though, a few journalists started poking holes in the story, leading the public to believe it was fraud. The film covers this quickly but thoroughly in the beginning, and from there we spend most of our time in the company of Norma as she tries to convince us that her novel is more than fiction.<br /><br />Director Anna Broinowski has found a truly fascinating woman to study, and she conducts endless interviews with Khoury as she seeks the truth. As always in life, the truth is not so easy to find. Norma fears for her life, worried about violent backlash over the unsavoury portrait her novel paints of Jordanian Muslims. She refuses to return to Jordan and show us the facts. Broinowski is not deterred however, and slowly puts the pieces together in front of us.<br /><br />The result is an incredible look inside the mind of a con artist. Naturally, what we find there makes little sense and is extremely difficult to follow, and ultimately we don't know whether to believe Norma or not. She's either a rather unfairly put-upon woman trying to survive, or a fantastic spinster. The web of lies, truths and half-truths she turns through the film is brilliant.<br /><br />The film uses much interview footage, as well as dramatisations to tell it's story, and Broinowski uses these dramatisations to show us why people like Norma are able to exist: we want to be conned. We go to the cinema every day and allow ourselves to believe what's happening on the screen is real. That might just be me reading into things a bit too much, it didn't come up in the Q&A with Brionowski after the film, but that's what I took away from it.<br /><br />This is a great Australian film, and must receive an international release, and a swag of awards if you ask me. Certainly the best film I saw at AFF07.<br /><br />Go see it, if you get the chance. | 0 |
From the beginning of this film,with it's 'The Lost boys' rip off opening sequence, to the bad wire work and even worse dialog ending, this movie slimed along at a snail's pace. 'The Covenant' came highly recommended from some of my co-workers, who I am thoroughly convinced were playing a practical joke on me. At least I hope that was the intention and their taste isn't that bad! This movie was not much longer than an hour and a half, yet felt much much longer then that. The story was so basic that it could have been summed up in about 15 minutes, maximum. They could have at least filled the rest of the movie with some entertaining magic or fight scenes, however someone decided,(maybe the director, but I don't know if anyone really 'directed' this movie) that it was going to be filled with some poorly executed 'artsy' camera shots, and nonsensical scenes of the 'boys' swimming and getting into bar fights. About half way through this film I thought that maybe bashing my head against a wall would be more entertaining, and partially to rid myself of this horrible dirty feeling I had for continuing to watch it. . So I did bash my head against a wall, and I did enjoy it more then the movie! I watched it all the way to the bitter end, hoping it would eventually offer me more enjoyment. Nope,my efforts were rewarded with 'How about I make you my Whee-aytch!' I vomited, and then just felt embarrassment for the screen writer and pity for the poor actor who had to deliver this drivel. The acting really wasn't as bad as other reviewers seemed to think, but even the most talented thespian could not saved this work, and work it did, on my nerves! I give movies a chance, even bad ones because they usually offer some form of enjoyment, and this actually wasn't the worst movie I have ever seen. After it was over I did feel like watching the movie 'Stealth' again and WOW it was so much better this time around! Oh yeah Case in point, don't bother with this movie, really, don't. Watch a few episodes of 'Charmed', and watch 'The Lost boys' after having a fair amount of alcohol, and you will be a much better person. If you do fall into the same trap that I did and watch 'The Covenant', make sure to keep all sharp objects far, far away from yourself, you'll thank me for it. | 1 |
This made for television version of the legendary stand against hopeless odds is more objective, more realistic than earlier filmed versions of the events, though the one movie made after this went perhaps too far in humanizing the figures of Sam Houston, Bowie, Travis and Crockett.<br /><br />The focus here is on Jim Bowie, played with sharp, cynical detachment by James Arness who is apparently still alive at age 85. Then 65, he made a comeback to acting after years away from the screen to do this part.<br /><br />Puerto Rican-born Raul Julia humanizes Gen. Santa Ana as no one since J. Carol Naish back in '54 had done. However, the Mexican dictator is portrayed as a lecherous, vainglorious popinjay--gaudier uniforms have never been seen before or since. He receives excellent advice from the European officers he has hired but, convinced of his own infallibility, he does not heed it.<br /><br />Alec Baldwin is the one actor whose age is appropriate to the character he plays: Col. William Travis. His portrayal is earnest. He is almost in awe of the older men who share command with him.<br /><br />The one jarring note was Brian Keith as Crockett. In a coonskin cap and carrying Ol' Betsy, he stumbles about as if he had wandered in from another movie. With no conviction in the portrayal, the character is reduced to a few stage conventions. <br /><br />The script reveals some historical facts overlooked or suppressed in earlier film versions. We learn that Jim Bowie was, in the person of Santa Ana, fighting his own brother-in-law. The Mexican soldiers performed poorly in part because they were armed with rifles left over from the Napoleonic Wars a generation earlier. 'Santa Ana likes a bargain.' Bowie wryly explains. The whole project of defending the former Spanish mission as a fort was militarily ill- advised--a fact explored in greater depth in the 2004 film 'The Alamo'. | 0 |
Dracula 3000 is the epitome of painfully cheesy cinema. From the get-go, I assumed I was in for something pretty nasty. With a cast line up that featured Casper Van Dien, Erika Eleniak, Coolio, and Tiny Lister, what could be expected? Well, let's just say that expectations were crushed...<br /><br />If I really start up, I feel like this review will go on for ages, so we're gonna keep this simple. The vampire isn't even named Dracula. The space crew is carrying coffins from the Carpathian sector of the Transylvania system. In his big scene, Coolio speaks of the most horrible things ever spoken of in film history. In the year 3000, everyone wears bad clothes by today's standards, they don't have anything more advanced than a modern wheelchair, and they decorate with neon lights that appear stolen from a roller rink.<br /><br />To top it all off... the ending. Sweet merciful God. It doesn't deserve to be ruined. It has to be sen to be believed.<br /><br />I've rated this movie a '1' and I wish I could give it a zero... yet I feel compelled to make you watch it. What madness is this? | 1 |
The problem with this movie is that it isn't funny, it isn't scary, it isn't dramatic, it isn't intriguing, it isn't stimulating, it isn't, it isn't exciting, it isn't even the slightest bit interesting. I saw this film recently on tape and I was glad I didn't spent any money to rent it. It's basically a poor attempt at film-making. I won't even bother to tell you the story. Story? What story? | 1 |
I picked out this DVD out of the cheepo bin at Walmart because the cover showed one of the planes I flew during Viet-Nam (C-123k). I did not fly for Air America, but knew being a C-123 pilot, I knew a lot who did, including those who flew in my Reserve Unit back home. I am not a movie critic, but wonder about the subliminal motivation of Directors and Writers who make movies like this. The best part of this movie has to go to the cameraman. The flying shots and stunts (although totally cartoon like) are excellent. The movie begins with Hollywood's favorite fall guy in 1969. But the fact is, Nixon did not start Air America, he did not begin the lies. Johnson was responsible for Air America and Nixon inherited the lies, the war, and Air America. Its not fair or accurate to portray Nixon as a liar on the subject of Air America. All President's have inherited the lies of their predecessors. Nobody smart enough to fly a C-123 was dumb enough to not know what they were joining. That makes the Downey character unbelievable. A C-123 was a rugged airplane. It could easily fly on one engine, or the two auxiliary jet engines. The three stooges shooting a duck with one shot is more likely. Pilots who flew with Air America were civilian employees of the CIA, they were not reckless soldiers of fortune. They had a good reason to behave and believe in a future, if they survived their extremely dangerous job. They were given double time towards a retirement pension. They weren't required to sell dope or guns to get a good pension. Dope was legal and a way of life in SEA, as it still is today in Afganistan. If individual pilots tried to make money on the side, it was not CIA policy. The CIA was fighting a war on communism, not drugs. The writer based his story on 'war stories'. Pilots love to BS anybody who will buy them a beer and listen. The writer and Director who had an ax to grind about Viet-Nam and Nixon. See the movie, and remember how it starts - it blames Nixon for what existed for years. Remember, he didn't become President until Jan 20, 1969.<br /><br />My favorite scene is the landing up hill in the jungle. Air America pilots put planes in places the aircraft designers never thought possible. Their were plenty of funny stories that could have been shown. Instead, the Director chose to use the oversize rubber scene to show how dumb the CIA was. This scene shows that the Director and writer fell for some pilot bar talk and the joke is on them. <br /><br />MDS Fort Valley Virginia. | 1 |
I saw this movie again as an assignment for my management class. Were to mainly comment on the different management styles and ideas on quality(of the product). I did rent this one back in the eighties and I remember it to be good(but not great)movie. I've always liked Michael Keaton's style and delivery. He was a perfect fit for the movie.<br /><br />I am surprised to see some of the low ratings for this movie. I grant you yes it's no Oscar winner but it does have decent comedic value. It's more of a subtle comedy rather than a all-out comedy farce. I also find some of those that felt this was an inaccurate film on cultural and business differences. I beg to differ. I grant you again that there are a lot of generalities and dramatizations but then again this is Hollywood film not a documentary. From what I've read about differences between Automakers on both sides of the Pacific at that time many of the principle ideas were accurate for the time.<br /><br />Some of the basic differences were that Japanese workers made to feel as part of the company as a whole. Teamwork was emphasized. They perhaps made the company above all else. Where American workers had more of a management verses labor type of relationship. The individual was more important than the company. I'll probably get some hate email over that comment I'm sure.<br /><br />Another difference was how quality was viewed and whose responsibility it was to fix. In many Japanese plants defects or problems are examined and fixed at the time it is discovered. Rather as one character in the movie put it 'it was the dealers(meaning car dealer) problem'.<br /><br />Many of these things are probably dated but I'm sure some are still around as many US car makers are still struggling to keep up with the Japanese. If one is more interested in the subject of American, European and Japanese automakers I can recommend a book that studies this subject in more detail and was done around the same time period. The book is called 'The machine that changed the world' by James Womack, Daniel Jones and Daniel Roos. It's about a study of automakers during and before the time period that this movie covers. Parts are bit dry but I think you'll find that it backs up much the movie also. | 0 |
A very ordinary made-for-tv product, 'Tyson' attempts to be a serious biopic while stretching the moments of angst for effect, fast forwarding through the esoterics of the corrupt sport of boxing, and muddling the sensationalistic stuff which is the only thing which makes Tyson even remotely interesting. A lukewarm watch at best which more likely to appeal to the general public than to boxing fans. | 1 |
I think the filmographic lineage may run like this. Pay attention, please, because I had to look this up. In 1967 Peter Yates, an ex auto racer, directs the English caper movie 'Robbery,' the most thrilling part of which is a car chase through the streets of London, down alleys where there are crowds of children playing and all that. It's a success.<br /><br />A year later, Yates directs 'Bullet', starring Steve McCool, I mean McQueen, featuring another even more spectacular car chase up and down the San Francisco Hills, with dumbfoundingly authentic engine sounds that seem to include double clutching, full race cams, no mufflers, twelve-cylinder engines under forty-foot hoods, supercharged, superdupercharged, and all five-thousand horsepower running at full tilt. Lots of shots of McQueen's gum-chewing visage scowling with concentration as he tries to bump another car off the highway, though a passenger in the other vehicle totes a shotgun. The chase is staged by Philip D'Antoni. Bill Hopkins drives the criminal vehicle.<br /><br />A year or two later, sensing a good thing, Bill Friedkin directs 'The French Connection,' featuring a chase between a commandeered cop car(Gene Hackman) and an elevated train in New York City. Lots of shots of Hackman's cursing face as he wrestles the battered car through the streets. The chase is staged by Philip D'Antoni. Academy Awards follow.<br /><br />Sensing a good thing, a year or two more brings us 'The Seven Ups,' featuring a chase between a car driven by Roy Scheider, with lots of shots of Scheider's cursing face as he tries to bump the other car, which is driven by Bill Hopkins, off the road, although the criminal car, to be sure, carries a shotgun-toting passenger. No hills in New York City, just bumps, but they are still sharp enough to elevate the cars a few feet. The pursued car screeches around a corner and dashes down a street on which a dozen children are playing. Shots of the screaming kids as they scatter off the pavement and allows the car to zoom through. But once is not enough. The children immediately run back into the street and must repeat the retreat for the pursuing cop car carrying Scheider.<br /><br />I once witnessed a pursuit at high speed on the streets of Philadelphia. Both the criminal and the cops drove through the streets at about 25 miles an hour, coming to rolling stops at each Stop sign and red light -- very dull stuff compared to this movie.<br /><br />Speaking of this movie, it's pretty good. 'Robbery' and 'Bullet' were cool. Everyone dressed neatly. But the New York movies are filthy. There's garbage all over the place and the subway cars are covered with graffiti. Shoot outs and beat ups take place in vacant lots surrounded by crumbling brick buildings, or in disposal dumps for industrial-sized freezers.<br /><br />The acting is pretty good too. Roy Scheider seems whippet sleek. The other actors have faces made for the camera, especially Richard Welsh. And the story is engaging, if not entirely unfamiliar. What's best about the film is the way it captures New York City in its almost total indifference to human depravity and nobility. At a funeral, the limo drivers stand around with their collars up, butts hanging out of their mouths, kicking their cold feet together, utterly bored at the ritual goings on. The film wants us to believe that The Seven Ups are an elite group of untouchable cops who stop at nothing to get the job done, and here it's a bit of a sell out. They always seems to be threatening to do something unethical and illegal -- beat hell out of a suspect or physically damage a hospitalized and helpless hood -- but they always manage to avoid doing it. (If they actually did it, their characters would become lifelike and ambiguous and we'd rather have our heroes and villains of a more Biblical nature.) Very enjoyable, even if you've seen it before, and you very well may have in one or another of its previous incarnations. | 0 |
Roommates Sugar and Bobby Lee are abducted by menacing dudes while out shopping one day and taken back to a secluded island that the girls reluctantly tell the thugs that they last visited when they were ten years of age and that a fortune is located on. All that just pretty much bookends a movie that is pretty much one long flashback about the girls first visit to the island and subsequent fight with a cannibalistic family.<br /><br />This one is extremely horribly acted by everyone involved to the point that I started feeling bad for poor Hank Worden who truly deserved much MUCH better. As much as I didn't like 'Barracuda' (that's on the same DVD) I have to admit that this film makes that one look like Citizen Kane.<br /><br />Eye Candy: one pair of tits (they might belong to Kirsten Baker) <br /><br />My Grade: F <br /><br />Dark Sky DVD Extras: Vintage ads for various drive-in food; and Trailers for 'Bonnie's Kids' (features nudity), 'the Centerfold Girls', 'Part-time Wife' (features nudity), 'Psychic Killer', & 'Eaten Alive'. The DVD also comes with 1978's 'Barracuda' | 1 |
It's probably a cultural thing---somehow, the natives of this country have been conditioned to find this stuff funny. I have experienced this phenomenon first-hand, during an open-air cinema event, where this film was shown before the feature. Most of the indigenous audience laughed, and no, this wasn't in a sanitarium or a clinic for retarded children, this was in a well-to-do area, and the audience consisted mostly of educated adults.<br /><br />So it must be possible, somehow, to find this amusing, but honest to goodness, I have no idea what it takes---maybe it's in the air or the water, prolonged exposure to which causes this condition. Something must cause it, obviously, the only thing I can say is that I am quite sure what doesn't cause it: the movie itself.<br /><br />There are no jokes in it. It's brain dead, stupid, nonsensical, unfunny, lame. It's, in short, a waste of time. Any Tom and Jerry is funnier, heck even funerals are funnier.<br /><br />Just in case you have been fortunate enough not ever to have seen any of the Stooges' performances: It's three guys behaving, running, even talking like retarded infants, causing all kinds of unfunny mayhem, with no plot, no real purpose, and no real conclusion. It's like ugly Teletubbies without the cute costumes.<br /><br />Sitting in a crowd watching this garbage in this country can be quite exasperating, because you feel like you are at a party with a bunch of potheads and you are the only one who hasn't smoked anything.<br /><br />So unless you are prepared to intoxicate yourself to make this bearable, or come equipped with whatever it is that makes people think watching three ugly old men behave like morons is funny, my advice on this is: Stay way. Far away. | 1 |
Zeoy101?? Really, this has to be one of the most stupidest attempts to get people in my age group's attention. It's about some preppy girl named Zeoy and her friends that attends boarding school. BORING!!! All she ever does is whine and complain and acts like a spoiled idiot. I remember this show came out in 2005, I was 13 going on 14, and even then I thought it was pointless. The only episode I EVER liked was when the boys hid a camera in the girls dorm. THAT'S IT. Anyway, I just don't understand why Nickel-Oh my bad-Nick feels the need to syndicate this sorry poor excuse for 'entertainment'. serious this decade is becoming a joke every year and it gets worst and worst. What's with this generation??<br /><br />Anyway, R.I.P. Nickelodeon 1979-1998?/2005? | 1 |
National Lampoon's Dorm Daze is easily the worst movie I have ever seen, and I've seen the movie Kazaam. Anyone reading this who thinks this movie was good in any way, shape, or form has no idea what a good movie is, and should never watch another movie again because they are indeed so stupid.<br /><br />Its hard to name everything wrong with this movie. First off, the plot is all over the place and can't follow all the multiple 'misunderstandings' very well at all. The acting is awful to say the least, and the whole thing was poorly made. Any and all who worked on this movie should not be in another movie of any kid Ever Again!<br /><br />It is too hard to sum up this movie in just a paragraph or two, because it is so bad, but for anyone out there reading this please DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE!! If you want a good movie to watch, go turn on anything else on television. Even U.S.A. has better movies than this.<br /><br />_friend. | 1 |
Anyone who has a remote interest in science fiction should start at the basics. Everyone says STAR WARS and STAR TREK are the best science fiction films to begin at, which is fine but the truth is THE TERMINATOR and this movie, SOYLENT GREEN, are far better choices than those series. SOYLENT is probably science fiction 's best kept secret. It remains one of the biggest, yet most forgotten films but the impact of its setting is becoming more a reality with each passing day. Charlton Heston overdramatizes his role, yet it works. Edward G. Robinson, in his final role, makes the most out of it in SOYLENT GREEN more than anyone else and his final scenes are touching.<br /><br />It is Manhattan in 2022, the world is overcrowded and food is an unbelievable fortune (a small jar of strawberry jam costs $150). A big executive for the Soylent company is murdered and police detective Thorn is on the case.<br /><br />The secret of soylent green is not a mystery if you do research on the movie. SOYLENT is enjoyable to watch, but the whole screenplay is a joke. It is just as cheap as the entire production. The screenplay and the over dramatics of the actors made the movie, yet were completely hilarious. Everyone seems to be a moron and no one knows the rules, specifically cop Thorn who likes to just waltz into people 's apartments, peruse around shamelessly and steal anything he wants. The character 's interactions keeps your attention on the movie, but still you realize that SOYLENT GREEN sucks. An enjoyable piece if you have the time, but do not expect anything more. | 1 |
The film is not for everyone. Some might think the acting is bad when it is actually understated and natural. There are no obviously evil acts and there are no stunningly beautiful moments. There is a lot of indecision, an lot of conflicting feelings.<br /><br />Actually this film takes a very honest look at a very complex subject, Sex with minors. It is complex because the characters are trying to deal with love and sex when her body and hormones are still developing and both of their minds and personalities are still developing. Complex also because society has very simplistic views of sex with minors, and complex, because the characters don't know if society is right or if their instincts are right.<br /><br />Some will not like the movie because it leaves unanswered questions. Questions such as who was really in charge of the relationship, who was damaged, did good come out of it, was it art, who was damaged more, did some of the problems with their relationship stem from it being forbidden by society, did some of the problems stem from their own immaturity, and probably most important, was this truly a crime?<br /><br />The film is resolutely neutral on all of this, and it is this neutrality that is its strength. It is the reason for the understated acting, the simple sets, the lack of background music, soft lighting, and the general 'flat' presentation. The message is clear. We don't really understand this kind of relationship today, and quick judgments are bound to be shallow. | 0 |
I watched this movie knowing that it would be awful, but damned if it didn't break new and revolutionary ground in the field of making fecal matter acceptable as entertainment. The plot is Deep Rising with cruddy effects and HORRID acting. The lines in this...well...wow there really is no way to put this movie down because i think the words have yet to be created in the English language. The sad part is that the filmmakers thought they were actually making something good. You won't believe your eyes when you see how many movies they ripped off without even trying to hide it. There are scenes/plot devices straight out of Deep Rising, Alien, Jurassic Park, Predator, Jeepers Creepers, and the list could go on forever. However, unlike any of those movies this one just falls short of celluloid stool. The most incredulous thing about this film, aside from the way it tries to be competent but fails, is that Gimli him-freakin'-self is in it. How the hell can they afford John Rhys-Davies but not decent effects, writing, actors, or sets. Really awful...and not the type of bad that's good. | 1 |
I recently bought this movie with a bunch of other LaserDiscs from eBay. Usually, I am into war and action movies but occasionally I enjoy romantic comedies.<br /><br />If you are bored by today's special FX films and high gloss romantic comedies you should check out Shop Around the Corner on a quiet evening. What I like about the movie is that the characters have a lot of decency. There is nothing fake or pretentious about them. Take Mr. Matuschek for example: When he finds out that his wife is cheating on him with one of his own employees he tries to shot himself. Not just because of the humiliation but because he has been unjust to the character of Stewart. (OK, weired example.) <br /><br />Yes, the focus of the movie is narrow and the plot is predictable. Yet still, I liked it a lot. If you likes Notting Hill then you will like Shop around the corner. in fact, Hugh Grant reminds me a lot of Jimmy Stewart. | 0 |
Nick and Kelly are ready to be married but Travis (Kelly's dog) leads Nick to a strange blue wall that will change the honeymoon for Kelly. Richard Burgi and Susan Walters play Nick and Kelly and make a good couple. Nick loves to drink, smoke, and play pool with the fellas for fun but Nick suddenly abstains from this type of fun. Sex is the one thing that he loves because he wants a child. We find out that an alien race is dying and needs to interbreed with women from Earth to save their population. It becomes a battle of survival between humans and aliens with the dog population also being involved. A fine film. | 0 |
I absolutely loved this film! I was hesitant to watch it at first because I thought it would be too painful. I remember how hard it was when John was shot. However, watching the 'Two of Us' took me back to a happier time when he was still alive and there was hope and possibility. I think that the writer did an amazing job depicting what 'might have been.' Aidan Quinn was adorable as Paul and met the challenge head on. I was impressed with his accent and mannerisms. Jared Harris is also very talented and was quite believable as John. My favorite parts were the scene in the park and the rooftop scene - which was so poignant. The film left me with both sadness and satisfaction, both of which I feel are appropriate, given the circumstances. | 0 |
Above all, you must not take this movie seriously. It takes itself seriously, unfortunately, but that can't be helped. This anime ninja flic has to be the crowning achievement in spoiling what could have been an endearing, if unoriginal, story with bad plot twists, ridiculous time-killing cutscenes, and one outrageous guest appearance which will either make you laugh or groan (or both, like me).<br /><br />While I'm typically a fan of ninja/samurai anime (Ninja Scroll and Rurouni Kenshin to name a few), this one has to be the exception. For the record, from a technical point of view of its time, this movie was very well animated and constructed. It is just the plot that stunk. The authors of this movie clearly decided (for what rational reason I don't know) that they could somehow make up for the lack of a script if the character halfway around the world in search of a treasure that (he learns) his father fought and died for. In the process, he saves a black slave named Sam, meets a French girl who is living in an Apache village, makes friends with a ninja clan whose members then try to kill him, meets more family members then he knew he had in the weirdest places and circumstances (and whom all subsequently die at some point in the movie).<br /><br />Even so far, these ludicrous plot twists could be excused, but then come the two 'guest appearances'. #1: After having a ridicuously cliche showdown with two cowboys, Jiro meets a man who introduces himself as 'Mark Twain'. At this point, you're probably saying 'What the ****?!!' This 'meeting' serves one purpose: it entirely discredits a movie which tries to add to itself an educated historical background. I found it disappointing that the authors went to all this trouble to research the 1860s US and didn't manage to realize that 'Mark Twain's' real name was Samuel Clemens. #2: When Jiro finally finds the treasure, it turns out that it used to belong to Captain Kidd. I can hear the groans of disgust now.<br /><br />Finally, there are the running scenes. These scenes show various characters running, with the landscape moving statically behind them, for several minutes, and there are a lot of them. It is these scenes which make this movie, 2hrs 12 min, to seem to last a week and a half.<br /><br />If you and your friends are looking for a bad subtitled movie that just asks to be made fun of, this is it. Feel free to poke fun at every possible aspect of it, and have fun. Just don't take it seriously. 3/10 | 1 |
Why is Guy working for Buddy? Probably because Ari was not around in 1995. Why does Dawn want to be with Guy? For access to Buddy. Why does she stay with Guy? I am not sure.<br /><br />There are bunch of things about this movie that I am not sure about. But, Kevin Spacey is an excellent, verbal tsunami as Buddy Ackerman and totally believable because he is a great actor.<br /><br />Frank Whaley's Guy is certainly out of his element working for Buddy he wants to write and make meaningful movies, not be a gofer that is verbally abused for getting Equal instead of Sweet & Low. <br /><br />Michelle Forbes' Dawn, who also wants to make meaningful movies, seems way out of Guy's league.<br /><br />The ending leaves a lot to be desired. | 1 |
I hated the way Ms. Perez portrayed Puerto Ricans! We are not all ghetto - and we do speak Spanish- not Puerto Rican! I can not speak for the uneducated persons you have run into. But our language is intact, our island is our pride. Puerto Rico is better off economically than any other Caribbean island! I'm glad we are not like Cuba, Dominican Republic or Haiti, free from American influence? Free in true poverty, not the U.S. standard of poverty. We are not victims we are resilient, humble,honest and intelligent people. Our ancestry does include strong African roots, but not 'black' roots- I have nothing in common with Black Americans 9do the research).<br /><br />The analogy between Pedro Albizu, Che Guevarra and Martin L. King could not be more off the mark.<br /><br />MLK was a great hero a true revolutionary- an honest man who saw a day when we would all be free.<br /><br />Che Guevarra helped Castro create the Cuba that is today, is that why boat fulls of Cubans risk their lives to come to America- because Che made such a better place for them? You had a great, awesome, bright idea but you politicized it too much. We have so many things to be proud of as a people - don't bring shame to our people by victimizing us. I am not a Nuyorican and perhaps that is why I can't share your views. I am Puerto Rican, I speak Spanish, I am not a victim and I have been able to accomplish many of my goals in America. If there is a part 2 in the future - less politics more history more stories of triumph- there are many.<br /><br />Damaris Maldonado | 1 |
From the beginning of the film I found myself laughing trying to keep quiet so I did not wake anyone in the house, this didn't continue so much throughout the rest of the film, I didn't find everything completely 'laugh out loud' funny, but still I found certain things quite funny. At the beginning I had to hold in laughter when he drops the very crafty looking Hand Grenade down his sleeve. Then there are scenes where you will just smile, like when the Barber falls through a roof into someones apartment, I can see that being quite funny but in todays days and time that has been done quite a lot it didn't feel original, though at the time, I'm sure it was. I loved Hynkels (Hitlers) bursts of raging German with the nice subtle English translation.<br /><br />The final scene is wildly discussed because, well it's absolutely true, and so very intelligently constructed. Though the film is sixty eight years old the final scene is still relevant today, if this doesn't show how great a writer Chaplin is, then I don't know what will. The acting in this scene in particular was quite good, the Barber transcended the message perfectly and makes you realise the serious nature of the film, at the same time enjoying the humorous side.<br /><br />Another element about this film is the fact that this was such a brave film, that almost feels ahead of it's time. Of course, Chaplin did not know what was going to happen after 1940, he was not aware of the Holocaust (obviously), he's also gone on record as to saying if he had of known he would not of made this film. The fact this film is so anti-Hitler is interesting, it's more interesting that it wasn't anti-Germany which would be very easy to have done back in those times, Chaplin could of easily made this a propaganda film, but instead did something more, he made an honest film.<br /><br />I recommend anyone remotely interested in this film to see it, as well those who has studied or is studying Hitler and WWII to watch this film. It's entertaining to say the least, it doesn't have an annoying out-dated feel that some films of the time did. Unlike most 'comedies' this film actually has a message it tries to bring to you, watch this film, you will be better off for having seen it. | 0 |
THE MAN IN THE WHITE SUIT, like I'M ALL RIGHT JACK, takes a dim view of both labor and capital. Alec Guinness is a scientific genius - but an eccentric one (he has never gotten his university degree due to an...err...accident in a college laboratory). He manages to push himself into various industrial labs in the textile industry. When the film begins he is in Michael Gough's company, and Gough (in a memorable moment) is trying to impress his would-be father-in-law (Cecil Parker) by showing him the ship-shape firm he runs. While having lunch with Parker and Parker's daughter (Joan Greenwood), Gough gets a message regarding some problems about the lab's unexpectedly large budget problems. He reads the huge expenditures (due to Guinness's experiments), and chokes on his coffee.<br /><br />Guinness goes on to work at Parker's firm, and repeats the same tricks he did with Gough - but Parker discovers it too. Greenwood has discovered what Guinness is working on, and convinces Parker to continue the experiments (but now legally). The result: Guinness and his assistant has apparently figured out how to make an artificial fiber that can constantly change the electronic bonds within it's molecular structure so that (for all intents and purposes) the fiber will remain in tact for good. Any textile made from it will never fade, get dirty, or wear out - it will last forever.<br /><br />Guinness has support from a female shop steward, but not her chief. He sees Guinness as selling out to the rich. But when he explains to them what he's done, they turn against him. If everyone has clothes that will last forever then they will not need new clothes! Soon Parkers' fellow textile tycoons (led by Gough, Ernest Theisinger - in a wonderful performance, and Howard Marion-Crawford) are equally panic stricken by what may end their businesses. They seek to suppress the invention. With only Greenwood in his corner (although Parker sort of sympathizes with him), Guinness tries to get the news of his discovery to the public.<br /><br />In the end, Guinness is defeated by science as well as greed. But he ends the film seeing the error in his calculations, and we guess that one day he may still pull off his discovery after all.<br /><br />It's a brilliant comedy. But is the argument for suppression valid? At one point the difficulties of making the textile are shown (you have to heat the threads to a high temperature to actually enable the ends of the material to be united. There is nothing that shows the cloth will stretch if the owner gets fat (or contract if the owner gets thin). Are we to believe that people only would want one set of clothing for ever? What happened to fashion changes and new styles? And the cloth is only made in the color white (making Guinness look like a white knight). We are told that color dye would have to be added earlier in the process. Wouldn't that have an effect on the chemical reactions that maintain the structure of the textile? <br /><br />Alas this is not a science paper, but a film about the hypocrisies of labor and capital in modern industry. As such it is brilliant. But those questions I mention keep bothering me about the validity of suppressing Guinness' invention | 0 |
Cinderella....<br /><br />I hadn't watched this film for about five years the last time i saw it. The magic remains. There is something that definitely contains that storybook feel, the songs entertain and the secondary character's all please. The villains in the form of step sisters are perfectly evil and vile. Then there is the most magical of all Disney, the mice making the dress and well you know the rest. To sum up the four of the Disney princess movies are all great but this is a charming magical experience, watch and enjoy. Oh and of course, Cinderella is wonderful as the main character in the movie.<br /><br />If you think about it Disney movies can really lost their charm. With Elene Wood and others the movie has such a feel to it, you simply can't help but smile<br /><br />They say the moral of this story is that dreams come true. Of course in the real world some are believers others are hoper's. In this film it's even more the magical when her rainbow comes smiling. <br /><br />And of course the rest is...Cinderella | 0 |
I am no Ebert. What I am is a compassionate and I have never felt more compassion for a fictional character than I felt for Leland P. Fitzgerald. Sorry if I do not offer a critique, but I see nothing but perfection in this film. I am sure that many who watch this film will never see the same things I do, but if you look hard enough maybe you will see something you weren't expecting. I've read that the character of Leland was flawed. It seems to me that who wrote this was not able to see past the Question this movie presents. I feel sorry for anyone who doesn't see the answers this movie delivers. Open your heart more than your mind and you may be able to let this Leland P. Fitzgerald show you a world that truly has a meaning. Excepcional story with extraordinary acting. Ryan Gosling deserves to be talked about. | 0 |
Admirable but weak James Bond film mainly because both the hero (Bond) and villain (Blofeld) were seriously miscast. Lazenby is too big and innocent looking to play Bond. He looks and acts more like the good-natured but dim-witted sidekick in a police action movie. The director and writer try to establish his credibility, but his saying of lines like 'Royal Baluga, North of the ...' just aren't effective in establishing him as this worldly and suave rogue. Savalas doesn't do a bad job, but his characterization and behavior is more fitting of a mob gangster. The best portrayed characters of the movie are those of Tracy and her father. But the performances by those actors when sharing the screen with Lazenby only serve to emphasize his deficiencies as an actor. This movie is too long (140 mins.) for a Bond film and doesn't offer any excitement until Bond's mountain escape, where it begins to pick up. This film tries very hard, but falls short. Many Bondian elements are present and the climatic battle is top notch, but I always get a sense of something missing when watching this one. | 1 |
Unfortunately, Koontz seems doomed to die without seeing a decent adaptation of his work. Whispers follows the original book very closely, seemingly until the production company ran out of money. All of the sets in the first half of the movie were meticulously recreated from the book - something which has been lacking in many other Koontz films. Despite its other (numerous) downfalls, I continued to watch in anticipation of some really great scenery. Wrong. By the time the detectives show up at the crack head's apartment (in the book), the movie is out of funds, and one of the most suspenseful scenes from the book, is ruined. Where the book offered grisly discovery, a search and a chase through the guys apartment, the movie offers the backseat of the guys car.<br /><br />Let's face it - Koontz writes without a budget in mind, because imagination is free. If a Koontz novel ever gets made into a decent movie, no one will go and see it, because they have been let down so many, many, many times before. This is why Dean Koontz's Frankenstein is now just Frankenstien - if you had seen your work butchered that many times, you'd get out early if it looked like happening again! | 1 |
This is my favourite film and I think it is perfect. Unlike virtually any other film I can name, I never watch this film and think it would have been better if they'd changed this or that or whatever. Is this the definition of a work of art? I think so. Every brushstroke in Mishima is perfect and it all flows from the Schrader's script. I've always sort of liked Paul Schrader's work (you can't argue with Taxi Driver and Light Sleeper is an amazing film), but while his writing often seems to border on the bombastic, his directing style is usually non-existent. This is deliberate, I think, because his films usually deal with a search for redemption and are set in the real world; ugly and harsh. His style suits his themes as he presents his characters in a simple and realistic way, and lets them show the audience the truth of the situation. Imagine if Schrader had directed Taxi Driver or Bringing Out The Dead, instead of Scorsese. But like the protagonists of those two films, while Mishima the man was ideal Schrader material, right-wing, vain and at odds with society, his works were subtle and beautiful. In fact he had a secondary writing career as a woman's writer, churning out what can reasonably be described as romantic potboilers. So you wouldn't necessarily imagine that Schrader was the ideal man to capture that subtlety and beauty on film. I think the film shows that he was. The script he helped fashion splits Mishima the man into three parts; his life, his death and his mind. His life is represented in black and white, still camera, formal compositions. His death, for which he will always be best remembered, is handheld documentary style. And his mind is represented by the dramatised extracts from his novels, each one revealing the thought processes of this complex man, who hardly ever wrote a character that wasn't a reflection of himself. These dramatisations are beautiful to look at, thanks to Eiko Ishioka's remarkable production design and Schrader's imaginative staging. In all parts, the acting is superb, especially from Ken Ogata as Mishima, who captures the essential charm, arrogance and narcissism of the man. The photography is excellent throughout and contains images that the viewer will retain forever. Finally, the music is simply superb, perfectly matching the images, although written and recorded before shooting, adjusted during the editorial process and then re-recorded. How much the music influenced the shoot I do not know, but it bonds perfectly to the image. I have seen many ideas of what various people think the theme of the film is, what Schrader is trying to say. You know, the big stuff about life, death etc. But I do not think the film is saying anything. Mishima has already said it, the film simply repeats. | 0 |
If you ever hear these three words uttered to you...'Joe Don Baker', be afraid...<br /><br />Final Justice is the low budget action movie based on a sheriff in a Texas town named Geronimo (pronounced as Heronimo). He's an ugly, slimy, rude character who is on the hunt for a criminal in Malta who killed his partner in Texas. His partner actually slumps down twice in the movie. Very bad editing. Joe Don Baker (Geronimo) ends up in jail like 4 or 5 times in this movie, making the plot go nowhere fast. Plus, he shoots everybody like he's in the wild west. I guess nobody told him it was the 20th century. A woman cop is assigned to show him around Malta (who looks like Elaine from Seinfeld) and she is the only one who can put up with the redneck. She must be insane!<br /><br />The strippers in the bar are the most entertaining characters in this movie. Their dancing is shown throughout the film and I began to bond with the sleazy women. Well, at least it was better than watching Geronimo try to dumb his way out of something. The ending is flawed and somewhat predictable, and I was happy it was finally over. You'll never forget that last line of Joe Don Baker from the movie.<br /><br />It's so hard to imagine how he was in THREE Bond movies...very weird! Anyway, if you're up for a laugh, then see this one on MST3K sometime. Also, I've heard his other bad movie (among many), 'Mitchell' MST3K version is being released on DVD by Rhino. I can't wait to see that! | 1 |
That pretty much sums it up ... corny. MacDowell's inability to act is at times painful, and Hurt must need money to take such muted roles, but I still enjoyed it.<br /><br />Why? In a single word, Travolta. He is GREAT in this movie. Still, I can't give the movie too high a score, but it certainly deserves better than it seems to be getting. | 0 |
'Ray' lives on<br /><br />Ray Dir- Taylor Hackford Cast- Jamie Foxx, Kerry Washington, Regina King, Clifton Powell, Curtis Armstrong and Sharon Warren. Written by- Taylor Hackford and James L. White. Rating- ***<br /><br />'Hit the road Jack, and don't come back
no more, no more, no more, NO MORE!' Who would've thought that this immortal line that has almost become a remedial mantra for broken relationships in popular culture was conceived over a lovers' brawl! Ray Charles was a genius. And if there was one thing that he knew, breathed and lived for; it was music. So in a lifetime that comprised acute poverty, a desperate struggle with darkness, guilt, drugs and painful affairs; Ray still found moments when inspiration hit him out of nowhere and words and notes took their own shape to form an instant eternal classic! <br /><br />There are some lives that deserve to be transformed on the silver screen. Ray Charles's life was one of them. It almost comes as a shock to learn that this project had no studio-backing until it was completed! And that backing probably came after the initial screenings where Jamie Foxx's performance was lauded and predicted as a surefire Oscar winner in hushed voices. Jamie Foxx as Ray almost convinces us that it is indeed Ray Charles performing on screen and not an actor impersonating! From the crooked all-knowing smile to the bent gait of not so much a handicapped but a man dancing through his demons, Foxx captures every essence of the actual Ray Charles. Ray was a complicated man. He never demanded sympathy and very rarely showed it himself. An astute businessman, he ensured his success at any cost, sometimes at the price of losing his loved ones. He never apologized for his philandering ways and always maintained that he loved his family, which we are convinced he did. He liked sex; it was as simple as that! But beneath all, there also existed a Ray that was afraid of darkness. Imagine the horrors of a blind man afraid of darkness! His fear was because of his guilt. Ray was convinced that he was the reason for his brother's death, and his whole life was spent trying to redeem himself. Ray was a maverick who fused gospel with jazz, an unheard blasphemous practice in the 50's. But his intentions weren't to instigate. He was simply practicing the only way he knew of getting close to God!<br /><br />It is hard to capture such an eventful life as that of Ray, and that is perhaps where the movie fails. We are never really allowed to get close to Ray as a person. We know him only as much as we see him. His relationships, especially with Margie Hendricks(Regina King), aren't explored in detail. And the script barely passes over Della Bea(Kerry Washington), Ray's wife, who everyone knows was a rock by his side. And the biggest blunder of all is the rushed, almost abrupt climax. It's as if the director suddenly realized he was out of stock and called for a pack-up! Nonetheless, 'Ray' is definitely recommended for a flawless performance from Jamie Foxx and an able stellar ensemble. The songs and age create a sense of nostalgia, and we get a genuine feeling that the film is made with sincerity. <br /><br />- Abhishek Bandekar<br /><br />Note- 'Ray' is nominated in six categories at this year's Academy Awards, including Best Picture, Best Director and Best Actor(Jamie Foxx).<br /><br />Rating- ***<br /><br />* Poor ** Average *** Good **** Very Good ***** Excellent<br /><br />19th February, 2005 | 0 |
This was/is an incredible movie, with incredible cast, music, singing, story, etc. It is a tragedy that some arrogant families (the Gerswhins or Premingers) can keep it from being available to generation after generation. I have wanted to see it again all of my life. I just found this site and read why it has not been available. Shame on these families for their pettiness. My wife is from Germany and she has never seen the movie. Neither have my step-children or my grandchildren. It is very sad that a movie of this depth and quality is not available for them to see. Where do these families get off making such a conceited, self-important, egotistical, condescending decision to prohibit generations from enjoying this film, these stars, these performances, this music! Release the video and let them world judge and enjoy! | 0 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.