review
stringlengths 41
13.7k
| label
int64 0
1
|
|---|---|
A terrible movie that is amateurish on almost every level - a boring and derivative screenplay filled with stereotyped characters played by embarrassed actors for a director lacking the most rudimentary understanding of his craft. The whole thing stinks. It plays like a slasher movie from the early eighties, down to the crappy score and ketchup SFX, but without the childhood nostalgia that is required to look fondly on such dross. One of the worst horror films I've ever seen - definitely the worst that received a mainstream theatrical release. I've never walked out of a film in my life - had I been unlucky enough to see 'Hatchet' at the theater, it would have been a first. Avoid at all costs. | 1 |
A man is pulled off a London Street and taken to some foreign country where he is tortured as a terror suspect. Dull, banal film bored the hell out of me. More an idea then a film. I was half way into this 77 minute film when I realized I had no idea who anyone on screen was. It was as if they took every other similar film and pulled out all of the ideas and put them in one place with out the real notion of character. Certainly its well acted with passion but there is no emotional center, there is just an everyman of sorts which the filmmakers feel is enough. Its not. And while the story presented id in theory important as a warning the film is too dull to convince anyone of it, especially if one has seen the other, better films of a similar ilk (rendition with Reese Witherspoon for example) | 1 |
After watching this movie on tv, I looked it up in the IMDB and imagine to my surprise a user rating of 7.6! This is not a good film. Especially bad is the editing; the poor way the story jumps from one point to another was amateurish and a huge distraction. It's not very fluently done. I do agree that the acting was fairly decent, especially Kelly Kapowski, and that the story was intriguing enough. | 1 |
Unlike 'The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai', or 'Big Trouble in Little China', or 'Conan the Barbarian', which are horrible films that have a certain coolness and self-deprecating humor that turn them into cult sensations, The Golden Child is just plain bad.<br /><br />The premise itself is not unworkable, and there are some funny moments. But here the Eddy Murphy 'flip attitude' just deflates any feeling of tension or danger in the story. And the special effects are silly enough to do more damage to that tension. The 'mystic secrets' of Tibetan Buddhism are lampooned rather than drawn upon to compel.<br /><br />Without a feeling that anything is at stake, or that the characters are faced by real danger, why should we care?<br /><br />Who should see this film:<br /><br />-- big fans of Eddy Murphy who can't help themselves<br /><br />-- I can't think of anyone else<br /><br />I'll give this film a 4 out of 10 for the occasional joke that worked. | 1 |
What a terrible movie! It represents perfectly the state of degenerateness of French society, where the most elementary respect for wholesome values and traditions has completely disappeared. The plot is nonsensical, the movie is not funny at all and the characters are completely shallow and uninteresting. To say the least, the direction and the cinematography are very poor and uninspired. Catherine Deneuve is as bad an actress as she always was, even when she was directed by Bunuel in Belle De Jour. The rest of the usually good cast (Vincent Lindon, Line Renaud, Jean Yanne) seem completely lost in an ocean of vulgarity, platitudes and restlessness. I cannot help to draw a parallel with the wonderful James Ivory's 'Le Divorce', with its thoughtful depiction of French and American mores, its superlative cinematography and stellar cast put to good use. Having watched 'Le Divorce' you can feel a kind of empathy with the French, regardless of their foibles. 'Belle-Maman' leaves you with only a nauseated contempt for its morally bankrupt and clueless protagonists. | 1 |
This movie is all flash and no soul. The actors put a lot of passion into the numbers, but these numbers often didn't connect with the film and felt like stand-alone music videos. And no effort was made to make the numbers sound as if they were happening right there in front of you, every single one sounds like its coming from a studio, essentially sucking all the life from the songs. Off the stage the performances were all dull and unrealized, especially Hudson, who essentially plays the same angry, 'strong' (she's stubborn and selfish) black woman we've seen before. There was absolutely no depth to her character, nor any of the other female leads. Though I think the movie wants us to believe that Hudson's character faces hardship because of her weight, it is really her own refusal to do what's best for the team that lands her in trouble, making the end of the film totally meaningless. Hudson's Academy Award is a joke, there was no justification. When she sang, she put forth emotion (though it was often misplaced, but this was the writer/director's fault), but when she was just acting, she did nothing to flesh out an already underwritten character. Eddie Murphy's character is the only one with an arc, and he did a fine job, but still not Oscar worthy. The only actor who really brought something to the roll was Danny Glover, who took a small, relatively unimportant character and made something real out of it. There is nothing here to sink your teeth into, no drama or heart, or even laughs. The placement of the musical numbers was so bad that at times the movie almost seemed to be making fun of musicals instead of being one; the number when Hudson is arguing with the other girls is so long-winded if it had been any longer it could pass for a Family Guy skit. The movie has no idea what it's about, and I felt insulted by the last few minutes. It's a big, boring waste of time, and really is the worst film I saw in '06, and nothing last year was really stellar to begin with. | 1 |
I've read all the comments on this film. I am a great admirer<br /><br />of the Dalai Lama. As such, I read the book upon which this<br /><br />film was based. The movie is an ugly and demeaning fictionalization of the truth. I do not criticize it for<br /><br />altering small details or events for dramatic purposes; it is<br /><br />not a documentary. But the script CHANGES the impact, reaction,<br /><br />realities, and changes in EVERY main character. It vastly alters<br /><br />the real relationship between Harrar and the young Dalai Lama. <br /><br />From the ridiculous rivalry for a Tibetan woman (which demeans<br /><br />the culture of Tibet) to Harra's music box gift, to Harrar's<br /><br />change of heart, everything about this movie is false - except<br /><br />for the amazing photography. I understand that the shots of the<br /><br />Potala (the palace) were smuggled out of Tibet. However,<br /><br />changing a real story about the relationship between two people,<br /><br />one of them very important to this world, in order to build up a<br /><br />movie star is sad | 1 |
This movie is not about the soda nor is it quite the French Connection.<br /><br />The Seven Ups are a group of elite policemen that use tactics not in accordance with protocol of the NYPD. Scheider heads the group with his posse or regular looking joes. They are running surveillance on a local costra nostra cartel and things go awry when a cop's wire is found out.<br /><br />Meanwhile, Richard Lynch, the most evil looking man in film (Invasion:America, Little Nikita) and his partner end up killing the cop by accident and escape from Scheider in the coolest chase scene I've seen, Bullitt and French Connection are not as good as they one up the West Side to the George Washington and onto the Palisades Parkway in New Jersey. <br /><br />The stunt drivers are terrific and Lynch makes it away free though he looks scared witless from the dangerous trip. Roy Scheider is nearly killed when his car slams into the abutted rear of Mack truck ripping the roof of his vehicle off. <br /><br />Things come to a head and one has to keep watching to follow up on such a sequence. Quick moving and intense, fresh for a thirty years. | 0 |
As one who frequently goes to the movies, I have to say that this has been one of the most impressive movies I have seen this year. Ed Harris and Cuba Gooding Jr. gave outstanding performances allowing viewers to get lost in the various emotions and really feel for the characters. It is nice to occasionally see a movie that does not depend entirely upon special effects but allows the characters of the story to touch the human psyche on many levels. I wish Hollywood would produce more movies of this calibre. | 0 |
Something happens to Sondra Pransky when she enters the magician's box on the stage of a London theater. Little does Sondra know the spirit of newly departed journalist Joe Strombel materializes to ask her to investigate the man someone has told him, on his voyage to another dimension, is the infamous Tarot killer that has been on a binge of crime in London. The only problem is the man accused is, for all appearances, a respectable upper class man.<br /><br />When Sondra tells her experience to the Great Splendini, who is a.k.a. Sid Waterman, the magician is stunned, but decides to go along. The two would be P.I.s conjure an invitation to a club where Peter Lyman goes to swim. Sondra, who fakes she is drowning, catches the attention of this hunk, who wants to see more of her.<br /><br />Needless to say, the two of them will get into all kinds of funny situations until the mystery is revealed at the end of the film. Little does the real Tarot killer think he can fool a resolute Sondra who proves herself to be more resourceful than he gave her credit for.<br /><br />The result is a perfect summer film with a lot of laughs that is just what one needs to get out of the heat into a perfect time in a cool theater. Woody Allen has done better, and yet, this sunny comedy will vindicate him for past failures. In 'Scoop', Mr. Allen has taken himself from the romantic lead pawing his gorgeous leading lady. His trade mark gesticulating is something this funny man will never get rid of, since it appears to be his trade mark. The film has some funny one liners that will go over the head of the viewers that might not be paying attention.<br /><br />Scarlett Johansson, the beautiful star of 'Scoop', seems to be the perfect foil for Woody Allen. She plays the straight part while Mr Allen does his shtick, a perfect combination. Both are excellent in their banter throughout the film. Ms. Johansson is a knockout beauty in her red bathing suit, although they have dressed her so dowdy in most of the costumes she wears on the screen. Hugh Jackman is seen as Peter Lyman a sophisticated man about town with the right pedigree. He makes a good appearance in the movie as the man pursuing Ms. Johansson. Ian McShane plays the dead Fleet Street journalist on his way to eternity.<br /><br />'Scoop' is a light film for the hot and humid summer thanks to Woody Allen. | 0 |
I have been reading a lot of different opinions and reviews of this movie, and I understand why a lot of people get mixed feelings about Ponyo, whether it be the story line, animation, dialogue, and so forth. And I believe the most simple way I can answer to this, is that it's a movie for a much, much younger age bracket. An age bracket much younger than that of Tonarino Totoro (My Neighbor Totoro).<br /><br />Being a Miyazaki fan like the majority of the surfers on this site, I expected the wonderful animation, music composition, complex story telling, the great steady development of characters, how the story intertwines with today's society, etc etc etc of a typical Miyazaki film that we grew up with. And to tell you the truth, I didn't quite understand what the hell this story was supposed to be about or what the hell was going on until an hour and twenty minutes (with twenty minutes left in the movie), that this movie is NOT for the deep thinkers and hard core Ghibli-ists, but for the toddlers and youngins' and happy go lucky Japanese people. Also, I believe this movie is based on simplicity and creative animation; straight-up grass roots Ghibli Studios style. <br /><br />The fact that a villain is not present really surprised me, other than the father and maybe that crazy-ass typhoon. But other than that, this movie is just plain fun; to stimulate a young one's mind, and to make happy good time feeling. That's all. <br /><br />The animation goes back to the old-school mid-80s early-90s era of Miyazaki's films, where very specific detail wasn't a big focus, unlike Mononoke Hime (Princess Mononoke) and the latter. I admire the simplicity which kind of created some small nostalgia when I first watched Ghibli movies like Tonarino Totoro when I was a child. The reaction and movement of the children are all very similar to that of kids, and a lot of Studio Ghibli's body language is very noticeable. Studio Ghibli added some creative moments and sceneries that they can only do with it's wonderful animators, but it probably won't take the ritual Ghibli-ist in awe.<br /><br />The Japanese dialogue also sounded very child friendly and a lot of scenes and dialogues are very, very relative from what Japanese kids and mothers would say and act. The music if very hoppy and 'fluffy' I guess you could say (similar to Totoro) from beginning to end. Even the darker scenes didn't seem assertive.<br /><br />In the end this movie is one of a kind. Just about every aspect of this movie is for children. And I waited a whole 80 mins to realize that. Quite frankly, I have never seen a movie told or shown it the way Miyazaki did. It's refreshing to see that Studio Ghibli can still tell a story for a wider, and much different scale of audience, and still keep that trademark Ghibli impression. | 0 |
i was hoping this was going to be good as a fan of timothy dalton's james bond and although it wasn't his deserved '3rd bond outing' it was a laugh. Belushi brought some good humour to his part and dalton hammed it up nicely, but was probably underused. his part was liked a camped up version of jack nicholson in a few good men. the other brit in it was a bit shocking, but overal it was a laugh. | 0 |
This movie was extremely funny, I would like to own this for my vintage collection of 1970s movie must see again list, I know this cast of characters ,they are people that I have met over the years and that prompt me to search out this comedy, unfortunately this was never put to DVD or VHS. Redd Foxx always a clown of comedy, Pearl Baily a great match as his wife witty and sassy, Norman a son with a secret not sure if he will have a future if it is out,Dennis Dugan crazy funny man . Miss Dobson hooker with a heart and little conscience. Love,lust,strange family ties this movie qualifies for a come back encore performance ,situation comedy with a mix of events as this could and should find its way as a remake, I do think finding cast would be extremely difficult maybe impossible,except Jerry Seinfeld playing Dennis Dugan role, this earmarks a couple of Seinfeld episodes that also brought me back to Norman is that you ,keeping them in the closest was surely impossible as impossible to reform pretend hooker girl friend and infidelity of a parent. This movie was a wild ride advise of a cabbie, remind me of episode Kramer takes advice of his caddie over his lawyer. ( episode from Seinfeld ) The parents have there jaw dropping moment, fun over fun It is screaming bring me back . | 0 |
What has Rajiv Rai done to himself? Once a hit director of films like Tridev and Vishwatama is now making one bad film after another. I was initially excited at the thought of Rajiv Rai returning to the action genre but that soon fizzled out. As a Rajiv Rai fan I thought I should at least give it a go but I left after an hour. One reason for me leaving the film so early so the amount of Paki- bashing in the film, this was not in Rai's previous venture.<br /><br />A lot of directors have tried Paki- bashing but I did not expect it from Rajiv Rai Another letdown was the music. Rajiv Rai's have always had good music until now. There is only one good song and that is Tere dekh dekh Ladgayan. The performances are not upto scratch, not even from Rai Loyalist Naseer-Uddin- Shah. Avoidable fare from once my favourite director. | 1 |
A klutzy young man returns West after being schooled in the hotel business via Boston; he quickly learns his friends in Spanish-colonized Old California expect him to fill his deceased father's shoes instead--that of a romantic thief known for kissing his female victims after robbing them. Colorful but silly M-G-M production has a great deal of talent before and behind the camera, but it never takes off. This might have been fun, second-string material for Abbott & Costello, but Frank Sinatra looks lost and embarrassed in the lead. Combination of raucous comedy and musical interludes are hindered by the poor staging (Sinatra is photographed singing at one point in a mirror, but one doesn't concentrate on his performance so much as noticing how odd the star appears reflected in this way!). Kathryn Grayson is the Governor's daughter who falls for Frank, and her high soprano trilling turns her singing scenes into self-parody. Aside from Robert Surtees' cinematography and the decent art direction, this 'Bandit' remains kissless. * from **** | 1 |
Snakes on a Train (2006, Dir. The Mallachi Brothers) A Zombie curse is placed upon a woman, which causes her to have living snakes inside her. Brujo, who is looking after her, attempts to take her to Los Angeles on the train. After several confrontations on the train, Brujo's collection of snakes manage to separate themselves from their owner and go on the hunt. Whilst all this is happening, normal, everyday passengers are relaxing, what is unknown to them is that something deadly is heading their way, and that their is no were out.<br /><br />After watching the wonderfully fun 'Snakes on a Plane', i had to check this out. I knew it was going to be a rip-off and that the film will look cheap, but what i found was worst to watch. The whole curse plot was silly and should never have been included. The special effects aren't terrible but are not the best looking. I did not have a clue about the ending. It was silly to watch and pathetic. The acting was absolutely terrible, and looked bad. They just could not act to save their lives. If you want a great laugh, watch this, otherwise you should really avoid this.<br /><br />'We have a runaway train. I repeat. We have a runaway train.' - Conductor (Stephen A.F. Day) | 1 |
Two sisters, their perverted brother, and their cousin have car trouble. They then happen about the home of Dr. Hackenstein whom conveniently needs the body parts of three nubile young women to use in an experiment to bring his deceased lover back to life. He tells them that he'll help them get home in the morning, so they spend the night. Then the good doctor gets down to work in this low-budget horror-comedy.<br /><br />I found this to be mildly amusing, nothing at all to actually go out of your way for (I stumbled across it on Netflix instant view & streamed it to the xbox 360), but better then I expected it to be for a Troma acquired film. Most of the humor doesn't work, but their are still some parts that caused me to smile. Plus the late, great Anne Ramsey has a small part and she was always a treat to watch.<br /><br />Eye Candy: Bambi Darro & Sylvia Lee Baker got topless <br /><br />My Grade: D+ | 1 |
The pros of this film are the astonishing fighting scenes - absolutely incredible sword-moves and martial art show off. A true John Woo masterpiece. The story tends to be a bit week though, but it never overshadows the overwhelming display of acrobatic martial art action. If you are into martial art movies, you are going to LOVE this one! | 0 |
There is absolutely no doubt that this version of Tarzan is the closest to Burroughs' vision. While he gladly collected his royalties from the films produced during his lifetime, he frequently made it clear that they were little more than the bastard children of his tales. The film studios' ludicrous obsession with casting Olympic swimmers as Tarzan was beyond laughable. I guess we should consider ourselves lucky that they did not set their sights on shot-putters. <br /><br />Prior to this film, the most faithful adaptations were in comic strips and comic books. As fine as some of these were, we had to wait seven decades for a filmmaker with the integrity to respect the character as he had been created. | 0 |
My main criticism with the movie is the animation. I totally agree with everyone else it was very poor. Some of the characters seemed to have darker skin tones than they did in the first film, which is much better. Also the background colours looked rushed and somewhat static. It is also a shame that Michael J.Fox didn't voice Milo, he did such a good job, and James Arnold Taylor wasn't sure whether he was supposed to sound like Milo or Aladdin. I have also taken into consideration the lack of a good storyline. the third story was confusing and clumsily told, and the second story suffered from poor scripting. To make things worse, the first one I can't even remember, other than a fishing village being haunted or something like that. However, there was some nice music, and good voice talents from John Mahoney, Cree Summer, Clancy Brown and Tom Wilson, that saved the film from total disaster. All in all, a disappointing sequel to a surprisingly good film. 4/10 Bethany Cox. | 1 |
Believe me when I say this show is just plain hilarious. The basic story is about Kintaro Oe who travels from town to town taking part time jobs, chasing women, and learning all he can about life. Kintaro has to be one of the easiest to relate to characters ever made. He takes everything to the extreme, and it's just laugh out loud funny every time. From his constant never ending quest to study life, to tiny things he instantly blows up into life or death matters.<br /><br />One of the funniest things about this show is simply Kintaro's constantly extremely over the top expressions and reactions. He spends a great amount of time in various super deformed modes like Dragon Half or Trigun. Other times in less then 0.1 seconds his face will turn not just serious, but manga-fighter-style life or death expressions like a weight lifter trying to benchpress a new record. It's hilarious.<br /><br />If that wasn't enough, the writing is superb and the english voice acting couldn't possibly be better. Kintaro's English VA is just perfect and will have you rolling around when he's not even really saying anything. The one thing to mention though is this is without a doubt an Ecchi series. It practically defines the word. If you're an adult anime fan who can get a laugh out of movies like American Pie, you'll love this.<br /><br />- Rirath_com | 0 |
I agree with another reviewer, this is such a shattering film, that will be tough to watch again soon, though for quality alone, it deserves repeated viewing. The complexity of the characters, the incredible cinematography and superb direction make this movie worth the emotional price of watching.<br /><br />There is one scene, of the two partisans dragging themselves through the snow to escape a patrol, that's perhaps, for sheer physicality, the most amazing performance I've ever seen. In fact, though not episodic -- the story flows -- this is a movie of memorable scenes. There's the passing of rations amongst the partisans, the snow scenes, the ruined farm scene, the encounters in the houses, the interrogation, the 'basement' scene, the 'ascent'. All stand out like jewels in a necklace.<br /><br />For me, the religiosity isn't overt. Frankly, I don't think it would have been permitted in a Soviet film. I do see this as an existential parable about the value of life. Here is a tale where the hero -- and he is a true hero -- becomes the villain, and the weaker one becomes the stronger one. Is this a mystical process or one dictated by circumstances? There is a transfiguration, but does it come from within or without? You must see the movie to understand the issues, for they can't be discussed without giving away too much of the story. I can't say enough about the acting. It's hard for me to choose which of the leads is more affecting. I'm not familiar with Soviet film of the 70s and am not familiar with any of the actors, but they are all superb. I also note how director Larisa Shepitko uses children. They remind me of Giotto's child angels.<br /><br />There is a little muddling in the end. There is apparently a prior relationship between the soldier Sotnikov and the interrogator Portnov, but this is left dangling. And the final scene is a bit ambiguous. But compared to the total experience these are quibbles. This is a movie that will mark you for life. | 0 |
Gung Ho tries to express many ideas and entertain us with a wiseguy comedy at the same time. The result is uneven, but generally entertaining. Keaton balances all three aspects of his lead character quite well. Wantabedde is even better. One warning: George Wendt is very poor in his supporting role. Otherwise, this is quite enjoyable time capsule. | 0 |
As others have said, 'No, Luciano' is a more apt title or response to this movie title. For entertainment, the great opera singer should stick to singing.....not that he's a terrible actor. It's just that this movie stinks.<br /><br />The first 25 minutes were fine - a nice family movie, as it were - but after that it's nothing but a boring soap opera.<br /><br />Appropriately playing a singer, Pavarotti, as 'Giorgio Fini,' loses his voice a few times and the doctor, 'Pamela Taylor' (Kathryn Harrold) comes to the rescue. The singer then falls for the doctor, the doctor slowly falls for the singer, the two argue all the time and on and on and on it goes.<br /><br />Pavarotti has a winning smile and is a likable guy. It's Harrold that spoils things and after watching her here I am not surprised she didn't become a star. <br /><br />There is nice scenery in the movie to enjoy, good shots of San Francisco and Italy, at least in the first half of the film. I got bored and don't remember much about the second half of it. | 1 |
Anyone giving this movie a good review obviously must have had something to do with its creation. This movie is a painful suckfest. The acting is stiff, the stock generic soundtrack is laughable, the direction is bland and strangest of all, the teacher really isn't all that attractive (making the student's blatant advances all the more awkward). The creative minds behind this trash should disband and spread out to prevent further displays of such concentrated craptitude. I'm certain that some starving kids in Africa could have used the money squandered on this project. Hell, the funds would have also seen a more enlightened purpose fueling a crack-addict; at least someone would be getting some entertainment out of it. For the sole reason that it didn't give me a terminal illness, I'll give this film a two. | 1 |
After watching Desperate Living, I was hooked on John Waters films. I heard about Pink Flamingos and had to watch it and boy was it worth it! Believe what you hear, it is trash! It is packed with everything filthy which is actually the main plot of this film. It contains the following: Incest, cannibalism, rape, chicken shagging,nudity (like you never seen before- beware of baby's birthday party entertainers),poo eating,arson, trailer trash, perversion, transexuality, egg fettish, cross dressing...... you get the picture. Above all, this is a definite must! Just beware of the birthday party entertainer and Divine wondering around the park! | 0 |
I enjoyed the first 'Toxic Avenger,' but the sequel just didn't work. There are some funny gags in the opening, involving members of the home for the blind, but past that point I was simply bored. The sequel is also filled with much quirky, low-brow humor. Only this time it's not funny! Much of the gags revolve around crusty Japanese stereotypes. Almost every Japanese character seems to be chopping fish. Does everyone in Japan chop fish? The Troma films are known for being more than a little irreverent, but if you're gonna use humor involving racial stereotypes, at least make it funny. I can't laugh if I'm handed the same crap I've seen a million times before! One thing I have to give credit for is the gratuitous nudity. There's even more gratuitous nudity than in the first. But altogether I was very disappointed, and the film ends with a tedious chase scene which had me huffing and puffing, dying for the movie to fade to black. At least there's one hilarious line from the film which had me bawling with laughter. After the villain says a line from Shakespeare to one of the local citizens, the citizen (an elderly woman) responds by saying, 'F**k you--that's from David Mamet.'<br /><br />My score: 3 (out of 10) | 1 |
This was a watchable movie, but plot was a little weak and most of the jokes were from some of Rodney's earlier movies. With that said, it was worth the time to watch. I gave this a 5 out of 10. So basically, its one of those movies that you do not go out of your way to see, but if you find it on the tube, take a chance. | 1 |
Humour is a very individual thing and the audience at the sneak preview of The Wog Boy seemed to enjoy it more than I did. I found it an anachronistic affair, more representative of the old fashioned racial humour of the Australian cinema of the 1960s and 1970s. The boy meets girl plot never takes off because of a lack of chemistry between Lucy Bell and Nick Giannopoulos while I found laughs thin on the ground. If you want to spend your money on this, wait until it's on video. | 1 |
The positive reviews on this page are planted by the filmmakers and their friends. This film is amateurish in terms of direction, acting, in fact in every aspect. If the IMDb are gonna allow filmmakers to dictate what is written about their films then that is a very sad thing. This film has a marketable premise but it is absolutely horrifically made.<br /><br />Film is subjective so everyone has their own opinion. But this film is on a par with the work of Ed Wood, but without any of the charm. To think otherwise shows bad taste of the highest order.<br /><br />This is not a personal thing. I don't know anyone associated with the film. I'm just a film lover who feels that the reviews on this page are completely inaccurate and therefore I felt the need to address the balance and give a more accurate view of the film. It's very poorly made and the direction is below even film-making by the numbers. The acting is the worse ever committed to film. The best thing about this film is the poster and DVD cover art. Beyond that it's not worth the time. | 1 |
George P. Cosmatos' 'Rambo: First Blood Part II' is pure wish-fulfillment. The United States clearly didn't win the war in Vietnam. They caused damage to this country beyond the imaginable and this movie continues the fairy story of the oh-so innocent soldiers. The only bad guys were the leaders of the nation, who made this war happen. The character of Rambo is perfect to notice this. He is extremely patriotic, bemoans that US-Americans didn't appreciate and celebrate the achievements of the single soldier, but has nothing but distrust for leading officers and politicians. Like every film that defends the war (e.g. 'We Were Soldiers') also this one avoids the need to give a comprehensible reason for the engagement in South Asia. And for that matter also the reason for every single US-American soldier that was there. Instead, Rambo gets to take revenge for the wounds of a whole nation. It would have been better to work on how to deal with the memories, rather than suppressing them. 'Do we get to win this time?' Yes, you do. | 1 |
In his first go as a Hollywood director, Henry Brommell whips an enthralling yarn that is all of penetrating relatable marital issues with melancholic authenticity, and lacing such with an equally absorbing subplot of a father-son hit-man business. The film is directed astutely and consists of a wonderfully put together cast as well as a swift, family-conscious screenplay (also by Brommell) that brings life to an otherwise fatigued genre. As a bonus, 'Panic' delivers subtle, acerbic humoran unexpected, undeniably charming, and very welcome surprisethrough its bumbling, unsure-of-himself, low-key star, whose ever-cool state is enticing, especially given his line of work.<br /><br />The forever-great William H. Macy again captures our hearts as Alex, a unhappy, torn, middle-aged husband and father who finds solace in the most dubious of persons: a young, attractive, equally-messed-up 23-year-old named Sarah (Neve Campbell), whom he meets in the waiting-room at a psychologist's office, where he awaits the therapy of Dr. Josh Parks (John Ritter) to discuss his growing eagerness to quit the family business that his father (Donald Sutherland) built. Alex, whose lust to lead a new life is obstructed by the fear of disappointing his dictating father, strikes an unwise fancy for Sarah, which ultimately leads him to understand the essence and irrefutable responsibility of being a husband to his wife and, more importantly to him, a good father to his six-year-old son, Sammy (played enthusiastically by the endearing David Dorfman).<br /><br />Henry Brommell's brilliant 'Panic' is something of a rarity in Hollywood seldom seen (with the exception of 2002's 'Road to Perdition') since its conception in 2000it weaves two conflicting genres (organized-crime, family drama) into a fascinating, warm hunk of movie-viewing that is evenly strong in either directionand it's one that will maintain its exceptional, infrequent caliber and gleaming sincerity for ages to come. | 0 |
Michael Callan plays a smarmy photographer who seems, nonetheless, to be regarded as a perfect 'catch' by any woman that runs across him; could this have anything to do with the fact that he also co-produced the film? He's a 'hero' whom it's very difficult to empathize with, so the movie is in trouble right from the start. However, it's troubles don't end there. It has the production values of a TV-movie (check out that head made of clay or something, near the end), and the ending cheats in a way that I can't reveal, in case anyone wants to see the movie (highly unlikely). Let's just say that the killer knows more than we were let to know he knows. (*1/2) | 1 |
I originally scored Sarah's show with a nice fat 8, but I've struggled a bit with her humor of late and a thin 7 is what's settled in. I shall explain.<br /><br />You will either like Sarah's humor, or you won't. If you don't, I doubt anyone could persuade you. You folks know who you are and it's perfectly fine, but then you know that too. Moving on, the first season gave us fantastic bits about Sarah, her friends and family, and her pursuits in life. In one memorable episode, she is 'pulled over' by Officer Jay whom she meets for the first time. - 'Do you know why I am standing here?' he asks. 'Because you got all C's in high school?' she quizzically replies. It seemed to be a genuine question. - That is funny stuff in my book. Sarah can come at you from odd angles. In another episode, her affair with God was notably funny. God being petty and jealous added wonderfully to the joke. It is clever, it is a twisted view, but she would show us the truth in the humor and we laughed.<br /><br />Then, came the second season. While still not without some new and inventive comedy, we seem to have slipped somewhat into banal poop and fart jokes, quite simply. I get some good laughs here and there, but much of it seems like filler while she, and the writers, struggle to foment some original material. Sophomoric and tiresome are the feelings I have for the episodes lately, but I have been gutting it out for the gems I do find (the turtle) and waiting for her to turn it around. I was a fan of her 'Jesus is Magic' routine and would like to think that I understand what she is capable of. Let's get back to that. | 0 |
Hi, May be because I am not a Theater major or a sophisticated movie watcher ... I think this movie is 'Boring' and 'Dumb'.<br /><br />I rented this movie because of Charles Bronson and it's title ... but boy what a waste of time ... just watching 2 guys sitting in a vault and talking ...<br /><br />The movie on this DVD was so 'DARK' ... I had hard time watching the darn movie ... I realize it is a 1968 movie ... but they are putting it on a DVD then they should do some digital remastering.<br /><br />Also, I was totally surprised to see these high marks on IMDb for this movie ... like I said before I am not as sophisticated as the other folks who commented on this movie earlier. | 1 |
This is an excellent film, but Momento (Nolan's other big budget film) is much better . I would recommend people go to see Momento and then if they like that, see this film. THe film is shot in black and white which I was a bit annoyed with at first but once into the film you understand black and white is the best way for the film to be seen. It is extremely gripping and reasonably easy to understand even though the way it is made is extremely clever. Elements of the storyline i think are a bit daft but the film is definitely worthy of a second viewing. To conculde the film has a clever plot, clever twists and turns, very good acting and bearing in mind the budget of the film I have to say that it is pretty amazing. | 0 |
So I rented this movie hoping to learn about the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and the beginnings of its independence from Belgian rule. I was excited to become familiar with the figures involved in its history, mainly Lumumba and Mobutu. I wanted to see how the new Congolese government attempted to bring together the various groups opposing colonial rule, the political motives behind each one, the reasons behind Belgium's decision to give the DRC its independence, and also how the United States and the former USSR were involved. Sadly, all of my questions went largely unanswered. My belief is that this movie was made by people who, through a passing familiarity with the story of the DRC's fight for freedom, saw a story filled with drama and emotion, and decided to exploit it. They then proceeded to try and stuff all the dramatic points into a storyline, briefly filled them out with dialogue, went to the set and shot it. I could be wrong, but if so it's all the sadder, because then the makers must have simply become too tied up in getting everything in, and ended up glossing over all details in an effort to create an encompassing history. Whatever the reason, the fact is that the movie could be a timeline of sentence-long statements and facts printed on the screen. The film goes through each major occurrence, and tells the viewer point-blank the main idea of what's going on, completely smoothing over the actual details in favor of getting across the big things. For instance, there is the scene when Lumumba is captured by the increasingly rebellious army controlled by Mobutu. In the situation the soldiers have three possible viewpoints: one that sympathizes with Lumumba, one that vilifies Lumumba, and one that stands in the middle, sympathizing and yet obeying orders. Correspondingly, there are three soldiers that speak in the scene, uttering lines that unadornedly show their points of view. Then, to avoid dealing with the actual tensions that these opposing viewpoints bring up, the scriptwriters simply inserted some random shooting, more army guys show up and they just end up beating everyone up. This is the extent of the reflectiveness of the movie. Most of the time, each character simply states their basic motives, the other characters respond with theirs, and that's that. There's little telling through actions; even the things they say are direct the point of painfulness. It's hard to believe that the people represented actually acted like that. Also, in the trend of this directness, things like political tension between factions is reduced to simple acknowledgement of the fact-- we never learn what these factions are, what they're fighting for, their power, basically anything except that they exist. The characters likewise are one-dimensional and flat; unfortunately I don't know whether Lumumba was actually a freedom fighter passionately devoted to ideals of Congolese unity, but after an hour or so of the movie I certainly didn't trust it to tell me so. The DRC, like many developing countries, has a complicated and important history, especially in the period leading up to and after independence. But the telling of these histories will not be useful unless there is recognition of the intricacy of the situations. Lumumba fails to give proper attention to these details, and ends up telling the viewer little except the most general of outlines. | 1 |
Despite all it's trappings of style and cinematic invention, this is basically another serial killer thriller, following the same sort of plotline favoured by such old favourites as Silence of the Lambs ? team of cops follows the trail of (particularly nasty) murders, someone else gets taken and they somehow have to find out where they are before it's too late. Only in this case, the only person who knows, the killer himself (powerfully played by Vincent D'Onofrio) is in a coma and we need psychologist Jennifer Lopez' sci-fi mind-meld machine to get into his head and force him to tell all. This is where the film gets all new and different, as we enter (via a 21st-Century CGI update of Dr Who's kaleidoscopic favourite, the trendy time tunnel) a kind of Hellraiser-y weird world of scary crazy stuff going on all over the place, ruled over by D'Onofrio, now a kind of superking overlord of his twisted mental world, inside his comatose body. The inside-the-mind sequences are well realised and often pretty stunning, all the leads perform adequately, the gruesomeness is to the max if you like that kind of thing, but the hype around the whole thing led to a disappointment for me, as I had expected something completely new and unlike anything ever done before, not this fairly successful blending of serial-killer and special-effect-horror genre staples. Sometimes horrifying, often pretty, a fairly gripping story told with care and attention by talented film people, but by no means the great leap into the unknown it has been marketed as. | 0 |
Some users are confused about the identity of the armed men walking down the steps in the 'Odessa staircase' sequence. These men are not Cossacks but regular army troops.<br /><br />The Cossacks arrive at the scene a little later and they are the men on horses slashing at the crowd with their sabers.<br /><br />To experts on Russian history: Correct me on this if I'm wrong.<br /><br />But there are a couple of lines in the movie that apparently no one has commented on. After the takeover of the Potemkin, someone in the crowd on shore says, 'Kill the Jews!' This is on screen for only a couple of seconds but it is there.<br /><br />How cruelly typical of history, not just in Russia but in so many other countries, to immediately, unthinkingly and instinctively blame Jews for any domestic trouble!<br /><br />Perhaps other parts of the movie are not historically factual but the outcry against the Jews is all too real. Comments, anyone?<br /><br />Also, why can't speakers of English learn to pronounce the name as 'Potyomkin' instead of as 'Potemkin'? There's a need in Russian to distinguish the two possible pronunciations of 'e': as either 'ye' or as 'yo.' Sometimes two dots are used to distinguish these two pronunciations but usually the difference simply has to be memorized. | 0 |
This movie has its ups and downs, but to me the good stuff in this movie very much outweighs the bads...<br /><br />What's not so good about the movie are indeed sometimes the dialogue, the sounds, the lighting(am I the only one who noticed the way the sets were lighted was amateur, and the acting....<br /><br />What is very good are the highly original storyline, the very intense atmosphere, the gore factor which is very high, and the effects which are done supremely.<br /><br />So, definitely worth watching, or maybe even a must-see for all you horror and gore fans.... | 0 |
When this play was first shown by the BBC over 30 years ago, it would have been something quite different for the time. So therefor some people would have found it quite scary, and may well have been impressed with the special effects?<br /><br />Looking at the play in this day and age, It doesn't seem to be all that scary anymore, even the special effects can leave a lot to be desired.<br /><br />Would a train really be allowed to pass a RED LIGHT into a dark tunnel? I don't think so......but if you watch this play again, you will observe that the first train that enters the tunnel, rushes straight through the RED LIGHT! (maybe that's how it was in dickens time)?<br /><br />You will also notice that the footpath that leads down to the Signal Box is very steep and in a poor state. Surely there would have been a series of proper steps with handrails for the Signalman to climb up or down into the cutting. (i can't help but notice things like that)<br /><br />I will not take anything away from the acting, both Denholm Elliott (signalman) and Bernard Lloyd (the traveller) gave wonderful performances.<br /><br />I am not at all sure what is going on......I mean was the ghost the traveller, or what??? Does anyone really fully understand this rather confusing story??? (well maybe i am the only one that don't)???<br /><br />To sum up.....<br /><br />The play has a wonderful atmosphere throughout, with great character. It suffers from not being that scary these days, and a little if not very confusing in places, and has some rather unusual signalling practises....<br /><br />Thanks for reading my review. | 1 |
The film was okay, quite entertaining. The cast was pretty good, and I'll second what the comment before me mentioned - Glenn Quinn was outstanding and he alone is reason enough to watch this movie. He played the selfish 'evil' friend and manager of the band brilliantly!<br /><br />There are a lot of songs performed by 'Beyond Gravity' in this film, but this doesn't really come as a surprise considering the film is a VH1 production. However, if the soft rock/ pop music isn't to someone's liking one might as well flash forward those scenes.<br /><br />The plot of a band trying to make it to the top in L.A. but having to overcome many obstacles on the way isn't too original, but quite entertaining, with some surprising plot turns here and there. | 0 |
Ever had one of those nights when you couldn't sleep and just turned on the tube to see what was on? That is how I ran across this tripe. For myself, I would have been better served tossing and turning for the 97 minutes I wasted with this film.<br /><br />In its attempt to 'be real' this movie's characters come off as such gangsta stereotypes that the story should have been the premise for a Wayans brothers movie. The dialog? Please! It sounded like a white man was trying too hard to write this film.<br /><br />The editing was horrible. One of my 'favorite' scenes involved a car chase down a bunch of narrow alleys. Cut to the characters being chased, though, and they are driving through a park complete with baseball fields in the background.<br /><br />When any of our 'homies' get shot in this film, he bleeds miraculously through clothes that have no holes, which is more than I can say for the plot of this predictable load of....baking soda.<br /><br />Indie films can be great even if they are low on budget and effects, but they still need to have some cinematic integrity. If I could have given it a 0, I would. If you watch it, I hope it is on cable, because even the cheapest rental would be too much to pay. Actually, 97 minutes was too much to pay... | 1 |
One of my favorite movies to date starts as an adventure through the wild side of a team of four men from Atlanta. The idea of living the Chulawasse river before it's turned into a lake comes from Burt Reynold's Lewis, who unconsciously drowns his fellas into their worst nightmare. But if the first half of the film appears rather like an action movie, the second half carries the viewer into a totally different story, with our men forced to make a decision that (they know) will change their lives forever. In very bad ways. At the end of the movie, each person is gonna be forced to deal with the scars of what had just to be a quite week-end on the river but muted into a fight for survival. The movie (except some pretty evident goofs) is very well directed and beautifully shot into a paradise of nature that steals your breath. The photography is excellent as well. Voight, Reynolds, Cox and Beatty are all excellent in showing how a single event can ruin in different ways four different lives only tied to the same mistake. | 0 |
I get the impression that I was watching a different movie to the majority of other people I know who have seen this film. It's not really that I found the film offensive or anything - just that the script was unbelievably amateurish for a film that had obviously had a bit of money thrown at it. I really respected Paul Haggis' work on the Million Dollar Baby script and was bitterly disappointed to see how bad this script was. It was clear to me that it was desperate to be the 'racism' version of Traffic, but I don't think Traffic was really a film worth ripping off in the first place. <br /><br />The worst feature of thisfilm is the way it shamelessly spoon-feeds its audience. Does Haggisreally think we are so dumb as to require a shot of the blanks? Do wereally need to see the phone book sitting on Farhad's dashboard, withthe address circled in black texta? Can we not be left to make someleaps in logic for ourselves? <br /><br />I also had a major problem with the dialogue which was so 'on the nose'. I have heard one critic say that the quality of dialogue is deceptively high, because even though people may not speak this way, they certainly do think this way. That is irrelevant. It is the job of a script like this to utilise dialogue in a way that helps add to the characterisations and believability of the (in this case highly implausible) situations that are set up. These characters all speak using the same voice and all they ever talk about is racism. <br /><br />Surely the purpose of a film like this should be to promote the fact that race should not really be an issue in these situations, but by making it the sole focus of every scene, doesn't it become innately racist itself? Characters walk around spouting their philosophies and conveniently memorised statistics on race relations as though they're regurgitating extracts from the research essay they've just written. It's utterly unconvincing and obvious. <br /><br />A film should reveal its meaning gradually, not slap us in the face with it in the opening scenes and then never let up. I can see that Haggis' intentions with this film were honorable, but dare I suggest that by directing his own script he has not been able to identify and, therefore, overcome its flaws. I really hope that writer/directors will be really careful in future when approaching this 'mosaic' style of narrative. It has been done well a number of times, but getting the balance between the personal and the political right is very difficult. And Robert Altman will not be outdone in that department. | 1 |
I hated this crap, every Friday as part of tgif it was on, and consistently sucked big time with stupidity each and every week. If you want to see something funny go watch 'No On Would Tell' Starring Candice Cameron and Fred Savage, it really is hilarious, shows exactly why no one ever goes on to a good film career after doing a terrible TV show. This show really makes me sick, I hate those kids, and bob saget needs to go jump off a bridge for ever making this crapfest. I've seen funner stuff everywhere else but here. I AHet writing 10 lines! Watch 'full house' to see the least humanity has to offer in the way of arts and entertainment. | 1 |
This movie felt so real. I actually felt all of the emotions portrayed here during my life at various times - that of both Rory and Michael. I have Duchene's Muscular Dystrophy like Rory so what you see here is exactly what I've actually felt myself. Some won't believe there ARE disabled people like Rory, full of anger and rebellion. I know they exist because I'm one of them.<br /><br />The story is great. For a drama, character-driven movie, the story moves fast. I was never bored, maybe partly because I was seeing stuff that is close to my heart. But I think most people, with intelligence, will be glued to the screen and care about the characters. The acting is phenomenal! James McAvoy is perfect as Rory O'Shea, who has Duchene's muscular dystrophy. He Steven Robertson deserves an award for his portrayal as Michael Connolly, who has cerebral palsy.<br /><br />Michael's love isn't returned by a girl and Rory helps him come to terms with it. I've felt this many times and the question is 'doesn't she love me because I'm just not the one or because my disability turned her off?' No matter what the girl says, we will always be skeptical as to the truth. It's just natural and it hurts either way.<br /><br />A few parts made me cry a little because it is sad and I have to face the issues myself. People without a terminal disability just cannot begin to fathom how it can feel. This is a must-see film for everyone. Disabled people are everywhere and greatly misunderstood. This film brings a little light on some of the facts of life, which are so taken for granted by the able-bodied. We want to be just like you - to live on our own terms, to go out, to get drunk, to be loved. On the outside, we can't do much but on the inside, we're dancing! | 0 |
Christian Propaganda...Lots of fear mongering...<br /><br />This is not SciFi, this is ChriFi (Christian fiction).The movie started out OK but took a sharp Christian right turn. From then on it was all about god, jc, the holy bible and the devil . The ufo's are really just demonic deception to fool people in to believing that there is other intelligent life in the universe. Satan's idea is to trick you in to thinking that there could be more to life than what is in the bible.<br /><br />The abductions could be used to explain away the rapture. The people left behind would believe it was a mass alien abduction, instead of god taking all the Christians to heaven. No reason to repent if its aliens. The deeper message in the movie is that if you don't believe in god and have jc in your life than you believe in nothing and your life has no purpose. | 1 |
A truly horrible film that left me feeling sullied by having watched the forty minutes or so I could stand. Not the actors' fault, but the writer/director, producers, financiers, etc., need a very stiff talking to. Maybe it thinks it is profound. It isn't. This rape and ultra-violence, unlike that central to Clockwork Orange, has nothing to say about or add to the sum of human understanding. It's no Straw Dogs, either, to which I have seen it compared. Rather it feels like something Pete Walker might have turned his hand to, yet even in saying that I'm probably being a bit unfair on Pete Walker.<br /><br />Revenge is a powerful human desire, but The Bedroom Window has more to say about that and male emasculation than this pitiful effort.<br /><br />I don't think it's particularly misogynistic, merely too gleeful in its depiction of certain details -- the blood running down GA's leg post rape, par example. It's neither challenging nor confrontational, though I'm sure the film-makers consider themselves very 'daring', just deeply unpleasant.<br /><br />Is this as high as we can aim? Is this why those involved wanted to make films? ( I did write in here the Latin phrase which translates as Oh the Times! Oh the customs! But the new spell-check on IMDb wouldn't let me post until I had removed it. Likewise I had to remove square parentheses. Get it sorted IMDb.)<br /><br />Where is the lofty aspiration? The noble impulse? When you look at British film - the joyful comedies of Ealing or the Boulting Brothers; Carol Reed's work with Graham Greene on Fallen Idol, Our Man in Havana or the sublime The Third Man (a film which has far more to say about evil than a thousand Straightheads); the work of Powell & Pressburger; or if you want to talk about sex, violence and male emasculation look at 'The Offence' Dir. Sidney Lumet, from an original play by John Hopkins; check out 'Tunes of Glory' for something worth making, that has something to say.<br /><br />Unlike the foregoing, Straightheads is, alas, an altogether hateful waste of celluloid. | 1 |
Made and released at the time when the internet was just becoming huge, this is a storyline Hitchcock would have loved.<br /><br />Sadly, Hitchcock wasn't around to make it, and we're left with an occasionally suspenseful but mostly silly thriller, that is held (barely) together by Bullock's intelligence.<br /><br />It was released in 1995 but is already dated, and the amount of mistakes and inaccuaracies regarding computers must be seen to be believed, and you don't even have to be a dot.com person to spot them! | 1 |
I watched Cabin by the Lake this afternoon on USA. Considering this movie was made for TV is was interesting enough to watch the sequel. So, I tune in for the airing this evening and was extremely disappointed. I knew I wouldn't like the movie, but I was not expecting to be perplexed by the use of DV (digital video). The movie would have been tolerable if it wasn't for these juxtaposed digital shots that seemed to come from nowhere. I expected the plot line to be tied in with these shots, but there seemed to be no logical explanation. (WARNING: THE FOLLOWING MAYBE A SPOILER!!!!) The open ending in Cabin by the Lake was acceptable, but the open ending on the sequel is ridiculous. I can only foresee Return of Return to The Cabin by the Lake being watch able is if the movie was shown up against nothing, but infomercials at 4 o'clock in the morning. | 1 |
Daniel Percival's 'Dirty War', a BBC production made for television was shown recently on cable. The film has a documentary style in the way it goes after the people that caused the near holocaust in one of the big metropolis of the world, London. In fact, this film, produced in 2004 is almost a cautionary tale of the events of the following year, in which terrorists set explosive devices in the public transport that killed innocent people that were in the wrong place, at the wrong time.<br /><br />The film impresses for the pace the director and the production team gave to the project. There are no dull moments in the movie as we watch the preparation by the terrorists and the people that are following their dirty work. Although the inevitable happens, it's amazing just to think what would be the consequences if a real 'dirty bomb' was planted in such a densely populated area.<br /><br />The last images of the film have a chilling effect. The mob scenes and the way the whole area is contaminated send shivers of fear, thinking how it could possible happen anywhere. | 0 |
Really, I can't believe that I spent $5 on this movie. I am a huge zombie fanatic and thought the movie couldn't be that bad. It had zombies in it right? Was I wrong! To be honest the movie had it's moments...I thought it was cool when the guy got his head ripped off but that was about it. Overall I think that it would be more enjoyable to slide down a razorblade slide on my bare nutsack into a vat of vinegar then watch this movie again. The movie could have been better if we could see some boob but I had to watch the trailers for the other movies produced by this company to see that. Buyer beware...unless you are into masochism. | 1 |
I just watched this film 15 minutes ago, and I still have no idea what I just watched. Mainly I think it's a film about an internet S&M 'star' of CD Roms that are about as realistic as flash cartoons online. She's murdered by someone, which causes her sister and a crack team of 2 FBI agents to investigate the death. The local homicide division of Big City, USA is also investigating, though most of his work comes by the way of oogling the CD ROMs which he claims are as realistic 'as the real thing'. I know. Wow.<br /><br />Michael Madsen is the only one in the film that has any kind of credits behind him. He's in the film for about 15 minutes, and half of that is him banging the main girl for seemingly no apparent reason. I won't even explain the ending, because quite frankly I can't make it out myself. But before the final scene, we're treated to a 3 or 4 minute montage of everything in the film. Honestly, they could have ran that then the final scene and it would have been the same effect with the cross eyed direction and all.<br /><br />All in all, stay away from this film. I got it because I love bad movies and I love Michael Madsen. I really could have used that 80 some minutes on something else and have been more satisfied. Like, playing that game with a knife where you jab at your hand repeatedly. That for 80 minutes would be much more entertaining. | 1 |
Director Jonathan Lynn has made some underrated comedies in the past, like 'Greedy' and 'Clue'. This isn't one of them. More akin to a 'Police Academy' film than its inspiration, it stars Steve Martin in the old Phil Silvers role as an army sergeant forever pulling scams under the nose of his superiors. But the idyllic life of Bilko and his lazy platoon looks shaky when an old enemy visits the base determined to catch Bilko in the act. Nothing much happens, really. It's all quite dull. It's not very funny. Martin, Dan Aykroyd and Phil Hartman squeeze a couple of laughs out through sheer effort, but they're all better than this and it's quite painful watching them work with such thin material. | 1 |
Daniel Day-Lewis is Christy Brown, a victim of cerebral palsy who uses 'My Left Foot' to write and paint in this incredible 1989 film. The movie also stars Brenda Fricker as Christy's mother, Ray McAnally, Fiona Shaw and Hugh O'Conor. Their brilliant performances, great script and wonderful direction by Jim Sheridan help to paint a vivid portrait of Christy Brown, an artist and writer who died in 1981 at the age of 49.<br /><br />Brown was born into a lower middle-class Catholic family where his mother was constantly pregnant (22 children in total, 13 of whom survived). His father considered Christy mentally retarded as well as physically handicapped, but he would not permit his son to go into a home. The children in the family would bid goodbye to him each day as they went off to school, and then his mother would feed him and talk to him.<br /><br />In the movie, Fricker conveys the sense of a woman who, despite being surrounded by a huge family, needs someone to talk to. Christy doesn't talk back. Eventually a cart is found for him to ride in, and the neighborhood kids, all of whom have known him since he was a baby, include him in all of their activities. The only part of his body that works really well is his left foot, and when the kids find out how well he kicks, they put him into soccer games for just that purpose. One of the nicest parts of the film is the relaxed way the in which the other children treat him.<br /><br />There are many powerful scenes, but none as powerful as Christy writing 'Mother' on the floor holding a piece of chalk between his toes. 'He's a true Brown,' his father declares, hoisting him on his shoulders and carrying him to the pub. Walking into the pub, he announces, 'My son's a genius.' Things change when Christy grows older because he has a young boy's desires and emotions. He develops crushes, is rejected and goes more into himself, turning to painting. Eventually he goes into therapy in a nearby clinic and works with a therapist, Eileen (Fiona Shaw) at home. He falls in love with her. When he finds out she's engaged, he nearly goes crazy. But he survives to live, to paint, to write (three books in total) and to love again.<br /><br />Because it's a film, by necessity certain things had to be left out and characters combined. Brown wasn't actually diagnosed with cerebral palsy for some time, which was left out of the movie. The therapist Eileen is actually a combination of three important therapeutic figures in Christy's life, and though we know that his mother believed he had a good mind, in truth, she worked very hard with Christy when he was a child teaching him the alphabet, etc. Also, before Mary, Christy had a 12-year relationship with the woman to whom he dedicated 'My Left Foot.' And the typical Hollywood ending, 9 years before his death where neglect by his wife may have been a factor, doesn't finish the story.<br /><br />Despite all of that, Christy Brown's biopic is incredibly powerful, all the more so because of two performances: Hugh O'Conor as young Christy and Daniel Day-Lewis as the adult Christy. O'Conor's facial expression and the way he drags his warped body is gut-wrenching. One is exhausted for him and heartbroken at the same time.<br /><br />And what can be said about Daniel Day-Lewis, one of the greatest actors in the world - he brings Christy totally to life, a fully fleshed out, intelligent human being capable of swearing, becoming angry, bitter, drunk, pushy, lecherous, funny and loving. A well-deserved Oscar won in the same year that Tom Cruise was nominated for 'Born on the Fourth of July.' I remember someone writing a letter to the editor somewhere that Cruise was so sensational, what was wrong with the Academy? Uh, nothing for a change. Nothing at all.<br /><br />Brenda Fricker is amazing as Christy's mother, who never stops believing in him and what he can do and who holds her family and husband together during the hard times. The wonderful thing about Fricker's performance is that the support, love and work ethic seem to come naturally to the mother. The character would never consider herself a heroine or as someone doing something out of the ordinary. Fricker shows us a religious but not fanatic woman who believes her duties on earth are to be a good wife and mother. And no matter what, even when her husband is out of work, throws their daughter out of the house for being pregnant, whatever, she manages. She saves money for Christy's wheelchair, she receives photos of her daughter and the baby, she starts building a room for Christy in the back of the house. All part of a day's work. A performance worthy of the Oscar she received.<br /><br />Brown's life was more complicated than this inspiring film, but this is an amazing achievement by all involved and a must-see. | 0 |
A well put together entry in the serial killer genre that unfortunately gets mired down in its own pretentiousness to be really satisfying. Willem Dafoe is superb as a NYC detective trying to track down what appears to be a copycat using the same Renaissance art-related killing techniques used in a series of murders he solved years earlier. Scott Speedman is Dafoe's junior partner and they have pretty good chemistry (at least for a while). Other characters pop up to conveniently tie the two cases together. Clea Duval is the friend of an earlier victim and Peter Stormare is some sort of art broker/mentor to Dafoe...that's a bit hard to take, although Stormare is, of course, never dull. The film's ending is particularly disappointing. Look fast for Deborah Harry as Dafoe's less than forthcoming neighbor. | 1 |
I caught Evening in the cinema with a lady friend. Evening is a chick flick with no apologies for being such, but I can say with some relief that it's not so infused with estrogen that it's painful for a red-blooded male to watch. Except for a single instance at the very end of the movie, I watched with interest and did not have to turn away or roll my eyes at any self-indulgent melodrama. Ladies, for their part, will absolutely love this movie.<br /><br />Ann Lord is elderly, bed-ridden and spending her last few days on Earth as comfortably as possible in her own home with her two grown daughters at her side. Discomfited by the memories of her past, Ann suddenly calls out a man's name her daughters have never heard before: Harris. While both of her daughters silently contemplate the significance of their mother's strong urge to recall and redress her ill-fated affair with this mysterious man at this of all times, Ann lapses back in her head to the fateful day she met Harris - and in doing so, lost the youthful optimism for the future that we all inevitably part ways with.<br /><br />Both Ann and her two daughters - one married with children, one a serial 'commitophobe' - struggle with the central question of whether true love really exists, and perhaps more importantly, if true love can endure the test of time. Are we all one day fated to realize that love never lasts forever? Will we all realize that settling for the imperfect is the only realistic outcome? The subtle fact that the aged Ann is still wrestling with an answer to these questions on her deathbed is not lost on her two daughters.<br /><br />The cinematography for Evening is interesting - most of the film is spent in Ann's mind as she recalls the past, and for that reason I think the film was shot as if it was all deliberately overexposed, to give everyone an ethereal glow (and thus make it very obvious that all of this is not real, but occurred in the past). Claire Danes is beautiful (appearing to be really, really tall, though just 5' 5' in reality), and is absolutely captivating in one climactic scene where her singing talents are finally put to the test.<br /><br />You can't really talk trash about the cast, which leads off with Claire Danes and doesn't let up from there: Vanessa Redgrave, Patrick Wilson, Meryl Streep and Glenn Close fill out the other major and minor roles in the film.<br /><br />I can't really say anything negative about this film at all, though Hugh Dancy's struggle to have his character emerge from utter one-dimensionality is in the end a total loss. Playing the spoiled, lovable drunk offspring of the obscenely rich who puts up a front of great bravado but is secretly scared stiff of never amounting to anything probably doesn't offer much in the way of character exploration - he had his orders and stuck to them.<br /><br />In the end, gentlemen, your lady friend will most certainly weep, and while you'll likely not feel nearly as affected, the evening will definitely not be a waste for the time spent watching Evening. Catch it in theatres or grab it as a rental to trade off for points for when you want to be accompanied to a viewing of Die Hard 4 or the upcoming Rambo flick. It'll be your little secret that this viewing didn't really cost you much at all. | 0 |
I am a massive fan of the book and Orwell is certainly my favourite writer ever since studying Animal Farm at GCSE. I bought the DVD out of sheer curiosity, Burton is an actor I hold in high regard so when I heard that he played the role of O'Brien I was swung.<br /><br />I watched the trailer on the DVD first and some fears started to set in, mostly regarding the frankly terrible 'Theme song', hearing the Eurythmics mechanically shouting '1984!' over and over again to an electronic beat is as bad as it sounds.<br /><br />The acting on a whole is pretty good, Burton and Hurt play their roles well and the tension that exists in the Ministry of Truth towards the end can be felt, especially in the harrowing Room 101 scene. However this is also where the movie is let down. The movie spends too much time focusing on the Love affair between Winston and Julia, which frankly isn't what Orwell was writing about. He was writing about a harrowing future, about how Ingsoc build up a mans beliefs and then shatter them all in the name of him being made to love Big Brother. The movie skips over what is essentially the most important part of the book, Winstons coming to terms with his position in life and the world, and his re-education via O'Brien.<br /><br />The comment on IMDb at the moment states that the movie sticks to the book is completely incorrect. Julia is not present when Winston visits O'Brien, they do not commit themselves to Goldstien's Brotherhood and confess their crimes. There is no obvious mention of the initial instances where Winston finds the article with the Unpersons but it does get mentioned near the end, if you have not read the book it is completely confusing.<br /><br />A terrible screenplay, which some excellent acting cannot rescue. Michael Radford seems to have completely missed the point Orwell was trying to make, and the electronica sound track is frankly terrible. | 1 |
If the redundancy of getting off the boat, on the boat, off the bus, on the bus.. is a way to waste time then you should go back to the Hollywood films that wrap this part up in one montage in order to get to the money shots. and in doing so leave you unconnected and in the cinematic limbo that results from not really showing the realities of life. The long drawn out travel sequences actually allow the viewer the same frustration and 'wait- in-line' feeling the characters must endure. Frustrating? yes. Vital? Indeed. the limbo of that travel is the key to the 'rootlessness' of this Turkish family. Beautiful film with great acting. Sad, but worth it. | 0 |
The best thing -- and that's pretty good -- about The Black Castle is that it's a black-and- white Forties' Gothic grabber featuring a murderous mad count which was somehow made in 1952. The star ostensibly is the British actor Richard Greene, a capable leading man who reminds me of an earlier version of Roger Moore. The villain is a mad count played by Stephen McNally, who does a credible job except when he's called on to laugh maniacally. Skulking around in the shadows is a long-gowned Boris Karloff in a decidedly secondary role of an aged doctor who may or may not be the salvation of our hero. <br /><br />It's the middle of the 18th Century in Austria and Sir Ronald Burton (Greene) is determined to find out what happened to two close friends. They disappeared in the vicinity of the castle belonging to Count Karl von Bruno (McNally), deep in the Black Forest. It seems that Sir Ronald and his friends had been instrumental in defeating a brutal plan of von Bruno's in Africa three years previously involving slavery and ivory. The Count was left not only with failure, but with a scar on his face and a black patch he now wears to cover a ruined eye. von Bruno vowed revenge, and it seems he might have been partially successful. So under a false name, Sir Ronald arranges for a hunting invitation from the Count, and off we go by carriage through a dark journey of storm and howling wolves to the Count's castle. It's a hulking mass of stone turrets and corridors, shadowy stairways, huge fireplaces...and creepy passages that lead to dank dungeon cells, a torture chamber and a great pit filled with snapping, thrashing crocodiles. It also is filled by the Count's lovely, blond, sensitive wife, Elga (Paula Corday, who sometimes is billed as Rita Corday), and by the Count's two close friends played by those two actors we know from the Fifties who specialized in being slime in costume, John Hoyt and Michael Ansara. There is a dangerous leopard hunt, forbidden kisses, knuckling servants, wooden signs creaking and swaying in the cold wind and poison in a cup. Not the least, Doctor Meissen (Karloff) has a special vial filled with a drug which will so slow the bodily functions that death will seem to have occurred. The risk is that...well, when the person awakes ten hours later, he'd better hope he's not already nailed shut in his coffin. <br /><br />Surprisingly, for all the clichés, The Black Castle keeps moving merrily along. The movie takes itself seriously, but it's competently enough made to keep our interest, even if we wind up sitting back with a smile while we watch. It's even reassuring in a way to realize there are strong echoes of The Most Dangerous Game. When Burton realizes just how crazy von Bruno is, he becomes even more determined to bring von Bruno to accounts. And, naturally, he has fallen for Elga. von Bruno, crazed by vengeance yet crafty and capable, is a man who loves the hunt and is engorged by the kill. Hollywood's second creative rule has always been, 'If you're going to steal, steal from the best.' It's first creative rule, of course, is 'If you're going to steal, steal from the best and then turn it into liverwurst.' The Black Castle is a nice bite of Austrian braunschweiger. | 0 |
This film was shot in Randolph County in central North Carolina in 1968 when a film crew in the state was a rare thing. The locations were the municipalities of Liberty and Ramseur and the surrounding rural countryside. It is not a particularly good movie. It did have Merle Haggard and it brought life to the hinterlands for a few minutes.<br /><br />The plot is standard shootemup. The cinematography is that fuzzy stuff that came out of the late sixties and early seventies. The local folks were thrilled to be a part of the enterprise.<br /><br />If viewers have difficulty finding a copy of this film, a record copy is available in Asheboro, NC.<br /><br />Actors not credited include Ben Jones, Mimi Pravda, Tommy Hull, Bill Nunnery. | 1 |
What a waste of time. I got about five minutes into it and became *very* antsy, and was soon fast-forwarding a bit, and pretty soon the desire to take my thumb OFF the fast-forward button was nonexistent. Actors Mark Redfield and Barry Murphy did very capable jobs, I thought, but no one else I saw gave anything like a good performance. Again, take this review with a large grain of salt because the movie was just so unbearable I couldn't make it to the end. Heck, I couldn't make it to the MIDDLE !!<br /><br />I find myself unable to submit this review because it isn't long enough. Maybe this last sentence will put it over the top. | 1 |
**Maybe spoilers** **hard to spoil this thing more then it is, but just in case** Gee's I don't see how anybody could have liked this re-make!! It was like a 'made for T.V' show and still pretty lame for that. Lots of fake snow, bad acting by top stars, bad action and that crazy pine forest in Detroit. What the heck??!! I didn't really think this would be a great movie but I was hoping to be entertained. Nope, we fell asleep half way and had to finish it up the next day. I could have skipped the rest easy(but then I would have missed those great piney woods!) I'm so glad I missed this at the theater! Bad enough to have wasted $3.50 at the video store. And I am a lover of cop, action and drama films. This was a very stinky 1 out of 10 stars. Give me the original any day!! | 1 |
Retro Puppet Master starts in Kolewige during 1944 where puppet master Andre Toulon (Guy Rolfe) & his living puppets plan to escape Germany, hold up in an Inn puppet master Toulon reminisces about his early life & the point at which he learned the secret of giving life to dead objects way back in 1902 in Paris when his younger self (Greg Sestero) ran the Theate Magique. He describes the fateful night when he met a 3000 year old Egyptian sorcerer named Afzel (Jack Donner) & the eventual love of hi life the young & beautiful Ilsa (Brigitta Dau). He tells the story of how Afzel passed the gift of life to himself & gave life to his own wooden puppets that were part of the Theatre Magique show. However the gift of life was also a curse as the ancient God Sutek whom the secret was stolen from in the first place by Afzel wants it back & everyone who has learnt it dead...<br /><br />As of late I have been on a bit of a Puppet Master bender as being a big fan of the first three I decided to watch the rest of the franchise & as such I have seen Puppet Master 4 (1993), Puppet Master 5: The Final Chapter (1994), Curse of the Puppet Master (1998) & now Retro Puppet Master in the space of a couple of weeks & boy was it tough to get through them all, especially this one as it's the worse of the series so far. Retro Puppet Master feels like a cross between Puppet Master III: Toulon's Revenge (1991) with it's period setting & Puppet Master 4 & Puppet Master 5: The Final Chapter with Sutek trying to kill everyone associated with his stolen life giving secret. There's not much continuity here either, again there's none of the green serum featured in the earlier films & despite Andre Toulon committing suicide in 1939 at the start of the original Puppetmaster (1989) he is seen alive & well during 1944 in this. The majority of the story is told as a flashback & concentrates on Andre Toulon himself rather than the puppets, the film focuses on his relationship with Ilsa & him learning the secret of life & it's all rather dull & tedious stuff to be honest. Even at only 80 odd minutes Retro Puppet Master feels long & padded with no real pace & the no central concept as the plot never really settles down & generally hops around a lot. Then of course there's the baffling decision to totally redesign the puppets which I found incredible, I mean why would the makers take the one basic thing that made the Puppet Master films so memorable & completely do away with it? The puppets are seen briefly at the start & the end but otherwise we get these rubbishy looking wooden caricatures that are nowhere near as cool as their modern re-workings. It's never even explained why these puppets were used rather than the ones all Puppet Master fans have come to love although one suspects that Full Moon was hoping to make yet another sequel which dealt with that very question.<br /><br />If a poor story & a complete lack of our favourite puppets wasn't bad enough Full Moon decided to go with a PG-13 rating for this making Retro Puppet Master the only Puppet Master film not rated 'R' in the US (obviously other countries have their own film ratings systems) & therefore there's not a single drop of blood in the entire film, the puppets don't kill anyone, there's no swearing & no nudity either. This is tamer than tame kids stuff all the way. Besides the puppets themselves being rubbish the special effect are the wost of the series too, there's no stop motion animation at all in this one, no CGI computer effects (surely in 1999 CGI was cheap enough?) & all the effects are of the stiff rod puppet type effects. I mean whenever you see a puppet 'walk' the camera is always positioned above it's wait so it's legs don't have to be shown & there's obviously some production assistant just pushing the thing along, that's as complex & state of the art as the special effects get.<br /><br />The one positive thing that Retro Puppet Master does have going for it is that it looks rather nice, the period production design, costumes & props are actually quite impressive & it's a fairly handsome film to watch at times. Apparently filmed in Bucharest in Romania which doubles up quite nicely for turn of the last century Paris. The acting here is awful & maybe the worst of the series.<br /><br />Retro Puppet Master is more or less the final Puppet Master film as the next one Puppet Master: The Legacy (2004) basically edits together footage from the previous seven films & it's a pretty crappy way to round the series off which started so well with three excellent & distinctive little killer puppet flicks. Don't bother with this, just watch one of the first three again & just remember the good times... The killer puppets would return in the terrible spin-off flick Puppet Master vs Demonic Toys (2004). | 1 |
Theres not much you can really say about this film except that it was crap and probably the worst film i have ever been to see!! Take my advice don't watch this film it just wastes your money and time!!<br /><br />I gave this film a 1/10 which is doesn't deserve. | 1 |
Combining the conventions of both Western and Gothic horror, and often directed as if it were an art movie, this is one of Siegel and Eastwood's best collaborations. <br /><br />Eastwood plays a Yankee soldier who, after being wounded during the Civil War, takes refuge in an isolated Southern seminary for young women. Shut away from the world, the women project their romantic fantasies on to him, and he responds with callous, male manipulation. But jealousy and resentment raise their heads, and he finds himself in a world of brutal revenge. And boy is the revenge brutal.<br /><br />Beautifully shot by Bruce Surtees, and carefully paced, 'The Beguiled' is a haunting, elegant work that seems to have influenced the troubled sexuality of Eastwood's own 'Play Misty for Me' and 'Tightrope'. <br /><br />The film is a gripping depiction of a fierce battle of the sexes and oozes a dreamlike mix of horror and sexuality. All the characters are ambiguous, displaying traits of both good and evil, leaving it up to us to choose whom we should root for.<br /><br />Don Siegel left quite a legacy of fine films behind. Everything from 'Invation of the Body Snatchers' to 'Dirty Harry'. But though his early black and white pictures have aged well, the majority of his colour films seem grainy, dated and badly shot. His gritty 'realism' must have seemed fresh and kinetic 40 years ago, but when viewed today, I just don't think they've stood the test of time.<br /><br />'The Beguiled', however, is in a different league. Mature, ambiguous and starkly shot, it's a shame it isn't more widely known. While evolving technology and technique have rendered the majority of Siegel's tough, masculine action thrillers obsolete, 'The Beguiled' still entrances audiences today due to it's surreal atmosphere and unique subject matter.<br /><br />8.5/10 - Better than the similarly themed 'Black Narcissus', this is, in my opinion, Siegel's best film. Part horror, part drama, part sexual odyssey, 'The Beguiled' is a surprisingly arty film (especially when considering that Siegel viewed his films to be, quote, 'meaningless'). A large part of the film's artistry is due to Clint Eastwood, who would, from this point onwards, make an effort to choose mature material. | 0 |
Let me see...I've seen every film Lou Ferrigno has made. I've seen Batman & Robin...twice. I've memorized the dances in Breakin' 2: Electric Boogaloo...I've watched unfinished Blade Runner rip-off student films...yet this film is the most painful thing I've ever seen.<br /><br />This was the first movie for the 'straight to video market.' So you can thank Blood Cult for all of those mysterious Michael Dudikoff films at your local Blockbuster. You should know that this isn't even high quality video. This is consumer grade. This is you father's video camera he never uses. This is what you have to look at for 90 minutes.<br /><br />I won't bore you with plot details since I'm getting sleepy just thinking about it, but I will tell you that watching this movie is a form of torture. I only watch this movie when I am angry at myself. So I recommend this film if you are suicidal, or if you are up for a mighty challenge.<br /><br />If you happen to rent this film (God have mercy) you will know what you are in for from the first 10 minutes. This is when you are hit by the usual horror film intro. You know the drill. There's a lot of suspense and build up before some girl dies. Yes, you've seen it before, but not like this. This is the most boring intro I've ever seen. I honestly believe that you could get a camera off ebay for ten dollars, grab the bum that most smells like gin and candy, and tell him to film your mom cooking dinner and it would be more interesting than this intro. It bored me to tears. I cried like a baby.<br /><br />Another one of the things that makes this film so unbelievably painful is its actors. Yes, I've seen bad acting. TRUST ME. I've seen 4th grade productions of Oliver Twist with more realistic dialog. The lead actor makes me ill. The 'supporting' actress is a train-wreck of a human.<br /><br />I will not even comment on the boyfriend. True horror.<br /><br />So, rent this movie if you can find it. You'll never be more depressed that you spent 3 dollars on anything else. | 1 |
It wasn't good. The characters were underdeveloped and the only personality were from the memories I had of the previous movie which contrasted with the 'new' personalities (or lack thereof). I seriously thought the opening scene was a nightmare by Ariel because of how absurd it was. It was serious. It just reminded me of all the annoying characters on the Disney channel-everyone is hyperactive and the story jumps from action to embarrassing scenes without any really connection.<br /><br />The most disappointing part was the horrible songs-not catchy, not amazing. In the original Ariel had an amazing and powerful voice and all the song are catchy and fun. You remember them and want to sing them. But the songs in this movie weren't creative in the least; it's as if they're talking in a annoying sing-song voice-quite weakly, disappointing. I don't have that want-to-sing-them feeling you normally get from a Disney movie.<br /><br />It's as if not one wanted to do this movie, so they barely made an effort . . . this movie would needs a new story line, new catchy songs and more warmth and enthusiasm without the annoying 'look at me! look at me! I'm so annoying!' mentality of this generation of Disney. :'( | 1 |
I had the 'privilege' of attending a special screening of 'The Absence of Light' at a horror convention in Ohio.<br /><br />First off, you know you're in trouble when the director introduces a film, saying: 'Now keep in mind, we didn't have much money...' Not that no-budget films are bad, but when a filmmaker uses this as an excuse, the results are always poor. And there is no better example than this unwatchable sleep-fest. <br /><br />Actually, 'Absence of Light' marks a first in the world of underground cinema: It's the only time I've seen a dream-cast of talented genre vets actually bore me. Charismatic actors like David Hess, Tony Todd and Reggie Banister randomly enter and exit the movie and prove to be every bit as uninteresting as the amateurish no-names. Who are their characters? What are they talking about? Who cares? It's all so dull, you'll cease to care about anything or anyone.<br /><br />After thirty minutes of this endurance test, I gave up and walked out of the theater. Not surprisingly, so did most of the cast members in attendance. <br /><br />Any curious genre fans would do well to stay away from this. With a little luck, this movie won't ever see the 'light' of day. | 1 |
The most difficult thing about this movie is to say anything positive about it. The characters were stereotypical 'white-trash', the movie's 'plot' was stunted from the beginning, and the worst feature of this movie was that the nudity was so blatantly from body doubles it was funny. Regretfully, that was the only funny thing in the movie. Ms. Jenkins would be better served if in the future, she would refrain from using her life-story to 'entertain' people. It was simply that bad. The one positive aspect of this movie (this has nothing to do with the lack-of-quality of the film) is that my brother shelled out the money for this stinker. | 1 |
Halloween is one of those movies that gets you skin deep! It is in my opinion, the scariest movie of all time. Michael Myers is the best boogeyman ever! He was just so terrifying! What makes Halloween so special is that there was no special effects where you can tell how computer animated it is, this was on a low budget and had a one note score, yet managed to scare the Hell out of people. 25 years and this movie still has the same effect as it did in '78.<br /><br />It's about a boy Michael Myers, he kills his sister at the age of 6 and so many years later escapes the mental institution. Dr. Sam Loomis is after him and will do anything to get him back, since he describes Michael as '...pure evil. The blackest eyes, the Devil's eyes'. Michael is on a mission though, to kill his other sister, Laurie, played by a new Jamie Lee Curtis. She has to babysit on Halloween, while her friends are out partying and of course, we know the rules, they get it! But Laurie may stand a chance since she's the virgin. ;D <br /><br />Halloween pays many homages to Psycho, we have another character named Sam Loomis and Jamie Lee Curis, the daughter of Janet Leigh. Halloween is an absolute terrific movie that breaks boundaries and makes you lock the doors, bolt your windows, and turn off the lights! 'They're gonna get you! They're gonna get you!'. Halloween, the ultimate horror film! <br /><br />10/10 | 0 |
This film was so amateurish I could hardly believe what I was seeing. It is shot on VIDEO! NOT film! I have not seen the likes of this since the early 70's, when late night networks showed movie of the week 'horror flicks' shot in......video. It looks like a bad soap opera, and that is paying it a compliment. Some of the actors give it their best shot. Michael Des Barres does okay with what he is given to do, which is to act like a sex addict out of control. I can't say that it is pleasant to watch.<br /><br />Nastassja Kinski as the therapist sits in a chair for practically the entire film, with very little variation in camera angles. I can't fault her for someone else's poor blocking, but she is totally unbelievable in her role. Her little girl voice works against her here. And I consider myself a Nastassja Kinski fan. She is certainly ageless and exotic, but she's outside her range with this.<br /><br />Alexandra Paul is pathetically overwrought. Every line she delivers is with three exclamation points. Someone must have directed her to scream at all costs. Why would Michael Des Barres want to have sex with such a raging shrew?<br /><br />Finally, Rosanna Arquette as the sweet, maligned wife comes off okay, and probably the most believable of the bunch. But that is not saying much.<br /><br />This has to be the worst film I have seen in years. | 1 |
'Captain Corelli's Mandolin' is a fantastic film in itself. It is nothing like the book, which may disapoint its ardent followers. Yet, viewed on it's own, the film is a masterpiece. The views are spectacular and the acting isn't too bad either!! Nicolas Cage was brilliant-so different from his usual action hero type characters. Penelope cruz is superb and really holds the film together. I think that this film has to be judged as an indivdual project-not related to the book. Louis de Bernieres gave up rights to the film script, so the film is an interpretation of the director, john maddon. Go and see this film with an open mind-you'll love it; because underneath is the touching story of love and war. | 0 |
OK..you people need to settle down! This movie is not that bad. I saw it for the first time last night and fell in love with it! I do have to admit that I have never been a fan of LeeLee Sobieski but she grew on me in this movie. I do think Josh Hartnett is good looking, but c'mon..Chris Klein is the most gorgeous man I think I have ever seen!!! He made that movie better for me. C'mon girls..when he has no shirt on and goes to get water I know your mouth dropped. Yes, I know in the beginning he is a jerk, but in the end he realizes how he acted and learns to be a great guy. If he wouldn't have come at the end..then I would have been mad. I do think a couple of lines did not need to be said but all in all it was a great movie! I definitely recommend it! | 0 |
This film has it's heart in the right place, but unfortunately, it isn't much of a film. It is more of a documentary under the guise of a narrative. Bamako is basically a newspaper op-ed piece put on celluloid. However, your average well-researched op-ed piece is far more cogent and concise than anything presented here. The filmmaker is trying to relay to the viewer the hardships of African life, in particular the country of Mali, due to the unethical practices of the IMF, G8, and World Bank, by using the setting of a mock trial against the aforementioned. There is an extra 10 minutes dispersed throughout the film that makes a half-hearted attempt at a narrative plot, and a bizarre Hollywood Western-style shootout scene, where the director seems quite pleased with his own cleverness (hence, the frequent Godard comparisons).<br /><br />Of course, as the film begins, what and who is on trial is never explained, but as we know by now, the French refuse to spoon-feed their audience.<br /><br />There are many impassioned arguments made, but they are often long-winded, delivered in a shrill monotone (one that becomes quite easy to tune out after awhile), and very light on specifics. The last point is the most frustrating of all since there is a very well-reasoned specific case to be made against the institutions on trial here. Unfortunately, all we get in 2 hours is that the IMF and G8 are evil oppressors and should forgive 3rd-World debt. We are given no more than the occasional hint to the specific reasons why the organizations on trial are guilty, but never a clear case. The mock-trial arguments and the footage of the surrounding village makes the suffering of these African residents clear, but one wonders why we must sit through 2 hours of it, when a far more precise picture could be painted in a 20-minute Newsweek article, or Bill Moyers episode. In the end, there is something very important to be said on this issue, it simply isn't presented very well, or very clearly, in this pretentious, indulgent piece. | 1 |
A student filmmaker enlists a B-grade actress (a delectably diva-ish MOLLY RINGWALD!) to complete the horror film that her mother (a dreadfully dull Kylie Minogue!) tried to make 12 years ago. It's a curious plot choice to say the least, as any Aussie horror fan knows that the genre is sadly lacking in women directors. The film has a curse on it, because Molly had to kill some psycho murderer on the original set. But she's back, because she needs the exposure. Unfortunately, the curse is still there and people start dying on the 'set.' Cut is an Aussie attempt at the modern 'slasher,' but unfortunately it doesn't bring anything new or exciting to the table. In fact, it rips half of Wes Craven's 90s filmography. Lots of film-world name-dropping a la 'Scream' (except it's Aussie name-dropping--Jane Campion...see how this isn't as funny) and lots of 'is this real or is this a movie' a la 'New Nightmare.' The editing is bad, the music is annoying, the effects are laughable, almost everything is bad about this. Fortunately, the film can have a sense of humor: at one point, a well-dressed girl in the movie crew says to the owner of the house they are filming at: 'Don't worry, we'll treat your house as if it were our own,' to which he responds, 'that doesn't mean anything to me, you look like you live in a dump!' Ha! And Molly's ridiculous one-liners were enough to not regret renting this one. 'You got any diet coke in here?' (as she rides in the film professor's car) and 'Does anyone know where I can buy any tofu?' (the first thing she mutters on the set) and 'Where the hell is my agent?' (oh wait, that's what I was thinking for her.) | 1 |
People who know me say I have a weakness for animated films.<br /><br />To be fair, those people are HALF right My actual weakness is for exceptionally well-done animated films, such as this vintage family flick from Max and David Fleischer.<br /><br />You may be thinking to yourself, 'well if it's so great, why haven't I heard of it?' Fair question. This movie was released the same week as the attacks on Pearl Harbor. The unavoidably bad timing caused the film to sink into relative obscurity. Things are looking up, though, because it has finally been released on DVD under the title 'BUGVILLE'.<br /><br />It's funny that the film went through all this, because it kind of mirrors the actual plot. Although some people claim that the movie is trying to send an environmental message (ugh), I personally think that the movie's main idea is perseverance through adversity and hard times (after all, the country had barely pulled out of the Depression at the time).<br /><br />Our grasshopper hero, Hoppity, desperately wants to help his endangered community. Problem: each time he tries, whether through the ill-will of others or through simple bad luck, he fails miserably...and slowly begins to earn the disdain of the very people he's trying to save. Although he does his best to maintain a positive outlook, he occasionally breaks down and it's only through the encouragement and support of his friends that he gets back on his feet and fights the good fight. Just a healthy reminder that, when all is said and done, no one is really self-sufficient.<br /><br />'Okay', you're saying. 'It has a good message (two actually). Does that really make it EXCEPTIONALLY WELL-DONE?' <br /><br />My answer: Partially.<br /><br />It's not just the message that makes this movie special. It's the characterization. This is one of those films where you can just see the personality of each cast member in their animation. You almost don't even need the spoken lines. A good way to sum it all up is 'energetic' or 'lively'. A lot of movies have used the selling point, 'lovable cast of characters'. Whenever I hear that line, it always makes me think of this movie.<br /><br />Case in point, the bad guys: Swat the Fly and Smack the Mosquito. Many movies have 'lovable' villains, but I don't think you'll find any as entertaining or endearing as these fellows. Forget that 3 Stooges Cartoon from the 60s. Swat and Smack are the closest thing to an animated version of Moe and Curly (but sadly not Larry) that you'll ever find. Virtually all of the funniest moments somehow involve this gruesome twosome. Yeah, they're rotten no-goodniks, but you still care about them. That's the kind of power you only see from a really talented writer, director, and crew.<br /><br />The movie has two brief jokes revolving around racial stereotypes (Native Americans and Chinese). I don't think they were intended to be malicious; but they're there, regardless. They didn't bother me, but it'd be pretty unfair of me not to warn someone who potentially would be bothered by them.<br /><br />So, if you share my weakness (and I think you do), give this one a go. | 0 |
I used to LOVE this movie as a kid but, seeing it again 20+ years later, it actually sucks. Up The Academy might have been ahead of it's time back in 1980, but it has almost nothing to offer today! Movies like Caddyshack and Stripes hold-up much better today than this steaming dogpile. No T&A. No great jokes except for the one-liners we've all heard a million times by now.<br /><br />I recently bought the DVD in hopes that it would be the gem I remembered it being. Well, I was WAY off! The soundtrack had only 2-3 widely-recognizable hits (not the smash compilation others had mentioned) and the frequent voice-overs were terrible. The only thing that was interesting, to me, was predicting what the character's lines were before they said them. Yep, I watched this movie that much back then! <br /><br />The only reason I am writing this review is to give my two cents on why this movie should be forgotten, sorry to say. :( | 1 |
Sometimes a movie is so bad it's kind of good. This movie was made in Germany and is dubbed in English, so you have to get past that. The acting also was stilted and forced, other than what was done by the real rats, who IMO did an excellent job of acting the part. Snaps to the rat wrangler. Anyway, the mayor of the city has decided to cut costs and the local garbage collectors go on strike as a result, thus leaving large piles of trash everywhere. This storyline has been used before, not to mention has happened in real life (too often unfortunately) and the audience is not in for any surprises. But this is fine. We know what's going to happen and when, and sometimes an audience needs a movie where a lot of brain cells are not necessary to follow along. We have our hero, down to the chiseled face and body, the semi-hero(s), and of course our heroine, who happens to be the doctor, but only still in training, though it is she who discovers what really is going on when so many people end up sick and dying, and not just from a rat bite. Of course the villain must die (okay, all the villains, meaning the rats), and the ending scene is one of those that reminds the audience that a sequel is in the works. This is one of those movies that you just sit back and enjoy for what it is and what it is not. | 0 |
Yeeee-Haa! <br /><br />I have seen it argued that most American Movies are cowboy movies in disguise; that Hollywood is so in love with it's only truly original creation that it keeps reinventing the cowboy myth. I'm not sure I totally buy that argument but Slipstream is evidence in support of the theory; it's a cowboy movie with aeroplanes. <br /><br />Actually it goes one better than that. It's a Spagetti Western with aeroplanes! Substitute the planes with horses, make the android a priest and this movie would be indistinguishable from any one of a dozen Italian Spanish semi-arty 'shoot-'em-ups with pretensions' of the Seventies.<br /><br />The film isn't as BAD as I had been lead to believe by some of the reviews I had read here but it certainly wasn't good. | 1 |
I gave this 3 stars out of a possible 10 - because the stories are open-ended and left unexplained, and because of the nauseating scenes of someone eating in an extremely disgusting way, plus scenes of a decaying corpse. <br /><br />Neither of the above needed to be shown in such a graphic manner.<br /><br />The film's plot, such as it is, concerns three loosely interconnecting stories, none of which conclude satisfactorily.<br /><br />The bounty hunter, played by Bruce Dern, is the character that connects all three vignettes.<br /><br />First we have Dylan McDermott, looking darn fine, as a wanted criminal who is fleeing to Mexico to escape both the law and the bounty hunter, when he rides through a border town and spots a sad-faced saloon girl played by Helen Hunt.<br /><br />Then we have one of the Hemingway girls, not sure which one, playing a western wife out on the lonely frontier who goes over to see about a neighbor woman, an attractive redhead, whom we soon realize has been out in the badlands a little too long.<br /><br />The conclusion of the film returns to the bounty hunter and what happens to him, with the final scene in the film being completely beyond rational comprehension. | 1 |
This is the best movie I've ever seen. And I've seen a lot. I'm not even a Troma fan. I've never heard of Troma before watching this movie.<br /><br />I had already given up hope to see a great movie until I saw 'Tromeo and Juliet'. This movie is a dream coming true. Shakespeare would likely be proud of this modern adaptation of his classic. There are sex, violence, humor and satire. It breaks many taboos.<br /><br />This movie is neither disgusting nor stupid. It's hard to describe with words how clever, funny, exciting and witty this movie is. The music is great and perfectly fits every scene. The characters are very believable and the acting is great. I really cared for the characters.<br /><br />It is certainly not for Troma's fans only. It's for all people who have a sense of humor and like clever and believable entertainment as opposed to totally stupid and unbelievable mainstream movies that don't dare to do what this movie does.<br /><br />The bad reviews only prove that this movie is great and something exceptional. You either love it or hate it. Like all true works of art it isn't understood and appreciated by all people. | 0 |
I found this film to be a fascinating study of a family in crisis. When Leo, the oldest announces that he is HIV+ the reactions of the family members alone and with each other was touching and yet strange.<br /><br />I have never seen a family that was as physically demonstrative as this one; nor one as likely to shout at each other. I didn't understand why the family felt that youngest couldn't deal with the news but once past that difficult I found this a thoroughly moving film.<br /><br /> | 0 |
As others have noted, this movie is criminally inaccurate in its portrayal of the artist's life and I for one was very annoyed and offended... by its transformation of her rape into a tragic love affair, by the implication that her rapist was responsible for 'awakening her talent,' by its complete disregard for her work, by the way it turned her into a sex object, on and on, you get the idea. Also, I find it disturbing that people who aren't familiar with Gentileschi will see this film and walk away with that kind of impression of her. | 1 |
so halfway through the season, i got so caught up in school and my activities that i didn't realize that the show had been canceled halfway through, which is crap.<br /><br />i think the followers of this show should write fox and ask them to at least finish filming so that a the season can be released on DVD later. maybe then they'll see how many people were disappointed that the show didn't survive its first season.<br /><br />i loved the show and looked forward to it every thursday after the OC. can you imagine my disappointment when i came back to try and watch the show only to discover that it had disappeared? needless to say, i'm not very happy with fox right now. even more so after discovering that NO ENDING WAS FILMED. i mean, if you're going to work on a project, at least finish it to see what happens. a half filmed show is like a half made car, it's pretty much useless. fox, film the damn ending and give some of the show's fans some peace. | 0 |
This movie has a 'big production' feel that I was not expecting from an independent film. The characters are each developed and dealt with in a way that not only helps to tell the story, but left me with a satisfied viewing experience. | 0 |
Many Americans are lazy, and this has manifested itself even in our DVD-watching. Many of us don't like to take the time to read an hour-and-a-half (or more) of subtitles, so we choose not to see many foreign films. One film that is TOTALLY worth your time, no matter how mundane a task you might think the subtitle-reading is, however, is 'The Green Butchers.' It's by far the best foreign film I've ever seen, and tops many American films I've seen lately as well. It's a complex situation told in a remarkably simple and funny dialogue. The character depth derived in this film is AMAZING. The way Svend and Eigel (sorry if those are spelled wrong) feed off each other's contrasting personas is downright spectacular! The actors were well-cast, and I'm very much hoping that a sequel is in consideration...it needs very little of Bjorne and what's-her-face...just give me Svend and Eigel on some sort of journey with supporting characters and more amazing dialogue! To the author of this fine screenplay, I say: Write more! The story itself is rather twisted, but you'll find yourself rooting for the bad guy anyhow...with no remorse. PLEASE check this movie out! | 0 |
Exceptionally bad! I don't expect much from Garcia since he is one of the most overrated actors today but Keaton really should have known this movie would suck and gotten out while he could (not that I'm especially fond of him but hey, he did batman).<br /><br />In one scene Keaton is transported to a hospital chained down and wearing a Hannibal Lecter kind of face mask when two attack dogs bark at him (dogs can sense evil you know (puke)) and Keaton growls back at them making them back off and whine with their tails between their legs. Did the movie turn comedy right there? Garcia makes a fool out of himself in an interrogation scene with dialogue only a complete retard could find plausible and the kid is too annoying to feel sorry for..<br /><br />If you are gonna make a movie with as poor a plot as this you need some charm, humour, some solid action. Take Die Hard for example which is great despite its rather crappy plot.<br /><br />Even though Keatons character was a joke i routed for him all the way. I wanted to see Garcia cry over his dead kid and Keaton sipping martinis on some paradise island, however! This movie makes for a good laugh.. Watch it with a witty friend and you can have some fun as this movie begs for wisecracks in almost every scene. <br /><br />All in all its an insult to one's intelligence and a huge waste of money. Greed made this movie and thank god it bit its own ass. | 1 |
Tarzan and Jane are living happily in the jungle. Some men come looking for ivory and to take Jane back to civilization. But Jane loves Tarzan and refuses to leave. One of the men falls in love with Jane and is determined to take her back...even if that means killing Tarzan.<br /><br />This is a rarity--a sequel that's better than the original. 'Tarzan, the Ape Man' of 1932 was good but had some dreadful special effects and sort of dragged. This one has MUCH better effects and is a lot more adult. There is tons of blatant racism (a black man is shot to death point blank--and no one really cares) but this was 1934. There's also plenty of blood, gore and violence (for a 1934 movie) and uncut prints have Jane doing a lengthy underwater swim totally nude! There's also obvious sexual content and Tarzan and Jane are wearing next to nothing and (it's implied) they sleep together and have sex--without being married. This wouldn't bother anyone today but in 1934 this was pretty extreme.<br /><br />That aside, the movie is well-directed, very fast-moving and full of adventure and excitement. Seeing Weissmuller in that skimpy lion cloth is certainly a treat for the eyes and Jane's outfit is pretty revealing too. I still think Maureen O'Sullivan is bad as Jane but Weismuller is perfect as Tarzan. Everybody else is OK.<br /><br />This is easily the best Weismuller--O'Hara Tarzan out there. WELL worth seeing but not for kids! | 0 |
Horror/Sci-Fi that is interesting as it is laughable. F/X pretty good...for what you manage to see. A made for TV thriller that is not as bad as the worst of them. Jeffrey Coombs plays a brilliant although misguided scientist that tampers with stem cell research and manipulates human DNA with that of a hammerhead shark. The horrifying results give birth to one hell of a killing machine. A group of scientists led by William Forsythe and Hunter Tylo are invited to a remote island to check out the brilliant new experiment. Of course, after laughing and stammering in awe...Coombs' creation, by the way is his own son fused with a hammerhead, is let loose to hunt down one by one his father's colleagues. Revenge is not always rewarding. Also in the cast: Elsie Muller, G.R. Johnson, Arthur Roberts and Velizar Binev. | 1 |
This is as good as it gets.<br /><br />This is six episodes tracing (briefly) what life may have been like when dinosaurs ruled the earth. Done in the style of a nature documentary this show does away with talking heads instead just gives us the good stuff with the dinosaurs attempting to survive.<br /><br />Certainly this isn't a true documentary since none of what we see on screen can be attested to with any certainty, but its a best guess, and an entertaining one at that. Here is a show that brings dinosaurs to life in a realistic way that doesn't involve them eating people. This is a show that should be shown to any kid who loves dinosaurs since it will instill them with the OH WOW factor to go out and find out more. It will also entertain the hell out of them, and you.<br /><br />See this. If you love animal shows or nature or science or Disney True Life Adventures (except no one really gets killed) or just a really good trip to somewhere else run out and get yourself a copy. Your brain will thank you. | 0 |
I've been scolded and scorned by fellow Christians for stating my disappointment with this movie. I get hounded by statements like these: 'I can't believe you didn't like it! It was made totally by Christians!' 'Everyone donated their time and no one was paid for the movie! It was made by a church and not Hollywood. We should spend our money on movies like this! They only used $100,000 to make the film.' 'This is by a real church and Christian school in Georgia! A preacher wrote and directed it.' So, apparently, the reason I should love this movie is simply because of the way it was made and the minimum amount of money used to make it and that is was made by Christians. That is all that is needed for me to love the movie.<br /><br />Look, I got the movie without knowing ANYTHING about the background of the film. I had never heard of it and had no idea - other than football - what it was about. I watched it like I watch any other movie and was disappointed. I was disappointed in the lousy editing and lame script. I was VERY disappointed on the resolution after the climax. Don't worry. There have been other cheap movies and other EXPENSIVELY made movies that have earned less respect from me. It isn't about the making of the movie. It is the end product.<br /><br />The writer acknowledges that God doesn't say 'yes' to everything we pray for in the way we want, but he wanted to show by having faith, God changes our lives. That is true. However, God can change our lives and we're still infertile. God can change our lives and we don't get a raise from our job. God can change our lives and our car is still an old jalopy. God can change our lives and our house is still stinky. Why didn't he portray that in the movie? Others voiced their concern to the writer/director over the matter, but apparently, he was defensive.<br /><br />I did not think the acting was horrible nor many of the landscape shots. I like the idea of going to God and recognizing His awesome power and our weakness.<br /><br />The writing and directing were very weak. It is easy to distinguish this because many of the characters have no development. All we really get from the coach's wife is she is not pregnant (well, until the end of the movie). It seems as if there was only ball player that had the potential to have an interesting character and that was chopped to bits into 'I have a cripple father and I can't play football well, but I'll kick the winning field goal even though I've never kicked a real field goal before.' Another problem was the Christian school itself. Umm, I have worked for two Christian schools, went to one myself, and have had many nieces and nephews in other Christian schools. All in all, I've had some pretty close connections with about ten different ones. NONE of the problems that I have seen in ALL of these schools were addressed. I saw this as totally surreal in the movie about their school and wished they had shown the human factor. It would have been nice to see a dose of reality and how God can work.<br /><br />I will close by stating that every work - either written or drawn or played on an instrument - shares the artist's world view. The world view that was shown to me in this movie consists of 'People who pray the right way win ball games, get new cars, conceive when they couldn't, get a raise, and get their house fixed - all within a short time span.' I know. I should LOVE the movie simply due to the sincerity of the people who made it. I think I should love the movie because it was well done and for no other reason. | 1 |
This film fails on many many levels. The script is the first failing, and as I understand it, if the script stinks, there's nothing that can fix that. The plot is boring, after the first 45 minutes, I'm looking at the counter on the DVD saying to myself, 'how much longer?' The cinematography is pretty awful. I'm not sure how bad the transfer was to DVD, but it looked like a VHS copy. Also, the sound was bad. I realize this isn't going to get remixed for 5.1, but yikes, it didn't even sound like it was in Dolby Stereo which had been around for almost a decade when they cut this film.<br /><br />Slipstream was far too similar to both Mad Max and Blade Runner for comfort. Because of the lack of decent special effects and high quality dialog, it is extremely disappointing. If I recall, the pointer scene took place during the last 20 minutes, usually it should take place in the first 20. Most people will be totally confused as to what the heck is going on until the final 20 minutes.<br /><br />The film's music was excellent in parts, and then completely inappropriate in others. Elmer Bernstien did the scoring, but it sounds like someone else had a hand in sticking in 'other' stuff elsewhere as it doesn't match the overall good orchestral score (with some synthesizer music.)<br /><br />There were great actors cast, Bob Peck, Mark Hamill, Ben Kingsley, Bill Paxton. And they did a great job breathing the little available life into their characters. (Well, Paxton's character was pretty stupid, and the whole movie was centered on him. I'm not sure a heroic stooge is a good choice for the main character who carries the film.) Again, a major flaw with the script.<br /><br />Thank goodness I watched this from a mail order DVD service, and not the theater. Overall a major disappointment for Sci-fi fans, or fans of Paxton, or Hamill. 90 minutes of your life, you'll never get back. | 1 |
This second pairing of Wile E. Coyote and the Road Runner is a great as the first. Predictable maybe, but I don't care and still laugh so much whenever I see it. The Wile E./Road runner shorts always had the most special place in my heart. So knowing that the second disc of the Golden Collection would not only feature 11 of this, BUT they would be in chronological order (2 through 12, the first episode was on Volume 1), made me get misty eyed. I LOVE this stuff. This animated short can be seen on Disc 2 of the Looney Tunes Golden Collection Volume 2. It also features an optional commentary by Micheal Barrier.<br /><br />My Grade: A+ | 0 |
I honestly have to say that I could not stop watching this movie from the second that it started. Simply for how bad it was!!! It's kinda like watching paint dry only a lot more confusing. I mean you sit there and just wait for something to happen, anything in fact, preferably something that makes the whole film make sense! At the end of the film I actually sat there wondering if there was any chance at all that I may have missed the first hour that explained everything or whether I may have inadvertently passed out during the film and missed the parts that glued the plot(if there was in fact one)together! The main thing that really confused me about this movie, is nearly at the end the main girl (if there was indeed a main girl) was in some sort of alternate reality, i mean what the hell was going on at this point?! all of a sudden she awoke and was in a mental institute, chained to a bed being drugged by doctors or something, then quicker than it would have taken me to slit my wrists, it flipped back and she was getting eaten out by some random vampire!it made no sodding sense! I'm tempted to email the makers and demand my time back, i mean i wasted 2 hours of my life watching this rubbish!i am kinda interested to know if the filmmakers themselves actually knew what it was all about! just seemed someone had edited out all the bits that could have made it make sense though i think the film would have had to have been 4hrs long to make that happen! I side completely with the other person who wrote the other review, i was duped royally with this film by its title, and that alone. I'm just so sodding grateful i didn't actually buy the film, no matter how many times iv seen it in the local pound shop. You would have thought that would have given me a clue that the film was a complete pile of steaming movie rubbish but to be honest I think £1 was way too much money to spend on this film!!!! what a sodding huge waste of time and a good razor blade, i mean i wish i OD'ed, its less painful than watching this film!!!! | 1 |
I showed this to my 6th grade class about 17 years ago and the students loved it. I loved it, too. The story of the termites and their interaction with their environment is amazing. The cast of creatures is deep and they all play their parts well. The battle between the two cold-blooded titans is truly classic footage.<br /><br />Alan Root has done some incredible camera work and this should have won the Best Documentary Oscar. The copy I have doesn't have Orson Welles narrating it (Derek Jacobi) and it isn't called the 'Mysterious Castles of Clay,' just 'Castles of Clay.' This makes me think that it must have been done with Welles added for star power and an Oscar push.<br /><br />I was lucky enough to find this VHS just recently and it is now my children's favorite movie. They brought it to the latest family gathering instead of a Disney movie. If you can find this movie you are indeed lucky. | 0 |
If you liked Roman Polanski's 'Repulsion', you should probably check out 'The Tenant' since it's a similar concept, just with Polanski stepping in and playing the schizophrenic wacko. This is actually one of my favorites of his movies - second, after 'Rosemary's Baby', of course - and is a straight forward journey into the mental collapse of a man who moves into the former apartment of a suicide victim. The other residents of the building are all flaky and sticklers on keeping the noise level down - even the slightest 'titter' becomes a big deal and Polanski, who stars, becomes increasingly paranoid and succumbs to his loony hallucinations further and further as the film carries on. It gets to the point where he is dressing and acting like the former tenant and you realize it's only a matter of time before he decides tor re-enact her fatal leap out the window... The film is a bit slow and dawdling for a while, but if you have ever seen a Roman Polanski movie, you should know it's going to end with a bang and this flick doesn't disappoint. It's also best if you don't question the intricacies of the premise and just take it as a descent into madness, because it's pretty trippy surreal at times. Polanski is very good as the timid, deranged resident who, somehow, attracts the ever illustrious Isabelle Adjani. We also get to see him running around in drag, which is disturbing and hilarious all at the same time! Damn, he makes for one ugly chick! So, Polanski fans - who can actually look past his thirty year-old pedophile charges - should enjoy 'The Tenant' as an entertaining psychological head-trip... | 0 |
Casper Van Dien... what can I say? I enjoy the guy! His movies bring a certain flair to them that is actually not brought on by the director or producer, but by him! Recycled plots... check. Rip-offs of better movies... check. Wooden acting... check. It's not that Van Dien is a bad actor (he has been effective in Hollywood gloss as Starship Troopers and Sleepy Hollow) he just really has not been offered a script worthy of his talents; and yes, he does have acting talent other than being eye-candy. This movie offers a slight hint of what Van Dien can offer but is bogged down by the production of it all. The script can be better developed (see Oliver Stone's U-Turn). The directing can be better utilized (see Robert Rodriguez's From Dusk Til Dawn). The DP could've made the desert more exotic (see Russ Meyer's Faster Pussycat Faster Kill!). This script is weak because this is something we have seen before many other times so the double/triple-crosses are expected. The direction is weak because it is not offering anything new and telegraphs many of the weak script moments. The cinematography at times paints a lovely autumn desert flavor to it, but at other times it doesn't take advantage of the scorching light and the beginning sequence is horrible in cornflower blue.<br /><br />Now to the acting... Van Dien shows some grace and charisma to his Jake. He neither gets too methodical nor too campy in his role. A nice balance especially since the rest of the cast seems too distracted as to how they should be acting in this film (bad script or bad direction... you make your opinion). The only other person worth mentioning is Bryan Brown's villain as it provides the only real credit for acting in this film... aspiring actors forget trying to learn how to act in green screen, try learning how to act in a horrendous script and take notes on Bryan Brown in this film. He adds extra depth to his role and is a nice counter part to Van Dien's character. Jake always seem to either be one step ahead or control of any situation whether if it is out of his control. The femme fatale is weak (this is a desert noir after all) and is another nail in this film's coffin (you decide... script or direction). The Rosalita character should've been thrusted forward in the movie instead of being pushed into the back ground later on to make room for the real femme fatale. So watch the film for Van Dien and Brown; and for fun, try to skip a rock across the plot holes laced within the film. | 1 |
I'm a fan of Columbo, especially on a rainy Saturday, and it was fun to see Oskar Werner after Fahrenheit 451, but this episode was very lacking. The original plot and plot twists were obvious and could be guessed way in advance, even years before the modern detective shows of today. But it was amusing to see the crazy couch patterns and 'modern' electronics equipment and, of course, the mandatory suburbanite humor poking fun at modern art for sale. The high-tech home is a Jetson's or Disney version of Tomorrowland, and fun to think of writers inventing those 'way-out gizmos'.<br /><br />If its sunny outside, go play, as there are much better Columbo episodes. Still, we should be thankful for Cable TV that these episodes are being broadcast. | 1 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.