review
stringlengths 41
13.7k
| label
int64 0
1
|
|---|---|
I'm sorry, perhaps this is part of the wave of praise for fireman since 911, perhaps it's an old fashioned story, perhaps it's not meant to knock your socks off but I'm sorry, this film is awful. As in the title, cliché 49, I think it has at least that many clichés. It's a dreary story (impressive managing to be dreary when there's dangerous fires and lives being saved) about a fireman. And his dreary life, told in a pointless, 'scene from now' flashback to the past style. We begin the film with the hero in peril in a collapsing burning building. The entire film is about trying to get us to love this guy so we squeeze a few tears out when he meets his end in the finale of the scene from the start of the film. I found it hard to care and wished he'd gone up in smoke earlier. Clichés abound such as - death of best friend, love at first site, hazing in a new job, firstborn, a worried wife with a husband with a perilous job, a father figure boss/superior, 2.4 kids (well 2 but close enough), sacrificing your life to save others, awards for bravery....on and on. It's every fireman's life, every police officer, nurse, doctor in some way. It was lazy, if it was meant as a 'life flashing before his eyes' as he died, then God help the poor chap, I'm surprised he didn't suck in more smoke to go quicker. The flashbacks are mostly mundane and predictable, dully acted and with a soundtrack that could put The Laughing Cow out of business it was so cheesy, it actually sounded like muzak or copyright free elevator stuff!!! To be avoided at all costs unless you need something to watch with granny of a Sunday evening. Or maybe if your related to a firefighter - warning - your life will end horribly or you will be scarred for life if you are a brave fireman according to this movie. Unless your John Travolta (strange Velcro style hair in this one!!) | 1 |
Like many, this dung heap caught my eye while I was channel surfing. It's a horror film, set in the woods, it has a stupid title, but hey 'Michael Rooker' is in it, and he has been a part of some great horror flicks, I know he wouldn't steer me wrong.... Ugh! The most insulting part of this, is that I actually watched it. I see director Johnny Martin is a stuntman, well this stunt simply sucks, and how he got some of the actors to do this watery bowel movement is the biggest mystery of all... I can understand Casper Van Dien, but shame on you Mr. Rooker. Your good name in the horror community has been forever tarnished, and your agent should be fired immediately. I'm sure this nugget of fecal matter is available on DVD, but if you enjoy the .99 cent menu at McDonalds, you'd get more for your money there. | 1 |
My mother and I rented this gem a few years ago while she was here visiting for Thanksgiving. I have rarely laughed so hard. This is a typical low-budget horror movie with dumb special effects, a worse plot, and even worse acting. But are you really expecting a classic when Linnea Quigley receives top billing? I thought not.<br /><br />Since this movie does have some entertainment value, I give it a 3 out of 10. | 1 |
My short comment for this flick is go pick it up. Chances are you are going to be positively surprised by a diversity of elements superbly explored in this criminal thriller. There is no way the character of Miklos, claiming and pushing for room in every way possible, wont push your nerves to the edge...2 thumbs up! | 0 |
CUJO is a movie adaptation of a novel of the same name written by Stephen King.<br /><br />I've never read the novel but just scanning the comments page has given me some insight. I noticed a reference to the change in the ending.<br /><br />The plot of the movie is as follows - a St. Bernard dog gets bitten by a rabid bat and goes on a killing spree.<br /><br />The plot sounds quite worn now, having been done in various movies. However it might have been something new when King wrote the novel. Or perhaps King's novel put a twist on the story that was never shown in the movie.<br /><br />Anyway, the first 40 minutes of this movie have nothing at all worth mentioning other than the dog being bitten. Nothing else happens - nothing scary, nothing funny, nothing to add depth to the characters and nothing interesting in any other respect. I found this section difficult to sit through and was constantly shouting at the TV, 'come on, get started!'. The events that I was seeing on the screen were reminiscent of a TV movie of the drama genre or an extended episode of a TV soap opera. Unfortunately, there was only one family in the movie given any focus so it couldn't even work on a soap opera level. The dog was the best character in the movie, but it didn't get enough screen time in this section. There was nothing to indicate why this dog would go on a killing spree later.<br /><br />After the 40 minute mark point, something finally happened. The dog suddenly transformed from a lovable pet into a vicious killing machine. It began attacking some people. There was also an interesting cat-and-mouse chase when two characters became trapped in a car, unable to leave because the dog would attack them. Even in this overly long second half, the suspense would build up well before dying again. It was just a stop-go situation repeated over and over again until the movie reached its conclusion.<br /><br />Without giving the ending away, I can tell you it was very formulaic and unworthy of a Stephen King story.<br /><br />The suspense scenes when they are on the screen are exciting to watch. Some great camera angles add menace to the dog's vicious nature when he attacks people. This is particularly important because as others have mentioned a St. Bernard dog is nowhere near as scary as, say, a Rottweiler. Unfortunately, the movie fails to utilise suspenseful music to support the images on the screen. The music is far too melodramatic rather than suspenseful. This may fit a TV movie but it looks incredibly out of place in what should be a dark-toned movie presenting a living nightmare to the viewer.<br /><br />This brings me on to a wider problem with this movie - the photography. The camera-work and especially the choice of colours make this seem like a very cheap TV movie one would expect to see as the daytime movie on Channel 5 here in the UK where I am writing this comment from.<br /><br />The top two actors deliver good acting performances that help to breathe life into the movie's dull segments. Dee Wallace and Danny Pintauro should be given credit for doing a great job with the poor material they are given. I could forgive a few brief moments of overacting by paying closer attention to the dialogue, which could not have allowed any other interpretation in my opinion. I won't pass judgement on the other actors because they are given virtually nothing to do.<br /><br />As someone who is a fan of SALEM'S LOT and STEPHEN KING'S IT, both movie adaptations of famous Stephen King novels, I had high expectations for this movie. But it turned out to be a massive disappointment.<br /><br />Overall, I do not recommend fans of Stephen King or horror movies in general to watch CUJO. This is one of those moments where I have to recommend the book rather than the movie. Hopefully it brings the story to life in a way that the movie failed to do. | 1 |
The blend of biography with poetry and live action with animation makes this a true work of art. The narration by Sir Michael Redgrave is moving. The length of the work makes it easily accessible for class room exposure or TV/Video time slots. | 0 |
You know, after the first few Chuck Norris movies, I got so I could tell that a movie was produced by Golan-Globus even if I tuned in in the middle, without ever looking at the credits or the title. What's more I could tell it was Golan-Globus within a minute of screen time. Something about the story structure, the goofy relationships between the characters, the mannered dialog, the wooden acting (spiked with the occasional outright terrible performance), the scene tempos and rhythms that made Albert Pyun look like John McTiernan, the paper-thin plots and not-ready-for-prime-time fight choreography...Golan-Globus has been incredibly consistent over the years in style, subject matter and point-of-view.<br /><br />What can you say, it must work for them, since they've produced literally dozens of movies. You go to one of their productions, and you know exactly what you're getting. And it ain't brain food, folks.<br /><br />'Ninja 3' is another piece of hackwork in a long line of products from the G-G sausage factory, and offers the typical limited pleasures to the movie-goers' palate. You've got a Bad Ninja, slicing up cops and criminals and anyone else who gets in their way. You've got a Good Ninja, pledged to stop him. You've got a Westerner thrown into the mix so we Americans can identify with him (or her in this case) and be reassured that 'We can still beat those pesky Orientals at their own game.' You've got a Love Interest (who is usually also the worst actor/ress in the film) fencing with the Hero. You've got your endless string of assaults, assassinations and lingering shots of men gurgling in agony while an arrow or throwing star sticks unconvincingly out of their eye, neck, or chest. You've got your Beefy White Guy/Bodyguards in Suits calling a Ninja a 'Son of A B*tch' and throwing a roundhouse punch, only to get his *ss handed to him. You've got a Final Confrontation between the Good Guy and The Bad Guy which goes on for 20 minutes and just sort of stops like a RoadRunner cartoon instead of reaching a climax or a resolution.<br /><br />Ninja 3 is a little different, in that the plot revolves around a scrappy female athletic type getting possessed by the Bad Ninja, so she ends up killing a lot of the cops and criminals and Beefy White Bodyguards in Suits while under his spell. But all the other elements are there, as formal in their way as a Kabuki play or a Noh drama.<br /><br />I actually thought Lucinda Dickey was pretty likable in this film. She's nicely muscled and curvy, has great cheekbones and some athletic 'ooomph' to her movements, and you can actually suspend belief enough to accept that her character could do some of the feats she pulls off in the movie. She can almost, but not quite, carry this thing. One extra start for her participation and good energy.<br /><br />Naturally, Sho Kusugi is in here, and he pretty much dominates the last 10-15 minutes of the movie. And just to show you how 3rd-rate and uninspired G-G movies are, the director and editor inter-cut the last climactic fight between Kosugi and the Bad Ninja scene with numerous reaction shots of Dickey and her boyfriend watching the life and death battle with an expression of mild bemusement. I'm serious...for all the emotion and reaction they show to the proceedings, they could be looking at a sea turtle in an aquarium at Marineland. I can only imagine how Dickey must have felt when she saw the finished product - she probably wanted to run the editor through with a katana for real because those reaction shots make her look like a complete idiot. <br /><br />An enjoyable waste of time...but it definitely IS a waste of time. Maybe if you are a Sho Kusugi fan, or even a Linda Dickey fan you'd find it worth your while. | 1 |
This is the worst thing the TMNT franchise has ever spawned. I was a kid when this came out and I still thought it was deuce, even though I liked the original cartoon.<br /><br />There's this one scene I remember when the mafia ape guy explains to his minions what rhetorical questions are. It's atrocious. Many fans hate on the series for including a female turtle, but that didn't bother me. So much so that I didn't even remember her until I read about the show recently. All in all, it's miserably forgettable.<br /><br />The only okay thing was the theme song. Guilty pleasure, they call it... Nananana ninja... | 1 |
Although a 'woman's story,' I found this still fairly interesting. It is unusual in that is has three real-life sisters playing sisters in the movie! I am referring to Priscilla, Rosemary and Lola Lane.<br /><br />Why national critics loved this movie was the presence of bad-boy-rebel John Garfield. In their twisted Liberal-dominated minds, All-American characters are sickening but sour-on- life, poor-attitude types like Garfield played here are people they can identify with. Despite that, this movie still has an overall feeling of goodness, which is why I liked it. Some of the characters may have done stupid things, but they good hearts. Whose heart was bigger than 'Ann's' (Priscilla Lane) in here? I agree with the IMDb user comments critic in here who says this is Priscilla's film as much as the beloved (not by me) Garfield's. <br /><br />With a director the caliber of Michael Curtiz, the film is better than it might have been under someone else. Curtiz made sure no scene, soapy or otherwise, went on too long.<br /><br />In addition to the Lane sisters and Garfield, we have Claude Rains (who adds much-needed humor to the story), Jeffrey Lynn (the main love interest of the girls), Gale Page, Dick Foran, Frank McHugh and Mae Robson.<br /><br />Apparently, this movie must have been a hit because there were several spin-offs from it, neither of them approaching this one in content and box-office success. | 0 |
Nothing about this movie is any good. It's a formulaic predictable 'romantic comedy' geared to make females force their significant others to watch. In other words, it's a predictable chic flick that is neither comedic or romantic and is extraordinarily forgettable. If you like watching the same thing over and over then this movie will fit just perfect. I was also forced to watch this with my g/f at the time and it's no surprise we are no longer together. I enjoy great movies that are wonderful to watch, while she just wants to see the same thing over and over again just with different actors. Nothing good to say about this movie. The title says it all. 1/10 (one b/c I can't give it a zero. | 1 |
NBC was putting out a lot of good product when this series came out, but none of it was getting viewers. At least according to their executives who wisely canceled good shows like Star Trek & My World & Welcome To It because of low ratings. NBC's advertisers were getting a bargain from NBC's ignorance.<br /><br />This show stands out as the only time James Garner wasn't enough to get viewers. It is ashame as this show had an excellent support cast from Stuart Margolin (later Angel in the Rockford files), to Neva Patterson to Margot Kidder.<br /><br />It was set in a 1900 western town. Garner was playing a sheriff who did not want to use violence to do his duties. It was small town stuff, but it was excellent. It wasn't long after this that Jim Rockford brought Garner back to success, but for my money, this show was good enough, it just wasn't in the right time, right place, or given the right opportunity.<br /><br />The show was so good that most of the folks who worked on it also got jobs on Rockford. | 0 |
MARY, MARY, BLOODY MARY is an OK time killer. It has a uniformly attractive cast, the action is rarely dull. There are a lot of killings. And the production values are not bad. But in the end, it plays like a standard TV episode from the 1970s with some nudity thrown in. The film is the end product of an 'author' trying to make a purely commercial film. There's very little depth here and the film spends too much time with chases and action scenes. Except for the scene on the beach with the old man, MMBM is almost devoid of any scares or suspense or dread. The director has very little understanding of the horror genre.<br /><br />It's watchable even though it doesn't leave a lasting impression. | 1 |
Tarzan and his mate(1934) was the only Tarzan movie I didn't see when I was a kid. It sounded boring. Now I have seen it. I have seen the ape man(1932) about a hundred times and I keep a copy on my drive. It's a remarkable movie. It's almost flawless. Tarzan and his mate(1934) however, falters. It's not harmonic and it's parts tend to live a life of there own. The parts themselves are often very good and the action sequences are great. Big budget expensive. Tarzan himself is co-starring. Jane dominates. She have developed and have become a jungle girl so sexy I tend to forget about criticism and sing her praise instead. Well. She let her be duped by a crock who steels a kiss from her and later murder an elephant. She insists Tarzan to carry a bracelet who belonged to her father. Forever. The thing would split to pieces the moment he went about his businesses in the jungle. Stupid? Later someone founds it in the river. Well it's supposed to proof Tarzan is dead. Some cheap drama. The crocks who has an obvious interest in a dead Tarzan convince Jane that he is gone. She takes their words for granted and want to be taken away(to England). Stupid Jane seems to have forgot how tough Tarzan is, how hard he is to kill. The caravan is leaving and Jane go along. Again a pothole. She could easily make the caravan rest for a few hours or more, to pick up a few things and say goodbye to the jungle and her dead husband. She could be smart. She could dive where they found the floating bracelet, check the banks for traces. She can make fire in 15 seconds and swing in Liana's. Picking up traces shouldn't be too hard for jungle Jane. She could talk to the apes, and so on. If she get home to England without have done this she would become miserable. Jane is smart but cheap drama brings her down. And why on earth is she letting the kiss rapist get away with 'I blame myself as much as you'. A punishment for being vane perhaps? Nonsense. Struggle, a hard slap and telling Tarzan would be appropriate. Still. This movie is far from bad even if the potholes are many and sometimes deep. Just lean back and enjoy. It's Tarzan and Jane for God sake. | 0 |
I couldn't even...I mean...look....okay...<br /><br />Wow.<br /><br />Not even a bunch of my drunk friends trying to make fun of the movie could enjoy themselves in the least bit.<br /><br />I can only think...how. How do independent film makers everywhere go years without getting noticed (or even their lives) and con-artists like the guy who made this get a DVD on a shelf? It seriously looks as if some guy with a home movie camera went out with some guys he met at Subway and made the worst thing he could think of.<br /><br />'Hey guys, give me some ideas. Start with a corn-field and work backwards.' 'Well, you've gotta have actors straight out of high school, and some broken corn stalks with shreds of clothing attached. And boobs.' Thanks, guy, I'm sure that you and Windows Movie Maker will be side by side on your next anxiously awaited project. | 1 |
I ended up liking this movie but it was not the easiest to get through. What makes the movie great is the music and the scenery. The songs are beautiful and the musicians are talented. A great job was done to show different settings for the Rom people.<br /><br />However, the viewer was not guided enough. A more in depth history of the Rom people would have been nice. Only a fraction of the of the spoken words were given English subtitles. In addition, more explanations about the settings and who was their and some of their challenges would have been appreciated too. It would have helped if there were a narrator too explain about customs, dress and music. | 0 |
am i the only one who saw the connection between the discussion of camus 'the myth of sisyphus' and mary's life? in camus version a man is condemned to spend his eternity with a giant boulder that he must roll up a hill. unfortunately every time he reaches the top the boulder slips and ends up back at the bottom for him to start. there may have been a buzzard pecking at his eyes, i'm not sure right now. in the movie mary spends her life struggling to get her life together, unfortunately every time she gains any footing she falls and loses everything. case in point would be the party she throws where she gets intoxicated, offends her falafel lover, and is practically attacked by liev schrieber. in case you question this theory, note how this scene ends with her attempting to climb a flight of stars while books fall from nowhere impeding her progress until ultimately she passes out. the next morning when she awakens she is still on the stairs, never having reached the top. | 0 |
<br /><br /> What can I say? This is one of the most perfect films ever made. Its a throwback to the glitxy,sterling romantic comedies of the 1940s..but with a modern touch.The screenplay bursts with wit,charm,humor and tenderness,the cinematograpy is breathtaking(NYC never looked so beautiful),and of course there is the cast! Dudley Moore turns in the performance of his career as Loveable,drunken Arthur Bach. He is also wistful and real..one of the film's best lines is his poignant 'Not Everyone who drinks is a poet...some of us drink because we're not poets.' The great Sir John Gielgud won a much deserved Oscar for his splendid performance as Hobson,Arthur's valet and caretaker.Although He considered it a 'take the money and run role',He brings to the character all the talent ,experience and bravura of an expert tragidian and a sly comedian. The supporting cast is also out of thisworld,from Geraldine Fitzgerald's sassy Grandma Bach to Stephen Elliott's bombastic Mafioso.<br /><br /> The score is also extremely memorable and compliments the film perfectly.The only real problem with the film is the ill fated sequel it spawned. | 0 |
Being a HUGE fan of the bottom series i was really looking forward to the release of this film.I was eagerly anticipating a laugh a minute roller-coaster ride......alas.<br /><br />Where to start on this mess?i think its a good start to say that its hardly richie and eddie on our screens in the first place as none of the jokes and one liners they usually deliver so well are funny.I was still waiting for the first laugh after a good 20 minutes of viewing.Many aspects of the story were pathetic and it was as if the film was full of those bad moments they rehearsed and decided to leave out of the final cut.<br /><br />The overall sets and atmosphere surrounding the film is dark and dingy which i suppose is good if they want to portray the 'terrible' guest house the 2 buffoons attempt to run,but to me its just puts an even higher dampener on a sorry state of filming that should never have been created.<br /><br />The acting,at times,is pathetic.Fenella Fielding is wasted as the loony Mrs Foxfur and i've seen Simon Pegg have much better outings.<br /><br />I'd recommend Guest House Paradiso to anybody who is blind drunk because they might appreciate the terrible puns much more.But to any bottom fan who hasn't seen this film and is expecting true richie and eddie action you have been warned | 1 |
This movie starts out as if it were a comedy. It almost appears that the actors are reading off of cue cards, especially in the airport sequence. William Smith plays the role of 'Caribe,' a hunter, who is quite twisted and deranged. Smith seems to always play villains such as in 'The Ultimate Warrior' (1975), and 'The Frisco Kid' (1979) to name a few, although in this film the villainous role seems laughable. This is one of those films where senseless things take place only to fill up screen time, such as the girl chasing sequence at the beginning, and the long silly motorcycle race. I give this film 1/10. I would have liked to see this film on 'Mystery Science Theatre' it would have been hilarious. | 1 |
The fact that I watched this entire movie says something about it...or me. It is not a good movie. Terrible in fact. But terrible in the way that kept my attention in that perverse manner that is akin to watching a tragedy and not being able to look away. It would have made a great MST3K subject!<br /><br />Most of the things that make a terrible movie enjoyable are here: bad dialogue, inappropriate music, contrived plot sequences, ridiculous pseudoscience. You'll thrill to slo-mo death sequences, the poor victims with mouths agape and waaaaaaaay too much time to contemplate their impending doom, facing the outrageously contrived deliverer of their deaths. Your heart will be warmed by old action scene cliches like when two women struggle for a gun and it goes off, but WHO'S SHOT? Both look at themselves, then the other, then themselves, then (seemingly 15 minutes later), one finally goes down. You'll sing along (in latin of course) with the street carolers that turn into a ghastly death's-choir that, for a moment, threatened to turn the movie into a twisted musical.<br /><br />So if you believe like I do that as movies get worse they get better, then this might be a decent choice for you. It's not as funny as my current sci-fi schlock favorite, 'They Live' featuring Rowdy Roddy Piper, but it's more fun to watch than luke-warm movies like Omen II or III.<br /><br />I give it 4 out of 10. | 1 |
There have been some funny movies about spirits to come out of Hollywood. Cary Grant was an angel in 'The Bishop's Wife' (1947). Of course the best were the Topper movies in the late '30s-early '40s. And, more recently, Warren Beatty's 'Heaven Can Wait' (1978), which was a remake of 1941's 'Here Comes Mr. Jordan.' These were well-written, funny, entertaining comedies, all of which centered around supernatural creatures like ghosts and angels.<br /><br />Now comes writer-director Jeff Lowell, making his feature film debut with a story of an unlikable, bitchy young woman, Kate (Eva Longoria Parker), who gets killed on her wedding day and then comes back to harass the fledgling spiritualist, Ashley (Lake Bell) who is falling for Kate's fiancé, Henry (Paul Rudd). One thing that is clear at the outset: Longoria Parker is no Constance Bennett (Marion Kerby in the first two 'Topper' films), who is the standard against whom all female ghosts are measured.<br /><br />There is a line right at the beginning when Henry's sister, Chloe (Lindsay Sloane) tells Henry, 'You don't smile.' That aptly described my situation throughout this film.<br /><br />The main problem with the film is that the script just isn't very funny. But it's made worse by Longoria Parker's presence that just rubbed me the wrong way every time she appeared on the screen. Just to start out with, compounding her lack of comedic talent, she is covered with so much pancake makeup, who knows what she really looks like? Kate gets killed while setting up for her wedding by a falling frozen statue. She's so unreasonable that the angel who instructs her about what her afterlife is about walks out on her (well, she actually just fades out), so Kate finds herself back on earth as a ghost without knowing what her mission is.<br /><br />Chloe wants Henry to snap out of the funk into which he has naturally descended after Kate's death (from what I saw of Kate, he should have felt a wonderful relief), so she introduces him to Ashley, who really doesn't know what she's doing as a spiritualist (she is also a cateress to make ends meet), to see if she can get Henry back in touch with Kate. There's a lot of meshugaas that goes on.<br /><br />The vacuity of the film is epitomized by a 'B' story revolving around Ashley's assistant, Dan (Jason Biggs). This is thrown in near the end, but the way Ashley handles it indicates that she's as much of a boob as Kate. Since Dan is apparently attracted to both of these severely flawed women, he deserves whatever he gets.<br /><br />Eventually Kate appears to Ashley and the fun should begin. It doesn't, and more's the pity because in other hands this could have been pretty funny. As it is, Norman Z. McLeod, Constance Bennett, Roland Young, Alan Mowbray, and Co. must be turning over in their graves to see this is what their brilliance in the first two 'Topper' films has wrought. | 1 |
Awful, awful, awful...<br /><br />I loved the original film. It was funny, charming, and had heart... this piece of junk has NONE of those things.<br /><br />Reused jokes from the original film, stupid plots, bad animation, different voices (with the exception of Kronk and Yzma) that sound NOTHING like the ones in the original (especially Pacha... *shudder*).<br /><br />The characters are off model, the animation is flat and boring, it's just a bad job all around.<br /><br />And why is Kuzco a jerk again? I thought he had reformed... but since when are these TV spin offs loyal to the original *rolls eyes*.<br /><br />I'm sorry, but there is nothing redeemable about this... at all.<br /><br />Avoid at all costs. | 1 |
There is no denying that Ealing comedies are good, but for me this film stands out as one of the best.<br /><br />The basic premise of the film is that a small part of Pimlico in London is discovered to be part of Burgundy, not the UK. We then follow the lives of the residents in their battle to keep the treasure found after the bomb explodes, and keep out the black market traders who soon realise that being exempt from UK law, rationing does not exist. When they become prisoners in their own street because the government has decided to close the boarder we see them fight back against the system.<br /><br />They are forced to ration water and food in their stand for what is right. In fact becoming worse off than they were before it all started, that's where the moral comes in. It's when they loose all the food that they think they are beaten and call for a surrender, only to have the whole of London respond to their plight by sending food, lot's of it. Thus enabling them to continue their struggle.<br /><br />This film hit's the right note throughout, the acting is superb, with Stanley Holloway, Margaret Rutherford, Hermione Baddeley and Betty Warren standing out. It's pitched just right, not too sentimental and the moral of the story not forced down your throat. Well worth a viewing | 0 |
As long as you don't mind paying a little more attention than you normally might for other films, this is one of the best 'thrillers' you'll ever see. The film portrays an incident that might occur in real life; nothing in it seems fictional at all, in fact. It also portrays how people might react in real life.<br /><br />In fact, it portrays these so well that is seems like real life. Combine that with the lack of a soundtrack, and you've almost got the best news-like movie you've ever seen. Jane Fonda and Jack Lemmon are particularly good in this late-seventies masterpiece, evoking concern on her end and genuine tragic pity on his end. I highly recommend it to anyone who likes thrillers. | 0 |
I've never been a big Larry Clark fan, but somehow, I've been dragged to almost every single one of his movies. Now, I like independent films, and I grew up very much into punk rock, and I'd like to say that this film is disappointing to both audiences. Not every punk song incorporates 'Oi!' into its choruses, as they do in this particular film.<br /><br />But the real problem with this film is that it switches moods every fifteen minutes or so and lacks any kind of cohesion. Clark has made his living pretending that his fictionalized stories are 'how kids really are,' and as such, you'll allow him ten minute scenes of stupid dialog that go nowhere, because that's the cinema verite feel he's going for. However, when he shoots a ridiculous death scene (pick any of them, save for the opening drive-by), the over-stylized attempts at what I assume is intended to be black humor are completely out of context, ridiculously shot (in most cases, far worse than a student film) and absolutely ludicrous in terms of the story. John Cassavettes and 'Date Movie' make poor bedfellows, as the forays into the latter style take you out of any kind of reality to remind you that you're watching a movie - a really, really bad one at that. | 1 |
Shadows breathes the smell of New York's streets like no film before it. This kick off of Cassavetes' directorial work is as atmospheric as political and the initial spark for a renewal in American cinema.<br /><br />Maybe it solicits for watching Cassavetes' first work in a double feature with another debut, Godard's À bout de soufflé. Both films shaped the cinematic production of their countries beyond decades and both breathe a peculiar lightness and jauntiness which was later rarely achieved by those filmmakers in their career.<br /><br />Shadows tells from three Afro-American siblings, Ben (Ben Carruthers), Lelia (Lelia Goldoni) and Hugh (Hugh Hurd). The story is set in the New York jazz milieu and the driving rhythms on the soundtrack play a main part for the feverish, sometimes almost dreamlike atmosphere which draws through the entire film. There's not much happening in the plot. The everyday life of the three siblings is defined by problems in love relationship or in their jobs, but on both levels normality deceives. Without moralizing gestus, Cassavetes simply describes the mechanism of racial exclusion, in public and in private life. It was, regarding to the cinematic depiction of racism, a breakthrough film in the US. <br /><br />This film owes also a lot to the performances of the three leading actors which were all almost completely unknown before. Especially Ben Carruthers established with his energetic portrayal the image of a new self-conception of young, urban blacks in America, an image which characterizes Spike Lee's films of the 80s and 90s. Revealingly, none of those three doubtlessly extremely talented actors was able to start a big career afterwards. Hollywood wasn't and isn't ready to ethnically expand its star system, and that is why Goldoni, Hurd and Carruthers only found small artistic niches in TV and independent films later on.<br /><br />Perhaps Shadows is one of the less 'beautiful' films ever shot, and one of the most beautiful ones at the same time; a film of shades and spaces, with a camera that merely watches the stream of life in the crowded street corners, bars, hotel lobbies, apartments, inducing an intriguing ramble through New York's vibrant streets. | 0 |
This TV movie goes to show that bad films do exist. The only reason I saw this was it was covered on a KTMA MST3K. It's Super Bowl at the Superdome in New Orleans. However, no football is played whatsoever and we see the behind the scenes look at basically nothing. With the many stars in this film, it made no difference. I really don't know why I watched this. | 1 |
There is something about this show that keeps me watching and hoping for the future of it. In the writing, the jokes are few and far between, and the story lines are a bore, so I figure it must be the physical comedy and the visuals.<br /><br />I do enjoy the camera movement, set dressing, and wardrobe. It's amusingly highly contrasted against the dullness that reigns. And I'm pretty sure every time I have laughed it was because of John or Molly's physical comedy. The two of them make a sickeningly cute couple that make me laugh and want to puke at the same time.<br /><br />So here I go ready to sit down to Kath & Kim one more time tonight to see what path this production will go down (or up as the case may be, looking forward positively). | 1 |
A recent viewing of THAT'S ENTERTAINMENT has given me the urge to watch many of the classic MGM musicals from the forties and fifties. ANCHORS AWEIGH is certainly a lesser film than ON THE TOWN. The songs aren't as good, nor is the chemistry between the characters. But the film beautifully interweaves classical favorites, such as Tchaikovsky. And the scene at the Hollywood Bowl, with Sinatra and Kelly emerging from the woods above it at the top, and then running down the steps, while dozens of pianists play on the piano, is the best scene in the film, even though the scene in which Kelly dances with Jerry Mouse is more famous. Classical music enthusiasts will no doubt identify the music the pianists are playing. Sinatra then croons, 'I Fall in Love Too Easily,' before having his epiphany about whom he loves. The color is beautiful, Hollywood looks pretty with its mountains and pollution-free air (Can you imagine Hollywood in the twenties, let alone the mid-1940s?!), and the piano music is absolutely glorious. MGM certainly had a flair for creating lyrical moments like these. | 0 |
The number of goofs in this episode was higher than the first 9. They don't follow their own rules about spirits where destruction of the body makes the spirit dissolve. This one dropped a second body. That body, and Dean, drop about 20 feet from Sam but then they are right with Sam. Flashlights go out in an unlighted asylum, at night, and we can still see everything. It's night but light is streaming through the windows. A ghost that died in 1960's is making cell phones calls? Come on! There is no way Sam could get a psychiatrist to see him in the same day he makes an appointment and the doctor talks to Sam like it wasn't his first visit. Sam and Dean knew there were other bodies in the asylum and innocent spirits still lurking and didn't do anything to help them. That doesn't seem like a thing the Winchester boys would do. Oh and after crawling around on a dirt filled mattress and all around a nasty asylum the girls' makeup and hair is perfect and not a smudge on her white shirt. <br /><br />While the implementation of this episode had problems the premise was good and a few times I was not creeped out but nervous as Dean sat reading Elicots' journal. I just knew that an object so intensely personal to the ghost would draw it to the person violating it's sanctity. Elicot didn't appear. Maybe that is a fault for such an important object or place (like Elicot's office) should draw the spirit when a living being touches or enters. When they separate I want to scream... 'that's how you die! Always stay together and watch each others backs!' but they don't listen to me :o The Elicot spirit and his special ability was a very nice touch. It's prime-time show but I do wish the horror of Elicot strapping one of his victims down and using anticipation of torture to creep us out further.<br /><br />Especially because of the lighting goofs I gave this a 4. Sudden darkness or the flickering of the whole scene's lighting as the flashlight flickers is all that more terrifying. The lighter coming or the flashlight reviving and instantly a spirit is in their face is shocking. I understand the directors wants us to see his scene but then make a mention or obvious connection by Elicot touching an electric socket and the lights coming on. Have the characters respond to the fact an asylum with no power suddenly has lights in the one room. Blue white lights flickering as electric arcs just like Elicot's finger power. <br /><br />Seriously, MCG could have done better. | 1 |
The Haunted World of Edward D. Wood, Jr. isn't a particularly good documentary. Aesthetically, it's lackluster and cheap looking, the people in it go off on tangents which make it very unfocused and in-cohesive, but this adds to it's charm. I say this because it's a documentary about an oddball that made oddball pictures and surrounded himself with fellow oddballs and, as such, there's really no other way to document the life and career of the man and his crew of misfits. There are some glimpses of insight into both the genius and the ineptness of Wood, and the portrayal of both qualities is a credit to the genuineness of the documentary. Overall, it's worth a watch for the Wood fan and those of cinema in general, but don't expect brilliance here. Expect a documentary made after Wood's own heart. | 0 |
Richard Dix is a big, not very nice industrialist, who has nearly worked himself to death. If he takes the vacation his doctors suggest for him, can he find happiness for the last months of his life? Well, he'll likely be better off if he disregards the VOICE OF THE WHISTLER.<br /><br />This William Castle directed entry has some great moments (the introduction and the depiction of Richard Dix's life through newsreel a la Citizen Kane), and some intriguing plotting in the final reels. Dix's performance is generally pretty good. But, unfortunately, the just does not quite work because one does not end up buying that the characters would behave the way that they do. Also, the movie veers from a dark (and fascinating beginning) to an almost cheerful 30s movie like midsection (full of nice urban ethnic types who don't mind that they aren't rich) and back again to a complex noir plot for the last 15 minutes or so.<br /><br />This is a decent movie -- worth seeing -- but it needed a little more running time to establish a couple of the characters and a female lead capable of meeting the demands of her role. | 1 |
When I was a little girl (and my dad owned a video store), this was among my favorite movies. I hadn't heard much about it since then, nor did I really remember anything about it, it having been forgotten in the wake of Don Bluth's other, probably better films. I managed to track it down a few weeks ago, however, and was pleasantly surprised again. Set in New Orleans in the 1930s, the animation is delightful and the songs are memorable. There are a few goofs in continuity if you look hard enough, but they generally don't detract from the storyline, which leaves you smiling (and maybe even a little misty-eyed, if you are a lover of animals). The characters are believable (maybe even a little too grown-up for younger watchers), as well. Two paws up, and for those of you who haven't seen it in a while, definitely worth a re-watch. | 0 |
I was very interested in seeing this movie despite the article I read about the director in Tattler Magazine. I don't judge movies by what the director may or may not have done. This debut feature was very difficult to watch. I found the split screens to be a distraction to the drama in the film, some of the supporting characters gave bad performances, and the film to be a copy of several other films I have seen. There really wasn't anything fresh about this | 1 |
In a sense, this movie did not even compare to the novel. However, it was good to have a visual of what the Congo looked like and also the natives if you are not good at visualizing as you read. I would never recommend watching the movie rather than reading the book. I hardly suggest even watching this film, let alone any other films based on this literary work. This movie; and many others, did not fulfill this book. One important part that is missing from the movie is MArlow's sense of how government of lack of there in Africa was forming an early genocide. Also in the movie, MArlow and his companions didn't stop and get the note and wood. Likewise, Kurtz' African mistress knocks Marlow out towards the end of the story which has a major influence in the story but was not in the book. In the novel, Kurtz died on the ship, however he died in his hut in the movie. The fiancé's reaction to Marlow's interpretation of Kurtz' last words also differed. This movie is only effective if you wish to visualize more clearly the novel. | 1 |
I absolutely adore the 'Toxic Avenger' series, but this weak offering by the Troma people didn't make any sense, and it had me yawning all the time.<br /><br />A leaking nuclear plant (and the growing weed next to it) makes the youngsters of Tromaville High go nuts, which causes them to join a gang, have sex, explode, and whatever. Also there's some sort of monster breeding in the high school... my God, this movie's a mess.<br /><br />The actors pretty much stopped their efforts after this one and they should. The (intended) overacting started to get on my nerves in about 5 minutes...<br /><br />Disappointing. 2/10. | 1 |
This is an exceptional picture with so much to recommend it. The acting and writing are terrific and there are lots of great twists and turns in the plot. As a French 'Noir' film, its language is certainly a lot earthier than its American counterparts, but to me this just added to the realism. Additionally, I liked how non-glamorous everyone was--particularly the husband and the lieutenant. About the only negative, and the reason the film gets a 9 and not a 10, is because there was a glaring plot hole. Like another famous French film, Drôle de Drame, the confusion between the cops and the accused could easily have been settled in the beginning, but the characters made rather stupid decisions. For this, you just need to suspend disbelief and keep watching--the payoff is well worth the wait.<br /><br />This is simply one of the finest French films I have seen. Period. | 0 |
The film had NO help at all, promotion-wise: if there was an advertising promo on TV or radio, I didn't see/hear it. The only newspaper ad I saw was on it's opening weekend: a dingy, sludgy B & W head-shot photo of Andy as Val-Com, behind jail bars, with headline: 'WANTED! Runaway Robot!' ( which was also the poster in front of the 3 movie theaters I saw it at --NOT the nice little color poster on this site, with headshots of all the cast, and cartoon of Crimebuster --which really wasn't THAT good--they OUGHT to have used an action scene from the film itself--didn't they have an onset photographer? A poster is supposed to HELP a prospective audience decide if they want to SEE the movie--there were SO many people who couldn't get into their sold-out choice, and wanted to know WHAT Heartbeeps was about--and that poster didn't help! That dingy pic, and the only other photos supplied to papers were so indistinguishable in B & W that they were worthless. ) There was NO trailer for the film: only a slide at one theater, consisting of the word 'Heartbeeps' inside a heart-shape, with a Cupid's arrow through it, and one that was a totally black picture: just Andy and Bernadette's voices saying 'Val-Com! My pleasure center is malfunctioning!' 'So is mine; do you think we ought to tell our owners?' THAT is no help to people who hadn't been aware of the movie.<br /><br />During the filming, Andy told reporters that he couldn't eat, once his plastic lips were applied, so he would 'load up on breakfast, and fast' during the day's shoot. I don't know WHAT Bernadette did: but at the time, I'd wondered why they didn't just sip protein drinks through long straws, or eat astronaut-style puréed food via tubes? <br /><br />Phil-Co, the baby robot, seemed to have been the pre-curser to Short Circuit's Johnny-Five, with the same eyes, similar face. I've been trying to find if they had the same designer, but no help. I have vintage magazine articles about the film, and the design team was immensely proud of their work, and were going for a special award for their innovative device to create stenchless 'smoke' for Catskill's cigars. Just shortly thereafter, LucasFilm did NOT use that device, though they OUGHT to have, for Return of the Jedi's scenes with Jabba the Hut: a man created 'steam' around Jabba, by blowing cigar smoke into a tube, joking that all he needed was a glass of brandy, and he'd be a happy man. I thought that LucasFilm's using of real tobacco products was insensitive to people who were upset by smoke. <br /><br />John Williams, who had then recently succeeded the late, great Arthur Fielder as the maestro of the Boston Pops ( which was THEN a ratings hit--but it never recovered from Fielder's death, and is now a shadow of it's former glory ), was using the show to promote films with which he supplied the music. He'd premiered 'The Empire Strikes Back' score there; and you would think he'd have helped Heartbeeps along, by playing a few numbers there? The one thing that critics had liked of this film was Williams' score--yet it was NOT available for purchase! I saw one vinyl album, in 1982, with half Heartbeeps, half another film--but it disappeared. I only just tonight saw the CD listed on THIS site, and have ordered it. If I can ever get a scanner, and time to type out the articles, I'd like to create a Heartbeeps tribute site. I liked the movie, and don't care what dissenters say! <br /><br />The only trouble with the film, was, that near the end, it was messed up, logic-wise: the robots ran away from the factory to have the freedom to decide their own fate, make their own choices; yet, when the junkyard owners tell them that Phil needs to go TO the factory, to have a 'purpose' programmed into him, they don't even question it; they just glance meaningfully at each other, and they go. Along the way, each of the adults lose battery power, and 'die.' They aren't REALLY dead, as they are robots, and only need new batteries, yet it is treated as 'death,' with little Phil crying over them, and rolling away. So, what was the POINT of this? Phil never gets back to the factory, and gets 'a purpose!' AND of course, the junkyard owners COULD'VE driven them, or given them all battery recharges, with back-up batteries; but the real point was to have this poignant scene, where the robots all wore down, and Phil is left to cry. <br /><br />At the end, Val-Com is a golf instructor, and Aqua-Com is --I'm not sure what. Catskill is an ENTERTAINER--what ELSE is HE supposed to be? I'm not sure that they made it clear. The junkyard owners seem to be taking it easy, lying on chaise lounges, drinking lemonade from Phil, their 'bartender.' Val's and Aqua's new 'daughter,' Philsia--I think the name is--maybe it's Sylvania--doesn't seem to be much more than a table lamp. <br /><br />There is missing footage, which is sad--from photos I surmise that the stuff missing includes a sweet scene, where Phil is having a Christmas, with Val gifting him with a car's steering wheel; Aqua is supplying a horn; Catskill has taken the firefighter helmet to give to Phil, as we saw; and they have Christmas trees. I don't know if any missing footage supplies better logic, or if the writers just couldn't think of a better crisis/resolution. The film was trimmed to 72-75 minutes, to pair it with other failing films. No other reason than that. For a DVD, I would LOVE to be in on creating, as I want to see interviews with the cast/crew and John Williams, and the Merv Griffin interview. The making-of footage; and reediting and restoring the missing footage to make it better. | 0 |
A poetic examination of the human condition performed without dialogue. The anti-hero, The Man builds a contraption to escape a band of marauders, out of the wastland of what was once a civilization, to the ruins of the city to scavenge for his survival. There he crosses pathes with The Brute, brilliantly played by Jean Reno, of 'The Professional' and 'Mission: Impossible' fame. The Man is rescued by a crazy old genius who lives in a fortress of his own design. By using their wits, The Man and the old genius are able to keep the Brute and his ilk at bay, but they realise it is only a matter of time before their defenses are compromised, so they make a break for it. This is a strongly understated tale of the desparate struggle for life, with excellent action scenes and clever humor. Of all of the movies of its kind, like 'Road Warrior', 'Omega Man', and even 'Ultimate Warrior' (featuring Yul Brenner as a buff knife-fighter), 'Le Dernier Combat' is the most artfully crafted. Copies of the video are hard-to-find, I would give my left eye ball for one. If your local art house ever has a revival of this film, I heartily recommend that you break any engagement to able to be able to see it big. | 0 |
This review contains a SPOILER---<br /><br />The movie is an American Ninja mysteriously trained in the martial arts. He falls for the Colonel's daughter and turns from the most hated grunt on the post to the 'People's hero' at the end of the film. This film is extremely cheesy and very poorly researched. It is good for folks who do not care about plot development or reality. Good for kids under 14. The military errors in this film is comical. I remember during my three years in the military, us privates were not required to salute or call NCO's 'Sir', the film does this in various spots. The colonel's hair is way too long on the ears. The Master Sergent's moustache was against military protocol in length. On the post, the Colonel was the only officer around. Not one other officer was shown walking around the post. You had idiot ninjas brandshing swords against troops with m-16's, rather poorly made.<br /><br />Folks this filmed reeked. Michael Dudikoff is not really that bad of an actor he just has lousy scripts. The ninjas were more hilarious than dangerous. Avoid this film | 1 |
In my opinion, the ending is what completely ruined the whole thing. The initial idea of having someone suddenly realize they were the son of god and the second coming was somewhat clever. People started to believe him and his friends became the new disciples. People went nutty, demons were possessing people, all kinds of fun. Of course then it all went wrong. It was bad enough that they had to take on the impossible task of looking through a vast amount of writings to find the 'third testament' in five days, but then at the end it became this ridiculous humanist fantasy. I won't spoil it, but I'll just say it comes off as if it were written by a teenager with a very limited knowledge of theology. I hear they are making an American feature version of this story, I just hope they change the eye rolling ending. | 1 |
Judith Ivey as the scamming old whore is awesome. Emily Grace the young girl. Is innocent and exciting as she learns whats going down. Excellent direction and camera. Story is dark and disturbing.Supporting cast is good. Shows what happens and can happen with a run of bad luck. Great independent film. Small cast. Pace is slow at first and then moves good. A good movie to show your teen age daughter who has aspirations of leaving home early, for the open road and adventure. This movie, film has a low budget feel to it, but it works because of the low lifes and areas that these people move in. I will never stop a rest stop again with out thinking of this movie and checking my tires before I go. | 0 |
A thematic staple of cinema since its inception is that genre involving seductive women whose wiles and means entice susceptible men not only into their arms but also into dire circumstances that typically will only result in jeopardy for the male victims, along with incertitude as to whether or not temptresses will be forced to take their medicine, and here Susan Lucci performs as a siren, although her acting chops from a primarily soap opera pedigree are inadequate to make her performance a credible one. Isabelle (Lucci), inconstant wife of venture capitalist Stewart Collins (John O'Hurley), begins a love affair merely for fun with yacht salesman Richard Davis (Philip Casnoff), simply a bagatelle for her but an earnest matter of the heart for Richard, apparently mesmerized by his lover while she takes advantage of his ardour by engaging him in a risky plot that will graduate into a scheme of murderous intent. When Davis becomes convinced that guileful Isabelle is a victim of physical abuse administered by her husband, he desperately attempts to free her from what he feels is a marital trap in order that he may wed her himself, coming to believe that the only clear solution to his plight will be found in a rudimentary essay at hiring a professional assassin who will dispose of the allegedly violent Stewart. In the wake of the hit-man's assault upon Collins, a pair of police detectives, performed by Joe Grifasi and Dean McDermott, become increasingly curious concerning Isabelle's possible involvement in the crime, while at the same time reality dawns upon enraptured Richard who might have to pay a dear price in return for his inamorata's maneuvering. Lucci and Kasnoff are properly cast as a viable pair of conspirators, each giving a reading that makes for a boring rather than charming set of lovebirds, but O'Hurley and McDermott offer strong turns in a film that suffers from a hackneyed scenario as well as uninventive direction and design elements. Released upon a Fremantle DVD, this largely lustreless affair depicting a man 'neath the spell of a seductress does benefit from top-flight visual and sound quality, and although no extra features are provided, the above-average production quality enhances able efforts from cinematographer Robert Primes and composer Stephen Edwards. | 1 |
There are some Stallone movies I like, but this movie didn't meet my low expectations. I found this movie hard to believe. For example, a bunch of terrorists who crash land in the wilderness are prepared to survive for at least two days. Also, in all this wilderness Stallone and company keep running across bridges and ladders that provide convenient short-cuts or plot devices. Also, the Treasury cops don't seem to coordinate anything with the local rescue people. Also, bad guys who couldn't hit the side of a barn with really high-tech looking automatic weapons.<br /><br />I liked John Lithgow's villain initially, but the character is such a complete psychopath that he doesn't care at all about any of his own bad guys, or all of them getting killed. Eventually I just couldn't believe the character anymore.<br /><br />Not worth the price of a rental, not even worth taking the time to watch. | 1 |
I think it was Ebert who gave Stella four out of four stars but, other than his, I have never read a positive review of this sadly misunderstood drama about class divisions, love, and sacrifice (three themes most great romantic stories or films have in common).<br /><br />Here the major theme is class division. Stella is a story from depression era America. That said, it was translated to the screen then in such a memorable fashion that this remake (if you ask a Stanwyck fan or two) was not exactly appreciated. Fans of the original never gave it a chance. Furthermore, this version of Stella was made in the 1990s, not exactly a time of great financial trouble in America (as the depression was).<br /><br />Now is the time to remove the rosy-coloured glasses, in the midst of a new era of recession and poverty in America, and see that this powerful story still rings true, is as timely and relevant as ever, in its updated format.<br /><br />Yes, class divide is the major theme here. Stella is among the working poor, single, with big dreams but little hope of realizing those dreams. She works in a bar, doesn't have much money, lives in a crummy apartment. You get the drift. In the morning, she doesn't really want to get out of bed. On her wall, pictures of movie stars she idolizes.<br /><br />A man sees her dance at the bar. He's wealthy, educated, from one of those upper class families that has nothing in common with Stella's. His major concern is what ivy league college to attend, her's is how to pay the rent, how to be 'happy.' They have an affair. They like each other. Stella ends up pregnant. Stella tells the guy the news. His response? 'How about an abortion?' She replies, 'I just wanted a room full of balloons.' He supplies the balloons, and the proposal, but she sees his heart is not in it, and has too much pride to accept. She sends him packing.<br /><br />Her daughter is eventually torn between the two lifestyles--the love she has for her mom and the advantages and happiness and love held out to her by her wealthy father. Stella, alone and unloved, and not wanting her daughter to become as unhappy as her someday, makes the ultimate sacrifice. She gives up the only love and happiness she has ever known to ensure the happiness of her daughter, and perhaps live vicariously, and with hope, knowing that at least her daughter found something to live for.<br /><br />Now, for the movie. Everything is right about it. Beautiful score, artful cinematography, great set design (contrast between the two lifestyles; the messy apt. and the decorated mansions), wonderful and heartfelt performances by the whole cast, with Bette Midler, in particular, Oscar-worthy.<br /><br />This is a film which is much more significant and well-made than you've been led to believe. | 0 |
My boss at the time and showed it to us at a Halloween party at our office. He is the Chris Huntley that co-wrote and acted in it. He knows it's bad, we know it's bad and we all agree that the monster looks WAY too much like a vagina to be coincidence. Maybe it was from a gynocological experiment gone wrong.<br /><br />It was a VERY low budget and the actors were all friends so what you have here is a case of 'hey gang, lets' put on a show'.<br /><br />Nobody got hurt and it was a first attempt. Nothing wrong with that. It gave us all a good laugh and it's a great film to watch with friends and make fun of. :-) | 1 |
I can't say I'm all that experienced in misty Mundae flicks having seen only a handful, but it's obvious that this was made on a shoestring, and while it might have been respectable that the filmmakers were able to make a Tomb Raider rip-off inside a garage, it isn't because it's completely obvious that this is what they were doing. The film only runs for forty five minutes, and this is definitely a good thing as there isn't nearly enough plot here to stretch it out for any longer. It has something to do with an evil Nazi scientist (who looks about as evil as a porn star playing a Nazi scientist ever could), a mummy, which is clearly a man wrapped up in toilet roll and Misty - this film's version of Tomb Raider, who keeps her top on for much less time than Angelina Jolie did in the big budget version. I have to say that even in spite of its shortcomings, this film could have been better. It's got Misty Mundae for a start, and even better than that if you ask me is the fact that it also stars the even hotter Darian Caine. The pair gets to engage in all the lesbian sex that you would expect from a Seduction Cinema film and this is at the expense of the nonexistent plot, although that isn't really a bad thing. Obviously, this is a rubbish film - but the fact that it's short is to its credit, and if you're after a bit of lesbian sex, you could do worse. | 1 |
I have to admit I am prejudiced about my vote on this film, but I have strong reasons as I know some of the true history that was given the Hollywood treatment here. Edna Ferber's novel upon which this is based is from an era where real names can't be used. In a way, this film is all smoke & mirrors. Even though it was released in 1946, it was filmed shortly after Casablanca. Ingrid Bergman is at her most radiant in this movie as a brunette. <br /><br />She plays a beautiful woman who is trying to trade on her beauty to get a rich husband. Today that is a gold digger, but in this social era, she is desirable & the kind of woman who makes all the men want her, & all the old snooty society types talk of her & avoid her, while wishing they were her. Ingrid is at her best & plays this role well. <br /><br />Some sympathy for Ingrids character is raised in the New Orleans section of this film as she manages to get a decent belated tomb for her scandalized mother as part of the settlement by her relatives to get her to leave New Orleans. The snooty family of relatives there are so scandalized by her that they will do almost anything she asks to get her to leave town. <br /><br />Gary Cooper is good in this film though he already appears to be aging a bit to play a dashing Texan Bachelor/Gambler. He pulls it off well considering that handicap which he appeared older than he was due to his real life chain smoking. Flora Robison as Ingrid's Maid got nominated for an Oscar as supporting actress in this film. Jerry Austin as Cupidor was over-looked in many ways for his role but is the only comic relief in the film & does it well.<br /><br />When the film moves to Saratoga, it depicts accurately how important Saratoga was in that era. I like the sequence when Bergman walks to the Saratoge Spring to get some of the 'sulfur' water which everyone considered so healthy then. When she drinks some she forces herself not to make a face and comments how good it is & that she must have more. <br /><br />The real history is the railroad battle which really occurred on the rail line in Tunnel, New York- which is the actual Saratoga Trunk the film title is derived from. This battle actually happened in 1869 between agents for Andrew Carnagie & J. P. Morgan. The line was the economic key to the country in 1869 connecting coal country & the east coast. The references to it are throughout the film are very real. There is even some dialog describing Carnagie as a 'Scot' though the reference is vague & unfamiliar to anyone not knowing the history around the battle.<br /><br />The railroad line & the railroad tunnel in Tunnel, New York (zip code 13848) still exist although the film was shot in California. The real tunnel is about 1 mile long. It is still part of a key freight line today, years after this occurred. I grew up there. Gary Cooper's line in the film while he is riding the train into the tunnel is right, it is still 'mighty pretty country'. | 0 |
Eh. I watch this movie in class because someone taped it and brought it in. I was expecting some half hearted attempt to portray the Herakles myths, and because the commercials for it looked serious, I was expecting something that was halfway decent.<br /><br />Ten minutes into the film, I realized that it was utter CRAP. The only things in the film that are halfway true to the myth are the bare(and I mean bare) minimum. Parents, half brother, and labors seemed to be named correctly. Other than that, the rest of the film seemed to be one giant inaccuracy. <br /><br />I would say that this was not much better than the Disney version of the film. The Disney version was made for little kids, therefore wasn't too serious. This movie, with all the sex, violence, and nudity, was clearly intended for an older audience, yet the story presented in this was nearly inaccurate as the Disney film. | 1 |
Good (not great) little horror film with a high 'creep' factor (not to be confused with a 1991 movie by the same name, or the more recent (2001) Campfire STORIES). Central tale of stranded teens telling ghost stories around a campfire in spooky woods nicely leads into, and ties together the different stories that make up the bulk of the movie (Watch for Ron Livingston (Office Space, Band of Brothers) and Jennifer MacDonald in a spirited, sexy segment ('The Honeymoon')). Solid acting and a few truly 'scary' moments make this an above-average chiller. Good example of interesting story line, coupled with quality ensemble acting resulting in a whole greater than the sum of its parts. 'Surprise' ending of the main story adds nice creepy twist, although some may see it coming. Movie is not available on DVD, but can be found on VHS. | 0 |
Bingo is the game, bullshit is the name. Rarely has the screen been smeared with such a blown-up hodgepodge of half-baked conspiracy theories, puritan prudery, and new-age gibberish. The bulk of the story is set at Viciente, a Cristian resort in the Peruvian jungle. Think Tolkien's Rivendell meets Star Trek's Planet Baku, inhabited by dimwitted followers of a not-so-mysterious, but surprisingly narrow-minded cult of love and peace. Thanks to gruesome acting and tacky production design (the rainbow-colored visualization of the mysterious all-healing 'energy' is particularly hideous), 'The Celestine Prophecies' looks and feels like a discarded 1980s 'Twilight Zone' episode. Factual errors regarding church history and nomenclature abound. I can't believe Hector Elizondo agreed to be a part of this. Maybe it was made without his consent, Bowfinger style. May the Lord have mercy on the director, the screenwriter, the author of the novel, and the poor souls who see the movie or read the book. | 1 |
This one isn't even lively enough to be fun. Something is out there, ripping people off (off-screen) after a spaceship crash (off-screen) while government executives investigates (off-screen) and bad actors says stupid lines (on-screen), including a guy who looks like Jim Carrey with a hangover. The 'monster', when it finally is shown, looks like an extra from 'Robot Monster', but there ain't enough monster fu anyway.<br /><br />Fortunately, it's pretty short. Skip it, unless you want to get bored out of your skull by this | 1 |
Certainly not a bad little low budget film, this 'Bride of the Gorilla', but nothing special, neither, and not memorable enough to be ranked among the meaningful Sci-Fi efforts of its time. Director Curt Siodmak was an eminent scriptwriter during the 1930's and 1940's and delivered stories for some true genre classics ('I walked with a Zombie', 'The Wolf Man') but, as a director, he obviously lacked the required competences. 'Bride of the Gorilla' is similar to the aforementioned 'The Wolf Man' in story and atmosphere, but the film looks a lot more amateurish and pitiful. Both handle about cursed men that turn into large animals at night, but the titular gorilla doesn't look half as threatening as the werewolf, even though the film got released a whole decade later. During a cheesy opening speech, actor Lon Chaney tries to convince us that the jungle is an ominous place and hiding many mysteries, but actually there's no real mystery in the plot. It's just handles about a plantation manager who's jealous at his older colleague for having such a beautiful young wife and he kills him. A native woman witnesses his crime and puts a spell on Barney that causes him to transform into a hideously big gorilla at night... Or maybe she just wants him to believe he's turning into a hideously big gorilla
Lon Chaney himself plays the police commissioner charged with the murder investigation while Raymond Burr (who starred in about a thousand Perry Mason TV-movies) portrays the greedy plantation manager/nightly gorilla. Siodmak attempts to make the film look like a supernatural thriller is it or is it not all just happening in Barney's head? fail miserably and it causes way too much talking and too few jungle-action. Several of the jungle-settings are nicely pictured but the rest of the 'special' effects are tacky and poorly done. Still the acting is pretty good, Barbara Payton is looking beautiful and although very predictable the story is strangely compelling until the very end. Weird movie, it probably voodoo-cursed me
| 1 |
I once used Wesley Snipes' name as a clue to go ahead and watch a new, untried film in which he appears. So now, for the first time, my Snipes-Method of film recommendation has failed. Utterly. I should first have come here to see these reviews.<br /><br />Snipes ought to be ashamed to allow his otherwise earnest efforts to be so wasted in 'The Contractor'.<br /><br />One of my worst flick fears has come to bitter fruition. I feared that the shaky, blurry, pseudo-documentary, 'unconsidered' directing and editing style (first brought to my attention by the Paul Greengrass-directed 'Bloody Sunday') might propagate to other films. Greengass' sickening style was then brought to nauseatingly new heights in the last two of the Bourne trilogy films. My fear had come to pass. In my opinion, these films are made really bad by these motion-sickness-inducing methods, which mistake blurry swipes for 'action-enhancement'. But the 'Bourne Franchise,' as Greengrass so loving calls his cash cow, apparently convinced others in Hollywood to go unprofessional in the quest for fast, big bucks.<br /><br />Read my lips, you Hollywood types. Action needs to be clearly photographed and presented, not merely hinted at by poor, lazy cinematographic techniques.<br /><br />And 'The Contractor' goes so far as to emulate 'The Bourne Ultimatum' in inanely-repeated sound bites, in hopes their juvenile (apparently-evaluated) audiences can't sense them. For example, if I hear a cop radio crackling 'Yankee-Romeo' one more time, I'll just scream. The chances are good I won't hear it again: I certainly won't ever view 'The Contractor' again.<br /><br />I recommend to those of you who have yet to see 'The Contractor': just be content with the tranquility this lack affords to your life.<br /><br />2 out of 10; I am tempted to lower that to a 1. | 1 |
This is yet another bad movie that you should probably avoid watching. The plot could be a lot 'thicker' than it actually is and would be better made as a blockbuster type movie.<br /><br />The acting leaves something to be desired, though you can not quite place your finger on what it is.<br /><br />This is one of those that you watch on late night TV, perhaps on USA, simply because you can not get to sleep. Watch it if you want but do not expect too much from it. | 1 |
While not as bad as some movies (like the horrible 'Atomic Twister'), 'Meltdown' still relies upon common misconceptions and inaccuracies about the nuclear power industry to advance its plot. I am currently studying Nuclear Engineering in the pursuit of a Masters Degree, and it was easy to point out flaws that would be obvious to anyone involved with the industry.<br /><br />Riding the false fear that a Chernobyl style meltdown could happen in an American plant, the movie states that any meltdown (even partial, according to one of the guest commentators in the movie) would mean disaster for the area. In fact, a partial meltdown in an American plant, while destroying the core, would not pose any risk to the surrounding area. Three Mile Island experienced a partial meltdown and no radioactive material was released into the environment at all, thanks to the natural stability of the fuel and core design used in this country paired with substantial containment. <br /><br />The security steps shown in the movie were perhaps the part of the movie furthest from the truth. At any important strategic location -- be it power plant, chemical plant, military base, anything -- you will never see personnel responding to an alarm by milling around talking as if it were an unannounced drill. This is especially true at a nuclear plant, where, upon the sounding of the alarm, the reactors would be SCRAMed immediately, shutting them off. SCRAMing can be done with the push of a button in the control room (you do not need to put the core in 'shutdown mode' like depicted in the movie), and the chemistry of nuclear fission prevents a core from being brought back up to power within about 9 hours of a SCRAM. So if this scenario played out in real life, the assailants would not be able to cause a significant meltdown. In theory, they could still cause a partial one due to residual heat if they exposed the core immediately, but that would be almost impossible given the numerous backup systems present in a plant -- there are many more than the single backup pumps they speak of in the movie.<br /><br />As for the spent fuel pools, it may be possible to turn the pools into a dirty bomb by blowing them up, but this is far more difficult than simply parking a truck full of explosives near the pools. The fuel is under (approximately) 18 feet of highly purified water. The water cannot become radioactive (no radioactive steam like they speak of in the movie). Particles dissolved in water can, but the water itself cannot; thus the reason for very thorough purification. So the only way to turn a fuel pool into a dirty bomb is to get the fuel out of the water. This is no easy task as water is very heavy, and the pools are below ground with very thick concrete walls. The explosives would have to be in the pool below the fuel (which is securely fastened). And there would have to be a heck of a lot of explosives, as water is *very* hard to move through an explosion. Even if this were to occur, spent fuel is not extremely radioactive, and the explosion would not cause nearly as high a death toll as mentioned in the movie, especially given the small amount of radioactive material that would be spread. <br /><br /> From a basic movie standpoint, I grew somewhat tired of the style used. The constant fading in and out, use of gritty black and white, and fast tracking and panning looked amateurish. The characters were one-dimensional, especially those in the US government. I have some problems with the twist thrown in the movie, but will not discuss it as it would be a major spoiler.<br /><br />Overall, 3/10 | 1 |
This is possibly the hands down worst movie every made, that actually took itself seriously. And not as a result of the acting, because being an actor, I have to say that Rickman and Stowe had to be at their best, just to escape needing electro convulsive therapy after the principle photography wrapped. Being one of the 57 people that actually saw this movie in theatrical release, I have to say I have never before or since experienced a movie where the movie ended, credits rolled, the house lights went on, and no one moved from their seats. About five minutes after the house lights went up people started coming out of their comas to look around, and I think most of us thought, okay we get it, that was a joke, right?, they are going to show the real movie now. Eventually, after the ushers handed out disguises, and we swore an oath of secrecy to never admit we were there, we felt that it was safe to leave, praying that we would not be seen leaving the auditorium. I have seen some pretty bad movies in my day, (I have Cinemax for goodness sakes), but I am still bitter that I will never, ever be able to recover those two or so hours of my life that I lost watching Closet Land. | 1 |
This movie is very scary with scenes where the Devil uses Gabriels horn to open Heaven and pull the good angel-dogs out and imprision them on Alkatraz. The devil sings and dances to a few songs about the joys of being bad, and at one point, eats a live rat.<br /><br />We got this movie free with a pizza. You get what you pay for. | 1 |
Excellent cast, story line, performances. Totally believable. I realize the close knit group that exemplifies the Marine Corps. But this movie brought fear to my heart. The marines let principles be damned. It seems that this film was based on real life incidents. It shows how difficult it is to go up against the establishment. Anne Heche was utterly convincing. Sam Shepard's portrayal of a gung ho Marine was sobering. And Eric Stoltz as her attorney was so deft balancing his loyalty to the Corp but also his loyalty to his client, while high above on his tightrope. He knew what his true course of action had to be. But he was pulled apart by his immersion in the Marine tradition, loyalty to the Corps above all else. I sat riveted to the TV screen. All in all I give this one a resounding 9 out of 10. | 0 |
One of Warner Brothers best and highest grossing films during the Thirties was this charming family drama about a widower who lives with his maiden sister raising Four Daughters. But not four every day type daughters. All of them have been trained by their musician father on instruments and one as a singer. They do make some beautiful music together even if it is for the long haired set.<br /><br />You can watch the infinite variety of roles that Claude Rains played over the years and still marvel as he shows you yet another aspect of his creative personality. The opportunistic Vichy Captain in Casablanca is as different as the scientist gone mad in the Invisible Man, as the patient and wise Job in Mr. Skeffington. All the same man and all so incredibly different.<br /><br />Here he raises the four girls with love seasoned with a little grouchiness at their willingness to accept modern music. The Lane Sisters and Gale Page may know Beethoven, but they're hep cats as well and can beat daddy eight to the bar every time. And if Rains gets a bit too testy than Aunt May Robson can put him in his place.<br /><br />With Four Daughters unmarried at the time you know that's going to change. All the sisters develop romantic interests in Dick Foran, Frank McHugh, Jeffrey Lynn, and John Garfield. Of course the mating process does get a bit complicated and one of the sisters suffers a tragedy, but it does promise to work out as the film ends.<br /><br />Four Daughters is also known as the debut film of John Garfield. Other than a tiny bit part in Footlight Parade years earlier, Garfield had no other film roles. But he'd been acclaimed on the New York stage for his performance in Golden Boy and Warner Brothers signed him and found the perfect film debut role as the cynical musician who just can't quite get a decent break in life. It earned him a Best Supporting Actor nomination in 1938, but he lost to Walter Brennan for Kentucky.<br /><br />This film was so popular that it practically spawned a small cottage industry for Jack Warner. Sequels with cast members like Daughters Courageous, Four Mothers, Four Wives all cleaned up at the box office before World War II. And Warner Brothers remade it with Frank Sinatra and Doris Day playing the parts that John Garfield and Priscilla Lane originated. Now those two made some beautiful music.<br /><br />Still a timeless mold was created in Four Daughters and the film holds up 70 years after it was first seen. | 0 |
Mickey Rourke is enjoying a renaissance at the moment... and fair play to him. I always liked his image and his acting ability in such fare as Angel Heart and Johnny Handsome. You know what you are going to get with Rourke - mean, moody, dirty. But this film gives you much more - and you don't want most of it.<br /><br />First and foremost - this whole thing just doesn't make sense. Rourke is a hardened IRA killer who after killing a bus-load of schoolchildren flees Ireland for London. He is on the run from the cops and from his own Army comrades. He has also vowed to never kill again. It looks like the bus full of kids finally did it for him.<br /><br />However, when he gets to London he is tracked down by a local mobster (Bates - looking like his eyebrows and hair came straight off a Burton's dummy) to kill his main competitor in turn for £50,000 and a boat trip to the US. Rourke reluctantly agrees to do it but is seen by a priest (Hoskins) and confesses the crime to him in the confessional in order to keep the priest's mouth shut. He figures it is better than killing him.<br /><br />A wealth of things arise here which just don't add up : 1. Why pick Rourke to off your competition? As is illustrated by a scene whereby an employee is pinned to a wall by a couple of heavies with what look like awls - these London guys are tough enough anyway to do their own killing. 2. Not only that but the Mobster gets a guy to follow Rourke and witness the killing with his own eyes. Why didn't that guy simply kill the competitor and save all the hassle of dealing with Rourke? 3. Hoskins sees the murder take place and the police let him go off - without protection, I may add - to take confession? No way. 4. Rourke hangs around the church (right next to where he carried out the murder ) immediately after the crime takes place to go to confession. Why aren't the cops checking the place out? 5. Rourke hangs around the church and Hoskin's blind niece in particular, for days afterwards without anybody bothering him. What? He's on the run and he stays put by the very place where he committed another murder? Stupid. 6. The cops actually meet Rourke in the church 'fixing' the organ and have no idea who he is. Do they not know he is on the run for the school bus bombing? They don't even check up on him? 7. Why get Rourke to kill for you, and then tell him to wait around for a few days to get on the boat? You'd think you'd want to get rid of him immediately. Or kill him. One or the other? 8. Why does Bates' brother suddenly decide to rape the blind niece in the midst of all the waiting? Could he not restrain himself for a few days? At least until Rourke has been safely offed to the States? Ridiculous. 9. Rourke suddenly has inner turmoil after all his years of killing and wins over the blind niece immediately - even after she knows he is a killer, she still loves him? Again - utterly ludicrous. And besides - she falls in 'love' with him in record time - a few days !!!! 10. The whole bomb thing at the end is just plain silly from Bates point of view. 11. Things happen in parts of this film that just do not make sense or are simply in there to help the storyline (and I say that in jest) along. Bates' houses Rourke in a whorehouse until the boat is ready to sail and Rourke suddenly displays a moral high ground to respect the whore in the house - but yet will bed a blind girl. 12. Rourke asks a henchman on the boat where Bates is - and the henchman practically spurts out the entire movements of his boss in less than 10 seconds. It was embarrassing - the guy was telling Rourke far more than he even asked. 13. Hoskin's priest is an ex-army guy and we see him beat up three henchmen behind a pub. Totally uncalled-for and yet another cringe-worthy scene.<br /><br />I'm gonna stop there at unlucky 13 without mentioning Rourke's hair (so falsely red it is laughable), his accent (which to be fair is not too bad sometimes but deteriorates to a barely heard mumble at other times), his clothes, walk, looks to the heavens etc. Nor will I mention the music and the choppy editing style.<br /><br />Oooppps - I have just mentioned them.<br /><br />Overall - a disaster of a film with some obvious religious imagery thrown in (Rourke on the cross, preaching from a pulpit) which would embarrass a first year film student never mind a top star and director.<br /><br />4/10. | 1 |
This Is one of those classic American made for TV movies that are just made for watching on a rainy afternoon. Although the script is highly implausible it never takes itself too seriously and neither do the cast which leads to a great tongue in cheek murder mystery / horror film best enjoyed with a bid bag of popcorn or box of chocolates. A big bonus of this film is the fantastic location filming and despite the strange goings on and even stranger residents round Lake Tommahawk I for one would not mind living there!<br /><br />All in all a great film to watch over and over again. | 0 |
089: Footlight Parade (1933) - released 9/30/1933, viewed 5/5/07.<br /><br />The ice cream cone is invented in New York.<br /><br />KEVIN: After a long and busy break, we hit another Busby Berkeley musical from Warner Bros. This time it's the ultra-fast paced Footlight Parade, starring James Cagney as juggernaut stage producer Chester Kent. I am 100% certain that Cagney was channeling Berkeley with his performance of the irrepressible Kent, who has to come up with new ideas for performances every minute. Joan Blondell is also excellent as the acid-tongued secretary-turned-love interest. The Ruby Keeler/Dick Powell subplot is not as major this time but no less enjoyable. One thing that baffled me was Berkeley's performances themselves, which seemed far too extravagant and complex to be performed on any stage, let alone a stage that would be showing a film afterwards. Obviously Busby doesn't let a little thing like story impede him from putting together the most over-the-top musical numbers he can possibly conjure. I liked nearly all of this movie until the end, with the shamelessly offensive number 'Shanghai Lil,' which, as one can guess, is about as stomach-turning as racially distasteful performances come.<br /><br />DOUG: Six movies in three months. Got to be a new record. Anyway
this completes Warner Bros.' musical trilogy of 1933, preceded by '42nd Street' and 'Gold Diggers of 1933.' I would definitely recommend watching all three in a row. I wonder if James Cagney was channeling Busby Berkeley while he was playing Chester Kent in this movie, or if that the role as written was inspired by Busby. I hope it was; it seems to make sense that Berkeley is the kind of guy who would see elaborate dances in everyday occurrences the way Chester does. The funny thing about Cagney was that he didn't really look like a leading man in the traditional sense. He was 5'7', square-headed, and talked with an odd New York accent. But the guy was quite versatile, going from the venomous gangsters that made him so famous to the fast-talking producer-types we see here. And he could dance. Basically he was a leading man in the body of a character actor. The rest of the cast has some familiar faces; Joan Blondell returns and just about steals the show as Cagney's loyal and lusting secretary; Dick Powell and Ruby Keeler play the cute couple, but seem to get less screen time than before; Billy Barty pops up again as the mischievous imp. The movie is typical of the more racy and adult-oriented musicals of the pre-Code era, as opposed to those of the 50's and 60's that were more family oriented, and is an excellent climax of the Warner musicals of that year (the 'Shanghai Lil' number not withstanding, with Keeler doing a poor job at looking Chinese).<br /><br />Last film: Dinner At Eight (1933). Next film: I'm No Angel (1933). | 0 |
Based on the excellent novel, Watchers by Dean Koontz, is this extremely awful motion picture that probably shouldn't be viewed by anyone. Not since 'The Running Man' have I seen a book butchered so far beyond recognition. The difference, however, is that 'The Running Man' film was still enjoyable as an amusing action film laden down a million catch phrases. This film
Nope, nothing remotely amusing. In fact, if you love the book, as I do, you'll hate this bastardization even more.<br /><br />**WARNING**CONTAINS SPOILERS** Rightio, I'm basically going to tell you the story here, almost in it's entirety. Why? Because you, dear reader, do not also need to suffer through this abominationit's okay for me, because I enjoy watching crap. Because I like complaining about sh*tty things. Now, on to the nasty: This film revolves around a boy and his mother running away from the government and a mutant-monkey-creature-soldier which escaped from a destroyed Government genetics lab with a super-smart golden retriever which the 'hero' calls 'Furface.' Groan
Trust me, in the novel, this story rocked. I'll get to that later. Anyway, the hero is none other that dreamy boy-child Corey Haim. Oh, I'm not kidding. Our hero runs around, crackly voice and all, trying to convince his Mom to help save this dog from the 'evil government' which birthed him and made him genetically ultra-smart. The monkey-creature, retardedly referred to as an 'Oxcom' (God help us) is also a genetic-stew of a creature built to be the ultimate fighter on battlefields of the future. Michael Ironside (Total Recall, Starship Troopersalways plays a badass) is also in this film, and no, I couldn't figure out how anyone convinced him this would be a good idea. He plays a government agent with the NSO hunting the dog and creature. Oh yeah, here's some spoilerama: He's also a creation from the government, and the same lab, and lo and behold spends most of the movie being a prick and killing peopleand all that killing is supposed to be done by the monkey-soldier. Instead of a rockin' kick-ass, creepy horror film, we have a rectal hemorrhage of a teenybopper horror flick. The dog's intelligence is discovered all-too-conveniently, and believed easier than we believe we can see clouds by looking outside. Breakdown!!<br /><br />Change from Book to Film:<br /><br />--Lead character (Travis) turned from man to boy-child.<br /><br />--Man's love interest in book (Nora), is now his motherand all her depth and character growth is completely gone.<br /><br />--Lem Johnson, black man, is now white Mr. Ironside. This matters as the character's strength was built on his heritage in the book.<br /><br />--Relationship between two authority figures completely ignored, Lem now kills the guy who was originally his best friend.<br /><br />--One principle character in the book is now totally absent, the 'immortal' that hunted the heroes--maybe this is supposed to be Ironside, but then why is he someone else?<br /><br />--Dog never receives deserving name of 'Einstein' in the movie.<br /><br />--No part of the book took place in a High Schoolat least nothing that had strong bearing on the plot.<br /><br />--Takes place over a matter of days, rather months like the bookunrealistic pacing.<br /><br />--Corey Haim's girlfriend in the movie appeared in no more than two chapters in the book--and they never met in the book.<br /><br />--Character of Lem Johnson is no longer cool-headed; instead, he's a total asshole that bullies his way through people.<br /><br />--Hero Travis was part of Delta Force (military segment specializing in hunting terrorists), instead, his Dad, who is never seen in the film, was part of that group.<br /><br />--Perceived intelligence in the monster now totally absent.<br /><br />--Subplots involving Soviets and The Mob completely gutted out of the story.<br /><br />--These are just the most obnoxious changes, and the one's I could remember off hand (and a day later).<br /><br />The Good:<br /><br />--Eventually, after 90-odd minutes of pain and mental anguish, the movie ended.<br /><br />Didn't Hurt It, Didn't Help It:<br /><br />--Michael Ironsideusually, I like him.<br /><br />--The dog is still fairly likable.<br /><br />--Wacky 'totally 80's' title screen.<br /><br />The Bad:<br /><br />--Okay, the writing for one is extremely awful.<br /><br />--The direction is so half-assed that anyone watching the film will feel superior to everyone involved in it.<br /><br />--The acting is crappy and weak, especially from Corey Haim.<br /><br />--Loose, weak, watered down story.<br /><br />--The monster looks just pathetic, that is, when we are actually allowed to see the bloody thing. Its head is gigantically over-sized, the yellow eyes that were so much a part of the thing in the book are seen for no more than two seconds. Instead of a lean, powerful, fast, intelligent killing machine, we have some jackass in a puke-ugly monkey suit forced upon us.<br /><br />--Absolutely no character development.<br /><br />--Even the violence and gore are done poorly, for f*ck sakes, this is supposed to be a HORROR film!! Usually violence is at least done well!<br /><br />The Ugly:<br /><br />--The idea that Dean Koontz whored out his brilliant novel to become this filthy f*cking piece of sh*t brings me dangerously close to vomiting all over myself and anyone near me. There are movies worse than this (headache-inducing as that idea may seem), but so far, only 'Alien vs Predator,' at least to me, is a bigger travesty and more painful disappointment. <br /><br />Memorable Scene: Watching the end credits start.<br /><br />Acting: 3/10 Story: 4/10 (the novel was really good, this is just terrible) Atmosphere: 5/10 Cinematography: 4/10 Character Development: 1/10 Special Effects/Make-up: 4/10 Nudity/Sexuality: 0/10 Violence/Gore: 4/10 Music: 5/10 Direction: 3/10<br /><br />Cheesiness: 7/10 Crappiness: 9/10<br /><br />Overall: 3/10<br /><br />I would recommend that no one watch this movie ever, except for a few extreme die-hard horror fansand only if you haven't read the novel. Instead, I would recommend that anyone interested in this avoid it entirely and buy/check/borrow the book.<br /><br />www.ResidentHazard.com | 1 |
Very low-budget police procedural film about homicide detectives trying to solve the murder of a woman whose body turns up in a stolen car in Central Park, and their only clue is a tattoo on her arm. Although released by RKO, this has the look of an independent production that was picked up by the studio for distribution. The cast and crew, with a few exceptions--among them a young and uncredited Jack Lord, director Edward Montagne and cameraman William Steiner--are comprised of complete unknowns, and it shows. The performances are universally sub-par and wouldn't pass muster in a high school training film, the direction is stodgy and choppy and, as mentioned previously, there's no chemistry whatsoever between the lead actors. However, despite the film's many shortcomings, it does have a few good points. The location shooting in New York City, and the film's ultra-low budget, gives it a gritty authenticity much like that of the far superior 'The Naked City', a shootout in a dark basement is decently handled, and some of the investigating procedures are clever. Otherwise, it's not much to write home about. It is worth a look, however, for a glimpse at the seamier sections of New York City in the early 1950s, and old-car buffs will be ecstatic to see the legions of '30s and '40s cars in the streets.<br /><br />. | 1 |
I really wanted to like this movie, but it was just imposable. The acting was ultra hammy, the plot was annoying, and the pace was SLOW, sooo slowwwwww. The whole time sitting in the theater i wanted the movie to end. Twenty minuets into a films and I'm praying for an ending. Sure some of the visuals were nice, but c'mon guys, I mean really! And for a movie about a guy tuning magical instruments there really wasn't much music to speak of. The music there was was annoying, and boring. There were sound loud shrill sounds at times too, those were also annoying. Mainly this film managed to bore me, and creep me out at the same time.<br /><br />I'm glad its over. I need to go see 'Tideland' and wash this bad taste out of my mouth. | 1 |
My life is about saving animals. I do volunteer work with a cat rescue organization. I am a vegetarian because I couldn't kill an animal even to sustain my life. I can't even kill a spider, I put it outdoors. The scene where the children throw rocks at the bird until it dies, with Sooner participating in an attempt to be accepted by the other children, made me sick and has haunted me ever since. It simply convinces me that human beings are pathetic in their need for acceptance. The ending - the foster parents adopt Sooner - does not redeem the depiction of animal cruelty. Why would anyone want their child to see this film? | 1 |
UC 0079, the One Year War is almost at an end. A neutral colony of Side 6 has been targeted by Cyclops, a Zeon task force. Their target, a new Gundam being built exclusively for Newtypes (supposedly built for Amuro Ray from the original Gundam saga) inside. When little boy Al Izuruha, a fan of Zeon MS, encounters a Zaku after battle breaks out in the colony, he befriends newbie MS pilot Benard 'Bernie' Wiseman. The two become good friends, Al is treated as an honorary member of the Cyclops team. Through the show, Bernie acts as a father figure to Al (whose real father is always working) and seems to be taken with Federation pilot Christina McKenzie, but eventually they must meet....in battle. Al soon learns that war is not child's play and Bernie must choose to make the ultimate sacrifice to complete his mission.<br /><br />For only 6 episodes, Gundam 0080 is a well done show. The mobile suits are extremely well designed, and the animation may look dated but really shows emotion in the characters. If you liked 0083 then check this one out, or if you are new to the Gundam world, this is a good show to start with. If you look to a show for drama and character development, this is the one for you, it focuses more on that then mobile suit battle. I would rate it more of a drama than action.<br /><br />Mobile Suit Gundam 0080, War in the Pocket. <br /><br />Sometimes you have to lose to win. | 0 |
I purchased this movie on blu-ray because it promised great visuals and music. I was also a great fan of a similar movie... Baraka. The movie is very much styled after Baraka, wide angles, very similar shots with cameras set to capture long time passage in each shot. Even some of the scenes were identical (the street with traffic). Whereas Baraka told a great story, juxtaposing nature, man-made environments, spirituality, and horrors of the world in an engrossing fashion and great music, this movie just jumped from shot to shot with no encompassing story, mediocre musical score, and then.... POOF, it's finished! I thought there must be some sort of mistake! History of the world? Half the movie is Egypt and landscape (looks like Arizona, but I didn't bother to check). Seriously folks, this is horrible, rent it if you must, but do not buy it. The filmmakers should be ashamed of themselves for putting this out. | 1 |
Recently released on British DVD, this is a good movie (as long as you have an attention span and IQ of more than a fruit fly). Not as depressing as it could have been, this is kitchen-sink at its most dirty. Terrance Stamp is great in it, the music is sweet, Carol White is very believeable as the single mum tart who can't stop loving criminals.<br /><br />My favourite scene is where Carol and her friend who works in the pub with her (the one with the enormous beehive hairdo which comes down over one eye) sit outisde and gossip about all the men who walk past.<br /><br />The only thing that marred this was the shakey acting of Carol's first husband, but if you can get past that, you're OK. And Donovan provides some of the most languid, mellow, bittersweet lyrics to come out of the 60s. | 0 |
The script is so so laughable... this in turn, makes the actors' lines sound stiff and unrealistic and not to be believed. There's repetition of phrases -- 'my sweet little god daughter' and minor variations of that line which comes to mind... and it's just sloppy soap opera dialog.<br /><br />Worse yet, the music is so WRONG! Plus, the main bluesy 'theme' is horribly quaint and entirely wrong for this. And it feels overused mostly because the instrumentation, texture and arrangement of this theme never changes, even when the scene's emotional context does.<br /><br />Subsequently, whenever it appears, it sticks out like a sore thumb as the main transition from one scene to another.<br /><br />The music's corny, and it's as if the writer were writing music for a soap or a sitcom -- a low budget 80's Canadian sitcom at that -- and this makes it feel as if we're always on the brink of throwing to a commercial.<br /><br />This is so miscast, there's a lot of overacting and it's a real stretch that so many of these characters are employing only ONE type of NY accent -- a thick Bronx accent. I don't know if it's a question of the actors' limited capacity in only knowing *one* NY accent -- or whether it's a question of the director's ability to notice such an glaring anomaly.<br /><br />In the end, it's the amateur script with it's leaden lines which makes this entire 'movie'... blow. When any foundation is shaky and unstable, it's impossible to build upon it without it's flaws revealing themselves in exponentially more damaging and unflattering ways. | 1 |
Max had the V-8, Trace (Wheels of Fires last and only hero) has a jet engine on the back of his car allowing him to make unintentionally humorous faces as he rockets around the halfway desolate wasteland. Be amazed as Mad Max 2 (aka The Road Warrior) is dissected and spliced back together as a new movie albeit filmed in a lackluster manner with bad actors and lousy stunt work.<br /><br />Why is WoF set in a post-apocalyptic wasteland? Simple, The Road Warrior was! Actually any questions can be answered by: it was that way in the Road Warrior! Except for the out of work mutant actors from the original 60's The Time Machine film that make a cameo appearance for sake of giving the audience some non-vehicular action to chew on for a few minutes.<br /><br />In typical 80's fashion, all cars driven by bad guys that are bumped or slightly jostled explode in a huge billowing explosion. Inevitably all car chases will happen near convenient cliff sides and cars will unavoidably fall off of them. Along with this 80's cinematic wild ride is the general rampant misogyny in this style of cheapie film. Generally I waited for Trace's rocket powered car to accelerate and shoot flames so there would be another shot of him scrunching up his face like he is supposed to be tough, which comes off more as him looking constipated. Badly choreographed action coupled with bad acting makes this film a true sinker. The unintentional humor value even manages to wear thin.<br /><br />Rats: Nights of Terror by Bruno Mattei is superior. And that in and of itself is saying a lot! By this count 2020 Texas Gladiators is a cinematic masterpiece compared to Wheels of Fire. A poor Road Warrior knock off that doesn't have near enough cheese factor to make the film watchable.<br /><br /> | 1 |
Zodiac Killer (2005) was an interesting film from German born director Ulli Lommel. He directs, produced and co-stars in this latest production. Not only does he manage to make an interesting film on the cheap. But he reaches a new low when Herr Lommel works in footage from nearly his entire film catalog. I have seen film clips from Boogeyman I and II, War Birds, Tenderness of the Wolf, Brain Waves and Cocaine Cowboys (even Andy Warhol makes a cameo from beyond the grave courtesy of this film). Even though he uses plenty of old footage, he works them in well (and very creatively might I add).<br /><br />The film follows a young man who copies the original Zodiac Killer. he also corresponds with a writer (Ulli Lommel) who originally wrote about the serial killer during the late sixties and early seventies. The writer's friend (David Hess) helps him to try and find this wannabe Zodiac. Can this killer be stopped? Will the writer put two and two together and reclaim some of his old glory? Is David Hess still the man? You'll have to find out for yourself and watch the Zodiac Killer.<br /><br />This film is NOT about the original Zodiac killer. I have also heard people whine about this film being shot on video. So what. The director's old school artistic style outshines the fact that it's shot on video. My only complaint was the over use of stock footage from Herr Lommel's earlier films (but I understand why 'wink' 'wink'.) Don't believe the hype. This is a gritty and street level horror film. Like the disclaimer in the beginning states, this film does nor glorify murder. You got to like that statement.<br /><br />Highly recommend for Ulli Lommel fans. | 0 |
It's a shame this movie is rated PG 13--it is really quite suitable for anyone--though young kids might not follow it too well.<br /><br />It belongs to that wonderful genre of serio-comic ghost/angel stories that would have to include everything from Capra's 'It's A Wonderful Life' to Wenders's 'Wings of Desire.' <br /><br />The photography is stunning, the acting first rate, and--wonder of wonders--the tone is uplifting.<br /><br />My only criticism is that there is not much ambiguity in the film. The two interwoven stories seem intriguingly mysterious at first; but they resolve themselves a little too nicely for my taste. As the director points out in his commentary on the DVD, all the ingredients of Irwin's story are on his bedside table. The symbolism is just a trifle too pat for me.<br /><br />But what a lark! My favorite scene has to be when the relocation team tries to get breakfast at a diner. This is practically theatrical in its magic--a tour de force of witty acting--subtle, playful, and positively rhythmic--coupled with striking cinematography and an acute eye for the grotesque.<br /><br />'Northfork' is funny, touching, gorgeous to look at, magical (with the above reservations) and has not one single car-chase.<br /><br />An easy nine stars. | 0 |
This was the first movie I ever saw Ashley Judd in and the first film of Victor Nunez' that I ever say, and boy am I glad I did. Its' quiet tone, its' relaxed pace, its' realistic depiction of a young woman just starting out in life, its' fine depiction of the struggles she has to go through to make her mark in life, the decisions she makes based on real things, the people she meets - there is nothing wrong with this movie. It is as close to movie magic as I have ever seen outside of the ' Star Wars ' movies, and, given what those films are like, that means this film deserves a high rating indeed. Ashley Judds' acting, Mr. Nunez'writing, and its' great simple worthwhile story make this a fine coming-of-age story and a wonderful movie. | 0 |
I had somewhat high hopes for this since I like Tim Roth. I was not pleased with this film. I liked the Ang Lee The Hulk a few years back so I figured this would have more of a bang to it. First I was very disappointed with John Hurt's performance here. He looks as if his eyebrows were re-shaped for this. His performance was not convincing. He was not as good as one would expect. Tim Roth is cool as always here. The Gama thing didn't really stick to the original story line I don't think. I guess the best part of the film was the end. It had some cool action. The only problem with the original was that it was too long. This one is not as long but it got a bit boring at times. I remember some time ago when Walmart had this movie really cheap for sale and I always wondered why?. Now I know. I was hoping to to get blown away, but I was not. | 1 |
Kudos to the writers of this film for creating a supremely engaging drama. The curious character development is indicative of a nuanced and well schooled writing team. The audience member cannot but help but to feel that (s)he must make wrenching emotional decisions pitting the cerebral against the libidinal. The viewer has an opportunity to develop the character herself, though her predictions are rarely validated.<br /><br />Credit is also due to the filmmakers for breathing life into the setting. The wood-shop is transformed into a unique persona as the film unfolds, with its own traits, faults, a variety of highly charged relationships, and of course a fate inexorably tied to that of the other principals.<br /><br />Make sure to catch this one at your local art-house. | 0 |
This television show, is a idiotic waste of time if you want to learn<br /><br />about animals watch the discovery channel. If you want to watch<br /><br />nincompoops on television just watch MTV. MTV stands for music television<br /><br />not nitwit D-listers preforming retarded skits or bratty kids crying<br /><br />their hearts out for not getting a BMW for there 16th birthday. I bet<br /><br />that if you like this show I bet you love viva la Bam, and jackass huh? I think my IQ dropped ten points watching this show. <br /><br />This is a combination of two shows jackass and the animal planet<br /><br />Some people think this is a good combination.<br /><br />I on the other hand think it is retardant.<br /><br />And if you notice its a lot like jackass<br /><br />and viva la Bam<br /><br />just a note, this show is horrible | 1 |
Humphrey Bogart in his first starring role looks very young, acts well, but has a pronounced lisp only hinted at later in his career. Still, he's very good and very appealing as the idealistic young inventor of a new airplane motor.<br /><br />Dorothy Mackaill is the real star here, playing a once-rich woman who's torn between her real love for Bogart (he's broke too) and the comfort and security of marrying an older man (Hale Hamilton).<br /><br />Along for the ride are Astrid Allwyn as Bogart's trampy sister, Bradley Page as her would-be producer, Barbara Leonard as the cosmetologist, Jack Kennedy as Gilligan, and Halliwell Hobbes as the faithful (and wise) butler).<br /><br />Both Mackaill (whi had been a star in silent films) and Bogart were trying to gain a toehold in talkies in 1932. Bogart was a slow-rising actor from the Broadway stage; Mackaill was slipping and would soon appear in skid-row production like PICTURE BRIDES. Yet they are both very good here. Mackaill wasn't even 30 when she appeared in this film! | 0 |
We all know what Chan-wook Park can do. If you haven't seen Oldboy(or the sympathy trilogy for that matter) you are missing out on some of the best films made this century. But i'm not here to talk about them. I'm here to talk about thirst.<br /><br />This movie is not what you would expect. Yes it is a vampire movie, but at the same time it is also a very twisted tale of romance between a priest and a young girl. I wont get into the synopsis(you can read that above) but instead tell you what this movie has to offer. Chan-wook Park is a master of cinematography and this movie is no exception. With some very surreal scenes backed by intense lighting, he sets the mood perfectly in almost every scene. The movie does start a bit slow, but I felt this was necessary to build a relationship with the characters. Once things start moving along it almost never lets up until the credits roll. 'Thirst' is predominantly a love story, but not in the same sense that you would think. the relationship between the lead characters is very intense, but at the same time almost disturbing. Chan-wook Park is no stranger to controversy as we know, and this film touches on taboo almost as much as oldboy. The end scene is by far the most powerful in the movie, and perhaps one of the best conclusions to a film I have seen.<br /><br />Overall this is an exceptional film that I feel all movie buffs should see. It is an exciting(and admittedly different) take on the world of vampires, and the romance is far from sappy or boring. This movie is gritty, selfless, and beautiful in all the wrong ways. Obviously it is not for everyone, but chances are if you are reading this review you are already interested. See it. Do not hesitate | 0 |
If I didn't know any better, it almost seems like it was staged, but it wasn't. It was set up perfectly, and how they got all of that footage is amazing! The unfortunate events of September 11, 2001 are put together well in this documentary and the classic footage that they got made this an unfortunate classic. Just the history in the footage alone should make it a MUST see for any american or person touched by the tragedy of September 11. | 0 |
Deanna Durbin, Nan Grey and Barbara Read are 'Three Smart Girls' in this Universal film from 1936, which introduces Deanna Durbin to film audiences. It also stars Ray Milland, Mischa Auer, Charles Winninger, John King, Binnie Barnes and Alice Brady. It's a sweet story about three young women, now living in Switzerland with their divorced mother, who hear their father (Winninger) is marrying again. Not having seen him in 10 years and knowing their mother still loves him, they board a ship to America, with the help of the housekeeper/nanny, determined to stop the wedding. Realizing that the intended, called 'Precious' (Barnes) is nothing but a gold-digger aided and abetted by her mother (Brady), they arrange for her to be introduced to a wealthy Count. This is arranged by their father's accountant (King). The man he chooses is a full-time drunk (Auer), but the girls mistake him for an actual wealthy count (Milland). What a mess.<br /><br />This is a delightful film, not cloying or overly sugary at all, with some nice performances, particularly by Auer, Milland, Barnes and Brady. The young women are pretty and all do good work. The emphasis, of course, is on young Durbin, who is a natural actress and a beautifully-trained singer. In fact, her voice as a youngster is much more even than it would be as an adult - she has no trouble with the high notes, as she did later on because she put too much weight in the middle voice. She sings a delightful 'Il Bacio' in a police station.<br /><br />One of the nicest things about the film is to see the father, played by Charles Winninger, not want his children around - until he sees them and gets to know them. Barnes as the gold-digger isn't all that young, but the girls' mother looks way up there, so the inference probably was the older man seeking his youth with a younger, more glamorous woman. In fact, he finds the youth he was seeking in his daughters.<br /><br />Universal gives Durbin the big star buildup here - she has the final shot in the movie. Ray Milland at this point was still paying his dues, and it will probably be a surprise even to film fans how young and attractive he is.<br /><br />Very entertaining and of course, this led to a sequel and big stardom for Deanna. | 0 |
Julie Andrews and Rock Hudson were great in this movie / musical. The opening song by Ms. Andrews, 'Whistling Away the Dark,' will always be in the back roads of my mind. The plot line during World War I, is great and suspenseful one. If you are a romantic, you will love this movie. This is a movie that I always enjoy to see again and again. | 0 |
Many of the criticisms on this thread seem to pick a comparison of this film with 'The Mortal Storm' or 'Casablanca'. Everyone is entitled to compare films they choose, but the similarities of 'The Mortal Storm' and 'Watch On The Rhine' are clearly the problems of refugees threatened by the Nazi juggernaut, while the main comparative point brought out with 'Casablanca' is the seeming unjust treatment of Humphrey Bogart in 1943 by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Science, because they chose Paul Lukas instead for the Best Actor Oscar. It does not strike me as totally wrong. Lukas had a good career in film (both here and in England - he is the villain in 'The Lady Vanishes'), and this performance was his best one. Bogart had more great performances in him than Rick Blaine (for instance, he was ignored for Sam Spade in 'The Maltese Falcon' and Roy Earle in 'High Sierra' two years earlier, both of which were first rate performances, and he would not get an Oscar for his greatest performances as Fred C. Dobbs in 'The Treasure Of Sierra Madres', the writer/murder suspect in 'In A Lonely Place', and Captain Philip Francis Queeg in 'The Caine Mutiny' afterward - he got it for Charley in 'The African Queen'). I think that Bogie should have got it for the role of Dobbs, but it did not happen. But Lukas was lucky - he got it on the defining performance of his lesser career. Few can claim that.<br /><br />To me the film to look at with 'Watch On The Rhine' is based on another play/script by Hellman, 'The Searching Wind'. They both look at America's spirit of isolationism in the 1920s and 1930s. 'The Searching Wind' is really looking at the whole inter-war period, while 'Watch On The Rhine', set in the years just proceeding our entry into World War II, deals with a few weeks of time. Therefore it is better constructed as a play, and more meaningful for it's impact. <br /><br />The film has many good performances, led by Lukas as the exhausted but determined anti-Nazi fighter/courier, Davis as his loyal wife (wisely keeping her character as low keyed as possible due to Lukas being the center of the play's activities), Coulouris as the selfish, conniving, but ultimately foolish and ineffective Teck, Lucille Watson as the mother of Davis and Geraldine Fitzgerald (as Coulouris' wiser and sadder and fed up wife), and Kurt Katch, who delivers a devastating critique (as the local embassy's Gestapo chief) about Coulouris and others who would deal with the Nazis. It has dialog with bite in it. And what it says is quite true. It also has moments of near poetry. Witness the scene, towards the end, when Coulouris is left alone with Lukas and Davis, and says, 'The New World has left the scene to the Old World'. Hellman could write very well at times.<br /><br />Given the strength of the film script and performances I would rate this film highly among World War II films. | 0 |
Co-scripted by William H. Macy from, arguably, Donald E. Westlake's best and hardest to find novel, 'A Travesty'. *Very* faithful to the story, the movie stars Macy as a hapless man who gets in way too far over his head after attempting to cover up an accidental death. Costars Adam Arkin and James Cromwell in good supporting roles. The strength of the movie is in the intricate twist-after-twist storyline and in the acting, particularly by Macy who routinely and delightfully breaks through the 4th wall here and gets away with it every time. A good storyline with much dark humor, this one engaged me enough that I've watched it three times in the week since it came out. Prepare to shelve your critical faculties and emit a loud, bipartisan 'wheeeeee!'. | 0 |
I agree that this movie is about sex without any seduction or love. In fact, it makes sex seem so boring and makes me wonder why bother. I actually don't think at all this remotely speaks of how Canadian Indian second generations feel about sex. At any rate, did you know the first hotel/drunk idea was copied from a Korean movie, Yopgijogin gunyo, made in 2001 or thereabouts? That Korean film was actually brilliant as comedy but at the same time compels the audience to reflect on the complexity of man-woman relationships and man-woman difference in experience and thinking. I mean most of the Neal N Nikki hotel/drunk segment was emulated take by take. Can't Bollywood movie makers try to make originals only, please? Seriously, I never enjoyed a Hindi flick that is a copycat. The ones I enjoy have always spoken Indian feelings through Indian cultural means. | 1 |
Although the story is fictional, it draws from the reality of not only the history of latin american countries but all the third world. This is the true, pure and raw recent history of these countries summarized concisely in this novel / film. The offbeat supranatural stuff, lightens up the intensity of historical events presented in this movie. After all the supranatural stuff is a part of the culture in the third world. Although is not critically acclaimed (probably because of the supranatural stuff), This is an excellent movie, with a great story and great acting. | 0 |
I started to watch this movie with high expectations. However, after one hour I gave up on this movie as it only instilled lots of unanswered questions upon me. This already started in the opening sequence and only got worse.<br /><br />Why would they bury the Hollander under a statue? Why is there an Italian comediant present? Why did the farmers wife save the Hollander? Why did he, upon being saved, not run for his life instead of starting to make love to the farmers wife? Why did the farmers wife not save the Hollander at a time when the farmer wouldn't be around? Why did these presumably illiterate farmers understand Italian? Why did the Italian comediant know about the Hollanders gold? Why did he hide it in the cesspool in the midst of the evil farmers property? These and many more questions popped up, and none of them seemed to get answered in an acceptable way. So I guess I am totally missing the point of this movie, and I am not connecting to the story in any way.... | 1 |
It's very very funny. You know, just like a comedy is supposed to be. It also looks very very good, like a Hollywood Spectacular should. So, what more do you want? Howz about a very VERY good Sally Fields. She is so much better here than in anything else I've ever seen her in, and she looks so damn good. This movie is all you need to understand why she's a Star. Those eyes! Like a silent movie star, but better. In fact, everyone's eyes are so good. I used to pretend to be a bad TV soap actor with my girlfriend. We'd do that thing where you look real fast from one eye to the other of your partner. They don't do that at all in Soap Dish. Great. The Eyes Have It! (sorry) <br /><br />There's so many terrific performances, its fun just waiting for each of them to reappear. There's a whole workshop going on with Kevin Kline on how to Overact very very subtly. Got that? Yeah, he's damn good. So is Robert Downey, Jr. who has since made sumthin of a career of playing the Slick, Slimy Executive. Cathy Moriarity, while not the most gifted actress, is so charismatic and riveting, especially when she's angry. And even Whoopi Goldberg is decent, her natural timing giving here somewhat flat delivery a little Zing. OK, no Whoopi Bashing, I hear ya.<br /><br />And then, there's the Hair. Soap Dish was made at the end of the BIG Hair Eighties, so the ridiculous doos are like a great character in themselves. They get bigger and sillier, just like your's did. Yeah, we got pictures.<br /><br />Soap Dish is better than I thought it'd be, better that I wanted it to be. I'm sick of Movies that tell me I'm supposed to care about shallow, self centered, semi-talented egomaniacs, ie. TV Soap Actors. Soap Dish seems happy just to have me laugh at 'em. Thank You. | 0 |
This totally UNfunny movie is so over the top and pathetic and unrealistic that throughout the whole 90 minutes of utter torture I probably looked at my watch about 70000 times! Lucy Bell is so much higher than this crap and for her to sink this low is quite depressing. I have to admit that the whole audience I was in was laughing hysterically but the majority were Greek or Italian so I guess that this humour will probably make them laugh but not me. All this movie does is make you sick watching all these slackers make excuses for their stupid actions for 90 minutes. God, and I can never get that 90 minutes back! | 1 |
The subject matter seems pretty dated today. Adapted for TV from Rona Jaffe's book; we trip and stumble through a fantasy existence. Four college students get deeply involved playing a live version of the board game Mazes and Dragons (based on Dungeons and Dragons). One player, a young Tom Hanks, enters the fantasy world too deep. His co-players must come to his rescue and save him from self inflicted harm.<br /><br />David Wallace, Wendy Crewson and Chris Makepeace round out the game's foursome. Support cast is made up of veteran actors like Murray Hamilton, Vera Miles, Anne Francis and Susan Strasberg.<br /><br />At this date, it seems lumbering and tame. But the highlight of watching is seeing Tom Hanks between his 'Bosom Buddies' salad days and his big splash in SPLASH on the silver screen. The youngest of viewer will get most enjoyment. | 1 |
This Documentary (Now available free on Video.Google.Com) is a fantastic demonstration of the power of ordinary people to overcome injustice. Everyone must see this.<br /><br />Chavez was elected in a landslide vote in 1998. His platform was to divert the fantastic oil wealth from the 20% middle class to the 80% poor. He banned foreign drift net fishing in Venezuelan waters. He sent 10,000 Cuban doctors to the slums to treat the sick for free. He wiped out illiteracy and set up new free Universities. <br /><br />But it was his 30% tax on oil company profits that got him in trouble with the Bush administration. In 2002, while Irish film makers Kim Bartley and Donnacha O'Briain were interviewing Chavez inside the Presidential Palace about his social programs, a CIA backed coup was launched. With the cameras rolling, Chavez was captured and flown out of the country. It was announced on national TV that he had 'resigned'.<br /><br />But the poor of Venezuela didn't believe the media. They went to the Palace in their millions and demanded that Chavez be returned. In the face of such overwhelming numbers, the military turned on the coup leaders and the plotters fled to the US. Chavez was rescued by military helicopter and returned to jubilation. | 0 |
This is one of the most hilariously bad movies I have ever had the privilege to see.<br /><br />I watched this on DVD with a bunch of friends one Friday night and we just couldn't stop laughing from start to finish.<br /><br />The story is simple enough: terrorists hijack a convoy they think is carrying weapons grade uranium, but it's actually carrying a bunch of man-eating dinosaurs. Easy mistake to make. Cue a startlingly incompetent team of Army Special Forces to tackle the prehistoric beasts. They are led by Colonel Rance, played by Scott Valentine; a man who seems to have perfected 'Smell the fart' acting, as advocated by Joey in Friends.<br /><br />There's plenty of gore and an awful lot of shooting, but unfortunately Rance's team seem to have a problem aiming their weapons in the general direction of a horde of giant, lumbering monsters. Also, the lights always seem to flicker and go out whenever a Velociraptor attacks (preumably so we can't see how bad the creature effects are).<br /><br />Having said all that, we all had a great deal of fun betting on who was going to get their head bitten off next.<br /><br />As a Jusassic Park / Aliens style action adventure this movie stinks worse than a dinosaur's crotch, but as ludicrous, tongue-in-cheek entertainment it's a roaring success. | 1 |
This is a great example of a good, dumb movie. No, it is not high art by any means. Nor is the script anywhere close to a Woody Allen or Mel Brooks. BUT SO WHAT! The Killer Tomatoes series (four movies and a cartoon series) are basically good-natured romps gleefully trampling on the kind of territory the Zuckers ruled before they switched to making serious flicks.<br /><br />As the title suggests, this fourth installment of the Killer Tomatoes trilogy deals with the Killer Tomatoes plot against France. In this case, Professor Gangrene (John Astin's 3rd time in the role) has a plan to rule France through an ancient prophecy about the return of the rightful King of France. Steve Lundquist returns as Igor, a humanoid tomato who wants to be a sportscaster and who just happens to be a dead ringer for the long-lost true King of France. Obviously he also plays the aforementioned l-l t K of F, happily skewering the French language.<br /><br />Opposing them is the fearless Fuzzy Tomato (like the others, FT was introduced in the second film and would be a main character in the cartoon) and his human allies. Mark Price, recently unemployed as a result of the conclusion of the FAMILY TIES series, plays a thinly disguised version of himself, passing himself as 'Michael J Fox' as a way to win the girl of his dreams. And Angela Visser is a dream as Marie, gleefully bouncing between unabashed virginal sexuality and borderline psychosis. Oh that the former Miss Netherlands had had more of a film career! Another returning member of the Killer Tomatoes stock company is Rick Rockwell (now best known as the hapless title subject of 'Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire?'). Like co-creator John De Bello, Rockwell works both in front of and behind the camera in this series.<br /><br />What can you say about Jon De Bello? Not much, really, except that he had a singular vision and managed to pull it off and, having done that, has apparently dropped into obscurity. John, if you ever see this, thanks for giving us the Killer Tomatoes.<br /><br />The script is heavily but not obnoxiously aware that this is just a movie. Like RETURN OF THE KILLER TOMATOES, the action occasionally veers off the set and into the middle of the film crew. And Mark Price has a funny forum to complain about his own lack of success compared to his former costar Michael J Fox. This is the biggest budgeted of all the Killer Tomatoes flicks and is a nice send-off to the series. Okay, the show then moved to Fox Kids as a cartoon series (which was also quite clever), but cartoons just aren't the same. | 0 |
This is one of the most unoriginal, cliche-ridden movies I have ever seen. Even if you didn't like this film's antecedents, 'The Bad News Bears' and 'The Mighty Ducks,' they are bound to have done a better job than this one. From the moment the new teacher greets her class and they tell her, 'Don't bother with us, we're all losers,' you can see everything that's coming twenty miles away for the rest of the film. <br /><br />All the usual suspects are here. Besides the spunky teacher, we have a group of what are supposed to be endearingly bratty kids (they're brats, yes, but no so endearing), a slow-witted small town sheriff that they love to torment, an arrogant head coach of the winning rival team, etc., ad nauseum. Only Olivia d'Abo as the new teacher displays any likabilty. I never cared much for Steve Guttenberg before and his performance as the sheriff doesn't change things. Jay O. Sanders is a capable actor but his character, the rival coach, leaves him nothing to work with. Let's hope that writer/director Holly Goldberg Sloan comes up with something better next time out. | 1 |
Seeing as the vote average was pretty low, and the fact that the clerk in the video store thought it was 'just OK', I didn't have much expectations when renting this film.<br /><br />But contrary to the above, I enjoyed it a lot. This is a charming movie. It didn't need to grow on me, I enjoyed it from the beginning. Mel Brooks gives a great performance as the lead character, I think somewhat different from his usual persona in his movies.<br /><br />There's not a lot of knockout jokes or something like that, but there are some rather hilarious scenes, and overall this is a very enjoyable and very easy to watch film.<br /><br />Very recommended. | 0 |
I have to say I was pleasantly surprised by this movie. Other than the mother being a complete moron on a few occasions and the youngest daughter being idiotic enough to go out at night, into woods that scared her in the daytime, this movie was pretty good. Had the director had the sense to treat us as if we had brains, maybe he'd have given us a movie where the people didn't have to behave idiotically, but still manage to get into danger. It worked for the plumber and the fellow in the trailer, but apparently the teenagers and the mother needed to be idiots, for the director to get closure in ending this film.<br /><br />Atmosphere was great, scenery was awesome and the undead kids scared the crap out of me... I live in a wooded area, so taking out the trash will creep me out for quite a while. The movie works for me accept for what I already mentioned. Raise the mom's IQ a bit and I'd give it a ten... | 0 |
At the rate these movies are ploughing through the artifacts from the Amityville house it won't be long before we get down to the floorboards, but for now it's a mirror that's causing problems for more cardboard characters in this sixth entry in the series. A homeless man hands it over to artist hairdo Ross Partridge, who then has strange visions and discovers some unpleasant revelations about his past. This mundane horror trundles along at a dull pace, leaving us waiting for a build up that never comes as the various 'spooky' goings-on lead to a dumb finale. Bland and lifeless, with ropey acting and Partridge's huge hair not helping matters. | 1 |
(NOTE: I thought I'd be the only one writing what I did below, but I see the others here agree. I guess it was pretty obvious - this was overdoing the bait-the-cat bit. Anyway, here is what I had written:)<br /><br />The owners have left on vacation for two weeks - a trip to California - leaving the cat (Sylvester) all alone and locked in the house. That means no milk, but the cat, to his relief, does find a bunch of canned tuna. However, to his dismay, he can't find the opener.<br /><br />It turns out the little mouse in the house has it...and baits the cat with it. This is a mean rodent who keeps teasing Sylvester with the opener and then yanking it away at the last second. Sylvester tries everything possible to open the can of tuna but can't do it. <br /><br />This is a frustrating story, and why they make the sadistic mouse the 'good guy' is beyond me. It's like some of the Tom & Jerry cartoons where poor Tom always gets the worst of it even though many times the little mouse starts the conflict! | 1 |
Being a D.B. Sweeney fan, I've been on the lookout for this movie for quite some time. I recently rented the video and found it very enjoyable. It had some really hilarious scenes. The dysfunctional lives of some of the characters was unsettling, but I think the movie also showed that it's possible to keep your life on track or get it back on track if it's been derailed. | 0 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.